TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

damn_it_so_much Archive

View 2 posts and 162 comments by damn_it_so_much 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)
-7

Since when was Jezebel ever considered "mainstream?" They've always been crazy, even according to other feminists.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 05:29 PM
6

Not the same. This is the man's equivalent to cleavage.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 05:53 PM
1

As a gay man, I'm pretty damn sure I have a lot more freedom than a gay man in the midwest or the south. I know divorces can be shit in this state, depending on where you live, but come on man. At least I can't lose my job just for being gay. The whole country can improve its freedoms.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:51 AM
1

California is the worst state to do anything in, other than perhaps being poor As a Californian, I beg to differ.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 03:48 AM
4

That's what I can't understand about military culture: why oh why are so many college-aged young men pressured to get married to someone they barely know??
/r/MensRights18/09/12 03:46 AM
-2

Still doesn't have anything to do with this article.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 06:01 PM
8

"Gender biased." Looks like I win this round!
/r/MensRights19/08/12 11:46 PM
2

To be fair, the sandwich meme was originally invented to be humorously misogynist (it's a 4chan thing...)
/r/MensRights03/01/12 05:37 AM
2

jezebel.com Please, can't we find something else to talk about? It's always the same story with those idiots. Maybe focus the discussion on how to limit their influence, rather than the content of the obviously false tripe they say.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 06:59 PM
1

Maybe we'd keep it in our subreddit if there weren't an antagonistic bot placing a warning on everything we link to. The bot was a direct response to your subreddit's actions, no doubt. SRS has been invading threads in other subreddits long long long before those bots showed up. Sorry, but you reap precisely what you sow.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 02:32 AM
4

jezebel.com Yawn.
/r/MensRights26/11/11 12:25 AM
2

You called it!
/r/MensRights25/11/11 11:02 PM
1

Huh? Why is this upvo- Oh, late edit. How cute, uglyscientist.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 11:02 PM
1

What makes you think I do? Where did I say that? That's a huge problem with your mindset right there. Are the ACLU a bunch of bigots just because they defend the rights of reprehensible people to exercise their first amendment rights? I in no way said I fapped to jailbait, but you merely assumed I did simply because I defended people who do. As if no one else could possibly want to defend such creepy as fuck people. Given that this is r/mensrights, can only men defend the rights of men? I know I…
/r/MensRights25/11/11 10:53 PM
1

Have you been to r/spacedicks? (NSFW or L) Just because your sense of humor isn't the same as someone else's doesn't mean someone else won't find it funny. Since when were you the authority on what people find funny? I have read the thread by the way. Of course it was a joke. Why would someone post in a public place "PM" rather than send a PM to the OP asking for it? Why would a whole group of people? If CP was traded, why not ban the individuals rather than the subreddit? Especially since subre…
/r/MensRights25/11/11 09:50 PM
1

I commend you for admitting that SRS is a circlejerk. I wish the SRS moderators would do the same. I also wish you would keep it in your own subreddit. r/circlejerkers was banned for a reason.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 09:36 PM
1

Fucking religious right, keeping you from masturbating to pictures of adults! The horror! While I see your point, it's a poor one. "It's okay to ban things that I didn't want to see in the first place" is quite selfish. The issue isn't about masturbation - there are plenty of other places on the internet one can go to masturbate. The issue is this: looking at pictures of clothed teenagers harms absolutely no one, and yet people like you want to keep other people from doing this. For no other rea…
/r/MensRights25/11/11 09:33 PM
1

I mean, all we did was catch them in the act of trading CP. I don't think so. "PM" could very well have been a joke akin to "Disco Ball." But that's okay: when you run on emotional sensationalism, you don't have to be right, you just have to be perceived right by the mob. And isn't that what SRS is all about? Sigh, I stopped logging in for a few weeks to get away from silly internet arguments like this. And here I am replying 18 days later anyway. :/
/r/MensRights25/11/11 09:19 PM
0

Also, I suspect everything on her EncyclopediaDramatica page to be 100% true. For those of you not familiar with ED, nothing on ED is true. It's designed to be silly and funny, not rigorously truthful.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:59 PM
-3

You know, there are male anarchists who are equally as crazy.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:57 PM
13

Unfortunately the articles I've just read on "transgender men" are so diluted by not wanting to label or offend anyone that I can't tell who exactly they're referring to. And yet you want to kill the term "cisgender?" This word was created precisely so that you do know who they're referring to! If it's a woman with no male physical traits who claims they are a man, then I'd have to disagree. They'd be a woman who thinks they're a man, not a man in my opinion. Ahh, so it's a difference in opinion…
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:45 PM
4

