TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Tornadog01 Archive

View 0 posts and 77 comments by Tornadog01 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

Yeah that seems like a conspiracy theory colored by your own personal biases. In any case, the point is that the linked article and study do not support the positions of the people here pretending it does. However, whether you feel the study is credible or not, is your business.
/r/MensRights14/03/22 10:57 PM
-1

No, the study does not show they are "equally situated". It shows that the rate of intimate partner physical violence among a particular demographic is equal between men and women, but the effects of that physical violence are extremely unbalanced. We can't honestly compare slapping someone to killing someone and say both sides are "equally situated."
/r/MensRights14/03/22 09:15 PM
-1

Actually the study does not show women abuse men more. It shows that young women and men engage in physical violence in a relationship at the same rate. The only differences noted were that men cause more damage when they do than women. You guys appear to be purposely misrepresenting the study results. The study shows that of the potentially abusive relationships 10% was male violence targeted at women and 21% was female violence targeted at men. But the sample size includes twice as many women …
/r/MensRights14/03/22 07:34 PM
-2

Actually the study does not show women abuse men more. It shows that young women and men engage in physical violence in a relationship at the same rate. The only differences noted were that men cause more damage when they do than women. You guys appear to be purposely misrepresenting the study results. The study shows that of the potentially abusive relationships 10% was male violence targeted at women and 21% was female violence targeted at men. But the sample size includes twice as many women …
/r/MensRights14/03/22 07:33 PM
0

Actually the study does not show women abuse men more. It shows that young women and men engage in physical violence in a relationship at the same rate. The only differences noted were that men cause more damage when they do than women. You guys appear to be purposely misrepresenting the study results. The study shows that of the potentially abusive relationships 10% was male violence targeted at women and 21% was female violence targeted at men. But the sample size includes twice as many women …
/r/MensRights14/03/22 07:33 PM
1

I'm sure you need to believe that.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 02:31 AM
0

You're very sensitive aren't you?
/r/MensRights19/05/21 06:25 PM
0

I don't know, you kinda seem more angry than me. I hope you realize that I didn't share my own opinion and I didn't criticize anyone else's opinion. Yup, you're 0-2 now. It's ok, reading comprehension is hard when you're blinded by your own rage, I guess.
/r/MensRights17/05/21 11:28 AM
0

Yeah, I feel like you might be projecting a little here. I mean consider this: you were so engaged by my comments you didn't even notice that I never actually shared a single opinion of mine on the topic. Kinda unhinged to lose your sh.. over a comment that was never made, no?
/r/MensRights16/05/21 05:47 PM
0

I'm playing the world smallest violin for you.
/r/MensRights15/05/21 01:33 PM
1

You may be missing the point here.
/r/MensRights15/05/21 06:25 AM
1

Yes, that's the $1 transferred from the husband to the wife and the $2 transferred to the children.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 02:24 PM
-6

I disagree.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 02:22 PM
-4

Did you get on this thread to immerse yourself in an echo chamber of external validation and confirmation bias. If so, I apologize for interrupting your circle jerk. But I feel that everyone's positions are made stronger with good faith rational inquiry.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 01:44 PM
-5

Please explain to me how I have been brainwashed? I have not expressed my opinion on the matter. I have been very careful throughout this thread to not share my opinion. I simply noted the opinion of the authors that you selected. If you would like to now change your mind and swap in a new set of authors, I will happily review the material. But please don't pretend that you can read my mind and you know what my personal opinion is on this topic.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 01:41 PM
-2

Don't apologize to me. I have no stake in the matter. However, you should apologize to the entire forum for sharing studies which are not necessarily supporting what you're claiming.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 11:09 AM
0

You're looking at the wrong study. As I said before, Murray rejects this. The homicide stat comes from the Friedel study which supports it. Murray supports the idea that male perpetrated violence tends to produce more damage. Can we stop talking now? I feel like you're less interested in actually reading about this topic in a balanced way than you are in trying to have a "gotcha" moment. It seems like you just grabbed the Murray study and thought "aha! Now I can win the argument!" without actual…
/r/MensRights14/05/21 10:59 AM
-6

