TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheGreatDicktator Archive

View 0 posts and 68 comments by TheGreatDicktator 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

"people teaching your kids" - the point isn't that the kid isn't aware of sexual behaviour. They probably are. The point is that they are incapable of operating on an equal footing with adults on an issue as complex as this. Any interaction between a minor and an adult is tainted by being an unfair interaction - the balance of power between the two cannot be equal. I think you're making the point at the end that parents are increasingly placing culpability on others to raise their children for t…
/r/MensRights07/07/13 03:40 AM
7

"if someone wants to do it, why not" The point you're missing here is that sexual interaction requires consent. Young people are held to not be capable of giving this consent until a certain age, and they can only consent to people of a certain age in some areas, due to fear of undue influence on the younger person by someone who is older. This makes a lot of sense to me - are you as capable/in control at 14 as you are at 18? Not at all. Young people are very easily manipulated/influenced, hence…
/r/MensRights06/07/13 05:47 AM
2

This article is so fucking bad.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 04:57 PM
1

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. No it doesn't make her his mum. But I am from this state, and was raised in a similar situation. Living with a long term de facto partner of your parents is essentially like living with your Dad's new wife. Couple that with her actually being the mother to his half-brother (she probably was a mother figure to both by association) and there's a certain amount of "power" inherent in her role even if she wasn't a mother figure. Which I think she …
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:31 AM
1

They had a kid together man. She would have been a mother figure in that home, 17 is definitely old enough considering his age at the time.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 12:38 PM
1

Like I said, variance in justice/reporting, as well as public perception, is what I believe makes this an MR issue. I'm actually from the state that this takes place in, so it interests me a bit more, especially as we had a very controversial suspended sentence on a sexual assault charge recently. I'm not sure if this is an MR issue now, but this sentence gives me a feeling of unease; "The woman had been under the mistaken impression the age of consent was 16 and was ashamed and embarrassed..." …
/r/MensRights23/05/13 01:52 AM
1

It's your dream to fuck your Dad's girlfriend....? Also, it's against the law in the state which it occurred. There are many cases of men being prosecuted for the same thing. So if there is variance in the reporting/justice delivered due to gender would you agree this is an MR issue? Also, where would you draw the line of where consent ceases to matter (ie statutory rape?) In Germany where it is 14 does the age of the person having sex with the minor matter?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 09:08 AM
2

"has been in a relationship with the boy's father for 11 years and the couple had a young child and the incident had split the couple up" What part of being a mother figure since he was five and also being his half-brothers biological mother isn't power? Think about the psyche of a child, it doesn't care whether there's an adoption certificate or not...
/r/MensRights22/05/13 09:02 AM
2

The justification of sexism against men comes from a misunderstanding, whether intentionally or otherwise of Patriarchy theory. The term uneducated is a misnomer here, as it's not an issue of educated/non-educated. There are perfectly fine uneducated feminists and perfectly horrible educated ones. A more accurate term would be extremist feminists or you can actually break it down further into separate schools. The key here is how gently you take her along your argument. Don't start with the most…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 07:43 AM
1

What field of academia are you in?
/r/MensRights15/04/13 05:05 AM
1

My thoughts exactly as an Australian, you sexy Maple leaf you.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 03:47 AM
1

copy-paste the link into the reddit search and it'll tell you if it's anywhere else on reddit old buddy old pal.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 03:39 AM
1

I appreciate you taking the time to reply (ironic given your user-name) but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree again. For one, the statement that if incentives don't work they're not incentives is technically correct, but it should be acknowledged that the effort was made to try and fix the issue. The benefits, through scholarship and the like, do exist, even if they're not having the desired effect. So it's still intellectually dishonest to sum up AtheistConservative's point as either a l…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:59 AM
7