The first thing I expect when any thread anywhere is posted criticizing SRS: several of the mods swoop in, gang up on the "offending" commenter, and try to "defend their good name" while slandering the shit out of anyone who disagrees with them. I can only assume they've given up on this subreddit, probably because it won't gain them any extra subscribers. I swear, every time there's a thread complaining about what someone else on reddit said there's a SRS mod pimping the link to their precious …
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:33 PM
2

Because it was a double post.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:10 PM
2

You do realize that SRS was responsible for the removal of r/jailbait, right? They'd love to see r/mensrights go too.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:09 PM
6

Why do you care so much?
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:06 PM
11

Thanks for fighting the good fight. I have no idea where all this transphobia came from. :(
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:02 PM
11

I disagree. There are obvious differences between transgender men an cisgender men, right? The word "men" by default includes both cisgender and transgender men.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:00 PM
20

By this reasoning that "cisgender" is redundant, wouldn't "hetero" also be redundant? I don't see why people are upvoting this comment train. :/ As a gay guy, I see firsthand the harm done to gay people by assuming everything is hetero. There's a term for this, heteronormative. And it often can create a hostile environment for everyone who isn't "normal."
/r/MensRights06/11/11 07:59 PM
2

Excellent advice, of course, but on the other hand it's sad that this is what justice requires nowadays. And what about those who can not afford a lawyer...
/r/MensRights24/10/11 01:46 AM
28

Right. The $250,000 bail shows the prosecutor is taking this seriously.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 05:43 PM
1

When I said neutral party, I meant this definition: 4. a group of persons with common purposes or opinions who support one side of a dispute, question, debate, etc. By neutral I mean someone who is critical of mens rights and who also is not a feminist. I call you a feminist not like a swear word like many might in this subreddit, but because of specific things you say you believe which are core feminist beliefs. In particular, the existence of a Patriarchy in modern US society. If I misjudge, f…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 12:59 AM
6

Why didn't I read your nickname before I replied? Darn it.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 08:19 AM
1

Maybe because it's an issue with your movement It's an issue I've never seen brought up by a neutral party. In each case, it was brought up by someone who leans strongly feminist. It's still a good point for any group to be doing more real-world things, though. I took the original suggestion to heart as well as this follow-up. As you note, it's quite easy for internet activities to stay on the internet, particularly on reddit. Your rebuttal does not even include, so far as I can tell, "examples …
/r/MensRights07/10/11 08:17 AM
5

Because murder is an appropriate punishment for cheating? Really?
/r/MensRights07/10/11 07:08 AM
2

But I'd be more sympathetic to "mensrights" as an ideology if it were lesss...overly aggrieved? Negative? Focused on actual activism rather than bitching and moaning? I'd respect raising money for opening battered men's shelters, but I don't see it Weird, not the first time I've seen this exact point made. (Which makes me wonder if you and basstronomy and perhaps others are informed about mens rights by the same sources... or are even accounts belonging to the same person. But I digress) I addre…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 06:54 AM
1

15 days in jail and indeterminate probation. Not exactly a slap on the wrist. And there could have been a number of circumstances that contributed to the light jail sentence. I'm with SETHW. Surely reducing the penalties levied against men would be a better avenue to take than to increasing the severity of penalties on women. Throwing people in jail for a really long time for crimes they are unlikely going to commit again has no benefit to society.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 08:11 PM
0

The next time you post a single damn thing relating to men's rights, I will rub this comment in your face. I will tell you to grow some balls, stop complaining, and shut up. Cause obviously you're a man and you can take any inequality thrown your way, right? Surely you would take these words you told me and apply them to your own life. Far more likely, you're a hypocrite and a person not worth talking to. Enjoy your r/rights4men. We don't take bigotry kindly in r/mensrights. If you respond to me…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:29 PM
1

Okay.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 09:07 PM
0

Without elaboration, it absolutely is. Without any description of his experience, how many people are going to blame "a huge drop in troop moral, unit effectiveness, and overall respect for their soldiers" on gay servicemen, rather than the homophobes who should fucking get over it already? Not to mention the fact that anecdotal evidence is a far cry from the overall situation which may be different. Not to mention that from every single account I've heard from the top brass in the military, DAD…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 09:06 PM
0

Thanks for your replies!
/r/MensRights29/09/11 08:52 PM
0

You should know that you've been crossposted out of context. While I hope the ban doesn't happen just because I like the r/mensrights open discussion policy, I don't blame you for getting annoyed by an obvious troll. Edit: Also here.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 12:10 AM
1

This is actually similar to the r/rights4men split off, where all the bigoted anti-transgender people made their own subreddit because they didn't want to support female-to-male transgendered people. Good riddance, I say. (Even though I hope the ban doesn't go through... we're very good at downvoting trolls.)
/r/MensRights29/09/11 12:08 AM
3

