TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

amatorfati Archive

View 0 posts and 675 comments by amatorfati 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

I'm with you there, but you can definitely see the reasoning behind it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/18 12:26 AM
3

Older men always have the luxury of long-term optimism. They won't have to live long enough to realize all their lofty ideals were too stupid and impractical to ever be attained. It's harder for young men right now to do anything but take the black pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/18 04:00 PM
1

The same political machinery is also just as much pushing the legislation as it is rejecting it. We'll see which alliance wins out in the long run.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/18 11:16 AM
1

The issue of ISPs unjustly holding territorial monopolies is an entirely separate issue from a theoretical "right" to data neutrality as it is carried over the medium. Two completely separate issues. You can hate ISPs as I do all you want. That doesn't give you some magical right that everyone just invented out of thin air two minutes ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/18 02:30 AM
1

An unelected, unaccountable, un-transparent, essentially permanent caste of government agencies who follow their own agenda regardless of what the general population desires (for better or worse). That's not a conspiracy theory, that's reality of how our government works, by design. And largely for good reasons, I'm no fan of mob rule either. But to deny that there are mechanisms in play that resemble what anyone would recognize as a deep state is silly. Leftists never even disagreed with that p…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/18 02:29 AM
2

That was a very confusing click.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/18 02:24 AM
5

Thank you,
/r/PussyPass24/03/17 11:56 PM
9

Could you explain how your knowledge of statistics reveals that this is garbage?
/r/PussyPass24/03/17 11:13 PM
-1

I'd say he's basically bisexual whether he has any intention of exploring that or not.
/r/PussyPass04/03/17 03:47 AM
2

lol fucking autocorrect. This is why I wait until I get on my laptop to reddit.
/r/PussyPass04/03/17 03:46 AM
14

If those details include being attracted to generals which anatomically belong to males, that by definition necessarily makes you gay/bisexual. There's no way you can weasel out of that.
/r/PussyPass03/03/17 08:14 PM
2

Not all feminists are the crazy and vocal minority that you hear about on tumblr etc. Check out people like the National Organization for Women or the AAUW-- they're not crazy feminists or whatever, just people looking for equal treatment. The way you interpret that is up to you. No, actually, we should interpret their values based on the policies they help institute and the results they champion.
/r/PussyPass25/02/17 08:11 PM
2

(sad that you're actually arguing against that btw) What's sad is that because I criticized you on a different point entirely, you think you have the right to assume which values of yours I do or don't disagree with. Don't assume what I do or don't believe, please. doesn't mean I support bullshit like double standards Again, I'm not talking about conscious support, I'm saying that by this point the only feminism that actually remains alive and well politically and ideologically speaking these da…
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 07:51 PM
2

That's all as irrelevant as it is interesting.
/r/PussyPass23/02/17 11:36 PM
1

Nobody labeled them that for protesting Milo's appearance. They're crybabies because they riot to get what they want and choose to use violence to stop people they don't like from speaking. How in the world you can possibly think that's the same as a private group choosing to not invite someone to speak is beyond me.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/17 04:01 AM
1

Just like Conservatives dont want him at CPAC now that they know he thinks boys getting diddled is cool, liberals didnt want him speaking at their college because hes homophobic, misogynistic, and antisemitic. Milo doesn't have a right to speak at CPAC if he is not invited to do so. He absolutely has every right to speak at universities where he has been invited to do so, has a scheduled event filled with people waiting to hear him speak, and is only prevented from doing so because of rioting ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/17 03:47 AM
3

I just don't know what to tell all of you. When I first did this stuff I thought it was stupid and I wasn't interested in some cartoonishly macho shit. This isn't how I wanted things to be, it's just how they seem to be based on my tests of it. I recommend you test it yourself. And then just accept that women like what they like no matter how much sense it makes based on different belief systems. This is the kicker for me as well. It's not like I wanted any of this to be true. The vast majority …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/17 03:35 AM
13

I don't know any progressives anymore who actually stand up to this kind of crap. Maybe it used to be the case that leftists could disagree with each other and actually stand up to bullshit like this. I think I do remember such a time in my lifetime even. But these days anybody who criticizes the wage gap myth or suggests that "believing the victim" automatically is bad policy for a university or the media or indeed any rational person gets marked as a misogynist immediately. The left as a whole…
/r/PussyPass23/02/17 03:29 AM
9

As I already stated I'm not talking about your "view". Your carefully crafted bullshit ideological justification for supporting bad policies is not what I'm interested, I'm interested in the actual results and policies that leftists in reality support. We should be held accountable not only for our beliefs and values but for the fruits of the movements we support.
/r/PussyPass23/02/17 03:25 AM
37

Of course it works. That kind of statement reveals a lot more about what progressives actually want to accomplish in society rather than the lofty ideals they preach. Blatant double standards and a broken justice system are perfectly acceptable for them as long as it looks good for the right privileged minorities.
/r/PussyPass23/02/17 12:21 AM
1

We are responsible for the consequences of our choices.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/17 12:29 PM
3

Well now you're confusing virgin with low n count. I don't think many men are holding out for virgins unless they are deeply religious or really gullible. The idea is LOW n count women. Or, you know, marrying young. People seem to always skip right over this as though it's irrelevant but if we're talking about historical trends and anomalies, it's obvious that age matters. I'm a young guy. And I'm married. If I hadn't already married though, and I kept putting off looking for a "serious relation…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/17 11:55 PM
4

Did you grow up in a low population density area? I've heard things from my hick friends about how getting laid works in their towns, all you need is to be the guy with the car and you'll get some, regardless of your looks or really anything about you at all. To a city guy like myself that never made any sense at all. It was like I was talking to people from another planet.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/16 09:25 AM
2

If you make it through adolescence and fail to learn pretty basic human interactions, like being selective about who you sleep with, you're a degenerate. You're not necessarily suffering from deep mental disorders, but somewhere along the line, your parents failed you, or you learned far too much toxic behavior from your peers, or society in general perhaps propagandized you into rationalizing and idealizing bad behavior... we can point fingers all day long. But at the end of the day, if you gle…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 11:37 PM
3

Look up what a lawful order is. Again, to be very clear, a lawful order doesn't have to be smart, fair, or even a good idea at all. It just has to be not against the law or common sense morality, like not killing innocent people. The military needs to have this concept because you don't have the luxury of time and resources to debate every decision democratically and let everyone come to a consensus. Ultimately somebody has to call the shots, and you have to trust that everyone will comply wheth…
/r/PussyPass23/09/16 04:04 PM
1

You're not entirely wrong. But when we've got people doing yard work out here in 100F weather, they don't stay covered.
/r/PussyPass23/09/16 03:51 PM
2

Im just throwing a theory out there but perhaps they didnt show respect to their fellow soldiers, because they were women and as a punishment they were forced to carry their packing. That's not how that issue would be dealt with at all.
/r/PussyPass23/09/16 02:56 AM
2

They aren't in formation, and they aren't wearing their cover. Anyone that's been in the military knows, if you're outside, you wear your cover or get chewed the fuck out. Yeah but there are definitely exceptions, and weird training things like this are usually those exceptions. I've definitely seen soldiers just this morning running, not in formation, with rucksacks just this morning. Don't recall if they were covered or not, but it would not be that out of place.
/r/PussyPass23/09/16 02:55 AM
-1

Heh, fair enough. Well I suppose that depends entirely on the context of this scenario and what exactly you mean by "refuse", but long story short, there will be punishment of some form or another no matter what. You can't just refuse to do what you're told. You don't have that right when you're in the military. You are legally obligated to comply with an order, assuming that order is lawful. Very few exceptions to that rule. Something like an order to kill innocent civilians, yes, you can refus…
/r/PussyPass23/09/16 02:52 AM
1

But if this is Basic or Boot, I don't see how this is training the Females unless they are on a light duty profile. I can't speak directly to what the corps does, but as far as the military goes as a whole, it doesn't really matter if it accomplishes anything significant or not at all. The point is to give an order and have them complete it. That's what basic training should instill in you, at a minimum. Whether the order is necessarily fair or not. As long as its a lawful order, ie not literall…
/r/PussyPass23/09/16 02:46 AM
6

Is it a pussypass? Probably not. Could have been men walking without a bag. But women need a "pass" more often than men. The entire fucking military is a pussypass. To get in and stay in for any of the branches has different physical requirements based on your age and your sex. Shit is fucked up.
/r/PussyPass22/09/16 11:03 PM
4

What would happen if the soldiers refuse ? You don't understand how the military works.
/r/PussyPass22/09/16 10:59 PM
1

Dept of the Navy, anyway.
/r/PussyPass22/09/16 10:58 PM
5

Why only for combat? It's blatantly unfair that men have higher standards than women to stay in the military.
/r/PussyPass22/09/16 10:57 PM
3

Do you have some basis for that opinion in psychology or psychiatry? Or are have you just decided that anyone who thinks differently from you is wrong? 99.9% of human history.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/16 10:03 PM
2

Really anything past MMMF might as well just be fifty dudes to those of us (in my opinion, mentally healthy male human beings) who feel repulsed by the notion of a threesome.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/16 09:37 PM
3

1000% this. There are no mentally healthy normal women who actually go through with a threesome. I'll stand by that statement to my dying fucking day.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/16 09:34 PM
2

Anybody who doesn't find that concept inherently disgusting is someone I just cannot respect as a human being.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/16 09:26 PM
4

Nah.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/16 02:16 PM
1

Sexual selection. Really not everything here is about women at all. A post asking about what type of men women are attracted to is about men arguably just as much as it is about women. But the structure of the question is already wise and understands how supply and demand work in human evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/16 05:06 PM
11

Read about it? Fuck, I've seen it happen right in front of me. It makes me sick to my stomach. I've seen stupid whores who sleep with all of their coworkers, accuse half of them of rape, get away with it, then complain that women are treated poorly in the military.
/r/PussyPass04/05/16 01:05 PM
3

It is not a moral judgment. It is a preferential judgment. I prefer to wear pants. I prefer women to wear dresses or skirts. That is not hypocrisy. I'm not saying it is wrong to wear pants while I go around wearing pants. I am specifically saying that I prefer men to wear one thing and women to wear other things. It's sexist but it is absolutely not hypocrisy. It's only hypocrisy if you assume equality as a given here, which it is not.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/15 03:10 AM
6

No one is pretending that these are objective qualities that have some innate correlation to being a slut. They're just anecdotal observations. Even so, you will find that most American men will overwhelmingly agree with these observations.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/15 12:13 AM
5

Not all relationships are created equal. If a woman has had sex in one relationship only ever, and that relationship has gone on for years, we have a very high quality relationship. If another woman is dating a guy and waited a week, that's another thing entirely. Quality matters here. Which is not to say that this must be your case, it's just something you made me consider. So, tl;dr, yes a woman can absolutely be a slut even if she only has sex with men she is in a relationship with.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/15 11:25 PM
2

Right, exactly. You could say this about virtually any minority discussion group with somewhat extremist opinions. This psych talk says absolutely nothing about the validity of RP, or communism, or the theory of gravity, or any other possible set of ideas.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 10:30 PM
2

Plenty of Muslims drink like fish, by the way. My biggest surprise lately in getting to know Muslims has been that they are remarkably just like first world Christians. Same vices. They are just as shocked by the extremists of Islam as we would be if suddenly America were to be taken over by some rapture cult. Men really are men everywhere. The big things don't change.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/15 11:11 PM
26

They're pointing out the hypocrisy. To see your enemy doing the same behavior as you that they claim is wrong when you do it is validating, without referring to moralistic language at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/15 12:28 AM
20

TRPers are not agreeing with you that it's wrong to make fun of someone for being unattractive. TRP is an attempt to accept humanity as it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/15 12:21 AM
0

That's entirely the point though. You're eliminating the dumb ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/15 12:10 AM
3

I would consider this to be a very good thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/15 11:52 PM
1

Including cannabis, there is no researcher alive who would claim that there is more drug use today than in the 80's. You're blatantly making shit up.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/15 11:43 PM
12

You must be seriously retarded if you truly believe this narrative. I agree with your general idea, that historically human nature doesn't change, that there are always vices and they always get expressed in some timelessly similar way. But you'd have to be an idiot if you're arguing that drug use is as high as it was in the 80's.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/15 06:15 AM
7

So drug use, violent crime, household income... nothing ever changes?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/15 04:56 AM
4

There's a very similar attitude that some historians take to accounts of the Holocaust. Which really fucks everything we know about the Holocaust up completely.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 01:03 AM
1

And no, I don't believe that psychological behavior is solely defined by one's genetics. Literally nobody said this and no sane person would believe this. You don't even remotely understand the discussion at hand.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/14 04:44 AM
1

Just logically speaking, if you agree that any psychological behavior is attributable to differences in genetics (as every mainstream psychologist and geneticist does), then we should expect that statement to be true. More variety in genes should equal more variety in potential behavior. Again, that probably is ticking off some alarms in your morality. Do not listen to your feelings in matters of logic, you will only make yourself look like a naive idiot. Something is either true or false on its…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 11:28 PM
1

As somebody else already explained to you, no, it does not in fact mean that you should expect to discover that two random women should be more genetically alike than a woman and a male relative of hers, but it does mean that two random women are likely to be more genetically similar than two random men. Do you understand the difference?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 10:33 PM
2

That would mean I have more in common with female BPers and RPW than the male members of my family. That is not even remotely what it means. You're the only one drawing this bizarre conclusion from the statement the commenter actually made.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 03:03 AM
4

Again, you still have yet to actually make a single counter-argument with any actual substance. Claiming that somebody is full of shit is not the same as actually making an argument. Again, you sound like a goddamn fool. You fully admit that you don't know what you're talking about on this subject, but you insist that somehow, despite knowing nothing about it, you know that the person you're talking to is full of shit. It's not just arrogance, it's flat-out dogmatism. You literally are basing yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 09:55 PM
2

It doesn't matter. The dumb bastard already has decided that you are wrong. They one hundred percent admit to know next to nothing at all about genetics, yet proudly mock you and proclaim that YOU MUST BE WRONG. I understand being stupid. I understand being proud of your beliefs. But how can somebody be willingly and admittedly stupid and still so proud?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 09:33 PM
3

So, as long as you personally have defined a group to be harmful, it's fine to silence it. That makes perfect sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 09:30 PM
5

He already provided a source. You're claiming stupidity, that you're unable to understand genetics, as though that makes you an authority on the subject. You fully admit to be an ignoramus when it comes to genetics, yet you have the balls you say that /u/n0c0ntr0l doesn't know what he's talking about. Do you realize how retarded you sound?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 09:28 PM
5

I mean, it almost seems like birth control would need to be required for women in the army (unless there is a legitimate medical condition that prevents them from it). But maybe that's too far and is unethical. I so strongly disagree. There's nothing the least bit unethical about requiring that. It should be the case.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 04:31 AM
3

Most redditors don't know anything at all about TRP. It's all secondhand accounts.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/14 03:26 AM
5

Most people do ignore posts that demand attention for being female. A few people posting "tits or gtfo" reinforces the reasoning so people don't just get totally ignored without even knowing why. There is always like one person who tells you why your post sucks when you make a shitty post on /b/. If you don't even get one insult, you are not even trying.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:37 AM
8

/b/ is the worst of the internet but it also is the very best. If I've learned anything from /b/, it's that apparently you really can polish a turd to make it a diamond.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:34 AM
1

?
/r/MensRights11/07/14 03:19 AM
15

Lawyer logic can be a bit terrifying sometimes.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 07:32 PM
3

True enough. There's a reason, after all, that the oath that military recruits swear is to obey all orders from those appointed over them, not simply those relating to their assigned job.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 04:26 AM
1

Someone has to put the circuitry in precise order for it to work with the intention for it to learn how to kill. Artificial malice is not something I look forward to, no. A) But these circuit-makers, so to speak, wouldn't necessarily be military personnel! That's wholly my point. We are arriving at the point where your average random civilian will easily be able to afford, design, and construct some hellish weapon of mass destruction with a mind of its own. B) Malice is a bit of a jump in logic.…
/r/MensRights01/07/14 04:18 AM
1

Enjoy the future of your artificial faceless killing machines requiring only a human controller. How many people does it require to forcefully draft into selective service if your tinker soldiers are immediately replaceable? If anything, shouldn't you be far more afraid of faceless killing machines that are being developed as we speak that don't require a human controller?
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:27 PM
3

But that is a separate issue. Not everyone who considers themselves in favor of men's rights also must be against selective service in principle. I'm fine with tons of you people having that opinion and even expressing it here, that's absolutely fine. But trying to force that opinion as though it is representative of the MRM as a whole is dishonest.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 08:57 PM
45

Military service ≠ combat, you're actually being too generous about it. Even if in this country we never allowed women to go into combat at all, they could still be obligated to serve in the military and it would be fine.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 08:55 PM
5

Whether or not women are allowed in combat roles is actually very irrelevant to selective service. We have quite a few branches of the armed forces and the majority of jobs in the military are quite far removed from combat.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 08:54 PM
7

It's not even worth a debate. You began the discussion by asserting your belief and chastising me for not accepting the premise. That isn't a debate at all, that's an inquisition tactic.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:11 AM
5

Society as a whole has elements which encourage or at least fail to adequately deter rape Well, no. You can keep asserting this all you want but this is fundamentally where we disagree.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 05:59 AM
11

but thinking that is... well, pretty rape-culture-y. I guess we also live in a theft culture, assault culture, and murder culture too.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 05:50 AM
5

Don't servicemen have to seek permission before relocating? Yes.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 03:17 AM
1

Why does it have to be automatic? I can present a pretty compelling argument that conscription is morally wrong. That's exactly my point. You could. But you should not do so here. It is one hundred percent irrelevant. Because even if you convince me personally, or a thousand other people, it is still wholly irrelevant to this subreddit. It's only a requirement if you want to be consistent. There is no legitimate, self-consistent foundation on which gender equality rests that does not also logica…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:46 PM
1

This only applies if you automatically agree that conscription is morally wrong. Being for gender equality does not require you to also believe that conscription is morally wrong. I understand a bunch of you have this opinion. I respect the opinion and your right to express it. But it really, really fucking annoys me when I see this argument made in this subreddit as though it has anything to do with the point being made. It's utterly irrelevant. If you're talking about equality in the context o…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 05:24 AM
0

No.
/r/PussyPass09/06/14 11:54 PM
-1

Conscription is slavery whether you agree with that or not. You are given no choice and told if you don't you will be punished. I literally already made this point. I agree with this. Also, if enough people would rather flee a country than stay defending it, enough to the point that it became indefensible, I would say that country is definitely not worth saving. Forcing people to kill and die for you is slavery. I am not convinced by that kind of argument. Something being slavery or like slavery…
/r/PussyPass09/06/14 08:22 PM
0

Such a thing as averages exist. Obviously there is no one single person on this planet who authoritatively dictates everybody else's SMV. Yes, to an extent, beauty is subjective. However, you average out everybody's opinion of everybody else, and you start to get somewhere close to the general truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/14 09:45 PM
3

The vast majority of feminists would disagree with those statements. Thats a fact. Because you asserted it, it's a fact?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/14 09:29 PM
1

Do you believe that the generalizations they make about women in their constitution are fair and accurate? Or is your view that they aren't misogynists because they express contempt for everyone? A) My opinion on the generalizations, whether I think they're fair and accurate, or unfair and inaccurate, is irrelevant to the point I'm arguing, so I won't bother to answer that question, except to say that I don't believe a binary answer would fit my actual opinion very well. B) By definition, if som…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:59 AM
0

PS: I've provided my evidence for TRP misogyny; feel free to discuss it with me if you disagree. Telling those who disagree with you to fuck off is not productive. Slandering thousands of people as misogynists is productive? Okay.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:04 AM
1

I do and I have, my post history from TRP some months ago would reflect that.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 09:10 PM
0

The question in itself is loaded. I don't think we actually have a movement. To my view, real movements have a dogma, or else they crumble upon having even just one minor schism, because they fail to adhere to a central goal. I don't think MRM yet has a central goal.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 09:09 PM
0

I don't see "tradcon nonsense" as any more foolish in itself, than progressivist trash. Believing the past was rosy is kind of silly. Blindly jumping into the future with whatever popular trend is sweeping the world is also incredibly foolish.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 09:06 PM
0

The men's rights movement is about equality; the red pill is about male superiority. I don't agree that MRM has to be about equality. The egalitarians can try all they want to hijack this sub, but they haven't achieved total victory yet.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:45 AM
0

TRP harbors a significant number of misogynists, a smaller but still significant number of misandrists, and an even larger plethora of misanthropes. . . none of which I care to associate with as a general rule. Well, fuck off then. You are fond of slandering whole groups of people, I don't care to associate with people like you.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:43 AM
1

I've actually seen some positive change. First is the progress that the subreddit has made on their attitudes towards LTRs, there's still a significant amount of people who think LTRs are for chumps but they're not the majority anymore. This is old news I guess, but more recently TRP has embraced the gay (male) community (they have their own subreddit now). You might be right about this.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:41 AM
0

I claimed nothing. I am a different user than the one you were replying to previously. Perhaps you should pay attention? Whoa, my bad. That conversation had such excellent flow to it, the transition was so seamless that I didn't notice it at all. You are right, you never claimed that. My mistake. Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. The number of angry, bitter posters caught in a perpetual cycle of hatred far exceeds that of almost any other community. ...or, the sub gets newcomers in all the …
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:23 AM
-1

They're a group that fosters anger, bitterness, and hatred. A) That isn't what you said at all, you claimed misogyny. Equal opportunity hatred is not misogyny, it's just good ol' misanthropy. You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Are TRPers anti-women or anti-humanity? B) I don't agree even with this statement. I don't think TRP actively breeds bitterness, I think that for newcomers it presents a fantastic place to vent, and to feel like you're among people who for the first time in possibly…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:00 AM
2

I will concede to my mistake that TRP as an ideology bashes LTRs/marriage. Also, a formerly hostile climate to LTRs has changed over the last few years. This mistake on my part does not excuse the general attitudes about that are actually canon. It does demonstrate that you are quick to make gigantic generalizations about a rather large community of redditors on the basis of what some moderators post. Note that I do happen to agree with you; a lot of what some of the rather popular moderators th…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:56 AM
3

And as for abandoning the child, isn't it something possible only if both parents wants to give up their rights? If a father wants to keep the child, wouldn't the mother be forced to support it as well? This is not the case. Women are able to terminate pregnancies and abandon children unilaterally.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/14 06:54 AM
1