So you are claiming that the very studies that you just shared are feminist propaganda? Then why share them? Or are you suggesting that we cherry pick the parts of the studies' conclusions that we personally agree with and pretend that the conclusions we disagree with do not exist? Much in the same way that you cherry picked the above Ellen Pence quote from a 300(!) page book on the topic. This quote misrepresents Pence's views on the Duluth model, which she actually was very much in favor of un…
/r/MensRights14/05/21 10:37 AM
-1

Which ones?" The ones in your previous comment. "My assumption was..." Yeah maybe you should just read the f-ing studies. Or just read generally. Do you think I randomly knew about this stuff before reading it here a few hours ago? You are literally commenting on a thread discussing the contents of a specific set of studies. It seems incredibly weird to insist on not looking at the studies and dismiss any reference to the contents of the studies.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 10:02 AM
-10

"If 'focus on' X means completely disregarding Y.." It doesn't. Jesus Christ maybe you all should just read the actual study instead of getting yourself in a tizzy for nothing.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 09:37 AM
-21

You can suspect whatever you like but if you don't have any data backing it, it's just another worthless opinion from someone who has not put any effort into studying the issue directly, or even educating themselves on the topic by reading the current literature. It is by definition an ignorant opinion. Step back and think about it: the author you're accusing of being an "advocate researcher" and bending the truth is actually trying to defend many of YOUR positions. The author of the major meta-…
/r/MensRights14/05/21 09:23 AM
-8

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I should note that the authors of the studies cited in the link above have dedicated their lives to researching the issue of intimate partner abuse and they disagree with many of your assumptions. You may feel happy to know that Murray (the author of the large meta-analysis) does agree with the suggestion that there is a cultural bias towards concealing the extent and prevalence of female perpetrated domestic violence. He also concludes that mo…
/r/MensRights14/05/21 08:58 AM
-43

I don't what you're talking about and I'm not qualified to answer your question. However, generally science isn't about good or bad, but simply "why?" If you would like to know the mechanics and causes of domestic violence, feel free to peruse the scientific literature. But If you would like to know about morality I recommend you speak to a philosopher or a religious scholar.
/r/MensRights14/05/21 08:45 AM
-28

What an emotional response. How do you know that this is my opinion? I was simply pointing out the conclusions of the studies being referenced in this discussion. People here are cherry picking parts of the study's conclusions, while ignoring others. This is the definition of bias. If you would like to know how the authors arrived at their conclusions you can read the study for yourself and make your own determination as to the reliability of their methodology - just like I did. Also, I should p…
/r/MensRights14/05/21 06:53 AM
-29

You may have a point. The academic articles other people are linking in their refutation of your point, actually support what you're saying. The article that contains the statistic about homicide rates makes it a point to note that men & women generally use violence for different purposes. It says that men tend to use violence to control and dominate, whereas women tend to use it as a last resort method of self-defense. The large Murray meta-analysis that is also linked says that although the ra…
/r/MensRights14/05/21 03:14 AM
-152

The article that contains the statistic you're referring to makes it a point to note that men & women generally use violence for different purposes. It says that men tend to use violence to control and dominate, whereas women tend to use it as a last resort method of self-defense. The large Murray meta-analysis that this Reddit comment is mainly focused on also says that although the rates between male perpetrated and female perpetrated domestic violence are similar, it makes sense to focus on m…
/r/MensRights14/05/21 03:11 AM
1

Lol did you just say women aren't forced to drop out of the workforce they can simply quit their job? That makes perfect sense. 🙃 Onto the other suggestions: Most women don't make sufficient AL to cover typical maternity leave time-frames. Not having babies is not practical as it would cause a complete economic meltdown and eventually the extinction of the human race. But hey thank you for these three very reasonable suggestions.
/r/MensRights13/05/21 09:24 AM
1

Sorry, not interested in doing your work for you. These are firmly established facts and not debatable arguments. You have done no research in the area and are completely unfamiliar with the entire issue. You seem to have no background in any social science or even a 101 understanding of labor economics. You seem to hold no informed opinions or even speculative hypotheses on the matter in order for any debate to occur. I've given you a basic summary of the relevant issues, presented specific exa…
/r/MensRights13/05/21 09:15 AM
1

I literally just gave you an example the post before last. I'm not going repeat myself when you can literally just scroll up. You can also learn more for yourself by Googling something simple like: childcare women labor force for a series of articles and studies exploring this topic in greater depth.
/r/MensRights13/05/21 06:21 AM
1

