TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SongTamRiver Archive

View 0 posts and 60 comments by SongTamRiver 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)
6

And you're free to correct anyone who uses stats incorrectly. I haven't actually seen your first two examples used in this sub. At least not in the form that you list them. The third is true though.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 04:39 PM
10

Let's come to a happy agreement to use stats correctly.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 04:20 PM
2

I agree with you! But like others have said, context in this is very important, so saying that boys are better at math/hard sciences may not be benevolent sexism when it's supported by studies and if it's not being used to limit boys' achievement/participation in non-STEM fields. That's probably the big takeaway - it's something that sounds nice, but can unfairly pigeonhole a person because of their gender. Alphabetmod was accidentally switching genders or something, so his deleted comment left …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 11:47 PM
5

I'm gonna second rad_skeleton's request for an example of what you believe benevolent sexism against men is. I think we're not on the same page about it. And yes, I'd say "women are natural caregivers" is a pretty good example of benevolent sexism.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/13 06:17 PM
8

Bnevolent sexism is just sexism that sounds positive. It ties in with sexism against men because it is often the corollary of a negative sexist trope against men. That doesn't mean that sexism against men is benevolent sexism against women, it just means that the concepts are tied together. Perhaps you could say that hostile sexism against women is tied to benevolent sexism against men. I've never really considered that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/13 05:34 PM
5

Implying someone is a cultural marxist is meaningless and simply communicates that you don't like what that person believes about your group and you want to squelch them.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/13 05:22 PM
3

Disclaimer: I can only claim familiarity with American free speech jurisprudence. Speech/expression that can be regulated by the government, in broad categories (according to SCOTUS): obscenity defamation fighting words/incitement commercial speech So yes, it's justifiable for the government to place limits on speech. Another thing to keep in mind is that speech can be limited by time/place/manner restrictions, and constitutional protections do not apply to private organizations. I don't know ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/13 03:57 AM
4

And we are going to demonize a man for being a murderer even if the murder was justifiable? Whoa. You're just assuming, based on a second-hand account of a man's own explanation for his actions that it was justifiable based on "some guy had been messing with his little sister"? There's no context that I can see for what "messing with" even means with this situation, whether it's verbal or physical abuse, or sexual advances, and if the latter, whether or not it was unwanted. And I think the comme…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 04:18 AM
4

Girls might have their disadvantages, but it doesn't matter if the net disadvantages go to boys Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point? Oppression olympics? I already said that boys reading disadvantage should be given at least equal weight to girls' math disadvantage. But I do disagree with your claim that girls have more options than men do due to reading. I don't think it's due to reading that women are more heavily concentrated in liberal arts and non-STEM fields. I think i…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/13 01:43 AM
3

haha what kinda sexual dimorphism can you extrapolate from prepubescent boys and girls when girls are taller and heavier? What? I'm talking about the influence of parents, toys, and culture. I thought I was making it clear that my position was that the disparity is not 100% due to genetics? I want to see the effects of early childhood indoctrination on the different sexes. Girls and boys both think boys are less intelligent due to this disparity, at least for the early part of schooling. Okay, d…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 10:40 PM
3

Finally. Thank you for not just copy-pasting. You're right, I didn't get that it was a metaphor. It seemed completely out of left field, talking about size differences in men and women instead of this cognitive difference. And now that you've finally made your point clear, I have to say that I think it's a disingenuous metaphor. You seem to be rooting all of your beliefs on this topic in this one study, but unlike growth and size, we don't fully understand what is causing the cognitive differenc…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 10:30 PM
2

That's a hypothetical that's possible but absolutely meaningless without more information, as well as completely off topic. Unless you'd like to stop copy-pasting. I already read that shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 09:38 PM
2

Especially in light of what you said earlier in your comment ("nature is making the difference, not the upbringing in the first place, which then accentuates the effect"). It doesn't seem like all the environmental factors can be accounted for, at least not with the study you brought into the discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 01:40 AM
2

Sorry it took hours to respond! Family stuff and all that. Some parts of the discussion section I thought were interesting and possibly relevant: First of all, the previously held assumption that countries’ positive equality policies are particularly good for girls’ mathematics achievement is inconsistent with the finding that both sexes have higher mathematics achievement in countries with these policies. One possibility is that the relation between equality policies and achievement is due to o…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 11:39 PM
3