Disdain and disrespect are the norm on TRP, but not just for women. For mankind as a whole. I tend to see exactly the same kind of disrespectful attitude to the posts there about beta males they mock, as they do about females they dislike. Am I wrong? If you truly lurk there as I do, you must see the same thing I'm talking about. Betas are talked about like subhumans all the time. If you're going to accuse people of being misogynists, expect to have to give evidence.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:51 AM
-1

In defense of the sidebar material, you assumed that TRPers necessarily believe that men are honorable and super-logical and honest, et cetera, in comparison to the way women are described. Generally speaking, from lurking at TRP, I have not found that to be the case. Most TRPers have an almost equally dismal opinion of most men as they do of women. Here is one thing you listed: Marriage is for suckers, kids are for suckers, and to a lot of people LTRs are even for suckers. And you did so as tho…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:25 AM
4

Is, or should be? It strikes me as horrendously unequal that a mother is given all the choice in the world as to whether or not to have a child after conception and even after birth if she chooses to abandon the child through legal means. However, a father has no such choice about having children or not, after conception. I agree that to some degree there is inherent responsibility in the act of conceiving a child alone, but when in the current legal climate one parent and one parent alone has 1…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/14 06:21 AM
1

You just keep listing things that are considered controversial even within TRP. Do you think just by listing things that some posters at TRP believe, you are somehow proving that this is TRP in itself?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:08 AM
2

If the genders are equal in potential, why are single mothers incapable of supporting their children without aid from the father?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/14 06:05 AM
1

so why fascists, and not communists, socialists, libertarians(US), or Anarchists? All of them do regularly post in TRP. I have seen each of these ideologies argued about there, and many more. You are the one alleging that fascists are a significant presence there. If so, surely you can easily prove it.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 12:18 AM
9

I've lurked there on and off for about a year. Came into it thinking exactly what everybody else thinks about them, and I stuck around out of curiosity. Some of the philosophy grew on me, some of it never really did. But for damn sure I know the reputation they get is not at all deserved. TRP is not really anymore inherently misogynist than /r/feminism.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 11:54 PM
0

Behind and within every group, just about every random subculture probably has a presence. I have had conversations with communists, anarchists, fascists, monarchists, neo-feudalists, centrists, democrats/republicans (in the non-partisan sense of the words), Democrats, Republicans, et cetera. In no way is TRP necessarily fascist. There are probably more fascists lurking in TRP than in more mainstream subs, and it should be obvious why. A sub that is hated on by pretty much everybody outside of t…
/r/MensRights03/06/14 11:51 PM
6

I won't defend the moderation, the mods are incredibly inconsistent and have driven the sub to shit. The only good thing I could say in defense of the mods is that they were in charge of what was already an indefensible situation to begin with. The rest of reddit has essentially forced TRP into isolationism.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 09:46 PM
19

Everyone assumes that if you post or lurk on TRP, you hate women. Most people on TRP are not misogynists, IMO. There is definitely prevalent sexism, but misogyny is not just sexism, it is outright and openly hateful sexism. Sexism in itself is not necessarily an evil. I have seen misogyny in TRP, but not exactly more than you would expect in, say, /r/worldnews or some other equally mundane subreddit. TRP is most just nostalgia for the days when gender norms were socially acceptable, and men tryi…
/r/MensRights03/06/14 09:24 PM
1

Same. I post here from time to time. Never really post on TRP anymore; it's devolving into a shithole, mostly since they went hard isolationist and banned crossposting. Still consider myself favorable to redpill ideology but I only ever lurk there, never post anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/14 05:25 AM
3

It brings attention to the fact that real rapes happen! /s
/r/MensRights29/05/14 07:45 PM
3

I don't know enough about the red pill to be anything but ignorant of most RP redditors or the goals of TRP. So I cannot say with any certainty that TRP hates women. Thank you for being honest about this. Most of reddit has seen links to a few of the most vile posts ever made there and then forever assume that those posts are representative of the whole idea. Most people who post there do not hate women. Perhaps you could say they are definitely sexist, but sexism in that you believe men and wom…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:05 AM
7

What does it mean to treat women like people, according to you? What most people from TRP actually say (I've lurked there for maybe about a year on and off) is about treating women as they deserve (not as a whole but I mean at an individual basis). So if a woman is acting childish to you, you don't pretend to treat her with respect just because she is a woman and you like her. If a woman is being ridiculous and demanding all kinds of stuff from you for nothing in return, you ignore the bitching.…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:03 AM
0

Really? You make weird arguments about caste systems that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I simply do not understand you? Fuck off.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 08:12 PM
0

Obviously somebody could only possibly disagree with you by not understanding. I've always heard that people as pretentious as you existed in this world, but every time I meet one of you, I am genuinely surprised.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 07:00 AM
1

Often in hate crimes the attacker is of the belief that their target deserved to be attacked due to some stereotype such as "black people are inferior" or "homosexuals are evil and sinful". Rich people are all parasites?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 11:29 PM
1

Just wow. You literally are only paying attention to the tragedies you care about, blatantly favoring minorities you think were treated the worst, and you're acting like your knowledge of history is not only perfect but also perfectly balanced. And then at the end of it all, you use your personal common sense as the basis for asserting that "lower class people always have it worse". Just no. That is not how logic works.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 10:50 PM
1

Nice. When all else fails, appeal to common sense. Wow.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 10:29 PM
1

But you still haven't actually demonstrated that at all. You pointed to intellectuals who certainly believe that and made several rationalizations for why that behavior might be. But you never even attempted to show that in actual historical reality it is true. Don't you see how that is jumping ahead a bit?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 10:03 PM
1

Again, none of that actually proves any connection between the dehumanization aspect of social relationships, and the violence itself. You haven't demonstrated that violence has anything to do with the sense of superiority, you just keep asserting a connection. All you're doing with the block of text you gave me is clarifying elements you think are critical in dehumanization; none of that block of text had absolutely anything to do with what I asked you for, which is some kind of evidence tying …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 08:53 PM
-2

Calling women children, entitled, etc is definitely out of benevolence, not hate, right? There is a huge world of difference between "these are traits I believe apply to women generally which I dislike" and "these are traits that woman have that make them less than human".
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 04:03 AM
1

but the "othering" aspect of the violence wouldn't change You haven't proven that the "othering" has anything to do with the violence itself. And it can't really be denied that those at the bottom of hierarchical systems are subject to more violence and violation of their person than those at higher levels. Only if you specifically define "subject to more violence" to suit your political agenda. What do you mean exactly by that? Does violence between poor people count as violence "against the po…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 04:02 AM
-1

Misogyny implies hatred, you can't just point to clichés that RPers believe about women and say "therefore misogyny". Misogyny is hatred, yet nowhere have you shown me in your wall of text a single actual instance that demonstrates that RP inherently hates women. Believes sexist things about them, that women are inherently different than men? Absolutely they fucking do, I would never in a million years try to deny that. But to me it seems that you are acting as though sexism and misogyny are pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/14 07:58 AM
7

You would hope so, but all the cases of adult women molesting young boys and getting off with very light or no sentence at all makes me think otherwise.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 07:52 AM
6

I'm sorry but you have far too much faith in people. I personally know of cases in my family where women were defended even when beating their children, just because they knew how to fake tears well when men in the family tried to stop them. These events happened well over three or four decades ago. It is not even a feminist thing, it's a human thing; people innately see women as needing protection.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:16 AM
-1

Except that you're being ridiculous, because yes, violence is common among hierarchical societies; guess where it's also common? Every other society that has ever existed or will ever exist. You have not at all even remotely demonstrated that violence is correlated with hierarchy. You just keep bringing up random examples of pro-hierarchy violence. I could just as easily start listing examples of anti-hierarchy massacres. Neither thing makes us look smart just because we know about things. You a…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/14 05:22 AM
16

Morons and geniuses alike will tear you apart limb from limb; a mob is a mob, my friend.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 05:05 AM
0

Have you? I always find that people have this weird thing that happens in their head with things that they hate. In their head what they hate seems very clear. They think they know their enemy and why they hate them. And then you ask them to describe the thing they hate, not indirectly by association with things they don't like, but directly by giving actual details. And they fail. So let's do it. Tell me what is misogynistic in the sidebar.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/14 04:59 AM
0

Likewise, I misjudged you initially. We still disagree but in the end, I kind of like you and hope you don't die.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/14 04:50 AM
1

It's hard for me to get past your naiveté in thinking that we can all just get along believing we're all equals, without the bloodshed of every revolution in the past three centuries coming to mind. The chaos isn't purely theoretical; it has been astronomical. Besides, you're literally, not even as an exaggeration, proposing that we consider society in terms of policing thought crime. You want to police how people think about other people, not just how they act, but how they think of others. You…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 08:35 AM
1

We did consider it. You did not make any real argument suggesting that it contributes, you just brought up a vaguely related experiment, and then asked me to entertain the notion for the sake of argument. Fantastic; I have done that, it is entertained. Now... what? What is your point? That if I assume your premise is correct, then... your premise is correct? I am so convinced.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 08:26 AM
1

Okay. I would say precisely the same about egalitarianism, "if" we assume egalitarian ideologies inspire acts of violence against real or perceived authority figures.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 08:15 AM
1

You assume that "sexism" first of all is some kind of evil thing that must be "addressed", aka "punished and annihilated", if you don't terribly mind me putting some words in your mouth. I would just as easily consider your egalitarian beliefs to be a mental illness that has to be eradicated in the same vein.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 08:11 AM
1

Okay. For sake of argument, you want me to presume hierarchical ideologies can inspire acts of violence. Great, whatever, consider the notion entertained. What is your point? You have yet to make any real argument on that basis. So far you've just been doing a very circular dance. Do you have an actual point you're going to make?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 08:10 AM
2

sweetheart: Oh, fuck you. You're not interested in debate, you're interested in being a condescending idiot while making juvenile arguments, and then berating other people for not "getting" your point. I understand you're making a "suggestion"; I'm saying it's a retarded suggestion because it's completely baseless, and the polar opposite could just as easily be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 07:57 AM
1

Let me be even clearer then: the wiggly part of your logic is in the "can inspire extreme acts of violence". It is a huge jump in logic to go from "extreme acts of violence tend to be associated with maniacs having very extremist ideologies" to "those ideologies caused the violence". You can make that suggestion all you want, you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. And every time you make such a suggestion, I will think you are hilariously speculating beyond your knowledge, because that is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 07:49 AM
2

Redpillers are not all misogynists. Nothing about redpill thinking is in itself misogynistic. That doesn't stop everybody else on reddit from shitting on the very mention of RP as though they're all serial rapists though. This guy, yes, was an actual misogynist, exactly the kind of guy you watch out for because he seems like the type to be a rapist. Nobody in RP condoned this guy's thinking. This guy was desperate for sex, was angry at women for not giving it to him, and was the whiniest possibl…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 07:46 AM
2

Except that you aren't simply pointing to "studies". You don't get to act so innocent about this, like you're just pointing to objective facts. Experiments are done that reveal certain ambiguous things about human nature. We have data from those experiments, and we have more ambiguous anecdotes also. And then, after experiments are done, and observations are made, we have interpretations ex post facto about those experiments. My point being that it is not fact that hierarchy is what makes people…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 07:21 AM
1

See almost every single revolution that has occurred in the last three hundred years, every political murder in the Soviet Union, and so on. Mind you, I don't really give a shit if you personally think Soviet commies aren't proper egalitarians; that is wholly beside the point. If self-identity is all that matters, as in the case that we are talking about here about some random dumb kid who identified as "alpha male", then you get to slander a whole ideology on the basis of the actions of individ…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 07:19 AM
1

I literally already addressed this shit, I don't how if you're being intentionally stupid, or if I should assume good faith and think that you simply forgot. What I said was very, very clear. The violent actions of individuals cannot be directly attributed to an ideology unless the ideology itself condones acts of violence against certain people. Which is why, to me, it's so incredibly sloppy and stupid to just slander "racism" and "sexism" as though they're monolithic things. There is a world o…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 07:17 AM
1

Which is also what I would argue for the practice of your ideology, and every ideology that has ever existed or will exist. People commit acts of violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 03:45 AM
1

Either way, you're just presuming what you think is common sense, that hierarchical ideologies are intolerant, and asserting it as fact. I don't see it as necessarily true that sexists or racists tend to be any less tolerant as average people; IMO, a racist or sexist who is openly racist/sexist is just more honest than most people about their biases.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 03:44 AM
-1

There is nothing about those two options that is inherently contradictory. Both things apply in different situations.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 03:30 AM
4

Egalitarianism is not necessarily a "tolerable ideology", it is anti-hierarchical. Tolerance is a funny word, when you realize you're using it in the context of an ideological movement that for centuries was best known for being the cause of thousands of public beheadings, slaughtering nobility and merchants, and persecuting people on the basis of their religion. Calling your own ideology "tolerant" is something that should be proven and earned, not just asserted. That your ideology is tolerant,…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 03:29 AM
9

What I'm saying is that neither argument makes any sense. You cannot ascertain the validity of an ideology based on the actions of people who believe in that ideology. Racists, sexists, or egalitarians committing acts of violence in itself tells you nothing about racism, sexism, or egalitarianism. Only the merits of the ideology itself, ie "does the ideology condone massacres", tells you whether or not it's morally justifiable, depending of course on your moral compass.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/14 10:55 PM
4

Egalitarianism has blood on its hands too.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/14 09:27 PM
-12

You debate like a gorilla. lol None of this petty bullshit matters in the least. A person is right or wrong, or possibly neither. Tone does not matter.
/r/PussyPass24/05/14 08:57 PM
1

You grammared that really strangely, it's very difficult for me to extract meaning from your sentence... could you clarify?
/r/PussyPass24/05/14 08:45 AM
4

lol at accusing somebody of cherrypicking for pointing out that as a whole, blacks commit crime disproportionately higher than whites. How that could possibly be cherrypicking of data, I will never understand.
/r/PussyPass24/05/14 06:08 AM
3

Castration is a brutal punishment and it seems monstrous to propose castration as a punishment for certain crimes. But on the other hand, death penalty for kids a generation later growing up and ending up criminals is probably not much kinder.
/r/PussyPass23/05/14 07:56 AM
-1

I very strongly disagree with this logic. People fundamentally are panicky cowards. The first sign of invasion, everybody panics and wants to flee if possible. That in itself doesn't really tell us anything about whether or not a country is actually worth saving. I would not be surprised if more North Koreans than Americans would sign up to fight for their country in the event of invasion. That doesn't tell us necessarily which country is better but it tells us a lot about that culture's sense o…
/r/PussyPass22/05/14 03:26 AM
5

Not all slavery works that way, there have been cultures in the past where slaves could not be traded.
/r/PussyPass21/05/14 10:02 PM
6

I agree that it isn't technically slavery, only because we literally define slavery as "forced labor except for military conscription". It's a circular argument. Whether you are for or against a draft, you have to agree, by definition it is in fact forced labor. Arguing about whether or not slavery is a proper term for it is meaningless. At that point you're just hurling shit back and forth and complaining about the emotional connotations of the word, not the actual political reality of it. The …
/r/PussyPass21/05/14 08:42 PM
1

Agreed. I misjudged you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/14 11:45 PM
2

I'm just being a dick. I just found it magnificently retarded of you to point to, of all things, reddit comments, as a source for unbiased and informative explanations of a celebrity's personality. Honestly, you might as well recommend people learn math from reddit too while you're at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/14 10:42 PM
6

Behavior has evolved not because of biology but because of society. It's nice when you just assert your opinion as fact, isn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/14 10:39 PM
3

Because reddit threads are the best place to learn about famous people in a way that isn't loaded with bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/14 10:27 PM
10

In addition to the problems that /u/taw listed with the idiocy behind Sex at Dawn, we as a civilization do not descend from hunter-gatherers. There are thousands of years, really more like tens of thousands, of separation between "us" and "them".
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/14 03:29 AM
2

Probably the fact that such a system unintentionally rewards liars on both sides. Lie about a rape that didn't happen, your private feelings are sufficient evidence for the alleged rapist's guilt. Lie about a rape that did happen and you claim you didn't commit, your private feelings are sufficient evidence for innocence.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:14 PM
-2

Educate them. Don't demean them. Or, you know, you could just mind your own fucking business instead of trying to police what other people say.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:12 PM
7

It's true that crime and poverty an ongoing problem in the black community, but it looks like you're inferring that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites, which I don't believe to be the case. In fact, that idea fits exactly the definition of racism. Your bullshit isn't going to work on this subreddit. People who post here are not easily dismayed by you calling them bigots, they get that shit all day long already. What you're attempting to do is really hilarious. You think you can d…
/r/TheRedPill18/03/14 04:35 AM
6

Isnt the difference in crime rates a socioeconomic thing. Poor people are gonna do illegal things to get money obv. Socioeconomic sounds like a liberal buzzword but thats whats at play. No, the difference isn't purely socioeconomic. Statistical measures that intentionally adjust for socioeconomic differences still demonstrate differences between the races. In other words, underclass blacks still commit more crime than, for example, underclass Hispanics.
/r/TheRedPill18/03/14 04:31 AM
2

I want to see a more open minded Texas Right, the way you're so open-minded about positions on issues you deem to not be progressive enough for you.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 08:06 PM
3

That said, this type of person exists everywhere and the RP sub seems full of the male versions. I don't have time for those people, regardless of what 'side' they're on. I don't disagree with this. I remain subbed to TRP for the occasional lulz, but the majority of front page posts is stupid shit trying to imitate the old good stuff. "HEY GUYZ I'M GONNA BLOW YOUR MIND BY RESTATING FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME THAT WOMEN ARE LIKE DOGS/CHILDREN/ROBOTS/WITCHES". It gets old really fast.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/14 08:34 PM
5

In this case, the anecdote compliments the commonly quoted statistic that 11 cents per dollar of the pay gap exists because of discrimination. Not if you actually knew anything about the statistic you're citing. The statistic doesn't account for any variation in source of income, it just shows difference in "income". It makes no difference to this statistic whether that income is earned by being an astronaut or a garbage man. It's all just "income". Your anecdote has nothing to do with this. It'…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/14 08:32 PM
3

People either acknowledge that discrimination exists in many forms and many levels of severity, or they don't. I don't have a lot of time for people who cling to their "yes it exists, but only and ever against my group and never against that other group". But surely you have to acknowledge that such feminists do exist? You may not be one of them, and this is very good. But they do exist. "Patriarchy theory" is explicitly of this variety.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/14 08:23 PM
6

As far as work, I don't believe there are many instances of women discriminating against men. It just doesn't seem as common. This is purely anecdotal, but I've never encountered a women that discriminated against men in a work setting. I have, however, encountered 5 men that discriminated against women in a work setting. Furthermore, since becoming a subscriber here, I've encountered a dozen more men that openly discriminate against women at work. If you know it's a useless anecdote, why would …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/14 08:21 PM
2

Their are formerly well respected engineers and physicists who say the twin towers were brought down by explosives, not airplanes. Doesn't mean it isn't a conspiracy theory. Well, yeah, because somebody who is saying that the towers were brought down by explosives and not the planes necessarily believes in a conspiracy that planted and detonated those explosives. While I don't disagree that "Holocaust denial" is essentially a conspiracy theory in the sense that mainstream historians are fudging …
/r/TheRedPill06/02/14 01:20 AM
3

Mainstream, large-scale, well-established and socially-accepted religions tend to evolve mechanisms that allow for debate, intellectual diversity, legal disagreement, et cetera. Universities as we know them were born as purely theocratic institutions; what was debated was often theology first and foremost. Only later did natural philosophy, or what we now call modern science, evolve as a secular offshoot of that religious debate. Historically speaking, most religions do not have a conflict with …
/r/TheRedPill06/02/14 01:04 AM
6

Shout out to my homeboy Nietzsche on this point; God is dead but the music is still playing.
/r/TheRedPill06/02/14 12:59 AM
3

It's hardly "conspiracy theory" if even well-respected mainstream historians admit the 6 million figure is nothing more than a rough estimate and the actual figure may be well below that. Though I agree that it has no relevance to the topic at hand and bringing it up in this thread is worthy of downvotes. Just... I dunno. Kind if rubs me the wrong way when something is dismissed because it's a "conspiracy theory", as though that somehow automatically invalidates it.
/r/TheRedPill06/02/14 12:55 AM
9

Most people here hate on shitty men just as much as shitty women. The criticism of shitty women comes out in threads like these because, no surprise, these threads are about shitty behavior by women. When there's a thread about shitty behavior from a guy doing something pathetic, surprise, the comments tend to be about how pathetic guys like that are.
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 07:31 AM
7

And they continue demanding responsibilities and privileges anyway while whining about how hard it is to work and be a mother also.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 05:59 AM
3

You act like the only measure of civil responsibility is participating in the armed forces, which is ludicrous as is. No. You're again putting words in my mouth. I understand there's way way more to being a citizen than being conscripted. What I'm saying though is that in a country with conscription, it is by definition unequal to give citizens of both sexes equal voting privileges while only the men are drafted. What you misinterpreted was the moralization of this fact; I did not express a mora…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 10:40 PM
2

You're saying it's not true equality to extend the vote to members of society who don't have the same "responsibilities" and the only responsibility you're talking about here is participating in the armed forces. Correct. It is unequal. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this with a straight face. So, you do believe that women should not have the vote (one of those "privileges") because we don't have the "same responsibilities" and we never could because of biology. I never used a word sho…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 10:34 PM
2

This is ignoring the fact that women weren't even allowed to enlist in the armed forces, but whatever. I agree that it's sexist that only men are thought of as capable of fighting and therefore are the only ones required to put their lives on the line, if a draft ever happens again, which it very likely will not. Whether or not it was allowed is entirely irrelevant. It is unfair for men and women to have the same privileges, while only men had/have the responsibility to defend their country. So …
/r/MensRights05/01/14 10:32 PM
2

How are you missing the point that badly? I already addressed this in another comment. I acknowledge that there are biological and social reasons for not forcing women to participate in conscription to the same degree as men, or expecting them to fight in combat as often and as intensely as men. My conclusion from this, however, is that it's unfair to then go on to give women the same privileges as men, without giving them the same responsibilities. That's not any kind of equality.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 10:00 PM
1

You are simply mistaken. I never said what you are arguing against. I don't now how much clearer I can possibly make myself. I'm not going to try. If you're interested in having a discussion, try actually reading what I wrote.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 09:56 PM
5

I thought it was pretty clear in my first comment that I was talking exclusively about the vast majority of industrializing modern countries at the time when women were first getting the right to vote in those countries. Perhaps I could have made that more clear.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 06:30 AM
1