The mod happens to threaten banning an obvious troll you cherry-picking dumbass. Here is the root post by truthjusticeca. But thanks for trying to smear the subreddit. Edit: Also, the submitter's account is five hours old. Are you fucking kidding me?
/r/MensRights29/09/11 12:06 AM
1

Well thanks for the replies you did give me!
/r/MensRights29/09/11 12:02 AM
0

If that's true then they ask women about all kinds of rape but they only ask men about oral and anal rape. Oh! You are right. For some reason I never noticed that. They fail to account for coerced vaginal sex where the female is the perpetrator. You didn't bring up very many criticisms... you basically just focused on the survey questions. But you have indeed convinced me that the survey questions are inadequate. I think that's enough to question the paper I cited, thank you. Regarding the origi…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:47 PM
0

The first question says "man or boy" because anal insertions with a non-penis is covered in a different question. The second question says "man or boy" for the same reason. Women don't have penises. Given that, how would you rephrase these questions? Edit: Never mind. knucker3 already covered it in a different reply.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:25 PM
1

Oh and one more thing, can you look at my comment here? If you know of other sources that cover the topic of rape victimization within a person's lifetime (and the difference of prevalence among genders), particularly that contradicts my source, I would love know about them.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:20 PM
0

Read my prior reply to you (elsewhere in the comment tree). I think you are at least partially in error.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:14 PM
2

I see. Incidence is higher with women, injury is higher with men. Thanks. Has there been any efforts to quantify prevalence of emotional abuse?
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:10 PM
-1

[Female respondents only] You jumped the gun. The "female respondents only" question was stated as such because only females have vaginas. They covered oral sex, anal sex, and insertion of objects in other questions. Never mind that every single one of their questions is per-empted with 'man or boy' You misread. Only the first question says this. Every other question begins with "anyone, male or female." (Edit: Celda makes the point that two of five questions single out men and boys. But this is…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:08 PM
1

You are absolutely correct. Thank you for the correction. I am completely wrong. God damn it I hate when I do that. :/ It's interesting though... why is there a 3:1 women:men victim ratio when I've seen other assertions, particularly that csulb.edu link, which state it's more even? Hmmm. Seems like I may have more research to do.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:39 PM
1

You are right. I misread "intimate" and "inmate." Probably because of a different comment thread where a bunch of people are bringing up prison rape. Sorry!! I deleted my nonsense comment.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:36 PM
-1

Can you give me a citation that... cruching the numbers... 43,000,000 men residing in prison in 1997 and therefore unavailable for a telephone survey have been sexually assaulted? The entire prison population only reached 2,000,000 in 2002 (see here). Keep in mind that this survey is a self-reporting survey designed to keep track of incidence of unreported sexual assaults. Even if prison rape was specifically included, there would still be significantly more women who are raped in the US than me…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:27 PM
-2

They separate completed and attempted sexual assault in the survey. Refer to "exhibit 1" on page 3. The gulf between genders actually gets larger if you don't count attempted sexual assaults: 14.8% of women are victims versus 2.1% of men. Obviously, it's a survey, and I'm sure there are errors inherent to any self-report survey. But it's a good paper with sound methodology. I originally ran into it when I was debunking a feminist's one-in-four myth. Believe me, I was trying to poke holes in it. …
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:49 PM
4

Let me copypaste the definition of rape and survey questions from the paper. I see no problem with them, as each question specifies a different kind of sexual assault. The expansion of the definition of rape is a more recent phenomenon. This study was from 1997. Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definiti…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:33 PM
1

Which is amusing given their own fucking studies shows otherwise.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:26 PM
2

I was simply remarking that you might change the sidebar text (for that link only) to match that of the title.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:23 PM
0

Please see my edit. Edit: And please link me to said study as well. If I'm wrong, I want to know it so I can correct my beliefs.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:19 PM
-2

Please see my edit. I may have also confused the terms "rape" and "sexual assault." The study in question covers both attempted and completed sexual assault by and on both men and women. The one in four rape stat is bullshit. But a one in six completed or attempted sexual assault stat (which includes, but is not limited to the legal definition of rape) does have merit. Edit: Can whoever downvoted me please explain your downvote? Explain to me how this is a bad paper. Don't downvote just because …
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:18 PM
2

By the way, the sidebar still says "Earning scorn from feminists since 2008" at the top.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:57 PM
1

Is it possible to call back to the agency, without disclosing your name, and ask them these same questions as an anonymous caller?
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:55 PM
-3

Love the change. Thank you!
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:45 PM
-1

That's cute. Care to comment about it aside from this inflammatory headline?
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:43 PM
3

Excellent response. Thank you! It turns out I agree completely with you. With regard to "problem 3" though, it is true that the wealthy are basically above the law. But if you compare poor men with poor women, men still get disproportionate attention from the law. For instance, men experience more domestic violence than women but much much much more men are arrested for it than women. This indicates an obvious gender bias. But this is a tangent from an otherwise excellent reply.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:41 PM
2

