TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Shoggoth1890 Archive

View 0 posts and 96 comments by Shoggoth1890 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)
14

Sometimes, but the South Park episode was referencing a common occurrence.
/r/MensRights05/05/18 06:18 PM
22

If I remember correctly, didn't she go into the church naked as well? If so, shouldn't she be charged with indecent exposure and become a sex offender herself? Edit: I guess she went in 'half-naked', wearing a shirt and underwear, so no.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/17 05:53 AM
2

I'd say it would more likely be spun as there being white males with higher authority than hers, thus her power is not truly her power, it's theirs.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 12:15 PM
0

You're right. Thought I saw the part OP was referring to and stopped watching. Usually I watch the whole thing to not make a fool of myself. Guess the rape is more blatant. I could see it being seen as a "serves him right for cheating on his wife" thing though.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 06:25 PM
2

Even though he told them he couldn't because he was married, it appears as though it's going to be presented as him "giving in to lust", despite the fact that the women began sexual acts on him while he was still protesting. Society won't find the situation "acceptable", but they will not recognize it as rape. EDIT: Forget this was ever here, I commented before watching the whole thing.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 05:06 PM
6

This argument always confuses me, as it's not compatible with their definition of a patriarchy. They define a patriarchy as a system which affords special privilege to men. If the system affords special privileges to men while affording other special privileges to women, it's not a patriarchy according to their definition.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 03:45 PM
116

I think it would be a good idea to have yours more even anyway. Posting one side to "balance it out" makes it look purely oppositional. People will say "sure the feminist one is one sided, but this one is no better". If the Men's Rights one is more evenly balanced in a single infographic, it will provide a nice contrast to the one-sidedness of the other one. Show them we aren't hiding facts that are inconvenient to our narrative like the other one is.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 06:48 PM
1

I know, but I chose my words poorly. I meant to say "wishing he had let her".
/r/MensRights29/04/15 01:11 PM
9

The entire time I was hoping he would let her file a police report before the reveal.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 11:58 PM
15

Honestly, given that she asked the person on the phone how she could get the cop in trouble, this is probably the first time (otherwise she wouldn't have needed to ask). What's scary to me is there seemed to be no hesitation from her once the solution entered her head (whether she came up with it herself or the person on the phone suggested it). If she had done it before, the lack of hesitation would actually be less frightening than it would be if she hadn't done it before.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 11:54 PM
4

One of the "sexual assaults" that is used in the infamous "1 in 5" report is "attempted forced kissing". Going by the same standard of the 1 in 5 report, this woman is documenting herself sexually assaulting people.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 09:33 PM
3

It's illegal there too.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 05:19 AM
2

There are already places in the U.S. where a person can be made to register as a sex offender for offenses in which nothing sexual (or even loosely sexual such as indecent exposure) occurred. Many crimes against children will come with an automatic sex offender status, most commonly murder and abduction, though depending on the area more are included. An example a PO friend of mine told me about went like this: A man and woman got divorced and both wanted custody of their 14 year old daughter. T…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 05:10 AM
21

999 is the UK emergency number.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/15 06:28 PM
1

When drawings are made illegal, that's when they're over-reaching, since there has been no evidence to show that pandering simulated child porn (with the possible exception of photorealistic material) encourages the production of actual child porn.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 09:02 PM
53

I like to equate it to daggers/swords. Not only is there the parallel to your example (let someone off for stabbing with a dagger just because someone else is capable of running you through with a sword), but there's another issue: They determine how bad something is by its potential damage, not its actual damage. It's like saying that a person that stabs you in the kidney with a dagger isn't as bad as somebody that deliberately only caused a minor flesh would with a sword, simply because the sw…
/r/MensRights21/02/15 03:22 PM
-4

Actually they're not, that's just what the public thinks they're for. The larger issue with creation of child pornography is the creation of supply. When the supplier gauges the demand from response to their supply, they (and others that see the demand) are encouraged to increase the supply even more, resulting in the further production of child pornography. Even if someone creates child porn for personal use without the intent to distribute, they are still responsible for creating the supply.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 03:09 PM
1

Doesn't look like an attempt to make her look harassed, it looks more like an attempt to mock us. Is there some aspect of it that I am missing?
/r/MensRights10/02/15 12:13 AM
43

Never hit a woman... unless she forgets her place. -carrotsandflowers
/r/MensRights04/02/15 04:08 PM
22

In an alley where you don't really have many options to get out of the way of a car speeding toward you. By the way, the witnesses that claim the cop was run over after the teen was shot were passengers in the car, meaning they were probably her friends and aren't happy about their friend dying.
/r/PussyPass30/01/15 08:42 AM
2

