TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RudyH246 Archive

View 0 posts and 90 comments by RudyH246 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)
1

That's very nice, dear.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 11:55 AM
–

That's very nice, dear.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 11:48 AM
–

That's nice, dear.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 11:31 AM
–

That's nice, dear.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 11:20 AM
1

Potentially a nonzero amount, versus the actual zero amount from a throwaway. That was my point.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 10:43 AM
–

I'm a nobody with no money, but I wouldn't post shit like that on a public-facing social media account attached to my real name like he does.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 08:43 AM
2

I'm not sure how much I believe a statement prefaced with "Without doing research."
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:43 AM
–

What talking points has he been repeating? Specifically?
/r/MensRights06/02/16 07:23 PM
–

Wanna talk about it, sport?
/r/MensRights31/01/16 03:59 AM
–

There is ZERO chance that man will not follow there genetic programming to protect women. I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate to say. I feel fairly certain that some men, in the moment where shit is hitting the fan, will not give a shit about others and haul ass.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 06:57 PM
–

He could kill her to prevent her entry in most states and be guilty of nothing illegal. Since when do you have to be actually guilty of a crime in order to be found guilty of it?
/r/MensRights20/12/15 08:02 PM
1

That's one hell of a sweeping generalization. Everyone handles adversity differently. I genuinely believe there are people who would rather be raped than be falsely accused of rape and never cleared on charges. Both are awful. Both can severely mess with a victim's head. Neither is simply "worse" than the other in all cases and circumstances. It's just not that simple.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/11/15 04:15 AM
2

I sometimes imagine rescinding my American citizenship and moving abroad because of things like this.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 09:46 AM
–

Look up the difference between "annotation" and "connotation".
/r/MensRights17/08/15 01:40 AM
–

Having a skewed opinion on gender politics doesn't make one "beta". There are plenty of "feminist" men who would make you pee your pants in fear.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 12:42 AM
–

So, what makes you think he was using the 2015 annotated definition instead of the actual definition?
/r/MensRights17/08/15 12:40 AM
–

Can you cite a source for that claim?
/r/MensRights17/08/15 12:39 AM
7

Can you cite a source for that claim?
/r/MensRights17/08/15 12:39 AM
0

and quite obviously make a large portion of it up How do you determine "large portions" are "made up"? What evidence, exactly, do you have that proves this? You say it's "obvious", then there ought to be strong evidence. Where is it? It's not one good story its 5-10 good stories per day in suspiciously the 5-10 most popular askreddit threads of that day. Oh gosh. 5-10 whole popular stories amongst millions of users. The odds are so slim! I think we can agree that the askreddit topics are varied …
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:37 AM
0

you can tell because the same 5 people reply to nearly every single thread that reaches the front page. And? The 5 individuals may show up in multiple threads because, oh I dunno, there's a thread specifically targeted toward people like them and asking them to answer questions! Either they are "the most interesting man in the world" or they make it up Having one good story about your job as a male stripper makes you "the most interesting man in the world"? Yeesh. You must be the archetype of th…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:17 AM
1

The idea you're proposing is to take stories from the internet with a healthy dose of skepticism, yes? That's fine. But most people consider "a healthy dose of skepticism" to be "100% of all stories on the internet are provably, empirically false and nobody can ever convince me otherwise. /r/thathappened. /r/quityourbullshit. I'm so skeptical!" And that's just as dumb as believing every story you read. I see it on reddit all the time. Someone can post the most mundane, uninteresting story about …
/r/MensRights10/08/15 03:42 AM
2

That adage doesn't really apply to stories, though. It applies to situations that look completely beneficial without having any drawbacks. It's not applicable here.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 02:36 AM
–

So, what exactly is your rationale for thinking so much of it is bullshit? Or are you just going along with the "It's on the Internet, therefore it MUST be a lie!" circle-jerk?
/r/MensRights09/08/15 08:36 PM
–

I don't know if I'd agree that "[men] need more support and protection than women" just because more men are homeless than women. It'd be like saying "women need more support and protection than men because more women get raped." It turns it into a gender slapfest instead of just saying, "We have a problem that affects both genders. We should do something to combat the problem." Help both genders equally; whoever needs help should get it.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 10:07 PM
–