Even if she only takes into account physical violence, men are still more likely to experience domestic violence in their lifetimes than women. Turns out I read the wrong table. See here. Though there are other studies which seem to show that it's 50-50 or that women do it more.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:35 PM
1

This is a bit disingenuous though. Statistically, even though men are victims of physical assaults more often than women, women are definitely raped more often than men (the study I posted in a different comment in this thread shows a 6:1 female:male victim ratio). It makes sense to me to keep these categories separate. Edit: As I wrote here, this government study based on self-report data shows that six times the women as men have experienced attempted or completed sexual assault in their lifet…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:33 PM
2

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong! According to this government study based on self-report data, men are more frequently physically assaulted in relationships than women (66.4% for men, 51.9% for women). Where the disproportion lies is in arrests, charges, and convictions: men are disproportionately targeted by the justice system. I'm sure those stats should be easy enough to dig up. Edit: See akgk271's reply.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:29 PM
4

It's good to be aware of that. I think it's human nature to stereotype though, so it's always a good thing to be extra vigilant about such things. Even the OP was called an over-generalization by a commenter in this thread.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 05:41 PM
1

You can be sure that an enormous amount of men... Really? How can we be sure? Aren't you also generalizing? On its face you make a good argument: stereotyping is bad. But if you want to give an honest counterargument, what are other types of feminist men like? Do such feminist men honestly believe that we (in the United States) currently live in an overwhelmingly male-dominated society?
/r/MensRights28/09/11 05:33 PM
1

I doubt all of them are like this. Or if they are, I doubt most of them are intentionally using this as a strategy - it's subliminal.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 05:28 PM
2

It does bug me when some guy harasses me on the street, and a few of my male friends become apologetic and complain about men when they hear about it. It feels to me like they're trying to deflect any blame for what happened—as if they expect me to be the kind of person to blame a whole group of people for what one person did. They probably do this because of a lot of rhetoric from women (in general) about how awful men are. What they mean is the men they interact with in certain situations, a s…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 05:25 PM
4

This makes the linked article even worse! Given that it's the same author, he should know better than to claim gender biases are "idiotic."
/r/MensRights27/09/11 04:58 AM
18

Jesus they don't even make pretense at being neutral. For a magazine that's supposed to be about the ad industry, they sure have a biased gender focus don't they? Edit: Actually both are written by the same author, Tim Nudd.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 02:46 AM
2

The first result I found in a google scholar search is this summary (PDF), which says that likelihood of getting caught strongly affects crime rates, but... The report concludes that the studies reviewed do not provide a basis for inferring that increasing the severity of sentences generally is capable of enhancing deterrent effects. Of course this only states the lack of evidence found in other papers by the authors. It's still theoretically possible that the effect exists... But let's take a l…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 11:18 PM
2

“But then from somewhere, school I suppose, he picked up that boys wear blue and don’t play with dolls,” she said. “My daughter is comfortable not being stereotyped, but somehow my son hasn’t made those same leaps. Every day at work, I’m working toward removing gender barriers, only to see it play out at home. It just made it clear to me that boys need to be a large part of the conversation in achieving gender equality.” I think this summarizes the article quite well.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:52 PM
5

the punishment may deter others from not paying This is a myth. The severity/sentence of a crime does not significantly impact the rate of that crime. Those who break the law don't think about consequences: they think they won't get caught.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:37 PM
2

This thread got heavily crossposted. I'm sure everyone with a contrarian opinion was kneejerk-downvoted.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 10:23 PM
2

The cited television program is from 1997. I would be interested to see a more recent follow-up, if it exists.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:38 AM
2

I agree. The opinions of irrelevant people are irrelevant.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 01:44 AM
2

The second link's top reply here.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 12:20 AM
2

Comments within the thread state that (1) it was reported in a tabloid newspaper (which is known for making shit up), and (2) follows the pattern of a cautionary urban legend. As in, it would not pass many people's bullshit detectors. I think that's what MoT's point was.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 12:19 AM
2

This is the most plausible explanation. Thanks!
/r/MensRights01/09/11 04:39 AM
2

Weird... I wonder why that graph appears so periodic. Shoots down during the holiday season, creeps back up afterwards, creeps down in the spring, creeps back up in the fall.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:56 AM
2

Excellent point, and I am sure to do so. But it's still dangerous. Not everyone makes sure the statement matches the source, and the mere presence of a citation often "validates" the material in most people's eyes. One need only discuss gender rights on reddit to learn first hand about all the false statements accompanying citations of sociology papers with terrible methodology. Or even citation of a paper that does no original research at all, merely co-opts other papers for its own purposes.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:32 AM
2

