TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

None_of_your_Beezwax Archive

View 3 posts and 87 comments by None_of_your_Beezwax on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
7

Between 61% -68 % of indigenous people are killed by non indigenous people. This is not true according to the article. The direct quote is: "In most cases, the person accused of their homicide was also Indigenous (86%)" Murder rates are high almost universally among non-state [tribal] societies: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/rate-of-violent-deaths-non-state-societies In fact, this is often how conflicts with settlers started in the first place.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 12:49 PM
1

The idea that someone's power or priviledge id a linear combination of any number of properties is absurd; frankly the very essence of bigotry. The acceptability of bigotry is not a function of who it's aimed at.
/r/MensRights31/12/25 03:41 PM
3

Deliberate act dusguised as acvident is what it reads as to me. If the claims are correct, it goes well beyond mere negligence.
/r/MensRights06/12/25 02:24 PM
0

Both men and women are sold a false narrative about how relationships and child-rearing actually works.
/r/MensRights12/06/24 05:26 PM
7

So "incel" is basically a slur against people with a disability?
/r/MensRights28/11/23 03:07 AM
4

Haha, that would be like a casino owner saying there is a chance of winning the jackpot... ᶦᶠ ʸᵒᵘ ᵒʷⁿ ᵗʰᵉ ᶜᵃˢᶦⁿᵒ
/r/MensRights07/11/23 03:48 PM
17

The corporations are glorified pimps.
/r/MensRights07/11/23 02:13 PM
14

Aren't casino machines regularly inspected to make sure they are only rigged by a set amount? I think there's even a minimum payout on a lot of those things. Not saying they're not rigged, they are, but there has to be an actual chance.
/r/MensRights07/11/23 02:11 PM
2

A yes, that makes more sense of course. Point stands though I guess.
/r/MensRights06/11/22 04:39 AM
7

Isn't it possible to downvote your own post? It didn't look this got a lot of traction, so that could conceivable account for the 0.
/r/MensRights05/11/22 03:01 PM
2

It would be acceptable in the MRA community, but likely not in broader society. It is a worthwhile effort though, and a little bit of struggle only makes you stronger.
/r/MensRights17/09/22 05:13 PM
11

It's just the low rate fallacy. Victim genders a consistently closer together in low murder rate countries like Austria, so a few outlier events in a given year can easily massively skew a statistic like this. The correct answer is not to read anything into it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender Incidentally, the different approaches to murder and the asymmetrical treatment of men and women by justice systems worldwide goes a long way to explaining the disparity between …
/r/MensRights11/05/21 06:42 PM
1

So, did you remember to avoid men and following womem?
/r/MensRights18/09/20 08:24 PM
1

Okay, remind me in a few days I’ll reply because I honestly love this debate. I will if I remember, haha. As for no evidence behind my credentials, on r/medical I verified my medical degree and when I return to finish the debate I will PM you my evidence. I'll take your word for it, but it's still irrelevant for me. The only thing that matters to me is the quality of debate, not the qualification of the master debater. Thank you for not taking this debate personally <3 Hehe, same.
/r/MensRights04/09/20 09:03 PM
1

Is that your argument? Because if it is, it is so painfully obvious that it doesn't need stating. It wasn't deliberate and subliminal messaging has no evidence base. Nobody said subliminal, you are arguing against a message here that only you perceive, that's the problem. I piped when someone disputed the idea that these effects are real, if you agree they are then there's no argument here. It's a real technique used in marketing, where there's a lot of money on the line. Whether it's deliberate…
/r/MensRights04/09/20 09:01 PM
1

You've just jumbled some psychological terms together and used them to argue that this typo is going to embed propagandist ideas in someone's subconscious. No, all I've said that you are more likely to recall or notice incongruent things than congruent. This abundantly well-established science that is as theoretically rock-solid as anything. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need to source it. But the literature is firmly on my side here. I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue it. We c…
/r/MensRights04/09/20 08:47 PM
1

Your schema is correct spelling. You are aware that that is just a schema right?
/r/MensRights04/09/20 08:32 PM
1

I answered your last point in a different comment earlier, the purpose of this thread is to specifically critique this slide; we're a heavily biased community. Fair enough, I have made the same point myself. Also, I'm attending about 15 phone appointments daily with patients at the moment, so odds are I won't remember this particular thread. Yeah, you see I generally don't care much for unverifiable claims of expertise on anonymous forums. Either way, if nothing else, I'm sure you're more likely…
/r/MensRights04/09/20 08:30 PM
1

