TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

_FUCKYOUPAYME_ Archive

View 0 posts and 29 comments by _FUCKYOUPAYME_ 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

from what op said in the comments it looks like she at least admitted that men could be discriminated against, so it may not be a bad route to go
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:11 AM
-2

"but who will think of the white man?"
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:33 AM
3

i could tell immediately, props on having proof
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:27 AM
-1

I'm sure you've earned every single thing you have 'cause you're a rootin' tootin' hard workin' 'Merican!
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:35 PM
0

I didn't.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:32 PM
-2

Check it out, a white silver medalist who beat a black guy! How can that be?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 01:09 AM
-2

False. Some people have big hands, some have small hands. Is that tied to intelligence? No. And neither is skin
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:34 PM
-2

Lol, no. That was proof that genetics happen above the neck. There, the fundamental premise of your augment is gone. Then we just have to surmise that there are genetic trends in races (skin color for one, duh) and then it's easy to say that there very well could be cognitive trend differences between the races. Of course there genetic differences on an individual level. The point that your own source couldn't make was whether race plays an inherent, genetic part in intelligence, which it doesn'…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:09 AM
-3

The word race wasn't used once in that entire article. Good try though.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:37 AM
-3

I can tell the ignorance is strong in you. Genetics don't happen only below the neck, no matter how politically correct it is to think that way. Luckily, it's not only politically correct, but also scientifically. Besidess, most scientists hold that race itself is non-existent anyway But while you're so interested in correlations between appearance and IQ here's a link you may enjoy. So enjoy that cognitive dissonance
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:24 AM
-2

Bullllllllshit. The races are unequal. Deal with it. Whites are privileged you brat. There's a 300 year societal advantage. Deal with it. You're an idiot. Bone structure varies from person to person. These athletes are members of subsets. Not all black have the exact same bone type and same for whites. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons. Telling someone's political party =/=telling their intelligence. You can definitely tell someone's lifestyle by their appearance, but their intelligence? not so mu…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:00 AM
-7

bye troll
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:20 PM
-6

And that's where you're wrong. If you are looking for an IQ of 170+, the odds are 30:1 that such a person is male. There are also average IQ differences between races. Due to....(wait for it)... PRIVILEGE!! Wrong again. Part of being black is having a certain bone structure, said structure happens to be advantageous for running (and detrimental for swimming). *Citation needed Advantagous? Perhaps (although probably not ). Does that make it impossible? by no means. That's like saying all short pe…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:55 PM
3

True, I could see that, but at the same time it kind of illustrates the point I was trying to make about how a guy can be slut shamed. Say this guy is in his late 20s and trying to slow down. He's going to have a problem landing a serious relationship because his rep will follow him.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:40 PM
6

Well hey, let's play ignorant of what the implications of what a "white only" prom would have meant 30 years ago. But if the best example you can give is that black people might not seem racist in similar situations can you really say there's any privilege?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:37 PM
-1

If we had a society based on running, you better damn well believe that blacks would be "worth more" than whites because the average black would be a better runner than the average white. So then in a society based on intelligence, which is the one that we actually live in, there's no empirical, cut and dry proof that any race, or gender has an inherent monopoly over others, especially not to the effect that any significant superiority is held. Therefore appearance shouldn't matter, but it does,…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:34 PM
6

I probably should have said socially
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:45 PM
11

In my experience men with a highly sexual reputation aren't exactly fawned over by most women, so I think slut-shaming does exist for men to a degree, the difference is that it's more ok among society at large for a man to do it, so a man's name would't really be ruined if he took up that sort of lifestyle, infact in some circles he would be expected to, and Im not sure how many people who worry about slut shaming know this could be a problem too. Even as a man in steady two year relationship, i…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:21 PM
1

There are obviously going to difference in physical nature, some people will be born tall, others short, some strong some weak, even among members of the same race, that's a no brainer. The notion of equality is that all of these people, no matter their appearance, have the same worth and the same social opportunities to succeed in life. The issue of privilege appears when there are groups of people that are denied opportunities for otherwise irrelevant social reasons.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:14 PM
1

such as? (other than affirmative action)
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:05 PM
4

an imposed definition loses usefulness if the lay term means something very different. that's how language works.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 10:46 AM
4

wish i could up vote this more than once
/r/MensRights01/06/12 10:38 AM
5

Hasn't porn been around for like, decades?
/r/MensRights24/05/12 02:15 AM
5

Why are you trying to make it a pity contest? ...and are raped by enemy combatants Not down playing rape, but it's hardly ever on the scale of death suffered by the male soldiers. As Hilary Clinton is coming from an American stand point, this point is even more irrelevant as there hasn't been an invading force on our land for well over 100 years. How can you possibly reason that the young men's whose lives are ended, as in OVER, don't suffer the worst? And get their homes and towns burnt to the …
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:30 AM
2

I feel like feminism tries to label itself as an equality movement to appeal to more moderate people. Looking at a lot of feminist doctrine it doesn't seem to build women up as it does tear men down.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:21 AM
13

What is this? I don't even. It reminds me of the quote by Feminist Hilary Clinton who said "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." It's not the men who die, but the women who lose their disposable male tools /s
/r/MensRights23/05/12 11:59 PM
1

say what?
/r/MensRights23/05/12 12:21 AM
-1

You seem to be trying to treat the child as a piece of property (of the father's), and a human being (morally equivalent to a person who is born), at the same time. You have to pick one, you can't have both Aren't even born children, under the guardianship of both parents, making them, more or less property of the parents? I'm not sure why that false dichotomy has to be made.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 04:37 PM
-1

But what you aren't allowed to do is violate the bodily autonomy of another person because of your feelings. Isn't the fetus a separate body also?
/r/MensRights22/05/12 04:33 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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