TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Tosser_Offer_2 Archive

View 0 posts and 38 comments by Tosser_Offer_2 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

It's just not an excuse for people to ignore the "no", as you say. That's not really what I said, though. The sense I got from your post was that you felt this kind of article would be used as an excuse going forward to ignore a women's pleas to stop by some readers, and that we needed to specifically warn readers that despite the content, 'no still means no'. I was pointing out that this is a VERY dim view of male readers of this piece, and that virtually all men reading this piece wouldn't eve…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 11:07 PM
2

Surely most of us can agree that if a women says "no", you should respect that. Absolutely, but surely you understand that when 40% of women have pulled the No means Yes card, it's a great example of how abundant mixed signals are, and how often playing hard to get or playing the coquette gets used as a social lever in courting behaviour. Even if all we take from this is that many women are hypocrites for insisting on hard consent when they purposefully muddy the waters and make it more difficul…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:50 PM
1

That's not an accurate analogy because that isn't a chain of decisions. Sure it is. We both decide to have sex (invade France and capture it, wheeeeee, such fun!) and find out after the wheels are in motion that there's an unintended consequence in the form of a pregnancy (France/Britain/US agreement). Instead of facing a cake walk invasion (a night of passion), we're now facing 20 years of child support and labour (a long trench war against a numerically superior foe that we're nearly sure to l…
/r/MensRights05/09/16 03:42 AM
1

I never said you did. It's not really a point of removing rights for women, its that bringing in Roe v Wade into the argument in any capacity undermines the chances of successfully getting these rights for men. If you challenge Roe v Wade directly, you lose. If you cite it as precedent, then the opposition will leverage the angle that a fetus inside you is indelibly your private health decision, but a fetus inside someone else is not, so you men have no angle to exploit like Roe v Wade opened up…
/r/MensRights04/09/16 05:42 AM
6

You have not made a compelling argument as to why only the last decision made in a chain of decisions bears responsibility for the outcome. In some weird alternate dimension where we share wombs and collectively decide whether to carry that baby to term, perhaps, but here on Earth that is a decision made solely in one camp. Unless you've got some angle where Roe v Wade isn't sacrosanct, the decision to carry to term is hers and hers alone. I'll try an allegory. You're Germany. I'm Austria-Hungar…
/r/MensRights04/09/16 05:33 AM
1

Why even cite something prior to Roe v. Wade? That case totally redefined pregnancy as a privacy concern, and the genie is never going back into the lamp. That's precisely why male financial abortion was structured as a contingent decision tree. The only way for these proposed changes to have a chance of being legally defensible is if they are structured so that the end decision on whether to carry that fetus to term remains hers to make. After nearly 50 years of unsuccessful challenges, Roe v. …
/r/MensRights04/09/16 03:46 AM
6

Of course we can go on forever, because you have no intention of ever admitting that in a contingent decision situation, one decision is always last. The first decision sets the parameters for the second decision, but the second decision causes the end state. As long as there is still a "no pay" option on the table for that mother, and there is, her decision determines whether we pay or not. She may not like her options, and you might not either, but she has options, and that puts the ball in he…
/r/MensRights04/09/16 03:08 AM
4

He can go in bareback, and if she decides to abort, we don't pay a dime. The final decision is hers, not his, and she gets to make it fully informed of the consequences, too. She doesn't lose her decision making power or her position as the final decider because we add choices for men.
/r/MensRights04/09/16 02:37 AM
6

But, again, we don't pay unless SHE decides to keep it. Until your argument includes both parties and assigns responsibility collectively to both parents, your argument is nonsensical.
/r/MensRights04/09/16 02:02 AM
13

Most proposed financial abortion options have to occur early enough that the mother can choose to abort, should she not want to continue without the father's financial contribution. The decision to continue and fob that cost off on the public would be hers, not his, as a result. Oddly enough, there is another actor in the game, but for some reason, you hold one responsible for his choices, and don't even mention the other one. Is she nothing more than a passive receptacle with zero responsibilit…
/r/MensRights04/09/16 01:39 AM
1

The clear issue is that the CJS is a chain, and each link in the chain can only recieve the number of potential perps the previous link processed. Ergo, the FBI using arrests and not court figures is really ultimately irrelevant. Not all arrests result in charges. Not all charges result in court. Not all court dates result in convictions. Each step in the chain gets lower and lower as a few supposed perps get routed out of the system at each stage. What does this mean for your argument? The cour…
/r/MensRights03/09/16 01:37 AM
1

What do they GET? They get validation and approval, group membership that has some social benefits beyond those two (networking, etc.) and get to exercise the nastier sides of their personalities without much in the way of recourse. As long as the positives outweigh the negatives, they will continue to do it.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 12:25 AM
2

