TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ZeroNihilist Archive

View 0 posts and 61 comments by ZeroNihilist 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)
2

Oh shit, you're right. I seriously hope that Hillary is an escaped mental patient then.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:04 AM
7

But not all men who get injured in war die. Some suffer immense psychological trauma as a result of watching their brothers in arms fall or other terrible sights. Others develop inhibiting or debilitating physical conditions. I seriously hope that Hillary was just pandering to her audience and not expressing a sincere opinion.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:53 AM
6

Don't worry, it was only chemical castration. It's not like it was a gross violation of human rights or anything. Oh wait.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:02 PM
1

Well of course you're forgetting that law which says "Sexual assault is treated totally differently if it occurs on a plane, so much so that comparison between plane-based assaults and terrestrial or marine assaults is impossible and you shouldn't even try to do that."
/r/MensRights29/11/11 04:32 AM
12

There's a very large "intactivist" community. There are many men, though probably a small fraction of all those circumcised, who seek to undo it. If you're happy with being circumcised, then that really is awesome. But if even one child regrets what was done without their permission, then I think we should oppose circumcision done on children that cannot consent. And there are far more victims than just the one. By the way, children do die from circumcision complications. It isn't common at all,…
/r/MensRights24/11/11 04:13 AM
8

So if a woman wants a child and the man doesn't, sorry guys but you will probably have to pay child support. And if the woman abandons the child and the man wants it, only 5 out of 49 states will let them petition for custody. They seem to be screwing men over both times. Want to waive your responsibility? Too bad! Want to take more responsibility? Fuck off!
/r/MensRights17/11/11 01:34 PM
1

That's the whole point! By sleeping in the same bed as a tiger, all the women who survive that ordeal for years on end will become warriors to rival the Fremen. They will then create a raging Jihad across the galaxy, or something like that.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 01:25 PM
3

Obviously people who have parts of their body removed without their consent should just deal with it, you know? Totally creepy to want your body to be intact.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:14 PM
3

I totally agree with Catherine. Why, we should falsely accuse everyone of rape, that way everyone can go through this wondrous process of self-exploration. And if some people don't find the experience rewarding, or others actually get convicted because the justice system isn't perfect, well that just pales in comparison to the amazing experiences everyone else will gain.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 03:08 AM
10

It's the classic debating fallacy of poisoning the well. For example, let's say you and I are arguing about being stabbed to death. You say, "I don't want to be stabbed to death." Then I respond "Being stabbed to death is the greatest thing ever. Anyone who says being stabbed to death would hurt is a coward." Ta-da! Suddenly, a perfectly reasonable line of debate (the "well") is "poisoned" - if you disagree with my hypothetical position that being stabbed to death is awesome, you implicitly acce…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 04:50 AM
2

While I don't in any sense condone the usage or possession of child pornography, this makes no sense. Does looking at shoe fetish porn mean you shouldn't be allowed in a shoe shop? Does looking at fat people porn mean you shouldn't be allowed in McDonalds? People exercise restraint around things that arouse them all the time. There are I think very good reasons for child pornography being illegal, but implying that it automatically makes somebody a child molestor is absurd.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 07:47 AM
1

If they aren't money launderers then they shouldn't have an issue with giving me their bank account details.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 12:54 PM
1

Also his understanding of logic is woeful. If one in five women are raped, it does not follow that one in five men are rapists. Barring the physical impossibilities involved, every victim of rape could be raped by the same person - it's not a one-to-one mapping but many-to-many, since people can be victimised or perpetrate more than once. Logically speaking there is no relationship between the number of victims and the number of perpetrators - it could be one person assaulting all the women or b…
/r/MensRights08/11/11 07:43 AM
1

It's totally bizarre, but sometimes when I get really frustrated (like when I have a stupid death in a video game) I get aroused. If the news reported this the headline would be "Young man wants to have sex with his laptop".
/r/MensRights08/11/11 07:36 AM
10

Except they have numerous before and after studies, which show causation and not just correlation. That's the key point you seem to be ignoring.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 06:23 AM
11

Being a scientist doesn't mean that you ignore dozens of highly consistent studies that show a demonstrable effect, and which include before and after comparisons of specific individuals. If circumcision does not promote erectile dysfunction then there must be some explanation for why the studies show that effect. Dealing with the before and after comparisons of specific individuals for a second, there must be some causative property to create the effect. Perhaps there is a physical or emotional…
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:03 AM
14

