TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ThisIsKubi Archive

View 0 posts and 38 comments by ThisIsKubi 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

Casual sex isn't a very good indicator of genuine attraction since people across the gender spectrum will have sex with partners they deem generally passable for the sake of entertainment.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/25 03:30 PM
1

What exactly do you consider "genuine attraction"?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/25 05:00 PM
1

a literal stat What stat? The only statistic you've provided is the bullshit estimate you gave for the percentage of men you think have harems. but you wanna talk about "nope". You've been going "Nuh-uh!" and make unsubstantiated assertions the whole time. LMAO When you actually have something to say other than the same shit, I'll say something different Way to project. If you can repeat yourself over and over again, I can. LOL I brought up those statistics to point out how ridiculous your assum…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/25 07:55 PM
1

My guy, I'm gonna put this in the simplest terms available: I brought up those statistics to point out how ridiculous your assumption that 10-20% of men are in harems. If you're not consistently seeking out the same partners for sex (casual or not), it's not a harem. Women have more sexual options Okay. and are currently having more sex than men. Nope. Even if you have more options for partners, that doesn't mean you are having more sex generally. Just because something is available to you doesn…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/25 09:07 PM
1

Nobody is talking wives or legal polygamy. They're relevant to the made up statistic that "10-20% of men (are) having large harems". Just as women have loads of sex with many partners don't make up a large portion of women overall, the same is true for men. Even when pursuing/having many partners isn't frowned upon, most men simply don't do it because it's more work than they'rewilling to put in. Women have proven time and time again that they don't require much money or labor from men they find…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/25 01:43 AM
1

I feel like this forgets that women are people who are figuring themselves out? It can be frustrating to deal with (which is valid), but I don't think it actually solves anything long-term. We're all complex individuals who are just trying to navigate ourselves and the world that we are in. I think humanity as a whole would be worse off if all women collectively decided to only date partners that were immediately physically attractive to them. IMO, there would be fewer women who were satisfied w…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/25 11:42 PM
7

Your perception of average is warped. You think Ryan gosling is average. Average and below average men are invisible to you. You see women hooking up with hot guys and your warped perception makes you think the guys are average. This flawed perception colors all of your opinions on dating I mean, you've demonstrated a similar misunderstanding of women. You apparently think that women only percieve subjectively hot men as the benchmark for "average" and every other man is less than. Women are als…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/25 11:24 PM
1

Having a harem is expensive and labor/energy-intensive, even moreso the bigger the harem is. I doubt that there is such a substantial proportion of men who can sustain such an arrangement, and of those who can most probably don't because such a lifestyle isn't worth it to them. IIRC, the average number of wives within polygamous cultures averages to about 1.04, as the majority of men have only one wife if they are married at all and only 2-4% of married men have more than one wife. It would be i…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/25 11:03 PM
3

An abbreviation for red pill, I assume.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/25 03:35 AM
1

And they weren't relevant to the argument. How do you prove that? Sounds more like you just didn't want to address how they contradicted your point. I clarified what I meant when I said that. You did not. It took you until today to "clarify what you meant". You didn't admit that emotions can be real to the individual who experiences them until today. Why are you quoting things I never said? It's called "rephrasing what you literally said to explicitly state the underlying meaning". Lots of peopl…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 02:06 AM
1

"You can't objectively prove that you have thoughts and feelings, therefore you should never let them influence any decision you ever make at all" is about as ridiculous an argument I've ever heard. I've already addressed that there are lots of things that also fall into "not objectively real". It's not as powerful of an argument as you seem to think it is. I've also pointed out that emotions exist for a reason and the flaws with ignoring them, including the fact (whether you want to believe it …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 11:42 PM
1

See, that's the problem with your analogy. It equates all thoughts/feelings/emotions to delusions. That's just bogus. Refer back to my point about monetary value, rights, gods, and magic.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 07:12 PM
1

You can't have something that doesn't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 06:29 PM
1