Well, all right then. I'm still reading the study. I didn't realize that the blog's author is the same as the study. Redpillers often link to blogs that have little to no scientific credibility, and I unfairly assumed you were doing the same thing, because I thought your previous comments in this thread were insipid and off-topic. I'm sorry for assuming that.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 09:26 PM
4

Why on earth did you link to your two month old comment, which links to a blog post, which links to an actual peer-reviewed study? Why not just link to the study? I'm gonna read that, not gonna read your comment or the blog post. Just wanted to ask why. Ninja edit: in case anyone is reading this thread and wants to know which study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057988
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 08:59 PM
3

That is a rather simplistic understanding of the role of upbringing. Firstly, at least where I grew up, classes were chosen for you throughout elementary school, so everyone took the same math classes and such. Secondly, people are developing their spatial reasoning skills before they ever set foot in a classroom. Video games, puzzles, and construction-set types of toys (e.g. legos, k'nex) come to mind. You're ruling out "nurture" types of effects on these skills without actually giving it much …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 08:31 PM
2

Depends on what the diet consists of ("eat more" tells us nothing of which group is getting more nutrition) and how much "more" you're talking about (are we starving the boys? malnutrition will definitely lead to them not growing to their expected height). However, I fail to see the importance of your question since I told you that no one believes men and women are genetically identical, and you can see that what BAC and I were discussing was a specific cognitive difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 06:52 PM
1

I think there probably is some innate difference, but what I'm suggesting is that it may not be as great as is often believed. I had to look up this quote I read recently: Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?" (found it here)
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 06:44 PM
2

As has been emphasized elsewhere in this thread, no one believes that men and women are identical. There are genetic differences between men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 06:35 PM
3

Not at all? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169128/ This is a study comparing the spatial reasoning gender differences between two tribes in Africa: one patrilineal and one matrilineal. In the matrilineal society, we observe no gender difference in this task. These results show that nurture plays an important role in the gender gap in spatial abilities. Our results also indicate that providing equal education and improving treatment of women at the family level may make a difference…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 06:24 PM
3

There's a distinction between differences between sexes and sexual dimorphism. While the latter is always the former, the former is not always the latter. In other words: nature vs nurture. Are those spacial and mathematical abilities genetic differences between the sexes? Or are they the result of upbringing? Honestly, I don't have the answer, but I wanted to clarify what I believe fhqwhgads was getting at.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 06:01 PM
2

Okay, I didn't know about that one. But reading the front page... it's all about being a male feminist, and it's really all about women. It's not about the real concerns that are brought up in places like /r/MensRights. From what I've seen of SRS, they do not take those concerns seriously. Also, it's not very active, is it? From the sidebar: SRSMen is an inclusive, safer space where toxic masculinity is deconstructed... I can definitely get behind this, even though I don't like the phrase "toxic…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 04:24 AM
6

I know that's kind of your sub's tagline, and it may be true for you, but actions of individual redpillers speak otherwise. Check out how quickly the old debate sub got shut down. Check out how offended some redpillers get when they wander into /r/TheBluePill. I think some redpillers can be quite sensitive when they feel their toes have been stepped on. And thus, it's best to have neutral language. There's nothing to be gained by being inflammatory.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:37 PM
2

True, but it's a subtle snark. And deleting it would probably create more drama than not. It's been pretty civil, I think.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:31 PM
7

Maybe you wouldn't care, but I'm pretty sure redpillschool would. And regardless, this sub isn't the place to say it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:22 PM
5

Yeah I thought of that one a bit after the fact. However, I think that's a good one to avoid no matter who you are, and no matter who you're assuming the commenter to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:21 PM
9

Downplaying and mocking men is shitting on men. At least, in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:20 PM
6

It's a bit snarky and disrespectful, but I don't think it should be deleted. I don't think it actually violates the rules. As such, I don't agree with those who reported that comment. My back-and-forth with him wasn't "mods should remove your comment!" so much as "when you comment here in the future, be more respectful."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:15 PM
6

I didn't say all personal views are off limits. Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't accuse you of a personal attack, either. It's obvious you're going to continue deflecting, so this is pointless.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 04:37 PM
10

