TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SlashLDash7 Archive

View 0 posts and 54 comments by SlashLDash7 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)
4

No, I'm saying women receive disproportionately light sentences for the same crime compared to men. It's no secret that courts tend to favor female defendants.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 03:04 AM
1

Ah yes, because there's no gender bias when it comes to deciding to arrest someone or not. /s
/r/MensRights09/01/17 09:21 PM
7

Yes, they may get convicted, but because they get the lighter sentence, aka murder 1 turning into manslaughter, they no longer become a "homicide" statistic.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 09:12 PM
2

You may want to consider that women get lighter sentences than men. I've seen multiple cases where a murder charge was unduly reduced or commuted because the victim was a 'defenseless woman'. Doesn't matter that she poisoned her own husband, or fuck, multiple husbands.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:39 PM
12

I'm assuming that's based off of the conviction rate? Women tend to get more lenient or even commuted sentences, even in murder cases.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:18 PM
1

Actually, I've noticed people spouting off sexist bullshit tend to get called out here (by MRAs) whether it be misogyny or misandry. Maybe I'm wrong, but honestly this sub is hardly and echo chamber.
/r/MensRights08/01/17 08:25 PM
2

Gotta love when facts backed up by scientific study are considered bashing.
/r/MensRights08/01/17 08:00 PM
17

Want an example of Rape Culture, here it is. You can file this next to that video of that black woman sexually assaulting (attempting to rape) a man on the sidewalk.
/r/MensRights22/12/16 08:09 PM
20

Suddenly, the woman slaps him across the face Your assertion that no one was hitting him is incorrect. This is legally assault & battery as well as sexual assault.
/r/MensRights22/12/16 08:04 PM
3

Perhaps, but did you understand all the legal consequences at that time? A 17 year old doesn't have the best grasp on the extent of the law. I'd also venture to say a 17 year old is likely to assume that there is some kind of Romeo & Juliet clause that covers them, as it does in many cases. In this case he may have assumed so since he believed they were only 2 years apart in age.
/r/MensRights15/12/16 07:22 PM
4

How about an abusive intergenerational relationship, with grooming, coercion, threats and stalking involving a child under 16 years of age, see anything wrong with that?
/r/MensRights04/12/16 10:49 PM
0

The ones printed in Texas, so unfortunately, most history books in our educational system. Historical accuracy be damned.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 09:10 PM
8

So she lies to Rolling Stone, then has the audacity to say that they should be held responsible for printing her lies because they never fact checked her? Take your head out of your ass, you fucked up big time and you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 08:02 PM
29

You're right, that's not satisfactory, and not evidence. You just said that men's rights constantly lies and its "very foundation" is based on an "extremely shabby lie". You really like to throw the word "lie" out there without either explanation or evidence. Guess what, most of us here had the exact same feminist education you did, but learned how men's issues are ignored and laughed at by those same feminists.
/r/MensRights17/10/16 07:13 PM
16

People on this sub constantly lie and misrepresent everything, the very foundation of the men's rights movement is based on an extremely shabby lie. Care to back any of that up with evidence?
/r/MensRights17/10/16 06:50 PM
14

Don't forget the end of that second scenario also ended in white knights coming to "save" the young woman when he started to defend himself.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 05:46 PM
7

That's kind of derogatory to people with autism.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 08:04 PM
2

So then you think she should be in jail for multiple counts of knowingly producing and distributing child porn, correct?
/r/MensRights16/09/16 05:06 PM
4

Okay, let me put this in perspective for you. Lets remove the term objectification so it's clearer. Something done to women=bad Same exact thing done to men=normal
/r/MensRights07/08/16 11:01 PM
1

And this is why I enjoy debating in this sub. Thank you for being so reasonable.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 10:58 PM
2

That's a decently reasoned point, but just because it doesn't seem as important as the other issues, doesn't make it not a serious issue. This is part of a growing movement of everyday hypocritical sexism, and promotes the idea that said sexism against men is normal. I'd prefer that misandry not become normal.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 10:48 PM
10

Way to miss the point. The complaint is not about having an issue with objectification. It is about the fact that objectifying men is perfectly fine, but objectifying women is "effing horrible". That's called a double standard.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 10:39 PM
1

It would be easier to do if lipstick feminism wasn't an accepted part of mainstream feminism. I see plenty of MRAs trying to distance the movement from redpillers and mgtows, not so much for the other side.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 10:27 PM
4

I'd love to see your reasoning for jumping to that conclusion. All I was saying is that this isn't the 80's or 90's. Cosmo feminism and mainstream feminism aren't so different now like they were 30 years ago.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 10:08 PM
5

about what i expected from this board Maybe you should take a step back and realize both you and that asshole are being downvoted because you're both wrong.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 09:12 PM
5

edit: downvoted by people who are allergic to reality hypocracy FTFY. Maybe if you bothered to think about it you'd realize they're not pissed about the "objectification". They're pissed that it's fine to objectify men, but "effing horrible" to objectify women. That is a double standard.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 09:08 PM
7

A lot can change in 30 years.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 09:01 PM
3

#ToxicFeminism
/r/MensRights27/06/16 07:03 PM
1

You thought so too?
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:53 PM
7

Only 4 attendees, don't think this one is gaining much traction.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 06:33 PM
8

