TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

OstensiblyOriginal Archive

View 3 posts and 67 comments by OstensiblyOriginal 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)
1

That my friend, is a distinct absence of love.
/r/MensRights17/04/18 06:23 PM
1

I don't see attacking a position to be a good thing on the topic of love. Nor do I see how identifying a lack of love is any attack at all. It is ok to be without love. Acknowledging it's absence is a good way to go about getting it. That it seemed to bother you is only further indication of it's absence. Similar is the way you interpret self love as narcissism, or reject a poetic description of love as meaningless and delusional. I'm sure you'll strongly disagree, but you're like a person who t…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 05:52 PM
1

Ah, criticism of a poor description is not a personal attack. That fact is that love is an extremely personal matter and an attempt to separate the personal and the logical is what leaves something cold and heartless. Revelations of the heart do not happen through the mind.
/r/MensRights17/04/18 04:14 PM
1

Thanks for the conversation. I hope you didn't get too offended, I meant no aggression and I'm sorrowed that you interpreted things that way. I for one enjoy any discussion on such a profound topic.
/r/MensRights17/04/18 03:33 PM
1

lol So..you want a definition of love that is cold and without love? For what purpose? Note that I asked "what is love then and how does it apply to a human?" while you asked for a definition. I also disagree with your assertion that if you can't explain a concept without "flowery language" than you don't understand the concept. That's a coldly logical perspective. How would a person describe the beauty of nature? How would they describe the love they feel for their child? Would they say, "My lo…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 02:52 PM
1

hahaha Case closed my friend, case closed. This is why you don't understand; you're trying to use your intellect. You think love can be reduced to a definition that is subject to logical dissection. It's not, it's an ethereal thing, that is so delicate, it's like trying to catch a wisp of smoke in my hand that I can show to you. Then when I open my hand you say "No. Wrong. Try again." Meanwhile you think it is merely a "selfless interest in another", a description of love which itself does not c…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 02:19 PM
1

I'm no poet, but I would say something like this: A person experiences love in their heart. It is a warm feeling that is both gentle and strong. It's a light that radiates out from your chest like a beacon and permeates all things but it's not something you see with your eyes, you feel it with your heart, little vibrations that you recognize to be in tune like the strings on a guitar. It is harmony, balance. It infuses all things and takes many different forms. It's child who is amazed to see sn…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 01:52 PM
1

No offence but that is a really lame description. That's the type of response that makes you look like you have never experienced it, or have currently forgotten the feeling at least. A child could do better. Maybe you would like to meditate on a loved one then try again? Or would you explain why the word selfless is so essential?
/r/MensRights17/04/18 01:01 PM
1

You're saying an act is not love, but a manifestation of it? So what is love then and how does it apply to a human?
/r/MensRights17/04/18 03:21 AM
1

Hey! We agree again. So love is unconditional, of course there are situations where it isn't there, times where it doesn't flourish and a person only has so much capacity but that is a separate matter all together. Love itself is unconditional. Which was the original point, at least from my perspective. Which means the only real disagreement we had was that I think a person can love themselves and you choose to abide a different definition which doesn't allow for it.
/r/MensRights17/04/18 01:46 AM
1

I think a person can love selfishly, it's a limited or conditional love. Like for example, loving your spouse under the condition they work to maintain the relationship. If a person can only love selflessly, how is that not unconditional? How do you square loving selflessly, with placing conditions?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 11:22 PM
1

To love another is selfless, I agree with you there. Your examples of love are to share and perform selfless acts. My examples would be to care for, appreciate, act in the interest of. This is why to me, you can love yourself because appreciating and caring for the self are good and possible things. Do you think my examples are incorrect or are there other factors you want to add that would invalid this?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 11:04 PM
1

Sure, I'll just explain how I got to that point so we can make sure there is no discrepancy. A man can love art by maintaining it. But a man cannot love himself by maintaining it. Because love is selfless? So you can still do the same things and feel the same way, you just can't call it love, you call it narcissism. So you've given yourself a definition that prevents you from loving yourself. Is that not true? You can only feel selfish or narcissistic towards yourself?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 10:41 PM
1

I just don't see how self maintenance is equivalent to emotional masturbation. It sounds like a good thing to me. Yet you seem to be saying it's good only if you do it for someone or something else. Maintenance of art = love = good Maintenance of self = narcissism = emotional masturbation? That's the way you see it?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 10:29 PM
1

Yeah I figured that, it just didn't actually answer it for me. If maintaining art is love, is it not love to maintain a man? How do you differentiate?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 10:09 PM
1

lol, inherently not. Now you answer mine.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 10:01 PM
1

A man shows his love for his art by maintaining it, making sure it is properly hung and regularly cleaned. Should a man not do those things for himself?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 09:50 PM
1

Yeah you said that; love is narcissism. I was hoping you'd see it in a more loving manner, but it does explain your attitude. Atheist I'd presume. That's fine, some people just aren't in it for love except in certain circumstances and I wouldn't call them wrong for that. I did just think of another example; what about a man and his work of art? The piece isn't conscious so is it able to receive love? If no then is love not able to be expressed with art? If yes, why can a man express love to an i…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 09:22 PM
1

