TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

VoidPointer2005 Archive

View 0 posts and 73 comments by VoidPointer2005 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

If I recall correctly, this was recently outlawed in the US. Of course, men still get charged more for car insurance. Equality!
/r/MensRights14/03/13 03:22 PM
7

They only look like humans to us. To turians, they look like turians. Same deal for salarians. There's a group of dudes in the bar on Ilium (Illium? I don't remember) who discuss it.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 10:23 PM
1

So what you're trying to say us, fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate...
/r/MensRights14/12/12 07:43 PM
1

Much appreciated. Just trying to keep The Man from keeping us orcs down.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:13 PM
1

Its proper name is Amon Amarth, you Euro-centrist.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:39 PM
2

So, you're saying that any woman, given the opportunity, would steal everything that a man has? That there are no good women, who are more than mere rats who devour the helpless? I'm done here. YES, there is a moral hazard in our divorce system, and YES, far too many women take advantage of it. But there is a HELL of a lot of difference between "too many" and "all." I believe that the women who don't do these things, that are still morally upright in the face of a world that would hand them ever…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:57 PM
1

Fair enough. I just get really pissed off when I see MRAs acting like radfems.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:45 PM
1

That's fine, because you have hard data to back it up.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:44 PM
2

I think that "all" statements are absolutely impossible to prove, and that the very best case scenario with a "most" statement that you haven't yet proven is that you're on VERY shaky ground. If we want to talk about an entire gender in a negative way, I believe we should have proof that we know what we're talking about. Otherwise, you step out of science and into... I don't know, philosophy, I guess. Blind, unsupported ideology is not a good basis for governmental policy.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:42 PM
3

So, you're saying that we don't need science in order to make sweeping generalizations about an entire gender, because liberals are evil and we can just use confirmation bias instead of hard data? Just because you "see something all the time" doesn't make it true. Feminists "see" men encouraging rapists all the time. They "see" all men as being abusers all the time. And I "see" many women in my own life who are reasonable and would never destroy a man as some would. You can't look at a few women…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:05 PM
2

I'm not exactly an authority on the subject, but let's see... We don't say "women are..." for a couple of reasons. First, each woman is an individual. Any generalization about men OR women is going to miss some individuals. You can sometimes say "many women" or even "most women", but there are practically no traits that ALL women share, just like there are practically no traits that all MEN share. This leads into my second point, which is that most of these generalizations about men and women ha…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:03 PM
–

That is stupid, and you are stupid. Some women are like that, yes. However, so are some men. I have known women who are as willing to stand up for the rights of men as anyone, and I have known men who don't seem to believe in the rights of anyone but themselves. There is a legitimate problem in our society where we tend (in some cases quite strongly) to excuse the evil actions of those women,, but most women are not like that, and implying that they are is simply wrong, both factually and morall…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:01 PM
7

But they wouldn't cuddle him afterward...
/r/MensRights14/06/12 08:48 PM
9

This is a good step in the right direction. Of course, I imagine the 1-in-4 figure is getting bandied about, making this look insignificant, but, sadly any recognition that men can be raped at all is significant progress. I wonder whether that sign was officially sanctioned, or if some brave MRA made a trip to Kinko's...
/r/MensRights19/04/12 09:01 PM
–

It's a tricky proposition. IF this was a case in which there was misconduct on the county's part (such as blindly believing the word of an accuser with no corroboration), then he should absolutely sue the county to discourage them from overzealous prosecution in the future. The article doesn't specify, however, so we can't know whether there was. On the other hand, it DOES say that she's actually being charged with perjury, which is a big step in the right direction. This is actually somewhat en…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 08:58 PM
5

I don't want to appear to be defending this ridiculous article, but if you're in a stall you could just use toilet paper to clean yourself up.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 08:48 PM
10

She didn't intend to harm her husband whilst stabbing him? "STAB Oops. STAB Oops. STAB Oops."
/r/MensRights19/04/12 08:38 PM
1

De facto, yes (claiming she never consented, or withdrew consent midway), but I'm not sure whether there's an actual legal precedent that she can do so, which would involve actually telling the judge that she withdrew consent after the fact and getting a conviction that way. Either one is sickening, of course. It's just that the latter option would be even more so.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 11:00 PM
7

