TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SingleInfinity Archive

View 0 posts and 23 comments by SingleInfinity 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

Okay. That's fine. You can set any criteria you want. The point it becomes sexist/racist/etc is when one of your criteria becomes sex or race or whatever other factor. If men just happen to be more likely to line up with the type of person you're looking for, everything is fine, that's still meritocracy. You just can't call it a meritocracy when you start requiring applicants to have a penis or be black.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:29 PM
1

That is an interesting point if true. I try to take randomly provided stats with a grain of salt though. Another interesting addon to that would be the average cost based on diet composition. Do men eat more red meat and less veggies than women, for example? That would result in a higher "upkeep" cost.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:28 PM
1

If it's a joke, then sure, that's fine. It's still a terrible one, just like misandrist jokes are. I'm not a bigot for pointing out that it's either a shitty joke or a shitty sentiment.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:26 PM
1

Good ol' anecdotal evidence. Also, I feel you'd find that you're probably experiencing either confirmation bias or an abnormal situation. For example, nursing is a primarily female dominated career, and you'd be hard pressed to say that nurses are bad in general. We cannot unfortunatelly, just kick them off, because vagina and babies. The fact that you think this is a reason is a little alarming. You should introspect on why you feel this way and then attempt to approach the situation logically.…
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:23 PM
2

See, but then what you want isn't all men. You want the best possible people for the job, regardless of sex, race, sexuality, whatever. Restricting your set to "all x" is inherently worse than not doing so when you want the best people. Saying you hire only whites because whites are statistically more likely to be good at something is still racist. If you only care about how good someone is at it, then you hire the best people. If they all happen to be white, that's fine, but them all being whit…
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:21 PM
1

Jesus. So many people have keyed in on the "diverse" keyword because of the social justice connotations it has. I had to correct the post to say "non-uniform", because they're being used exactly the same way. Does that fix it for you? I was never advocating for diversity hires. I believe in meritocracy.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:18 PM
0

How exactly is that white knighting? White knighting is defending a woman in attempt to sway her, right? I'm not defending anyone, just pointing out that the way he came up with his argument is pretty flawed. It's not uncommon for subs slanted towards either side of an argument (sex, race, politics, whatever) to have a group of people who are just assholes who want to be sexist, racist, generalize the worst part of the other side, etc. I was presuming because of how he got to his reasoning that …
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:40 AM
1

Lol you couldn’t actually dispute any point I made You.. didn't make any? I am curious, why would a modern feminist lurk around a men’s rights sub? I wouldn't consider myself a feminist, nor would I consider myself a mens rights activist. I'm here because I saw the thread on r/all and the title looked interesting, so I was curious to see what the discussion was. The top few comments were fine, but this was pretty close to the top and clearly just unproductive hate. I guess to troll is a possibil…
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:37 AM
2

I feel like I made a fair attempt at valid discourse though. I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and said it might be a joke. This particular poster though has proven to be more of an antagonist and less of a knee-jerk defender though. If you do bother to read on, he eventually chooses to ignore that he's completely confused me with someone else, never admits fault or apologizes, and continues to act as if he's been right all along, after admitting multiple times to not even bothering to rea…
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:35 AM
1

Yeah, I was never debating the possible truth of it (although people seem to think I am?). I'm more just pointing out that they're mostly being shitty.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:30 AM
2

I mean, you really didn't contribute anything to the conversation in the form of confrontation. You claim I immediately went to insults, but that's all you ever provided. Now you're trying to do the moral high ground thing. You sure you're not projecting bud?
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:23 AM
0

Is baby sad that someone is getting called out for being a dirtbag? :c
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:09 AM
1

Their race/sex etc don't matter, just their ability. So presumably you are against the idea of affirmative action in any form, because it goes against this principle. Agreed. I just find that when you base everything on merit, you inherently end up with a somewhat diverse set of people. A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting that statement. I guess I should've used non-uniform instead, because that doesn't have the connotations and affirmative action ties that "diversity" does, despite effec…
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:09 AM
0

That was never the argument I was making, as I just stated.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:07 AM
0

Don't ignore the second half of that sentence. a diverse set of people who are the best at what they do. The context there is absolutely important to my point. I'm saying a merit based hiring system is provably better than one attempting to match a metric. It just turns out that hiring by merit means you're inherently more likely to end up with a diverse set of people as compared to a restricted hiring process, by definition of not having that restriction. You're trying to make this some kind of…
/r/MensRights27/02/20 02:26 AM
2

I was never arguing the validity of the claim, because I'm sure there are contexts where it can be true, particularly because when you set a requirement for what kind of people to hire, you are no longer hiring strictly by merit, which is inherently worse. My point is just that he's being a misogynistic asshole, and that paints your community in a bad light, particularly when things like Mens Rights tends to have a negative connotation in most media. At best he's confirming some people's bias, a…
/r/MensRights26/02/20 10:44 PM
2

If you want me to know your gender over the internet, it is your responsibility to tell me because I don't give two shits. I am going to converse with you the same if you are a man as if you are a woman. You've just proven that to be untrue. You specifically made an argument with the basis that it came from a standpoint of being a woman. It doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong, your perception of my sex still affected your argument. In fact, I might be less polite with a man, because h…
/r/MensRights26/02/20 10:31 PM
0

I think you've missed the point. An all-x anything is more likely to fail than something with a non-uniform set of people who are the best at what they do. That's common sense. That's still not what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that his statement is blatantly misogynistic, because it is. It doesn't matter what point he's trying to make, he's still doing it. E: diverse -> non-uniform. Same effective meaning but different connotation
/r/MensRights26/02/20 10:25 PM
4

Lmfao You think that I am a misogynist because I assumed that you were female? No? I never said that at all. Where are you getting that from. There is nothing wrong with making a guess about which gender you are speaking to over the internet. I mean, in most cases it's hardless, yeah, but when you're deriving how to feel about someone based on that assumption, or basing your arguments around it, that's where you're screwing yourself a bit. I can't see you, and I am not going to tiptoe around pro…
/r/MensRights26/02/20 08:56 PM
9

E: Don't bother reading this long chain. Op later admits to just trolling (for some reason?) and not arguing in good faith. No, not everyone that disagrees that women are downtrodden and victims is a misogynist. If you take time off work, you make less money. Agreed, however, someone who thinks that an all woman work force would get nothing done, is, in fact, misogynist. There are some unkind people in here yes, but if i were to go post in TwoXChromosomes disagreeing with some of the feminist st…
/r/MensRights26/02/20 06:47 PM
1

It means that you can't treat it the same though. I'm not saying it should be free, but I do think that it's important to recognize distinctions and see that considerations should be made for unique cases, just like how women are uniquely capable of becoming pregnant, and so there are systems in place to assist with this.
/r/MensRights26/02/20 05:52 PM
2

Yes, but one is unique to their sex, and the other is not unique to yours. They also get hungry every day. There's a direct parallel. There is no direct parallel to them bleeding.
/r/MensRights26/02/20 05:47 PM
41

I'm not a regular here, so this kinda mentality might just be the norm, but this just seems like misogyny and anyone who might think you're arguing it good faith is just going to write you off as a dickhead. Alternatively, this is actually just a joke, but not a very funny or original one if so.
/r/MensRights26/02/20 05:45 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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