I loved the intellectual dishonesty with the false equivalence here. "So either women are behaving completely irrationally by foregoing the incredible benefits you say each and every one of them would receive by entering a STEM major program and career field... or you're wrong and these benefits don't actually exist -- at least, to the extent... that they actually incentivise individual women enough to leave their typical programs to study STEM fields." The fact that this problem still exists do…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:37 PM
1

I'm guessing the real reason is to avoid ending up on register-her.com or whatever it is.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:44 PM
3

Na, read on, he says that Alex Reid wasn't involved and that he still has his job. No petition as far as I know for the guy who did lose his job, but someone posted the employers contact info further up.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:40 AM
2

To be pedantic, I think The Thing "remake" was actually a prequel and I thought the actress did a pretty fine job all things considered. No Kurt Russell of course. But Evil Dead with a female protagonist just isn't right - it'd be like having a male protagonist in the Alien franchise...
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:52 AM
2

Yeah, but intent to hit in the head with a giant stick is enough. Otherwise everyone would just claim they didn't intend to do it. In my home state we had a case of a man chasing his wife down the main street of the town trying to stab her with a kitchen knife. He was stabbing as he chased her and he accidentally stabbed a bystander through the hand. His lawyer told the judge, yes he had committed the act, but he lacked the intent. He'd meant to stab his wife, not this random. The judge held int…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:11 PM
1

It's a legally defined term. There is leeway, but by using case law you can nail down what it means in a given situation. It's what would a reasonable person have done in the place of the defendant? It also can be ramped up - ie, if the defendant is a doctor it's what would a reasonable doctor know I'm pretty sure. There isn't that much opinion in law. But tests like these contain an element of opinion in order to allow the judge room to move so that he can implement the intent of the law and no…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:03 PM
1

Thanks man, thanks again for taking the time to respond/link to information. I always like to learn.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 03:21 AM
1

Here lies our basic issue. I want to change the world I live in. Idealistic, but I haven't given up hope yet. Your solution is good for you, but surely you can't deny that people working together for their beliefs is what leads to long term societal change. I understand that you still donate, and that being a MGTOW doesn't stop you from being an MRA. But if your solution is to simply expatriate I think you have to acknowledge that you're acting entirely out of self interest (and your childrens).…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 12:24 PM
1

Dude, I don't think you're a flipper. That first part was just letting you know my position. I didn't mean to apply it to you. I've never seen a post of yours before. I also had a fair bit after that "openly harm the movement" bit that sort of changes that point. Flipping off the handle specifically refers to your and OP's initial assertion that this sub lacks solidarity. I guess I just can't comprehend how you can't see that so many people have tried to explain to OP their position and he's dis…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 05:55 AM
1

To be honest I think the whole title of this thread is hyperbolic. This has been an ongoing issue since I joined, and I'm pretty sure long before for the wider movement. I don't see how it needs to be addressed if this subreddit is to survive. Our standard behaviour is to ignore it. That's been working, as this subreddit has only grown. To be honest, this post should have gone to Men's Right's Meta. But it's a bit pointless now. I can't really see how I'm a troll. I've not tried to change the to…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:49 AM
1

Good for you. I'm glad you have preferred spaces. I myself use this subreddit mostly as an aggregate for information to support my real life advocacy. I didn't blast OP because he has passion. I disagree with his opinion. As a few people do obviously. But the only reason I "blasted" him is because he IS being paranoid. MRAs are disagreeing plain and simple. He blasted a lot of others before I commented. I don't want to lose two MRAs because they got upset about a pointless post. Also, you say pe…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:18 AM
1

Dude, that's not cognitive dissonance. You are acting a bit paranoid - I haven't seen you accept a single opposing view, at ALL. It's all "you're a rad-fem/SRS/I have more points than you". Nobody just disagrees with you? Really? Seems more likely than just now uncovering a vast feminist conspiracy within our long term members. Calling you paranoid and upset is truthful, and the reason I mentioned diversity (not lack of) and lack of unity is because I don't expect /r/MR to agree on a lot of issu…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 12:36 AM
1