Ineffective. Consent can be withdrawn by the female at any point, prior statements of consent notwithstanding.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 03:59 AM
1

You misremember and are guilty of thoughtcrime.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:55 PM
1

You mean... In order to try to be less sexist, feminists have implemented a change which is more sexist? :D
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:54 PM
1

Progress is good. It's just a shame that all progress seems to be pushed forward by bloodshed.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:33 PM
1

"Egalitarian" basically means "equalist" but it's derived more directly from the Latin/Greek/both roots that people who make up English words love so much.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:22 PM
–

It's not /very/ related, but it is somewhat related, and a good read. All right, have an upvote. :)
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:42 PM
2

Sounds about right, yeah. The problem, however, is: 1: When you watch an action movie, you know that what's happening on the screen is physically impossible. Spotting the gap between fantasy and reality in romantic comedies can be harder because it's subtler. 2: When a person becomes convinced that they Know Kung Fu, and do not, they are likely to hurt themselves. When a person becomes convinced that romantic comedies are real life, they're likely to hurt someone else.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:10 PM
1

Have you tried romantically throwing her into a table yet? /sarcasm In all seriousness, I'm kind of shocked that the Twilight series hasn't made the feminist sphere explode yet.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:07 PM
1

I'm of the opinion that evolutionary psychology is largely junk science anyway (too explanatory, not disprovable enough, multiple radically different theories that explain the same data, largely driven by philosophy rather than curiosity), so this isn't that surprising.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:05 PM
1

Many religious sects (most Protestant denominations and mainstream Islam come to mind) actually encourage marital sex for pleasure, not just procreation. In fact, the Old Testament has a number of regulations encouraging this (e.g. Deut. 24:5, which gives a man a year free of military service to "bring happiness" to his wife, if you know what I mean), and the New Testament is pretty explicit about the matter (for instance, in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5). Christian theology doesn't demand that a man mar…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:51 PM
2

"Jones' lawyers filed a motion with the court declaring that the manuscript was a work of fiction." I... uh... what?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:30 AM
2

Probably not, actually. DSK probably counts as a public figure, and definitely will if anyone tries to go after a "poor female journalist just trying to fight for women's rights." Sort of thing.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 07:56 PM
1

No matter how funny it might be (and I honestly did find it rather amusing), it's not really a good idea to just hand our opponents ammunition like this. Either way, it's not a huge deal. I'd just advise you to be careful, is all.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 08:03 PM
0

There is no terminology. Child support and custody are formulated in terms of the rights of the child, making it impossible for any private contract or agreement whatsoever to have any impact on those decisions. The thing you are suggesting is literally impossible under current US law (and quite possibly that of many other countries).
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:58 PM
3

I know that. That's why I put notices before and after the post that the post was sarcasm. Did you miss them?
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:53 PM
1

Ehhh. He's on to something, but he switches back and forth between talking about sexual dominance and rape rather quickly. It comes a bit too close for comfort, especially when we're trying to point out the ridiculousness of the "rape culture" ideology. That said, he is on to something.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:21 AM
1

Better yet, if enough people ignore him (and his comic) he will start losing money.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:15 AM
2

I'd have given the kid the warning about how people think about these things before painting his nails, and leaving nail polish on as long as that can be bad for your nails, but other than that I'm fine with it. Being interested in men's rights doesn't exactly preclude being interested in... crossdressing rights? I'm not exactly sure where to file this, but the point remains.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:59 AM
2

"Rape Penis" sounds like a good name for a band.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:20 AM
5

Engaging sarcasm circuits. But clearly, this doesn't violate the First Amendment, since it's not his blog. You can't have your free speech rights violated if it's not your speech. And besides, there are children involved! The blog has to be taken down because of the children! Won't someone think of the CHILDREN? (Their mother certainly isn't!) Sarcasm circuits overloaded. System shutting down to have a good cry.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 01:41 AM
1

To be fair, I don't think it's a conspiracy so much as the fact that nearly all major news outlets are a) ruthlessly profit-motivated and thus uninterested in an anti-feminist story and b) owned by Rupert Murdoch.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 01:11 AM
–