Wow. Clear cut case of downvoting the person, not the content of the post (not that you didn't try your hardest to get this to happen). This is the first time I ever upvoted you, even though it will likely be the last.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:25 AM
4

I've seen citations misrepresented on wikipedia before.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:10 AM
1

I basically agree with you, and certainly a 14 year old shouldn't be charged to care for children full time alone. But surely they can manage a single night... Longer than a night? Say, a week? Then I agree with you. I obviously made an assumption in my initial comment. The article doesn't mention whether the 6 months of babysitting consisted of occasional evenings or if it was a more regular deal (say, after school care and transportation.)
/r/MensRights30/08/11 02:41 AM
3

Then there is a fundamental difference between your experience and what is described in the article. Just wanted to point that out. :)
/r/MensRights30/08/11 02:35 AM
3

Were you drunk at the time?
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:56 AM
1

What. That shocks me.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:55 AM
1

I was under the hopeful assumption that a city that elected an openly lesbian mayor might also be able to oust a homophobic judge. Ahh, fair point. I was being lazy with my (lack of) research and I shouldn't have been. They are not elected in France, for instance. Also I know in California the judges of higher courts are merely approved by voters, a yes/no next to each name. The lower courts are openly elected though. I guess I just want the judiciary to be free from the tyranny of the majority.…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:46 PM
2

You mean child molester. A pedophile is someone who has sexual attractions for children, while a child molester acts on them. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:23 PM
1

This is in Texas, unfortunately. If anything, this decision will probably strengthen his popularity in his district. Which, of course, is why judges should never ever be elected. (Counterarguments welcome.)
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:20 PM
14

Even though this comment (which I agree with) indicates that there's no way this horrible decision would survive appeal even in Texas, it's just another symptom of the pervading societal "wisdom" that men can't be trusted around children. And what happens between now and when an appellate court makes a decision? Disgusting any way you look at it.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 08:42 AM
-3

I have a feeling that the people who downvoted you didn't read your entire comment. You make very good points that I agree with. edit: Wow, the hivemind strikes again. I might need to make a r/mensrightscirclejerk
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:46 AM
6

Out of curiosity, what void does this fill that r/equality doesn't?
/r/MensRights17/08/11 06:53 PM
2

it remains my hope that /r/malestudies reflects and endorses the values presented at that conference. But it obviously doesn't if the overactive, oversensitive moderator of the subreddit preemptively bans people.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 06:19 PM
12

I kinda wish the original story was submitted and not the blog post... but I seem to be a minority on reddit.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:01 PM
7

If he were more able to financially care for the kids, he should receive primary custody of them in the divorce settlement. Agreed. I was lucky that I had parents who loved me... unlucky they divorced, but lucky they loved me. There were no lawyers involved. The two simply sat down with the judge and told him what they wanted. My dad ended up having custody of me specifically because my mother thought that would be the best thing for me. I wish more mothers would do this.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 12:21 AM
2

Or make damn sure you can trust your wife.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 11:58 PM
-1

To be fair, if the man was an investment banker and the woman was a housewife when they divorced, leg or no he would be much better able to financially care for his kids - because she would have no skills or work experience. This decision still reeks though...
/r/MensRights29/07/11 11:57 PM
2

I remember getting the same orientation 10 years ago. At least the school officials were honest about it. They admitted how unfair it was.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 10:19 PM
2

It's this double standard that I really don't understand. That a person can be intoxicated and be both responsible and not responsible for their actions.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 10:13 PM
2

If I recall this was front page material when it was fresh. I wish more could come of this... it might be the only way to reform sex offender laws in the US.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:33 PM
2

You mention that what UND did to Caleb Warner is 100% legal. In general, are public Universities allowed to expel any student for any reason?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:27 PM
1

This information is from links from the other redditor's link. It seems to me that the redditor simply didn't explore those links. You make a good point that he should have done further research, but being (1) lazy and/or (2) ignorant of the additional material does not imply malice. And I think if you responded to him with the quotes you responded to me with, he would be very receptive to what you have to say and would probably agree with you. There's also the further complication that "default…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:21 PM
2

What. Argument. You weren't telling me what he's saying to warrant the feminist label until now, finally. This doofus had the nuts to try and say men have legal recourse to false paternity and paternity fraud. They have none whatsoever? Really? Even after the other redditor's citations? Go ahead and say there aren't enough protections, because then you'd have a point. Go ahead and also say that existing protections do not protect everyone. Say that there are some men who have no recourse under t…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:50 AM
1

If you don't feel like actually telling me how the person you're arguing with is providing feminist arguments, then we're through. At least kloo types things out once and links to them where applicable. Even "the most basic of assertions." All you're doing is insulting me and claiming your experience speaks for itself without presenting any arguments. Good luck trying to build any progress with that kind of attitude.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 03:38 AM
1

