TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ThePantsParty Archive

View 0 posts and 50 comments by ThePantsParty 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 mean, sure, but that's kind of like saying if we went to Antarctica before inventing coats, we'd die. It's certainly not incorrect, but it certainly doesn't change the fact that we have invented it, and so our actions today are informed by that reality. There's any number of scenarios you can name that would be different if we hadn't invented something. In 2017 though birth control and coats exist, so we can have sex without worrying about children and go to Antarctica without freezing to deat…
/r/MGTOW21/06/17 05:46 PM
1

Yes, that probably would've been wise to do about 3 comments ago. Better late than never though.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 08:41 PM
1

Literally repeating what I just said again... Kind of an odd approach to a conversation. Okay one more time, just for you: no one is saying sex is unimportant in general. They're just saying it's morally unimportant. There is no contradiction in wanting to have lots of sex while saying it's morally unimportant, as much as you would like that to not be the case. Hopefully that makes it clearer for you.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 08:15 PM
2

I don't think I really disagree with much of what you've said in general, except possibly the non-neutral implication that the effects of non-monogamy might be analogous to gluttony. Personally, I do think that there can be immense value in having close relationships (including sex) with multiple people, largely for the same reasons that people would find it kind of weird if someone had some strange belief that they can only have one platonic friend. Like how weird would it be if you could only …
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 07:26 PM
1

It's odd to receive a reply from someone repeating exactly what I just said, except written in a tone that indicates they haven't internalized the actual meaning of it. they are saying it's unimportant in a certain way
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 06:59 PM
1

I mean that's all fine, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying since I wasn't arguing in favor of that position being "correct" or anything like that here. I'm only clarifying that the claim is that sex is not a morally significant action in itself when they say "It's just sex", not that they don't care if they have it or something like he was trying to frame it as. But since you went down that track, just for the sake of the conversation, I'm a little curious why you think the things you…
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 06:25 PM
1

The part of it that you are, in fact, totally misunderstanding is that they are saying it's unimportant in a certain way. Not unimportant in every way possible. They're saying that it's not important in a moral or character sense, not that it's not important to them in a "do they personally like it a lot" sense. That claim could even be factually wrong for all it matters here, but I'm just clarifying what the claim is since that's the part you're missing.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 06:23 PM
2

I think you're misunderstanding how that phrase is used... Just to clarify, I'm just here visiting to understand this community/philosophy a little more, and I've certainly used that phrase before. It's not intended to say that sex is boring or undesirable or something, but rather just that the act of doing it isn't necessarily some big sacrosanct event that needs to be surrounded by guilt and self-questioning. Like if someone claimed that you should only play one video game your whole life beca…
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 05:08 PM
0

I'm not sure what you mean...no one said that no one cares about the number. The guy in the pic even alludes to that with the whole "held to a different standard" thing. Obviously they underreport it because people do care, which you already know, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question I guess.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 04:53 PM
1

I didn't say anything about Trump, I said his supporters. His supporters are some of the most identity obsessed people I have ever seen in my life...the reddit-parody SJW has nothing on a lot of them. /r/the_donald seems to think almost everything in existence is a direct personal attack on their white/christian/straight/conservative identities. This post is currently one of the top on the subreddit. It's a post with a generally /r/childfree narrative that having kids can really impact your pers…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 08:49 AM
3

There is no communication issue whatsoever...he just decided to try to deflect from being wrong (which he admitted to being in the following comment). This was a very simple exchange: he's claimed throughout these comments that there was no material difference between Obama's order and the one in question, and so was complaining that people "didn't have a problem with Obama's", when the entire main point that people have been outraged about is that this order banned current legal immigrants, som…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:44 AM
5

Exactly like I just said, you're not participating. The topic of our exchange is "is this ban the same as the last one", and you've now learned that it wasn't thanks to my clarifying that for you. That topic is now closed since you agreed. I didn't ask what your thoughts are about a total ban, and I couldn't care less, so why are you telling me? What's next, are you going to tell me your favorite breakfast food?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 05:21 AM
2