Also, no prenup can do anything about child support or custody.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 01:07 AM
2

Scott Adams is an incorrigible troll. Pay him no heed.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 01:05 AM
1

Awesome! I'm glad someone thought me quotable in this regard. :)
/r/MensRights22/06/11 04:00 PM
–

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you made actual, cogent arguments against the way the subreddit is administrated. :)
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:30 AM
1

I find this post offensive to strap-ons. :P
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:25 AM
1

And here, I thought I was being too cynical. I hate it when I'm right.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:23 AM
1

So, just because she chose to make the police do the legwork of figuring out whose life to arbitrarily ruin, rather than trying to ruin the life of someone specific, that makes it better? No. Even if she refused to finger someone, they'd still get hauled in, accused, badgered by police officers with a vested interest in "persuading" them to confess so as not to lose face and risk a lawsuit, and as a result possibly even get convicted, and even if they don't they've still suffered an unconscionab…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:15 AM
1

See? Feminism hurts women too! :3
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:12 PM
1

Nope. Judges can throw them out on a whim for being "unconscionable", no matter how "ironclad" you think yours is.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:09 PM
1

If I'm a 40 year old man spending time with my 10 year old daughter, will I have the police called on me on a regular basis? A better question would be: If things keep getting worse, will you, as a 40 year old man, ever be allowed to see your daughter at all?
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:52 PM
1

IANAL, but I'd guess it's because the person being protected by the law isn't the same person as the one who's getting discriminated against, or some similar bullshit.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:44 PM
7

My spellcheck doesn't think spellcheck or colonoscopy are words either. I wouldn't sweat it.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:02 PM
1

Downvoted for technical difficulties. Post whatever this is properly, please.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:56 PM
2

Feminists, bravely protecting men's reproductive rights (by destroying their ability to reproduce)!
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:54 PM
5

Yeah, except if he went for that he'd have a snowball's chance in Double Hell of getting shared custody later on - after all, he wasn't interested in the first place, when the parenting was at its hardest, why should he be now? Mind, I'm not saying this is a reasonable argument, but family court will take any excuse to marginalize the father.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:25 PM
3

That, and appellate judges, being the people whose job it is to ensure people's rights aren't getting trampled on, find it remarkably easy to do some trampling of their own. All they have to do is refrain from doing their jobs. After all, there's no real reason that you should have a lawyer to keep you from going to jail in this situation! Why? A judge is sending you there unilaterally, and I'm a judge so I know we can do no wrong!
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:36 PM
4

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:22 PM
1

It's almost funny. I used to have nothing but respect for the police. I was brought up to believe they were there to protect us. And you know what? Maybe most of them still are, but we don't teach our kids to be ready for all the times disaster doesn't strike in some form or another. Seems like the lesson to take away here is to teach our children to distrust the cops and never tell them anything without a lawyer present. Hope rides alone.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:18 PM
8

"There is no empirical evidence that increasing the amount of time spent with a non-resident parent improves outcomes for children. It is the quality of the relationship between parents and between parents and children[...] that are important for children’s well-being, not equal or near equal parenting time." Yes, because people are known for having great relationships with people they never see.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 11:53 AM
1

Striking a person with one's genitals is a bit more serious than offending them, and lawsuits involving punitive damages and/or large corporations tend to result in huge payouts regardless of the plaintiff's gender. Either way, we have bigger issues to worry about than lawsuits that (presumably) are based in real and serious wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:22 PM
1

A lesbian bar?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 01:37 PM
–

Honestly, I can't bring myself to care. Is the amount excessive? Yeah. That doesn't make it a men's rights issue. It's possible the accusation was false, but assuming that without evidence is just as bad as doing the opposite. Unless there's more to this story, I don't see why this is here.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 01:20 PM
2

What statute of limitations? Yes, I recognize that there is no statute of limitations that applies in this case. My point is that it should, and furthermore the only reason it doesn't is because feminists had it removed to make it easier to get convictions like these. Besides, if there's proof, he should be convicted. If there isn't. He should not. Simple as in any other case. The time scale is meaningless. Leaving aside the fact that this flies in the face of basically the entirety of British a…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 12:34 PM
3