Schema incongruity, salience and the principle of cognitive economy working on the mechanism of the principle of least effort. The whole point is to get you to notice and recall. You're still stuck on this subliminal messaging idea. (to be fair the OP to this question did mention it, but it misses the important part of how it does this)
/r/MensRights04/09/20 04:57 PM
1

Subliminal means below the threshold of perception. It's obvious why that would (correctly) be disputed. There's nothing subliminal about this though. I'm not saying it's deliberate, probably wasn't, but it is very noticeable and that is the whole point of the technique.
/r/MensRights04/09/20 04:50 PM
1

Nobody said brainwashing. It's a fact of human cognition that we recall things that are unusual or out of place more than things that are not. As I said, this falls under schema incongruity, salience, the principle of least effort and the principle of cognitive economy. Are you saying it is not possible to manipulate people's recall and buying intentions? Because there's a billion dollar industry that says otherwise. Heck, simple natural experiment right here: We're talking about it right now. W…
/r/MensRights04/09/20 04:47 PM
1

Nobody said subliminal messaging. Subliminal means below the threshhold of perception. This hardly qualifies, now does it?
/r/MensRights04/09/20 04:44 PM
1

Especially when the principles behind this are super well-established and known. I find it very hard to believe that someone with an MSc in psychology would find it surprising in the least, much least ask for citations to it in a forum like this, rather than just provide it off the top of their head.
/r/MensRights04/09/20 12:10 AM
3

That's just lazy. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13527266.2012.671187
/r/MensRights04/09/20 12:03 AM
2

Here we go: Schema incongruity - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13527266.2012.671187 https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/03/chick-fil-a-spelling-why-so-many-brand-names-have-spelling-and-punctuation-errors.html Some more avenues to explore: In neuroscience it would be related to salience. In music theory it is related to expectation theory. In math it is related to the principle of least effort. https://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/788 Even more general is the principle of cogntive …
/r/MensRights04/09/20 12:03 AM
3

Highly doubtful, given cultural currents. If anything "any gender" will default to female in the current climate.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 11:06 PM
3

More likely to be the reverse. I find it doubtful that many new scholarships are being issued for men only. If there are any, they're likely old. Inflation and whatnot.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 04:38 PM
20

In this case, his comments were deemed to meet that standard. He swiftly acquitted by the jury though. So, no, his comments were NOT deemed to meet that standard.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 06:47 PM
57

I can make myself feel harassed threatened by a toaster. What kind standard is this? It's just a recipe for abusive behavior.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 06:08 PM
1

The statistic is usually quoted in the form you first wrote it, but even so, the high pass filter still applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
/r/MensRights17/09/19 02:38 PM
2

women attempt more frequently than men. Men have statistically significantly more success per attempt Survivorship bias. Having attempted suicide is one of the strongest indicators that one will do it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias For more self aware individuals this can also result in a high pass filter being applied (if you know that if you try you will succeed, you are less likely to try if you don't really want to succeed).
/r/MensRights17/09/19 01:48 PM
1

Justifying violence through satire is not good for a movement, however. It wasn't justifying violence though. I understand how it could have been read that way, but it was a statement of fact. The joke is that the system is so out of kilter that it can be plausibly put forward as such, even if you disagree. The problem is that real people make this assessment all the time regardless of connections to Men's Rights or MGTOW. The old story goes that male feminists almost invariable act in this kind…
/r/MensRights02/09/19 06:12 PM
1

No, I thought it was perfectly clear, you just willfully misinterpreted it.
/r/MensRights02/09/19 05:19 PM
2

You're completely missing the point. The point is that the system creates a situation where when someone finally snaps, there's little reason for moderation, because the result would be the same. It is known in economics as a perverse incentive. This is obviously not a desirable outcome one way or another, but it illustrates that an unfair treatment nominally in favor of one party can ultimately lead to a worse outcome for that party. Like receiving a tax break that leads to a reduction of servi…
/r/MensRights02/09/19 05:09 PM
4

BBC is the British state owned news agency and CNN/MSNCBC are so in bed with the American establishment they might as well be state owned (Fox is a bit of a different beast). The different perspective is valuable, even if it is biased. Everyone's biased.
/r/MensRights05/06/19 12:33 PM
13

Wow, that's savage.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:07 PM
2

Yep, that's the reality. The thing to recognise that is that feminists are radicalised extremist. There is no "right way" to engage with extremists.
/r/MensRights25/03/19 02:01 PM
2

