TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

cmcagle Archive

View 5 posts and 78 comments by cmcagle on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

I understand Mr. Quintana's grief, but this girl didn't deserve jail time. There's more to this story. Ms. Campbell had no experience with firearms at all. She was over at her boyfriend's house and he was showing off his guns. At his direction, she was playing with a handgun, pointing it at the camera he was holding. He instructed her to rack the slide and she accidentally pulled the trigger. The last few minutes before Mr. Quintana died are on video, and it's clear that this was a tragic accide…
/r/MensRights09/01/16 05:40 AM
1

It seems really unlikely that the fraternity will prevail in this case. That isn't to say that Rolling Stone was anything but negligent--perhaps even to the point of "actual malice"--in their reporting, but groups have an extremely difficult time successfully suing for defamation. Generally, groups larger than about 25 people simply can't be defamed under the law; according to the complaint, Phi Kappa Psi has 54 members. Here is some good background on defamation law that explains it pretty well…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 05:23 AM
2

But talking about it on the internet and forming an opinion on it in the way he did is unethical. First of all, this prosecutor didn't make any statement that had a "substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding," to quote the ABA Rule you linked above. Second, you're a buffoon with zero understanding of the law if you think it's unethical for a prosecutor to form an opinion on a case he's prosecuting. FFS, that's their actual job: to look at arrests and form an opinion as to wheth…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:30 PM
1

Ok, in that case the defense attorney might have a legitimate argument that his client did not intelligently and knowingly waive his right to remain silent, which would lead to the suppression of the confession.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 03:26 PM
1

What's the alternative? Is the defense attorney going to claim that his defendant was too drunk to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to remain silent, but not too drunk to drive?
/r/MensRights05/11/15 02:55 PM
10

It may be libel, not slander, but that has nothing to do with the depth of the defendant's pockets. Slander is spoken, libel is written.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 01:01 AM
1

Sorry about that, but can I get some clarification? I was careful to crop out all names except for Clementine's, which I left because it was posted to her "public figure" page and set to global visibility. Is this not allowed?
/r/MensRights30/11/14 05:06 PM
9

You mean the way spurious accusations of racism stopped when Obama took office? Dude if Hillary wins, this sort of idiocy will be rebroadcast and amplified so much that the current fever-pitch will seem calm by comparison.
/r/MensRights10/10/14 02:04 AM
6

Hessler — who has described herself as “midwives assistant, roller-derby queen, rock-star musician, activist, dreadlock princess, African-bee keeper and organic vegan freak” — showed up at Zuccotti Park a year ago and threw herself into the Occupy movement. I swear, if you invented such a caricature of OWS protesters, nobody would believe it.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 09:53 PM
22

This is sophistry of the worst sort. Here's how to counter it. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "sexism" has a specific, technical meaning within the field of sociology which requires a systematic, institutionalized imbalance of power. The question then becomes whether this specific, technical meaning is the one which should be applied when people talk about "sexism" in everyday conversation. It seems obvious that it isn't; in fact, here's the dictionary definition of sexism: sexism …
/r/MensRights27/05/14 06:47 PM
10

Thank you, this is exactly what I was coming to say. "Pussy" as slang for female genitalia is a derivative of Old English and German words meaning "a small pouch" and "hairy." "Pussy" as an insult indicating cowardice is the shortened noun form of pusillanimous. They're homonyms. I wonder if "don't be a dick" is similarly banned.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 06:16 PM
2

Virginity is a social construct? What now, hymens don't real because Patriarchy?
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:46 AM
7

I think the genesis of the term "rape culture" can be traced to this book, copyrighted in 1993. The earliest result for "rape culture" on Lexis Nexis is a January 16, 1994 Washington Post review of that book. Sexual Violence was reviewed in the same issue. It was written by an NYC sex crimes prosecutor and detailed some aspects of rape culture, though I'm not sure if it used the term.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:52 AM
1

Yeah, I'm sure all the victims of pious pederasty also wanted to fuck much-older men. After all, choir boys dig older priests, right?
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:07 PM
1

It's neither about control nor the vestiges of women-as-property. It is precisely the same reasoning behind not allowing people under 18 to enter into contracts, or allowing them to rescind the contract at will when they turn 18: children don't have the requisite knowledge, life experience, and cognitive capacity to give informed consent. Now I agree; if you can drive a car, you can consent to sex. But that's an argument about where we draw the line, not whether we draw the line. I agree, 16 can…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 06:16 AM
1