That's a sticky question. There is a legal justification for it in the sense that there are laws that prescribe it (or prescribe portions of it, or encourage it directly or indirectly, or remove drawbacks to it, and on and on), but not in the sense that it is something which is congruent or agreeable with the Constitutional and legal principles on which our laws (that is, the ones that aren't horrendously unjust) are based. In short, it's legally justified in the same way that poll taxes were "j…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 12:26 PM
1

Well, it skews it in different ways. If you have a bimodal system, the median show data which is inapplicable to the actual "average" man. If you have a modal system, you can get decent data, but which doesn't account for outliers. I have yet to see an income distribution chart that looks like anything close to bimodal. In fact, they usually make fairly neat, if skewed toward the low end, bell curves. Could you provide an example? How are we defining our terms? Ah, my apologies. Let me clarify: …
/r/MensRights11/06/11 12:14 PM
0

While it's true that men and women act differently in the workplace, there are a few problems with the statement (which I'm fairly certain was made in jest). First is the link of gendered behavior to social conditioning. While it is true that at least some gendered behavior is linked to social conditioning, the gendered behavior of infants (e.g., female infants being more vocal and responsive to voice than male infants) and the transgendered (who often display behaviors associated with their men…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 11:48 AM
1

This. Exactly this. I know I'm not really adding anything to the discourse here, but this deserves to be read by every guy ever.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 12:35 AM
1

I think I just found the best abstinence-only sex ed curriculum ever. Sorry, sorry. Just a bit of black humor. On topic: I don't actually see a problem with the repetition thing, that's just basic pedagogy. Further, from a practical standpoint, it's good to educate young men on the exact breadth and scope of the actions that legally constitute rape, the better to help them avoid legal troubles. Of course, there are all KINDS of problems with the way rape cases are prosecuted and handled, but tha…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 12:30 AM
4

Where were you 45 years, to the day, ago? Can you provide an exact timeline of the events for that day? Can you provide witnesses to testify to these facts? (Have you even been ALIVE that long? If not, just try to remember what you did on June 10th the year you were twelve. Good luck if that wasn't the birthday of someone you knew back then or something like that.) If not, congratulations! You have no alibi. If you have more than one accuser, regardless of their credibility, you will probably be…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:50 PM
3

If in a criminal case it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you committed a crime, how can hesaid/shesaid cases ever be convicted? Oh, it's easy! First, you stigmatize questioning a victim or examining their behavior in any way, including bringing up previous false accusations. Second, you establish that women are morally superior beings incapable of lying, especially not about rape. This has the added bonus of establishing men as morally inferior, but you can't stop there. You have to …
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:39 PM
9

Many, probably most, self-identified feminists are somewhat reasonable. The problem is that the largest, most influential feminist umbrella organizations (e.g. NOW) tend to endorse even the most radical positions, while enjoying the support of more moderate feminists, because most moderate feminists are either unaware of the radical elements of said groups or don't think they're a problem - after all, what reasonable woman would use a false rape accusation as a weapon in a custody battle? Surely…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:22 PM
2

Oddly enough, most statisticians prefer to measure the median income precisely because the few obscenely wealthy outliers do not skew it. After all, the wage gap argument is not about the total amount of money paid out to members of each gender, but about individual earnings. (I would say it is about the idea of equal pay for equal work, but the feminist movement moved the goalposts there with the "mommy tax" argument. However, the general principle still stands.) The fact that Warren Buffet hap…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:52 PM
2

Yes, but we're not trying to look reasonable to them, we're trying to look reasonable to average people. The dangers of radical feminism only exist because they've managed to capture the imagination of the mainstream. Fighting ideology with solid facts and persuasive rhetoric is a pretty good tactic.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 03:10 AM
1

Actually, they could be of /some/ value. They wouldn't protect you from the accusation, but it reduces the number of stories the accuser can use, and even if she claims to have withdrawn consent, it would probably make her look pretty silly. Possible improvement: Additional form for certification of consent after the fact. That one could be harder to get a signature on, but it would help guard against accusations based on after-the-fact guilt. Of course, the whole concept is ridiculous, but so i…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 11:59 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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