TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RANDOM_ASIAN_GIRL Archive

View 2 posts and 78 comments by RANDOM_ASIAN_GIRL 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)
11

DebateRANDOM_ASIAN_GIRL/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 04:19 PM
9

CMVRANDOM_ASIAN_GIRL/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 12:29 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Please elaborate
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 02:54 PM
4

Children and adults are different. Men and women are different.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:24 PM
2

Who would make a stupid name like that? On a serious note, I got tired of being mistaken for a white male, which is still the main demographic here. The amount of attention I get is almost nonexistent, but 1 guy asked me to show him my tits by PM, so... yay?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 03:44 PM
1

1) Men are more likely to be geniuses, think Mozart, Einstein, Hawking. They are the vast majority of Nobel Prize laureates. Men are smarter on average, too. 2) Who protects us from bad men? Good men. 3) Women are more likely to throw their children in the dumpster. 4) Women are at the helm of gossiping and intrigue. 5) Men are also more likely to build, invent and entertain. 6) Women are more likely to depend on someone else throughout their whole lives. 7) Women, by far, are more likely to be …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/16 03:20 PM
26

1) Men are more likely to be geniuses, think Mozart, Einstein, Hawking. They are the vast majority of Nobel Prize laureates. Men are smarter on average, too. 2) Who protects us from bad men? Good men. 3) Women are more likely to throw their children in the dumpster. 4) Women are at the helm of gossiping and intrigue. 5) Men are also more likely to build, invent and entertain. 6) Women are more likely to depend on someone else throughout their whole lives. 7) Women, by far, are more likely to be …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/16 03:20 PM
160

We can't punish all Muslims/North African immigrants because of a few bad apples. But we can punish all men if we include whites. /s
/r/MensRights09/01/16 07:20 PM
1

Thanks! Interestingly, it doesn't matter for cohabitating partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/15 11:48 PM
1

Partners tend to be happiest when they have comparable counts. I'm not accusing you of making this up, but do you have a source for that?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/15 07:51 AM
1

Ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 04:25 PM
1

No problem with that kind of definition. The thing is, that people usually mean different things when they say "spiritual", including woo-woo such as horoscopes, dreamcatchers, and all of Deepak Chopra's bullshit. My I suggest using the term "meditation" instead?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 04:08 PM
1

What do you mean when you say "spirituality" or "spiritual"?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 03:22 PM
1

It's still bs though
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 02:52 PM
3

Why not both?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/15 01:43 PM
0

I'll only act if I think it's immoral and the govt agrees. Yeah, if we could define "act" here, that would have helped our discussion greatly from the start. I'm not saying we should jail the guy (in absence of appropriate laws), but I would speak out against his shitty behavior and against people trying to sidestep the fact that it is shitty behavior (in most people's opinion). As you said, we can decide to judge other people's characters for ourselves and decide not to associate with them. All…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 05:59 PM
-1

I can get behind your last comment. Thanks for the discussion. Also excuse me that I didn't restate your exact position, I was discussing with a dozen people ITT. I guess that our differences are simply that I am proactive while you are reactive. I care about morality, lawmaking, policy and I would like to influence it by discussion. You take a pragmatic "it is what it is"-stance. Fine. If you believe "it is so clearly immoral, everyone thinks so" then fine. Prove that to me by getting a law pas…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 05:38 PM
0

I object to "shaming". Shaming is ineffective and useless. However, I also strongly object to praising that guy and congratulating him for what he did (as many TRPers do ITT, I don't remember if you were one of them). And I also object to your hogwash-stance of "well, the jury is still out, just like with the 2% corporate sponsored climate change deniers. Might as well sidestep the issue with a non-sequitur". One final time, the situation is so simple: You encounter immoral behavior. Someone poi…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 04:55 PM
0

I've only expressed my interpretation of your stances Yeah, you straw-manned them. To convince a closed mind is not but wasted time. Agreed. So long, Mr. "deception is fine as it's not me being deceived".
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 04:00 PM
0

Ok, I think we are stuck. The way you phrase it, it seems like before we had gay marriage legalized, you would argue that it was not moral. Because we didn't have that law yet. To apply reductio ad absurdum: Consider prehistoric times, before we had any laws. A guy is walking around cracking people's head open at night. Now by your logic, this is not a moral issue, you don't care about it as long as it doesn't happen to you or people you care about. After all, it might be in the guy's best inter…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 03:54 PM
1

Cool. Let's support those who think that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 03:26 PM
0