Show me love without two parties Self love. Do you really deny one's ability to love themselves?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 08:48 PM
1

I agree with everything you said, except the last part. As I said already, a person who has love in their heart understands it's inherent value. If you felt love in your heart right now none of this conversation would have happened. I did not say love a personal experience, I said everything is, for without your personhood you are nothing. Would you deny that? If you want to live without love, waiting for someone to grace you with it, you are giving your power to that person and that is your cho…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 07:43 PM
1

lol You know wrong, sorry. This is why you are all here in the mensrights sub, because you don't have love in your lives and you see it as a man + woman thing. You're welcome to give me a reason why a person who has harmed another is not deserving of love. After all, every one of us has harmed another at some point, and we are all deserving of forgiveness for those acts.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 07:03 PM
0

Specifically you asked if I would stop loving them. My answer was no. Continue to love yes, do it always.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 06:55 PM
1

It's not. Get yourself out of the situation How is that a yes? There's such a conflation between love and romance. Don't have a relationship with someone who abuses you, duh. But yes, love them regardless. Love everyone.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 06:47 PM
-3

Why is not a good place to be? Wisdom a thing. If someone abuses you then get out of that situation, but still love them. Love is not romance.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 06:44 PM
3

My answer was not yes. It was: Get yourself out of the situation that allows them to hurt you, then continue to love them despite their flaws.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 06:32 PM
1

when people want love Again, you have this perspective of the lovee, you want someone else to love you, and seem only willing to love someone if you get it back. What I'm saying is: All experience is ultimately a personal one. To live with love is a joyous and wonderful thing You can choose to love any and all things without needing anything in return Therefore, in your own eyes, the world can be a joyful place regardless of what other people do. If they reciprocate your love then great, you can…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 06:26 PM
1

If you live with joy then what does it matter?
/r/MensRights16/04/18 06:06 PM
3

I'm looking at it from a pragmatic perspective. If love is not shared what value does it hold? If it has no value then it might as well not exist. You're looking at it with a question of what's in it for you. If you had love in your heart you would understand it's value. It's a wonderful thing to love yourself. You feel great, your health is improved, your energy is up. Even if you have no one to share it with, it cultivates an attitude that creates a better world. Everyone's experience is ultim…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 05:53 PM
0

Yay! It's unconditional!
/r/MensRights16/04/18 05:42 PM
0

Your lack of understanding supports my cause. Jesus died on the cross so that people don't have to go to hell. His story was the epitome of love. He endured ridicule and torture for people who didn't reciprocate, then as he's dying he still forgave their mistakes because they "know not what they do". All because he loved them unconditionally.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 05:28 PM
1

I understand. I hope you find love again, an abundance of it. So much that you can share it with those around you and expect nothing in return.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 05:12 PM
3

I agree with you except this: Why? Because being loved is conditional on maintaining certain standards for the relationship to be functional. The relationship is conditional on maintaining certain standards. But it is certainly possible to separate from a spouse and continue to have love for them. You seem to be looking at it from the perspective of the lovee not the lover. If you love a person, then everything else is secondary. The honeymoon phase is a window into true love because during that…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 05:06 PM
1

That's fine, it's your choice. I'm in no way saying you should still be in a relationship with her. If it's not going well then it might be wise to separate. What I'm saying is that you could still love her even now, even when she's out of your life. Remember the good times and forgive the mistakes. It's your choice.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 04:42 PM
-5

It would admittedly be difficult to continue. The wise thing would be to separate yourself then continue cultivating love in your heart from a distance. Never hold malice towards even those who hurt you.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 04:35 PM
1

Cut it with the r/gatekeeping Talk about the pot and kettle. If there's conditions on it, then it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Not love. If you idolize them, you do not love them. Why are kids an exception in your mind? Could it be that what one feels for their children is actually love and you've just never experienced it anywhere else? Imagine if you told your kid "I will love you as long as you act according to my desires?" The fuck is that? Why is it one way for children and a diffe…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 04:23 PM
1

Yeah literally you guys don't understand the nature of love. No offence. If you place conditions on it, then you get conditions in return. Your example just proves that.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 03:56 PM
1

Then it isn't really love. Anyone who thinks of it in terms of conditions doesn't know what it really is. Jesus is such an easy example, people literally crucified him and he still loved and forgave him. Mathew Hussey is speaking of love without wisdom, which is just ignorance.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 02:16 PM
0

I don't think Doug Ford's base would care much, his brother Rob was revealed to be smoking crack while mayor of Toronto and his base didn't budge. He'd be the Donald Trump of Canada.
/r/MensRights15/02/18 02:02 AM
10

Not only that but she was former roommates with the reporter who supposedly vetted the story. This was a political hit piece through and through. #metoo is a weapon.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:38 PM
18

I tried to submit this but you beat me to it. Unfortunately your title explains absolutely nothing and we all know people don't read the articles. Here's the low down: Patrick Brown was a Canadian politician on the verge of becoming Premier of Ontario. A couple weeks ago CTV published a story that claims, 1. 10 years ago he hit on an underage girl at a bar then took her back to his place, dropped his pants and said something like, "suck my dick". Then she did. And 2. He flirted with a young staf…
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:23 PM
2