This is true: Testosterone is a helluva drug, and natural birth rates reflect that. However, if equality of outcome is the goal then that needs to be taken into account. The whole idea of outcome equality is that you shouldn't be disadvantaged because of factors beyond your control. Being born male is one of those. Not saying I am in favour of outcome equality, but if you were, then this is how you would need to approach it.
/r/MensRights05/01/19 12:34 AM
7

Why, exactly? It's probably a better idea to read their detailed explanation before penning a long critique. But I can give you the short answer: Selection bias. Standard methodologies typically focus on issues where women are relatively deprived and ignore issues where men are relatively deprived and find (shockingly) that women are deprived. These three measures are relatively universal though and applies to everyone in a society fairly equally.
/r/MensRights05/01/19 12:30 AM
20

It's not a presumption of dishonesty, it's a presumption of innocence. When there is the possibility of gain, whether financial, social or even just emotional, the presumption of dishonesty should always be in place. Having a claim that can destroy another person for your benefit accepted as fact should never be a trivial matter.
/r/MensRights02/01/19 03:49 PM
6

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of males killing males and females killing females. We know, for example, that most child killing are committed by females (someone said 80% in the thread but I don't have a source at hand). We also know that females are more likely to commit unreciprocated violence and that lesbian relationships are the most violent type (gay men being by far the least). Add that to the fact that female murderers are much more likely to get the same incident classed as…
/r/MensRights27/12/18 11:52 PM
4

The sad thing is that the underlying though here is valid and is worthwhile exploring. It seems to be about how we construct categories. Often new insights come from such exercises, and physics has been in a bit of a rut of late (science in general in stuck in the vicious cycle of the replication crisis and doesn't know how to get out of it). The problem is that with the way social theorists like this apply it: There is no respect for the actual categories under consideration, so the discussion …
/r/MensRights23/12/18 02:54 PM
15

What is "good for men" or "good for women"? There is no interest group called "women" as a collective. http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/domestic-violence-history/
/r/MensRights05/12/18 03:55 PM
35

Men and women are not opposing classes in society.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 03:22 PM
1

No, you don't understand the game that's being played. The problem isn't individual cases of unfair allocation, it is that one side plays the equal distribution card in every case that it suits and the fair allocation card in the others. It's like a ratchet that slips in one direction and grabs in the other, somehow only producing force in one direction. I'm not complaining about women get a grant, even exclusively. What I am complaining about is the way that it is justified. If you want to give…
/r/MensRights02/12/18 02:48 AM
1

a response of that proportion is fine But it isn't in that proportion. 95% of the grants were awarded to women, not 75%. And this is not presented as an issue but as a footnote to say "Hey look, we technically give to men too". I agree with you that cutting statistics like that is inappropriate, what I am asking is why that only ever seems to be an issue on the other side?
/r/MensRights01/12/18 02:22 PM
2

You say its satire, but if you think about it is the only logical outcome if you think about it. Assuming, of course, that a logical outcome is actually what is desired.
/r/MensRights01/12/18 12:44 AM
2

It would be really interesting to see how many cis-gendered-heterosexual men make it into the 5% that get funds under this scheme. My guess? Not many.
/r/MensRights25/11/18 03:39 PM
2

I didn't make up the 75-25 split, it's from their own source. That's similar to the split in suicides in the Western world, and yet in that case it is somehow still only women who get focused on in media campaigns. When the the issue is addressed for men it is almost invariably in a derogatory way. Same with workplace injuries. Overall, abuse is split roughly 50/50, yet there is no support whatsoever for men. I would be prepared to bet good money that the actual 5% that goes to men in this case …
/r/MensRights25/11/18 03:34 PM
5

In principle, no. But you can see how the numbers end up. Don't confuse the boilerplate disclaimers for how a thing is implemented. See here for example: Research has found close to 16 per cent of Australian women will experience financial abuse in their lifetime. Among women who seek support for domestic and family violence the incidence is much higher with up to 90 per cent of women affected by financial abuse. Financial abuse is also common in abusive lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, inte…
/r/MensRights25/11/18 03:15 AM
6

Ah, yes of course. So at least men are eligible. The way it is marketed (how I got to find out about it) doesn't make this obvious. Their sources are heavily skewed, but the most neutral one indicates a 75-25% split in the incidence of economic abuse by gender. So the 95% going to women can be read as a bias in outcome, for whatever reason. My guess is due to the way it is marketed, but I wouldn't rule out selection bias at the coal-face either. Edit This is the ad that came up in my FB feed for…
/r/MensRights25/11/18 02:42 AM
3