Please don't fall into the trap of strawmanning my position. I deliberately did not use the term utilitarianism and never claimed that there is a "universal moral system". What you're bringing up is a PRATT, a point refuted a thousand times. The doctor in the ER who could save two lives by killing an innocent person is not acting for the common good because we as a society don't want to live in a world where anyone could be killed indiscriminately at any time. And before you jump into hairsplitt…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 03:25 PM
0

Please don't strawman my positions. Never have I claimed a "set of universally aligned moral systems" or anything similar. It is rather simple really: Morality concerns itself with the well-being of conscient beings. An action that is conducive to human flourishing would be seen as moral, whereas an action that is detrimental to human flourishing would be seen as immoral. The specifics are not always easy to figure out, but there are right and wrong answers regarding the morality of a behavior j…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 01:55 PM
0

You are muddying the waters again by creating these artificial examples where an otherwise immoral action would actually be a moral one. This again is disingenuous. We do have a clear cut example. Person performs immoral action. Second person criticizes said immoral action. Third person spouts the non-sequitur of their choice. Regarding morality, I just posted the following somewhere else ITT. It is rather simple really: Morality concerns itself with the well-being of conscient beings. An action…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 01:53 PM
0

Sure, I am glad you asked! It is rather simple really: Morality concerns itself with the well-being of conscient beings. An action that is conducive to human flourishing would be seen as moral, whereas an action that is detrimental to human flourishing would be seen as immoral. The specifics are not always easy to figure out, but there are right and wrong answers regarding the morality of a behavior just like there are right and wrong answers regarding health. In addition, every single TRPer ITT…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 01:46 PM
1

RP usually advises guys to be upfront with women about the other women they are seeing. RP does not condone lying to people. Some of RP does advocate being honest, some of it blatantly celebrates that man and brushes off any criticism with the non-sequitur in the title.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 01:39 PM
0

Most honest answer ITT from a RP perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 01:22 PM
0

Got it. So you don't care about the suffering of others. And you would rather obfuscate than acknowledge the issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 01:21 PM
0

Again, I believe we are mostly in agreement and it's just about how we frame things. We both believe the aforementioned behavior was immoral. We both believe that there are more severe instances of immoral behavior. We both judge the perpetrator internally for our own future understanding of their character. Given certain circumstances, we both wouldn't go out of our way to criticize the guy. However, it seems to be that we differ when it comes to belittling his actions. If someone would point o…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 06:59 AM
0

You almost get it, too. I am perfectly aware that there are people that have no problem with his actions. However, throughout this thread, whenever cornered, every single one of you admitted that these actions are immoral. You just don't care. I do care.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 09:33 PM
0

Full agreement. That is the core of my argument. Yes, the sexual strategy (gun) is amoral, but the way the person uses it might not be. And if someone retorts to criticism with "a gun/sexual strategy is amoral" they are foolish to do so. No one needs to police every moral issue. But if you're going to comment, it better not be the above.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 09:24 PM
1

You know what? I actually stand 100% behind you with this comment. Well, almost 100%, I don't agree that it is good for someone to mimic him. I do, however, agree that sharing the story might benefit people. We can look at it as "this happened, what can we learn from it?" or, as you say analyze sex, dating, and relationships. Sexual strategy is amoral. Yes. The application of sexual strategy is not, however. Johns actions were immoral. Why is TRP hamstering away when someone points that out?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 09:15 PM
0

So what you are saying is that you encourage others to engage in activities that you deem immoral. Gotcha.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 09:03 PM
-1

Calm down, you sound like an angry-phaser. It seems like you don't care about what's true or moral. I do, end of discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 08:58 PM
1

Great, I think we have a lot of common ground here. Your second paragraph is especially relevant. I just noticed that TRP is tapdancing around this issue a lot, because it seemingly fears the implications. Like certain individuals deny global warming despite the evidence because it would interfere with their revenue stream.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 08:54 PM
0

I agree with that. And I object to sidestepping the issue by bringing up empty phrases like "guns are amoral" when we are discussing how horrible the latest killing spree was.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 08:40 PM
0

Don't need to, achieved a natty hard body without them
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 08:27 PM
1

How could someone strip me of being a strong, chiseled manbeast? That's your biggest accomplishment and you even have to cheat and risk ball cancer for it?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 08:22 PM
1

Again, I don't buy it. Raising a child under the mere assumption (reached by lying through omission on part of the cheating wife) that it is yours is different to raising your own child is different to raising a child that you know is not yours. Being in a committed relationship is different to being in an open relationship where 9 other women are in the picture is different to be lied about being in a committed relationship, when there are already 9 other women in the picture. My hamster senses…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 08:02 PM
1