Look it up, lazy. Google: Women disproportionately tasked with eldercare? You should get a ton of results. Well established fact. Kinda shocked I have to explain how to do this.
/r/MensRights13/05/21 06:14 AM
1

Wine is not critical to national security, the continued survival of the human race, and economic stability. Raising children is. Also, stop being weird I did not say the government needs to provide care. Are you talking to yourself? I said the government needs to remove the artificial barriers to care created by corporate structure in the private sector. Once they remove those barriers, then the mothers and fathers themselves will provide care in the most efficient way possible. Or at the very …
/r/MensRights13/05/21 01:58 AM
1

Well, for example the US has poor maternity leave standards, but it's paternity leave is abysmal. If the system was reformed such that: a) maternity/paternity leave was standardized b) It was transferable between spouses c) a certain percentage was mandatory Then a couple could start a family and decide amongst themselves who should take time off work to stay home with the baby. For example, if a female doctor is married to a mechanic, they might decide it makes more sense for the mechanic to pa…
/r/MensRights13/05/21 12:14 AM
1

Indeed. Childcare is not a magic bullet. It does however, help by making raising kids a more feasible option. Until we have better policies for understanding and accounting for the true cost of childcare, and distributing that evenly across society, we can expect recurrent bouts of female labor force attrition, flaring up especially during crisis periods when they are most needed.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 10:49 PM
1

The lion's share of elder care still takes place within the home between family members. Elders are often dependant or semi-dependant on a family member for years before they are institutionalized. The family members taking this responsibility are disproportionately women.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 10:44 PM
1

Incidentally, the same also applies to elder care, which women also are disproportionately tasked with, in spite of the fact that society as a whole benefits when elders receive good care. I suppose they should elect not to have parents either.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 06:57 PM
1

My assumption is not pulled out of thin air. This is a fundamental tenet of modern economic theory and demographic theory. Countries like the United States are suffering from lowering birthrate combined with an aging population. At the very least, the US needs to maintain the basic population replacement rate so as not to shrink out of existence. Beyond that, they need enough population growth to support increased economic output and national security interests Maintaining optimum population gro…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 06:46 PM
0

The very fact that they leave work indicates that they don't under-value raising their kids. I never said that. Pay closer attention: society undervalues their labor in raising their kids. I'll try to make this simple for you: Imagine an island with 100 inhabitants. 50 men, 50 women. All of them have jobs where they make $5/hour. Their cost of living is $1/hour and they keep $4 in profit/savings. The island requires 100 new children to be born & raised every generation in order to survive. It's …
/r/MensRights12/05/21 03:43 PM
1

I'm sorry, if you want to learn you need to get up off your lazy butt and do the work yourself. As I tried to explain politely, no one is willing to work as your own personal researcher in a field that you clearly are totally ignorant about and have invested no effort in studying. Particularly as related to generally understood and well established facts. I'm not sure where this unearned sense of entitlement comes from but this digital panhandling is embarrassing. I've provided you with examples…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 01:54 PM
-1

Please provide evidence that you have sufficient qualifications to categorize claims as absurd or not in this particular field. If I were making a fringe argument I might take the initiative and provide you with evidence. However, since I am only relaying information that is fairly well known and established in this field, the burden should be on you to get yourself up to date. If I were to tell you humans need to eat to live, it would be encumbant on you to take the effort to familiarize yourse…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 12:50 PM
-1

Because raising your own children creates a major net positive for people outside your family. Look at it this way: she's manufacturing new Americans. Women have a higher rate of labor force attrition because they bear an inordinate proportion of labor associated with child and elder care. This is time consuming and labor intensive work that is critical for the future of the nation. Particularly in the United States where a slowing birth rate is causing major economic problems. However this work…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 12:33 PM
-1

You can go ahead and Google the labor force drop off rates for women by country and cross reference with parental leave and childcare policies. This is a well established sociological phenomenon.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 12:23 PM
-1

Yes they are.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 11:32 AM
-4

This is evidence of a problem with child care. Female doctors are forced to provide free labor raising children and end up leaving the workforce. If you're worried about inefficiency you should be addressing the childcare crisis, not trying to reduce the number of female doctors in a field that already has a labor shortage.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 11:23 AM
10