Didn't think I could do a dodge with the initial contact of a conversation. The point I was trying to get at was what are you picking up on here that makes you sense feminists outnumber MRA's here at Men's Right's? Because I haven't seen anything. It seems much likelier that they're probably MRA's who just don't agree with you. But if you've got examples etc I'd love to see them. I'm not downvoting you or concern trolling. Just asking you to explain an opinion (I sense feminists outnumber MRA's …
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:02 AM
1

I'm sorry that you experienced that cyber stalking. You should report that to an admin. I have witnessed repeated lies being told about this subreddit both on reddit and social justice blogs. For example, the continual reiteration that the SPLC labelled us a hate group - despite the specific denial of this by the SPLC itself. But it's been going on since I subscribed here. I don't think it is quite as urgent as you obviously feel. But then again, it just directly affected you personally. Things …
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:18 AM
6

Seems like the definition of feminist is someone who doesn't agree with you. Couldn't your opinions just be disliked by MRA's? Why does it have to be an us vs them mentality?
/r/MensRights25/02/13 04:39 AM
1

This made me feel like shit because I'm always that weird adult cousin. Kids are funny, the games they play are fun. Adults are overwhelmingly like this vapid bitch. Now every time I play with my fucking RELATIVES I'm going to feel like their parents think I'm a pedo. I also hated the "teacher who wants to take your kid to Monet, etc". I had teachers like this in school. Overwhelmingly they are doing it because they can see that kid enjoys something that isn't encouraged at home. She also uses m…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:31 AM
6

Think you've got your info wrong there buddy. Thats mis-information spread by those who do want to denigrate a legitimate movement. There is a link to a retraction by SPLC somewhere but I don't have it. Hopefully someone else will if they can be bothered, they might not be though because when you say things like this people assume you're trolling. Additionally, SPLC's views in my opinion are massively skewed towards an American, liberal and feminist viewpoint. As it is mostly White-Knights and F…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:49 PM
2

Pretty sure it would come under the common law tort of battery if nothing else.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 12:02 AM
3

I said closer to thirty than three. To be honest, I think eight-ten would suffice, but it would depend on other factors as well.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:49 PM
0

Ok; (I) I don't know enough about Poland's Assault laws to make a judgement honestly, but 3 years does sound pretty lax to me. (II) Yeah, looking at it again I have to say its not an MR issue, simply because there's no evidence of prejudice, sentencing discounts, etc. I still think it's an awful case though. Thanks for getting me to have a second objective look at it. I'm usually the guy saying "but how is this MR?" so I understand where you're coming from. That said, this is a truly interesting…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 04:07 PM
10

Ok, premeditated isn't the correct word. The fact that it's a process that takes hours is what I was meaning to convey. It can't really be classed as a crime of passion. One tooth maybe. But to take them all? I think all my other points still stand, thirty years might be a little harsh, but it's essentially grievous bodily harm...
/r/MensRights28/04/12 10:55 AM
0

I don't get what you mean sorry... Care to elaborate?
/r/MensRights28/04/12 10:29 AM
107

3 years... For such an abuse of trust and her profession. 3 years for such a premeditated, cold act of revenge. This is fucking awful. The article even apologises for her saying "just days after he'd broken up with her". So what? If you're emotionally distraught by him, send him to another dentist! No excuse for this disgusting abuse of trust. Her license should be revoked and she should be looking at closer to thirty years than three.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 04:27 AM
3

This is great, thanks for the effort!
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:28 AM
7

People who know how to do this stuff, how much work would it take?
/r/MensRights22/04/12 04:41 AM
2

It's not about whether you're allowed to record, it's about it being admissible as evidence. Due to the potential for abuse when one party doesn't know they're being recorded it's inadmissible in a lot of jurisdictions.
/r/MensRights22/04/12 04:25 AM
1

