TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Please_Pass_The_Milk Archive

View 0 posts and 54 comments by Please_Pass_The_Milk 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)
0

Some people are going to see this, take a good long look at themselves, realize they're a hypocrite and try to change. If even one succeeds this will have done more good than any amount of harm it ever could.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/08/20 04:34 PM
0

I'd rather be a faggot than a circlejerk poster.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/15 08:57 PM
2

Justice only works when it's blind, that's why the statue has a blindfold.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 09:42 PM
1

She's going to learn that judges have absolute power in their own courtrooms You don't know what absolute power is. I'm not going to reason with you, because nobody will care and I'll be downvoted either way, but this statement is glaringly incorrect and anyone who's ever taken middle school American Government should know why.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 09:41 PM
2

Does he have the right to punish her for saying "fuck you"? Certainly. Should he set her bail at her annual income? No, under no circumstances is that appropriate. Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand the concept of bail, it's really that simple.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 09:39 PM
-14

It was a wake up call Yes, this is the part that's unprofessional and inappropriate. That idea has no place in the justice system and its supporters (including you and that guy) are at best on the very fringe of value to society. Only in the imaginations of terrible parents does a threat of disproportionate punishment that you never intend to fulfill have any meaning or value. People on my side of the fence are trying to make society work. People on yours are trying to destroy it as revenge for …
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 09:56 AM
-14

Right, I've seen it before. It's old as fuck. I know she's a disrespectful little shit. But by locking her up nobody's solving anything, it's punishment for the sake of punishment. It's vindictive. It hurts society. She's not going to learn anything by going to jail, other than that she doesn't matter to the legal system and therefore the legal system shouldn't matter to her. I cringe when I watch the video. I cringe when I see the gif. Not because a literal child is behaving in a way she's prob…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 09:23 AM
-6

Clearly /u/thehappymeacct forgot about the "inappropriate behavior clause" in the 8th amendment. The judge should be relieved of his duties, he's an embarrassment that undermines the entire legal system and erodes its authority.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 09:07 AM
-21

He assigned someone a bail of their entire annual income. How can you take that seriously? If she's in a group sentencing situation then she's a nonviolent offender, and if he's assigning $10k bail to a nonviolent offender he shouldn't be holding a gavel. E: As good a time as any to remind everyone that downvotes don't mean "I disagree" E: apparently downvotes on /r/pussypassdenied do mean "I disagree". I hsould have known better than to try and be reasonable on a sexism-centric sub.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/15 09:04 AM
0

This is likely true, but made less likely by the fact that Something Awful is a pretty offensive place, and that's where SRS gets accused of coming from most often. But I agree, your reason is better in most ways.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:45 PM
1

I was already banned.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:43 PM
1

Although the survey does include part-time workers and the unemployed, the data sets are publicly available and can be filtered for only full-time workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did so for a news release (Page 1, second bullet point). Are we starting halfway through the post for a reason? Point ceded. Now I take issue with this statement from the article: Employees who work more likely earn more. In my workplace (admittedly extremely specialized) the non-management employees who pull do…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:41 PM
0

Your example isn't a joke. Your example is someone okaying people being discriminatory by saying "well, I'm a member of some pretty frequently disparaged groups, and I don't see a problem with disparaging people based on the groups they're in" which holds no water. If you have a black friend who encourages you to call him 'nigger' and then you call some other black guy 'nigger', your excuse about having permission from some other, unrelated black guy will have no weight or bearing, and will not …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:52 PM
0

The point you should take is what I say is true in some cases. How? They keep to themselves. They don't post SRS-related content outside SRS. How is it true that people hate them? Show me. Cite anything. You can ignore that if you like but it's been pointed out before. Just because a person said a thing at some point doesn't make them right. Just because I don't feel like doing it right now doesn't mean I can't find it. No, it means that proving it is neither simple nor important to you. Or you'…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:47 PM
0