Nobody even lied in this case. The cops heard "domestic dispute" and assumed the man was the aggressor despite not even being involved (other than attempting to calm them down).
/r/MensRights19/01/15 11:20 PM
15

It always baffles me how people can't seem to recognize that. If an inanimate object collides with you, you may feel some pain, but it's quickly over and now you may even have an amusing story to tell people. Receive equivalent damage from another human being's deliberate actions, and it will stay with you, especially if they are someone who is supposed to be emotionally bonded with you.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 10:40 PM
2

To be fair, the video didn't really provide the context. I had to come to the comments here to find out what the case was actually about.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/01/15 05:04 PM
22

Nah, the equivalent would be punching the ovaries. How you gain access to them though is up to you.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/12/14 01:16 PM
21

Guy takes picture of himself posing with scantily clad women, and he's objectifying women. Woman takes picture of herself posing with scantily clad men, and the men are normalizing sexual assault.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 05:55 PM
9

Not quite a badge of honor. More like the feminist version of street cred. It's used as a way to give a sense of authority on the subject.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 05:05 AM
10

That was white knighting? Wow, you have odd standards.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:57 PM
2

That's child abuse in general, this is specifically about sexual abuse. Still an atrocious headline though, in suggesting that only males sexually abuse children.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 03:54 PM
14

So will this make it illegal for a woman that wears form enhancing clothes to have sex?
/r/MensRights25/11/14 04:54 PM
-4

I think it's completely reasonable to only have women vote on the women's representative. I wouldn't want Delaware voters voting on an Idaho representative for example. What's unreasonable is having representation for women without representation for men.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 01:20 AM
1

If the case has never come up in court because nobody tried to take the doctors to court, what exactly do you want me to cite? The best I can do is point to 18 U.S. Code § 2256, the relevant part I mentioned in the previous post: lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person(minor). As mentioned previously, while many people mistakenly think erections=sexual desire, this is not always the case; erections can and do occur absent desire, especially in teens. Just because most p…
/r/MensRights19/11/14 12:26 PM
1

Telling someone online that you're a lawyer means nothing. Doctors have documented, for example, phimotic penises of teenagers in an erect state (when the phimosis becomes most apparent). Lascivious exhibition of the genitals of a minor is considered child porn, and while many people think erection=sexual desire, erections can indeed (and often do) occur absent desire, and as such are not inherently lascivious.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 01:38 PM
1

That's subjective however, since erections can occur in nonsexual situations, and intent matters more than people tend to think. Back to the issue of medical documentation though, it is legal to photograph the erect penis of a minor in such a case.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 12:28 PM
1

If he was sexually stimulating the boy to get the erection then you're right. He was going to do it with medication however, so it would still not be sexual.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 12:15 PM
2

If you're documenting child porn then no, you can't show nude teen girls in it since it's, you know, child porn you're showing. Unless for some reason you're showing nude teen images that aren't pornographic. You can take nude pictures of minors in a non-sexual manner however, such as for medical documentation, family albums (such as bathtub images or nudist family pictures), or for films (again as long as there is nothing sexual about the nudity). This officer would not have broken the law by t…
/r/MensRights16/11/14 05:47 PM
-1

He created it for the purpose of documentation, not sexual stimulation, which means it is not child porn.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 04:54 PM
17

Not to mention they were producing child pornography. It also disturbs me that anyone is showing this child porn openly, even with the faces and genitals blurred. Can you imagine them airing the rape of an 11 year old girl and justifying it by saying, "Well we blurred the faces and naughty bits".
/r/MensRights14/11/14 12:48 AM
14

This guy did a good job of matching her attitude though, like when the girl comes up to ask for his number and he just ignores her.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 09:46 PM
4

The lingerers were the worst part of the female version, and those weren't present here. Of course he only roamed around for 3 hours instead of 10, so he may have encountered a lingerer if he had done the full 10.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 08:56 PM
3

Just lock everyone up. That's the only way to be sure 100% of offenders are behind bars. We'll have automated machines out in the real world to make sure the species is sustained. We can harvest the sperm/eggs of the inmates, growing the child in an artificial womb, where upon birth it is immediately placed in it's new cell. Surely babies haven't committed crimes, but we also need to take steps toward crime prevention.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 02:43 PM
1

Assuming there are no other issues such as abuse in the mother's household then no, he shouldn't get custody. Even if he has turned a new leaf and would be a model parent from then on, he has done nothing to show that, and the child shouldn't be torn from their home.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 05:59 PM
3

That sure is an old child she molested. Did you read the article?
/r/MensRights10/10/14 04:19 AM
1