I already gave an example of how a conversation can go without "everyone universalizing". If you want to ignore what I said with no rebuttal, that's your prerogative, but then there's no reason to even write a reply in that case, because you're not even participating in the exchange then.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 05:01 AM
4

Just as a heads up, you don't really come across like someone interested in any sort of serious conversation. Just a constant stream of deflection and one-liners while apparently not having done even the most basic reading about the topic at hand. If that's what you're here for, obviously no one can stop you, but you're not "debating" anything like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 04:44 AM
7

That's fine if that's your position, but at least be honest enough to say that, instead of the absolute fabrication that "this is the same thing as before and no one complained back then". You're not ignorant of the fact that it's different anymore, so to repeat it again is to just intentionally lie now.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 03:21 AM
1

No, there's a difference between explaining what works for you personally and thinking what works for you necessarily works for everyone else. If I personally find fulfillment in doing action X, and defend against people attacking my choice to do action X, that is not "universalizing" unless I claim they should feel obligated to do it too.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 03:17 AM
5

The most justified reason to laugh at someone is when they posture as if they have some deep insight into an issue, but yet can't even manage to explain it let alone defend it. You're a non-participant in this conversation at the moment, so why would anyone care if you're "laughing" or not?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 03:14 AM
7

Yes, you would. If you had done that, you would already know the answer, and the answer is that the ban you're referring to did not even resemble this one for that very reason. Including legal immigrants in it like that is an entirely different situation from just not accepting any new immigrants (which also isn't what the other ban did either for that matter).
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 03:10 AM
4

it makes the left (my party) take a long and hard look at what happens when you double down on identity politics I know this is everyone's favorite buzzword at the moment, but if we look beyond the normal context it's used in, the other lesson we've learned about identity politics is that it apparently can get you elected no matter how unqualified you are, because there's no one more invested in identity politics than Trump supporters. It's not the same identity that you had in mind, but it's id…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 03:05 AM
24

And don't forget: The best cologne for men is Gio Acqua Di by Giorgio Armani. Fucking parody level here. Apparently the OP is the patron saint of every college freshman in the club. Yeah guys, just get the most generic Macy's special you can find, and you're golden!
/r/seduction16/11/16 02:59 AM
16

For all the self proclaimed "nice guys" who are actually manchildren or douches This is primarily a subreddit for images of these "nice guys" demonstrating their unique charm. Videos, articles, and other content are welcome
/r/MGTOW22/12/15 09:44 PM
0

Of course there's no external meaning...it's not even clear that that those two words in that order even mean anything. Meaning is by its very nature something referring to the goals of a mind. Similarly, any goal that a mind has constitutes a point or meaning, so unless someone is brain dead, they have some kind of goal. At the very least they have goals like "not being tortured today" or something. That's why it's completely ridiculous for a person who's clearly not braindead, since they're ab…
/r/seduction25/09/15 01:19 AM
4

Why worry about picking up girls at a coffee shop when the whole reason you're there is for coffee? Why worry about picking up girls in a store when the whole reason you're there is to buy stuff? Why worry about picking up girls on the street when the whole reason you're there is to walk somewhere? Seriously?
/r/seduction23/12/13 01:49 AM
1

Once a guy I asked to dance was physically pulled away by his male friend who appeared out of nowhere to thwart me I honestly didn't know this was a thing...is this a normal thing other guys do with each other?
/r/seduction23/07/13 12:16 AM
1

Seriously...a hell of a line right there...
/r/seduction15/07/13 04:31 PM
6

You're worried that the mugger is going to trace your call because you called the cops? The cops don't generally make a habit of disclosing witnesses' identities to the criminals and you don't have to testify just because you called.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 05:10 AM
11

To be clear "as if nothing happened" also precludes calling the cops.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 03:50 AM
6

Oh my god. Are you illiterate? Look at the post that you just responded to. If you actually read it this time, you will see: Also, I'm actually not a woman... Now, for the new argument: Ignatius is most definitely a hypocrite if she does not take issue with his ban I need a quote where she said she doesn't have a problem with it, or else you're full of shit yet again. It is a moderator's responsibility to moderate other moderators Do you know how reddit works? Are you aware that ignatius is not …
/r/MensRights06/06/10 05:57 PM
9

