TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Subotan Archive

View 0 posts and 60 comments by Subotan 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

...I never said that the ends justify the means, instead specifically saying that policies like the one I mentioned are legal insofar as they are reasonable. Moving to a different part of the plane is, stopping all men from flying isn't.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 12:38 PM
1

It's quite a famous case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts Note specifically the recognition of the Court of the unique vulnerability of children, and the limitation of rights being exercised by adults when they have an impact upon the child. If QANTAS' policy could be proven to make children safer, it would be constitutional because of this precedent.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 03:27 AM
1

If you consider precedent set by the Supreme Court of the United States to be nonsense, be my guest. I wonder if you think their judgements are 'pretentiously phrased pieces of shallow sophistry' as well.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:16 PM
1

I'm not really sure what you're getting at then. Of course any such policy if it exists needs to be done with as much information as possible available to the airline that doesn't infringe the right to privacy. Given that we have something very far short of perfect information in this case, there would of course be false positives, provided that the context the policy occurs in is one in which it has already been shown that the policy reduces harm.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:14 PM
1

So you mean investigate whether the policy actually minimizes harm to children or not? Because that's what I have been saying this whole thread.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:06 AM
1

Gendered behaviour is of course cultural - that's why I said gender, which is cultural, not sex, which is biological. There is nothing fundamental to male biology that means they pose a greater risk to children than women, but the effects of gender roles for men and masculinity in some men encourage that kind of behaviour in a way the concurrent roles for women do not. I'm currently on my phone in a foreign country at the minute, so forgive me if I am loathe to go into depth. The book I mentione…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:50 AM
1

And how are they determine whether such risk exists without acknowledging that such attacks are inherently gendered?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:34 AM
2

No - see my explanation elsewhere for why this is not the case in law in more depth. Briefly, a different, higher level of scrutiny is applied to distinguishing between racial groups with different circumstances than genders. This is because whilst some behaviour is explicitly gendered, very little, if any, behaviour can be proven to be directly caused because of race. After all, every amateur sociologist knows that crime correlates with poverty, not race.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 12:44 PM
–

Because policy can not be made on a case-by-case basis, but only on statistical truth for harm and risk minimization. Neither can be eradicated completely.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 12:21 PM
2

People have been arguing in this thread on the idea that this is wrong because certain rights of the man were violated, even if they did not mention sitting next to a child specifically, when the rights of others come first in this scenario. Your second argument has zero relevance to the argument I have been making, as I have been careful to stress that such discrimination is legitimate provided that the harm caused can be proven to be gendered. Aeroplane crashes ain't gendered.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 12:10 PM
–

Excuse me for using academic language to explain academic concepts.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 11:59 AM
–

My argument is not normative and up for discussion, but is actually the law. I never mentioned race because US law applies stricter levels of scrutiny to race than it does to gende, so the analogy is invalid. Such discrimination is almost always based upon prejudice rather than fact and actual harm minimization, as the proportion of Arab-Americans who commit terrorist attacks is almost zero, and probably lower than that of white people. Likewise, stopping black people buying a house in a white n…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 11:49 AM
-4

As I said, we actually don't, hence this little discussion. Given that most papers and sources MRAs cite on this kind of thing are highly suspect in wider academia either in and of themselves or in how they are interpreted by MRAs (See Equality with a Vengeance: Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women and the Antifeminist Backlash by Dragiewicz), I would be very hesistant to take at face value any numbers given to me on that topic by you guys. Nothing personal, but MRAs don't have a good record with…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:39 AM
-5

Teachers != All Strangers. I would also suspect on a preliminary basis that there are numerous factors affecting reporting rates between male and female teachers (gendered power dynamics, shaming vs. lucky boy, higher number of female teachers relative to men etc.) without ever seeing the study, but that's a tangent I'm not replying further to if you press it, as I have more valuable things to do with my time. In any case, like I said, if the policy isn't justified by the facts, then it ain't ju…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:51 AM
-6

No, you're the one who doesn't understand. Framing the argument in terms of your right to not be discriminated against in terms of gender has no weight in law, and is demonstrably hollow. The person whose rights come first here is the child, and the degree to which that kind of policy, based upon distinguishing between the genders, can minimize harm. If it can be shown that children are safer for that policy, that trumps your right to not be messed around by the airline. If there is no factual b…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:36 AM
-1

Mothers don't count in this case, remember, as we are talking about strangers.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:24 AM
-11

See my reply above. I was on my phone at the time, so I had to be brief and accept the inevitable wash of downvotes.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:50 PM
-13