Is the reason you won't speculate as to other causes that there are none? Correlation is always one of two things: a total coincidence (i.e. no causative effect whatsoever), or a chain of causative effects. For example, since black men on average have lower incomes and education than white men, and income and education are significant predictors of prison time, black men are disproportionately represented in prison. Being black doesn't cause criminality, but it is correlated with it - if we impr…
/r/MensRights25/10/11 04:35 AM
2

Modern interrogation techniques (the Reid Technique) are built around psychological manipulation (they were in fact designed by a psychologist). Frankly, based on what I know of how fragile a mind not trained to resist interrogation is, I wish it would be illegal to interrogate a suspect without their lawyer present. Maybe we would get fewer guilty people convicted, but we would also get fewer innocent people wrongly imprisoned or executed.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 04:32 AM
8

The judge attributed her offending to a troubled background, low self-esteem and alcohol abuse. Yes, and no man has ever had any of these problems! Why, it's not like if we looked at the backgrounds of men in prison we would find a disproportionate level of people who suffered physical or sexual abuse, were unable to complete their high-school education, abused one or more drugs, or had other contributing factors such as elevated testosterone levels (something which is enough to get a woman a mu…
/r/MensRights20/10/11 03:49 AM
1

No true feminist, right? Funny how we often get told that the handful of bigots in the MRM are representative of the movement, yet apparently feminist bigots aren't representative at all.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 05:02 AM
3

"Fingers glide over soapy skin". What? Am I doing soap wrong somehow? For me soap basically makes my fingers 'stick' as it removes the natural oils. Seriously, I can't even rub my hands in a smooth motion after soap, let alone have my fingers glide.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 11:23 AM
3

I don't know the rules anywhere else (and I don't have a source for the ones I'm presenting), but in Australia I'm pretty sure it is mandatory that somebody brought in for drinking and driving be given a blood test to confirm it. If not, I think it is at least your right to request such a test.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 02:50 AM
3

It's an extraordinarily thorny issue. If you tried to do a self-reported survey of the number of people who had oustanding warrants for their arrest, how many would say that they did? If you look at this Wikipedia page you may notice that some countries have significantly more responders identifying as homosexual. Is this because those countries produce more homosexuals or because they are more comfortable coming out? It's not possible to say scientifically without more studies, but it seems rea…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 02:44 AM
1

Fair enough. I think I misread the conversation. My apologies.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 12:49 PM
2

Which is not really an apt definition of watching naked people on a computer monitor, is it? It's not romance, it's not a relationship, it's simply an aid in self-stimulation for use together or when one party cannot or will not engage in coitus.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 05:49 AM
6

Obviously a troll, but I'll bite. In this instance the OP was unconscious and had never at any point (sober or otherwise) given consent to the sexual contact in question. The MRA only claims that consent is still valid a situation with intentional and mutual intoxication. Alternatively, it could be invalid for both parties and hence both are rapists and raped. In either case the current standard where it is the male alone who is guilty of rape (in a situation where, to repeat, there is intention…
/r/MensRights06/10/11 05:28 PM
14

And then when you say that rape policies should be non-gendered since it can affect anyone, you get told that it overwhelmingly happens to women so who cares about the men. It's a positive feedback loop as well.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 05:21 PM
1

You must be racist if you don't steer clear of acknowledging some facts. Why, if you're not sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you can't hear any facts, you're basically the leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Darn you racists and your dispassionate evaluation of evidence free from judgement!
/r/MensRights02/10/11 04:25 AM
3

Obviously we're downvoting him because we agree with his opinion so very much and we're just trying to cover our tracks.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 04:20 AM
2

I'm Australian, and in Australian law assault is the act of physically harming (I don't think we have battery at all).
/r/MensRights02/10/11 03:42 AM
1

I'd say probably not, but it would depend on the definitions you're using. Based on the definitions I'm familiar with, without sexual contact it would simply be assault.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 05:37 PM
7

Because a beating makes people angry, and possibly afraid, while rape makes people feel guilty, makes them hate their own bodies, and makes intimacy difficult (and for many rape victims this is far too bland a description). The relative levels of psychological trauma after a beating and rape is stark. I don't know what the motives of rapists are, but if they want to make the victim suffer than rape would be far and above the more distressing crime.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 04:25 PM
3