If it's so difficult to argue that they don't, it must be easy to argue that they do. And yet here we are, waiting for you to cite anything at all. Either you're a shitty debater or an outright liar at this point.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:41 PM
5

Its apparent you have no idea what institutional oppression is compared to what cultural inconveniences are. Hey nice underhanded attack. Cool bro. Keep doing that, it wins you friends and proves you points. Institutional oppression: Force. The state decides what happens to you. If you fight back, the state will win. Okay, so of the two you posted, glass ceilings and job prospects fall under this one. So sorry. Cultural inconvenience: Expectations. You still have the free will to go counter them…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:39 PM
5

I did not join reddit for the community If you joined for the content (which is posted by the community) then you joined for the community. I did not enjoy posting a comment to a thread, in which SRS took note of (not my comment, but apparently the entire reply history to whatever I posted) and clicking a link to me being made fun of, belittled and insulted. Important thing bolded. You clicked a link. You walked into the SRS cage where they are free to do things by their rules per the way Reddit…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:17 PM
1

It does mean that your opinion is uninformed. I apologize for not knowing much about this single situation you only just brought up. How do you know so much about it? Because that is how contracts work. I've been sponsored in similar competitions before, and they always tell you that 100% of your pay and the contract is forfeit if you do dumb shit in their shirt. I have known people to, believing that the rules didn't apply to them, do dumb shit in their shirt. The rules applied to them. This is…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:09 PM
1

Oh no! You caught me! I didn't fully read a thread. Does this make it more legitimate somehow? No. Let me lay this out for you in big bold letters, so you can understand it and reply to it and not attempt to edge around it with semantics. Again. Here we go: If you have an account and that account is directly sponsored by organizations then it is a shitty. fucking. idea. to go about admitting to illegal activity while on or associated in any way with said account. It's like showing up to a Klan r…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:00 PM
5

rape is brought up as a female oppression issue, when in fact it is a reasonably balanced system when you consider victims and rapists. Really? You have numbers on that? Because sociologists would die happy if you could provide them. Literally, you could make the career of a sociologist or six if you had those numbers. Rape is dramatically under-reported, rape against males doubly so. There are no accurate numbers. You cannot possibly know this. When you consider innocent accused rapists How are…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:55 PM
1

Mark Zuckerburg can be my second, he's kind of mean. My dealer's name is Puffing Eagle, he's native american. We'll be dealing in Mary Jane, and doing so at the Seminole Indian Casino in Hollywood, FL. Sounds good?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:37 PM
6

I'm sure that's one aspect, but it's a bit cynical, in my opinion. SRS is attacked viciously and constantly, which is hilarious because they almost exclusively keep to themselves. If they can do something to abate the flow, no matter how minor, they will. Given that, why use it? They don't. Or am I confusing your intentions with this post? There's no reason to use neckbeard here. They (We! I'm a goon! but not an SRS goon.) use it on Something Awful, but that's because we're all neckbeards for th…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:32 PM
3

What would you like context for? I can provide it, likely within minutes.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:29 PM
1

I see. I'm not very good at drug dealing. Can I nominate someone to deal in my stead? I have a liege of sorts who handles all my dealing, you see.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:08 PM
3

If you think having a group of people shame people (who it could be argued, half the time aren't even doing anything wrong) is 'expanding the community' then I think what you said was silly. I don't. I think they're shaming the uglier parts of the community out of existence, or at least into the minority. This, in turn, makes the community more attractive, which grows the community. Your statement is like saying that tilling soil makes food. It doesn't. It does however allow other forces to make…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:00 PM
7

Stating that women are more oppressed than men is actually completely absurd. This is gonna be good. Its illegal to rape or beat women. It's illegal to rape or beat men. The state and other males will come to women's beck and call if she accuses anyone of it, and far more serious (or arguably at least equal) harm will be inflicted on the male she accuses. Generally when someone is accused of a crime people assist the accuser. Also generally the punishment for a crime far outweighs the damage don…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 07:56 PM
3