Dat MRM misogynist
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:50 PM
-7

United States legal precedent has established that equal protection between groups does not mean that different groups with different circumstances need to be treated the same (See Tigner vs. Texas). In other words, it is acceptable to treat men and women differently if it is the case that men molest kids more often than women (which they do), and if the treatment is relative to that fact (which is unclear in this case). I have no idea whether this policy was introduced following a number of mol…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:49 PM
-38

You don't have a right to sit next to a child.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:42 PM
-2

Because the rape survivor in this scenario doesn't exist. False - the essay is deliberately written as to make the woman mentioned a possible survivor, but leave it ultimately unclear. I referred to one specifically because the trauma which some rape survivors go through when they feel threatened far, far outstrips any unhappiness a well-intentioned man might feel if a woman feels threatened by him. Nothing has actually happened to her. Wrong again. The woman in the essay is made to feel uncomfo…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 12:18 AM
–

From a few comments up: In fact, you and peole like you are exactly why men and women everywhere should fight every last one of you, tooth and nail, until your hate is wiped from the face of the Earth. Technically, you're correct, but as it happens, this little thread involves MRAs both exposing people who "discuss plans for genocide", as well as actually discussing and upvoting plans for genocide.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 10:57 PM
-1

Watch out guys, we're dealing with an MRA badass over here
/r/MensRights21/12/11 10:54 PM
-4

Except ... you've already concluded that any given man is a rapist, because you've referred to him as Schrodinger's rapist. This is exactly the point. How the hell do you then take from this that the real victim in this scenario is not the rape survivor, but then non-rapist man?
/r/MensRights21/12/11 10:49 PM
–

All prior genocides have been instigated by a very small number of people with political sway. I think you'll find that all prior genocides have been instigated by a very small number of men.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 10:47 PM
24

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY AMIRITE
/r/MensRights17/12/11 12:57 AM
5

You're welcome!
/r/MensRights15/12/11 05:54 PM
0

Because feminism uses gendered language This does not cause men to successfully kill themselves more often than women. and does not do anything to campaign for inequalities that affect anybody except for women. Feminists would like to see the end of gendered prejudices within society, and many recognise that a large part of that is eroding those that apply to men. Male suicide is not a topic feminists talk about. So? Japanese suicide is not a subject MRAs talk about. MRAs are therefore prejudice…
/r/MensRights28/11/11 07:47 PM
-1

Explain why then.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 04:57 PM
5

cool story bro
/r/MensRights28/11/11 02:12 PM
-1

It is a problem, but lack of action on it is not the fault of feminism or "bigoted gender divisiveness."
/r/MensRights28/11/11 12:51 AM
–

How was giving an explanation for the disparity in male and female suicides a derailment in a thread where you accused people of derailing from the disparity in male and female suicides?
/r/MensRights27/11/11 07:54 PM
–

Do you have any comprehension skills at all? Where did I say that I didn't care?
/r/MensRights27/11/11 05:53 PM
–

Women attempt suicide more often than men, but men use more "active" methods, so are more often successful.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 11:52 AM
24

To power our mighty feminist turbines whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
/r/MensRights12/11/11 11:00 PM
5

oh noes
/r/seduction06/11/11 09:05 PM
2

oh noes
/r/seduction06/11/11 07:43 PM
1

As in, support of it is not a feminist issue in the same way. Working towards abolition of it it is arguably feminist (The position I agree with), but maintaining it can't be.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:23 PM
–

Absolutely, but it's still incorrect.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:37 PM
–

No problem, but see my SRS flair for why the term "white knight" doesn't bother me.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:26 PM
1

Several points: There is no "feminist organisation". Male circumcision shouldn't be supported by feminists as an intrinsic part of their feminism, because it's not a feminist issue. There may be feminists who want it for their kids for other reasons, but any feminist who wants it because they're a feminist is wrong and probably a bit thick. Speaking as a feminist, I don't think either should be done to children.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 02:45 PM
-4

Fair enough, I suppose I can't make any judgements about Celda beyond what has been posted here. However, the blog post was not a response to comments Celda has made, but to the wider phenomenon of people getting more upset about women being angry at things which affect them, whilst paying little attention to what they're actually angry about.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 02:41 PM
–

*he
/r/MensRights01/11/11 02:33 PM
-3

Women constitute a higher proportion of suicide attempts, whilst men are more likely to succeed (I seem to remember that men are four times more likely to do so, because they use more "active" and violent methods than women). I'm not saying that to diminish at all what you went through, and I'm glad you got through it - but the phenomenon of higher male suicides really isn't something that can be attributed to feminism.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:23 AM
-6