If a dog barks only when there is a genuine and serious danger, that is a very useful dog. If a dog barks both and danger and sometimes at harmless things like a loud car passing by, it's annoying to not know for sure that every bark necessarily means danger, but the dog is still far from useless, because it's still accurate enough of the time to be worth getting up and making sure nothing is wrong. If, however, you have a dog that barks seemingly randomly at any time of day even with no stimulu…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 05:44 AM
7

Sadly this will fall on deaf ears to most of the bleeding heart softies here, simply on the grounds that most of them are opposed to conscription. Nevermind the fact that I'm not even advocating in favor of it, but merely stating that it's ridiculously hypocritical for feminists to advocate for equal voting rights but not equal responsibilities for male and female civilians.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 05:41 AM
8

It's also "important to keep in mind" that one half of the population getting the right to vote, while bearing no responsibility for defending that country with their lives, is ridiculously unfair. I agree that it's impractical for biological and historical reasons to get women to participate, voluntarily or involuntarily, in the armed forces. My conclusion from this fact is, however, basically the opposite of yours. The fact that this is the case, to you, means basically "oh well, we'd still be…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 05:40 AM
1

What the fuck is your problem?
/r/MensRights05/01/14 02:35 AM
1

Because as I already explained, it's worthless as a standard litmus test. If I'm in a relationship, basically no verbal exchange at all would set off my "uh oh" alarm. For very anxious people, most conversations give them that feeling. Most people I suppose are somewhere in the middle. But the point is that the "uh oh" feeling is not a good indicator for abuse because it's so incredibly varied between different individuals. The same exact scenario leads to completely different results for differ…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 02:34 AM
6

The obvious answer is to abolish the family! /s
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:49 PM
29

Historically women had to fight to be granted the same opportunities as men. Now that they have them, and they do... they want more. Power, as they say, corrupts. And they have been corrupted. Except this is crap, because early feminism from the very beginning was all about getting the same privileges as men but not the same responsibilities. Women just wanted the right to vote? Fantastic. Obviously this means they're now also necessarily conscripted during wartime, which at the time was a virtu…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:45 PM
1

It more sounds like you're missing the point, because I already specifically addressed what you're saying. I'm aware that it's meant more as a warning than proof of abuse per se (though others responding to my comment are saying that insults in themselves are abusive which is even more retarded). What I'm saying is that even as a warning sign, it's useless and stupid.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:27 PM
1

doesn't mean that insulting your partner isn't also abuse. Sure, but it also doesn't mean that it is abuse. You're the one saying it is. If I said that I think breathing near other people is a form of abuse, you would be right to be skeptical of that claim and ask me for some kind of evidence or at least a strong argument in favor of that idea.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:25 PM
1

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you two aren't in a relationship, so it's not an abusive relationship. So you disagree with Wikipedia then. The wiki article nowhere specifies that psychological abuse is only valid in the context of a romantic relationship.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:24 PM
1

Your mother was a bitch. Calling someone a bitch is not abuse. Downvoting me doesn't make you right. Make any actual argument for why an insult in itself is 'abusive'.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 12:40 AM
0

It sounds like you're trying to psychoanalyze me rather than actually argue against what I said. You might want to examine why you're doing that. Maybe you're a coward with mommy issues? Hm. I don't know. Could be anything really. Do you see how that's not only annoying but dishonest?
/r/MensRights04/01/14 12:12 AM
0

You made me upset. You're psychologically abusing me. You see nothing wrong with this logic?
/r/MensRights04/01/14 12:04 AM
1

But let's try a thought exercise: you and your wife divorce and you share custody with a child. Your wife constantly tells him what a useless piece of shit he is, berating him all the time, and your child is becoming withdrawn, insecure, and showing signs of mental trauma. Do you still not see this as abuse? Would you not fight for custody of your child on these grounds? Come on. Do you really not see what you did there? I'm genuinely curious. Are you trying to be sneaky or did you literally not…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 12:01 AM
0

I'm actually already subbed, I spend way more time reading those stories than I would care to admit. I stand by what I said. Insulting someone, just insulting someone, is not abuse. Abuse requires much more than that. Throwing the word around to describe any jerkish behavior does nothing but devalue the word.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:59 PM
1

I'm sorry for being an asshole. :)
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:28 PM
0

Not so much when it comes to legal issues. Abuse is abuse. Sloppy definitions lead to actual consequences. Defining insults as emotional/psychological abuse has real consequences in the real world. Everyday normal breakup behavior suddenly becomes defined as pathological.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:11 PM
0

Under number 1, Verbal Aggression? You're seriously supporting a definition of "abuse" that defines psychological abuse as anything that makes someone upset? I'm not exaggerating this at all. Wikipedia is saying: Verbal aggression (e.g., saying something that upsets or annoys someone else) This is what you're supporting?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:09 PM
1

Being downvoted for expressing legitimate criticism does that. Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and apologize. Your comment was not one of the shitty ones, you were genuinely trying to be helpful and I lashed out at the wrong person. I am sorry.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:08 PM
0

Because you say so?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 10:02 PM
1

Which is why I specifically already addressed that by saying I too was in favor of acknowledging that it affects both sexes. And specifically stated I was only against the devaluing of the word abuse. I seriously don't understand how you were able to ignore that.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 10:02 PM
1

I don't think that devalues what "abuse" means at all. It's saying "if your partner's actions make you feel afraid, you should evaluate why, because it could be abuse". Which I still think is really really stupid. All people are different. Let me give you an example. People who know me tend to think of me as an incredibly easygoing, carefree kind of guy. It's not that I never have anxiety or concerns, but I rarely show it, and when I do I downplay it. And I don't let things get to me more than n…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:58 PM
1

That's often how things may start before they escalate to physical violence, though it doesn't necessarily mean that is will. Some people are just assholes. Which is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying there's no connection between these behaviors, but they are absolutely not the same. Let me put it this way. Maybe you jerks will stop downvoting me this time. Abusers are pretty much all assholes. But very few assholes are abusers. Insulting someone is not abuse. But abusers tend to insult th…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:45 PM
0

Not abuse? Are you sure? Yeah. Still sure. Silly me, thinking that using the same word to describe beating someone to an inch of their life and insulting someone harshly might devalue that word. What do I know, right?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:44 PM
-10

An "uh-oh" feeling? Really? I'm all for acknowledging that men can be victims of abuse in a relationship as much as women. This specific instance however strikes me as greatly devaluing what "abuse" actually means. Someone being a shitty girlfriend or boyfriend does not make them an abuser. Insulting you is not abuse. Making you feel bad is not abuse.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 03:52 AM
1

Although if I'm honest, half the population, if not more, being secretly bisexual seems quite logical to me. And this is exactly why I can't take this stuff seriously.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 07:29 PM
1

Mods don't mind, of course - unless it's something against gay marriage. Right?! This is the most irritating part of the rainbow equality brigade; one word against it, and sooner or later somebody will start screaming oppression. Apparently not fervently supporting "gay rights" (as though such an umbrella term could possibly mean anything anyway) is the same as bigotry.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:50 AM
7

Except that one issue has nothing to do with the other, and trying to take some organized stance is only going to alienate people on both sides. I'm not for gay marriage. I'm for men's rights. What do you say to me? Do I not exist? Am I a bigot whose opinion can be safely ignored?
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:31 AM
1

We're not idiots, we know you outnumber us, that would be stupid. Ehh. I talk to a lot of gay idiots who somehow think that like half the population is secretly gay or bisexual and just hiding in the closet until the rainbow utopia arrives. While I'm sure many if not most gay people aren't that stupid, I don't think you can safely speak for all of them.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 02:40 AM
2

Except that those terms are almost entirely meaningless in most contexts. Are women the majority or minority? Because by raw numbers, they're the majority. In terms of benefits available to them on the basis of their gender, they seem to be a privileged class.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 02:35 AM
3

Arguably worse, because the latter is obvious and readily visible. But the former is almost impossible to prove.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 07:28 AM
10

Honestly, "peaceful protest" means absolutely fucking nothing anymore. Basically, if your national media happens to overall side with the protestors, whatever they do in the name of their cause is likely to be reported favorably.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:46 AM
-9

Don't let the downvotes discourage you. The hardcore egalitarians in this sub are wrong. On average, yes, males are probably more likely to rape. Being innately stronger than most women will tend to do that. Doesn't mean that just because one gender is more likely to rape, only one of them can ever rape.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 07:09 PM
2

I'll say one last thing and then I'll probably shut up in this specific comment thread. I know this pattern really really well because I see it all the damn time; I'm a fan of dozens of dead-end going-nowhere movements. One of them is libertarianism, or kind of was; I dunno, I'm sympathetic to libertarian values and would like to see at least one genuinely libertarian country exist, but whether or not I want to do anything to make that actually happen, I'm less sure about. Anyway, they make the …
/r/MensRights06/12/13 09:44 PM
1

Considering that downvotes are meant to be used on comments that don't contribute, I'd say they'd be deserved. Then there's the fact that I didn't downvote you, which eliminates this point entirely. You sure as hell had no problem commanding me to "take it elsewhere" as though you speak with any authority on the matter. When you post on /r/mensrights you're representing the Mens Rights Movement, like it or not. Nope. There's no rule for that, and that's an insane standard to go by. This is not a…
/r/MensRights06/12/13 12:13 AM
1

That's fine. I'm glad. I got the wrong impression because when you say anything along the lines of "lighten up, learn to take a joke," it sounds a lot like, "this isn't offensive, because it is just a joke" to me. Especially when you call me whiny for my vocal lack of appreciation for the joke. Yeah, I see what you mean. I certainly admit I may have been a little bit more hostile than necessary. But surely you can be a bit sympathetic, given the context. I did participate in down-voting you hell…
/r/MensRights06/12/13 12:08 AM
1

You obviously think it is wrong to criticize offensive jokes because they are protected by the impenetrable shield of humor. NO. Let me be absolutely clear. This is not what I am saying. I am saying that you can absolutely criticize jokes all you want, but at the same time, people on this subreddit should at least recognize that MRAs have the right to make jokes like this. Even on this subreddit; I see no rule against it. Instead, for expressing that disagreement, I was downvoted to hell, called…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 09:15 PM
1

Again, I'm in no way saying that you cannot post and approve of rude and misogynist things. I'm saying that myself and many others that make up this community wish you wouldn't. Err... sorry. On this occasion I admit, I accidentally put words in your mouth. To be fair, literally every other commenter who replied to me in a negative way did literally tell me basically to shut the fuck up and to not post such things here. You're the first one to even remotely resemble a polite and sensible disagre…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:49 PM
-1

You do realize just calling someone shallow isn't the same as someone necessarily being shallow? Even if we assume my comments are 100% wrong, shallow, stupid, irrelevant, et cetera. Yours is still extremely pointless.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:45 PM
1

Just because there will always be some controversy doesn't mean that we should just throw ammo to the feminists to use against us. Yeah, fine, so make that your personal rule. Stop policing what other people say and downvoting people just for disagreeing with you. How the hell is that behavior even remotely civil? If we want to be taken seriously, we have to be bigger. We have to be smarter. Yeah, no. Not all of us are this delusional. The mainstream isn't going to take MRAs seriously just becau…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:21 PM
2

It's not a cult. It's just another dead-end social movement that mistakenly thinks that if it follows the general guidelines of other vaguely leftist movements, it will be accepted into the fold and become mainstream. It won't. It's cargo cult reasoning. They're trying to imitate feminist tactics in order to gain the success of feminism, but it's completely ass-backwards reasoning. The civility does not cause the success; the success caused the civility in mainstream politics.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:18 PM
1

Well, let's try our favorite, the gender swap. Is it misandrist? Not okay. Simple stuff. Again, yes, because you personally feel that way, you decide that is the universal rule to apply here? Not all of us who post here are whiny little shits who complain when feminists make misandrist jokes. Some people are able to recognize jokes as what they are. Yeah, not sure I've seen too many of those around here. A decent contingent of us are concerned about the image we portray as we strive to be taken …
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:15 PM
2

There will never be a lack of controversy about men's rights. Stop living under the delusion that it's just a matter of cleaning up our act, and then one day, the feminists will let us sit at their table. That's not the way the world works. Already even now, feminists don't argue against actual MRAs. They argue against empty cliché strawmen. All MRAs are neckbeard virgins, rapists, rape apologists, et cetera.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:08 PM
3

Yeah, this subreddit died a long time ago. MRAs are under the mass delusion that if they just clean up their act enough, and become that much more presentable, suddenly they'll be flooded with interview invitations on television and internet media, governments will acknowledge the problems men face, et cetera. It's completely insane. It doesn't matter one fucking bit how presentable the message is; it's the message people are hostile to, not MRAs. Feminists already make up a strawman to argue ag…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:07 PM
-1

Yeah, well, downvotes don't prove who's right or wrong. If you're just gonna come in here and declare victory because the votes are with you, fuck off. Make an actual argument or don't comment.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 07:59 PM
-22

That said, doesn't mean I (and I would hope others) won't call out your misogyny when you post it and say it is not okay. Yeah, you can perfectly damn well say it's "not okay", doesn't make it so. By what standard is it not okay? Or do we not get riled when feminists make jokes about negative male stereotypes laced with sexual harassment? Can't have it both ways. Not all of us are whiny little shits when it comes to jokes.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 12:16 AM
-26

If you want to be a part of a men's rights movement that allows misogyny, then I think I'm with the majority here in saying, kindly take it somewhere else. Yeah, no. There's not a rule against making jokes.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 12:00 AM
-37

Not okay? What the fuck is this, kindergarden? I understand it's offensive and arguably diminishes public opinion, but so what? It's a joke, and people have the right to make jokes. You're never going to improve the public image of MRAs by obsessively policing what every self-identified MRA says.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 11:38 PM
15

Well duh, because sacrificing puppies is the inherently offensive part of the sentence, not the attracting women part. Did you actually think you were making an interesting point?
/r/TheRedPill04/12/13 11:05 PM
0

That's completely correct, you nitwit. The onus would be on someone to prove that there was a correlation between height and intelligence. Failing the ability to show a correlation, the reasonable conclusion would be that it doesn't exist. You completely misread what I'm saying. I did not say that there is no correlation between being tall and being smart, I said there's no overlap. No overlap, as in, nobody can be both tall and smart. Imagine a Venn diagram, but the circles don't intersect.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 03:58 AM
0

And why do these two movements share this common characteristic? Also, not all politically incorrect social circles share a common bond or a demographic overlap, so I fail to see what you're trying to prove. There is no overlap between tall people and smart people. I don't need to prove this because I'm not claiming a positive, hurrdurr! No actually I didn't make that claim at all, although it incidentally happens to be true that both ideologies are toxic, because they're both reactionary backla…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 03:51 AM
0

Did you just ask me to prove a negative? LMAO. Claiming that there is no overlap between certain groups is not a negative, it's a positive claim. I think you're getting confused with this because the claim you're making can be rephrased as saying "X (overlap between these groups) does not exist". But it is indeed a positive claim of knowledge. And why do these two movements share this common characteristic? Also, not all politically incorrect social circles share a common bond or a demographic o…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 03:24 AM
1

First of all, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, you're just asserting that there is no overlap between those groups. You didn't actually prove that it's the case. But let's assume your gigantic assumption is correct. Is the only possible explanation really that MRAs and white nationalists are both evil? Could it possibly instead have something to do with how neither men's rights nor white nationalism are widely accepted politically correct ideas to talk about, while LGBT activism, f…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 03:13 AM
0

What on earth are you talking about? You were the one who complained about associated with "white nationalism" by saying that white nationalist groups are full of MRAs; I made the comparison to belief in gravity, to suggest that a group of people who believe in X and also believe in Y does not necessarily suggest that X and Y have anything to do with each other. Why would I need to make up bullshit about a dozen other groups in order to make a very simple analogy? You're just making up a meaning…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 03:06 AM
3

White nationalist groups are also largely full of people who believe in gravity.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 08:52 PM
3

There is a direct correlation between the race of an individual and incarceration rates, not crime rates. There are a number of factors driving that, most of which are societal. Learn how to science, bro. You just asserting that something is "mostly societal" is not evidence that this is the case. Knowing how to use fancy words doesn't make something "science".
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/13 08:50 PM
2

First of all, we can probably agree to limit ourselves to the "any events" that are actually being advocated. No, we can't. I don't agree that it's society's responsibility to pay for any unwanted children. I do not agree with this premise. Secondly, attracting wild animals, leaving potentially hazardous and unattractive human waste in public, the destruction of human potential, inviting countless other unknowable outcomes (will criminals start harvesting black market baby organs in the woods? w…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 06:28 PM
2

How do you avoid that? Having the law prevent an otherwise willing parent from being a parent, when no persons with custody are even objecting, would be a really twisted system. You have it completely ass-backwards. The law currently doesn't go around door to door making sure only legal parents of children are the ones acting as caretakers and involved in their lives. Instead, the law lets the legal guardians, whoever they may be, decide who can take care of their children and be involved in the…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 06:26 PM
6

a lot of reluctant initially-reluctant dads do end up wanting to have access to their kids. What happens in a case where a "financial abortion" is done? A "financial abortion" law with an "opt-back-in" provision would be unworkable, but otherwise you've got a situation where either (1) a dad that wants to be involved, even if he changes his mind as soon as the kid is born, can never have legal rights to his kid, So what? Some women regret having an abortion. The difference in this case obviously…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:27 PM
4

Society pays for that baby in any event. Its destitution or adoption are just other, less effective ways of externalizing the cost. What does that even mean? No, it absolutely doesn't. You leave a baby out in the forest to starve to death or be eaten by wild animals, society pays nothing and the problem is 'solved'. I'm not advocating abandonment of unwanted babies, but I find it incredibly stupid that you just assume "in any event" society will bear the cost. Nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:24 PM
1

You either agree with the notion of an age of consent, meaning that women at that age or older are able to make their own decisions, or you don't. There's not really anything else to be said about it. Yes, I absolutely reserve the right to judge people for what I may personally view as predatory or inappropriate behavior. But I wouldn't necessarily feel strongly enough about it to try to argue that this therefore means the age of consent should be higher.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 09:36 PM
1

Teenager typically refers to anybody from the ages of 13-19. Assuming they meant over the age of consent, whatever it is in Russia, so what?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 07:31 PM
0

Dictionaries do not define what is or what is not science. Dictionaries reflect popular usage, not what is necessarily true in an objective sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 03:28 AM
0

Define "racist" and "white nationalist". Or stop slandering TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 01:18 AM
0

If you're disputing it, then dispute it. Present evidence or reasoning. Again, burden of proof, you can't just assert that something is a science and then expect to be believed. Astrology is a science, prove me wrong! I'll take this as an admission that you're simply trolling at this point and have no actual evidence or argument to support your position? Says the guy who links to sociology definitions as proof of it being a science.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 12:33 AM
0

You rejected an entire field of science. lol You're asserting that sociology is in fact a science, I'm disputing that claim. You can't just claim victory by again asserting that it is a science and then saying that I therefore am rejecting a field of science. That's circular logic, you're assuming the very thing in dispute. How do you not understand that you cannot simply dismiss entire fields of science because they disagree with your personal political beliefs? Regardless of your ignorance of …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 12:04 AM
5

You have arbitrarily rejected scientific concepts with no reasoning or evidence at all, simply because it disagrees with your beliefs. Actually no, I rejected something you asserted without evidence. Do you know how burden of proof works? Basically, when a True Believer's position is contradicted by science, they are more likely to question the applicability or validity of science in order to continuing holding on to their belief. I never said anything about rejecting science as a whole, I was q…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 09:18 PM
6

(by definition, if you deny science then you are a science denier) Yep, because science is obviously a monolithic and set-in-stone process, and questioning any one conclusion or any part of someone's methodology is the same as denying all of science ever. That's sane.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 06:03 AM
8

Undeniably, they are scientific concepts. Only if you buy into the idea that some term a sociologist arbitrarily defined and asserted is "science", which I don't. OH NO, guess that makes me a denier.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 08:31 AM
2

lolwut Please explain how "oppression" and "rape culture" are scientific concepts.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 12:18 AM
1

Tacit approval is an issue because it causes extremist views that could easily be stopped to carry on. Well, it looks like here is yet another major disagreement. I don't see "extremist views" as something inherently dangerous or undesirable, as something that needs to be prevented and stamped out when it begins. An example of it being an issue: some people want to lynch a black man in their town. Most people aren't openly for it and don't take part, but they say nothing to stop the lynchers and…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/13 04:48 AM
1

Most people who saw it either found it unobjectionable(tacit approval) or openly approved of it. Well then this is probably the main cause of our disagreement. I don't see tacit approval of something, of anything really, to ever be an issue. But if you let misogyny in and encourage it you don't get to say "oh but we don't hate woman at all what on Earth are you talking about???" I suppose we have a very different standard of what it means to "encourage something", and also how group responsibili…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 10:51 PM
1

And it's net score is positive, which means this guy's view is generally considered acceptable by RPers. That's a rather large conclusion to draw from a comment that in total only had a few dozen people comment on or rate. I don't think TRP itself is openly misogynistic, but I think it welcomes people who are with open arms. So what? TRP accepts people who are curious and interested in red-pill thinking about sexual strategy, that's all there is to it. TRp doesn't have some imagined obligation t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 09:43 PM
-1

Okay, so, thirty downvotes to forty upvotes. And you see that as evidence of widespread hatred against women, when in reality about the same number of people disagreed strongly with the statement compared to those who upvoted it?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 10:05 PM
2

Well, that is one guy, and twelve upvotes is hardly some fantastic level of support. So twelve people in the whole of TRP agree with a statement about hating women. That's your standard of evidence that TRP is misogynistic, really? One comment with twelve upvotes?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 09:21 PM
0

Did that in my critique above. No, you didn't. You just kept asserting it. This opinion I disagree with is based on hatred! "Why?" Because I just said it is! All of that smacks of hate. According to you.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 09:19 PM
-2

You can disagree with it all you want, but that is the definition. Well, no, not really. That's not how language works and not how definitions work. Words mean what they're used to mean, and etymology gives us clues into that. While certainly Oxford Dictionary must be at least a little more authoritative, to make a small analogy, I could just write down a definition of misogyny right now... misogyny: a flying purple dinosaur And claim that that's the definition. Doesn't really make it so. How do…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:59 PM
2

Accusing someone of not knowing something is not the same as insulting them.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 08:47 PM
-2

Group hatreds (as in from hate groups) is a related but different concept from the personal hatred you might carry for one person. In other words, "group hatred" has nothing to do with actual hatred and is just a made-up boogeyman used to slander actions and groups with the imaginary specter of some vile emotion associated with that group, regardless of any actual evidence of whether that emotion is related to the actions of that group. "Bob, I think you hate me." "What? No, I don't, I actually …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 08:40 PM
1