(Emotions) are real in the sense that you can have them. Brother, you're the one that said they didn't exist. You have defeated every argument you've made thus far. It doesn't matter if anybody else can verify them. ... you're wasting our time. Okay, kettle. LMAO Any argument that things that don't objectively are still real is irrelevant to my point and completely off-topic. "I refuse to admit I'm wrong." XD
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 05:39 PM
1

And for not eating. You can do lots of things that expedite or slow the process of dying. I pointed out that 1. ignoring emotions other than hunger can do that and 2. hunger is completely irrelevant to whether you die of starvation or not. ... there's no physically verifiable evidence consequences unlike if you starve to death. I also already addressed this. If someone dies of starvation, you can literally do an autopsy and figure out why they died... You can't do that with emotions. You can't t…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 03:59 PM
1

There's no tangible consequences to someone saying you're a meanie. Incorrect. Even if you subdue your emotions, your body typically still experiences physiological sensations to it (increased cortisol, increased adrenaline, etc.). These are measurable responses that exist for a reason. They're supposed to inform your decisions; That said, you don't have to make decisions that align with the emotions you're feeling (That's the whole purpose of having thoughts - which cannot be objectively anythi…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 02:16 PM
1

No address my current one. lol You had not made a point that I hadn't addressed. Blah blah blah, hunger stems from a physical need so it's actually real even though I asserted intangible things aren't real. Blah blah blah. You and I already agreed that you can feel hunger when your body doesn't need nutrients. You can ignore hunger like any other feeling, even if your body needs nutrients. This parallels ignoring your anger when somebody says mean things to you. You can, in fact, choose not to f…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 04:44 AM
1

... you're only listing things in common it has with emotions, not the things qhich differentiate it. Refer to my previous statement. Your arguments are fruitless because they don't meaningfully differentiate certain sensations from others. It's your job to make that argument since you're the one asserting that they're different, not mine. I can see why you'd need me to do your thinking for you since you believe thoughts don't exist, but I'm sure you can figure it out on your own.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 04:10 AM
1

Hunger is not an emotion. Yes, it is. Hunger is an intangible sensation that exist independently from the body's actual need to eat. Your arguments are fruitless because they don't meaningfully differentiate certain sensations from others. Nothing exists if it can't be touched. Of course it is. The alternative is to place emotions on a pedestal. Contrary to popular belief, the world doesn't exist solely in black and white. "Feel nothing and have total control over your life" and "Feel everything…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 03:52 AM
2

Emotions and feelings are synonyms. Hunger is a feeling. Hunger is an emotion. You can feel sad with or without a reason just like you can feel hunger with or without a reason. You can experience sad events without feeling sadness just like you can experience starvation without feeling hungry. There's not really a point to living without experiences. I don't know about you, but I certainly prefer living for things beyond basic survival. Also, you can still experience your emotions without lettin…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 05:00 AM
2

Emotions are sensations. They literally cause physiological reactions within your body the same way every other types of feeling does. Your body can starve without you feeling hungry. You can be hungry even when you're body doesn't need food. Your body can dehydrate without you feeling thirsty. You can be thirsty without your body needing additional fluid. Also, thoughts aren't real by your logic because they're also intangible.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 04:25 AM
3

In that case, the desire to have sex isn't real because desire is a feeling (AKA an emotion) and emotions don't exist, therefore nobody should want to have sex anyways. Hunger and thirst are also feelings, and feelings aren't real, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 04:06 AM
3

I didn't think this would be something I'd ever have to explain to somebody, but honestly I'm not surprised. PSA: People talking about you doesn't entitle you to be part of those conversations. They're not obligated to put any effort into including you in discussions about their interactions with you. I can't even imagine how petty, insecure, and immature of a person you must be to think otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 03:55 AM
2