You obviously browse there enough, I do not. I don't find their particular humor style funny. I do, however, find Reddit's posting and upvoting habits reprehensible and worthy of being singled out. I'll dig up some links later but I feel it's like quoting common knowledge in a research paper, doesn't need to be cited. So you don't have any proof and you can't find any quickly. Point taken. Oh, and those reasons I mentioned? How about childish, insulting, intolerant, ignorant, and self-absorbed, …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 07:46 PM
7

It is directly equivalent. No, it is not. This is not a matter of opinion. Wal-Mart baggers do not appear on televison is association with a company. They are not strongly tied to a brand identity. E-Sports sponsors tie their brand identity directly to the players. In fact, most have clauses in their contracts about shitty behavior and how they have no truck with it. You can literally lose you E-Sports contract for being a shitty person on the internet. Being a shitty person on the internet is, …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 07:44 PM
4

their reaction to what they see as abuse of free speech is to abuse that freedom themselves Their reaction to people abusing others based on race or gender or weight or attractiveness is to make fun of it. You're really reaching here. also i should point out how it negates any potential they have for being taken seriously. Your argument doesn't make any sense. They're not aiming to be taken seriously. They're aiming to point out what shitty posters there are in Reddit, and what shitty people the…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 07:39 PM
7

Slightly different than getting him fired. They are pointing out to people who sponsor a thing he is a member of (IE people whose company names appear on his clothing on film) that he's openly a pedophile on the internet. This isn't calling up Wal-Mart and telling them one of their bag boys likes to diddle kids. This is telling companies that are investing in his online persona that there is evidence online that his online persona (the exact one they are investing into, literally pictures of his…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 07:26 PM
8

Sometimes they take jokes out of context. Some of the things I saw there were legit cases of x-ism but they are way over the top. So no links? No evidence? There are other options, you know. Let me rephrase that. I cannot think of a legitimate reason to oppose SRS other than being harassed by them or imagining you might be, which means you've got some shitty opinions you'd like to air. I can understand some users, however, who are opposed to SRS because it's The Thing To Do as of late and Reddit…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 07:18 PM
14

Even /r/pyongyang?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:47 PM
2

I understand that you want a debate, but debates need two opposing viewpoints. There are two topics here, and let me summarize how the debates would go: DEBATE THE FIRST SRS: I think it's pretty lol that Violentacrez got doxxed MR: It was inappropriate of him to get doxxed SRS: Inappropriate perhaps but it's foolish to imagine that any internet identity you keep for any significant length of time will nto eventually be linked back to your identity. MR: But it's wrong SRS: But it's funny. And he …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:45 PM
2

I don't watch SRS often because I'm not really into forums drama circlejerks, so you'll have to excuse me here. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Links, perhaps?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:22 PM
7

Do you care to elaborate or are you just mad that I think SRS does a good thing?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:21 PM
4

hypocritical to complain about the 'misogyny etc' but ban anyone wanting to discuss such issues in a serious way. it is hypocritical to criticise the speech of others whilst at the same time curtailing their right to reply. SRS is proof they are being listened to, but they aren't willing to engage with criticism of SRS. Hypocrisy isn't talking bad about someone and not letting them reply. It's saying one thing and doing another. There are SRS discussion subreddits for discussing SRS things. The …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:16 PM
2

SRS aren't my 'masters'. I'm a member of Something Awful, but I've been a goon since long before Reddit existed, and I've never once posted in any reddit thread, or even the PYF Internet Thing To Hate thread. I'm a reasonable person who's a member of a rather large number of sites who is asking you, in a very reasonable and even-handed manner, why it is you're upset about the comment defending SRS. So again, what about the comment upsets you?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:07 PM
4

So you're unwilling to support your positions and instead respond with unproductive comments about me being a troll? Why? Why won't you just have a reasonable discussion with me?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:54 PM
4

