TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Spider__Venom Archive

View 0 posts and 21 comments by Spider__Venom 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

were not called dictators, they were called presidents. Yes, and? North korea calls itself a democratic republic, doesn't mean it's true. Stalin was also just general secretary, does that mean you think he wasn't a dictator either? why were they not presidents, but dictators? You answer: “because it was a dictatorship”. And why was it a dictatorship? “Because they were dictators”. Circular. That's actually not at all what i would answer, but nice way of assuming what i think without actually kno…
/r/MensRights18/06/21 07:58 PM
1

But there was no dictator. That is not considered to be true. Specific army officers were in charge during different parts of the dictatorship, first of which being castelo branco (technically he was the second but the intermediary leader was in control for just a few weeks and pretty much irrelevant), who was succeeded by Artur da Costa e Silva, and so on and so forth Being that said, of course my definition is debatable. In the current context, I think it is valid. Your definition is not congr…
/r/MensRights18/06/21 04:02 PM
1

The definition of dictstorship you give seems quite strange and doesn't match the generally accepted definition which is usually some variation of: "a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator" I don't see how your defintion is really valid.
/r/MensRights18/06/21 01:31 PM
7

Is this a poe or is thid supposed to be serious??
/r/PussyPassDenied10/03/19 02:28 PM
18

oh, but you used a male symbol, not a female one, so clearly you're just a racist mysogonazi trying to put patriarchy into our glorious feminism /s
/r/MensRights11/02/19 07:35 AM
1

That is not the same, since black lives matter, and blue lives matter are both groups pf people (i'm assuming you're thinking of one of those two), whereas red Lives matter is, to my knowledge, not, making it a completely different thing
/r/MensRights05/12/18 07:38 PM
5

Ignoring your continued ad-hominems, and your apparent conflation of "the past" and "the past of demographically white, european countries", here goes First off, you fail right off the bat, since you ask if contextually the past is white dominated, but fail to actually give your context. Context can only exist in regards to something else. And I will admit. Countries which are demographically mostly white, are white dominated. That is a consequence of demographics. The same way India's past is d…
/r/MensRights05/12/18 07:36 PM
9

Would you be happier if I said "the future is white" or "the future is male"? both of these would be extremely frowned upon. The fact that I chose aryan doesn't change the point itself, it just makes things very obvious.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 04:07 PM
6

Frankly, I don't care what skin colour you have or what gender you are, since it doesn't matter. Saying "as a person with x trait, you are wrong" says nothing more than "you are wrong" when it comes to the argument, the only thing that changes is an implicit message that you believe that it gives you some kind of additional merit to make your arguments more believable. Now, to your post itself. It wasn't meant to say anything about equality itself. Rather, to show that these sorts of blanket sta…
/r/MensRights05/12/18 03:53 PM
11

Nice ad-hominem, but I digress. The problem is you've misunderstood the kind of change I've made. I replaced one population for another. A better example would be turning "make america great again" into "make belgium great again" the content of the sentence is not supposed to change, only whom it is about. I'm sorry if you misunderstood the intention of the comment.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 03:44 PM
205

"Our future is aryan" replace a single word with a different one and see how many people agree
/r/MensRights05/12/18 12:21 PM
6

https://np.reddit.com/r/TheBanout2018/wiki/secondary?st=JLZ7YCKE&sh=cafecb70 The ban list has been revised and MensRights is not on it anymore. Though this list still looks quite biased
/r/MensRights12/09/18 08:58 PM
201

And 100% of those that weren't in STEM fields weren't there because of discrimination.
/r/MensRights03/08/18 04:42 PM
2

Yeah, it's clear that it's meant as 2 yes answers, and it's sad that they are so blinded by their ideology that they can't even make their questions fair and balanced, but I feel like you should always challenge yourself to see it in the best light, simply to gain more insight into their possible thought processes and arguments, but yeah, you are right in principle
/r/MensRights03/08/18 04:41 PM
2

Well, the second choice does not necessarily mean "I'm not in STEM because I was discriminated against" (if we give them the benefit of the doubt, we shouldn't, but for the sake of argument), then you have "yes" and "question does not apply to me". Which could be counted as 2 answers. But really it's just nitpicking at this point, don't take it too harshly :)
/r/MensRights03/08/18 04:32 PM
50

The options are yes, and n/a. Totally not a false dichotomy, nothing to see here, dude.
/r/MensRights03/08/18 04:17 PM
5

As of 10 am 25th of may, european time, it has 10 reviews Addendum:I checked the english .com version of the site Addendum 2: as of 10 minutes later, the german site has 33 reviews. It seems like the reviews were pulled from everywhere
/r/MensRights25/05/18 07:38 AM
3

True, true, you are right, it is quite a lot about culture. And yes, almost everyone will try to carry less stuff when possible, but you said yourself that women aren't expected to carry as much, which I feel is dumb. Why hold someone to lower physical standards for being a woman in jobs where physical strength is a large part of the job. All that will happen is that people who aren't really qualified will get those kinds of jobs. Of course, as you have said, it also depends on the screening pro…
/r/MensRights11/04/18 07:02 AM
20

I do as well. But this bs with allowing women to get away with not meeting the requirements enrages me, specially in places where lives could be endangered, such as firefighters or military recruits. I'd say if women want to join the army, firefighters, police, etc, let them, provided they fullfill all physical requirements, and do not demand special treatment
/r/MensRights11/04/18 06:13 AM
31

Yes, it is a question of individual quality, but biological factors tend to make men more suited to this type of work.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 06:07 AM
8

I don't know about you, but there would be a reproductive problem as well, methinks
/r/MensRights30/03/18 08:58 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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