I am not your parent and it is not my responsibility to make you understand. That falls on you. Translation: I can't make an argument or explain what you misinterpreted. Okay.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:35 PM
0

Being colonized? It had a leftist slant from the very start. All the oldest material here, you see this trend in the self-posts and in the highest rated comments of MRAs going out of their way to specify that they still believe in gender equality.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:25 PM
-2

Then I disagree strongly with the Oxford Dictionary's usage of misogyny and think usage of the word that way leads to rampant abuse of clear language. Besides, again, nothing about not wanting women to vote necessarily implies dislike of women or contempt for them. ANALOGY UPCOMING, DON'T BE AN IDIOT AND THEN ACCUSE ME OF SAYING WOMEN ARE CHILDREN, IT IS AN ANALOGY: I don't think children should be able to vote, but that doesn't require that I dislike children or have contempt for them. Even wit…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:23 PM
-1

It is hateful because it argues that a group is categorically morally inferior, and because it is used to justify the categorically morally inferior treatment of that group. Neither of the things you just claimed as evidence of hate has anything at all to do with hate. It's almost as if you've never even heard of the word hate.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 09:24 AM
-2

This was the example I provided, and you argued against it! I argued that it isn't misogyny, and I still stand by that. It was a completely separate argument from the biological differences matter, and unless your reading comprehension is actually that awful, I think it was very dishonest of you to mix those things. As for your argument about slavery - what about natural selection and whatnot? If you want to make the genetic argument, they're genetically human - and should be treated as such. Be…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:12 AM
2

Actually make an argument as to how I misinterpreted you, or troll elsewhere.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:02 AM
0

Voting rights aren't rooted in biological differences though. What qualities do females possess that make them unqualified to make these decisions? I never said that, and I think you know very well that I never said that or even remotely implied it. Those were two completely separate arguments within this conversation and I think you're intentionally mixing them to paint me as something that I'm not. I'm not going to dignify this, whatever it is, trolling or mere idiocy, with a response. Additio…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 10:45 PM
2

How about we settle on this - if you paint an entire gender one way or another, you're a fucking moron. Hatred or ignorance, it's fucking stupid. Nope, don't agree with that at all. Unlike others, I don't have some weird pathological fear of generalizations. I don't understand why believing gender norms are rooted in biological differences makes someone a moron. I think ignoring evidence from biology and psychology and demanding that everyone treat everybody else equally despite general trends c…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 10:28 PM
2

Not if you listen to the hardcore egalitarians here, they're not. I often hear how because I believe that gender norms aren't inherently oppressive, I must secretly want to take away all the rights women have gained. I may not say it, but it must be true. Therefore I'm not an MRA. It's kinda fun, this witch hunt.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:45 PM
1

It paints an entire gender unworthy of deciding the fate of our political discourse simply because they were born with two X chromosomes. Same with the servitude part. If it's not hatred, then it's pure ignorance, and the two have some really freakin similar qualities. It's still not necessarily hatred. You can call it that all you want, it doesn't make it hatred. Thanks for downvoting me because you don't like what I'm saying. I take it you haven't spent time with people with mental illnesses -…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:41 PM
5

Some of the more notable comments here that I observed: Ugh... these morons. Its bad enough having to fight the baseless accusations that I think women are worthless because I'm associated with the MRA, now these guys are running around giving them ammunition. This is currently the highest voted comment in this thread, and it's nothing but a baseless insult without evidence, any argument, or anything else at all, really. Just 'morons!'. Is this the level of debate that this subreddit is sinking …
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:23 PM
-5

There are massive amounts of misogynistic talk. I'm talking "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote" bullshit and "women should be servants." Let's take a moment to play devil's advocate here. What is necessarily misogynistic about either of those opinions? A person can believe in a caste society without "hating" the people different from them who would be in a separate caste. When I go to the bathroom as a man, do I therefore "hate" women because I don't want them in the same bathroom as me? It str…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:13 PM
1

This is plain and simple misogyny. It's disguised as a positive anecdote of men's accomplishments, but gives an implicit void of women's accomplishments. It's entirely neglectful of history and that women hasn't really been near equal until recent times. Even if everything you said after the first sentence here is true, that does not make it misogyny. Misogyny is a real word with a real meaning. You do not get to criticize everything said about women that you don't like as being hateful towards …
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:06 PM
1

Ad hom argument. What ad hom argument did I make, exactly? Can you show me? And if Hitler called himself "socialist", that doesn't necessarily make it so. Perhaps not, but if you're going to reject self-identification, you need to propose a consistent standard by which to judge what is socialist and what is not. Feminism does not equal marxism, all those vietnamese and korens didn't die for women's ability to get laid freely. I never claimed that feminism is "equal" to marxism, a more proper way…
/r/TheRedPill09/10/13 05:57 AM
3

and have sex without being labeled a whore and shamed for life! You do not have a human right to control the opinions of others.
/r/TheRedPill06/10/13 12:56 AM
11

Fuck you and everything about you. You don't get special privileges for being gay, that's not how law works.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 06:38 PM
3

You're miffed that women, today, don't want to be conscripted. No. You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about women today. You brought up feminism and talked about "good feminism". I was arguing against that, and as an example, brought up the history behind the right to vote for women and how at the time conscription for men was the norm but it never even came close to being the norm for women. Don't put words in my mouth. And you cite hypocrisy because despite the fact that m…
/r/TheRedPill01/10/13 04:47 AM
0

Show me the movement of men who are happy with conscription at all. Most men don't want to be conscripted, so too with women, big surprise. I take it you don't read much published prior to, say, 1920? I'm downvoting you this time because you really do deserve it if you're actually going to make a statement this ignorant. You sincerely believe that conscription existed for hundreds, even thousands of years, and no men who were conscripted supported it? That would be quite a feat for a ruling clas…
/r/TheRedPill01/10/13 03:25 AM
7

You just parroted what I said and downvoted me for it. I didn't downvote you, I actually upvoted you. I was going to, then I realized you did address the responsibility thing. Did you miss the part where I talk about equal responsibility? No. But you still asserted that good feminism did exist once upon a time. I haven't seen any proof of that. Every wave of feminism I'm aware of advocated for opportunity for women while neglecting to demand the same responsibilities and obligations that were ex…
/r/TheRedPill30/09/13 08:29 PM
1

True or not, that is a really interesting hypothesis. If you do find something, please do post it here!
/r/TheRedPill30/09/13 08:25 PM
2

Really interesting question. The attitude of "we're better than our grandparents" stems from the academic postmodern theory leaking into society, not the other way around. There is a bit of a feedback loop, but the causation definitely begins from the power structure first. Proof of this is found in talking to people with less formal education. Aside from the average mid-teens resentment against adulthood in general, most people tend to grow out of that initial disrespect and attain peace with t…
/r/TheRedPill30/09/13 08:24 PM
8

But good feminism, long since gone and long since successful was about giving women equal opportunity to do and be what they want with out regard for instinct. Except that this never actually existed. Every form of feminism preached equal opportunity for women while rejecting equal responsibility. You want to talk about opportunity? Let's talk about men having the opportunity of not dying in a trench while their wives, mothers, and sisters back home have the right to vote without risking their l…
/r/TheRedPill30/09/13 08:07 PM
2

Infanticide is incredibly common in primates, humans absolutely not excluded.
/r/TheRedPill30/09/13 07:53 PM
1

In other words I'm not talking about atheism, I'm talking about the rejection of all organised religion - including the religions of secular state-worship and anti-theism. At least you're consistent, I like you.
/r/TheRedPill26/09/13 06:44 AM
3

Not all TRPers are against religion or statism. I like ancaps, I like Stef, but I don't count myself among the anarchist-atheist crowd. Too many progressives, ironically. I'm all for black sheep, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. There is nothing tying those things together that you listed. If anything, rejecting secularism would be on the list rather than rejecting religion. Religion is generally dying, more so in first world countries than elsewhere. Meanwhile secular atheism, particularly…
/r/TheRedPill26/09/13 05:53 AM
11

I was not expecting that much crossover from the ancap crowd to TRP. Interesting.
/r/TheRedPill25/09/13 07:51 PM
3

If these pages ever present a clear danger to someone's life, absolutely, let's try to get them taken down. Until then, fuck it, it's doing us no actual harm. If anything their existence only helps to prove the point MRAs are trying to make.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:28 PM
1

You have to understand movements relative to their setting, time and place. You describe the left wing as supporting the equality and the right wing as supporting the aristocracy which might be a useful way of understanding it but some things don't easily fall into that category. I'm not "describing" them that way, that is what the phrases left wing and right wing mean. Any other usage of those phrases is a modern perversion of what they originally referred to. You're acting like you've never he…
/r/TheRedPill11/09/13 06:25 PM
1

I made this exact point in response to another comment here without realizing someone else already did. Well noted.
/r/TheRedPill11/09/13 08:04 AM
3

The reason the media and the professional hamsters are so adamant about avoiding calling it simply an abortion, despite the fact that the word is descriptively accurate, is because they've spent decades and billions of dollars giving that word a comparatively positive connotation. Despite the fact that, from a purely descriptive standpoint, this is in fact an abortion, they have to call it something else if they want to control the narrative. It happened against the mother's consent, so in the e…
/r/TheRedPill11/09/13 07:56 AM
0

I don't know that much about forum moderation, the reddit overlords, or much of the relevant history here. But I do know a fair bit about diplomacy because I'm a nerd who reads old books for fun. So, fuck it, I have some thoughts that I'll share. Appeasement isn't going to work. Let me be clear: negotiation can work, but appeasement is not negotiation. Negotiation would mean discussing unambiguous terms. The moderators of this subreddit would have to be told precisely what conditions need to be …
/r/TheRedPill11/09/13 07:50 AM
1

You've completely missed the whole point. "Heir" is a misleading term but it does carry across some of the basic ideas I'm trying to explain. All surviving ideologies, left or right wing, ultimately have their origins in the ideologies that preceded them. It may make you personally uncomfortable, but yes, MLK, Stalin, FDR, et cetera, all have the same ideological roots. Ignoring that does not help us better understand them. My main point is that by selectively ignoring the common histories and t…
/r/TheRedPill11/09/13 05:15 AM
1

Saying that it will happen doesn't solve anything either.
/r/TheRedPill10/09/13 02:31 AM
2

I've been made fun of enough times in my life to know the difference.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/13 10:33 PM
2

Meh. Our ancestors dun goofed. In a way, we deserve this fate. There's no turning civilization back now. Best you can do is look out for yourself and your loved ones, and enjoy the ride. Whether you "sit back idly" or not, nothing you do is actually going to fix the world. You can't save the world, you can only save yourself.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/13 07:34 AM
2

The problem also lies with the legal system not putting any incentives against these ridiculous claims. As you said, there is absolutely no cost to crazy bitches saying they deserve heaven and earth in a divorce. If there was some kind of penalty, however relatively minor, to making claims in a divorce that are not granted, there would at least be something to lose.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/13 07:31 AM
3

Living life at around 5'6'' myself. Not a dwarf, but by no means am I a tall man. When I was younger, I used to be insanely self-conscious about my height and even little things like the way I'd walk, or worried that I sounded nervous when I talked. Fortunately that withered away over the years, and I can see the improvement in myself all the time. Today I was walking along with my friends in the local street fair, and we passed a group of beautiful young girls, at least a few years younger than…
/r/TheRedPill09/09/13 07:04 AM
9

Implying any progress between these groups is possible. I would sooner expect a peaceful and amicable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
/r/TheRedPill06/09/13 06:00 AM
2

Many thanks! My suspicion was right, this is TRP gold right here.
/r/TheRedPill05/09/13 09:26 PM
1

Well, you can see it that way. But you'd be wrong. Thinking like a sheep rather than a wolf.
/r/TheRedPill05/09/13 09:19 PM
5

Same kind of fathers who are beta with their wives are beta with their daughters. I know dozens of the type, it's sad.
/r/TheRedPill05/09/13 08:43 PM
5

Not really sure you can properly call Sparta a "nanny state", but sure, your general point is spot-on.
/r/TheRedPill04/09/13 09:43 PM
2

Please consider posting the whole story in a new thread, it's exactly the kind of lesson many here still need to learn.
/r/TheRedPill04/09/13 09:41 PM
5

It's a case of prevention > cure, nothing else to say. If you make poor life decisions like marrying a guy who impregnates another woman, well guess what? It's gonna be really hard to rebuild your life after wasting your best years on a loser. Is it totally her fault? Of course not, the husband is a scumbag. But fault isn't the question here. When rebuilding your life, you have to take responsibility for yourself. She's avoiding that, hard. She's ascribing blame to everyone but herself because i…
/r/TheRedPill04/09/13 09:36 PM
2

Meh. I do see your point and actually agree with the general spirit (plenty of keyboard warriors here), but I disagree with the evidence you give. Especially the fitness thing. Personally I'm running 3 to 5 miles every day, and been running daily for almost a year now. Starting to eat better, lift weights to build some actual muscle mass, et cetera. I've never posted on /r/fitness. I just don't see much of actual value there, nothing I don't already know. I don't even go to a gym. If I ever need…
/r/TheRedPill04/09/13 09:25 PM
7

Some of us are with you on this, I wouldn't worry too much about the shit you're getting. Look, the way I see it, /r/theredpill is extinct anyway, our days are numbered. No matter what we do. Now we can take that for what it is, and we can make a choice. We can stay here in our little corner of the internet, circlejerk until the sky turns red and the earth melts, and wait for the inevitable banhammer. Or we can be proactive about it like you're doing and at least make some honest effort to branc…
/r/TheRedPill04/09/13 09:07 PM
5

Ho versus wife. Crude, but it gets the point across.
/r/TheRedPill04/09/13 08:56 PM
0

The ideology of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School has destroyed the lives of more men than any other ideology, bar none. Really? More than Stalinism, National Socialism, et cetera? What a load of crap.
/r/TheRedPill03/09/13 12:35 AM
1

...okay, but you're kind of just asserting that it doesn't have any evidence. I could just as easily claim the same of racial egalitarianism. You're not even defining what exactly it is that you disagree with. Are you claiming that all human populations are exactly equal in average IQ?
/r/TheRedPill02/09/13 11:46 PM
1

TRP isn't strictly limited to sexual strategy though. Many people who post here consider it to belong to the greater sphere of Dark Enlightenment ideas, which often includes racial realism. Whether you're comfortable with that or not, that is the case. Many of your comrades here are what you would call racists.
/r/TheRedPill02/09/13 11:06 PM
1

And it's not possible implications. Every single time people start posting biological race, before this post, it has gone down ugly and intellectually bankrupt paths. That cuts both ways, friend. I've been hanging around this subreddit for awhile and the only times I've ever seen race mentioned and it devolved into intellectually bankrupt paths, it was due to unscientific thinking on the part of the egalitarians, not the hereditarians in the argument. Now, of course, that's just anecdotal. But e…
/r/TheRedPill02/09/13 10:27 PM
1

You're uncomfortable with the possible implications of an idea and for that reason you want people not to post about something? You might be in the wrong subreddit for that, friend.
/r/TheRedPill02/09/13 07:52 PM
1

That's ridiculous. You can't censor truth or shy away from certain topics simply because of conclusions some people might draw. Truth is true regardless of its implications. Populations of human beings on earth vary on average in various traits, including intelligence. This should not be as controversial as it is.
/r/TheRedPill02/09/13 07:37 PM
1

There's no biological variance that makes one race better or worse than another that isn't attributed to geographic adaptation or cultural evolution. There's no biologically distinct race, Obviously it's all down to geographic adaptation, but why should that make the differences any less important?
/r/TheRedPill02/09/13 05:55 AM
5

Did you get that idea from some specific source, or just from your own reading? It's a really fascinating idea. Early state formation is one of my obsessions, and I read the Epic of Gilgamesh like Protestants read their bibles.
/r/TheRedPill02/09/13 05:21 AM
3

Otherwise, it's just slavery and exploitation. Yeah, slavery. Clearly these people are being forced to work for the benefit of others. Seriously, you're likening having pictures of you being distributed to labor...? Would you like it if someone (maybe a "friend") took a picture of you in an awkward pose or compromising position, without your consent and then publicized it and monetized it. This could lead to people walking up to you on the street and accosting you, it could lead to people consta…
/r/TheRedPill31/08/13 11:56 PM
1

What a bizarrely unprincipled stand to take. Fine, I get your point, it sucks to have it done to you. But illegal? Seriously? Sure, some people had some feelings hurt, so let's toss out two hundred years of copyright law and freedom of speech to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt anymore.
/r/TheRedPill30/08/13 09:39 PM
-3

Yeah, it wasn't really a perfect victory in my opinion either. All that happened, that we have evidence of anyway, is proof that this girl is to some extent self-aware. Too smart for the guy's taste anyway.
/r/TheRedPill30/08/13 09:33 PM
2

I never said this subreddit isn't hostile to liberals, I said that it isn't consistently so and that it's less actively right-wing and more generally not left-wing. You might have me confused with another commenter.
/r/TheRedPill30/08/13 07:01 PM
6

Hehehe. So it begins, the hate-mongering accusations. Go on, rant about how we're all woman-hating, racist, psychopathic Nazis. See if we care. Hatred is not a thing TRP people are generally automatically opposed to, unlike most leftists. We do not tend to see it as a dirty word. Hatred is perfectly appropriate in the right context.
/r/TheRedPill30/08/13 06:31 PM
2

You guys live in a weird bubble where you don't realise there is a different way. It's not a leftoid liberal wet dream fantasy...it just makes sense because people aren't getting fucked over for totally avoidable things. Honor is an American abstraction, I guess. I know, it's hard to think outside that weird bubble when you've already made up your mind and decided that you're comfortable living off the labor of others. But some of us still have shreds of dignity. Some people in this world today …
/r/TheRedPill30/08/13 06:14 PM
3

It's less that TRP leans right and more that it leans away from the left. Right-wing ideas just happen to often sit oppose to left-wing emotional appeals, so many TRPers are right-wing but not all necessarily. We have our fair share of strictly anti-state libertarians, some completely apolitical types, some mainline conservatives, some monarchists even.
/r/TheRedPill30/08/13 06:07 PM
9

TehGinjaNinja does not speak for everyone in this subreddit. Most people here are at least casually antagonistic to left-wing ideas, it is not by accident that this sub has acquired a reputation for being right-wing. More accurately, many extremist right-wingers identify TRP stuff as being part of the larger circle of loosely connected ideas some call the "Dark Enlightenment", which you can google for examples if you're curious. But not everyone into TRP stuff is necessarily part of that larger …
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 11:05 PM
1

Liberty, equality, fraternity is the motto of the French Republic and dates to the revolution. Egalitarianism is part of the mix, but it doesn't even get top billing. Is that the best you can do, pointing out that it isn't the only word? We already discussed that liberty means overthrowing the previous hierarchies, it's meaningless on its own because it doesn't explain the motivation for overthrowing or the purpose it hopes to achieve. Fraternity likewise is just a strategy, it doesn't seem to m…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 10:56 PM
1

What I am contesting is your equating egalitarianism with left-wing politics. I think that's an over simplification and a misinterpretation of the historical and contemporary uses of the term. The origin of the left-right political spectrum lies in the French Revolution with proponents of the revolution on the left and defenders of the monarchy and the church on the right. This contrast between those who challenge traditional socio-political hierarchies and those who defend them is the closest o…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 09:22 PM
1

This is one reason why I said egalitarianism is part of left-wing ideology. I'm not saying feminists aren't on the left, I'm saying they aren't egalitarian. Ergo, egalitarianism isn't synonymous with left-wing ideology. In point of fact there are multiple ideologies which are considered left-wing; the "left" is a broad field of political thought which includes many disparate practices and philosophies. Most make egalitarian arguments and include some form of egalitarianism as a core principle, b…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 07:51 PM
1

Some of the posters, sure. Not everyone. Some of us are very interested in having a family and not incredibly interested in having lots of promiscuous sex. I don't go out every night getting laid like some of the guys who post here, but I'm not some repressed virgin either. I take the lessons to heart but don't feel the need to conclude that therefore I should sleep around, never form attachments, and avoid settling down. I don't see the value in that lifestyle. Again, not for everyone.
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 07:34 PM
1

I have been too fast to disassociate myself with movements and branches on the left because they don't fall in line with some utopia I've dreamed on a sleepless night. It's wrong, it's not Red Pill. Exactly. The first step is to admit responsibility. You supported movements that at least indirectly caused the deaths of millions of people. As did I. As does everyone, really. Everyone is just too cowardly to admit that we're all knee-deep in blood here. We're living in this fantasy postmodern utop…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 07:32 PM
1

Thanks for the.. sympathy? I very very highly doubt you have even a basic understanding of what I believe, but I do see that you see the bluepill/redpill type of scenario I am in. I considered myself a communist for, I dunno, I'd say close to five years. In that time and afterwards, I have spent the majority of my time living on this earth obsessively reading about history and ideologies. I think I have at least a basic understanding of what you're talking about. WHICH CRIME WAS THAT? "All you h…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 07:30 PM
1

Yes, egalitarianism is part of left-wing ideology No, I'd go much further than that. Egalitarianism is left-wing, as in, to be left-wing means egalitarianism. There is nothing else, I challenge you to even try to dispute that. but modern feminism is emphatically not egalitarian. It makes claims of egalitarianism for public consumption, but the reality of the feminist ideology is female supremacist and anti-male. As I said to another commenter in either this thread or another one (if you browse t…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 07:20 PM
1

It's mostly just whining about how we're unfairly attributing everything egalitarian and calling it Cultural Marxism. What he keeps ignoring is that right-wingers didn't invent the phrase, it was a leftoid self-description of movements vaguely allied with late 20th century Marxism and rooted in postmodern thought. Left-wingers these days, taught nothing of their own history and trained like a puppy with no more than five seconds of short term memory, are generally completely oblivious to the act…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 07:15 PM
1

Psychopath widow, plain and simple.
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 12:54 AM
1

Not Marx's fault, but Marxists's fault. There is an important distinction. Marxism in the 20th century allied itself with the deadly cults and they paid the price for it.
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 12:50 AM
0

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the Nazis were barely right wing if at all. Eh... only if by "right-wing" you mean the modern perversion of it. By right-wing standards of the time, they were the only right-wing option on the table. Modern "far-right" parties often have more in common with the left than the right. Every modern party has more in common with the left than the right. Any political party you can think of today would be miles to the left a century ago. I can't think of a si…
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 12:46 AM
1