Regardless of what actually happened, let him know that you're on his side. This isn't a social competition of superiority and vindictivness, you're his family and his support group. If he's down, you sympathize, if he needs a hand, you lend a hand. Love is unconditional.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 03:13 PM
-4

That's....wow, I don't know how to respond to that. It seems very arrogant. If that's the attitude you guys have I'd have to be opposed.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 09:43 PM
3

Look, the word 'hero' is absolutely irrelevant. The point was the theme of overcoming oppression. I made one little remark about the new trailer and you've gone off on so many tangents of semantics. I'm going to conclude that you're just being a douche.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 07:19 PM
3

No no no no no. I'll try to spell this out one last time as clearly as I can, but this is not my forte. Dolores is the protagonist, yes. She is also the hero (technically different but often synonymous) because her entire arc is starting as a rape victim to eventually overcome her oppressors. That is one of the themes of the show, the plot involves robots overcoming humans but the theme involves overcoming oppression. So again, a hero does not need to be ethically perfect, they only need to over…
/r/MensRights05/02/18 06:57 PM
6

Dolores is the protagonist which is often referred to as the "hero", one can be rebellious and still be the hero, they do not need to be ethically perfect if it enhances the story. You seem unable to interpret anything more than the most superficial layers of "good" or "bad" in a story.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 06:25 PM
-2

Except my circumcised dick is most certainly not fucked up and in need of repair...
/r/MensRights05/02/18 06:17 PM
2

wow...themes Just because a person is a robot on the show, doesn't mean it can't carry strong undertones of female empowerment. Dolores and Maeve are clearly women and clearly the heroes. The Man in Black is clearly a man and clearly a bad guy. Teddy is clearly a man and clearly a loser. Your claim that it's about murderous robots rising up against humans, can easily be interpreted as an allegory for women rising up against men. It's textbook feminist story telling in #currentyear.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 05:59 PM
11

All I see lol It doesn't look like anything to me The fact that you started by saying "clearly you haven't seen it" even though I certainly have, tells me I shouldn't take your opinion very seriously.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 05:46 PM
17

Do you understand there can be different themes between different seasons? Have you seen the trailer I'm talking about? It doesn't sound like you have.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 05:30 PM
1

Dude, nobody is talking about season one except you.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 05:17 PM
1

I have seen season 1. I was referring to the themes shown in the season 2 trailer.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 05:15 PM
1

Let the past die. I just saw the West World trailer, they've gone full feminist.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 03:34 PM
14

For what purpose? Are they supporting men's issues or are they trying to co-opt it into something else?
/r/MensRights03/02/18 08:02 PM
1

Peterson was on Rogen again today to. Good day.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 12:14 AM
6

By that logic, why go after rape at all when there are murderers out there? Why bother filling potholes when there is a starving child somewhere? Why would anyone help you with anything when there is someone with cancer? What you did is a derailment, and it's not cool.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 05:21 PM
6

Your responsibility to do what? Be proactive about potential problems in the future? Societies responsibility to protect against what bad side? The chance of a person being treated unjustly or abused? I just don't see any reasonable argument against teaching people self-defense and going after murderers.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 05:13 PM
21

Lol The exact same argument women make about rape; "Why teach us to defend ourselves? You should be teaching men not to rape." Is self responsibility really so bad?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 03:41 PM
6

When he was talking about girls doing so much better than boys in schools I half expected to hear people cheer.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 01:00 AM
0

They only lead you if they think you're already guilty. I think she was referring to a non biased pursuit of justice, and insinuating the journalists are presuming guilt when their job is to report facts. If you read the accusations against the guy; this is so ridiculous. Basically, one girl gave him a blow job when asked, and the other was in his bedroom and told him to stop kissing her, so he did. The guy was set to be the next Premier of Ontario, and they ruined his career for that.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 03:08 PM
3

He denied the accusations and vowed to fight them, but it was already too late. How do you fight anonymous allegations made by unnamed accusers when no charges have been laid and might never be? Brown’s career, reputation and future were already toast before he finished reading his short statement
/r/MensRights26/01/18 04:16 AM
11

Fucking finally. Why is so impossible to place a standard in relationships that if you don't want something to happen, you have to say no. If you didn't say no, that's on you. Men cannot be expected to read minds.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 07:23 PM
-5

Hahaha.....no
/r/MensRights11/01/18 06:35 PM
-10

Agreed. Are we just a bunch of selfish swearing asshats here? Why would anybody ever help anybody with that attitude?
/r/MensRights11/01/18 03:06 PM
2

What's the source of this data?
/r/MensRights08/01/18 11:28 PM
5

It's the very first argument made in the article you sarcastic douche canoe.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 01:21 AM
2

As far as I know, it's all from her journal, in which she also says he's a good guy....so it seems like Oliver and others pushing their agenda.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 06:50 PM
1

Oh my god you just broke my heart.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 02:08 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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