Stripped of his accomplishments, one balled, and with a complete lack of credibility?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 07:46 PM
2

His counter-argument to that would be that these things are illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 07:31 PM
1

You can take as many sidesteps as you like and we can talk about how Google is forced by US law to comply and whatnot. You're also free not to care about morality, and we are free to judge you for it. Just hope that you don't end up like Lance Armstrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 07:30 PM
1

I don't buy it. You can have these kinds of arrangements without being disingenuous about it. It's like saying "well he was happy raising the child before he found out that it's not biologically his".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 07:22 PM
1

If you want to fuck tons of women some if them are going to have to be the women of other men. False. You could live in commune, you could solicit prostitutes, you could even go the Hugh Hefner route. You can fuck tons of women while still retaining moral standards. If you want to live a very high standard of living you have to get there on the backs of other men. False. You can, but you don't have to. You can be a shady guy accepting bribes, or you can found a company like Google and create act…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 07:11 PM
0

We are all being judged, whether we like it or not. I, for one, and maybe other who read it, would judge you to be disingenuous based on your latest statement. If I believe you to be disingenuous about this issue, I have reason to believe that you might be disingenuous about other issues. For this reason, how you view others morals is actually relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 06:58 PM
1

I agree. However, I would also posit that the phrase is actually used to avoid taking a stance on the morality of the application of certain, sexual strategies. Let me ask you directly: Do you believe it is moral to pretend to be in a committed relationship while you are actually dating 9 other women? The answer should be yes or no, not "sexual strategy is amoral" or "I like turtles".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 06:51 PM
2

Personally I'd say I count that as immoral and would have been honest as a result. Great! However, in this instance I'd support his right to make a different decision and wouldn't speak out or act against it. His morality is on him. I don't get it. Again, we are still in the same situation, a guy pretends to be exclusive but is actually dating 10 women. Someone says "that's an immoral thing to do" and you wouldn't back that person up, even though you, yourself, "count that as immoral"?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 06:11 PM
1

TRP can have their own rules, sure. That's why I posted the discussion here. Again, my gripe is that the phrase is used to shut down any warranted criticism of immoral behavior. The example with the spree killer is poignant: Person kills a dozen of innocents. Someone remarks: "That was a shitty thing to do." Reply: "Guns are amoral". This should have you go "WTF, that's beside the point."
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 05:56 PM
-1

Wow, thank you. That's my whole post condensed.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 05:45 PM
1

Alright, seems fair to me. Just for clarification: You do consider the situation as described in the OP as perfectly moral behavior? That is, pretending to be exclusive while you are actually not?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 05:42 PM
0

Again, I believe we are largely in agreement and are simply hung up in semantics. "Sexual strategy is amoral" is a true statement. The application of sexual strategy can, however, have moral implications. Same with businesses, guns, etc. You say it yourself, "people, and only people, are responsible for their actions [...], they are the moral/immoral ones". I fully agree. Now if you encounter an immoral action, which someone calls out ("hey, that was an immoral action!"), would you take a step b…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 05:32 PM
1

Thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 05:07 PM
0

your problem is with the man exercising the strategy, not with TRP. Here we agree. since the dude isn't dating you, there's really no problem, is there? Here we don't. If a person kills another in cold blood, it is a problem, even if I don't know the killer or victim. I am more invested if the victim is someone I know, but I would still condemn the killer for targeting a random person on the other side of the globe and call for his prosecution.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 05:00 PM
1

I believe we are in agreement. Do you support my point that the phrase "sexual strategy is amoral" is missing the point at best and a diversion tactic at worst?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 04:56 PM
1

We can agree illegal acts have been designated as immoral. So we don't recommend those in our amoral advice. Everything else we offer amorally. Then you are free to pick and choose according to your own morals Arguably, there are illegal acts that are moral and immoral acts that are legal. Again, if we take morality as "conductive to the well-being of conscient beings", many laws in North Korea can be deemed immoral. Also, while we don't pass laws against lying (other than perjury), it can be re…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 04:54 PM
322

Why hasn't this been posted yet? There's your answer.
/r/seduction17/03/15 02:41 PM
0