When someone trots out feminist arguments Can you enumerate? I didn't see this here. If anything, his main argument was libertarian in nature: he doesn't want the government mandating DNA tests. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I didn't see feminism in any of his arguments. Also keep in mind that some people might mistakenly believe certain things due to upbringing, the media, etc. The way you combat this is to give evidence for the opposing position, not to accuse the other person being of a contra…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:20 AM
1

No one else has the time to police everyone with a long-winded opinion. There's only so much time in a day, after all. In my experience, NO ONE except for the two people arguing gets involved in an argument anywhere on reddit, especially if it's deep enough that they have to click a link to get to the end. In a way, you're damn lucky I was bored and happened to be browsing the thread. And to be honest, I don't think he left factsville at all up to this point. Neither did you. You're both right a…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:00 AM
1

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he's a feminist. You can't assume someone else knows all the same things you do, either. Accuse him of selective quoting? You're doing the same damn thing! What the fuck? You're doing no one any favors by arguing like this. And before you call me a concern troll, take a deep breath and think about how you could rephrase your points so that they don't resemble personal attacks. Cause misnamed did absolutely none of the sort to you.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 01:47 AM
1

And if this gets downvoted like the rest of my reasonable and fact-based comments have, well, I'll know what MensRights is all about - being unable to admit when you are wrong. Right, because an entire subreddit should be judged by one user.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 01:39 AM
3

Yeah, gender roles & stereotypes kinda suck. :(
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:09 AM
2

I can't say we're necessarily better off than straight men... for instance, no one harasses straight kids for acting straight. It's a venn diagram: we don't face a lot of problems straight men face and vice versa. Everyone enjoys some amount of privilege.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 12:19 AM
7

There's very little awareness of men's rights amongst gay men: just gay rights. Until we as a class (I'm gay too, hi!) recognize and get involved with men's rights, I wouldn't expect there to be much gay-oriented attention within the men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 12:09 AM
3

There are more recent decisions that have way way WAY more text... at 4-4, you'd think they'd say something on the subject.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 01:34 AM
5

What the heck? I wanted to read the opinions but all I get on the Supreme Court website is a virtually blank page.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 07:17 PM
3

It's possible kloo just happens to remember him. Aerik does seem to have a habit of standing out, based on the comments in this thread.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 07:06 PM
2

Fair enough. That said... there are plenty of instances of unacceptable flaws infiltrating common wisdom statistics. And not nearly enough criticism/skepticism amongst the general populace. Though I'm sure we both agree with that, so I'm gonna stop this rambling tangent now. ;)
/r/MensRights09/06/11 07:16 PM
1

but that is not the case, in the past 50 years violence and sexual deviance have been studied to such an extent it almost seems maddening at times And yet also not. We still have next to no knowledge about, for instance, prevalence of pedo/hebe/ephebophilia in the general population, and the likelihood that someone with such attractions would act on them. All the existing studies I've come across that attempt to answer this question are awful and horrendously biased, serving to do nothing more t…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 07:07 PM
10

To be fair, the comment's first two points I think are excellent. It's the third one that really rubs me the wrong way. While the commenter does make an excellent point that there are those in our culture who view sex as "payment" for the money spent on a date (see here)... s/he in her comment paints a portrait that men are just rapists waiting to happen. (I personally don't think it's necessarily intentional, but it does betray some assumptions this person has yet has not questioned.) S/he make…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 06:22 PM
1

On the one hand I see the point you're making. But real life isn't so sanitized. Even if you're acting out rationally, the whole idea that you should completely disregard your emotions (particularly when you're at the losing end of some injustice) runs counter to the way change happens in real life. Feminism would not have gained the traction it did without anger. The gay rights movement started with a bout of anger: gays were pissed off at being treated like second class citizens. (Stonewall Ri…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:52 PM
6

What I'm basically trying to say is that the ends don't always justify the means... masquerading behind another movement merely because it's convenient seems a bit disingenuous. You make a good point however.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 01:31 PM
1

Good on the blog author for recognizing and enumerating her privilege.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 12:43 PM
7

but the reason there is so much hate for MRA's is because of this display of anger But, in contrast, feminism anger is okay? Gay rights anger is okay? Your request is completely unrealistic. This is probably why a lot of people in here aren't taking you seriously.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 12:13 PM
1

Actually, this is the first time I've ever heard the term concern troll, let alone seen it defined. Don't assume everyone knows the same things you do.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 12:08 PM
6

As a gay man I kind of find it offensive that you insinuate we're merely a tool to further your agenda... but you're absolutely correct that this is a gay men's issue, particularly given the disproportionately high infection rates of gay men versus straight men. On the other hand, the current polticial architecture is probably even more offensive... you wouldn't need to piggyback on the gay rights movement if there existed avenues to pursue this as a mens rights issue. I think I'll finish off th…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 11:18 AM
3