I identify so much with the last one.
/r/MensRights16/11/18 04:19 PM
2

The fact that is qualified in the final statistic is what makes it unclear whether the same qualifcation applies to the one just above.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 09:47 PM
13

That's after controlling for variables. Men get harsher treatment at every level of the process. In absolute, raw terms the ratio is more 94:6. If men and women were treated the same the ratio would be much closer to 50/50. So if you reported the incarceration gap like you did the wage gap you would end up saying that there is an incarceration gap of 95%.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 04:31 PM
21

Yes, that should be clearer.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 04:26 PM
13

Not all the time.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 03:25 AM
20

It becomes a men's rights issue when raw salaries are compared. It just becomes another factor to add into the pay-gap question: If two two people have different commutes for the same pay, are they at wage parity? Specifically: If this commuting ratio holds and women are given equal average pay by fiat, that would amount to state sponsored gendered oppression. Put another way: Should it not be a man's (or woman's) right to accept increased commuting for higher pay?
/r/MensRights07/11/18 06:59 PM
54

Fantastic analysis, I have to say.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 03:38 AM
2

You know, there is no sacrifice too great to stop authoritarianism. There are extreme anti-authoritarians, are they authoritarians like Hitler, too? No. I never said that and that is not the case. Sacrificing liberal ideals to stop authoritarianism is too great a sacrifice.
/r/MensRights06/10/18 12:18 AM
2

The quotes posted have nothing to do with authoritarianism. I think this comment only shows that you don't know how extremism works to bring about authoritarianism. "no accessible sacrifice that abnegates [insert name of enemy here] should be considered too great." Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, they all said something along these lines. The only difference is who the enemy is in each case.
/r/MensRights05/10/18 06:58 PM
6

"Modern feminists are extremists. You know who else was an extremist? That's right, Adolph Hitler" No... Modern feminists want a certain sort of extreme authoritarian power to control society. Authoritarian governments with that sort of power (Hitler included) have done some very bad things precisely because they don't moderate their behaviour. A movement with as much social power as feminism that disavows the middle road is an extremely dangerous thing, and would be even if Hitler never existed…
/r/MensRights05/10/18 02:21 PM
8

If you don't find those quotes messed up you don't understand how authoritarianism works. It starts with the negation of the middle road.
/r/MensRights05/10/18 12:58 PM
8

Not knowing anything about the specifics here I am just going to say that you send your children to elite schools so that they can become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society.” I mean, that's kinda the point, isn't it? Conversely, many (most) high-ranking members of society will come from such schools. So really it doesn't narrow things down a terrible lot if that is the only piece of evidence. Also therapy is a highly suggestive environment. We know the risks of just taking thi…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 11:26 PM
3

No, it was just a dig at Brexit. Point being that I am not sure if this decision can be appealed.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 11:02 PM
8

Wow, okay, my fault for not reading the whole article. That's pretty incredible. I'd venture he should appeal to the European Court of Human Rig... oh, okay, nevermind... I'm actually both terrified and flabbergasted by this. Just mind-blowing.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 08:24 PM
58

IANAL, but there is such a thing as defamation by implication. https://www.quora.com/What-does-defamation-by-implication-mean EDIT Intent seems to be the thing these thing turn on in U.S. law. Also UK law
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:16 PM
2

That might be difficult, because every attempt might not be recorded, and men are probably less likely to report failed attempts.
/r/MensRights22/04/18 04:57 PM
10

Women try again more, but that should be obvious given the fact that having tried before is one of the better predictors of whether you are going to try again, and you can only ever try again if you have failed before. So the less likely any group is to succeed on a given attempt, the more attempts they are likely to have.
/r/MensRights22/04/18 12:01 PM
8

Only people who don't succeed the first time get to have a second attempt.
/r/MensRights22/04/18 09:07 AM
1

You are not owed sex by your partner, and a lack of sexual contact is not justification for cheating. You can go fuck yourself with that shit. And I mean that literally. If you have physical desires and needs that no one else is taking care of, take care of them. Go fuck yourself. Well, it's nice to say that and feel morally justified and all, but if you have ever been in a long term relationship you would know that that just isn't how it works. Expecting someone not to sleep around is controlli…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 07:10 AM
1

The worst kind of people are the ones who expect you to publicise your history of abuse for you to be able to speak about abuse in general. It's a really sick and twisted mindset that can lead a person to ask: "Have you ever been abused?" in a public forum because you disagree with their point of view. Almost as bad as the abuse itself, in my honest opinion.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 08:57 AM
1