I explained rather clearly why it's an example of rhetoric - she's purposefully writing extremely controversial and extreme ideas because she's demonstrating that shitheads like you get* far* more upset when a woman says something that they think is mean, whilst not shedding a single tear over the violence many women experience in their daily lives. Now you may disagree as to her opinion, that's fine, but If you can't understand that she's not being literal in that post, then I'm afraid I have t…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:17 AM
-21

Are all MRAs that obtuse? She's clearly writing like that for rhetorical effect. See her comments: When I said in the post that women are human “but I’m not sure what you are,” I was still talking about how the culture of masculinization essentially tells men that they aren’t human – instead, they’re savage beasts barely held in check by civilization (and most men are perfectly willing to go along with that because it grants them privileges). I vehemently disagree that when somebody hates or des…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 12:10 AM
-22

If that's the definition of feminazi, I suggest y'all stop using it, since nobody like that exists.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 11:21 PM
1

Indignation at what? That a bunch of mouthbreathing losers are upset over people finding something creepy?
/r/MensRights24/10/11 08:32 PM
–

Actually I'm laughing my ass off right now because I find it funny that they think what they are doing is so important that they need to archive it with screenshots. What are you doing except mocking and ridiculing people who care about their issues deeply. You don't know me. I don't go to feminist or other subreddits to mock your issues. I come here to discuss men's rights issues because I care about those issues. SRS and other anti-men's rights users disgust me because you openly mock issues t…
/r/MensRights24/10/11 08:28 PM
–

It's puzzling, more than anything. I don't care about my internet points, but it's funny watching MR get it's tighty whities in an awful twist. Thanks for the laughs.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 08:04 PM
–

And you call SRS a downvote brigade. Hehe.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 08:03 PM
0

...says the person pointing to a sarcastic username in an attempt to discredit his opponent. I'll make sure to refrain from discrediting people who call me a "fucking sexist piece of shit" from now on then. Not quite. To support equal rights is to be egalitarian. To support equal rights for men and women is to be gender-egalitarian. Feminism is an ideology which includes a bit more than gender-egalitarianism. I reject the term gender-egalitarian. To use it is to give legitimacy to calling a bunc…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 03:07 PM
0

So what you're trying to say is that you're also a fucking sexist piece of shit. Good to know. Coming from a guy called "The Patriarchy" that insult doesn't have much impact. Come back and try again once you have some credibility. ...because antifeminism = sexism? You actually believe that? Wow. To be feminist is to support equal rights for women. To be anti-feminist is to oppose equal rights for women. If you say that you are an anti-feminist, you are merely a confrontational sexist. Also, it's…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 01:46 PM
0

Oh won't somebody please think of the male Hyphenated-American! Give me a break. One comment about how white men are dull does not compare to systematic abuse and sexism from many, many MRAs.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:48 AM
4

People from SRS are such huge hypocrites. They complain about others being bigots and sexists, but when it comes to themselves they fail to see that they are also bigots and sexists. NO U They also refuse to admit they are a downvote brigade, when it's so obvious they are. Mhmk. This obviously being the most wicked thing that could ever happen on reddit, even if it were true. Besides, whenever an SRS thread is linked to MR, we always and suddenly get a blizzard of furious downvotes from some mys…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:24 AM
1

apparently
/r/MensRights05/10/11 02:50 PM
-3

SOUND THE ALARM
/r/MensRights29/09/11 11:20 PM
0

Most of us are white, cis, straight dudes.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 11:35 PM
–

For most of history, women couldn't do 90% of "men's work" and men couldn't do "women's work" because both were physically incapable of it. In terms of the most economically productive and wealth creating jobs (I.e. Finance, commerce, education, law etc. - all indoor jobs) women were explicitly locked out of those professions through legal means. You think women could have been family breadwinners to any real degree before the birth control pill, automation, and safe, physically undemanding, ind…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 11:31 PM
2

This isn't the first time I've posted Geertz's thoughts on ideology on reddit, but this passage from Ideology as a Cultural System is just so releveant when "ideology/ideological" is used as an insult on reddit: It is one of the minor ironies of modern intellectual history that the term "ideology" has itself become thoroughly ideologized....Almost universally now the familiar parodic paradigm applies: "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology." The whole chapte…
/r/MensRights04/09/11 01:40 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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