TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheLostSocialist Archive

View 0 posts and 60 comments by TheLostSocialist 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)
-2

Identity politics is not socialist. SJW are not socialist. I for once want to meet an MRA who is not a libertarian Nazi.^^^<sup>\s</sup>
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:15 AM
3

I'd like to know where the idea comes from that the MRM would be more aggressive towards critique by women, considering here that I can not think of anyone responded to more harshly than David Futrelle, and also where I can buy the crystal ball that told them that the MRM will react in some depraved way to their generally fairly civilised report.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 11:36 PM
4

Maybe child support laws are unfair sometimes... but comparing killing an unborn baby living inside of one's body to not-paying money sounds so so dumb. I don't know why people make comparisons with abortion (not you, but rather both people in favour and against legal paternal surrender). Abortion has nothing to do with it. Women have the legal right to abandon a child, either via safe-haven laws, or adoption. That is the proper context.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 07:57 PM
2

The wage gap nowadays in most studies almost disappears if you control for factors other than "field of work". I earn substantially less than one of my female coworker, even though we work in the same field. Control for education, and this becomes more understandable. Control for the fact that my contract doesn't have overtime pay (so when I work more I, by private agreement with my boss, get to stay home for a few days each month instead - I work less hours per month even though I work more on …
/r/MensRights09/08/14 02:30 PM
2

There's a preselection element here. You can't have hundreds of thousands of people (hyperbole!) tested on a simulated real-life battlefield where they have to scale walls or buildings, jump over things, crawl under things, and so on, with all their gear. So instead you ask these myriad people to do a few things that are good predictors of future success in this field, like pull ups or other strength excercises, or cardio. That said, if the female body is specifically worse at pull ups, but they…
/r/MensRights09/08/14 02:18 PM
4

Don't be a moron. Depression is "feels" trumping reality, as does schizophrenia, or any other psychiatric condition. Homosexuality is, too. Trans people are, in your terms, people whose brains are made up of the "wrong" kind of cells as compared to the cells that make up their bodies. You know, female body structure, female reproductive organs, female hormone levels (with me so far? You've written about this in the past) with male(!) brains1. In other words, their self-image is not congruent wit…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 03:31 PM
2

It's just puzzling. I've not once seen someone who is well versed in gender theory and generally intelligent use language like that. It seems like a giant strawman. Well either you are begging the question here by assuming from the get-go that nobody "well versed in gender theory" would do so, when you then attempt to show that TERFs don't do this for this very reason, or this is a classic "no true scotsman" depending on the structure of your argument. In any case, here's an example where a radi…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 02:00 PM
3

I don't get it. "TERF"s (and I'm using that buzzword loosely) support gender abolishment. I don't think somebody who says to a transwoman "you are not a real woman!" is really for gender abolishment. Maybe they are of the rare breed that makes a sharp distinction between biology and gender and means just "you have not had the experiences of growing up as a woman", but then the choice of words is somewhat unfortunate, and this would also just replace biological determinism with cultural determini…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 01:29 PM
4

It's not a process, it's a state. There's quite a lot of evidence (that isn't entirely conclusive; similar to evidence for homosexuality as a biologically induced sexual orientation) that shows that "transgenderism" is physiological. So far there've been some genetic links found, if I remember correctly, but there are stronger correlates with hormonal environment during pregnancy and other epigenetic factors. A person who is transgender isn't a space fox fur-kin attention-starved teenager, they …
/r/MensRights03/08/14 01:26 PM
1

That's not why Frauenparkplätze exist. These are parking spots in well-lit areas close to the exists, because women are assumed to be in danger of assault or other violence in parking garages, they are slightly bigger not because women are assumed to be bad drivers, but because women are assumed to possibly have a stroller/pushchair or a pram, and there is often video surveillance for the same reason that they are well-lit. I'm not aware of any studies showing that women are actually in danger i…
/r/MensRights29/07/14 11:44 PM
3