Sometimes the only way to fight crazy is with crazy. You have to understand the definitions of things that they use and apply it directly to the parallel case. Otherwise all you will ever be doing is playing catch up. The parallel case of a man using their social power to elicit sexual favour is a woman using her sexual power to elicit social favour. If physical harm occurs, even if there are no lasting physical scars, then that is sexual assault. If you allow special pleading to prevail you wil…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 02:11 PM
1

Yeah, but it refers to a real physical condition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_balls
/r/MensRights17/01/18 01:07 PM
1

I don't get it. Assault is defined as follows: "a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm". Blue balling is a physical harm. If you do it knowingly you are committing an assault, plain and simple. It's not a joke. You have every right to back out of physical intercourse if you don't feel like it, but you don't have a right to physically abuse men just because they are men. That's almost as bad as using the media to abuse men's social status. Until women …
/r/MensRights17/01/18 09:13 AM
1

Causality is established by the fact that the effect is present when the treatment is present and absent when the treatment is absent. If 100% of your study group is unaffected pre-treatment and 100% is affected post-treatment then concerning yourself with control groups is a masturbatory box-ticking exercise that has no connection to the scientific method or statistical best practice whatsoever. If you shoot someone in the head and they die, you don't need to run control experiments by shooting…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 03:16 PM
1

You are confusing the baseline measurement with a control group. Baseline is one thing, but the reason you do controls is so that you have one group that is not treated and another that is. The reason you do placebo controls is because placebo is a known and often significant effect that should be included in both treatment and control groups. Cutting off skin is NOT a placebo in this case, it is just a modified treatment. If you have two groups being cut you have two treatment groups and still …
/r/MensRights07/11/17 12:35 PM
36

These organisations are like PETA: Sell the care while killing the puppies out back.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 06:44 AM
1

That's quite different from what you said at first, though, which was cutting elsewhere for no reason. Even so, good luck getting ethics clearance for even that. Still: The baseline no treatment group is not putting babies in an MRI and fiddling with their bits for no good reason, whether it proceeds to cutting or not, so that is your control.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 05:56 AM
2

Yes. There's your control.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 05:52 AM
9

A control is supposed to be a no-treatment group. No treatment in this is no cutting. We are not really interested in determining if cutting foreskin is more or less traumatic than cutting any other skin. We are interested in determining if unnecessarily cutting skin (specifically foreskin) is more or less traumatic than not unnecessarily cutting skin. If you really want a placebo group you would do a similarly painful and unnecessary procedure, though one that involves no cutting, on other infa…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 07:58 PM
13

No, the baseline condition is not cutting off any skin. There's no reason to be doing that in the first place and you wouldn't for any other non-medically necessary reason. You can be pretty sure that cutting any skin would be traumatic as heck, so proving that something that is traumatic is as traumatic as something else that is traumatic wouldn't prove anything. If you had some medically indicated reason, then the trauma might be justified either way. You'd sure as hell never get ethics cleara…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 01:20 PM
2

Yeah, probably because of the association with early generation of "internet atheists" who took the red pill around the time of gamergate. I am someone who was an agnostic long before some these people were born and who came to view climate science as problematic almost in direct opposition to them, but took the red pill only after they did on feminism. So you can understand why I am sitting here with my popcorn ready for when it dawns on them that feminism and climate change ideology not only d…
/r/MensRights13/07/17 05:02 PM
8

What climate change denialism got to do with the price of tea? As far as I am concerned AGW-doom mongering is another red-pill issue. Manipulated statistics, emotional appeal, threats of exclusion and loss of livelohood etc. It's the same playbook as feminism and it also takes an honest, independent look at the underlying facts to disabuse yourself of the propaganda.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 07:19 AM
3

I learnt this during the first Obama election. Obama kept giving hard numbers and McCain kept using emotional appeals. One of the those appeals was that Obama was wishy-washy and not precise enough. Head asplode, but there is and was a grain of truth to it. People who rely on citing hard numbers often do so because they want to distract from the fact that they don't understand the dynamics of a situation very deeply.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:27 AM
27

This should be higher, use the "women and children" argument against them.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 07:14 PM
2

The lungs and kidneys develop from different substrates (endoderm and mesoderm respectively). Genitals differentiate much further along.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 11:40 AM
3

The analogue for the labia is the bottom part of the scrotum. The more you know... Analogue for clitoral hood is foreskin.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 06:59 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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