Who would we think is beautiful if society didn't tell us who is beautiful? Probably the same things that humans have been attracted to for thousands of years. Perception of beauty by and large transcends cultural boundaries. There are some areas of variability, but in general attraction is primal. Even men raised by die-hard feminists who eschew traditional notions of beauty are attracted to voluptuous breasts and fine facial features, and even women raised the same are attracted to men with an…
/r/MensRights01/10/11 07:25 AM
2

It's not a matter of what you say, really. It's entirely how you say it. If you say "You should dress modestly so men don't rape you", you'll start an international slut-walk phenomenon. If you say "In this flawed world in which we find ourselves, any step we can take to protect ourselves from tragedy is something we should seriously consider. Dressing modestly is such a step."
/r/MensRights24/09/11 04:01 AM
4

Step one: Program robot to build other robots. Step two: Program robot to protect the delicate females from the evil males. Step three: ??? Step four: Drown in a sea of chivalry-bots.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 03:57 AM
3

I bet you typed in all-caps because you keep watching non-stop action films like The Devil Wears Prada.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 04:44 AM
4

Apparently this restaurant is a stalwart refugee of archaic sexism on all sides of the table. "Men should automatically give up their seats to women, since women are going to be tired from shopping all day!" You half expect them to follow that up by saying "And women are more comfortable in these seats, being closer to the kitchen and all!"
/r/MensRights15/09/11 03:04 AM
6

People used to be prejudiced against others because of race. Would you have required every person with parents of two different races (where this fact is not apparent in their appearance) to disclose their ancestry to potential sexual partners so nobody accidentally had sex with somebody who (by the "one-drop rule") was of a race they thought inferior? Where do you draw the line with disclosure? Should I disclose my enjoyment of symphonic black metal before sex, so people don't accidentally have…
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:52 AM
3

A: Hey man, could you kill this guy for me real quick? B: Sure! at their hearing Judge: A, we find you guilty of super-murder. B, you little scamp, you're just the victim of A's brutal and unrelenting instigation of violence. A, you should be ashamed of yourself. Unless the boyfriend threatened violence against the mother or the child if the mother didn't do this, there is no way in hell his actions are as bad or worse than hers. Anybody who would rape a small child because their somebody asked …
/r/MensRights11/09/11 05:00 AM
1

That makes more sense, thanks!
/r/MensRights07/09/11 02:11 AM
2

Same. If it was non-existent you'd get a page not found error. I suspect that it means they're automatically preventing male users from commenting. Male accounts which can access or female accounts which can't could say otherwise.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 01:51 PM
4

When I hear these stories about people abusing their power (whether physical, emotional or political) to force people into sexual situations, the revulsion I feel makes me shudder. Fuck those people, from the bottom of their bigoted feet to the top of their disgusting heads.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 01:43 PM
10

Bearing in mind that I am neither a lawyer nor particularly invested in the outcome, I saw in one of the reddit threads about this event that it isn't quite so clear-cut. They provided this link. If that Wikipedia page is accurate, then it doesn't qualify as duress, mainly since "The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own" is not applicable.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 01:26 PM
12

Presumably this woman never breaks off oral sex when the man is ejaculating. Because it comes down to misandry, basically — most people with testicles and phalluses who are old enough to consent to sex ejaculate. Phalluses do not exist as sterile, liquid-free vagina attachments (although I hear there’s a toy for that)
/r/MensRights03/09/11 03:36 AM
9

Fortunately we're able to focus on multiple issues at once. I don't intend to say "Well you can keep performing elective circumcision on non-consenting infants, since there are bigger fish to fry."
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:49 PM
9

Benefits which are either medical, in which case the circumcision should be treated as any other surgery (i.e. by comparison of number needed to treat and number needed to harm with the conditions involved), or cosmetic/sexual, in which case it should be left up to the individual when they are of sufficient age to consent. If nothing else, the potential for complications from the surgery should mean that it should only be performed on an adult fully cognisant of the risks or a child in dire need…
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:46 PM
2