I agree mildly with your point. I don't think that media critique is useless or necessarily false, although I think that the feminist paradigm used is less than helpful. I also think that there is a potential problem with the representation of people in comics, and because the context of power, sexuality, and objectification is different for media representations of women it seems to be or is a more pressing problem (men's "sexuality poses" are f.e. inherently more functional). But the Hawkeye i…
/r/MensRights29/07/14 11:33 PM
1

There's an African tribe who differentiate colour differently; they have different words for different colours, and they can distinguish different colours we don't distinguish. I'd like to see some of the details on that. For starters, how do we know they haven't evolved different rod/cone sensitivities, with the language simply reflecting biology? We already know there are gender differences in color discrimination; it isn't unreasonable that an isolated tribe could've adapted something similar…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 10:22 PM
0

Thunderfoot is really not nuanced, and he fails to accept actual research in favour of his ideology. I'm not a fan of these kinds of videos. His science content is usually very good (as far as I can tell).
/r/MensRights21/07/14 11:30 PM
1

Hm. "Strong" Sapir-Whorfism is discredited, but the "weak" form has some good evidence going for it. The most illustrative examples that are always brought up at this point are these: There's an African tribe who differentiate colour differently; they have different words for different colours, and they can distinguish different colours we don't distinguish. I can't remember the particulars now, but f.e. we might be able to distinguish orange from red, which for them is one colour where they hav…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 11:29 PM
4

Women are not sexual predators. Women can rape, given a very loose definition of rape (which I have trouble agreeing with, since I attack feminists for over-defining rape), but there's no evidence at all to suggest that women ever act as sexual predators who make targeting men for sexual assault and rape a regular activity. Isn't part of the problem that female sexual predation isn't precisely the same as male sexual predation? Child sexual abuse by women is more "covert", f.e., than men's, and …
/r/MensRights20/07/14 10:47 PM
4

Or imagine a scenario like this: A woman is at a bar and drinks to much. She's intoxicated and unaware of her surroundings. A strange man props her up and starts walking her out the bar, acting like he's a concerned friends. But then the woman's actual friends step in and are like "What are you doing?" and the man gets super nervous and bails. That's suspicious behavior, but it's not criminal. How do you distinguish reports of behaviours like the one outlined above from reports by people who hav…
/r/MensRights20/07/14 10:20 PM
3

Socialist.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 02:03 AM
2

Engels identified as one of the causes of the oppression of women the concentration of private property in the hands of patriarchs. I don't think it's that easy.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 02:02 AM
5

This is the stupid part. Marcotte conceives of a dichotomy where one is either a feminist, or in some way in favour of patriarchy. That is what that paragraph is about. It comes up again, and again, and again, and toysoldiers actually argues this point, so they are aware of the actual meaning of that paragraph. Interpreting a paragraph that is perhaps not entirely clearly written in the stupidest possible way is the opposite of honest discussion and very disappointing.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 12:52 AM
1

Ok, so if I use my partner as a pillow in the context of an equal relationship, I don't think she's a person but rather an object, but it's "good" regardless? Your language is still imprecise. Yes, but with reservations.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 12:12 PM
1

I don't know where you get the idea that the subject/object dichotomy had anything to do with linguistics. Maybe because it is the exact definition of subject versus object in linguistics... Well first the definition of objectification in social philosophy is not exactly the same as the terms in linguistics, making that an equivocation. Secondly, terms have meaning in their context, not in all contexts. "Time is relative" in an aphorism doesn't evoke the theory of relativity, and the theory of r…
/r/MensRights15/07/14 11:39 AM
0

I replied with a brief suggestion earlier. "Objectification" is a technical term in feminist theory. When you are defining the term yourself you aren't talking about "objectification" as in "sexual objectification" any more, you are talking about another thing you call objectification. Let's say you wanted to criticise the understanding of sexism in feminism. Whether you want to criticise the validity or soundness of the term, you have to address the actual term. You can't simply redefine sexism…
/r/MensRights12/07/14 01:57 AM
1

Both the proposal, and this article, are ridiculous. The Maoist EU indeed.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 10:32 PM
0