I didn't accuse you of a personal attack. I said it was distinctly non-neutral. You replied that it was neutral. I gave you a counter-example of what I believe you would find offensive in this subreddit. Are you saying that you would not request that a statement such as "Avoid /r/TheRedPill because it shits on women!" be removed from this particular forum? Because I for one do not think that this is an appropriate subreddit to say that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 04:27 PM
5

I am being neutral You're not. I understand your position, but again, If I were to outright say "Avoid /r/TheRedPill because it shits on women!" you'd have a problem with it in this neutral subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 04:20 PM
8

Look, I was careful to be as neutral as possible. Perhaps you should try to do the same. If I were to outright say "Avoid /r/TheRedPill because it shits on women!" you'd have a problem with it in this neutral subreddit. I disagree with your inclusion of all those subreddits except /r/againstmensrights, which obviously was created with that goal in mind (downplaying or mocking MR).
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 03:41 PM
3

Oh, I thought you meant subreddits that were full of a more general sort of vitriol. Some women do genuinely hate men, so if he wants a full spectrum of thought, maybe he shouldn't avoid those places, but he also shouldn't waste too much time there, either.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 03:14 PM
3

That's probably true! But I'm blanking on which those might be. Any examples?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 03:03 PM
9

Hm, I don't think that I was telling him that having the problem was the reason for it. His problem is that women won't get close to him. The reason for it is (in part) the expectations he holds about women. And I think I gave some helpful suggestions for how to overcome the mentality of women as an alien species (hyperbole).
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 03:01 PM
13

I'd probably be the typical whiner about the friendzone... except women don't even become my friend (I'd honestly be OK with it, the pain of being around someone who doesn't return your feelings is much less than the pain of being around no one at all). The latest woman I was interested in I talked to basically every day for 6 months, yet she wouldn't give me her phone number or even accept a facebook friend request. I constantly place the women I'm interested on a pedestal because no woman has …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 02:25 PM
2

Ok, I looked up a source for you. At least CA and FL have mandatory chemical castration for some offenses, and 6 other states have it as a possibility, as of Feb 2006. However, I can't find a SCOTUS case about it, so I was wrong there. I even checked my casebook. It would seem they have yet to rule on it.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 03:52 AM
3

Some jurisdictions in the US impose chemical castration for some sex offenders. They take pills or shots, I can't remember which. It's ineffective and has pretty bad side effects. Actual physical castration has been ruled as violating the 8th Amendment. The chemical castration has been ruled as not unconstitutional. Edit: should mention it's only for male sex offenders, probably limited to those who've committed numerous sex offenses.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 03:12 AM
2

Probably one of the best things that can be done about this is eliminating the huge rape kit backlog. Law enforcement and DA offices need funding to process the rape kits that are just sitting on shelves. A five month CBS News Investigation has found a staggering number of rape kits -- that could contain incriminating DNA evidence -- have never been sent to crime labs for testing. At least 20,000 untested kits: 5,600 in Detroit. 3,800 in Houston. 5,100 in San Antonio, 1,100 in Albuquerque.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 05:35 AM
0

Most rapists and child molesters already go free. I don't think innocent men are punished at an outrageous rate, nor do they lack (in court) the traditional rights of the accused (speedy/public trial, attorney, presumption of innocence, etc). Out of court is a different story. I know I'm going to get downvoted because that's not the opinion MR wants to see. Coercion is difficult to prove, but in OP's link, it was an 8 year old girl whom they knew had been abused because there was physical eviden…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 06:42 AM
0

The jury is told that they may find the defendant guilty if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the practice.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 03:14 AM
-1

Do you live in the US? The standard here is beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know what it is elsewhere.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 02:40 AM
2

How do you mean? (This isn't really pertinent to this thread, wanna PM me? I really am curious what you mean.)
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:57 PM
-1

Yup, because it's beyond a reasonable doubt. As said above. Most times when there is DNA evidence (I guess we're assuming a male perpetrator here) and the case makes it to trial, the defense is that it was consensual, not that it didn't happen.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:50 PM
3

You're right. I don't understand the animosity. I don't get why feminists hate MRAs, I don't get why MRAs hate feminists. I stand for equality and equal rights, no matter where or how I see them violated. FWIW, I see the social biases being entwined with legal biases. Social equality --> legal equality much more than the other way around.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:47 PM
3