Regarding your edit: the reason it's called statutory rape is because of a presumption that people 16 and under aren't capable of giving consent to have sex. Such sex is non-consensual by definition. Now, there's a whole can of worms to open up about whether this presumption works equally for boys and girls, whether 16 is the best age, whether and to what extent age difference matters, etc. But that at least explains the terminology.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:55 AM
4

I think that's the wrong way of looking at "rape culture." We don't live in "a rape culture," but there are cultural memes (actual definition, not Foul Bachelor Frog) which revolve around and tend to normalize rape. Collectively, these memes could be described as "rape culture." Take men in prison, for example. Rape is very much a normalized behavior; talk to nearly anyone about convicted child rapists and see how long it takes before someone remarks about his cellmate Bubba or otherwise referen…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 03:02 AM
4

OMG, the "feminism fights against the patriarchal view of women as primary caretaker" line really rustles my jimmies. Besides the fact that feminist groups objectively do not fight for gender parity in child custody cases (the opposite, in fact), there's the undeniable fact that under a traditional, patriarchal family law system, the father is considered the primary caretaker of the entire family, including the children. Hello dumbasses, that's why it's called Patriarchy! It used to be the case …
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:51 PM
4

Wait just a minute... check the image URL. http://i.imgur.com/EX8aA9D.jpg .jpg Animated. What sorcery is this?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 11:17 PM
9

Actually, boys can get erections essentially from day one. (That's one of the little surprises parenthood brings.) The article says it isn't clear exactly what happened, but penetration is anatomically possible.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 04:13 AM
14

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. Let's not allow confirmation bias to get in the way of our better judgment.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 06:03 AM
8

You must have missed the fememo: if men are "disaffected" with women, that makes them misogynistic, and the well-known cause of misogyny is erectile dysfunction.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 08:24 PM
5

Bro. "For the sake of our daughters" is in the title. "Boys are unworthy of concern on their own merits" is not, but is implicit in the statement. That makes it subtext.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 08:22 PM
6

Well, the bit about boys being unworthy on their own merits isn't explicit, but is properly inferred. Thus, subtext.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 08:06 PM
3

I didn't actually need any help connecting the dots between the Occupy/Social Justice movement and more radical leftist groups throughout history; hell, at least half of those kids seem to idolize Che and Mao, no dot-connecting required. The scene in Batman may have been propaganda, but it's no less poignant.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 05:01 PM
38

Well, it's a baby step in the right direction, but the subtext couldn't be more clear: boys are unworthy of concern on their own merits, but we'd better pay them some attention--for the girls' sake.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 03:31 PM
7

Remember the last Batman movie when Bane took over the city? Remember Selena Kyle essentially telling Bruce Wayne to check his privilege? Bane's speech that (aside from not using the "human megaphone") could have been lifted from any Occupy protest? Scarecrow's Cultural-Revolution-inspired show trials of the bourgeoisie? Social Justice activists are like the real-life version of these people, or at least the people who make this possible. They're a dangerous mob with social revenge fantasies, ju…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:54 PM
1

More feminist delusion. This is rape culture in action. It puts the burden of proving innocence on the victim So much fail in so few words. There is no "burden of proving innocence" in American jurisprudence. The burden is to prove guilt, hence that whole fundamental-to-Western-civilization concept of innocent until proven guilty. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of a crime to a jury. Therefore, the cops have to do a thorough job investig…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 08:05 PM
20

Patriarchy positions men to be on the loosing [sic] end of most family courts because it promote [sic] the misogynistic image of women being better "caretakers" than men, thus making it unequal. It isn't feminism that is altering the family courts, its [sic] patriarchy. This is flat-out false. Despite your rather broad attempt at defining "patriarchy," the word has a pretty specific etymological root: rule of the father. Under traditional patriarchal legal systems, the father was the "custodian"…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:12 AM
1

Must be the Matriarchy backfiring on them.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:04 PM
13

You know, feminists try to talk a good game by saying that feminism also addresses men's issues. Yet, when men actually try to engage with feminists about issues affecting men, we're dismissed out of hand with that snarky little phrase, "What about teh menz?" That phrase alone is sufficient justification for a men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:56 AM
15

Wait a second here... If men are "oppressing" women by fucking them under the guise of kindness, what are women doing when they use sex to get protection and provision from men? Men fawn over women; they make fools of themselves; they risk rejection, social disapproval, health, wealth, life, and limb to gain the favor of women. And when a woman is finally satisfied that a man is worthy of her most intimate attention, this is to be taken as the subordination of females to males? Fucking seriously…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 05:25 AM
0