Maybe she should just look at how the MRA movement has been treated and she can figure out for herself why men aren't as interested in discussing gender issues in the way she deems acceptable. If men do it their way, they are pilloried as misogynists, neckbeards, lonely losers, TRP nutters, etc. Why would anyone volunteer to put their neck in the stocks for you, lady?
/r/MensRights02/09/16 05:59 AM
1

I hope she gets her legal due, but this rich guy should be embarrassed at his own appalling level of naivete. She's debt ridden and you cover all of her bills and open your entire home to her, including giving her the combination to your storage for your valuables? And 2.1M of your jewelry went missing? You don't say. What a fucking moron. Smart enough to make all that money, but clearly insecure enough to just drop any responsibility to protect it when the right combination of pretty and young …
/r/MensRights31/08/16 01:05 PM
1

So, your solution to a system that takes children away from men and turns them into ATMs, is a system that takes children away from women (presuming they are the least financially able of the pairing) and turns them into ATMs? The solution is three pronged: Allow men the option to opt out. Even if it's time limited, just having that window means that a man can decide where and when he wants to become a parent or sue for having a pregnancy sprung on him if it was kept secret for the length of the…
/r/MensRights31/08/16 12:46 PM
2

I've yet to see any shared parenting legislation that didn't allow flexibility for judges to drop the default position of the court if the facts of the situation warranted a change, though, so I'm not sure why Missouri decided to go a bit further and not have a default at all. Subjectivity (and the chivalric bias that comes with it) is why there's a need for a default, and Missouri's position is to exalt that subjectivity. A judicial 'suggestion' means nothing. It's not enforceable.
/r/MensRights31/08/16 12:18 PM
5

It's also aimed at reasonably equalizing the incomes of the two households. Which is why it isn't actually "reasonable". If one parent can't be arsed to up their income potential, the higher earner shouldn't be pillaged to make up that difference. The money came with the marriage. The money goes with that marriage, too. Anything less and it's state-sanctioned theft.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 04:55 AM
2

Fuck that too. I should be able to interact with and treat my girl as an equal. That falls into the "theory" camp. In the "reality" camp is that most of the world's selfies are taken by women, they suffer from eating disorders more than men do, they spend several times as much on appearance purchases as men do, and the one violent crime on the planet that has arguably more female victims than male sees four times the rate of provable fraud in its accusations (8% vs. 2%). Attention and validation…
/r/MensRights28/08/16 12:59 PM
4

So ... a pack of juvenile insults, a couple of opinions on whether she's biased, some derogatory commentary on feminism, and the odd actual troll. So, we're going to start jailing people for insults, now?
/r/MensRights28/08/16 03:31 AM
1

You don't know how to respond to this? 1) Until arrest, charge, conviction and incarceration rates stop showing rather large biases in favour of women, we cannot truly know what the ratio of male violence to female violence is. We've been giving them a free pass for so long that no statistics we can cull are going to be even remotely accurate. What can we say? That the numbers we see are absolutely and utterly guaranteed to be LOW. 2) Fortunately, as generally less chivalric female judges, lawye…
/r/MensRights27/08/16 01:56 AM
4

The material may be even handed, but isn't the issue the sheer volume this concern gets relative to other concerns on campus? If my school insists on pimping the concept of rape culture and questionable stats like this 1 in 4 baloney, the fact they are even handed with their unnecessary propaganda is irrelevant, no? Every dollar spent catering is a dollar not furthering someone's education.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 12:36 AM
2

Yeah, that's not what bugs me about this. France rotted under the French Wars of Religion that saw 2-4M people killed over a 30 odd period window and it was that religiously charged political infighting that was a major driver for the rise of Irreligion in France. Shy of communist nations that utterly banned the church, you're not going to find too many western nations that are as unabashedly proud of their secularist heritage, post Revolution, as the French are. The war on religious clothing an…
/r/MensRights27/08/16 12:04 AM
16

'Men are inundated with choice' So, let me get this straight. Women on virtually every dating site or platform have complained about the sheer volume of attention they get, up to an including making their own 'feminist' version of Tinder so that they control the process and can filter out the men they don't want at the outset, but it's MEN that have the choice? And, honestly, describing it as "giving them the false belief they are Puff Daddy" is precisely how women have been behaving for years, …
/r/MensRights25/08/16 01:30 PM
10

Normal woman are passive and docile Jesus Christ, we're talking millions of people, even in a small nation like Canada, let alone a giant like the US or China. This is a woeful generalization.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 01:26 PM
8