Y'all are arguing with strawmen of your own making. "Objectification" in feminism (and sociology) doesn't mean what you think it means, either.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 08:53 PM
2

I don't know where you get the idea that the subject/object dichotomy had anything to do with linguistics. It's you who is equivocating here. Look up Nussbaum's criteria for objectification as an introduction. The problem of feminism's objectification or how it is presented is that the intricacies of objectification that is dependent on and changes with the context of an interaction is seen as institutionalised, it isn't that they make a grammatical analysis and suddenly switch to a transactiona…
/r/MensRights11/07/14 07:27 PM
1

The funniest part of all this is feminists keep complaining about how it's unfair cause men are bigger and stronger The NZ Herald is a centre-right to right-wing publication. In this case at least, it wasn't the "feminists complaining".
/r/MensRights11/07/14 07:00 PM
3

Why would feminists be against male birth control? Right now the burden of birth control falls largely on women, it would be liberating if that we're no longer the case and everyone could be in charge of their own fertility. Historically there were groups within feminism that actually protested research on male birth control because this was understood as undermining women's control over their reproduction.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:44 PM
2

I don't like these article posts either. This is the text you were linked: If r/MR is not anti-female, why are there "Women Behaving Badly" articles? Western societies seem to believe that women are not violent or do not commit crimes. Reduced sentencing for women as compared to men and overwhelming evidence for gender parity in domestic violence with higher police records of male perpetrated domestic violence indicate that there is very much a view that men are "bad" and women are "good". Socie…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 02:03 AM
-1

The problem with that trailer isn't the violence. It's the eroticism portrayed through violence that is the problem. These aren't nuns, or simply cool assassins who lose, they are latex-clad sex puppets whose deaths are sexualised. Is that kind of critique reasonable? It's at the least worth talking about, but I ultimately don't know. To claim that the Hitman Absolution nun trailer was somehow just a normal game trailer like hundreds before with cool assassins and murder, with the only differenc…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:40 AM
1

Again, it wasn't a critique. Your post could be read to mean that the definition you "corrected" was the or a feminist definition, and I wanted to clarify that it is not. That wasn't my main point, either, but rather that your and his definition are just the inverse of each other, so that I don't see what the disagreement actually is.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:20 AM
1

You said you felt as if you were talking to a feminist, but a feminist would neither use your, nor your interlocutor's definition. It was a clarification, not critique.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 12:42 AM
1

No, sexism is discrimination based on sex. Stop redefining words to fit your narrative, I feel like I'm arguing against feminists right now. That isn't how sexism is defined in feminist theory. Also, the inverse of what you said is what your interlocutor said. You don't have a disagreement, or you are bad at expressing yourself.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 11:51 PM
0

The term "radical" in "radical feminism" doesn't mean "violent". There are genocidal radical feminists, but radical feminism isn't genocidal. Most modern feminists are per definition radical feminists, as they focus on overthrowing the assumed patriarchy as an institution of male power and female oppression.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:41 PM
1

I don't know how likely women are to vote for a candidate solely because they are female (or male, as the case may be), so I don't know that there is even a danger here, but if Clinton runs for the Democrats and gets into office that would be another step to the right for the democratic party. Someone who makes noises that are roughly feminist isn't leftist, even if the association drawn between feminism and the left is not entirely baseless (but it isn't necessary either). I'm not American, so …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:32 PM
3

Go on /r/socialism right now and find out how the left thinks about Clinton. You might be surprised.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:21 PM
-3

A "radical feminist" is all for the death of males, and not for "radical equality". You don't know what radical feminism means.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:49 PM
1

Nothing, because I don't know that my personal experience is relevant when discussing formal (or informal) logical fallacies which occur within systems of reasoning, which are axiomatic. If you told me that the fact that I'm a socialist introduces bias into my views on economics, that would be true.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:53 PM
10