Thanks for the sources!
/r/MensRights20/07/15 02:08 AM
–

women, who are the primary abusers of children. Not saying you're wrong, but can you cite a source for this claim? I've never heard such a statistic.
/r/MensRights19/07/15 10:08 PM
1

K.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 08:45 PM
1

You didn't cite a source. You named a research company. You don't know how the burden of proof works. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 05:59 PM
–

You can't support your claims with actual sources, gotcha.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 04:22 AM
–

Your logic is poor. Your sources are worse. Saying someone is attractive is literally a compliment. Women don't really compliment attractive men How can you say they don't compliment attractive men, if calling them attractive is "literally a compliment"? Elaborate, please. Or don't; I'm feeling fairly certain at this point that you're a troll, anywho.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 03:42 AM
–

Cite your sources please =). I'd love to read up on the statistics. You're also equating "compliments" with "paying attention to". I don't compliment women who I find attractive, typically; I pay attention to them plenty, though.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 03:16 AM
–

OKCupid data proves it Welp, glad that question is behind us. We can stop spending any money on R&D regarding attractiveness and relationships, because OKCupid's stats already show the hard facts. 100% infallible. 100% correct. 0% margin of error. 100% applicable to all 7 billion people across the globe. Thanks for opening our eyes. I used to think attractive men got attention from females, but now I know better.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 03:03 AM
–

Fat girls are viewed as funny, likable characters, while fat guys are usually slobs or jerks. Really? When I think of "fat guys on TV", pretty much only funny/happy/likable characters come to mind. Drew Carey, Chris Farley, Jack Black, John Goodman etc.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 02:59 AM
–

If you fly the southern confederate flag in front of your house, that's your right. But you also have the right to be ridiculed and pointed out by the rest of us normal good people Swap "southern confederate flag" with "LGBT flag" in your sentence and see who you suddenly sound like.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 06:44 AM
2

Flags represent different things to different people. Ask every single person who flies a Confederate flag over their home what their flag stands for. You're going to get a lot more answers than, "segregation and slavery". Ask every single person who flies the LGBT rainbow flag over their home what their flag stands for and you're going to get a lot more answers than, "gay pride".
/r/MensRights29/06/15 06:39 AM
3

He came in and shoved me against the wall. didn't even listen to my side of it. Wow, given that the second cop came in and set him straight I can't imagine I wouldn't have done everything in my power to make sure that cop got his legal comeuppance for being such a biased, ineffective, and overly aggressive officer. I would've filed a complaint so fast it would've made their heads spin. Cops don't get to shove you against the wall for no reason.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 02:39 AM
–

They have outright said they will not pursue her, and I have to file any relevant paperwork with the court for enforcement. This might be a dumb question, but did you file the relevant paperwork? I sure would. I'd be taking any recourse I had to get the fairest outcome.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 07:34 PM
1

Did it ever occur to you that the company just doesn't want to be associated with someone that freaking stupid? Yes, it did. And I still consider it odd to fire someone who you consider stupid even if they are clearly good at their job and bring a lot to the company professionally.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:29 PM
1

If he'd said "Rape babies right up the ass" I still wouldn't automatically not want him driving a school bus. Because, again, saying that on television is not indicative of how well he can drive a school bus and interact with kids in a professional setting. It means he's not a good person to interview on live television.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:28 PM
1

a ridiculously disrespectful, stupid, and shitty move I never defended his actions. I only argued that his actions weren't worthy of firing him immediately without a second consideration. I would fire that guy in a heartbeat Even if he were your best employee? That's a weird way to run a business that needs skilled labor. Bad press. A company should weigh the cost of the bad press versus what the employee brings to their company by being an employee before firing them; otherwise they're just ass…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 04:03 AM
9

I stopped reading your comment after that doesn't mean that everyone can just go around acting like total idiots and not have anything happen about it. Nobody has argued that anyone should get to go around and do whatever they want whenever they want with zero repercussions or consequences. Nobody has argued that at all.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 12:58 AM
21