Do you mean the difference in pricing or terminology? I don't have a real problem with the former; if a bar wants to attract customers by playing Cupid, it may make economic sense to charge women less than men for a host of reasons (mostly tracing back to women's status as the limiting resource of reproduction). On the other hand, I am slightly bothered by the terminology; why are women always "ladies" while men are only "men"? Isn't "gentlemen" the proper gendered counterpart to "ladies"?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:12 PM
0

God damn. I kept expecting a note at the end saying something like, "The above was a deliberately offensive remark intended to show what it's like for women whose claims of rape are ridiculed or who are victim-blamed for reporting rape." Nope. This cunt should go die in a fire.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 01:07 AM
7

Honestly, I'd be surprised. GMU is famously libertarian and men's rights issues tend to play well to that audience. Of course, that's not universally true, but it does seem to be a trend.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:25 AM
1

I thought the whole point was "Now you know how we feeeeeel!"
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:37 PM
3

The best part about that whole concocted anecdote is that the author unintentionally revealed something profound: that the alleged gender-wide fear of men is every bit as irrational and bigoted as homophobia.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:17 AM
9

Nothing to do with "feminist courts." They threw out two of four convictions because of the constitutional ban on double jeopardy.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:29 AM
3

But here's the thing: even if Romney cloned Robert Bork and put 9 of him on the Supreme Court, that wouldn't mean a national ban on abortion, exceptions or no. It would return the issue to the states, where it should have stayed in the first place.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:08 PM
4

The best part is how the author is completely unaware of what she's just admitted: that the alleged gender-wide "fear of men" is every bit as irrational and ridiculous as homophobia.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:31 AM
2

Seriously guys? MR is getting its panties in a twist because somebody doesn't understand the rules of Taboo? It's a game. You try to get your opponent to guess the top word without saying any of the words underneath it. The game tends to make it "taboo" to use the most obvious phrases in your clue. If you need to get all MRA about a board game, your clue should be, "when girls get very light sentences compared to boys for committing the same crime, that's an example of institutional ________."
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:56 AM
24

I couldn't get past all the "like, total Prince Harming" and "supercool" nonsense. It's hard to take an article seriously (no matter how much I agree with its conclusions) when it appears to be written in full Valley Girl, complete with vocal fry.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 05:33 PM
1

Isn't this just a biological fact? Men are generally attracted to signs of fertility: lustrous hair, perky breasts, round hips; women are generally attracted to signs of virility and power: physical fitness, social prowess, financial stability. Isn't it far more natural for young girls to fantasize about an attractive male teacher? Sure there's 'The Graduate', but what about Nabokov's 'Lolita' or The Police's 'Don't Stand So Close To Me'? Surely there's a reason an endless stream of attractive y…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:50 AM
-1

She's going to spend the rest of your life changing everything about you; the least she can do is change her last name.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:48 AM
7

I'll make sure that it looks elegant and worthy Please show me shorts and a t-shirt that would reasonably be considered "elegant and worthy" in the context of an upscale New York corporate office.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 06:10 AM
0

relevant
/r/MensRights21/03/12 06:08 AM
1

Nancy Grace is a sensationalist report who primarily covers criminal law stories. She was largely responsible for the public perception of the Duke Lacross false rape accusation and the Casey Anthony story (not sure if either of those stories got much play outside the US). And if you hire an assassin, you can be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Those charges may not come directly from the murder statute, however; the criminal conspiracy statute allows all conspirators to be c…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:35 PM
1

Doesn't it creep you out just a bit that the government is "encouraging" people to take birth control and not reproduce? It just seems like another example of the government wanting to control the sex lives of the populace; a sort of "Progressive" mirror image of religious conservatives.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 06:23 AM
1

The law used to be that killing a fetus was not murder, precisely because a fetus is not a human being and the common law definition of murder is "the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought." According to my criminal law professor, it was Nancy Grace who led the campaign to have the law changed in many states. I don't remember the exact facts of the case, but one of the stories Grace covered involved a young mother-to-be who was killed along with her baby. The m…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 06:18 AM
1

I agree with you on most of this, but I don't think this issue will cause the devastation of the GOP in November. The wand thing in Virginia is totally egregious (but I have to admit I wouldn't feel the same way about a similar law that didn't involve unnecessary vaginal penetration), but it's a local issue, not a national one. I don't see any of the candidates, except perhaps Santorum, wading into that minefield. (Now if Santorum somehow wins the nomination, I'm with you; the Republicans are do…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 05:52 AM
1

And covering birth control is draaaastically cheaper than paying for pregnancy and birth costs, not to mention the child's health costs after it's born. Financially, all birth control should always be covered. I don't know you personally, InfinitelyThirsting, so I don't want to presume too much here (you may be a financial savant, I have no way of knowing), but if a random Redditor can figure out that it's much more cost-effective to cover contraception than not, why can't these profit-driven, c…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 05:36 AM
1

