TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

coltninja Archive

View 0 posts and 36 comments by coltninja 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)
3

You guys pay engineers what we pay janitors, you're about to dismantle the NHS and your obesity rates are rising fast enough you might be #1 in the world at something again.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/12/19 04:11 PM
1

Or they asked for a critique in a class on feminism, so those would be the relevant sources. More likely, this is made up. No evidence needed for y'all to confirm your bias, or any context needed for your brilliant conclusions.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 08:53 PM
1

Yes, children, that is called a civil suit. This is what happens to stupid ones.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:48 PM
-17

Shouldn't be a problem here, y'all are always crying about something.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 10:13 PM
2

Thank you. It's almost like this sub is trying as hard as possible to discredit men's rights. Even if you don't like the words, men's rights is about achieving social justice. We're not going to get anywhere by pointing and laughing at SJWs. The posts that hit the top here make men look like a bunch of losers complaining we have it worse when we don't. Feminism didn't start like this and if it did women would still be disenfranchised. This is an issue libertarians and progressives should both su…
/r/MensRights06/06/17 10:04 PM
1

I'm in this sub because your nonsense circle jerk hit the front page. Meanwhile, you could have had a great discussion on how treating rape as a preexisting condition will affect men. Something like a critique of this article and how it ignores men would be way more helpful to the cause and shed light on how the media and healthcare debate ignores men. That's hard work, though. http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/05/under-new-healthcare-bill-rape-is-a-pre-existing-condition.html
/r/MensRights04/05/17 02:53 PM
1

This sub is working against actual men's rights when this shit hits the front page. Men wrote the laws and controlled the courts exclusively for much of history. You need to realize the historical context that women had to fight for property and voting rights. Our struggle has to be aware that we aren't fighting that kind of systemic oppression and instead it's an overreaction to bad behavior and law that leads to things like harsher criminal sentencing, unfair alimony and laughing off of rape. …
/r/MensRights04/05/17 12:48 PM
1

These people are destroying the credibility of men who have been fucked by the system. Never anything about policy or how to make things better here just posts about singular incidents and fools raging out.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 11:08 PM
1

Yeah and for every 1 time it goes that way it goes the other way 1000 times. Every front page post here is the same. There's never anything about sentencing guidelines or practical policy, just raging out over isolated incidents despite historical context of it working the other way most of the time.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 05:35 PM
0

Then why the anecdotal post and people acting like it's systemic?
/r/MensRights03/05/17 02:45 PM
-4

Disagree. Always the same anecdotal "look at this bad behavior and pretend it's rampant. We are the real victims" stuff that hits frontpage.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 02:24 PM
-9

And 1000000 women in that time were raped and told to stfu and not ruin that nice boy's life.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 01:42 PM
1

So misguided. I always just think what about the boys who are gay or more feminine. Boys always get lumped in as if they're some homogeneous entity.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:21 PM
-2

Think I've said this in here before. Twice they've taken my wife in on DV with no evidence she or I had done anything wrong. Both times, they were called by a third party and subject to a law that says they have to take one of the parties in on any DV report. The reason they take the woman is because they have to take someone and prosecutors will believe a man saying a woman didn't do it more often than the reverse because they've all seen the battered wife who wouldn't prosecute or testify. Hal…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 02:58 PM
3

That dude for USC went to jail for a grip over his false accusation. Would have probably been a solid NFL player. She admitted it too and somehow he forgave her. That must be some true ass Christian shit because I'd never be able to do that without believing in magic.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/02/17 05:13 AM
4

Depends who is watching.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 11:52 PM
1

Proof.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/02/17 05:21 PM
1

To clarify, she'd likely be protected from criminal prosecution, not from civil penalties. It depends on the state, but most courts have ruled that for criminal defamation, the "actual malice" standard needs to be met (state by state, the laws are being weakened, or struck down by state appellate or Supreme courts). If the court considered the teacher a public figure, then 100% that standard would have to be met. One Supreme Court case (Gertz) made it illegal for States to write "strict liabilit…
/r/MensRights02/02/17 06:05 PM
1

Sure, but reading her story and knowing the judge knew even more about it leads me to believe that was part of the reasoning. She'd likely be protected by the first amendment in the US.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 04:44 PM
-1