Yes. You do get fired for things said outside your work environment provided they are publicized and the job you represent could be adversely affected. I never said it doesn't happen; I merely pointed out how I dislike this policy and believe that it is not conducive to employee morale. Nobody wants to feel like they're the face of their company 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Real people have emotions, feelings, opinions, and desires to do whatever they want without fear of horr…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 12:15 AM
–

Your entire rant is just silly and overblowing the issue. He acted like a jackass so he gets what a jackass deserves and it's nothing. How absurd. He said something that many consider to be inappropriate on television. That doesn't make him unworthy of having a job. It means he isn't the best person to interview on television. It also means he isn't a suit-wearing professional 100% of the time, even outside of work. Which, in the real world, with real people, is perfectly normal. Nobody wants to…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 12:12 AM
–

I don't really get this mentality. You'd fire an employee for a judgement call they made completely independent of the work environment? Doesn't make much sense to me. Is it worth his employer taking into account? Sure. But firing someone for not acting like a drone in their spare time just reeks of 1984 mentality to me. Yes, it's good to be responsible and be mindful of who may hear everything you say. But at a certain point it's just fear mongering employees into never being themselves outside…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:45 PM
1

I'm... not sure what part of that definition says it only counts as discrimination if it's in the field of politics or economics.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:14 PM
7

I love this article. Pretty much sums up the entire flawed mentality behind the change.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 05:26 AM
4

it is literally changes in the way investigations are conducted and cases pursued to allow a greater spectrum of events That's not batshit crazy? How does this "allow a greater spectrum of events"? What does that even mean?
/r/MensRights30/01/15 05:18 AM
2

What the hell is this guy smoking? He added that it was his belief that women tend to leave behind family responsibilities, unlike men Yeah, men don't have family responsibilities. They all just pick up and shove off at their earliest convenience, am I right? "Women are a special case for very good, evidenced reasons. Firstly, many more women who go to prison have themselves been victims. They've often been abused or in violent partnerships," Being a victim absolves you of wrongdoing in the eyes…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 05:03 AM
5

Guess what men are more likely than women to take up more space in a crowded space. Can you cite a source on that bold claim? I'd love to see the numbers! Manspreading. Yes it’s a term targeted at men but are you really fucking offended by it? Would it be better if it were called leg spreading? Maybe. But that might not go far enough. How about non-gender specific spreading? Or even better cis/non-cis spreading of the lower limbs when not required by medical disability or extreme psychological n…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:52 AM
3

Discrimination is if you are held back economically or politically. What dictionary defines discrimination this way? I've never seen one define it as such.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:42 AM
17

Feel free to, y'know, actually point out the flaws in the logic rather than just saying it's wrong. Assuming you actually have points to make.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:36 AM
1

I don't believe I implied that in any way. How do you think I said that? I never incite needless arguments into conversation. And I can admit when I'm wrong. I value genuine, logical debate. I don't argue for the sake of stroking my own ego. I value public discourse for the benefit of all parties involved because, if you have people who actually know how to go about debating a crucial, complex topic, you have the ability to come to a meaningful understanding of both sides of the issue. I value d…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:03 PM
–

This might be the first time I've genuinely thought, "Y'know, America ain't so bad." with regard to gender politics. I also love how the article starts, Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated. Yes, only men. Not women. Women naturally cannot commit date rape. It's simply an impossibility. Although, I'm pretty sure under UK law it actually is impossible for a woman to commit rape. My in…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:17 AM
1

Well now I'm sad.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:10 AM
3

The story last year was that boys outperform girls when assessed through standardised testing, this method was said to disadvantage girls so other methods and measures of other metrics (interpersonal ability etc) should be used, Can you link me to this story? I'd like to give it a read.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:03 AM
2

So, how exactly would you lose your job by throwing your hat into the ring for men's rights? standing around the water cooler "Y'know, I think people should acknowledge that there is sexism against men in the world." "WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY, SMITH? YOOOOOU'RE FIIIRED!" Genuinely asking; I just don't really see how this would play out in a real world scenario without a company putting itself at incredible risk of lawsuit.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:01 AM
1