Did I mention the multitudes of people that bought/sold/viewed the tape, mentioned they watched it, and never got called out for it?
/r/MensRights08/10/14 08:34 PM
1

They cared about it so much that I didn't even hear a peep when Dave Chappelle casually admitted on his own show to having watched said tape, then mockingly mimicking R. Kelly's behavior in it. I did hear some news outlets criticize the buyers/sellers, but not all of them, and the ones that did only barely mentioned the criminality of it.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 07:43 PM
0

Interestingly enough, people wouldn't care about the right to the child's privacy (or even federal law) if that were the case. Remember the R. Kelly sex tape and how people were buying/selling bootleg versions of it openly everywhere on the street ignoring the fact that they were buying/selling child pornography? Remember people openly talking about having watched the tape, as though they did nothing wrong?
/r/MensRights08/10/14 04:11 PM
4

Brimble had only been trying to support the boy through difficult and challenging times and had been naive not to realise the child could have misinterpreted her kindness. Hear that? When she asked him if he wanted to have sex with her he totally misunderstood that to mean that she was asking if he wanted to have sex with her. ETA: Pretty sure this should be a WBB tag instead of Reverse Genders, since she's definitely getting in trouble for this, and nobody (other than her lawyer of course) is t…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:16 AM
5

She didn't compare it to rape, and such a thing should be a sexual offense, just as would snapping pictures of a person that's changing in a private place, such as a changing room. It doesn't matter if in the future she shows her body, as that will be of her own free will.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 11:52 PM
9

Looks more like posing for a picture while a homeless man just happens to be nearby. It's almost as if they are blind to him and his problems, focusing solely on themselves, being the center of attention. "Oh, someone wants to take a picture of us. What? There's a homeless man next to us? Where?"
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:15 AM
8

Also remember that this is India, where the government grants money to women that make rape accusations. If I remember correctly, this money only came upon conviction of the rapist, but women's groups in India pushed for the compensation to come beforehand, so the alleged victim could get the care they needed now, rather than have to wait. I could be wrong, since I can't find the source that I had read previously, but the compensation for rape victims is real. This could have 2 perceivable effec…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 07:24 PM
2

Gibson is Pressil's attorney.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 01:34 AM
1

But he had to escape from her, which indicates that he wanted to stop during that time. The escape is part of the story, we don't know if it's accurate or if he's just calling it escape. If, later, we find that there are pictures or messages that indicate he was a willing participant during the actions in question, the situation would be different. And this is why it should go to trial. But we can't go in with a guilty until proven innocent attitude. It makes us massive hypocrites if we automati…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:59 PM
1

Exactly, I was agreeing with /u/rg57. When he was talking about finding out who the victim was, he was considering that she may be the victim of a false accusation, which I was explaining to /u/Gawrsh.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:39 PM
1

They mention meeting on a fetish site. For all we know, he may have told her that he wanted those things done to him, and is simply changing his story now. Perhaps he had a thing for her third boob, and when he found out it was fake he lost interest in her and decided to punish her for lying about it, claiming what was actually consensual slave play was true sexual slavery.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:40 AM
2

A surprising number of women have rape fantasies too, to my understanding more than men.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 07:27 PM
16

Anything and everything you do with the opposite sex can ([and] probably will at some point) be interpreted as being a tease or leading him on. Not even always by the guy, often it's his friends, his other female friend, whoever may benefit from pretending there's a victim in any/every situation where two sexes gather. Please, tell us more about this whole "every interaction with the opposite sex is misconstrued as something sexual" thing. As a male, I have absolutely no idea what that's like. (…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 01:17 AM
1

The word 'sodomy' has existed since long before the US. Its original meaning was used to refer to pretty much any type of sexual activity that wasn't penis in vagina. At one point it was even considered sodomy if a male and female had sex with the woman on top.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 11:27 PM
3

Sodomy does not mean male on male rape, it means anal or oral sex. It can be consensual and need not be between two males.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 09:31 PM
-1

In the first part, she pairs aggression with submissiveness, indicating that when she speaks of aggression she is speaking of dominance behavior. Shyness conveys submissiveness. Boldness conveys dominance. The word aggressive is commonly used interchangeably with the word proactive.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 10:05 PM
5

I think you misread. It's not that he doesn't orgasm during sex, it's the she doesn't orgasm during sex.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 12:25 AM
4

Ah, so we're doing that then? Perhaps you should learn to read since the person you responded to never said that the crime she would get in trouble for would be falsely accusing someone of rape. Or were you just building a strawman with your reply?
/r/MensRights19/09/14 08:12 PM
5