Considering that what the woman in there is doing is shaming men, yes, it may actually help men with depression to have her stop spreading hate and shame towards men. Many men are depressed because of the impact of shaming their entire gender. Just because something doesn't solve every issue that faces men, or even the ones that you specifically care about doesn't mean it's not related to men's rights.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:55 AM
4

And in that line of comments is this gem: It's funny, but I think these groups prey on people's naivety and compassion, ironically. Mens rights groups mention things that seem true, or are true to a certain extent, that men have higher suicide rates then women by a massive amount, that men are considered tools on society, that men feel betrayed by women in a divorce, that men are oppressed. These are things that people don't tend to acknowledge, and since the conversation in feminism is slanted …
/r/MensRights18/12/15 03:31 AM
4

That would actually be pretty constructive. Great idea.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 02:31 AM
2

I honestly did not notice till I read this.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 01:40 AM
11

Because only men can be terrorists... I just love how they call systematically targeting a whole gender "humanitarian" too, that's rich.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 12:07 PM
1

No, you don't get to brutalize someone because they're in your way. In civilized society we use our words, not our fists, to settle disputes.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 08:47 AM
3

Where did you get that idea from my post? There is recourse. What he is doing is illegal. Call the cops. You don't get to beat someone up just because they're in your way. You also don't get to call something violence just because it's inconvenient.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 12:07 AM
2

Holding me against my will is violent. Let me get a dictionary for you. Resistance (standing in someone's way) is not force. He was being non-violent.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 11:41 PM
7

I'd like to note here in addition to your statements, that there is no cure for psychopathy. Rehabilitation does not work on them.
/r/MensRights11/10/15 11:57 PM
2

No, the police do not have an obligation to investigate something that clearly isn't a crime.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 10:32 PM
5

This. I'm not entirely surprised the decided to omit these facts, they sure make it harder to push the agenda that MRA's just want to hurt women for no reason.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 08:41 AM
2

I'd agree, I think rehabilitation and education is typically more beneficial than throwing someone in jail. My argument said nothing to the contrary. I merely asserted that it is truly unfair to treat men differently than women for the same crime (ie. If a man would be punished with prison time, so should a woman.) Where exactly does an eye for an eye come in?
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:22 AM
15

Because wanting equal punishment (ie. incarceration) is equatable to wanting capital punishment, of course. /s
/r/MensRights06/07/15 09:37 PM
1

Mhmmm, sure.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 04:52 PM
1

There has been a plethora of evidence presented to you. You have chosen to ignore it because it does not fit your narrative. Every argument presented to you is misquoted by you in response. I'll tell you one more time, clearly. A mental disorder/illness is evidenced by continued patterns of behavior that cause mental anguish/difficulty functioning in day to day life. This is behavioral evidence. People are still working on acquiring chemical evidence, but that is still in its early stages. For i…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 01:47 PM
1

Yeah, I'm going to stop you right there. How about you find a source for your arguments that aren't from a crackpot who has a hard time citing his own evidence, then come back for debate. You are having a lot of issues understanding basic language here dude. Saying the rest of the world doesn't agree with you was in conjunction with explaining how definitions work. You also seem to have an issue with context now that I think of it. You're right, language is a social construct. Definitions are al…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 12:08 PM
1

It took you that long to repeat yourself? There was no statement made that "what's popular is true". What I presented to you was a fact. Definitions are made by common use in society. You are debating a definition that is in common use by society. You want it redefined, cool, you do that. But until you've done that, it's still the definition I gave you.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 11:35 AM
2

No, you're confused. Unfortunately no amount of reason will stop you from saying the same argument over and over as if it is valid on it's own. Sorry the rest of the world doesn't agree with you. Definitions are in fact defined by the society that uses them. Most societies affirm the definition I gave you. That's why ain't is a word. You don't have to like it, but that's how it is.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 01:44 AM
2

Wow, just wow. Do you even read what you're writing? No, what I am implying is that there are observable patterns of behavior associated with mental illnesses. I'm not saying that any pattern of behavior could be labeled mental illness, how you even come to that conclusion I just don't get. I'm guessing you're a freshman at college who just leaned about logical fallacies considering how much you love them. I asserted that specific behaviors (not any) in a pattern that cause mental anguish or poo…
/r/MensRights05/07/15 10:39 PM
5

So an idiot then. Even if I take exactly what you have said and assume it is true (your sources are lacking but whatever), a mental disorder (also known as a mental illness) can be defined by the pattern of behaviors that are common to it. Observable behavior is physical evidence. It is observable that sufferers of PTSD are prone to depression and increased anxiety. Up until recently migraines could not be physically proven, no one (except idiots) asserted that migraines simply didn't exist. Jus…
/r/MensRights05/07/15 10:01 PM
8

I can't tell if you're a troll or just stupid. EDIT: Pretty sure just stupid.
/r/MensRights05/07/15 09:10 PM
2

Honestly, it seemed like they all handled it very well. They were all pretty damned respectful of each other. They seemed to actually be processing the evidence, rather than being stunned by it. They may have been uncomfortable with it, but they didn't really seem stunned to me. I'm just glad they could have a respectful discussion.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 08:36 PM
2

I'd also note, that at least in this sub, I've noticed that actual misogynists that post get told they aren't helping (and a good heap of downvotes).
/r/MensRights07/06/15 07:40 PM
5

Which is really sad for anyone who loves Chaplin.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 07:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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