Trudeau is really starting to piss me off. I voted for the Liberal MP in my riding, just to help get Harper and his crew out, but now I'm regretting it heavily. Women are less likely to get an education? Jesus titty fucking Christ, education is mandatory in Canada up to age 16 in most provinces, so male or female, black or white, tall or small, fat or thin, your kid's ass is in school until that age, pretty much guaranteed. As for post secondary, we're graduating more women than men at the momen…
/r/MensRights25/08/16 01:22 PM
1

It was related to her being acquitted of the crime she was charged with. And so is the fact that she was on top of him when it happened, had been dousing him with water and straddling him, just prior. It's hard to argue self defense if you're the aggressor and he was simply responding to the aggression. You're both leaving part of the story out. The pertinent part is that the court believed him to be the aggressor and the argument of self defense to have weight, despite the fact he was the aggre…
/r/MensRights22/08/16 06:17 AM
1

And that's relevant to your comment about him hitting her in the face in what way? Was his punch somehow related to the lawyer's inability to prove the charge?
/r/MensRights22/08/16 05:00 AM
3

Reddit as a whole has declined significantly. Check out the front page topics and you'll see that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the listed accounts are actually online in the subreddit at any given time. Showerthoughts? 6223/7965503 or 0.08% active. TwoX? 1649/6974106 or 0.02% active. We're at 176/122488 or 0.14% right now, so we actually have a greater percentage of our subscribers active than most front page subreddits. Not that our figure is anything to crow about, of course. Of the 1M discre…
/r/MensRights22/08/16 04:43 AM
2

They don't. Blimey Town is a brand new account, so take his comment with a grain of salt, I think.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 04:30 AM
3

Do you mean Reddit as a whole? If so, then I agree. But /r/mensrights has been remarkably tolerant, in my opinion. We get gamed all the time and people can post all sorts of articles to try and tweak noses in here. What's the latest Milo post but a classic attempt to get people riled up? This isn't Feminism or TwoX, bud. Our ban issues are ridiculously minor compared to our peers.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 04:29 AM
1

So, it was "self defense" because she badgered and bothered him enough that he finally snapped and belted her to get her off him? He's supposed to just let her harass and assault him with abandon? At the worst, this should introduce the possibility that both of them go to jail for assault, but his punch should in no way excuse her behaviour. You are entitled to defend yourself, and she was the clear aggressor.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 04:25 AM
2

So, a throwaway account just so you can post this and try and stick a needle in people's eye? I guess you missed the day in kindergarten where they taught you to play well with others. Christopher Hitchens was a bit of an asshole, but he was also one of the best at taking believers down a peg or two in debate. I could support his intelligence and ability to shred his debating partners and still acknowledge he was a bit of an asshole. Same argument can be made for Milo. Sure, he's a dick, but he'…
/r/MensRights21/08/16 04:58 AM
4

We did note it. We noted that she started out asking for LOTS of money, and when that more or less painted her to be a gold digger, started ramping back her demands. Now that she's persona non-grata, for the most part, she can't take that money without looking like one ... and she knows it. She settled for less than she would have, because she knew she was going to have to face the police that showed up that night as Depp's own witnesses and if this went to trial, she'd be contradicted by those …
/r/MensRights20/08/16 04:22 AM
1

What bugs me about this is that gender shouldn't even be in discussion when you're talking about a movie adaptation of a group that's been in circulation for 50 odd years and has an established list of characters that were in it. What matters is making the movie fit the established universe. It that means an all male group because it was an all male group in the comics, so be it. If that means an all female group, so be it. If it's mixed, so be it. The characters are already there, so just freak…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 10:56 PM
2

So I can knock you on the head and rob you, and as long as I give it to some generally worthy charity and don't keep it myself, all is forgiven?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 08:15 PM
1

Whether you agree with how she obtained it or not If you extort someone by threatening their public reputation, and they ultimately fold and decide it is better to pay you off than suffer the PR hit, the fact you have a legal agreement in hand and money to give away doesn't change the fact you obtained it via extortion. The legally binding end result doesn't excuse the morally reprehensible methods.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 04:49 PM
0

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Ms. Heard. It was never about the money. Right. Your camp started out the PR war with the immediate claim of abuse and with public suggestions of 120K a month in spousal support as a reasonable figure. You walked that back to 50K/month and the LA penthouse worth millions by the time you actually filed, but even that reduced figure was considered obscene by the public ... because it was. You don't get to claim it wasn't about money when you were asking for more a month than the …
/r/MensRights19/08/16 12:46 PM
2

The two major failings of this piece: a) It redefines sexism as being systemic, when the traditional usage of the term and its definition in virtually every dictionary doesn't mention or include or require anything systemic at all. Its definition has traditionally been discrimination based on your sex or gender, rather than discrimination that's based on other factors like race, weight/height or religion/ethnicity. She's drawing a line trying to separate two concepts when one (sexism) is a subse…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 04:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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