Not every guy is a rapist, but every girl is afraid of being raped. Not every girl makes false rape accusations, but every guy is afraid of being falsely accused.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 01:37 AM
3

Did they say they knew about it, or did they say she contacted them about it. There's a big difference between the two. And if she did contact them about it, did they say when?
/r/MensRights15/09/14 06:22 PM
1

People who grow up in nudist families are very well adjusted, arguably moreso than those raised in families that believe the human body is indecent.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 12:00 AM
2

I'm a bit torn on how I think this would turn out with genders reversed. Legally, it is fine for an adult to be exposed to a minor (and vice versa) if the exposure is non-sexual. Of course people will try to get the adult in trouble(usually in cases where a male adult is involved) since they either don't understand the laws or simply don't care that it's legal and try to make them go through hell anyway. If the father was a nudist, he would most likely get to stay with his kids and continue his …
/r/MensRights13/09/14 11:56 PM
5

You're mischaracterizing that statement. The "society" she is referring to is the one propagated by the feminist agenda, the one that focuses on males as the rapists with such exclusivity that she had never even imagined being assaulted by a woman.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 01:28 AM
1

Don't exaggerate. They put us in the same league, they did not equate us to pedophiles. I do have to wonder what sub they were referring to though, since to the best of my knowledge reddit bans any sub even remotely related to the sexualization of children, real or imaginary. The closest I've seen to a pedo-esque sentiment is the belief some people hold that it should be completely legal for children to produce/trade/possess child porn (though said people refuse to refer to it as such).
/r/MensRights08/09/14 10:48 PM
1

You're creating a scenario where acting nice or working hard will create an expectation of reward... If a person is sexually rewarded for simply being nice and working hard then yes, it creates the expectation. For healthy people however, the conditions for sexuality are gradually increasing the sexuality of a situation, such as romantic words and body language. And it only creates an entitled bitterness, if you consider seeing someone's breasts as a rigid gameplay mechanic, rather than a shared…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 06:31 PM
1

Of course it is. Consider how it's used in Mardis Gras, Burning Man, and Spring Break, among others. Not to mention movies deliberately targeting teenagers. It's a bit of harmless shock and awe, and few consider it meaning anything other than "Look, breasts!", no matter how many underage teenagers see it. How many times does it happen in one on one scenarios? Nobody knows, because nobody even cares to count. That is not mild flirting. I wouldn't even call what goes on at Mardi Gras flirting at a…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 02:46 PM
1

None of those examples sexualize the breasts that are exposed however.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 01:27 PM
1

You're steamrolling over the difference between a PG-13 and an NC-17. If she'd been actually naked, the way the title implied, she'd be possibly locked up. But she was only momentarily topless - the breasts and the buttocks are considered secondary sexual areas, and mild flirting with them is considered perfectly acceptable in Western culture, especially if you don't take it any further than offering a brief look to a teenager. I dislike the title as well, since she wasn't nude. Exposure of seco…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 01:06 PM
3

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your reading comprehension sucks rather than assume you're a troll. I do not speak of consistency across all women, rather consistency in an individual. I've never practiced my nudism in front of others (everyone I know still sexualizes nudity), but there are nudist families out there and nudist communities. Have you ever wondered how nudist families can be nudist families with kids present? It's because even the law recognizes the difference bet…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 11:54 AM
26

I don't mind breasts being desexualized as long as there's consistency. If a woman wants to legally be able to expose her chest like a man, yet at the same time considers a person touching her chest (the way some women freely touch a man's chest) to be a sex crime, then she is not consistent. The woman in the linked thread was clearly sexualizing her breasts, and in her action was intent to "corrupt a minor". Personally, I'm a nudist and think it would be great if all nudity were desexualized. D…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:37 PM
3

I hate it when dictionaries put "typically (blank)" in their definitions. If it's not exclusive to (blank), there is no need to mention (blank).
/r/MensRights06/09/14 01:55 PM
36

The article is, yes, but the statement that "Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities" was not said by the article, it was said by the courts. He was mocking what the courts said, not the article.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 11:00 AM
5

Based on the tone of the rest of the article, I'm pretty sure those bolded parts were meant ironically. It's easy to see how someone would think otherwise though.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 05:40 PM
13

This woman got lucky. Several years ago there was a man that walked in on his wife having sex with another man. The woman screamed that he was raping her, so the husband grabbed his gun and killed the "rapist" to protect his wife. It later came out that the wife was not being raped; she was having consensual sex with the man and simply cried rape to escape the repercussions. Well in a rare instance of gender justice the wife was charged with the man's murder and the husband got off free, since h…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 03:29 PM
12