Jeez, apology accepted already! I'm just saying, it'd have better effect and more people would see it if you didn't delete the root post. :P This is just for next time, okay?
/r/MensRights16/05/11 10:49 PM
2

We all do this from time to time. I know for a fact that I'm not in peak mental shape every time I comment on reddit. I think the best thing to do in the future would be to make an edit/addendum to the original post saying "Oops my bad. I was wrong." Then terminating reply chains with similar versions of "Oops my bad, sorry."
/r/MensRights16/05/11 10:41 PM
4

Or because you were wrong. Or trolling. At least, that's how I saw the avalanche of [deleted]. When you systematically remove your point of view from a discussion like this, your argument, whatever it was, comes off as poor.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 10:08 PM
13

Right, because having your life marred by a false rape accusation and living through that torment is funny.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 10:02 PM
8

Huh? Isn't courage a human characteristic? How is reinforcing gender stereotypes (like you are doing in the headline) helping anyone?
/r/MensRights05/05/11 02:31 AM
1

Full disclosure: I mostly skimmed. Sorry! :P And thanks for posting it here... stuff like this tends to generate interesting discussions.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 07:56 PM
15

“No evidence was presented which placed serious doubt on the truthfulness of [the accuser's] testimony. Without a firm reason to believe the [the accuser] was lying or had been dreaming, the verdict in this case cannot be not guilty,” the judge wrote in his ruling. Holy fuck. He sure did. Dude. :( How the fuck does this not get overturned on appeal?
/r/MensRights03/05/11 07:22 PM
5

This article, when I first read it, seemed to me like it was attempting not so much to talk about rape, but rather issues of gender identity and conforming to gender stereotypes. For that I gave it an upvote.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 07:17 PM
3

People were always wrong in one way or another. We are, quite unfortunately, human.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 08:13 PM
5

I wish you guys wouldn't downvote spam every single comment that gets linked to here. Makes you look like a bunch of assholes. Just because you don't like the opinion (or just because the opinion is universally appalling) doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be heard. Read the reddiquette.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 08:09 PM
1

it is a sex crime I debated this elsewhere in the thread.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 11:21 PM
1

Call me crazy, but I don't think fucking things up even more than they already are for the sole purpose of getting other people to unfuck them is a good idea. What if they decide they like it that way? I prefer a more direct approach, through educating all people all the things wrong with the current status quo.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 10:02 PM
1

Fair enough. But creating yet another vehicle for those people in charge to secure their own power and increase the radius of potential abuse is a rather poor idea, don't you agree? On the violent revolution front, we still have people in government and the courts who are interested in protecting our constitutional rights. All hope may not be lost quite yet. (But of course we'll see.)
/r/MensRights03/04/11 08:29 PM
1

How do you know they'll re-offend? Well, you don't. True. Those lists still exist, though, because these people have proven a significant danger to others. Whoa! What's with the sudden shift? You go from saying "I don't know" to "they're dangerous?" What's wrong with a case-by-case assessment? Why are you willing to condemn all sex offenders regardless of their propensity to re-offend? Much like a false rape accuser, who can ruin someone else's life with a few words and pervert the course of jus…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 08:05 PM
2

I'm back! :P Yes. Well, I guess I'm just hoping to influence society however I can towards acceptance of individual rights. Perhaps it's futile, but I think it's so fundamentally important that I am willing to debate at length about it. If I can merely make one person just stop and think, I think that's worth it. In other words, let's agree to disagree about how important individual rights are. There are many cases where psychological issues are blatantly ignored in favor of harsh punishment. Tr…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:59 PM
2

Indeed you did, but I don't think that does very much in terms of the argument we had. :P It's cool though, as I'm content to agree to disagree on that relatively minor point.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:52 PM
1

That seems like an unusually broad definition of violence to me, but I see where you're coming from. Whatever we call it, we can agree that the consequences are major.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:50 PM
1

Regarding the first thing: this is similar to the discussion I had with the submitter. We ended up agreeing that both crimes are extremely serious, but disagreed on the relatively minor manor of classification. I'd rather not do it all over again, so lets just agree to disagree. :) Regarding the second thing, it's around 3 to 5% within 3 years for sex offenses. The rate is a lot higher when taking into account all crimes. Source 1 (pdf), and source 2. Apparently a longer term study was done that…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:48 PM
1

So fight those problems! Don't try to fix a problem by creating another one!
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:29 PM
1

It's really late and I need to crash. I might respond to a few of your points later but I might forget. I think we're 90% in agreement. Thanks for putting up with me and having an enlightening discussion.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 09:47 AM
0