Thank you for your elaboration. I would argue that neither the text from OP's book nor your study are subject to confirmation bias. Indeed I went thoroughly through the whole thing and it naturally does a better job at highlighting the differences than the male-centric description from the OP. Yet again, the observations about male/female characteristics are confirmed; in an unbiased way. Also, presuming a "systematic bias" and comparing those statements to "pigs can fly" is akin to feminists sc…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 05:44 PM
0

The plural of anecdotes is not statistics.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:09 PM
0

It's not biased though. Read my wall of text ITT.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:28 PM
-1

Cool, I didn't expect an actual discussion here. And I agree with you: A 7-line blurb can't convey the same information as a 40-page presentation. However, let's look at the statements and we will see that they say essentially the same thing: “Greater dependence of males for their fertility on frequency of insemination [is] an almost universal attribute of sexual reproduction” leading to the evolution of “an undiscriminatory eagerness in the male and a discriminatory passivity in the female” mal…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:11 PM
-4

If you're implying that this is wrong, then show us the data.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:02 AM
32

Circumcision clearly is mutilation. Hitchens hits the nail on the head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTS6iVpSPI
/r/MensRights03/10/13 12:31 PM
11

Good points, horrible font size and color
/r/MensRights29/09/13 05:43 PM
3

They are definitely different and both legit. Having a preference for big booty and a darker complexion doesn't make you a racist if you only date black girls. And a bisexual girl means only one thing to most guys: a potential threesome.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 03:24 PM
15

imply the wearer views women as little beyond objects of sexual desire How so? The shirts state appreciation for the female body. Anything further is speculation.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:36 AM
9

I believe this won't do any good. Protecting potential victims starts with prevention. Guess what preventing danger means to a feminist. That's right, vilifying potential murderers and rapists. Guess who, statistically speaking, are those potential murderers and rapists? I'm not saying it's fair to slander a gender as a whole because of skewed statistics, but think about what message you want to send with an infographic like this. The message seems obvious to me: Men have it bad in certain aspec…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:28 AM
96

Combat deaths and homicide victims won't sway any feminist - as these are mostly acted out by men as well.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 05:19 AM
40

A man who enjoys sex and the female body = gross, objectifying and misogynistic A lesbian who enjoys sex and the female body = hot, brave and assertive What else is new?
/r/MensRights26/09/13 04:56 AM
1

You can bless me with your imaginary friend and celebrate any birthday you want; and I can call you out because of it. How would Christians feel if you walk up to them on Karl Marx' birthday and I wished them a merry Marxday? Pretty weird, right? I know you mean well, that's why I'm explaining why you're not doing any good by "blessing" me with an entity that doesn't exist or force your awe of a carpenter's son on me. Keep it to yourself.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 09:11 PM
1

Again, it is okay to expose ideas for what they really are. Think South Park's "This is what scientology actually believes". Yes, it does sound incredible ludicrous to the rest of us.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 07:16 PM
1

It is okay to criticize ideas. It is not okays criticize people for the way they are born.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 06:59 PM
1

Even better, you are insulted on someone else's behalf because I am calling a spade a spade. That's like MRAs getting upset at other MRAs because they are pinpointing feminist hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 02:55 AM
1

I tolerate people who throw acid at someones face because one day they will serve my needs I'm a fascist and I wouldst sooner hang retards then tolerate them Okay, we're done here.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 02:11 AM
1

It's exactly how he is described in the bible. If you are insulted by that, you are offended by your own holy book.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 01:52 AM
1

i'm a secular humanist, you can end your posts however you want Sure you can. And I can announce that I am withholding my upvote. And who was it that was pestering others with their religious beliefs that added nothing to the conversation? Just like every other MRA should I'm not just going to just sit there when others spout bullshit.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 01:33 AM
1

Way to go overboard with your generalizations. I respect cultures as long as they don't breed ignorance and I have no sympathy for beliefs that are rooted in insufficient evidence. Do you respect cultures that throw battery acid in young girls' faces if they don't dress in bags? Do you tolerate climate change- and holocaust-deniers?
/r/MensRights21/09/13 01:13 AM
0

so a different set of beliefs invalidates everything a person said? Who said that? Don't pester us with your religious beliefs when they contribute nothing to the discussion. How would you like it if atheists ended all their posts, letters and speeches with "by the way, there is no god"?
/r/MensRights20/09/13 07:43 PM
1

Gaming?
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:42 PM
-2

Almost gave you an upvote, but then you brought up your invisible skydaddy
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:37 PM
1

I agree with the part about sexual harassment, but why should we "protect" someone from getting offended? It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them any certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what? -Stephen Fry
/r/MensRights06/09/13 04:12 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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