Get off the internet, take a shower, take classes at a nearby university, make some money, get in shape. You sound like an idiot talking to other idiots. Do something productive and stop feeling sorry for yourself.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 11:15 AM
1

" Therefore a more adequate example would be something that people are opposed to doing, but it must also be under the context of a responsibility. " No, remember: The survey question wasn't "Do you want to do this?" or even "Do you not like this" it was "Should this even exist". In other words, if you'd like to substitute my example survey, you need to come up with a social responsibility that the overwhelming majority of people believe should not exist in the first place. Because this is how p…
/r/MensRights13/04/21 07:39 PM
1

The problem with the wording of your community service question is that people are generally very much in favor of high school students doing community service. So you are unlikely to encounter respondents being misclassified due to a general aversion to the prospect. However, the draft survey already indicated that women are overwhelmingly opposed to the draft generally. This clues us in to the fact that the risk of misclassification due to general aversion with the underlying premise will be h…
/r/MensRights13/04/21 06:37 PM
1

4) You're missing the point as to why we exclude the inflammatory political component of the survey question. We do it to demonstrate that the question syntax itself can produce controversy, irrespective of the subject matter. By removing the controversial subject matter and replacing the question with a benign one, I am isolating the effect of poor question syntax and showing you how it can produce 50/50 results from a population that probably skews 100/0 on a very simple issue. Our simple issu…
/r/MensRights13/04/21 07:35 AM
1

2) To this day the single greatest threat of violence and sexual assault for women comes primarily from their significant others. However, when we consider the timeframe we're discussing was a period when the vast majority of women could expect to get married off at a very young age, and have their public movement severely constrained, the issue of domestic violence and marital rape becomes a much more prominent danger than the risk of assault by a stranger. So when we say it was legal to rape a…
/r/MensRights13/04/21 03:16 AM
1

2) It's not exaggerating to call rape, rape. ​ 3) The way you prevent people from engaging in illegal activity is through institutionalized sanctioned violence. An arrest is an inherently violent act. It is the kidnapping and imprisonment of a person through physical coercion. ​ 4) You still don't understand margin of error or the gambler's fallacy. Doubling the sample size of a survey is not the same as taking two surveys. When you double the sample size of a survey, four variables remain const…
/r/MensRights12/04/21 09:59 PM
1

"You can't compare..." You can certainly compare any form of oppression to another, as long as you know what you're doing and don't pretend that they're all equal. We are not saying that all oppression is equal. We are saying that most oppression does involve a division of labor. For example, during slavery, slaves were indeed exploited. However, masters also did a lot of work as well. Slaves engaged in physical labor while masters managed bookkeeping. If the master failed to run the finances of…
/r/MensRights09/04/21 03:55 AM
1

1) "You're only right if that was done maliciously, and not under a division of labour." Malicious intent is not required to prove oppression, and division of labor is not sufficient to disprove it. Why? Because all systems of oppression are divisions of labor. All are engaged in under the guise of good intent. Colonialism was a division of labor partaken under the rhetoric of the white man's burden. Slavery was a division of labor undertaken with the supposed purpose of keeping the negro in his…
/r/MensRights09/04/21 12:06 AM
1

1) "you should not be denied any civil rights because you aren't ever under the risk of being drafted." Well, women were denied virtually all of their civil rights (most importantly voting). So, I guess we're agreed that was patriarchal oppression right? I mean since you just said, denying the right to vote is too oppressive to be considered an adequate exchange for not being drafted. So I guess Jordan was wrong about historical patriarchal oppression, right? Took some time, but we finally made …
/r/MensRights08/04/21 08:32 AM
1

Correct. With the A,B,C example we have already seen the students working together. In the case of MIT, they have already seen the product of generations of homogenous student bodies vs generations of increasingly diverse student bodies. They've determined that they see better product from more diverse campuses (wider scope of discussion, fresh ideas, more lively debate, access to new professional networks, students who are better socialized for work with diverse populations, etc) and are trying…
/r/MensRights06/04/21 12:03 PM
1

Let's say you have 3 students: A, B, C and only 2 positions available. Each of the three students produce an identical quality of 5 units of work. But you notice that when student A & C work together they put out 12 units of superior work. They experience a synergy. Meanwhile, if any student is partnered with B, they produce only 8 units of inferior work. You would obviously advantage students A & C over B, despite the fact that they are all equally deserving in terms of individual merit. No mat…
/r/MensRights06/04/21 10:57 AM
1