Yeah, I actually agree with her on this. She never likens it to rape, she simply points out that it's a non-consensual sexual violation, which it is.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 12:36 PM
9

Advise a woman on safety = blaming the woman Telling men they could have stopped the rape if they really wanted to, he should have fought back, if he didn't want sex he wouldn't have had an erection, etc. = totally not blaming the man...
/r/MensRights30/08/14 05:04 PM
82

That's always the implication whenever a woman asserts that a man doesn't know what it's like to be a woman. That men are oblivious about womanhood due to not being women, but that women have manhood pegged.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 04:56 PM
2

7 also makes the implication that in any case in which the accusation wasn't proven false, the accused was guilty.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:33 PM
2

Wonder if the social injustices against men would still be blamed on the "patriarchy" there.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:04 PM
3

Rape hysteria hurts women too. In one sense by making them constantly afraid to be outside alone (which is then ironically used to justify the hysteria). I won't even mention the other way it hurts women, since it is a reason that is easily twisted around to make it sound like you're saying something you're not.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 11:17 AM
1

That's often the demographic of those who say it to me as well. Their intentions seem innocent enough, but it's still irritating.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 09:01 PM
1

What type of area do you live in? And does it seem the men who tell you to smile only say it when nobody outside their group is around? Anything else you've noticed about them? Knowing these may help understand the mentality of the people that do it.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 08:22 PM
9

I've been told to smile by women and it irritates me. I'm not a smiler. With how frequent the feminists claim they're told to smile though, surely I would have overheard some men say it to women at some point, but have not once heard it outside of photo ops. I'm sure it does happen and is irritating, but the frequency seems rather overstated, or it's a regional thing (and I'm not in one of those regions).
/r/MensRights26/08/14 06:07 PM
15

It's mutilation in that it's an unnecessary removal of part of an individual's body. No matter how 'humanely' it is done, it cannot escape the definition of mutilation, and should be a personal choice. As for what the removed bits do, they can aid in intercourse, increase the pleasure for the male, and protect the glans from keratinization.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 04:25 PM
2

You realize there is no law against being a pedophile, right? A pedophile committing a sex crime against a child is no better or worse than a non-pedophile committing that same crime. The crime is in the action, and her action was downloading child porn. She was probably thinking along the same lines as you when she did it, making her feel more comfortable in doing it. "It's ok for me to do this because I'm not actually a pedophile." These are the kind of thinking errors that ultimately get you …
/r/MensRights24/08/14 03:13 AM
1

Various problems. One of the big ones is my agoraphobia. Obviously both men and women can be agoraphobic and will both experience obstacles to reproduction because of it, but the obstacles are greater for the man in the situation. I can overcome my agoraphobia when it comes to caring for someone, so I wouldn't be a shut in parent or anything. Meeting people and entering a relationship is a major obstacle though. I would be willing to raise the child as a single parent if I needed to, so consider…
/r/MensRights23/08/14 03:55 AM
1

I never thought it did.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 01:46 AM
1

All problems that men face as well, so they become a non-point.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 12:21 AM
1

Initially I was going to say 'man', because it's what I am and I shouldn't be ashamed and I shouldn't abandon other men if I can possibly change things, but I'm going to have to say 'woman'. There is one single reason that I choose woman: more than anything, I want kids. Due to various personal reasons (which would be solved by being a woman), I am extremely unlikely to have children in my lifetime. Even in the absence of said personal reasons, I would have the greater right to choose when to ha…
/r/MensRights21/08/14 07:41 AM
2

And there's lots of women who do the same to women. Men are not universally called 'players' for bedding many women and women are not universally called 'sluts' simply for choosing to have sex. Men who have multiple partners (or even have one partner that a particular person didn't want them to have) are often referred to as 'pigs' or 'man-sluts'.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 07:34 AM
1

Despite the stereotype, men that go from woman to woman are disliked, reviled even, by many, many men.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 07:30 AM
2

You say you've had to spell this issue out, but I still see no spelling out of the issue, only ambiguous "of course he was fired for being a man" and "Beards. Mustaches. Beer" statements. Beards and moustaches had nothing to do with his termination, he had them long before being fired. Beer had to do with his termination, but not simply liking it. He was endorsing it, and an individual from an organization endorsing something tends to draw an association in peoples minds between the subject endo…
/r/MensRights20/08/14 10:27 PM
2

He wasn't fired for anything related to being a man. He was fired for appearing on a beer can. No doubt if a woman appeared on a beer can they'd be doing the same thing. While I don't agree with the termination, this is not a men's issue.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 11:08 AM
5

That's what I was thinking. Hit the victim and make them believe you're the only one that cares for them, the only one they are 'safe' with.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 10:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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