Hey I'm just not being a shitty person. Thanks for thanking me though, buddy.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:53 PM
13

It's 'good' in that it's healthy for Reddit as a social construct. Sexism, racism, weight discrimination, etc. all make a group exclusionary. 4chan, for example, is exclusionary. Reddit tries not to be, or at least tries to be less so. Especially considering that what keeps the community afloat is ad revenue. SRS shaming people who post shitty things is helping Reddit to be less exclusionary, which in turn makes fewer new users turn away, which makes Reddit more money and expands the community. …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:51 PM
3

I... Neither of those positions is held by ShitRedditSays. SRS thinks Violentacrez is a shitty person and that it's funny and perhaps just that he got doxxed, and simultaneously thinks that subreddits blocking Gawker are being asses for no reason and shouldn't let subreddit drama run their moderation. Additionally, neither of your listed viewpoints conflicts with the other. I think you need a better understanding of what's going on here.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:48 PM
2

Trolls are the people who don't respond rationally to arguments. I asked three questions of you: Why do you dislike the comment defending SRS? Is the comment defending SRS unreasonable somehow? Why should you be able to censor them when you aren't censored? These are simple questions. I trust you will answer them now that I've pulled them out into the open and not just zero-content reply baselessly accusing me of trolling again.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:45 PM
15

I'm arguing that it doesn't matter who imagines them to be useful, trying to remove them from the site is foolish either way.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:42 PM
7

It's funny because SRS' scapegoat is Redditors who use fat people, women, other races, and homosexuals as their scapegoats. Which I feel is altogether better.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:39 PM
10

all SRS does is get shit THEY don't like banned Yeah, shit that shouldn't be banned! Shit like sexism! And racism! And homophobia! And all of a sudden it's pretty goddamn clear that I don't agree with you at all. Seriously, your post could be applied to the Allies going after the Nazis. SRS generally goes after shitty people, and if you oppose them you're either unclear on what they do (protip: read /r/shitredditsays sometime) or a shitty person.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:28 PM
52

a vast majority of reddit lives in the "western world" where women are just as well off as men. A remarkable number of people disagree with you here, you cannot state this as fact and claim this to be a discussion.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:24 PM
8

nope, they're simply being hypocrites How? Their subreddit is their subreddit to do with as they wish. They are in place and poised to laugh at the rest of reddit for having shitty attitudes and opinions. You aren't there to do that? They ban you. Makes sense, really. It's not a debate subreddit. finally, they are not doing this. You're right. They're laughing at shitty posts. Which, by the way, is not circlejerking over their own superiority. no matter how many times you say it.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:23 PM
20

r/SRS serves no useful function Do subreddits have to serve a useful function? If so, who is to decide what those words mean? Certainly not Reddit user JustGotFuckingOwned alone.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:20 PM
2

Not using neckbeard as an insult removes a vector through which they can be attacked. Since they're already pretty hated by mensrights, everything helps.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:09 PM
26

It's not 'The Hivemind', it's largely /r/mensrights posters from what I've seen. They're just very... loud about it.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:07 PM
7

Are you honestly surprised that you're banned from the subreddit you're trying to get removed?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:05 PM
7

The "best of" comment in this thread defending SRS was almost certainly written by one of them. Why? Because it's reasonable? This is SRS in motion, folks. Get these scumbags off this site. Why should you have a soapbox and them not?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:04 PM
3

Proving what point? That nobody wants to sign your petition? That you can't get enough signatures (which won't do anything anyway) even with them pouring more on?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:02 PM
3

What two perspectives? The two I see are "Violentacrez shouldn't have been doxxed" and "lol Violentacrez got doxxed" which are not conflicting. Indeed, it's possible to feel both ways at the same time. What debate are you looking to elicit? SRS isn't claiming responsibility for doxxing Violentacrez, despite what some seem to wish was true.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:58 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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