"Don't you dare call be bro" Oh, I dare bro, I dare. 2) "The Constitution bans gender discrimination" Wrong. Otherwise strip clubs targeting men would have to hire male dancers. It bans discrimination, with exceptions related to compelling interests, nature of the work, etc. Thus, gender can still be included as a factor in a multifaceted formula that is filling student positions in which merit (as defined by your ability to contribute to campus quality) may actually be affected by gender. 3) "6…
/r/MensRights06/04/21 10:22 AM
1

1) "I'm not sure why you're so fixated on the idea that I believe if you don't get drafted, you get no civil rights." Because you brought the draft up as a direct response to my suggesting denial of women's right to vote was an example of patriarchal oppression. Go back and read the comments. You associated denial of the right to vote with ineligibility for the draft, not me. Trust me, I thought it was weird too. You know, considering you talked about the World Wars and subsequent wars while I w…
/r/MensRights06/04/21 10:01 AM
0

1) "Who gets to decide" Uh.. the admissions office? Because y'know, it's their school. Federally, the Supreme Court. Because y'know, that's what the Constitution says. Both have ruled against you, deeming diversity to indeed be a compelling interest for an academic institution. 2) "They're choosing women even when there are better males" Cool story bro, prove it. Prove that they're not simply advantaging women who are about as academically qualified, but are actually picking women less qualified…
/r/MensRights06/04/21 05:16 AM
1

1) DRAFT ISSUES "I'm not suggesting that people that don't get drafted don't deserve a vote." So you're not saying to deny people who don't get drafted the right to vote, you're just saying people who do should "be the ones to have sway over the country." So what exactly are we saying here lol? What do you want draftees to get two votes or something? Because that's literally identical to taking away someone else's vote. This is also known as denying people their civil rights. We should also bear…
/r/MensRights06/04/21 04:48 AM
1

Uh.. distortion is the point of admissions. It is an inherently discriminatory process. No one ever claimed otherwise. Yes, you're trying to engineer a particular student body, not just pulling names out of a hat.
/r/MensRights05/04/21 09:55 PM
1

I apologize for triggering you. I was unaware that this was your safe space. I will try to proceed more cautiously. I agree. 100% there is distortion taking place. In fact, the entire point of a selective admissions process is to distort the ratios of incoming applicants to engineer the kind of student body you are looking for. Admissions is a discriminatory process. No one has ever denied this. We're not picking names out of a hat here. Also, I find it really odd for you to say that grades don'…
/r/MensRights05/04/21 09:30 PM
1

Uh yeah, obviously admissions are not about equality. I mean, they don't let in people with bad grades either. What planet are you from where colleges claim everyone has an equal shot of getting in? Do you think they're just drawing names out of a hat? Admissions is about what you bring to the table for the college. If you're an athlete you can get priority if the college sees a compelling interest in having Athletics on campus. If you were raised on a farm, that can also give you additional poi…
/r/MensRights05/04/21 09:08 PM
1

Uh.. MIT never claimed to be pursuing "equality". Stop being weird. Feminists are willing to accept MIT advantaging female candidates when MIT decides they need a more balanced student body. But they are also willing to be disadvantaged when MIT decides they want a black man over a white woman to increase African-American representation. In that sense they're equal. Whichever group is overrepresented will generally be disadvantaged, as MIT sees a compelling interest in a diverse campus. All are …
/r/MensRights05/04/21 01:07 PM
1

No worries, Reddit is the lowest form of human communication and replies are far from compulsory. I'm just glad we were able to have an interesting conversation since I did come in pretty hot at first lol.
/r/MensRights05/04/21 12:18 AM
1

1) By your definition men over 40 should have less political power than 18 year olds. Physically impaired people less than the unimpaired. Oncologists less than security guards. No, the entire point of civil rights is that they're "civil" not military. What you're describing is fascism. 2) Men's obligation to the draft emerged as a direct product of patriarchy. In a country like the US where social spending has been largely funneled through the military, the military functioned as one of the pri…
/r/MensRights05/04/21 12:02 AM
1