The idea of even 80% certainty (the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, not the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used) terrifies me. That means that, in five cases that barely meet this level of certainty, on average one of those people judged guilty will be innocent. This is before factoring in the potential for one side to be dishonest, which is greatly exacerbated by the lack of cross-examination and other features of our criminal legal system. One in five is too many. The one i…
/r/MensRights31/08/11 05:11 AM
1

Sure it matters. Intent is a very important factor in the law. Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. If these women intended to pervert the course of justice and put an innocent man in jail, then their crime is far greater than that of a person lying to protect themselves or their family. I don't know exactly how long would be a better sentence, but it needs to be long enough that we stop people making false rape accusations, which only make it harder for genuine rape victims…
/r/MensRights31/08/11 04:29 AM
0

Sure, I think he probably should have given up his seat. But so should the woman he was talking to, and indeed so should every young, able-bodied person sitting down on that train. It isn't about gender at all - not in who needs a seat, and not in who has a seat.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:23 PM
1

Punish to the full extent of the law men who violated others, possibly because of abuse (and rightly so). Be lenient on the people who violated them. And here I was thinking I wouldn't be angry at society today. Foolish, I know.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 04:52 AM
2

Women can't walk alone to their cars without being wary that a man might attack her. Would you use the same argument with "White people" instead of "Women", "black person" instead of "man" and "them" instead of "her" (using "her" there is a grammatical error, by the way)?
/r/MensRights17/08/11 05:21 AM
2

That's great. But you cannot possibly speak for every single male in the world. If there's even the tiniest risk of a child feeling mutilated as a result of circumcision, performing it without their consent for cosmetic reasons is utterly immoral. And believe me, lots of men feel violated by their circumcisions. Look at the number of foreskin restorations performed to get an idea.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:19 AM
4

I notice you ignored the effects of education and elevated testosterone in making that judgement. Fun fact: women with elevated testosterone get special legal treatment due to their diminished responsibility. Men with the same amount of testosterone? Not likely.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:17 AM
2

And sexual performance based on circumcision is really debatable. If you want to continue to insult my dick we can go off on how disgusting smegma is and how I've never met a woman that wanted to perform fellatio on a guy with that shit all over his dick. So maybe have the guy wash his dick first? Why do you seem to think that permanent mutilation of the genitals is preferable to washing them before getting a blowjob?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:35 AM
3

Men also have the poorest educations. Education is a strong factor in predicting criminality. Similarly, men have higher levels of testosterone. Men with levels of testosterone even higher than the average man are disproportionately represented in prisons. And the fact that men commit more crimes doesn't change the fact that women too commit crimes.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:24 AM
1

As the studies linked to in the post mention, men have fewer affairs but are not as adept at hiding them. So while men aren't stupid, they aren't as good as lying to people they pretend to love.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 11:48 AM
3

Wouldn't the greater standard deviation in male abilities be down to the fact that men can fertilise many partners, while women can only carry one lot of children at a time? So even if a lot of men don't survive to reproduce, it won't be disastrous for the population and indeed may be beneficial (as the survivors will tend to have better genetics than the rest). So "risky" genes can be carried on the Y chromosome, as even if 3 or 4 siblings die before reproducing the 1 with the lucky combination…
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:16 AM
24

Basically, the claim is that the pill could work for men who are worried about knocking someone up that they really don't want to get pregnant, such as the mythical man-trapping girlfriend Ah yes, the "mythical" man-trapping girlfriend. Because, after all, it is totally impossible for a woman to ever do something so base. Why, it's fine to claim that some men are irresponsible assholes, but to suggest that even one woman would attempt to trap a man is totally crazy.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 12:42 PM
2

Imagine if it wasn't about sex and domestic violence. Imagine if they were talking about making sure to have the right ratio of homicides perpetrated by different races, and accusing the police department of bias if they had unusually violent or non-violent members of one group. People would be rightly outraged. This shit shouldn't stand.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 05:22 PM
2

Whereas applying such rules purely along gender lines makes perfect sense?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 04:35 PM
2

Agreed, but the application of the rules should be symmetrical. If neither party is qualified, based on this BAC cut-off, to give consent, then both or neither should be charged with rape. Arbitrarily saying that only the man is guilty of rape is not acceptable (though of course if there is a valid justification, there is no problem). I wonder what would happen if two drunk guys had sex, or two drunk girls, and one or both decided they regretted it afterwards. Would be interesting to know how th…
/r/MensRights01/08/11 07:53 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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