They will, they always will. Part of swallowing the red pill is knowing that some other guy will always fall for the trap, they just can't all be saved.
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 12:33 AM
3

In short, feminism is not a Left-wing thing. It overlaps with left wing politics as much as all progressive and reform movements do (in my opinion, even less than libertarians). I could draw a comparison to professional associations, trade unions, chambers of commerce; yes they're interested in fair and good practice, but they're also about protecting their members' interests, even when they're wrong. I agree that all these movements are hypocritical, I don't agree that being hypocritical makes …
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 12:04 AM
1

"Shut up" has worked for me. You don't whine in your tone, you don't get angry, you just calmly tell them to shut up. Has never failed me.
/r/TheRedPill29/08/13 12:01 AM
5

I know I'm 'no true Scotsman'-ing my way through this one. I'm still adjusting to TRP in terms of my politics, I did the same thing when I learnt about Stalin's Russia, "he's not a true communist," I said. God forbid my ideology be hiding behind the curtain of this sorry state of affairs. I don't blame you much for doing it, I understand why. I used to also be favorable to communism as an ideology and I fully understand why this reaction is so common. It isn't entirely fair that communism as a w…
/r/TheRedPill28/08/13 11:56 PM
-1

Not in my opinion. I understand not everyone will agree, I don't care, I'm just saying what my opinion is and why I hold it. First of all, by prevention I do not strictly mean just birth control. I am talking women not having sex with men they don't intend on having children with in the first place.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/13 11:50 PM
3

You use exactly the same shitty tactics to shame fascism that you then whine about when people use against you when you bring up communism. If you want us to have an honest discussion with you, stop being a hypocrite.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/13 11:46 PM
2

I feel for you guys, I really do. I despise your economic views, from the bottom of my heart I do. But ultimately the economic disagreements just boil down to a difference of ideology and opinion, and I think capitalists and communists could respect each other perfectly well if things hadn't gotten so muddled with other ideologies getting into the mix. I know that there are still commies like you out there who genuinely are only into the ideology for its foundational core, not for any of the ins…
/r/TheRedPill28/08/13 11:43 PM
3

There's nothing that can be learned or gained from this shame Nonsense. Feeling shame tells you that what you did makes you feel shameful. You want to do everything in your power to avoid feeling that again, you avoid repeating the mistake. You can always learn from shame.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/13 11:24 PM
9

Left or right is not primarily about economic ideology. The phrase began in the struggle between nobility and egalitarians, and ultimately everything leftist is rooted in that same schism. Leftism predates communism and will outlast it. Arguably it already has. Communism as an official ideology is dead, no superpower openly proclaims communism to be its path, and every minor power that does is irrelevant and in chaos. Only its successors remain, divided and relatively powerless, and very few peo…
/r/TheRedPill28/08/13 11:14 PM
18

It isn't for everyone. For me personally, I would also never date a woman who has had an abortion, it reeks of poor judgment and implies a tendency to fix problems at the last possible minute rather than preventing problems before they start.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/13 11:07 PM
2

You're being pedantic. What was meant is that if the law is enforced unequally, it will be the fault of the judiciary system, not the legislative body that wrote and passed the law. Yes, they are all "government", but different parts of it that share unequal blame for different mistakes.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 07:40 PM
13

It's perfectly consistent when you realize by "ethical" they just mean whatever suits them.
/r/TheRedPill25/08/13 08:00 PM
4

Aurini certainly has his faults, but I've always greatly admired his self-confidence. A while back something blew up on reddit, if I recall correctly what happened is someone linked to a video of his on /r/cringe or some other similar subreddit. Redditors commented on the video in waves, mocking first his ideas and then everything about him, then back on the subreddit to continue the hate brigade. People were calling him a repressed homosexual (which I found especially ironic given that these we…
/r/TheRedPill23/08/13 09:38 PM
5

You're missing the point completely. Getting laid is great. Sex is amazing and rewarding, and mastery over women is good for the soul. But there is more to life than sex, much more. A red pill mentality, striving for excellence and mastery in all endeavors, applies to much more than just seduction and sex.
/r/TheRedPill23/08/13 09:22 PM
2

...I'm facepalming so hard. My bad. I didn't read your comment closely enough, the sarcasm should have been obvious. Pretty funny, actually!
/r/TheRedPill22/08/13 04:12 AM
2

How is telling someone that a child is theirs, when it is in fact not, not doing something wrong?
/r/TheRedPill22/08/13 01:35 AM
1

Although not everyone agrees that protecting idiots from themselves is the job of the state. If anything, hell, the state should just get in on the racket. Legalize the cults, tax them, let them coexist.
/r/TheRedPill21/08/13 05:28 AM
1

Dropped out of community college. Learning welding, fixing cars, electrical controls, et cetera... I like where my life is going right now. So much left to learn, so much money to be made. In a few years, I could go anywhere in the world I want, with the right determination and plan.
/r/TheRedPill18/08/13 11:04 PM
3

Quoting Tyrion Lannister, giving awesome advice, and being entirely reasonable in a debate despite disagreeing with me? I like you, friend.
/r/TheRedPill17/08/13 01:06 AM
3

I'm not against having rules in a relationship; I'm against this particular rule. That makes sense. Like I said, it's just personal preference. I'm not in a relationship right now. Now that you have me thinking about it though, I do see that there's something to what you're saying. This rule isn't for everyone. I can think of a few girls I know who, if I were to be dating them right now, I would establish that rule. I can also think of others I would not do that with because it would be pointles…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:17 PM
1

Thank you for presuming things I allegedly believe and never said, downvoting me without arguing what I said, and generalizing everyone in this subreddit as though we all believe exactly the same things. Really classy.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:15 PM
1

I personally disagree that boundaries necessarily suggest insecurity, and that lack of boundaries necessarily imply confidence. Can I think of examples that fit those clichés? Absolutely, I do know guys in real life who try to establish rules in their relationship because they're insecure, and I know guys who let their girls do whatever they want because they're secure. But I also know cases where it's exactly the opposite. The point I'm trying to get across is that the more someone is looking f…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:42 PM
1

I have to slightly disagree with you here. First, the choice is not between playing along and acting butthurt - there is also a third option, to calmly demand that she be less of a bitch if she wants to speak to you. Second, when a woman starts out by being a bitch to you, and you end up rewarding her with dick, you've just rewarded bad behaviour. No, you're right, it's just that what I"m saying and what you're saying are not at all mutually exclusive. There is a fine line when a woman is teasin…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:28 PM
1

Let me know how that works out for you. You know who else has no ego? Dead people.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:59 AM
1

I skipped pua material entirely. The psychology papers say the same thing, you just have to learn how to read it.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:58 AM
3

You're not entirely wrong but you're also missing something very important. You're simplifying something complex and trying to make it all about the beta-alpha divide when in reality it's about something completely different. I'm gonna make a simple analogy. If you rent a place to live in for a few months, you plan from the very beginning to only live there for a few months, the owner knows it's a temporary thing... how much effort are you going to put into maintaining that place? Obviously to s…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:56 AM
1

No matter how heavy a woman lays shaming/shit-testing on you, stand your ground confidently (even if it seems you’re being absurd and inflating your ego too much). There is actually no "too much" when it comes to ego and women. If I've learned anything about women in the last two years, it's this. If you do it sincerely and believe you're worthy with every bone in your body, your ego can never be "too much" to a woman. "Too much" is a problem that comes from faking it until you make it, which is…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:26 AM
1

Even though your joke is completely out of place and totally in the wrong subreddit, I gotta admit, that got a chuckle out of me. Wish I'd see more love for that series in this subreddit.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:15 AM
2

A few days ago, I'm hanging out with my best friend and his sister. We've all each other for half our lives and he doesn't know it, but for a long time there's been some mutual attraction between his sister and me. Anyway, no one is giving her much attention, so just to pass the time I guess, she starts repeatedly calling me a jerk, a douche, complaining that my douchiness is a common subject in conversation with her best friend, et cetera. I mostly ignore it, laugh it off, fire back a few insul…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 07:09 AM
3

Sure it is. There's a world-famous bridge within walking distance of where I live. When I'm old, good and ready, I'll go for a late night dive I don't plan on returning from. It's a plan, just not one for everyone. Suicide is definitely not for everyone.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:53 AM
2

Yes, because the religious right has so much political power these days.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:49 AM
1

I'm constantly bombarded with e-mails from department and university groups because I'm a minority (remember, liberals don't stereotype) for minority victim groups and the latest fag or dick-girl addition to the LGBQT-whatever the fuck they call themselves now. You're automatically assumed to be a leftist based on skin color. This is my entire life right here, I can't empathize with you enough. You can't imagine the look on people's faces when my reactionary opinions become apparent and they rea…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:46 AM
1

And if he is?
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:45 AM
1

Some fear is healthy, but you must be able to take action as though you have no fear at all.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:37 AM
2

A picture with a girl isn't sex and a quote from the bible isn't faith. I want this framed on my bedroom wall.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:30 AM
1

I have Muslim friends. They never speak to me about their faith unless we're deep in friendly conversation or I bring it up. They don't try to convert me. They respect my right to have my beliefs. I respect their right to arrange their lives as they see fit. Every actual hard-working, spiritual, decent Muslim I meet gives me another reason to convert. Every Muslim I see on TV or the internet applauded by leftists for spitting on the West and making drama makes me hate them all over again. It's a…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:25 AM
2

I hadn't checked back in this subreddit for a few weeks. Scrolled through the front page and was mildly disappointed. To be sure, not all the content was trash, but a great deal of it was forgettable stuff that I'd felt like I had already read a hundred times. And then I see comments like this. Thank you for reminding me why I subbed.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 05:49 AM
-2

You do realize your joke counterargument only makes sense if you presume the very thing you're trying to argue for, right? It's completely circular logic. If depression does not in fact exist as a special mental state and is just a mood like any other, then your joke makes no sense. It could, hypothetically, be cleared up with hard work. Unlike diabetes or HIV. If depression does exist, your joke applies well and is humorous... but here's the important part, your joke is completely irrelevant to…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 05:43 AM
5

Probably dropping to the ground and casually rolling away would do it.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 05:38 AM
4

But charges of misandry are not politically fashionable. The idea of women in power systematically discriminating against men is generally taken as a joke.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:34 PM
2

or carried by the chieftain, like scepters or staffs in later societies, to signify his position or status in the tribe. In other words, for showing off. It's just that to say it's only for showing off to get women is a bit too simplistic. Status is really much more complex and aimed as much towards other men as it is to women.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 09:09 PM
0

It brings me a huge joy I can't adequately describe to see some love for Spengler in this subreddit.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 01:35 AM
2

In this weird modern world, the "conservatives" have much more in common with feminazis than any ideology that was around a hundred years ago. They're all playing for the same team, just fighting for who gets to score the goal.
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 01:25 AM
1

But most importantly of all, the MRM is first and foremost an egalitarian movement. According to you.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 01:37 AM
0

All gay men are men, yes. But why are we talking about gay men rather than gay people? /u/dungone decided to narrow the focus to gay men, rather than talking about discrimination against homosexuals as a whole. By that standard you can make absolutely any issue that involves human beings a "men's right issue". It's meaningless. I intentionally used the analogy of genocide because genocide affects people as a whole, nothing to do with men or women specifically. Likewise, gay men being turned away…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 07:13 PM
-2

It is gender specific. Only in this case, this specific context, by definition. Yes, in transitional housing specifically for men, gay men may be turned away. That has nothing to do with them being male or female. It is gender specific only because you defined it to be gender specific, in other words, all you did was set up a tautology and then expect the audience to be surprised when 2 + 2 turns out to equal 5 when you redefined 5 to be 4. If you were to broaden the topic to "transitional housi…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 06:37 AM
1

So abortion rights isn't a women's issue, because not every women would get an abortion? Abortion is a woman's issue because it affects primarily women. It doesn't need to affect all women. Even if only 0.0001% of women ever got abortions, it would still be a woman's issue. The question isn't what portion of women are affected by abortion, it's what portion of those affected by abortion are women. Do you see the difference? The primary group affected by whether abortion is legal or illegal is wo…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 04:14 AM
-2

That would not be a feminist issue, that would be a lesbian issue. You people are all insane. I am standing by my argument. Stop thinking with your emotions and try to think about it logically. If we start calling every issue that happens to affect a person who is male a men's right issue, then everything is a men's right issue and the phrase is meaningless. I'm not at all trying to demean gay rights. I'm saying they're a separate thing. Trying to lump these two things together does a huge disse…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 03:54 AM
-6

It is totally related. Gay men are men. This is completely ridiculous. By this same logic, genocide is a feminist issue because female victims of genocide are female. A men's right issue is an issue that affects men for being men.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 02:32 AM
-1

I don't think she's arguing that it's wrong for any one individual woman to look pretty or feminine. I believe her point is that not all women in video games/media should be presented as looking a single way (skinny, large breasts, scantily clad, whatever). Sure, but it's ridiculous to criticize everyone else for presenting women a certain way if she herself chooses to appear more or less the same way she then criticizes "the media" for portraying women. It makes as much sense as a black guy in …
/r/MensRights27/07/13 01:08 AM
1

Let me try to clarify: Do you agree that a woman can have sex while avoiding the burden of pregnancy (i.e., can control her own birth control and/or take other measures such as abortion of plan-B)? Forgot to address this point, I'll just do it now in this separate comment. Yes, obviously, I do agree that on the individual scale a woman can have promiscuous sex while possibly avoiding pregnancy. What I disagree with is that biological or societal incentives will ever make it possible for women to…
/r/TheRedPill27/07/13 12:56 AM
1

Can women pump and dump? You said no because women have the additional burden of pregnancy. Applebloom said yes because women can now prevent or terminate pregnancy if they want to. You're misunderstanding something very, very simple. My disagreement with you is not some huge, complex philosophical point. It's really all about the wording. Women cannot really pump and dump. At its most basic root, the phrase comes from describing a man "pumping" his seed into women and "dumping" them; by definit…
/r/TheRedPill27/07/13 12:53 AM
4

Attack her ideas, not her appearance. This makes absolutely no sense though in this context. Her ideas are often about the physical appearances of women in media, and she is a notable female figure in media. Her appearance is absolutely relevant.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:36 PM
-1

If a woman wants to pump and dump, then she's not going to be poking holes in condoms. Not at the peak of her spree, to be sure. But afterwards, towards the tail end? I wouldn't take my chances.
/r/TheRedPill26/07/13 06:30 PM
1

This has nothing to do with girls freely having sex, but everything to do with not sticking your dick in crazy. Yeah, thanks for the downvotes, I'll be sure to answer your sincere questions again next time.
/r/TheRedPill26/07/13 05:50 PM
0

Today we have condoms, birth control, and legal abortions. And we also have crazy bitches intentionally poking holes into condoms, lying about taking birth control, intentionally hiding their pregnancy, or on the opposite end of the spectrum lying about being pregnant, lying about who the father of the fetus is for real pregnancies... et cetera. Technological abilities do not change fundamental human nature. This is what girls want. And will never have.
/r/TheRedPill26/07/13 12:27 AM
0

I know. I'm not an idiot. but just biologically speaking
/r/TheRedPill26/07/13 12:11 AM
2

I explained this to my gay friend a while ago. He's ridiculously skinny. You can see his ribcage even with a shirt on sometimes. He has what I call a "cardboard cutout" torso, no pecs at all and no stomach. The fact that he has lines on his abdomen means absolutely nothing. It's not attractive, it's anorexic. He can't even do twenty crunches without struggling and hurting his neck and back, it's pathetic. But nope, in one ear and out the other. "hurr durr abs are abs"
/r/TheRedPill26/07/13 12:01 AM
1

I actually think Halo 4 is really good, it just doesn't belong as part of the same series.
/r/TheRedPill25/07/13 11:14 PM
6

Simplest answer I can give you is that the consequences of having sex is different for men and women. Let's say a man has sex with thirty different women, there's a few things he has to worry about. First, obviously, disease. Secondly, he may have gotten some of those pump and dumps pregnant, whether or not he was careful. Getting a woman pregnant is dangerous especially in today's legal climate, but just biologically speaking, there are no immediate consequences to the man. His body goes throug…
/r/TheRedPill25/07/13 10:36 PM
3

I too felt a wave of inspiration to get ripped as fuck from that movie. I can only hope these batshit crazy feminists never bother to actually be egalitarian and start protesting to remove heroic male images from media, or I worry for the next generation of boys unable to grow up into men because there are no role models to mold themselves after.
/r/TheRedPill25/07/13 09:55 PM
14

Nature has double standards. Humankind is a sexually dimorphic species.
/r/TheRedPill25/07/13 09:38 PM
3

How many times do you hear people say "Man I'm totally out of shape, I need to start jogging" as if that will accomplish anything. If you suck at running, it's unlikely that you'll have the stamina for serious bike riding as a stable method of cardio exercise. Running is the best way to train your stamina up so that you can handle good cardio workout every day, and good cardio is everything. If I don't start my workout routine with a run, I feel sluggish during the rest of the routine.
/r/TheRedPill23/07/13 08:50 PM
2

Gotta find me a group like that. I have no problem holding eye contact, but I wouldn't mind helping out those who do, and it might be cool to practice something like public speaking which I do have trouble with.
/r/TheRedPill22/07/13 03:20 AM
1

Whether or not they're biased has absolutely fucking nothing to do with whether or not studies exist that have concluded that asians have higher IQs than Africans on average. These studies rarely make claims about why this is the case; you the only one debating that here. I never claimed it is innate.
/r/TheRedPill22/07/13 01:52 AM
1

I wouldn't deny that some whites also blame blacks, some men blame women, et cetera. But which of these hypocrisies is politically encouraged and enforced, and which is outlawed as hate speech in many countries? Feminism and anti-white hysteria are dangerous, more dangerous than alleged instances of misogyny and racism against blacks, because the former are politically fashionable and well-defended while the latter are anomalies that are quickly attacked by the majority.
/r/TheRedPill20/07/13 06:31 PM
2

Keeping a company healthy by only employing workers who are actually profitable to keep on the job ≠ fucking murdering innocent people. Sensationalist leftism is generally not welcome here.
/r/TheRedPill20/07/13 06:29 PM
3

Are you joking? You're actually asking for a source on a widely reported, well-known statistical truth? Read about it yourself so you can't complain that whatever source I give you is biased and racist.
/r/TheRedPill20/07/13 06:27 PM
1

It's just meant for people who need the support, like some alcoholics need AA. If you don't need the support, guess what? You have good self-control. I tried the nofap thing a month ago out of curiosity after reading several accounts from that subreddit. Never felt the overwhelming urge to quit. I never bothered making a post there to share my experience. It wasn't as difficult for me as it was apparently for many of those posting there. The point is to learn self-control with regards to your pe…
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 11:15 PM
2

Plus true Dark Triads are willing to kill to get what they want, and for some reason I don't see TRP as a place full of killers. It's not that simple. The dark triad traits are associated with serial killers, A is associated with B, but A ≠ B. B is a subset of A. Serial killers probably make up less than 1% of all people who exhibit all the traits in the Dark Triad. Get it?
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 10:53 PM
6

Cuntslayer.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 10:49 PM
12

I came to this subreddit through men's rights, by bluepill folks talking scare stories about the endless rape stories that apparently go on here. So curiosity got the better of me and I wanted to find out what all the self-righteous white-knighting was going on about. From the bottom of my heart and my genitals, thank you for repeatedly posting there. Not all of us who frequent men's rights are bluepill.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 10:44 PM
2

What part of it is a stretch? The empirical fact that whites and asians test higher on IQ scores than blacks and hispanics on average? Or the Trayvon Martin reference?
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 10:37 PM
7

That's part of what I found odd about the Martin ordeal. Sad story and i'm not sure what happened, but i don't understand this sense of "us" and "them". i know i'm much more likely to get fucked up by my own people. It's a sad way of trying to give up responsibility and blame the white man for the problems in the black community.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 09:48 PM
2

There's way more crossover than you'd except. The actual ancap subreddits are being plagued with leftists lately, so the traditionalist libertarian types are all slowly migrating to more traditionalist subreddits. It's a beautiful thing to watch.
/r/askTRP15/07/13 07:12 PM
1

it was pretty clear what "enforcing their views through violence" meant. No, it wasn't. Just because you know what you meant doesn't mean you can change the definition of "enforcing views through violence". You support enforcing your views with violence, as do I, as does virtually every person alive today. That we happen to feel that those views are true and justifiably defensible doesn't change the fact that we support enforcing them violently.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 06:08 PM
0

If you were merely clarifying it wouldn't be backtracking. I'm calling it backtracking because the 'clarification' actually contradicts what you said before. Previously you said "enforcing views through violence". By that definition, virtually everyone you and I know is a violent political extremist. If you narrow it to "supports using violence against political enemies within the context of elections in a representative democracy", then yes, far less people are included in that category. But yo…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 06:52 AM
0

Sure, but you're narrowing the focus and backtracking. All you said originally is "enforcing views through violence". Most people support enforcing their views through violence. Sure, on top of that, they also believe in changing laws democratically. That doesn't change the fact that the support enforcing current laws with violence. In the same vein, supporters of absolute monarchy support enforcement of laws with violence, but they also support new monarchs changing the laws the old monarchs es…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 02:15 AM
1

They don't actively frame the discussion that way, but 99% of everyone I know supports the use of violence as a measure of last resort to accomplish their political goals. Criminalization of drugs, for example. Border control is another common enough one. Taxation. Et cetera.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 10:06 PM
1

You do not find the fact that one category of names would obviously get you bullied, while the other wouldn't, to be a categorical difference? What "will obviously get someone bullied" is subjective. I don't see the categorical difference. You could be bullied for absolutely any name in the world. No, I'm not. Hitler carries a stigma because it is the name of one of the most notorious dictators in history. Alexander carries no such stigma because in the mind of most people, he isn't one of the m…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 10:05 PM
1

I don't strongly disagree with that, but to the average leftist, yes, libertarianism looks heavily right-wing, whereas right-wingers in my anecdotal experience don't usually try to categorize libertarianism as a leftist movement.
/r/TheRedPill13/07/13 10:02 PM
1

So the internet really is a series of pipes.
/r/TheRedPill13/07/13 12:48 AM
2

Military spending isn't growing as quickly as the other parts of the pie though, if I recall correctly.
/r/TheRedPill13/07/13 12:47 AM
0

Sometimes fuckable if you have proper game.
/r/TheRedPill13/07/13 12:07 AM
16

Upvoted for spaghetti, that's the funniest goddamn thing I've read in weeks. I love this subreddit.
/r/TheRedPill13/07/13 12:06 AM
0

someone who thinks it's acceptable to murder their political opponents is an extremist. By that definition, everyone I know is a violent extremist.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:54 PM
7

however, we're not here to argue politics; i'm just commenting on an what i see as a right-wing bias in a large portion of the sub. Then try to be consistent, and criticize the leftist bias in virtually every other subreddit on this site when you encounter it. Yes, TRP has a right-wing bias generally. We're in the small minority.
/r/TheRedPill12/07/13 11:48 PM
0

You treat them like the attention-seeking child that they are and ignore them unless directly provoked. Paying them any attention unless it becomes necessary is only giving them the satisfaction they're craving for.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:45 PM
0

So the standard you're proposing is association with extremist politics? Mohammed is the name of a prophet of an extremist faith, so that should be unacceptable. Joseph (after Stalin) is associated with an extremist political leader. Et cetera. I agree that Jamal doesn't qualify, but the standard you're proposing is just as hopelessly vague. Secondly, your point is bogus anyway. All politics is "extremist" to other political positions. Virtually every person alive today that considers themselves…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:16 PM
0

Are you saying that you do not recognize that there is a difference between naming your child "Nigger Cuntface" and naming your kid "Bob"? I don't recognize a categorical difference, no. Both are words with meanings. If they cannot come to the conclusion that naming their child Adolf Hitler will cause that child immense amounts of undue hardships, then I'd argue that they are so lacking in mental faculties as to need some kind of caretaker. You claimed it was their motivation for doing so, not t…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:05 PM
1

Ridiculous based on what standard? What makes naming a child after a specific 20th century German dictator better or worse than naming them after Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or any other military figure?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:55 PM
-2

Notice how those classes of names are different? No, I don't. One is chosen specifically to harm the future prospects of the child, one is not. You have no idea why they named their child Adolf Hitler. They may have no ill will toward their child at all. Simply because you feel that naming your own child could only be imaginable if you wanted for some reason to harm your child's future prospects does not mean that was the motivation of these parents. You're not a mind-reader. Stop pretending to …
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:54 PM
-1

We name children Alexander all the time. Alexander the Great was undoubtedly a mass murderer. What standard are you proposing for what names should or shouldn't be allowed?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:24 PM
1

I didn't want to be named by name at birth, should my parents be arrested?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:23 PM
5

By that standard, naming your kid Jamal is child abuse because having a very 'black' name influences your likelihood of getting hired.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:22 PM
1

Women are now and have been a vital part of many many intellectual discussions, and you cannot change that or make that go away. I didn't say that it should change or go away. I said that you're absolutely wrong that it's a necessary, vital part of civilization. Our society absolutely needs the input of 51% of the population in order to move forward. I reject the idea that half of the world's population should be disregarded, as that is just completely asinine and useless. Great. Except no one p…
/r/TheRedPill11/07/13 08:50 PM
1

You should do it, if you like the feeling being out in the country gives you. If you hate it, by all means, stay in the cities and enjoy the ride. Just don't expect anything to improve, ever.
/r/TheRedPill11/07/13 08:43 PM
0

This means that these women are a vital part of many "intellectual" discussions No, it doesn't. Civilization existed perfectly fine for centuries without women involved in many of these fields. That isn't an argument in favor of reverting back to that, I'm just pointing out that your argument is baseless. Merely demonstrating that X occurs in the present does not automatically imply that X is necessary.
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 03:32 AM
6

It's too late for that nonsense. The political drama always lags a few decades behind the real seat of power, which everyone who isn't a brainless idiot by now has at least begun to realize is actually the public opinion machine, aka the assortment of universities, news outlets, and marketing conglomerations that own all opinion and basically dictate what is acceptable or not acceptable. In politics, you can still sometimes get away with saying crazy antiquated shit like "hey guys, maybe marriag…
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 12:56 AM
11

It's funny because it's still quite common to hear the idiotic notion being repeated, that reddit is somehow a stronghold of free speech. It's ridiculous, really. No such thing exists here.
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 12:47 AM
1

Apparently so.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:35 AM
1

Facial aesthetics are the least important factor. Let's do an exercise, class. I want you all to take a moment and really, really contemplate what it is in a human face that looks good or bad. Take any random face of decent attractiveness, and just fucking stare at it for at least ten minutes. Analyze every part of that face, from the hairline to the chin. How's the complexion? The forehead? The nose? The brows? Et cetera. Personally, I find that if I look at anyone long enough, they start to lo…
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 07:51 PM
1

Yeah, seems your friend fails to realize that while going abroad may get you a better selection of good wife material, your marriage will still suck like an eternity in hell if you're not a good husband. A good husband doesn't beg for his own money.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 07:32 PM
2

The thing is that both are true, both are happening at the same time, they are not at all mutually exclusive. You're right that you and some others here are seemingly coming to a disagreement that has more to do with perspective. But you're failing to understand that a cultural influence is not necessarily, and I would go as far as saying not usually, an influence in opposition to nature. More often than not, cultural influences augment an already existing tendency. Consider violence, for exampl…
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 07:31 PM
1

I'd like to have a chat with you sometime about this sort of stuff. It's definitely hard to find people opposed to neo-marxism, intellectually curious enough to be informed about Enlightenment topics, and interested in lighter topics like red pill stuff. You, my friend, are a rare bird. I was beginning to think I was the only one around here both interested in getting laid and reading century-old philosophy tomes.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 07:22 PM
1

Haha wow, alright then. I had a completely different interpretation of what you were saying, based on that misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 06:40 PM
2

BAC? Is that anything like SMV (sexual market value, I think)?
/r/MensRights09/07/13 05:58 PM
2

In honor of you, I'm gonna challenge myself to try to get laid using that line. Let's make this a TRP thing.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 06:02 AM
2

It is definitely, without a doubt, a shit test. It's perfectly textbook. A seemingly subtle slip, stated not as a direct demand but as a veiled threat, in an attempt to change your behavior. In reality, she doesn't really give much of a shit about how you groom your hair; it's about control. I couldn't fabricate a better example of a shit test if I had an hour to imagine one.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 06:02 AM
25

Fuck me. I read that as "fried rice" and spent a whole minute trying to figure out why women would want fried rice, or how that would be relevant to red pill stuff.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 05:44 AM
-3

I came into this from a similar situation. With time, a bit of courage, and persistence, I promise you that you'll be absolutely fine. Sounds like your oneitis in this case is very very bad. You need to keep in mind that she is just a stupid girl you met. Every little pain she has caused you, that's what you need to focus on. Don't let yourself believe any excuse for any of it.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/13 05:27 AM
1

It just bothers me that the general attitude here is to keep jumping ship until you find someone perfect. This is fine if you're out to improve your skills with women in general, but it's not a good long term strategy since all relationships will have their tensions that need to be worked out (obviously cheating is not one of them). It may seem that way from a few stories here and there, but I would disagree that this is representative of the general advice in this subreddit. I would instead say…
/r/TheRedPill08/07/13 06:56 PM
4

Cuntfax, coming to an internet near you.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/13 09:04 AM
3

Mencius Moldbug is actually the reason I'm even here into TRP... I wonder if anyone else did that odd reverse tango. I figure most guys started out in TRP and fell into these deeper, darker circles.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/13 08:59 AM
2

When in doubt, shut up and think a little bit longer. Don't ever say "UHHHHH" or "UMMMMMMM", that's how women speak. Speak clearly, briefly, and decisively. Don't switch sentences midstream, if you can avoid it. Follow through with a thought or don't start saying it at all. Don't try hard to be especially loud or fast. You don't need to be competing to be heard. Women have higher, sharper voices and tend to speak much faster anyway; you will lose if you try to outcompete them in a shouting match…
/r/TheRedPill08/07/13 08:48 AM
8

Many commenters here are definitely being a bit rash. But I am going to go ahead and defend the general idea. Consider this. In a marriage that has lasted for quite a while, do you really want to be stuck for the rest of your life with an immature hypocrite who can't handle basic criticism? Probably not. Add a rapidly decaying body, resentment and jealously over the husband being more fit, and that's a recipe for a dying marriage.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/13 08:36 AM
1

A divorce waiting to happen.
/r/TheRedPill02/07/13 08:56 PM
1

I too came from that hellhole. Still subbed; it's a good source of blue pill examples!
/r/TheRedPill02/07/13 08:40 PM
7

Latin American culture actually, amazingly, still understands what is acceptable and what is not acceptable behavior from men and women. Red pill guys, just saying, you all would love to live in the rest of the Americas. I'm not sure how much longer it can last this way, but for the most part, I expect it's a lot better than trying to find a suitable American wife in the States.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/13 07:16 PM
1

I said "disproportionately". The following sentence is not meant in a passive-aggressive tone: Do you know what the word means, and why I used it in that context?
/r/MensRights27/06/13 06:09 AM
2

Forget what you were taught in school, just think about the question yourself. Is communism dead, or alive? Well, to answer that, you have to figure out what "communism" is. So go to the original holy texts. Read Marx himself and his immediate acolytes. Well, the early communists had a number of demands that they insisted democratic governments adopt. I believe that if you apply your mind seriously and sincerely to the question, you will come to the conclusion that communism, in a somewhat adapt…
/r/askTRP27/06/13 06:09 AM
2

Best to play it safe and assume they'll haul your ass back if they can. What the law says and what reality does are two separate things.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/13 03:11 AM
4

My friend, if you believe communism was destroyed, you need to take a harder pill.
/r/askTRP27/06/13 01:41 AM
8

Guys, come on, clean up your act a bit. If you're going to be passive aggressive and whine, try /r/MensRights.
/r/askTRP27/06/13 01:39 AM
2

The key here is that if and when it's revealed, you don't make a big deal out of it. If she starts to make a big deal out of it, you don't let her get you upset. It doesn't matter.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/13 12:36 AM
1

Unfortunately, this tends to mean you'll get the most neurotic selection of girls. Good for one time fucks, very bad relationship potential. I keep my facebook and have a nice selection of about a dozen girls I might later fuck around with, but definitely I have no illusions about there being any good wife material there.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/13 12:34 AM
2

The blue pill is a sleeping pill.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/13 12:24 AM
2

Good thing is that at least with number 4, you're getting to see her character and how she sees herself in relation to you. For a comparatively small monetary loss, you now know that 1 through 3 would have gone very badly.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/13 12:20 AM
4

OP, you need to do something basically like this. If you're butthurt about a little beta guy fantasizing about fucking your girlfriend, guess what that makes you look like? A little butthurt beta bitch. Men aren't threatened by boys, you need to show that you are comfortable and confident about the position you're in.
/r/TheRedPill27/06/13 12:08 AM
4

bitter misogynists are always trying to make big deals out of. Pro-tip: calling everyone who criticizes feminism a "bitter misogynist" is as believable as calling critics of Israel "anti-semitists" or "Nazis". Feminism ≠ all women ever. If you're going to troll, do it more believably.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:36 PM
-1

The roots of our modern world and its ideological schisms go back far deeper than most people on this subreddit or anywhere in the world often realize. What I'm saying is, I would argue that the Mormon church is deeply influenced by "feminism", if you use the word a bit loosely. I know, I know, that's sounds on its face like a fantastical, impossible claim. But I really do think there's something to the idea and would be willing to defend it.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:34 PM
1

Do you have proof that it does happen, disproportionately?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:29 PM
2

A proper hypothesis has to include mechanisms within the argument for how it can be either confirmed or falsified. These are essentially unfalsifiable.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 07:42 PM
0

which is hard as fuck without a car BTW. That bitch is three miles from where I live and I walk that shit in this hot ass sun. Run instead. It's paradoxical, but you'll feel better once you get used to running in the heat. Your body will learn to sweat as much as you need to in order to cool down, and once you get there you'll feel ready for a lot more exercise. I always start with a good run and three miles is my average right now. If I can do it, you can do it, unless you're a land whale.
/r/TheRedPill24/06/13 06:57 PM
1

I don't understand your weird dichotomy between what a real compromise is and what makes one false. I understand that the compromise is shitty and not to your liking, but I don't understand how you propose to distinguish between a true or false compromises. What is the difference? Fairness is subjective.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:26 AM
1

Thus, the compromise is false. It makes it shitty, that doesn't make it false. I have no idea what you could possibly even mean by a "false compromise".
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:13 AM
1

I don't understand what makes it a false compromise. Just because you or the other person I was arguing with don't happen to like the outcome of the compromise does not make it any less of a true compromise than any other.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 09:29 PM
1

That's the fallacy I was referencing with my example of Bob and Joe.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:48 PM
1

To be a compromise you have to balance not just what people want, but why they want it. Giving someone an alternative they didn't want doesn't help them in any way. That doesn't make any sense. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass now. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the actual definition of compromise, you're just talking about what you want. What you essentially said was lets say joe wants to go to the movies and bob wants to go to the boardwalk; the third party says LET'…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:16 PM
5

No worries, I was just trying to explain why you might be getting a hostile reaction. People are probably interpreting it as you blaming the subreddit like we're harassing this girl, when no one has done any such thing. I'm just explaining it to you so you can better understand, not trying to chastise you.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:04 AM
1

edit: also that isn't a compromise. :p First definition of compromise I got from googling: A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. I'm not sure how you can possibly disagree with that, it's pretty straightforward. Bob has a desire to cut off Joe's head, Joe has a desire to keep his head. It's not a very fair compromise, nor particularly humane. But just because you don't like a compromise doesn't make it not a compromise. Does that make sense? You don't have to fight ev…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:14 AM
3

Moreover, if this was to be considered doxxing, you should be blaming the authors of the article for releasing information to the public that you feel is inappropriate. Not random redditors for sharing and talking about that article.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:07 AM
1

Feminist: You shouldn't exist because feminism is there for men too! MRA: You hate us and think we shouldn't exist, while doing nothing to help solve our problems. Yes. Wouldn't you then agree that until one group at least acknowledges the right of the other group to exist, and that the existence of the other group is not evidence of hatred against the other group, that no reconciliation is possible? This whole situation is as absurd as the Israel-Palestine conflict. Neither side wants the oppos…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:51 AM
2

I'm going to tweak you. YOU used a hypothetical anecdote (Sally and Bob), not me. I stated a fact, which in other circumstances you would be happy to acknowledge -- in many places, declaring yourself a feminist is not going to endear people to you. You should really calm down about this point. You do realize that calling something an anecdote is not an insult? It's just a description. First of all, the Sally and Bob thing is not an anecdote, it is a metaphor or an allegory. It's a made up fictio…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:17 PM
3

Also, the original complaint was that feminism is a more popular movement than MRAs. I sincerely hope that you consider yourselves more popular than serial killers, pedophiles, and rapists. Or are you saying that feminists are less popular than pedophiles, and MRAs are even less popular than that? You apparently misunderstood the entire point. I'll clarify. The first counterargument I gave was that your hypothetical anecdotes (that you said in some circles, feminism makes you less popular than M…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:42 PM
1

First, as many MRAs point out, identifying as a feminist does not confer instant popularity. In some circles, it's expected, in some it's reviled. Of course. And there are some places in the world where revealing yourself as a serial killer, pedophile, and rapist, would get you respect rather than condemnation. Exceptions do not disprove a general trend. I am talking about trends, yet you bring up hypothetical anecdotes as though that disproves a trend. a movement that defines itself by oppositi…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:11 AM
1

I don't see feminists trying to prevent joint custody or defending unfair treatment of male domestic violence victims or circumcision laws. ...well, I'm getting off the crazy train. Have fun with your ride, but I'm afraid this conversation is over. Can't convince someone who's willing to completely ignore reality.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:37 AM
1

A lot of "feminists" don't chose the label themselves, it's something that gets foisted on them by people who want to associate any kind of resistance to sexism with extreme feminism as a way of shutting down debate. Okay, sure. I have seen this happen at least a few times in my life, sure. I admit this at least occurs sometimes. But, at least ten times as often, just bullshitting from my anecdotal experience that I'm admittedly remembering through a biased perspective, I would reckon that I hav…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:05 AM
2

Egalitarianism as a whole has much more support in Scandinavia in general. It's not specific to feminism. The egalitarianism is demonstrably powerful in unrelated issues like immigration policy, for example.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 11:34 PM
20

The problem is that every feminist I've ever met, that follows the description you've just given (support equality rather consistently rather than female privilege), is still only ever an egalitarian of convenience. They get to be a feminist, calling themselves a feminist, and just by using the word, get associated with a movement that has a fuckton of legal power and social power through its influence in academia. Sure, they can whine about how they're "real feminists" all they want, but at the…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:45 PM
1

I believe that women are prejudiced on in society and that both men and women should strive to A) not be prejudiced against women and B) address the root cause of this tendency for prejudice. And I believe your belief has no basis in reality. There was little violence in the abolition outside the US btw. You're right about this, I did immediately assume the American version of events. My bad on that point.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 08:19 PM
1

Well, sure, obviously your general point is pretty straightforward. Sometimes people do things that aren't in their immediate self-interest. Duh. Obviously that's not the point I'm arguing against. What I'm saying is your example is stupid. White people generally didn't "attempt to rid themselves of the right to own slaves", they attempted to rid other white guys of that right. Violently. When you put it in this context, it becomes much more ambiguous whether or not they had something to gain fr…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:46 PM
-2

I don't see how either one can be considered fair. A person who owns their business should have the right to hire as they see fit. Is it their property or not? Do employers owe society jobs?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:27 PM
3

By attempting to rid themselves of the right to own slaves, Are you seriously this stupid? Northerners didn't have the right to own slaves, the South did. A Northerner fighting in the civil war was fighting a war to keep the Union. Not everyone in the North was abolitionist to begin with.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:25 PM
1

Special snowflakes don't tend to go to war with each other often. The motto of San Francisco ought to be pas d'ennemis à gauche.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:23 PM
1

Flat taxes mostly hurt the poor, something I know Sweden is not keen to do. Not keen to do intentionally, perhaps. But claiming that Sweden outright doesn't do things that hurts the poor strikes me as a really arrogant claim.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:20 PM
2

Trying to explain that to modern progressives never goes well. Any nationalism at all, in any shape or form, is literally Nazism to such people.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:18 PM
1

But it's never one man losing his income: it's either a few rich people or many not rich people. One millionair losing half his fortune doesn't impact the economy of the country. Thousands of people losing half their income might very well push the economy in a recession. More likely than not, you're very wrong. A billionaire losing billions could destroy more than thousands of jobs. And still when I have to choose between a slightly lower GDP on one hand and thousands of people having to cut ba…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:10 PM
1

The goal of the economy is to provide goods and services to people. I don't see how you can argue against that. No. The means of the economy are providing goods and services to people, the end is whatever each individual participating wants. It also isn't necessary or at all obvious that it is somehow best for the distribution and rationing of those goods and services to be equal in nature at all.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:07 PM
1

You just compare numbers - it's you who fails to account for scale. This is the fundamental problem in your misunderstanding. It's not that on a personal level I don't "care" about the poor and their plight. What I'm arguing is that, relating to the problems of a country as a whole, what matters more relative to the interests of a country is the losses of the rich, generally speaking. One man losing half his income affects the country most depending on how much the income was to begin with. That…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 07:46 PM
1

Just be consequential: if the state can enforce property rights because supposedly it's for the greater benefits, it can also enforce Yes, you could try to argue it consequentially, but you have to actually make an argument for why redistribution of property is for the greater good and not enforcement of property rights. You can't just assume whatever you personally believe is indeed in the best interest of everyone. That's insane. If the state just protects property and doesn't do much else, th…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 07:43 PM
1

You don't understand scale at all. You're assuming a give a shit about your caricature of poor people being stuck in a dead-end economy, but I really don't. What I'm saying is that, in total and as a percentage of their net worth, billionaires have a lot more at stake if the economy goes into the toilet. In Greece, that is mostly correct (except for the fact that, to begin with, they don't exactly have many billionaires anyway). As you point out, at a 50% inflation rate, they would lose almost e…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 06:51 PM
1

Legal doesn't always mean just. While I agree in principle, I'm not understanding why forced redistribution of property is supposed to be immune to this rule. They outsourced the enforcement of their accumulated property rights to the state. That's currently true of almost all property. So you agree that you don't really own your house or personal property because the police are protecting it? Great, I'm moving in next week.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 06:45 PM
1

Demand is only effective if backed up by money. Well, by trade of some sort, not necessarily money. But ultimately, yes. In a market sense, demand only means anything if someone is willing to exchange something for the item demanded. Otherwise we're no longer talking about markets. So unequal distribution of money distorts the information the market gets. One millionaire has as much to say as a million people with one dollar. Probably more, because it's easier to tailor your offer to the likings…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 06:44 PM
1

Obviously, there are some adults who like Rand's philosophy, but I think they are short sighted and out of touch as well. :-) Obviously there are some immature adults who still like communism, but they're short-sighted and out of touch as well. Do you seriously not see how retarded you're being? Anyway, here's an excellent article on the topic.... http://www.thenation.com/article/167564/other-america-2012-confronting-poverty-epidemic You just proved my point about the opposite of meritocracy bei…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:22 PM
1

Obviously, yes. Being good at earning money doesn't mean that you're good at making political decisions. It does give one hell of an incentive to be, though. A billionaire has a lot more to lose from the country going into the toilet than an everyman on welfare.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:20 PM
1

I'm sure these governments quantified their data too. Not the same as value. The value of a commodity can only be correctly quantified by giving the would-be buyers the option to trade for it. In the absence of price, everything goes wrong. You have no way of precisely knowing how many potatoes people want compared to meat, you have no way of knowing how much they're willing to trade in exchange for it, and you have no way to estimate how many people prefer employment in farming compared to any …
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:18 PM
1

What exactly is a "financial trick" and how do you distinguish it from the sweat of their brow? Did they take it from others? As far as I know, rich people don't go around pointing guns at people.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:13 PM
2

Have you ever actually read Ayn Rand's work? Bits and pieces. I don't particularly like her writing style or Objectivism. I've probably read more written by other Objectivists in total than of anything she ever wrote. I'm not a fan. I was a big fan of Rand when I was a teenager, but as soon as I got some life experience I realized how short sighted, cold, and unrealistic her worldview really is. Rand's philosophy hinges on meritocracy, the concept that the most gifted people rise to the top and …
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:37 AM
1

It isn't exactly a common occurrence for there to be food shortages in first world countries. Food is a commodity in these places. In the parts of the world where and when food was produced and distributed by governments, mass starvation regularly occurred.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 06:18 PM
1

So, not giving stuff to people is sociopathy. But pointing guns at people to force them to help other people, that's not sociopathic at all. Alright.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:54 AM
1

I love how no one bothered to respond to your point. Just downvote and move along. Fucking spineless cowards.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 07:05 PM
1

So I suppose it's just a coincidence then that those things that are commodified and monetized tend to be the most reliably produced and serviced?
/r/MensRights23/04/13 07:00 PM
1

The Internet.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 11:01 PM
1

So when I'm ordering a pizza, I should be able to buy a pizza with as many toppings as I want, while people with less money might not be able to afford the toppings they want? Yes. That's how property works. You can assert all you want that equality is some sacred right, but that neither convinces me nor makes it true.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 07:00 PM
1

The funny thing is that this is so obvious when you look at compared to everything else in life. Obviously a person who owns a piece of land is probably going to be the most interested person in maintaining that property. A person who owns a business will have the best incentive in making sure that business turns a profit. Et cetera. For some reason, it's only when it comes to politics that we expect the exact opposite behavior in people and are completely shocked when it fails.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 06:40 PM
1

I should have specified, but if you know UC Berkeley at all, it would be pretty clear which was the case. It was mostly non-whites or hyper-'liberal' whites threatening violence against the participants at the bake sale, not to equalize the prices but just generally upset at their message and demanding it be taken down. I don't recall any real arguments as to why it was so offensive or why the analogy wasn't valid. My guess is that, like most SJWs, passerby pedestrians immediately associated any…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 06:39 PM
1

Anything that has value should be able to have that value quantified.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 06:32 PM
0

they would obviously construct a system were they either paid nothing Obviously. Right, that explains why there is absolutely no charity in the world and no one ever donates anything ever. Because 'obviously' everyone is always only self-interested and will give up nothing for other human beings. Here's an idea. Maybe next time you make an argument, you could avoid assuming the very premise you're trying to prove. "We can't let people choose for themselves to be altruistic because people won't b…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 10:59 PM
3

I never said no 'social spending', whatever that is supposed to mean, should exist at all. What I'm saying is that only the people who are paying for it should get to decide if it is going to exist at all, how much, and exactly what it is going towards. Letting the beneficiaries decide is insane.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 10:55 PM
8

It was also the origin of democracy. It had nothing to do with giving everyone power. The Athenians understood that wealth ultimately comes from property and the polis gets all of its wealth and power from those who have property. Correspondingly, those with property should convene and decide amongst themselves what was to be done. It's only recently that the world went completely insane and decided to let the children set their allowance, while remaining completely shocked that they have no und…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 07:21 PM
4

From what I vaguely recall, they pretty much gave up after a few hours because of the excessive hostility. There are not many non-Democrats at Berkeley, and even fewer outspoken ones.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:59 PM
6

Am I actually that "fucked up" to believe that only people who pay taxes should have a say about how their money is spent? Okay. Apparently the idea of property is now inherently "fucked up", or I'm assuming there was a misunderstanding here? I didn't mean to suggest that only white males should be allowed to vote, I was saying that if this kind of society does happen and somehow it ended up that only white males ever have to pay taxes, it would be ethical to only allow them to vote.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:42 PM
12

No, they don't. Some white people have it easier. As a percentage of all whites, more whites "have it easier" than more blacks do as a percentage of all blacks, or any other race. That is not the same as saying "white people" have it easier.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:13 PM
2

You don't know Berkeley. I can assure you that if this one is a troll, there are twenty more people who genuinely agree with that point and would post the same thing.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:11 PM
26

People like this are popular at the university it came from. Professors are known to support stupid ideas like this. UC Berkeley openly supports anti-white policies. The last time someone protested admissions policy that favors non-whites by holding a joke bake sale in which the brownies would cost more for whites and less for different races, the protest was harshly received. People were threatening the participants with violence and demanding that the bake sale be stopped. It matters.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:09 PM
7

Could you actually make an argument for how this isn't leftist, or are you just expecting us to take your word for it?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:07 PM
54

It's not even the worst idea imaginable. It makes sense that only those who pay into the system should have a say as to where the money goes.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:05 PM
3

It really would be from UC Berkeley confessions. Goddammit. On behalf of all people from the Bay Area, I promise you, we are not all that insane. Just... most of the people here.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:04 PM
8

Not everyone here believes in political solutions. Criticisms of the state's actions without proposals to amend it are perfectly consistent if you are not a supporter of the state in power. It's like chastising peasants in the Soviet Union for not lodging formal complaints against the central government about the theft of all their crops. Sometimes it's just better to accept that your cause is not going to win, or if it is, then it will not be accomplished through legislative means.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 03:34 AM
4

Yes, it's a generalization. Of course it's a fucking generalization. Not all generalizations are created equal though. Not all dogs eat meat, but the vast majority of them do. Not all deer eat meat either, in fact you'd have a hard time finding even one that does. To say that "deer eat plants, dogs eat meat" is a generalization, but one that very closely approaches reality; to say "deer eat meat, dogs eat plants" is much further away from reality. So, yes, it's a generalization of feminist belie…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:06 PM
1

I just mean in terms of simple traits like average IQ, average strength. Males are slightly higher. So the statement is somewhat more true of males than females, but is of course also true for humans as a whole. I don't think I need to provide a source for something as non-controversial as these, but with education and illiteracy as it is, I could be wrong about that.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 06:45 PM
2

Because it is somewhat more true for human males. lol people are downvoting me. Biology don't real, only feels real.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 04:43 AM
5

Oh man, that gave me a good laugh. But downvotes are probably coming, better take shelter.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 06:15 AM
3

A car is not built for the sake of crashing, it is designed intentionally to be controlled at high speeds with plenty of failsafes to be able to come to a quick stop if necessary. Your genitals are not designed. Sex makes babies. We have only primitive control over these things even now, do not mistake modern contraception as being analogous to a vehicle specifically designed to prevent crashes.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 06:13 AM
2

Overall, would you characterize the legal system in your country as favorable or unfavorable to contracts? Generally speaking, are contracts upheld? In the United States, contracts are a fucking joke. Judges do whatever they like and blatantly favor women and ethnic minorities if the contract is perceived to be unfair in any way.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 06:11 AM
2

Having a safe space where women can talk to other women (which is completely optional to even visit) isn't discrimination against men. Yes, it is. It may be justified, benign discrimination, but it is in fact discrimination.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 06:05 AM
0

Not this kind of DV!
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:55 AM
3

It wasn't unnecessary. White males are perceived in our society to have privilege just by being white and male, but in reality they are at a higher risk of suicide than other ethnicities and compared to females. It's an important clarification and just because you shy away from talking about race doesn't mean you can deem a fact to be 'unnecessary'.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 12:55 AM
1

Why the avoidance of race? Ignoring a significant factor of human identity and relationships seems to me to be the sort of crap that keeps men unable to relate to each other.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 12:50 AM
12

Plus, these guys know what it's like to have wealth. Yeah, it's not like white males come from all sorts of families and income levels. Clearly they're all born with significant wealth.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 12:48 AM
3

Wait... what the hell? I'm confused here. Why are you, and almost everyone else here, assuming that a free discussion group is automatically "progressive discussion", whatever that means, and pro-egalitarianism? Doesn't assuming that all the members share certain values completely erode the entire purpose of a group for free discussion?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:16 PM
2

I definitely don't blame you. No one can force someone else to be courageous and risk their reputation on an important cause. I don't blame you and if we met in real life, I would probably get along with you just fine. But damn. I wish there were more courageous MRAs.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:13 PM
1

Because those both are profit maximizing firms, government does not maximize profit. The supply/demand curve for government expenditures is not the same. All that ignoring profit in the short-term does is sets up huge, insurmountable problems in the long-term. The governments take huge losses to pay for unsustainable products and services today, and tomorrow the money runs out and you have millions unemployed. I'm asserting things about the market that are defensible, charities do not face a dem…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:07 AM
1

As for crowding out a free market solution, again, the free market never provides for those without the resources to produce demand. Yes, it does. All the time. That's what charity is. People donate their labor, their expertise, their money and resources to organizations that aim for goals they agree with and prove they are doing something to accomplish. Your definition of a market is far too narrow, and you're just asserting things about markets that you can't prove to be true. You're not even …
/r/MensRights06/02/13 04:11 AM
1

I can't help but be incredibly skeptical about how they're defining "requires food assistance". It isn't defined on that page. In my view, it is the goal of successful policy to account for the reality as it stands, and not to pursue normative that are untested. There are lots of policies that could work, but how do we prove which do? And what evidence do we have that yours does? Well, my solution doesn't require anyone to have guns pointed at their head, so... I tend to prefer the most voluntar…
/r/MensRights05/02/13 09:12 PM
1

Why should we require a national policy at all then, if there is so much variation from place to place? You're basically saying that the nation is diverse so policy X that I'm proposing can't work, but policy Y can work despite the diversity, and you're not even arguing why.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 08:29 PM
29

We're not so far off across the Atlantic either, unfortunately. In California, if a mother claims a man is the father of a child and files for child support, the man has one month to file for and have a paternity test done, otherwise he is presumed to be the father and is legally responsible to begin making payments.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:17 PM
1

I highly doubt that. Take into consideration that you would either be forced to be an on demand fee for using a sidewalk and not allowed to drive or use the bus, or have internet access, or a phone (cellphone maybe), as all of those things are funded or were funded (created using government funding) with tax money. Which is why I specifically stated that I would find it disagreeable if I am still disallowed to seek out those services through alternative providers, as is currently the case. Think…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:08 PM
1

Try moving to northern BC, the land is decent (a bit cold) and there are virtually no people up there. I'm seriously talking like a population density of 50km per person. Heh. Wouldn't you know it, my life goal is to move to Alberta actually. Not BC exactly but I hear it's similar culture, climate, etc. Funny world we live in. No. I simply suggest not allowing you to use infrastructure that's paid for by taxes. With basic necessity's being the exception (water and waste management...that's about…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 07:22 AM
1

Do you ever wonder what makes these parts of the world worthwhile? You have the causation terribly mixed up. I am saying that those areas of the world that, in the absence of human settlement, would be ideal for human settlement, are already conquered by states. That is, I'm saying that most of North America compared to most of North Africa is really good land for human settlement, but it is entirely claimed by states. I am not talking about worthwhile in the sense of "made worthwhile by humans"…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:47 AM
2

I would in most cases also rather pay the cheapest option, assuming I am absolutely forced to pay for other people's poor decisions one way or another. If I have the option not to, I would abstain entirely. But it really rubs me the wrong way to think that in effect, my hard-earned money ends up paying for some idiot having twenty kids or having twenty would-be kids terminated. I hate that. I would rather only be contributing to my own success getting laid, I sure as hell don't want to subsidize…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:25 AM
-1

I don't have that option, no. States have conquered almost every worthwhile inch of land on this planet. Your argument looks utterly ridiculous when you think outside of mere decades and look at the bigger historical picture. What, I'm supposed to move to Somalia because American voters are idiots? Fact is that if I don't pay, you support violence to be used against me to get me to comply or punish me for non-compliance. How you can obfuscate that fact and say "not violence" is beyond me.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:21 AM
1

Based on what? The only ethical complication I see here is that waiting is a huge waste of time and resources and higher risks. To me, the ethical issue seems similar to vegetarianism. We don't necessarily need to eat meat, and the way that animals are raised and killed for meat is often unnecessarily cruel, and it's not hard to understand why vegetarians have an ethical complaint against eating meat. But at the end of the day, it really is just an animal. With abortion, one ends what otherwise …
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:20 AM
1

Criminals don't cost me anything. Get a gun, secure your home, take precautionary measures against theft, et cetera. I admit that luck is something of a factor here and I have been fortunate to have never been robbed, but luck is not the sole or primary factor at all. I don't like this notion that you're pushing, that the bad decisions that a few individuals make are the responsibility of everyone in a society to fix. I think that world view is dangerous and hostile to everything I believe in.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:11 AM
-1

Fair enough, at least you're honest. Just don't expect people to respect you when you admit you are willing to use violence against them in order to get them to comply with your demands.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:05 AM
1

Ten year old muggers. Well, I gotta say, just when you think there's nothing in this world that can surprise you anymore...
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:51 PM
1

You don't seem to understand. Most people right now who need food don't get it from the government, they get it from volunteers and charity. It isn't whether or not it's a "valid alternative". For all intents and purposes, it is the system. I see no reason to assume that people aren't generous enough to help people who really are in need. I do think that forcing people to pay into a shit system where most of the money goes to pay the overhead asshole bureaucrats is immoral.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:40 PM
2

My point was, if the mother cannot afford the food, and society doesn't pay for it, and the father doesn't pay for it, a magic food fairy is not going to rain chicken soup from the sky. If the mother truely cannot pay for the child's well being, some one has to, or it will die. Except that that isn't true at all, because people like me voluntarily donate their time to make sure that people in this country don't starve to death. We do so because we want to, not because some bureaucrat decides to …
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:32 PM
2

What the fuck? I never said that. I agreed with you that it's despicable to make men pay for unwanted children. Why the hell did you assume exactly the opposite?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:19 PM
-1

Okay, so you support beheading women for going out alone at night in Saudi Arabia, because although you recognize that it is am imperfect solution, the world is imperfect and so then so be it. Oh wait, no, you only pull out that fake apathy when it suits you, reserving the moral outrage whenever you deem necessary.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:06 PM
1

Would you like to construct an argument? What you said could be true of anything. The burden of proof is on the person suggesting that something is necessary. I don't have to argue for anything. Without support the child's quality of life suffers. As long as the improvement in quality of life is of better value to society as a whole than the cost to provide it, it is a good idea. Without a free car for the government, my quality of life suffers. You're assuming that I agree that reducing sufferi…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:04 PM
1

The reason I say it should be is for social imperative. There are a myriad of solutions to the problem of healthcare in the generic and specific. Single payer is, to my knowledge, the best option. If you have evidence to show why it is not, then be my guest. Social, social, social. Again, what you're talking about is the ethical nature of what "should be" done, and to make an ethical argument, you must make assumptions, justified or unjustified, about some theory of ethics. So, people like you w…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:01 PM
-1

It's a small enough price that I'm willing to support it. Alright. Well, I'm not willing to support it. Are you willing to force me to pay for it?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:56 PM
1

I agree that you shouldn't have to pay for stealth bombers.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:44 PM
1

Not so sure about this, at the state we're in, if we were having half as many children yet with the same amount of adults potentially able to parent them, we might be better off. I might agree with you a century past or so when fatality rates are higher, medicine sucked more, etc. If you're "not sure", then that says more about your ignorance (I don't mean this as an insult just in the literal sense, a lack of knowledge) about population demographics than anything about the issue we're actually …
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:44 PM
1

Yes. That is actually the most common example that I give. Forcing people to pay for a war they disagree with, which in every case means they are being forced to pay for what they see as only mass murder, is completely immoral. I'm not sure why you think I would disagree. Maybe you had me stereotyped as some kind of idiot neocon.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:32 PM
1

I'm not insulting you, you're the one insulting your own intellect by repeating false dichotomies. The lack of imagination thing isn't an insult, it's a commonly understood fallacy called the argument from incredulity, also known as the argument from ignorance. The most common cliché example of this is a creationist arguing that evolution is impossible because the creationist making the argument is incapable of imagining that all forms of life, including trees and humans and whales, developed fr…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:31 PM
1

Unfortunately it is. As much as it sucks to benefit people who don't plan ahead, the child needs to be taken care of. And given that the majority of people are beneficial to society as a whole, it is in our best interest to continue to do so. If it is "necessary", then in the time before there were laws for such things that now force taxpayers to pay for unwanted children, was it previously not necessary?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:21 PM
0

I didn't say anything about government except for the last caveat... so you can keep your projections to yourself. It's not about what you directly said, it's what is implied. If I say "that is a really nice house", all I'm doing is saying a particular house is nice. But the assumptions necessary to make such an assertion are that there are qualities that houses can have that make them look nice, and that this particular house has those qualities. You're saying that something "should be" the sys…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:19 PM
2

Shh, you're ruining my circlejerk. ;) Okay, whitehat 1 point, amatorfati 0. Your move. Out of curiosity, what interests you most about law?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:15 PM
2

You just asserted that if taxpayers don't subsidize unwanted children, they will starve to death. You then said: At the point the populace is willing to let the government decide. Thus far, the population has been very leary of the government having that type of intrusive jurisdiction in their lives unless there are pretty dire circumstances. Do you really not see the contradiction here? Is your ideology really that unoriginal?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:14 PM
2

And I'd prefer to pay for neither, but I'm not permitted that choice.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:12 PM
2

Except for the little fact that people typically don't starve in the streets in the first world. Like it or not, truth is that poverty especially in the United States is really not that bad. What is bad is the system for shuffling around orphans, but that's a separate point entirely. But to repeat myself again, your lack of imagination is not evidence that there are no alternatives between "taxpayers pay for unwanted children" to "kids starve to death".
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:12 PM
1

You can't just let children die in the gutter. It's a decent thing to be doing if we are a civilized society. That is not the only alternative. Your lack of imagination is not evidence.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:10 PM
1

When children are had by those who cannot afford them, they either become society's problem, or they die. Err, no. That simply isn't true. There are myriad alternatives to "everyone pays for the problem" and "starvation". Your lack of imagination is not evidence of there being no other way. The other alternative, is to pick a gender that tends to work longer and harder, force them to pay for it, and not give them any options about it's birth. What looks like the bad option now? Right, exactly, t…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:10 PM
0

So do I think it should be free? I don't know, maybe. But (1) I don't think that it will even be close to enough to solve the problem, and (2) I don't feel like I should have to pay for someone else to have safe sex. If you can't afford birth control, either don't have sex or accept the risks. The second point is exactly what settles the question for me. Goes also for the abortion question. I don't have a strong opinion on the legality or morality of abortion. I think any pro-choice person who s…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:42 AM
0

Yeah, but let's be honest here, how many lawyers do you know who are in it because it is the work they want to be doing most?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:46 AM
1

Too bad, bub. The law's the law. Okay. And the law is also extraordinarily misandrist in many ways, which MRAs here are constantly pointing out. The point being that the law is currently unjust and should be reformed, in pursuit of equality or justice or some other metric of a healthy human society. Just saying "welp that's the law" accomplishes absolutely nothing but blind conformism. The point is that if you don't agree that employers owe employees any benefits that some bureaucrat decides the…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:43 AM
1

should be Well, that strongly depends on your understanding and perspective on economics, ethics, and the role of government. Just bluntly asserting that your opinion in the correct one does absolutely nothing to persuade anyone who doesn't already share your value. Not even just that it fails to persuade people who already disagree with you and have an opposing value; but imagine that I have no strong opinion at all on the matter. Why would I be convinced by you just saying that your personal p…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:40 AM
17

Yes, but by saying this, you're assuming that it is also necessary for taxpayers to pay for unwanted children. It's basically a debate between fixing the problems of one bad solution with another bad solution, or questioning the value of the first bad solution and starting over.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:37 AM
1

Heh, holy shit, blast from the past. If we are discussing a deviance from norms I can understand calling it abnormal. I'm not sure I understand why we should call it a 'devolution' or 'degeneration' though. If we relate things to natural selection, are we judging the fitness of heterosexual intercourse based on the likelihood of producing babies? Not all of us want to judge fitness by likelihood of passing on genes these days. I understand that, but I only mean in terms of fitness. Not strictly …
/r/MensRights30/01/13 10:22 PM
7

Is that woman really as dumb as she appears to be? Yes. Generally speaking, assume that people are even dumber than they appear to be; it will get you places in life.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 07:06 PM
11

Two upvotes other than the commenter's own. Calm down, man.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 07:03 PM
69

Probably more like "you've got me", for but for some dumbass reason they unabbreviated it.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 07:03 PM
0

Oh ho ho, you sure got him! You're so clever, you! Can I join you guys in Sweden, where we can smoke a bowl and talk about Hitchens and make fun of those silly old Republicans??
/r/MensRights26/01/13 07:01 PM
1

While I agree with you in principle, surely you must admit that it is more benevolent for a government to mandate military training but not service in war for its citizens than for it to have a draft. Different names, and different degrees of slavery.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 07:00 PM
15

"Beware of those in whom the urge to punish is strong." — Friedrich Nietzsche
/r/MensRights26/01/13 05:28 PM
1

That's not a bad point actually. I'm all for options for opting out.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:45 AM
5

I'm curious, is there really much significance to the distinction? I have no strong opinions about it, but I'm interested in hearing an informed opinion.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:44 AM
13

Lots of countries have mandatory military service.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 12:26 AM
6

But at the same time, the law is terribly inconsistent about what incitement is okay and what isn't. Supporting abortion publicly is legal, but depending on your moral views, that could be seen as murder. Supporting war publicly is legal, and no one is ever arrested for inciting violence by suggesting war with a foreign country.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:19 PM
2

I'm saying that no, men won't choose to marry up because there are biological reasons for it. Sorry for the wall of words, but if I'd stated it that simply, I would be getting downvoted to shit because I'm holding an anti-egalitarian position without evidence. So I included the reasoning.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 12:54 AM
0

No. I'm sorry, but I'm getting pretty tired of every MRA in this subreddit assuming that everyone who participates here is a radical egalitarian in every possible sense. Do I support fair, 'equal' rights regardless of gender? Definitely. Do I believe, like so many others here do, that all humans are literally equal in terms of potential at birth? Hell no, I do not. Ask yourself why there has literally never been a culture that happened to follow the opposite pattern of women being the breadwinne…
/r/MensRights18/01/13 12:40 AM
7

It has been demonstrated to be generally true in plenty of cases presented in this subreddit. Feminists whine for child support laws in their favor but are extremely reluctant to admit that there are legitimate cases of single fathers who need financial support from a negligent mother. While one anecdote is definitely not evidence, I think most MRAs familiar with the movement know that this generalization stands to be true in most cases.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 12:30 AM
7

"420 blaze it faggots" — Adolf Hitler
/r/MensRights09/01/13 07:35 AM
1

I didn't say I don't judge them. I said I'd let them live their life. Why you insist on those being incompatible is beyond me.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 04:26 PM
1

You said that people bending their gender roles makes them undesirable to you. And it does. I prefer people who don't bend gender norms. You are assuming that being selective about who I spend my time with automatically means I want to control other people's lives. This is not at all the case.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 04:04 PM
1

I don't care if you think that gender norms are a good thing or not. I just don't understand why it bothers you how others live their lives? I never said it does, this is all you assuming things that you think must be true of how I feel.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:51 PM
1

I explained what I meant by faggot as I was using it. Didn't help, people will react the way they do anyway. I don't care. It bothers me because they tend to be horrible people to be around. 'They' meaning not homosexuals but slutty, entitled, degenerate people in general, and I know plenty of heterosexuals in that category also. I think most traditional gender norms are generally good, yes. If that makes me traditionalist, call me that. If you're going to use that label to stereotype me as a ba…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 09:44 AM
1