1) Slaves acquired equal rights despite being a minority. Despite actual abolitionists being a miniscule minority. Change can come gradually. That said, I only compared slavery and patriarchy in terms of both being a demonstration that a person who is suffering under harsh conditions, can indeed simultaneously also be oppressing others. This is a basic point that I think you, myself, and most other reasonable people can agree on. Jordan Peterson disagrees. Beyond that, there's no need to get any…
/r/MensRights04/04/21 07:13 PM
1

Yep, that's what I thought.
/r/MensRights04/04/21 04:40 PM
1

Unfortunately, he's actually left a great deal of evidence of his radical fringe positions. Specific examples: 1) The Nordic study is typical Jordan Peterson nonsense. The conclusion he draws about the study is inaccurate because the data does not support it. Both the authors and peer reviewers indicate that there exist major caveats that should prevent people from overgeneralizing the way JP does. The study indicates that the removal of official du jour barriers to entry for women in specific f…
/r/MensRights04/04/21 06:42 AM
1

Ah, we finally get to the heart of the issue: Listen buddy, I recognize a guy parroting Jordan Peterson points pretty fast. Why not begin by just admitting you've actually done no reading on the topic but are just another Peterson bro? Jordan Peterson is not a legitimate or respected expert in the field of gender studies or gender psychology. He has no academic background or training in this area. He is not qualified to give professional opinions in this area and his views clash with the majorit…
/r/MensRights04/04/21 05:42 AM
-2

Cool story bro. Where's your evidence? Prove to me that the women they're admitting have weaker grades than the men. You do understand that a university as selective as MIT actually has an oversupply of students with equally perfect grades. At that point it makes sense to start looking at factors other than grades. Also, let's remember that you are neither qualified to go to MIT, nor work in MIT admissions. If the admissions office of virtually every college in America have come to the conclusio…
/r/MensRights04/04/21 05:24 AM
0

You are making a lot of bold claims with zero evidence. On top of that you are ignoring a ton of counter-evidence to suit your own narrative. Your comment is like a guided tour of bias and prejudice masquerading as objective fact. For example, you suggested that women's predominance in the field of Nursing is an example of how a field that is intellectually challenging can attract women by being more "people" oriented. However you ignore that for many years Nursing was one of the few professions…
/r/MensRights03/04/21 11:55 PM
-5

This is a stupid question that has been answered a million times by both MIT and the general academic admissions industry. They are trying to craft the best academic class, not just collect a bunch of people who are really good at taking math tests. Having the strongest class requires people from diverse backgrounds, since it will improve students' worldliness, socialization skills, and give them access to a campus that is a better reflection of the world they are being prepared to enter. If the…
/r/MensRights03/04/21 11:09 PM
1

This is a very strange response indeed. Jewish is both a religion as well as an ethnic group and it's pretty obvious that Hitler was discriminating against Jews based on ethnicity. No one was checking whether you're 'practicing' or not. However, your getting way too wrapped up in the details of a single example rather than engaging with the substance of the argument. Replace Nazi Germany with "Generic country known to persecute some racial minority". The question remains. Would granting emergenc…
/r/MensRights25/03/21 03:52 PM
0

Ah so then you are not disagreeing with my argument, you are simply doubting my premise. Meaning: if White America made the choice to be racist, and this has caused racial imbalances then you would agree that racism can be used as a solution. But since you don't believe this to be the case, using racism to solve the problem is not justified. Therefore you do agree with me that (much like using violence to solve violence) using racism to fight racism is fine. Just as long as you prove the first i…
/r/MensRights25/03/21 02:20 AM
-2

Racism is a choice as well. White America has chosen to be racist. This has created racial imbalances. Can we not deploy racism as a solution?
/r/MensRights25/03/21 01:28 AM
-1

Semantics aside, you appear to accept that violence can be used to combat violence. Why can't the same apply to racism?
/r/MensRights25/03/21 12:20 AM
-1

If that racism is being used to balance the scales of pre-existing racism, then yes it would be unfair to call it racism. For example, if a police sniper shoots a terrorist who is gunning down children, the police sniper isn't really being violent in this situation.
/r/MensRights24/03/21 08:59 PM
1

Because black people don't commit 98.5% of all crime. Duh.
/r/MensRights24/03/21 08:56 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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