You have no idea what her friend's birth control would have cost. Actually if her friend were prescribed something to fight PCOS, it would have been common, generic progesterone which costs less than $450 across three years of law school. You can't just swap a higher prescription for something cheaper at the counter. Fair enough, and I'll concede that not all forms of birth control are as cheap as two venti chai lattes per month. But that still doesn't mean women are entitled to have someone els…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 04:54 AM
1

In the first place, you are an outlier; the majority of women can take generics with no ill effects, and generics contain the same active ingredients as name brand medication. So the statement "Birth control really isn't highly affordable for most of us" is still false. Now in your particular case, you have a range of options available to you: you can forego spending on other goods and services; you can seek employment somewhere that doesn't have a religious objection; you could opt for a differ…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 04:14 AM
-2

Birth control really isn't highly affordable for most of us. Bullcrap. You can't always just go out and get a cheap generic without ruining your body and mind Also bullcrap. Generic drugs contain the same ingredients as their name-brand equivalents. If they didn't, the FDA wouldn't allow them to be sold as generic versions of the brand names. Fluke's testimony was also to include her friend who lost an ovary because their Catholic school refused to provide medically-necessary HBC to control her …
/r/MensRights19/03/12 12:24 AM
0

You're making a host of bad comparisons and faulty assumptions. What if your employer is a Jehova's Witness? You mean what if your employer is a religiously-affiliated organization that follows the JW moral code? Then yes, even unpopular and insane religions (read: all of them) are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Or a Scientologist? The Church of Scientology and any affiliated groups should also be free to choose insurance that conforms to their beliefs, as should Muslims, Chri…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 12:20 AM
0

I'm neither a social conservative nor a Catholic, but I stand with them on this issue. To see how I got there, let's first look at what this issue is not about: It is not about "controlling women's bodies" or some hypothetical, hyperbolic "war on women." It is not about making contraception illegal. It is not about whether subsidizing birth control is good public policy. It is most emphatically not about how tax dollars are going to be spent, despite people on both sides of the aisle (specifical…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 10:45 PM
2

Easy enough to fix. Just recalculate child support adding the new spouse's income to the remarried partner's rather than terminating child support. I like the flowchart overall. Thought-provoking, if nothing else.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:51 AM
3

If the court determines that a remarried parent's new spouse is fully capable, the supporting parent is absolved of monetary support obligations. I can see this for alimony, but I'm not sure why your financial responsibility to your child should end when he gets a step-parent. If you still enjoy equal rights to the child, shouldn't you still have equal responsibilities? Perhaps child support could be amended upon remarry, but it seems to me that ending it completely leaves the non-supporting par…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:17 AM
1

I don't know what your discussion of "extremism" and control of women has to do with Sandra Fluke. Do you mean Limbaugh's stupid comments? The fact that she wasn't permitted to testify at a Congressional committee on religious liberty? The basic issue--whether church-affiliated organizations should be required to purchase insurance that covers products and services which conflict with their religious teachings--is not gendered at all. The Catholic disapproval of contraception extends to the Pill…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 08:30 AM
2

It doesn't matter at all how they see us. The SPLC is a bunch of far-left ideologues--meaning they lap up gender feminism like milk from a saucer--who are never going to see us as anything but a backward, reactionary threat to their radfem-friendly world view. If that's their opinion, so be it. I don't particularly care what they think, as my opinion of the SPLC is lower than their opinion of us. But when they "name and shame" basically every website affiliated with MRM and say that we're all sp…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 03:55 AM
15

I sincerely hope the MRM isn't sucked into the trap laid by these scumbags. Whenever possible, they need to be sued for defamation until they lose all credibility.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:54 AM
5

This post fairly reeks of concern troll. The SPLC is notorious for shouting accusations of racism, "extremism," and hatred at anyone who opposes their leftist worldview. They are a political fundraising organization that relies on expanding its "hate group" list to bring in more donations from its overwhelmingly liberal Democrat (read: pro-feminist) donors list. These are the people who advised the Department of Homeland Security's fusion centers to include Gadsden Flags, Ron Paul bumper sticker…
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:35 AM
-4

Being called a "hate group" by the SPLC should be considered a badge of honor, and should be on the bucket list of anyone who favors critical thinking to blind acceptance of the liberal/progressive status quo.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 12:28 AM
5

If only that were true. SPLC is consulted by the media and the government (DHS in particular) regularly for updates on so-called "hate groups." They don't have much credibility with people who think critically, but they have quite a bit of credibility with leftists, progressives, and their allies in government and media.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 12:16 AM
0