Please, please inform yourself. Pope Francis is precisely the same as John Paul and Benedict, only with an ingratiating smile, Jesuit humility, and very good PR. He has so far said nothing that wasn't in the Catechism, and on some topics he is actually on the more Conservative side of things within the Church. He's preaching Catholic doctrine, and for some reason everybody goes gaga over that, just because he looks more like a kind old grandfather than Emperor Palpatine. Here are the things you …
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:50 PM
6

As someone who was raise catholic but not so I to it these days this dude is a breath of fresh air! That dude is 100% PR. He is slightly on the conservative side of the church on many issues and has great talent of reporting on the Catechism in a way that for some reason seems novel especially to Catholics, which of course haven't read them.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:03 PM
-1

No, it isn't, any more than saying something like "read a book!" would be. I don't know that's analogous. I don't like the "check your privilege!"-thing that's now relatively prevalent, but the problem this line sook1 to address before it was taken out of context is real. You see this on reddit often, and I'm using that only as an example and not to claim that reddit is in any way different than any other platform or form of communication, when people who've been relatively affluent their whole …
/r/MensRights22/06/14 11:20 PM
-2

Please stop using fallacies fallaciously. Ad hominem is not [a] statement that says or implies that an argument is wrong because of some characteristic of the person making it. it's a counter-argument based on an irrelevant characteristic of the author of the original argument. Also, standpoint theory is correct in so far as you can't easily separate a person's experience from their thinking. Standpoint theory is useless in science, which has instruments built into its epistemic process that mit…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 08:48 PM
1

The video starts badly, and I've admittedly not watched the rest. Framing LPS as a male equivalent of abortion is very problematic, because abortion rights are directly predicated on the right to the integrity of personhood and body, while LPS is only "proximally" predicated on the same. What LPS actually is, in my opinion, is a male equivalent to safe haven laws and adoption where the father is not named. These are rights and instruments provided to women to surrender parenthood without crimina…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 02:34 PM
1

"Essentialism" in these contexts is about biological determinism. Radical feminism (and generally feminism actually, it's a foundational claim) holds that gender is primarily or wholly constructed. You never heard the "female childhood" and the "I blleeeeedd" arguments then. Menstruation would be an essentialist claim, "female childhood" is not. To have what they term a "female childhood", you need to be raised as female. To be raised as female, you have to either have a vagina, or be intersex a…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:21 PM
2

-First, this attitude of "women have a buffet of sex possibilities" is why many men precisely don't get sex. I will never have sex with a whiner. We have more bad possibilities. That's it. Do you remember the OKCupid report that showed that women rated 80% of men as being below average in attractiveness? It's interesting how pervasive this seems to be. Why precisely should the set of "sexual possibility" of women and of men be different precisely so that all the ugly men are sexually available, …
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:55 PM
1

TERFs are usually not essentialists. The majority think that transwomen were socialised as men and thus can never fully realise womanhood. This is distinct from feminists who think that womanhood is partly biologic.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:12 PM
2

I am a male and if I had been 14-15 years and had had the opportunity to have sex with a woman I would have loved it. It wouldn't have negatively affected me in any way. How do you know this? And how do you know that the same isn't true for girls having sex at that age? It is generally considered to be the case (I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps this is an instance of fallacious "common sense" knowledge) that girls mature earlier than boys; assuming this to be true, how does that influence your…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 07:32 PM
14

This pope is not a revolutionary. He is a Jesuit, that's the only difference. Francis has affirmed catholic doctrine over and over again, he's just better at PR. His views on homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and contraception, which seem to be the main issues on which he is alleged to be a "liberal", are precisely the views espoused in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The only thing he said that isn't long-standing doctrine is his criticism of trickle-down economics, but the Church was alw…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:39 PM
2

Puberty is a sort of "age" of consent, if that is what you meant to demonstrate with your link. Not having an age of consent would mean not having any age-related limits on consent. When you say "we don't need them at all", would you concede that an adult having sexual intercourse with a toddler would then be okay? Or do you actually mean something like "puberty" and believe that this doesn't constitute an age of consent because there's no concrete number there? Also, I'm an interloper, I'm not …
/r/MensRights09/06/14 03:56 PM
2