It's not so much a political issue, as it is a practical one. I stay away from offending my friends' wives and girlfriends and they avoid offending or pissing off mine. Bro code 101: avoid starting shit with your buddy's girl. Nothing good will come of it. I dislike this attitude. I respect my friends and their significant others enough to not sugarcoat issues and let them wallow and ignorance when I know they're full of shit. Nobody I know wants to be seen as retarded and ignorant by their comr…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 09:54 AM
0

Humor is subjective.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 05:33 AM
1

Humor is subjective. I probably wouldn't laugh at this if it occurred in real life, but I don't doubt some people would.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 08:22 AM
8

Yes, but initiatives to help women should not do so by demonizing or stepping on men to "even things out". It's the social equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul. You don't achieve equality this way. In the same way you don't combat racism with "reverse racism".
/r/MensRights25/01/15 07:30 PM
8

It doesn't, but that won't stop turbo-feminists from using it as an example anyway.
/r/MensRights24/01/15 04:50 AM
23

For bonus points, you should post this as a response to wherever you saw it on Facebook.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 07:21 AM
4

I never said comments weren't important. I said they were public forum. Which they are. If a bunch of people disagree with your opinions, it doesn't mean the newspaper that published your editorial is subject to extreme bias or "groupthink". It means a bunch of people disagree with your opinions.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 03:33 AM
6

"Popular opinions" exist in every subreddit. MRM is not special in this aspect. As long as the submissions to the subreddit remain true to the cause of the subreddit, then it doesn't matter what comments/opinions are considered popular. If you disagree with popular opinions, that's fine. If you have a popular opinion, that's fine. The MRM subreddit isn't about opinions; it's about news relevant to gender issues that affect men. As long as the submissions themselves stand by that, the comments ar…
/r/MensRights19/01/15 03:16 AM
23

Did you call the police and tell them the school was holding your child hostage? Because I'm pretty sure they can't legally tell you you can't pick up your own child.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 09:15 AM
5

It says wsj. As in the Wall Street Journal.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 08:45 AM
1

It is self-serving conjecture, but that doesn't mean it's based entirely on fantasy. I believe /u/jmkiii has a fairly accurate idea of the gender dichotomy with regard to being "loud and intimidating". Will this always be the case? Of course not. But we're welcome to use relevant information, such as the very real gender dichotomies in our society, to speculate and ask thought-provoking questions. Some, obviously, take it too far and go off on a wild, circlejerking rampage. But that doesn't mean…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 02:17 AM
6

But where is the evidence to say it was based on his sex? There simply is none. Nobody in the meeting said, "Also sir, we'd like you to know that we're doing this because you're male. Just so we're clear." How many incidents posted on this subreddit have irrefutable evidence (such as quotations, recorded statements, etc) showing that people's transgressions against some men were solely based on their gender? Very few, from what I've seen. Very few stories are so cut and dry. It's how news tends …
/r/MensRights08/01/15 02:14 AM
1

Not an assumption, no. Yes, yes it is. You literally said "I genuinely think she may have thought," Those are the words that form an assumption. You literally don't know her. You've never met her. You have no foundation for believing the events took place one way or another. You have an article on the internet written by The Guardian. If a situation of confused consent arises and an individual does nothing to correct it (despite every opportunity to do so) then it does put into question the noti…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 07:09 PM
0

I never once said it was his fault. I said that the fact that he didn't even try to stop her shows that the situation was at least partly of his making. I never once said it was his fault. I said that [...] the situation was at least party of his making. Afraid that's a contradiction. You just re-worded it the second time around. "the situation was at least partly his making" is synonymous with "the situation was at least party his fault". Partly his fault is still fault. I agree that he should'…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 07:04 PM
0

It's not a legal argument, it's a moral one I didn't say it was exclusive. I was exemplifying your line of logic in a courtroom setting to show how illogical it was. I genuinely think she may have thought he was consenting, You're entitled to think that, but you have to acknowledge that you could be wrong. Because you literally don't know because you weren't there and you're not them. Everything you know about the story is based on limited (and likely biased) information. So, basically, it doesn…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 02:39 PM
1

