TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

NewAlt Archive

View 0 posts and 59 comments by NewAlt on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
38

Is this sort of thing common? It's very common. It's also difficult to raise a stink about it without being vilified or mocked. Hence, the reason for this subreddit's existence.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:11 AM
7

Yeah keep pushing the idea that men suffering from body issues is nonsense I didn't see him do that. the number of men with actual disorders are rising at an insane rate and we have a dearth of support programs for them. Sure, but do you have any evidence that boys wanting to look like super heroes is contributing to this? You're treating an assumption as fact without any supporting evidence to connect a to b.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 12:47 AM
2

All I see is a bunch of shitlords in blackface keeping women from jobs.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:22 AM
1

The relevant part of that article is entirely uncited.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:41 AM
1

It doesn't matter if you want financial aid or not. You go to prison if you don't register.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:38 AM
1

You could be right. It's very possible I'm just viewing things negatively today.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 12:47 AM
2

Yes, this is true. MR is made up of different people with different beliefs. This post seems to imply that MR is specifically against pro-choice. The comments from the OP seem like she's trying to stir something up that's not there in prep for her sophomore gender class.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 12:23 AM
3

Why would you link to site where people have to create an account and login to view? Do you not see the flaw there?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:42 PM
2

This sub spends way too much time on specific trolls which derails the efforts to focus on actual concerns of the MRM.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:12 PM
1

When was MR not pro choice?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:35 PM
1

I didn't see that when I looked at the original post. It was a bad blog article and not really appropriate for r/politics. If you got direct responses that weren't there than I obviously don't have enough information to comment on those.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:32 AM
0

You're a bit of a whiner. The article you linked to was a blog piece about a specific province in Canada not approving a brand new costly drug. It wasn't even a well written article and was lacking in substance outside the quoted news piece. You go on to say that you often delete your submissions due to downvotes. What's a non-gendered way of asking you to man the fuck up?
/r/MensRights25/08/12 11:05 PM
3

I don't meet the criteria to be a conscientious objector, that doesn't mean I'm OK with being drafted. Also, selective service doesn't just harm us in case of war. I was threatened with imprisonment when I didn't register.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 09:17 PM
1

That's fair. I'm not saying this isn't an important story I was just put off by the exchange. I agree that what matters most is how these events unfold.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 05:43 AM
-2

I totally agree. If it was just uncivil I would be OK with it but instead of explaining why he made an unprovable assertion he attacked and demanded that the requester just deal with it. I don't feel that's helpful. I've learned that he has his blog and he seems happy to do his own thing without feedback. But since it was posted to a subreddit I frequent I felt I had a right to share what I disliked about his response. I believe that if one makes an assertion that can't be proven they should giv…
/r/MensRights09/08/12 05:18 AM
-2

I agree that it was a request for something unprovable but the response was not a reasonable one. Ted8367 gave a reasonable response. I feel that the request was much more polite and civil than the response and the response made the author look childish, rude and lacking in journalistic integrity. Although, apparently me responding to what I wrote in this thread constitutes "following him around" and he doesn't seem like the kind of guy whose radar I want to be on so I'll leave it at that.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 05:07 AM
5

I gave one opinion; that responding to a request for facts with insults makes people associated with Men's Rights look bad. I don't see how that fits any of the above criteria. Are people only allowed to agree with you in the face of vitriol? I'm sure you are tired of somebody actually trying to have a conversation with you but, regardless, I wish you well.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 04:31 AM
2

I'm not following you around. I am not trying to stifle your work. I am not saying I am an arbitrator. I am saying that people are grouped together and I feel you come off as unhinged. You are welcome to disagree with that.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 03:52 AM
2

Thanks for the reasonable response. Much more helpful than insults or swearing.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 02:45 AM
3

Those who support men's rights. And, yes; I get that you don't group yourself with me but that is irrelevant to how we (meaning you, meaning me and meaning anyone who supports Men's Rights) are perceived by others.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 02:40 AM
-7

I am previously unfamiliar with this website but the fact that requests for supporting facts have been met with nastiness and insults from the author doesn't lead me to welcome its claims with open arms.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 01:54 AM
1

Oh for fuck sake, we didn't photograph their vaginas either. Do you want proof they were women? No. But you're being entirely unreasonable here. They were feminists. Deal with it. Wow, aren't you supposed to be some kind of journalist? This kind of ridiculous, "believe me because I say so" makes us all look bad.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 01:48 AM
7

Showing concern is not necessarily a troll. Treating it as such halts discussion and hinders positive growth. Occupy is a good example of what happens when all concern is thought to be done by trolls. The movement turns into a circlejerk then dies.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 10:24 PM
2

A concern troll with a valid point.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:59 PM
2

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks and good luck.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 07:50 AM
1

What was the federal charge? Where did you find a bail bondsman that will get you out with you paying only 1%?
/r/MensRights19/07/12 07:43 AM
17

Idiotic crap is overly upvoted in every subreddit. It's the underlying flaw of reddit. No conspiracy is needed to explain it.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 10:50 PM
-2

Men are much less likely to be gang raped by a group of strangers prior to any previous interaction. Men, in general, are much physically stronger than women, in general. Because of these reasons I can see why reactions would be different. The article also wasn't very clear on what "nearly having their shirts ripped off" actually meant. Men are often raped by women, but not in this type of circumstance. So whilst the behavior of the women may have been criminal the amount of force needed to avoi…
/r/MensRights07/07/12 03:20 AM
2

They are directed at the public, not private. They are no longer teaching incorrect language use to just their members but to the community. What I originally wrote was actually pretty clear. Do you attend the church of poor language use?
/r/MensRights17/06/12 04:28 AM
10