I personally haven't read enough there yet to know whether they ever are or not, but all I'm saying is that a disagreement about a certain level of vitriol or activism does not mean that the person is against the entire movement. It's tantamount to saying that because you are against certain venues and aspects of the women's rights movement that you are therefore against all women's rights issues. I'm sure that's not true, so it would be unfair to present it that way.
/r/MensRights06/06/10 05:41 PM
7

If they don't fit the definition of feminist then they aren't feminists. Maybe all KKK members say they're dolphins, but if they don't meet the criteria, they aren't dolphins, despite what they say. (Also, it's not a no true scotsman to point out that they aren't dolphins)
/r/MensRights06/06/10 05:37 PM
7

Well, bubble burst I guess... It is hypocritical to treat one subreddit differently than another subreddit, wouldn't you agree? Well how inciteful. Of course anyone would agree, but if you have an example in this thread of someone doing that I would love to see it. What it appears we have though is: A: nlakes was banned by a random mod in another subreddit (probably a woman)" B: ignatius wrote a comment on this subreddit against fascist moderation and is a woman Therefore: ignatius is a hypocrit…
/r/MensRights06/06/10 05:25 PM
13

Jfyi, words have definitions, and if something doesn't fit the definition, it is not "no true scotsman" to point that fact out.
/r/MensRights06/06/10 05:23 PM
17

If you look at his parent, he said that in response to why shouldn't a female perspective be welcome here as well? So yes, correcting "female perspective" to "man-hating perspective" is saying they are synonymous.
/r/MensRights06/06/10 05:21 PM
18

...and other enlightening quips from the mind of limp bizkit
/r/MensRights06/06/10 04:56 PM
13

And, more importantly, is the very definition of ad hominem, unlike what most people think it is.
/r/MensRights06/06/10 04:52 PM
10

Honestly, are you even being serious? I doubt that anyone is actually so inept at thinking that they could write what you said seriously, so I'll just assume you're joking. You just correlated a random person's ban from a random subreddit, and a post from someone who most likely had nothing to do with that ban, simply because ignatius is a woman, saying that somehow she is a hypocrite because some other woman did something. In related news: all black people steal cars. If you were somehow seriou…
/r/MensRights06/06/10 04:49 PM
0

Except not.
/r/MensRights06/06/10 04:43 PM
8

It's funny; I saw no mention of men's rights in that quote, let alone any reference to disliking it.
/r/MensRights06/06/10 04:41 PM
1

I don't think kneejerk thought before posting. Well who would've ever guessed....
/r/MensRights19/05/10 02:23 AM
1

Earlobes would be a little more analogous.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 02:22 AM
3

Just to clarify, I am not being sarcastic in the least. Are you aware that if you would have taken a poll in China a few decades ago, you would have found that you had a better chance of having men like you if you had your feet bound? Despite that fact though, I don't think anyone today would find that a justifiable argument in favor of allowing parents to cosmetically alter their children's bodies. For an even more modern scenario, let's say it was the case that the majority of men today prefer…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 02:19 AM
12

Did you read the article? If you don't think that their relationship is bad enough to get divorced, I don't know what would be. You can hardly say it would be childish by any means.
/r/MensRights21/08/09 10:13 PM
1

No, she does not. Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of child support.
/r/MensRights23/07/09 01:30 AM
0

Is that what happens when the mother is the one that makes the decision to keep the baby? She takes full responsibility for the baby and medical costs?
/r/MensRights22/07/09 07:16 AM
5

If someone's not getting laid, what exactly is making them "loose" as you so claim?
/r/MensRights02/12/08 11:01 PM
-1

So you apparently have a problem with the court listening to the husband??
/r/MensRights27/11/08 06:04 PM
2

Hmmm
/r/MensRights07/10/08 04:25 AM
5

Well we know there were at least 22 people who didn't read the article...
/r/MensRights07/10/08 03:54 AM
2

But it should be mandatory! Don't you know that involuntary amputation is the same as getting a vaccine??? This injustice to women cannot be tolerated!
/r/MensRights30/09/08 04:37 AM
2

I'm not seeing the relevance of this article...is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?
/r/MensRights30/09/08 01:48 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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