Except that I said managers, employees, and customers. The point being that this is a question for the market to decide, not the courts. Also, the quote that makes up the title here says they'll hire a woman over a man, even if the man has "a huge amount of experience, knowledge of video games, and isn't a social retard." So he didn't say they hire "lesser qualified women" at all. He's saying, in effect, that women have different qualifications (i.e. cuteness, the ability to upsell to fawning bo…
/r/MensRights08/03/12 09:40 PM
0

Question begging. You're assuming that the relevant "qualifications" don't include the ability to draw (predominantly young male) customers into the store. Knowledge of video games and retail experience may be important factors, but they aren't the only factors. An attractive female, even one ignorant of video games, could be more "qualified" than her more-knowledgeable male peers in exactly the same way that a D cup is more "qualified" to work at Hooters than an A cup, even if the A cup has yea…
/r/MensRights08/03/12 05:29 PM
1

above others who are more qualified And how exactly are we to judge qualifications? In this case, if GameStop is hiring for a sales position, who is more qualified: the socially-awkward nerd who has an encyclopedic knowledge of video games, or the attractive young lady who only plays Words With Friends but can bring customers into the store and close sales?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 09:57 AM
6

This isn't entirely true. Look at Hooters, The Tilted Kilt, Bone Daddy's, and other restaurants of that ilk. Gender-discriminatory hiring practices are (and ought to be) legal, so long as the discrimination is reasonably related to the nature of the business. In the case of GameStop, their core demographic consists of males, age 18-35. If store managers decide that hiring attractive female applicants over more-knowledgeable males will bring more customers into the store and result in more sales,…
/r/MensRights08/03/12 09:48 AM
6

I'd like to think that her objection is to the medium. She has a point in that a Twitter "conversation" about pretty much any topic will not go well. You just can't have a meaningful dialog 140 characters at a time. But the fact that Skepchick is willing to stop referring to herself as a skeptic rather than entertain the possibility that MRM is a legitimate movement with legitimate complaints exposes her true colors. She isn't a skeptic at all, she's simply replaced religion with feminism as her…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 02:14 AM
6

Just flip it on her: Women rapists, such as all these female teachers who rape their male students, should have their vaginas cauterized shut, except for a small hole for menstruation.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 02:43 AM
3

Ugh, can't you see that your insistence on "evidence" and "proof" is part of a male-dominated legal system that only serves to reinforce male privilege? Once we get rid of the last vestiges of the Patriarchy, then we can build a new system that isn't based on male privilege, where men are guilty until they prove themselves innocent if some poor, exploited girl accuses them of rape, sexual assault, or unwanted leering.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 08:05 AM
-2

Reddit won't let me upvote this comment enough times.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 08:31 AM
3

Ancient Jewish rule: if you bear false witness against someone, you get the punishment they would have received. It's time to bring this one back.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 12:26 AM
1

If good people who can see the sad state of the world opt not to reproduce, how will the world get any better? Have kids. Raise them right. That's one of the most important things you can do to make the world a better place.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 06:34 AM
3

I agree wholeheartedly, except for one small quibble: not all fathers are absent because they are "driven away." Plenty of fathers leave of their own volition, for a wide variety of reasons I couldn't begin to articulate. Despite the data on the origination of divorce proceedings (which I think can be misleading), it is not at all uncommon for men to run out on their families. Of course there are injustices, and yes I think family law tends to be egregiously favorable to mothers and injurious to…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 06:55 AM
-5

Sorry if I'm going a bit off-topic, but this is why I don't share r/MensRights's recent outrage over the phrase, "Man up." The data about fatherless homes (if true) show pretty clearly that the absence of men as fathers has a pretty strong correlation with negative social effects. There are certain gender roles which we must play in order to have the kind of society we find desirable; chief among these is our role as fathers. That's not a role we should take lightly. Taking fatherhood seriously-…
/r/MensRights06/10/11 06:42 AM
24

I think I see why. Refusal to accept responsibility, punishment for time spent with others, expecting to be treated like royalty, extreme jealousy, emotional manipulation... this is a laundry list of the worst stereotypes of female behavior. They only show men as the abusers because most of these are accepted behavior for (Western, 'feminist') women. Perhaps they could have shortened the list: If he treats you the way women on television treat their men, it may be an abusive relationship.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 01:55 AM
2

Haven't you learned by now that "personal responsibility" is just a dog-whistle code word for "blaming the victim"? Jeez, it's like you people haven't even absorbed the basics of feminist propaganda.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 01:44 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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