Where did you go to law school?
/r/MensRights01/02/17 11:12 PM
0

Found the legal scholar!
/r/MensRights01/02/17 11:02 PM
-1

Yes. That you've ignored the entire philosophy behind punishment. Traditionally, what she did was not a crime, but a tort. The British legal system went 800 years without something like this being classified as a crime. You come off as if it is outrageous that she was not sentenced harshly. I'm not sure your country of origin, but in mine, she's likely protected by the US Constitution. In other words: this is not the type of offense people typically serve ANY time for and I think people here are…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:15 PM
1

Well I'm not British, so I can't comment on that system with much knowledge, but I did go to law school in the US and depending on what you mean, I think you're oversimplifying or incorrect. Our "justice" system isn't just a punishment system. Most civil law is based on the idea of restitution. Punitive damages are extremely hard to get. If you just mean "criminal justice," then you're basically right. However, the theories I mentioned are the justifications that are given for punishment and the…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 08:15 PM
-4

Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone who knew a little more legal theory. Community service is one of the hallmarks of rehabilitation.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 08:01 PM
-8

Yes, one example, taken as gospel from a random internet person proves it!
/r/MensRights01/02/17 07:53 PM
-3

Basically 3 legal theories out there. Deterrence - discourage further crimes by making their life suck Retribution - you're bad so you deserve to be punished Rehabilitation - re-integration into society; crazy people don't respond to the first two. Probably why this is what the judge went with.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 07:52 PM
-1

"No jail time for this calculated attempt to destroy a man's life." != possibly no jail time. It's not sensationalist, it's a blatant lie.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 07:47 PM
3

FWIW, that "malicious communication" law would likely violate the 1st amendment in the US. The traditional remedy for something like this was always a civil penalty. The UK doesn't have the same protections on speech so the MCA statute says it is unlawful to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety." Well, that's textbook intentional inflection of emotional distress. The legal theory is that she's taken something from him and will be required by l…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 07:45 PM
1

Still wouldn't trade, lol.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 11:37 PM
2

I can see why things that should be inalienable being called privilege could be really frustrating. I think systemic advantages is a better way to describe what people commonly refer to as privilege. That way if you're not getting anything special but everyone else is being disadvantaged, you're still gaining an advantage (such as increased voting weight) but you're really still at net 0. It really has been much more true that women have been disadvantaged, legally, than men have gained special …
/r/MensRights22/12/16 12:29 AM
1

Special right? Maybe not. Advantage, definitely.
/r/MensRights22/12/16 12:05 AM
1

Are you disputing the fact that women have historically had many more problems than men, socially and legally? Saying men have it better than women does not diminish the problems men face. Not being able to work, live alone, inherit, or vote seem like bigger issues to me. It's odd that these are the main points, because it's not usually what makes the front page or what I see in the comments. I'm all for men's rights, we just need to be smarter about our approach or we'll just look like a bizzar…
/r/MensRights21/12/16 10:31 PM
1

Those are not mutually exclusive. Privilege is a "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." Hard to argue that being able to decide who is in the government isn't privilege. Everyone besides land owning white men were originally denied this "privilege" that we now all agree should be a right. It's odd I never hear anything about how felons can't vote and most felons are men and how that ties into men's rights. It's the most simi…
/r/MensRights21/12/16 09:35 PM
1

I'm trying to figure out what the problems are and how they are big/bad enough for there to be a large, active subreddit about them. Not only have I never had a problem stemming from being a man, I've not witnessed such a thing in the real world, either. If we're going to compare our struggle to people who have literally been denied equal rights under the law, we better have a pretty good reason. I just don't see anywhere near the kind of systemic discrimination against men that led to the other…
/r/MensRights21/12/16 09:11 PM
1

The trouble with privilege is that most privileged people don't know they're privileged. If you talk to people who grew up really well off, by and large, they have no idea how much better they've had it than the avg. person.
/r/MensRights21/12/16 08:48 PM
1

What problem has being a man posed for you? I've never had any and I live in the most liberal, SJW city imaginable.
/r/MensRights21/12/16 08:45 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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