I know. That's not what "anymore" means. They clearly mean "any more" which are completely different words. I'm fine with them teaching their lies to their kids but when they post public signs that's where I draw the line.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 04:02 AM
2

You missed a good opportunity to educate and instead resorted to name calling. Pretty poor showing as you came off as bad as they did.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 12:06 AM
13

I assume it means you're scrawny and are embarrassed about that.
/r/seduction06/06/12 03:22 PM
1

I'm not saying she wasn't. I'm saying that there are real reasons people get charged with different levels of murder. I'm also saying that these two cases aren't "nearly identical". I am in no way disagreeing with the overall point that; she got a lighter sentence because she is a woman, just that this isn't the parallel crime it is claimed to be.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 03:03 AM
4

Are we a downvote brigade now? I really don't want to see this place turn into an r/atheism, r/occupywallstreet or r/shitredditsays were we ignore truthful, rational discussion for patting each other on the back, upvote anything that agrees with us -regardless of accuracy- and invade other communities en masse to force our beliefs down people's throats. That kind of behavior changes nothing. It's not enough to be right, we must thoughtfully change the minds of others. You don't do that through f…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 02:53 AM
1

It's not an excuse for murder but it lowers the severity of the sentence. Notice that neither of them were charged with first degree murder. Also, being Chinese probably didn't help his case.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 02:42 AM
10

I hear what you're saying and I agree but I'd just prefer the points not be legitimate. I think movements work better when those involved take the highroad.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:49 PM
9

I feel the headline is a general insult to women without adding anything to the information given. Changing 'women' to 'womyns' seems childish. The article also doesn't give any parallels between the responsibilities of children and women so I feel it's an unnecessary insult. I believe the article itself is interesting but the editorialized headline makes this sub look bad. Instead of taking this specific instance as an opportunity to bringing up broader points the headline takes the low road an…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:35 PM
1

One, no it's not. Two, you should do your own thinking.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:39 PM
10

Edit: didn't realize what subreddit this was, I got here from All. Sorry to interrupt the circlejerk. I appreciated your response until you felt a need to baselessly denigrate a legitimate movement.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:36 PM
5

Where is the best place to send a complaint letter? I was going to go to B&N to buy books for my niece. Unlike books for myself I find it's better to buy children's books where you can see them since they are so visual. Now that I know men are not welcome at B&N I feel I should inform them that I am not going to be shopping there because I am not welcome.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:33 PM
5

You're probably right but if there is no negative response I don't see how there will be any hope of a change in policy. I wrote a simple reply that mentioned the skewed facts and sexism of this campaign. It will probably fall on deaf ears but I feel it's best to show that not everyone is buying their narrative.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:24 PM
18

I appreciate the article but I don't think the mocking, editorialized headline was helpful.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:12 PM
0

I see you wish to have the last word so I won't reply after this. I will not, however, "go away". I have no intention of abandoning this subreddit to those who wish to spread their message by perverting the truth and insulting fellow members. You may want to turn this sub into a male version of SRS but I will not sit idly by and watch that happen. Good day to you.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:05 PM
1

Yes, I'm clearly the one employing SRS style tactics. You showed me.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 06:00 PM
1

Ah, the old tactic of lie, justify the lie then insult. That's not how proper discussion works.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 05:22 PM
3

Why would he de-neutralize a neutralized law? You can make any law sound anti-male by lying about it. "Government raises taxes on men", article; "government raises taxes". How does it help the cause to blatantly lie in a headline?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 08:48 PM
1

Many women are attracted to money. I'm not saying get a prostitute, although I see nothing wrong with that. Many women will be attracted to you without either you or them thinking it's about the money. Having the free time, the ability to travel, the ability to pursue hobbies, to do fun and spontaneous things are all attractive qualities. Having money makes you more attractive and that holds true even when excluding the whores and gold diggers.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 08:47 PM
2

Philadelphia Bans Feeding Homeless Men People Outdoors. Why lie?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:16 PM
-2

I'm probably going to end up dying a virgin on a giant pile of money Dude, the easiest way to cure virginity is a huge pile of money. Just don't get married. You can still have a happy life that involves women/a woman.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:12 PM
4

I support this. It's ridiculous that it needs to be said but it's sound advice. What's the men's rights aspect that I'm missing?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 12:34 AM
12

Nah, that also seems fucked up. I'm not looking to screw over women in divorce just something that isn't clearly unfair to the point of being a civil rights violations.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 11:24 PM
5

Oxford dictionary can go kill itself If it makes you feel any better; one of it's main contributors did cut off his own penis.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:33 AM
10

Yes, if this were one specific point in an anti-circumcision discussion that was directly used to counter an actual point brought up in said discussion it wouldn't be as bad. I still wouldn't use it but it would have some validity. As part of a general post in r/mensrights it is not helpful. This is the exact kind of thing people looking to discredit this movement are looking for, to use against a movement that has yet to find a secure footing.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:43 AM
60

No, it's short sighted, inappropriate and damaging to the movement. Being right isn't enough to change things. We have to be better than this.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:26 AM
155

Probably not the best analogy to make for a fledgling movement that has yet to gain critical mass.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:24 AM
2

If you're old enough to be on reddit, surely you're old enough to have a job. Do kids not work in the UK?
/r/MensRights27/05/12 03:03 AM
36

Why isn't there a "no tabloid" rule for this sub? The amount of questionable stories here is ridiculous. It really lowers the credibility of this subreddit.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 11:48 PM
20

I think the comic is actually pointing that out. The entire point of the comic is bringing this double standard to light.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 12:04 AM
5

This is why you don't link to The Daily Mail. I bring it up every time I see a link of theirs on here. It is not a legitimate news site and makes the OP and those who comment look foolish.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:30 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter