TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

carrutstick Archive

View 0 posts and 40 comments by carrutstick 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)
38

The government has actually required that schools take action on sexual assault, under an interpretation of the Title IX equal opportunity statute. Note that a university investigation does not preclude a criminal investigation, it's a parallel process with lower standard of evidence and lesser potential punishments.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 05:41 PM
10

For the good of everyone here, maybe you should just keep these opinions to yourself? The last thing this sub needs is to get further mixed up with the "racism is over" morons.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 04:38 PM
1

Not an inconvenient truth, but an actively harmful half-truth. If y'all stuck to the science I wouldn't have so much of a problem, but you don't. You go out extrapolating, spouting bullshit like "men are better at engineering" and "women are naturally hypergamous", trying to say that this is the natural order of things when the weight of evidence is that these effects are due to socialization. By resting your philosophy on these ideas you're actively making it harder to create a more equal socie…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 02:48 PM
6

If you have the time to waste constructing a less flippant response, please do so.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 04:44 AM
9

You're assholes for using language like "if women were not all inherently" and "women are self proclaimed victims", and for encouraging that sort of antagonistic mindset. You're assholes for assuming that the sexual dichotomy between engineering and communication is one of nature, when we've never had a society where we did not influence these preferences with nurture. It's lazy, it's bullshit, and it doesn't belong here.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 04:26 AM
14

Broadly? Gender essentialism and gender antagonism.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 01:47 AM
45

The thought crossed my mind until I actually went and read TRP's manifesto. Pretty much everything on there directly contradicts what I want the MRM to advocate and how I want it to present itself.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 09:09 PM
7

But this is not so much a discussion about why our norms are what they are, as a discussion about what we want our norms to be. Just because there's a reason something developed a certain way doesn't mean we should be enforcing the status quo.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 07:24 PM
7

I actually disagree with that second part. The fitness test for promotion is not there because you have to be physically strong to be an officer, but because you have to show discipline and work ethic. If women, on average, must work harder to achieve the same level of physical fitness, then that should be taken into consideration for the purposes of promotion.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 12:12 AM
2

"I agree with what he's saying, but I don't like how he says it or the fact that he's associated with a group that I've heard bad things about."
/r/MensRights20/12/13 08:04 PM
30

Wouldn't being able to kill your abuser in their sleep show that you were not so far gone that you couldn't muster the drive to just leave?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 05:55 AM
7

Easy: you start from the assumption that women are oppressed, and then sisterhood becomes a vehicle towards equality.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 08:31 PM
2

It varies a lot by state.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:39 PM
12

Just to clarify, you mean more deaths per cases of cancer rather than more deaths per person. About 100X as many women as men die of breast cancer.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 08:24 PM
2

That varies a lot by state.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 01:42 AM
1

Maybe you could start by saying exactly what point you're trying to make? Do you disagree that people are (legally speaking) presumed innocent until proven guilty? Do you disagree that this implies that a vertict of "not guilty" means you are presumed innocent? If not then I think you just need to brush up on your reading comprehension, because nobody has made any claims beyond this.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:18 PM
1

As I have stated, and as you seem to keep ignoring, no-one here is disagreeing with you. No-one has said that people are proven innocent in court. What has been said is that if you are not found guilty in court, then you are presumed innocent. Would you care to disagree with this statement?
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:00 PM
2

What misinformation? Everyone here seems to completely agree.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 09:42 PM
3

Again, he didn't say that the person in question had been proven innocent, but that they were innocent "for all intents and purposes", i.e. they should be treated as though they were innocent.. This is simply the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty."
/r/MensRights12/09/13 08:02 PM
3

Nobody's saying that a person is proven innocent, but that they should be treated as innocent if they are not found guilty.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 07:29 PM
1

Did you bother to look one level up in the thread before accusing me of trolling? We were discussing wardog77's comment: The accuser was found to be intentionally lying... Now unless I'm mistaken, no such thing was found. The judge decided they were more likely lying than not, but it being a civil matter, this is different from a decisive verdict that they were lying. Looking at this article, which has a better description of the decision, it looks like the judge simply thought that the alleged …
/r/MensRights28/08/13 04:19 AM
2

No, but you can prove someone is lying, which is how false accusations are prosecuted in criminal court. It's an important distinction between "they didn't have any evidence for their claim" and "it was shown that they falsified the claim".
/r/MensRights28/08/13 03:58 AM
1

The accuser was found to be intentionally lying Just pointing out that this was not the case.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:54 AM
1

And that means they were lying?
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:49 PM
4

As far as I can tell, there was no evidence that the accusers were intentionally lying; they just didn't have any evidence to back up their claims.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:26 PM
0

Pointing out logical inconsistencies: bratty. Calling someone childish and retarded: solid debate tactic. Got it.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 07:35 PM
1

At what time was alimony not understood as part of marriage? Maybe back before divorce was a legitimate option? Either way it's understood now. If your spouse sacrifices their career to support yours, you expect to have to compensate them if the relationship dissolves.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 07:32 PM
0

But why not? Either way, your argument is that by doing this, you helped them gain those assets. So how can you be entitled to more than half? You're getting paid for what you actually earned. The argument is that you didn't simply help them gain those assets, but you also helped them get into a position where they could earn more in the future. That's a pretty straightforward argument for having those future assets be split. If you don't want to pay alimony, you have perfectly valid options: ei…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 07:27 PM
-1

Do you have a source for that? The last couple of survey's I've seen show men wanting marriage more then women.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 10:21 PM
-2

Same difference. You got into the marriage knowing more-or-less what the consequences would be if/when it ended. Alimony exists specifically so that a couple can decide to have one partner work and the other play a supporting role, without the supporting partner being completely vulnerable should the marriage end.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:27 PM
-5

Counterpoint: you make the decision to get married, and then expect not to be accountable to the legal implications of that marriage...
/r/MensRights26/08/13 08:53 PM
1

Was there a contract agreement made at that time that said they would be compensated for doing so? Yes, if it was understood as part of the marriage, which it is by default if alimony is the law of the land.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 08:52 PM
11

Because sometimes the sacrifices made for a partnership impact one partner's potential to earn future income? If I give up on my own career to support my spouse's career, then just splitting the assets earned during the marriage is not going to come close to compensating me for what I've given up. Of course, this is not really the standard applied in practice, but it's sound in theory.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 07:34 PM
1

Not sure how your statement contradicts mine. As an example, an employer might assume due to his own prejudice that he's going to make less money by hiring a black person than a white one. When enough employers have such prejudices, it creates a system of self-fulfilling prophecies and guilt by association that make it harder for an individual black person to get a job, or land a contract, regardless of his own merits.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 06:59 PM
7

So all hardship is really a privilege of sorts, because it makes you stronger? Man, the poor and downtrodden sure are lucky! This still just sounds like rationalization to me. No doubt when society buckles, today's elite will be eaten by the poor, but for the forseeable future being white is just about universally advantageous.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 09:52 PM
3

I claim the average white person of any wealth has more opportunity to improve their lot than the average minority of the same wealth. See, as a small example, the study I linked in my other reply.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 07:49 PM
3

Nobody claims that there aren't poor white people or that all white people have power. What is claimed is that there are advantages that almost all white people have when getting out of poverty, or when acquiring power. If you have light skin and can learn to adapt your accent, then you can make a first-impression that is simply unavailable to most people of color. Even having a white-sounding name makes you more likely to be called for a job interview than a minority with eight years more exper…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 07:43 PM
9

I have a hard time swallowing the idea that white people in the western world are not, in most facets of well-being, privileged over people of color. What are these rules that minorities don't have to follow, and how do they compare with the lifelong lack of social and economic opportunity experienced by many minorities?
/r/MensRights15/08/13 06:59 PM
2

All she did is let her hormones overrule her logic. This doesn't jive with her statement from the article: I kept thinking "Stop! Stop! Stop!" It doesn't sound like she was overcome with desire or seduced; it sounds like she simply failed to assert herself. Failing to assert lack of consent is not the same as giving consent.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 11:39 PM
2

Source?
/r/MensRights14/01/13 04:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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