There exists jurisdictions that do just fine without age of consent laws. Really? Which jurisdictions have no age of consent laws? Also, I don't understand how this is related to what I wrote.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 12:01 PM
2

No, not at all. Age of consent laws, or statutory rape laws, have to balance divergent interests. They are only ever a compromise between this various interests.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 02:58 AM
2

These 'flying cameras' are really nothing to fear. [...] it's hard enough to get stable wide-angle footage without zoom - they're fairly useless for spying on anyone compared to the alternatives [...] Perhaps they aren't anything to fear, or useless, now. Technology is inherently progressive. It isn't exactly presumptuous to assume that there will be much better small cameras in the future. Laws are always contextual. When the first cars were developed, my country didn't have any laws dealing wi…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 12:54 AM
2

If you are in public you have no right to stop someone from taking your picture. The details of this depend a lot on the jurisdiction you are in. In my country there's a very different understanding of the issue called "rights to one's own image" (in the sense of "image depicting someone") that to me is as obvious as the lack of a right to object to pictures taken in public is to Americans. In the context of the posted recording this doesn't apply, of course, but I think we have to be careful to…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 12:47 AM
2

I actually don't think he did that well. He's asked a very stupid question in the beginning: Aren't men the ones who do the things Esmay listed to men? His answer is to immediately go into a feminist conspiracy rant. Whether or not there is a feminist conspiracy, that is not an answer to the question, and probably not good "public relations". He could have argued that even if it were men who were responsible, these men are by and large distinct from the victims and does not magically poof them o…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 12:29 AM
1

I'm more on the biology spectrum of the "great gender debate", but it isn't as simple as Nobody invented the men provide and women care take for their own benefit. or but every culture has always had gender roles (with of course varying details) These "varying details" you talk about include things like third genders (probably up to five). Sexuality and gender isn't separated everywhere either. That's (in part) what feminism rightly recognises when it talks about differences between sex and gend…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:00 PM
1

Where do people think these gender roles came from. Find me a single society in the world that was EVER run by women with a female army? Oh right...never. We have had queens, but who did their dirty work? Men. Who fights in wars? Men. Who mines coal and makes steel and cuts down trees? Men. That's a very simple view of history and culture. There are cultures where there's evidence for more female agency and obligation. The Hopi are an example among the Northern American indigenous people, but th…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:32 PM
2

I'm not interested in reading through all postings (and I'm a bit hard pressed on time presently and perhaps shouldn't be on reddit at all). If this has been said before I apologise. Feminism is often misconstrued as being primarily about how "women are people, too", but that's an entirely incomplete definition. Feminism is at once a movement and an ideology that has developed its own versions of critical theory, theory of science/epistemology, psychology, and so on. You need to look at the ideo…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 06:18 PM
1

I agree with your first posting in this subthread; the analogy in the OP is weak. The reasons you gave, however, are a bit spurious I think. The point of analogies is to map reasoning onto a context that is the same precisely in the relevant characteristics, not all characteristics. The examples you gave actually change the relevant context (or make explicit an implicit assumption in the picture linked by the OP) by making it about gender. /u/Men13 later comes up with a valid analogy, I think, n…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:51 PM
2

I can't cite any specific study on the make-up of MRAs per se, all my posts are opinions based on what I've personally encountered... I didn't expect you to come up with studies. Maybe I phrased my request too aggressively. The problem I have with your argument, which is what I thought it would be, is that it makes inferences that are non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow that somebody who is concerned about reproductive rights is so because of their great potency. That can be the reason, but i…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 05:22 PM
-2

Attacking male sexual prowess or potency is the go-to weapon by most women, it just happens that many MRAs are MRAs precisely because of their potency and the way western law discriminates against men as a result. I'd like some evidence for that humble brag. I see no reason why MRAs specifically would deviate from the norm in either direction.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:35 AM
3

That dead blue stick figure would presumably be him. He had planned suicide.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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