You are knowingly using a word that most people find offensive. If you didn't have an attachment to it, I'd think that you would take the easiest route. I tend to take offense at people trying to control what I say. What do you mean by desirable? I assume that you are not talking about them being sexually desirable? Desirable to be around, not just sexually. Do you consider yourself a traditionalist? I'm not even sure what that would mean.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 04:54 AM
1

I'm not particularly attached to the label. I'm using it just because I use it. To talk about this subject and not use the word would be deceptive. It's the people who hate what I'm saying it that are especially attached to the word and want me to stop using it. Flamboyant doesn't cover the whole idea, but it's a start. What I mean is that most commonly, homosexuality does not begin and end at "I am a person of this sex who likes members of the same sex", which is all that the word means on its …
/r/MensRights31/12/12 04:41 AM
1

I was referring to the common usage, in other words, the usage that most of the people downvoting me seem to hold. In that sense, yes, there can be a person I would call a homosexual but not a faggot. In my interpersonal usage with friends though, faggot has lost its potency as a slur and this distinction would be meaningless. Hopefully that clears that up, not that it will make a difference to my political enemies.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:36 AM
1

I realize this term can become affectionate between friends, but considering it's derived from a term for kindling and you don't want to set him on fire (or is it derived from being 'flaming'?) doesn't using it get kinda creepy sometimes? Black people don't seem to have much of an issue with calling each other niggers, despite the particularly strong history behind that word's usage. No, not really, it doesn't get too weird. Ignoring the 'PoS' which is essentially meaningless, can you clarify wh…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:32 AM
1

It's akin to the difference between straight-faced calling someone a nigger, and two people jokingly calling themselves or each other 'niggas'. Faggot can be a slur but I've also seen many people turn it around as a mark of pride for themselves.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:18 AM
1

but even so, I prefer having a bias towards the unusual than a bias towards the norm. And I prefer a bias towards the norm. So, now we're just arguing subjective preferences. Chocolate or vanilla, blah blah blah. Whatever, I've made my point and your argument has been reduced to petty preferences that you're probably still going to moralize.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:28 AM
-3

I use the word faggot as a neutral term. People around here have no issue identifying as a faggot, it has lost its impact as a slur here for the most part. The sexuality, I couldn't care less about. Oh, okay, so you happen to like your same gender instead of the opposite like most people. Wow, that bothers me so much! No, it doesn't, it is not the sexuality that I have a problem with. I can't really make that any clearer, you'll either believe me or you won't about it. What I do have a problem w…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:26 AM
1

Worse, it's often difficult to realize you've made a mistake due to confirmation bias and the fact that you won't get to know most people well enough to be sure. I was also afraid of this, until I realized that people like you (no offense intended, I just mean people who shy away from generalizations) have the exact opposite bias. You experience confirmation bias against any evidence that shows a majority of a group being bad. I noticed this because I had friends a lot like myself when I conside…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 12:37 AM
-3

The likelihood of irresponsibility increases dramatically with the number of partners a person has, in my perspectives. This is of course a generalization. There could be some polyamorous couples out there that are very stable, very loving and caring and perfectly healthy people to be around. Those are anomalies. Let me give you a more controversial example. My best friend is homosexual and I really do care for him and I have no real issue with his sexuality per se. But if someone asks me out of…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 11:51 PM
2

This is really funny in contrast to your username. Your post makes you seem like an awesomely rational, and stoic person. But then I read the username.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:59 AM
5

Herrdurr, you don't agree with my opinions? I BET YOU'RE A REDNECK WHO WATCHES FOX NEWS. Really?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:21 PM
11

Life is personal, politics affects the personal. Get over it.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:13 PM
1

Also, I don't know that having custody of my daughter renders me incapable of considering the other point of view. You're right, I apologize, that isn't exactly what I meant to say. I meant more that because you're in a comparatively favorable situation, you may not be considering it from the point of view of the OP. You're assuming that it is at all possible to get 50/50 custody. I agree that this would be ideal but the law as it is now is far from ideal. Most likely, fleeing is his best option…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:42 PM
3

That's exactly why you aren't capable of considering the other point of view. Your daughter is still in your life and you have a healthy relationship together. Imagine having no right to see your daughter regularly, and having no control over what her mother tells her about you. No control over how your money is spent, but you still have to work to support a family that in a very real sense is not yours at all anymore. No watching the Grinch, no decorating the tree. You are the Grinch, as far as…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:16 PM
1

What if you accidentially drop a knife and it kills someone?...intent matters. Intent ≠ motive. Intent is whether or not you meant for them to die, motive is why you wanted them dead. Of course intent matters, but I can't understand how motive could possibly matter outside of proving the crime. Yeah, you would be surprised at how often dictionary's get things wrong. That is certainly true, but that isn't an argument for why your definition, which is at odds with every other usage I've ever come …
/r/MensRights04/12/12 09:34 PM
1

Fair enough comparison, but I would say it is slightly worse from a moral standpoint to stab someone because their black than to stab them because they are trying to kill you. Either way results in you stabbing and killing someone, but the reason is what separates them. Not the best analogy, but it will do. And I completely disagree. I don't care what the motive is, if the result is the same. I also think that if you try to justify why you think it should be the case that racial "hate crimes" ar…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 09:06 PM
1

I am simply drawing a line between doing nothing (not opening your door to the homeless guy) and doing something bad (making a point to keep him on the streets for being black). They are both doing nothing, just doing nothing for different reasons. Stabbing a guy because he is black is as bad as stabbing a guy because you don't like the color of his jeans, or the way he walks, and these are both of examples of positive harm, a phrase I am making up as analogous to the concept of positive versus …
/r/MensRights03/12/12 07:01 PM
2

I also have a general distaste for murder, but I'm sure there are others who do not, but should that be legal? That's not analogous at all. Murder actually does positive (versus negative) harm on someone. Not employing someone arguably does "harm" to them, but only in the same way that not allowing homeless people into your house all the time also "harms" them. Sure, if you're going to argue that property rights are harm, then do that. But at least be consistent. I can't stand inconsistent anti-…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 06:27 PM
1

But I still have a moral objection to anyone hiring or firing someone based on non-relevant traits which they cannot change (being black, or male, or female, or whatever) That's fine, but please, keep that moral obligation 'to yourself'. By that I mean, feel free to preach it all you want, but don't ask that it should be enforced by law. I have a general distaste for abortion, for example, bordering on 'moral indignation' or something similar, but I acknowledge that in reality a woman should ult…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 05:01 AM
0

While I appreciate your agreement, I think it's rooted more in our disagreements than on any principles we actually have in common. You seem to want 'deregulation' (I hate the word 'regulation' becomes it presumes that laws do in fact successfully regulate the market, it's circular argumentation) because you're a pragmatist who realizes the ideal can't really successfully be regulated by law. I, on the other hand, am coming at this from also an idealist standpoint. I don't care what is pragmatic…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 04:51 PM
5

that's not a legitimate reason to refuse to hire that candidate. According to you. What standard do you propose to legally differentiate between factors that are legitimate to discriminate for, and factors that are illegitimate? I propose that every employer has the right to decide. And to accordingly face the social and economic consequences of their choices. You propose, what? Whatever democracy decides is popular at the moment? Be aware that democracy has made some fairly awful choices in the…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 07:59 AM
2

Nobody will keep all of their promises if they are elected to office. Nobody will not disappoint you. Nobody will let you keep your own money and let you decide how to spend it. Nobody will let you decide what to do with your own body. Vote Nobody! ;)
/r/MensRights02/12/12 07:28 AM
6

Depends on your definition of "fair". I know this is an unpopular opinion even amongst MRAs, but I don't care, it's what I truly believe and I'm going to say it. I believe in property rights. Real and total property rights. So long as no one is being harmed, I believe you have the right to use your stuff however you want. Harm in the sense of negative rather than positive rights. For example, saying that by owning a home I am "harming" homeless people by refusing them a free room is not a valid …
/r/MensRights02/12/12 07:25 AM
12

Hilariously, you were downvoted, even though it is a fact of life that being black gives you a legal and social advantage for getting into universities.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 07:18 AM
3

No, I understand your point, don't get me wrong. I know you're not actually taking up that position. What I am trying to say, and I could have been more direct about it, is that cultural relativism is not a valid excuse. Because if that was the motive for the statements made, then to correctly apply cultural relativism it should have been stated in a neutral manner and equally applicable to all points of view. You don't just single out the white kids and tell them stop thinking so "white", you t…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:02 AM
6

Devil's Advocate here, if the person was talking about cultural relativism I could see their point to an extent however the wording does not suggest this at all so I doubt that was the intention. Except they are only being told not to think "white, American, heterosexual, male", and so on. Nothing told to black students about not thinking like black people, to homosexuals about not thinking homosexually, et cetera. That isn't neutral at all, it's specifically hostile to white American heterosexu…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:39 PM
3

How does this have anything to do with men's right? A crazy ex and (apparently) serial shakedown artist targets a rich guy and the case gets thrown out...7 years ago. It's the system working as it should. Really? You believe this kind of lawsuit should be legal?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:38 PM
6

I get weird looks when I hang out with my younger cousin. He's not even eight years younger than me.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:27 PM
2

They were fluffy? That makes it worse!
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:08 PM
2

Stupid or not, that's a matter of personal taste. I would rather err on the side of freedom. The school allows groups of all other sorts. There are Christian groups, Moslem groups, Jewish groups. I don't see by what standard they could prohibit groups about race. The groups are not closed to people of other races though, at least not strictly speaking they wouldn't prevent you from joining.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:57 PM
3

Anything beyond that, and you are in supremacist/hate country. No. There are legitimate race issues that whites face. At the high school I attended, you could start a club for any ethnic group except white. Black Pride, totally fine. Moslem Brotherhood, it's all good. White Pride? NOPE, HATE GROUP.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:46 AM
6

Or all three.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:40 AM
1

I suspect most republican-like thinking people would keep obeying and most liberals would be more likely to disobey. . Get back to /r/politics.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:34 AM
3

I unfortunately think that's unlikely. :(
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:33 AM
0

So legislation that protects all women's bodily autonomy is violating someone's right to be bigoted? Excuse me for not giving a shit. No, legislation that forces other people to pay for that 'autonomy' is a violation of rights. And legislation that outlaws hiring discrimination is bad because it limits employers' freedom to be racist and sexist? No thanks, I'm not buying it. I don't care what you're 'buying' or not, it's a simple fact that if you seek to prevent business from discriminating base…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:17 AM
1

You're generalizing as though a minority's issues only ever affect the minority though. This is only rarely the case. For example, consider the question of whether public funds can justly be used to pay for subsidized abortion. Is it right that the federal government pays for things that a considerable portion of the population considers immoral? As a pro-choice and non-religious individual myself, I oppose Planned Parenthood because I believe that pro-life people should not be forced to pay for…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:16 AM
2

Source?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:05 AM
58

"Dammit, Timmy, man up and get in these pink pajamas."
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:31 AM
2

Oh, god. That place creeps me out. I had no idea it existed until your comment. It's like they just want an excuse to publicly shame people they don't like. They ban people for being "fascist". Not the kind of 'anarchism' I'm in to. Real freedom is not dictated by the will of a mob.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 10:04 PM
3

Okay, I'd honestly like to know, what did I say that was so wrong that I deserve downvotes? I'm not saying socialism is incorrect or bad, I'm saying that Cultural Marxism is very common in university clubs and gives socialism a bad name.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 05:25 AM
12

The club is about socialism That is the source of your problem. I am not making this comment about socialism in itself, so let's not go down that road. What I do want to point out is that in the last century, socialism gradually became more and more infested with issues of minority persecution, even those that have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. This is what is meant by the term "Cultural Marxism", in other words, everything that is often associated with university-educated middle-c…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 03:46 AM
7

What passes for "liberalism" these days is surprisingly illiberal.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 03:29 AM
1

It's not that it's not acceptable to laugh out loud, but commenting just to say you laughed out loud adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:05 AM
10

You know what? We can pretty much simplify this to: don't try this unless you happen to be traveling back in time to your specific ethnic homeland, and in an era when your ethnic group was relatively well off. And had a decent life for commoners. In other words, just don't mess with time travel, kids.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:44 PM
1

We should ban homosexuality BECAUSE IT MESSES UP SCIENCE. /s
/r/MensRights07/11/12 11:01 PM
0

Meh, what's a capital city or two between friends?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 10:42 PM
6

I voted against this as soon as I realized "trafficking" was not being defined clearly, and that the measures intended to be used against said "traffickers" were absurdly draconian. Revealing your online identities? Really? Too bad the vote didn't do any good.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 10:37 PM
2

So, that was one hell of a lobotomy, eh?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:30 PM
7

I humbly invite you to r/Anarcho_Capitalism/.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 10:11 PM
3

Thank you for the insightful English lesson.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 08:55 PM
1

Well, I agree with you that humans aren't chimps at all when it comes to sex, but I'd phrase it differently. Because alpha is still a useful descriptive term for human societies too, but it is in no way the same as an alpha gorilla, or an alpha chimpanzee. Because, contrary to what the radical feminists and pseudoscience anthropologists will tell you, human beings do in fact tend towards monogamy, especially in societies with stable agriculture and populations larger than a few hundred people. S…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:25 PM
1

In my beloved state of California, if you're accused of being a father, you will get a letter in the mail and you have thirty days from time time the letter is sent (whether you receive the letter or not) to contest the paternity claim. If you don't, the state assumes you are the father and will begin taking money from your paycheck to pay your child support. Might be a good one to talk about. Less likely to stir up feminist rage against you. Whatever you decide, good luck! Tell us how it goes.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:20 PM
8

OP didn't say it was sexist or offensive, just that it's annoying. It is sexist though if a women looks at a man with this attitude, sleeping around with lots of women, and then trying to settle down with a nice girl when he's had all his fun, and calls him a man-whore, but thinks this attitude is perfectly fine for women to have.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:17 PM
3

From the Wiki article on chimpanzees: "Chimpanzees mate throughout the year, although the number of females in estrus varies seasonally in a group. Female chimps are more likely to come into estrus when food is readily available. Estrous females exhibit sexual swellings. Chimp mating tends to be promiscuous, with females mating with multiple males in her community during estrus. As such, males have large testicles for sperm competition. However, other forms of mating also exist. A community's do…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:06 PM
8

You are mistaken. Chimps do try to fuck all the females, and females do sneak around and fuck all the males that they are able to, but mostly alphas watch over their harems as best as they are able to and kill any betas who try to steal their females. It of course isn't 100% "ONLY alphas get sex" but it is far, far closer to that end of the spectrum than it is with us humans in our, thankfully, "patriarchal society".
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:19 PM
3

I actually had to stop watching the video halfway through because it just became too depressing. Thanks for sharing it.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:13 PM
1

I'm not trying to be dramatic and exaggerate the situation for the sake of making it worse than it seems and drawing pity from people. No, but slavery is literally what we're talking about here and I call things what they are. Slavery is "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household", according to thefreedictionary.com. Laws that force men to pay for children they never fathered, or did father but unwillingly, or that force underage boys who were raped to pay…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 07:49 PM
1

I'm tired of trying to 'politely stick up' for myself against people who seek to enslave me.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:31 AM
0

But there is no culturally entrenched movement that prevents women from saying that men are less important. Try imagining a politician saying that feminist issues are less important than men's rights; they'd be crucified.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:21 AM
1

I wanted to see it the way you do too, and for the longest time I convinced myself that most feminists don't see me as the enemy. Well, maybe the average feminist doesn't actively hate men for being men and maybe they don't fully grasp the issues they bicker about. But when women demand free reproductive healthcare paid for by everyone else, that is an assault against men whether or not they understand it as that. When they lump together their demands for free subsidized reproductive healthcare …
/r/MensRights27/10/12 09:14 PM
2

bluthru already made the best point to be made against yours so I won't say much here, but I will add this: calling it "feminism" makes gender equality sound inherently feminine. It makes it sound as though, if history had been different and males had been the sex stuck at home with the kids, then their struggle for equality would still be feminine in nature. This simply should not be the case. There is nothing inherently feminine about gender equality per se. Call egalitarianism what it is, or …
/r/MensRights27/10/12 09:03 PM
37

Then why call it feminism?
/r/MensRights27/10/12 07:34 AM
1

But also basically recanting a fixed single-use interpretation of most passages. I'm gonna side with the_raptor on this one and say that Protestantism as a whole is more focused on Bible study and individual relationship with God than Catholicism. Source: Born and raised Catholic until teenage years when family became Baptist, now I'm atheist (for lack of a better word).
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:27 PM
14

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." — G.K. Chesterton
/r/MensRights24/10/12 10:13 PM
18

You can safely group everyone in an ideology together if that ideology can fairly be said to include the thing you're grouping them for. For example, if I made a joke like "haha those Christians, they read the Bible", it wouldn't be a very funny joke but it would at least be accurate for 99.99999% of Christians. Not all groupings are necessarily inaccurate but you must have an actual standard for why you are grouping people together.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 10:07 PM
1

Your question is fair, and well-intentioned and I sense you're sincere. So my answer is... it's comparatively "quite well". I'm talking from a very long view of history, not this modern reinterpretation that is so popular these days. You can't just compare China to some utopian standard of a healthy society and call that a reasonable measure. If you're going to come up with any useful standard of growth, you have to be fair and compare them to A) what they came from, and B) what they're competin…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 09:47 PM
7

Nonsense. Their pollution is not so much of a problem compared to the West at the time of our own industrialization; all the moral indignation about the problem of Chinese pollution is completely ignoring the fact that it's comparatively easy for the Western nations to clean up their act after so much wealth has been generated. Even if there were to be "mass deaths", compared to the increase in their quality of life that industrialization is giving them right now I would expect their population …
/r/MensRights23/10/12 11:57 PM
2

Hey now! What's wrong with having a mental disorder? ;) I'll admit I am a little needlessly argumentative at times, but this is not one of those times. Men's Rights is about advocacy for change of the legal system as well as social change. Denying that political change is a necessary step to a better world for men (and women) is being unnecessarily divisive, and really just doesn't make sense when the subreddit you're posting in is so clearly politically oriented.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 02:36 AM
2

Public policy is very skewed against men. Are you seriously saying that if we change social opinion alone, we can leave the current child support laws in place and nothing would be wrong with that?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 02:02 AM
-1

Fact is not political opinion, and legislation that forces people to hire or pay people a certain way depending on their sex is extremely relevant to this subreddit. Addendum: if you don't like "politics", you shouldn't subscribe to a subreddit called Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:57 AM
1

And so because he is in their same racial group, he is responsible for their actions? In that case I want my TV back you damn nigger, and Arabs owe us two brand new shiny towers in Manhattan. Except, wait, that's not how responsibility works.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 11:36 PM
1

Chattel slavery was not at all unique to Western civilization. Not even close, not even a little. And it was not the worst of all possibilities. Moslems took African slaves systematically too, but they castrated their male slaves, and so there are no lasting African populations left in the Arab world centuries later now demanding reparations; they were simply not permitted to breed as a population. Now, which is more evil between this or being born into slavery is debatable, but either way we ca…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 11:32 PM
1

This is difficult to do when you grow up in a very liberal metropolitan area in the last twenty years. Source: born and raised in California near Berkeley, almost every single acquaintance of mine would qualify as a "radical leftist", which isn't even radical here, it's just leftist.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 11:24 PM
6

From thefreedictionary.com: Usual or ordinary in kind and character. Yes, the precise mathematical definitions would mean that "mode" is more appropriate than "average", but considering that statistical definitions are different from algebraic definitions, there's really no point to nit-picking about the difference between mode and average when it's very very clear that what I mean is that to be white is numerically more common/usual/normal/average than it is to be non-white. Whatever word you u…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 10:46 PM
2

So get a bigger military budget, invest in technology so that you need less men compared to your enemies, and for god's sake, train them. The necessity of a military is no argument for kidnaping young boys and forcing them to be killers, and it's ineffective anyway at that.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 09:25 PM
1

Of course this is the case, but don't you see? The fact that even feminists cannot deny the obvious biological differences here show that gender egalitarianism is as fundamentally untenable position. That is a very good thing for us! We need to be point out those inconsistencies until the dissonance is too much to bear for the average person.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:42 PM
1

Can't answer for M4n, but in my opinion, that is the best way to walk away if it's possible for you. If not, there are ways of becoming comparatively self-reliant within a declining empire.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:40 PM
2

I agree with you because I'm no gender egalitarian, but take this into consideration. The people behind policies that encourage this kind of over-reporting, and the policies that get innocent men expelled and arrested without evidence on rape charges, and so on... these people are always gender egalitarians, feminists, whatever they want to call themselves but the point is that they do believe the sexes are equal and so, to be consistent, they should believe a woman poses as much threat to men w…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:17 PM
24

Yes, maybe. And maybe the last Arab I saw was actually a terrorist plotting at that very moment their next attack. It doesn't matter. These women, unless they left some very significant details out, had no reason to believe those men (or that man) had any intention of harming them, none, at all. Similarly I can assume evil intentions of anyone I want to, but if I expect others to take me seriously, especially legal authorities, I better damn well have evidence to back me up and not just bigotry.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:10 PM
2

I think if you start skipping and they follow suit, then something weird is going on.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:03 PM
12

That's literally what average means. Whites are the majority, the average American is white. It isn't a judgmental term, it doesn't imply "average is better", it just means that yes, in fact, white is average.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:57 PM
0

Classy.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:43 AM
2

They don't have any idea of history. In school I was taught that whites killed the native population of the Americas. I'm of Mexican descent, I grew up hating white people. Years later I read all the history I could find, and to my shame, discovered that the historical consensus is that about 90% to 99% of the native population of the Americas was killed completely unintentionally by smallpox and other Eurasian diseases. The myth of the smallpox blankets did happen in a few isolated incidents bu…
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:24 AM
4

In other words, you pointed out that the reeducation camps have made little boys into castrated genderless beasts, and one of the castrati got mad at you. Well, what else did you expect? Keep up the good work! No one ever became anything worthwhile in this world without pissing off some plebs.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 09:36 PM
0

Here is a better analogy. It isn't bothersome that the Japanese have their own racial categories through which they see the rest of the world, and in fact it's absolutely right that they have those. What isn't right is if the Japanese sent cultural missionaries here whose sole mission was basically to get Americans to accept and use the Japanese perspective, and Americans who refused to see themselves as a distinct 'other' were branded as bigots.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 09:30 PM
4

Right, because the woman in question, she was a total honey.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 08:48 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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