There are no standards of proof in the text of the United States Constitution.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:13 PM
3

"Social" impediments versus "legal" impediments. Are you saying no one should discuss the social ramifications of sexism until everything is fixed with the legal system? I doubt it. Both are legitimate discussions.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:11 PM
1

This isn't so much a failure in eyewitness reliability (she was later able to recant, showing that she knew who molested her) as it was a bad job of interviewing a child witness/victim. Police are honestly a lot better now at interviewing children. They've had to be, because there have been plenty of cases where children's testimony turns out to have been the result of them complying with suggestions made by the interviewer.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:29 PM
0

In this case, there was physical evidence that the child had been molested. This was a case of a child naming the wrong person as the molester. If you were robbed, and there was sufficient evidence that the robbery took place (e.g. a surveillance video showed you being robbed, but didn't show the face of the robber), a person could be convicted by you naming them as the perpetrator, without other evidence. When the victim is the sole witness to an attack that the police/courts/prosecutors KNOW t…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:52 PM
1

Uh, yeah that is the current standard of proof. Most rapes and child molestations don't have a witness. How do we make it harder to wrongfully convict someone while still striving to convict those who do rape/molest? This is a serious question, I don't have any ideas or solutions and I am trying to find out what ideas others have.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:33 PM
4

Good god, it's not about the cat. It's about how a feminist realizes that women have more freedom to engage in both stereotypically male activities and stereotypically female activities without judgment than men do. Men are pressured to remain within the bounds of masculinity; when they fail to do that, they face ridicule from both men and women. Go ahead and be masculine if you want to, but I still say that if you want to do things that people identify with a female gender role, then you should…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:30 PM
4

Meh, I think a lot of both slut-shaming and man-up shaming comes from both guys and gals. I tend to think each gender polices their own more than the opposite, though (from what I've observed).
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:25 PM
9

How do we make the standards of evidence more stringent without making them into standards that are impossible to meet for most rape victims, including male victims?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:16 PM
1

Oh, I know that the comic I linked is a different thing from the original panel; I was trying to answer your question ("What's going on in your head that makes you feel differently about this?") I won't give you any reason why you or any man should protect me from thugs. I wouldn't expect you to. Maybe some women demand this, but they do not speak for my gender as a whole. I WILL do it for myself, and I WOULD do it for you. Nor, as far as I know, do we tell men to police each other. I'm confused…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:47 AM
6

This is something that a LOT of men don't understand. I think it's because most men would never talk to women they don't know in the manner that women describe. Maybe I can try to explain? Guys often say things like "But I've been whistled at/hit on by women/gay men before, and I thought it was flattering!" Try to think about it from our perspective. The problem really isn't compliments or polite remarks; it's those things that seem to be said with the intention of humiliating or startling the r…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:59 AM
1

I think you missed the first part of that sentence. ƒ Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 13% of male prison inmates and 19% of male jail inmates said they were victimized within the first 24 hours after admission, compared to 4% of female inmates in prison and jail. Agreed, though. Serious problem, and you raise an interesting point. While they provide us with info about how many victims there are ("Nationwide, these percentages suggest that approximately 88,500 ad…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:05 PM
2

Absolutely; I'd hope that the professor would be educating the students about multiple criminological theories. Generally, though, professors have pet theories, and teach classes from that perspective. I have no idea what the content of this particular course was, or whether or not the professor in question was responsible in giving a thorough grounding in CJ. I'm just saying it's not altogether illogical to approach CJ from a feminist perspective.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 04:42 AM
3

I don't understand the "inclusive language" remark - what does that mean? As for criminal justice - much of an intro course is criminological theory, which is a branch of sociology. It can definitely be tied to feminist theory. (Source: criminal justice major)
/r/MensRights18/06/12 08:36 PM
1

I think this is pretty interesting. I'm new to MR, and I'm still trying to figure out what it's all about. I hadn't thought about misandry in video games before, or really any other medium. I'd be interested to see these videos. I also think that the tropes that they point out as detrimental align well with true feminist perspective. I'm not seeing why women's rights and men's rights advocates are so caught up in conflict!
/r/MensRights18/06/12 01:34 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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