A reminder I'm coming from the Australian perspective. I'll outline the elements one must satisfy to prove battery or assault. You must tick all the boxes to prove either. Ok so the basic elements of Battery (in Common Civil Law) are this: 1) An intentional, reckless or negligent act of the defendant 2) Which directly causes 3) A physical interference or contact with the body of the plaintiff 4) Done without lawful justification The requirements for Assault are this: 1) An intentional or neglige…
/r/MensRights22/04/12 04:23 AM
2

Would depend on the show of force. Give me specifics? In answer to your throwing water on someone question, in general no I don't believe so. There's no reasonable expectation of violence. Someone waving a glass in anothers face as they threaten him or say they wish he was dead would be. The key thing to remember with threats/words is that there has to be a reasonable expectation that the violence threatened could become actuality. An example (and case) is a man who threatened a man with an unlo…
/r/MensRights22/04/12 04:11 AM
3

Not sure if sarcasm... But in case not; Most people mistake Assault for Battery. Battery is the act of violating ones right to physical autonomy, assault doesn't need contact at all. Bit pressed for time now so heres an incredibly quick and badly sourced explanation: This is just from the wiki on Assault: "act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force" It's even been held that words …
/r/MensRights22/04/12 02:39 AM
5

This. Assault is more than just physical interaction.
/r/MensRights22/04/12 01:33 AM
1

Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this sorry mate. I have a strong belief in the legal system, and think that law based claims are what will "win" this for us. I'm not going to stop asking for proof when someone makes an unfounded claim. That's just because we disagree on the point of adopting emotional responses, vilification and reputation destruction. I believe that those tactics are exactly what is driving people away from feminism. I also believe that questioning people when…
/r/MensRights21/04/12 11:11 PM
6

The article states that the Justice in charge of the case has decided there was reasonable doubt the mother had the necessary capacity to form intent ( as in she committed actus tea but lacked the mens rea) to murder her children. But WHAT ABOUT THIS: Forensic computer analyst Dwayne Pilling told the court internet searches found on McConnell’s computer included ‘‘How long does it take to drown?’’, ‘‘How long does it take to die from strangulation?’’, ‘‘electrocution by hair dryer in bathtub’’ a…
/r/MensRights21/04/12 12:15 PM
1

The original article this woman wrote is just awful. Clear misandry. Good post.
/r/MensRights21/04/12 11:58 AM
1

Why doesn't his opinion matter?
/r/MensRights21/04/12 05:27 AM
2

From what I've read of SRS (and I usually read it at least once a day) it does encourage misandry, arrogance and belittles legitimate MR issues because they "are nothing compared to what women face" and take things out of context. An example would be a recent post regarding a woman who said she felt more at home at MR than Xx or feminism. She stated why she felt this and gave many examples. On SRS she was dismissed and belittled as a "special snowflake". I know that SRS is a circle jerk, and tha…
/r/MensRights21/04/12 05:23 AM
3

I think the issue is with things that loosely fit in the niche. Sometimes things don't fit, and I can't see an issue with questioning why things that aren't actually related to appear on Mens Rights. I personally am sick of seeing this subreddit be called a hate group. It's not, but sometimes it is used by a minority to further agendas or personal issues that don't come under the Men's Rights banner. Where do you stand on people calling out things that aren't actual MR issues?
/r/MensRights21/04/12 05:02 AM
1

I don't think I am. I'm sick of seeing this place described as a 'hate group'. I understand that there's a lot of evidence about "sentencing discounts" for Women. That's actually what got me interested in MR in my first year of Law - reading a few cases where the woman killed her husband and got away with a few months jail, or no jail at all. If this was a case like that, or a standard 'mother killing child' case, I wouldn't bother asking for an analogous case. Then, as you say, it would be comm…
/r/MensRights20/04/12 11:32 PM
1

I don't understand the downvotes! Clearly a joke!
/r/MensRights20/04/12 02:50 AM
1