... huh?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 02:55 AM
23

This right here. Men deserved to be loved, cherished, and desired by somebody who will genuinely appreciate them as much as anybody else. Whoever you are and whatever gender you are, you shouldn't chase people who don't want you. They will keep looking for better options while with you, and you deserve better than that.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/25 04:40 PM
1

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what I've experienced. Even in a previous relationship where I was the financial provider, my partner didn't want anybody to know he stayed at home while I worked and wanted me to jump through hoops to help him conceal the truth (let him have my bank card to pay for things, tell people he was just in-between jobs or lie and say he had a job, etc.) because he wasn't comfortable with anybody knowing that he wasn't the breadwinner.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 12:36 AM
1

If I could, I definitely would. I think other women who live that lifestyle are admirable. I can totally get the appeal and I don't see a reason why it should be limited to men as long as everybody involved is happy and consenting. What I've encountered in my own experience is a resistance from men to allow me to be the breadwinner or to be the leader/initiator. I've never met a guy who felt comfortable being completely cared for financially, and my husband is the first one I've met who's comfor…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 04:31 AM
2

This is basically the same thing as when women declare that they need to stop having sex with men to force men to change.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/25 07:07 PM
1

This loops right back to "not having proof to support our claims". I am not the Arbiter of the Universe, no, but it is really ironic that we're right back to my original point. You're the one that made it a point to bring up that science doesn't accept shoddy proof, it's only reasonable to point out that it also doesn't accept claims made without proof. You might as well have never admitted that you were wrong as it is entirely irrelevant since there is no evidence. LOL
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 11:01 PM
1

Maybe it's the limitations of my device, but I don't see any replies to this sub from last week, much less ones where you admitted you were wrong. Replies jump from a comment made 3d ago to one made 20d ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:33 AM
1

I did. It supports their argument. Saying it does nothing is just flat out incorrect. Could they have used a better source? Probably, though as we've discussed that's easier said than done due to the lack of studies on this specific subject. It's not my fault that you can't admit when you might be wrong, bud. XD
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 12:17 AM
1

That study was primarily focused on examining people's perception of themselves and how that impacts the way they see others. It has its flaws, but using consistent methodology isn't one of them. If the men rated themselves and women based on their face but women had rated themselves and men as a whole, it would immediately get declared invalid.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:51 PM
1

"could be" does not equal "is" for a reason. An incomplete assessment is a lead for additional research, which will reveal if the initial conclusions were correct or not. There's not a lot of data specifically comparing self-esteem in U.S. women vs. U.S. men, so it's not surprising that citations will include older, lower quality studies. There's not a way to quantify which is more misleading. Arguably an unproven assertion can be "more" misleading because you can just make up whatever you want …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 03:19 AM
1

Science also doesn't work by making assertions without evidence. An older study with some drawbacks is still better than a claim with no proof at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:34 AM
1

Do you have one to counter it?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 01:31 AM
–

To add to this: Who said anything about red pill? My flair is purple pilled, meaning I agree with stuff from both sides. I'm paraphrasing, of course. If you (not the person I'm replying directly to) agree with stuff from both sides, that logically means some of your beliefs are rooted in red pill ideology. Pointing out the where your beliefs stem from is part of addressing them as a whole.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 03:11 PM
1

Not every form of discrimination exists on a systemic level. I imagine proof that the government has ever discriminated based on height is sparse, but it is incredibly common for people to make fun of short men and tall women. This kind of widespread individual-level discrimination is being pushed back against in popular culture, but that doesn't always translate to acceptance in the broader population. Here are the questions I think we really need to be asking. What can men expect to change? Wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 04:03 PM
1

I think you're right. Even if you logically understand that it's a good thing for men to express their feelings, it can provoke a strong negative emotional reaction because you still subconsciously expect stoicism. It's so deeply engrained into American culture that it's embedded in our collective psyche as unacceptable to witness male vulnerability at any point before complete breakdown (if even then). Emotions in general are viewed as a bad thing that make the person who expresses them untrust…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:10 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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