Maybe my hang-up is that rape is a form of battery, but false accusation is not, therefore they should not be in the same category? Or that rape has sex much more prominent (the sex act itself literally is the crime) than a false rape accusation (the sex act is not literally the crime). Again, it could be that we agree but merely disagree on the words. Or we disagree on this point on a much smaller scale than we initially thought. Fair point, But that is just a security and freedom dilemma, and …
/r/MensRights02/04/11 09:21 AM
0

your previous commentary's heavy usage of "you should" was kind of patronizing Yeah, DBi called me out on that and I retroactively realized my mistake. I was a jerk, sorry. I was trying to point out that expanding the sex offender registry is a horrible idea (since it should be dramatically contracted instead), and that there are a slew of alternate solutions to the problem.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 08:55 AM
1

the crime is using the sexual relation in an abusive manner Actually, the crime is lying. Specifically, to the police and courts. Any woman who would commit a false rape claim must be watched, she is a danger to all men around her and parents would do well to protect their teenagers from her. This kind of statement scares me on two fronts. First, that you're painting with such a broad brush: how do you know that every rape accuser is going to accuse someone else? What ever happened to due proces…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 08:50 AM
0

(I'm not the guy you replied to, by the way.) Quick note, false rape accusations can have drastic internal, psychological consequences. Like a man who can't bring himself to have sex with any woman because of the fear of being accused of rape. I'd also be weary to say both should be punished "equally," though you did diffuse this point somewhat when you talk about degrees of severity. I guess mainly agree with your main points though.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 08:31 AM
0

No but using semen obtained from consensual sex to back up a false rape claim does create a sexual connection, I am not reaching. Yes you are. Since when is doing things with semen in of itself illegal? The only illegal action is misleading investigators into charging an innocent man with a crime. That's basically a special kind of fraud/perjury. Just because sex is peripherally involved doesn't mean the crime should be classified as a sex crime. To me it is obvious that they should be on some l…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 08:18 AM
0

It's not of a sexual nature... because having consensual sex is not a crime. Never was, never will be. You're reaching awfully hard to make the sex connection, but in the end you're making an emotional argument that doesn't carry very much rational weight. In the end, it's exactly as I said: you're willing to punish women by putting them on the registry when they obviously should not be there. How is that just in any sense of the word? I didn't mean to come off as so condescending in my previous…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 08:01 AM
26

You're doing it wrong. How about making it so that the drunk dude pissing in an alley is not a sex offender?
/r/MensRights02/04/11 07:35 AM
3

Definitely not, on several fronts. First, while I think false crime reporting is a serious crime, I don't think it equates rape. The two crimes should not be equated, because the former involves telling a series of lies (similar to fraud), while the latter involves forcibly, through violence and/or coercion, having sex with an unwilling participant. No way those two disparate acts should be equated. Second, the registry itself is just plain wrong. It literally ruins lives that do not need to be …
/r/MensRights02/04/11 07:34 AM
2

Not 3v3n m3ntal illn3ss?
/r/MensRights02/04/11 03:53 AM
1

I doubt killing the rediquette is going to do anything. Lame.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 09:49 PM
1

Well I'm gay, so no. :P I have dated a FTM once, and he was extremely cute, but I digress... I don't agree with that MR assessment you paraphrase above. I do think that if things get serious, she should say she's MTF. And this is simply because IMO when things get serious you share a lot of stuff. And I also know that many transgendered people end up going through a lot of grief if they're not upfront about it, though that seems to be because of the potential intolerance of the partner. But don'…
/r/MensRights05/03/11 06:54 PM
3

The main problem I have are restrictive gender roles. And I assume you do too since you're posting in this subreddit. How is this not a symptom of ass backward gender roles? (Not to mention ass backward perceptions of gays and bisexuals.) Biased treatment in the dating arena indicates biased treatment elsewhere.
/r/MensRights05/03/11 04:24 PM
4

Of course everyone has the "right" to be a closed minded bigot. Should we not call them out on it? A big reason unequal treatment amongst individuals happens is because of deeply held erroneous beliefs. I think this issue is a bit bigger than dating.
/r/MensRights05/03/11 04:05 PM
4

I wouldn't personally date a girl that was into religion, but doesn't make me a bad person. You're not making an appropriate comparison. What if a girl happened to be into religion in the past at some point, but is atheist now. Would you turn down the girl just because she has a religious past? This guy isn't fucking guys right now. He's not asking to bring another guy into the bedroom, nor is he going to be banging guys intermittently. He experimented with a guy in the past, and decided that it…
/r/MensRights05/03/11 02:53 PM
1

I think the problem everyone has is that the guy isn't asking her for anything other than a straight relationship. There would be absolutely zero gay sex involved. And yet she was still completely turned off by him because on his own time he had sex with a man. That's bigotry.
/r/MensRights05/03/11 12:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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