I'm Australian and I'd believe this. I'd like to read it so I could use it in arguments. Recall what it was at all?
/r/MensRights20/04/12 02:44 AM
1

How is asking someone to back up an apparently unsubstantiated claim a bad thing?
/r/MensRights20/04/12 02:36 AM
1

Is this Tim & Eric?
/r/MensRights20/04/12 01:58 AM
2

Guy Pearce?
/r/MensRights20/04/12 01:46 AM
3

Sorry, I must have read this wrong. I interpreted it as a counseling group for men who had been abused by their partners. Having re-read the article, I completely agree with you. It's 1am. I'm going to sleep so I can read things properly again. Cheers for the correction
/r/MensRights19/04/12 03:04 PM
0

Nice change to see a positive article for once! Is there another famous John Howard other than the Australian ex-PM?
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:31 PM
1

Thanks, I didn't even check how long they'd been here, a months about how long I've been on here too! One mans 'new' is another mans 'long enough to condescend'
/r/MensRights18/04/12 09:47 PM
1

I said exactly what I wanted. One case supporting his statement with similar facts. Didnt ask for studies, didnt "move the goalposts". The claim that 'it would have been decades if a man' was one of the only things making this an MR issue. I doubt there is an analogous case, so the sidebar is unlikely to help me. I think this guys claim was wrong, and I was asking him to back it up. I wanted him to so that I could support this claim. I'm not smugly attached to any thinking, except that where you…
/r/MensRights18/04/12 09:45 PM
5

I'm not saying it is. It's accepted that the person claiming something ALWAYS has the burden of proof. Here's proof: http://www.trans-lex.org/966000 Also wiki; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#section_7 It's International legal convention. So no, not my court. Just every court. We're on the same side here, but saying claims you can't substantiate only hurts those you can.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 04:00 PM
0

The onus isn't on me. I'm not against you here guys. But the burden of proof is on you. Why? I'm arguing that the suspended sentence was largely due to the age etc of the girl. Pretty accepted that Judges HAVE to take the fact someone is a minor into account, regardless of gender. I'm also asking you to show me why the gender has anything to do with it. You said the fathers sentence would have been measured in decades. I'm just asking you to support that statement.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:39 PM
7

Both those cases are very interesting, although I don't see what the sign one has to do with gender. Neither are an analogous case. Neither is relevant here. I'm asking for a case where the facts are, for all legal purposes, the same as this one. Where a father has, through covering up the birth, been criminally negligent - resulting in the infants death. Then we could compare the two. Yeah I'm new to /r/men'srights. Don't see what that has to do with anything. I've been a law student/mens right…
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:14 PM
2

Police Murdering Us seems preeeeetty legit. No real way to tell though I guess. We should save this thread to throw in the trolls face next time they do get the reaction they're after though.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 02:44 PM
4

Not trolling, but an analogous case?
/r/MensRights18/04/12 02:33 PM
18

Thanks for this link. With more information, it's a lot easier to understand the outrage here. I) concealing the birth led directly to the infants death. That changes it fundamentally for me. & II) The request for her maybe-ex to pay her hospital bills? WTF? However, she sounds pretty messed up and is a teenager. I'd argue this exactly the same if it was a young man. These factors DO matter, and they'd definitely be taken into account by the judge when sentencing.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 02:33 PM
16

Her sex doesn't come into it. My main issue is that it doesn't say anywhere in the article that she killed the baby. Doesn't even say how the baby died. Trust me, nothing disgusts me more than the parent of a child killing it and escaping justice. But without more information (feel free to link me) this looks like a panicked teenager who made a shitty decision, regardless of gender. I'm guessing that's what the judge thought too.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 02:01 PM
17

Where does it say she killed the child? Also, she's a minor. I'm not condoning what she did, but there are mitigating circumstances.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 01:50 PM
1

Agreed. If you can't cite it, don't say it. Otherwise it's just a circlejerk
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:30 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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