If what happens in court is your standard for ethics then what do you think about Brian Banks. Irrelevant. I'll say this: I agree that LaBeouf should have done something to stop her. I think it's odd that he didn't for the sake of art. But that doesn't mean it's fair to say this is his fault or that the woman having her way with him is suddenly less egregious. If things happen the way he says they did, then she clearly didn't care about obtaining proper consent. And that's why you have to acknow…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 02:33 PM
8

The point is that using that reasoning to set standards for consent is absurd. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. Being open to the rationale of "everybody has the capacity to experience moments of poor judgement" doesn't mean anything other than acknowledging that it's part of the issue. It is what makes grey areas grey. You can't get around it unless you ignore it, and that'd be just as absurd since you'd be ignoring the truth. Because no notion of consent would be valid. As far as the legal sys…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 04:52 AM
6

Yes, that's true. But that's not anyone's fault. That's part of the human condition; anybody could be lying and taking advantage of aspects like this for personal gain. The only people who truly know anything about consent are the ones who had to either give it or deny it. Literally everybody else can only speculate. Edit: It's worth noting that I also find this annoying, as it makes it very difficult to exact judgement in cases like this where consent is being debated.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 03:07 AM
9

So, how do you think that line of logic would play out in court? "Your honor, my client says that Mr. LaBeouf had a bag over his head and a bullwhip on the table. It seems reasonable to assume he was okay with being stripped naked and raped!"
/r/MensRights28/11/14 03:02 AM
6

Why is it a bad argument just because "you could use it for [...] situations"? Just because an argument can be invoked when some people don't want it to doesn't make it a bad argument. The fact of the matter is that sometimes people don't think clearly. We have to acknowledge that in order to be objective. Anyone can say that they weren't thinking clearly and that's fine; it doesn't mean they're telling the truth and it doesn't mean they're lying. The argument itself is perfectly sound as it's b…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 02:54 AM
3

You're a reasonable guy. I like you.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/14 03:51 AM
7

In a perfect world, yes. We don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes it's harder to do something you know is ultimately smarter in the long run.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/14 03:37 AM
2

You seem like a reasonable guy. I like you.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:23 AM
5

You seem like a reasonable guy. I like you.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 11:17 PM
1

I like you.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 04:57 PM
3

Realistically, no. But in the eyes of the law, which police are sworn to uphold, yes 17 year old is a child. That's the point I believe he was trying to make.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 04:53 PM
2

Yeah, compassion and empathy are clearly the subtle signs of mental illness.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 04:51 PM
1

You could call them "people with different opinions from my own" and not be insulting in how you refer to other people by default.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 05:30 PM
5

Personally, I never consider what someone "confesses" to in court to necessarily be what they actually did. The court systems offer too much incentive to confess so that the accused will receive lesser sentences. She may have "confessed" what she did only because, at the advice of her lawyer, she felt it would help reduce her sentence. This may not be the case, but, from what I hear, it's a very common occurrence in the modern legal system.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:25 PM
9

You have brightened my day. Thank you.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:19 PM
0

I implied no such thing; you apparently are reading too much into my comments. I "corrected" the comment above mine because I felt his was not a fair analysis of the problem. I recommend reading and responding solely to my own words, not the ones your mind comes up with.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 10:02 PM
3

He doesn't have to prove a negative statement; he merely has to provide some source that supports his claim that this isn't a gender-neutral issue. Shouldn't be that hard, since he seems so confident in it. He could, say, find a study that says 99.8% of all deceit-based killings are enacted by women. That would be proper support. Unfortunately he has no such support or source to back his claim. Which is why I played devil's advocate.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 09:07 PM
9

I neither said nor implied anything to the contrary. But, in the interest of playing Devil's Advocate, I would like to see your sources for "men have literally never convinced an ex lover to kill someone."
/r/MensRights17/11/13 06:26 PM
46

People shouldn't kill people solely based on the word of someone else.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 02:32 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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