TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dancinbojangles Archive

View 0 posts and 37 comments by dancinbojangles on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

We might well agree! Sorry if I was rude, it's a common tactic to dismiss people if they aren't willing to read a never-ending parade of stultifying garbage. I assumed you were engaging in that tactic due to the shortness of your response. Seriously though, I have no interest in reading that. Absolutely none. Will you let me know how it relates to our current discussion?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 08:58 AM
1

I don't see it, illuminate me?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 05:50 AM
1

Well, that's the common language being bandied around feminist subreddits because they're against it. Here, the term Legal Paternal Surrender is more common.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 05:48 AM
1

Scenario 3 seems to be the only problem, if you ask me. However, I still see no reason why both B and C should not have the right to surrender in this case. A has the right, at any time, to opt not only for abortion, but adoption as well. Why should B and C not have that same option? Neither of them should be under any obligation to make the choice between adoption or single motherhood easier for A. As a side note, I see no reason to use the term "financial abortion" except to make an implicit j…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 01:36 AM
1

Well, I think his primary contribution would be in creating an easily-referenced repository of MRA arguments. Even if the book never becomes a beacon of light in the MRM, the best way to learn things is often to teach others. If he isn't yet a great enough mind to accomplish something unique, surely he'll learn that in the process of writing.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:20 PM
0

Ah yes, when I've read every book in existence, and familiarized myself with every facet of philosophy, THEN you'll be willing to have a disagreement. If Michael Foucault has an argument, why don't you make it for him? Why study all this philosophy if you're just going to urge others to make the same hopeless waste of their time?
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:16 PM
4

Frankly, I think it would be good to start over from outline. Seriously, I'm not trying to say you're just shit or anything, and I appreciate what you're trying to say, but getting your point across requires organization. Consider first how the article will be structured, then go paragraph by paragraph and think about how to build your case and what you really want to say. Consider the main point, and ask yourself if each sentence contributes to that point. I'd also recommend taking a more profe…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:41 AM
1

I think a lot of it stems from what the ill informed believe feminism to be The problem here is that as soon as a person identifying as feminist integrates these "ill-informed" theories into the main body of feminist work, it becomes a part of feminism. By arbitrarily excising certain theories and declaring them not a part of feminism, or a misunderstanding of feminism, that is in fact a use of the no true Scotsman fallacy. It sounds like you're saying that, simply, some of the things that femin…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:13 AM
1

I think this is an indicator of TED's deterioration over the years. We can hardly expect them to have legitimately consequential speakers every time, given how much content they put out, but this would barely have warranted a one-paragraph article and an "aw, that's cute!" much less a five minute video. TED as a whole seems to be focused lately on "inspiration" rather than showcasing things that really blow people's minds.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:52 AM
2

Well, I don't think it's a new trend. Haven't feminists been spouting similar shite for decades? As for the issue itself, I say fine, let 'em do it! It'll only hasten the death of that toxic ideology for its adherents to be readily identifiable by a dangerous, unsanitary mark of their own creation.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:45 AM
10

I'd say, rather than framing it as discrimination, ask for a raise! Nay, demand a raise, and keep harping on the issue until you get it. Indeed, the group you're sampling is small enough that perhaps the outliers vis-a-vis experience may just make more of a stink about it. We're always talking here about how women make less due to their choices and not being willing to ask, so perhaps something similar is happening here. I'm not ruling out discrimination, but focusing on what you ARE, rather tha…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:43 AM
2

BUT... BUT... BUT CIS WHITE MEN ARE THE OPPRESSOR >:O SLAVERY AND NATIVE AMERICANS AND WAR THAT WOMEN NEVER START EVER IN HISTORY (Don't look that up, it's all patriarchy lies!) YOU JUST WANT WOMEN IN THE KITCHEN AS YOUR SEX SLAVES I BET YOU WATCH THE SUPER BOWL WHILE RAPING A CHILD, YOU MONSTER! I'm being sarcastic, for the stupid people. Just in case.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:03 PM
9

I don't like it much. It kind of makes me depressed to see all the relationship problems and dating technique posts. Not like I hate all of what they're saying (though naturally I disagree with some of it, as with what any group has to say). It just isn't the kind of content that's interesting to me.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:57 AM
1

I'm sure there's a few, though the MRM seems to lean a little more toward the centrist libertarian side, at least in its leading minds and in my experience interacting with them. Personally, I don't subscribe to Communist ideology. I've always liked the term "The American Experiment," and I think it's fair to say that the Communist experiment has failed every time it has been attempted, if we're talking about sticking to core communist principles. Not saying America or other western nations don'…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:48 AM
9

I'm really happy about that, though I doubt it was feminists that did this one. The decision being reversed quickly without even a single cry of some mind-bending doublethink version of misogyny doesn't make it seem likely. Seriously though, this seems to be an honest mistake, even if it does say a lot about traditional attitudes toward men that they didn't even think of the possible consequences.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 09:44 AM
3

Well, his youth doesn't necessarily mean he has nothing to contribute. Sage Gerard is 23, and while I don't know what everyone thinks of him, I would certainly say he's contributed to the MRM.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 09:36 AM
2

Well, "feminist fallacies and men's rights issues" wasn't meant to be in any particular order... You're right though, confronting feminism can start to feel like a goal in and of itself, better to remember what really matters.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 09:33 AM
2

You're right, I am being charitable. "does not preclude" would be better than "has no bearing on"
/r/MensRights03/02/14 01:14 AM
11

I fully support your efforts and wish you good luck. A problem with the MRM in my opinion is that a lot of the core material and most coherent arguments exist in places like Reddit and on blogs, where there's too much content being produced to find it easily when you need it. How are you thinking of organizing this book, and what topics specifically will it address? If I might make a suggestion, I think that focusing on confrontation, so to speak, would be especially helpful. Starting with speci…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 11:41 PM
7

Therefore, any activity that men enjoy must be condemned - and if possible, outlawed. Or infiltrated by feminists who bitch about non-existent problems and people expressing themselves in non-feminist-approved ways until the culture surrounding it is destroyed, to be replaced by feminist thought police.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 10:08 PM
38

No, they were not exaggerating. I think you'll find that your experience with LPS is typical of most disagreement with or even questioning of feminists. Like you, I had an initial interest in feminism and pursued it with zeal, having heard little other than the dictionary definition prior. That was the better part of a decade ago. What put me over the edge was a post in a feminist forum featuring a severely abused man who had never struck back. The solutions feminists offered were to check his p…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 02:33 PM
3

I like the strawman thing especially. He thinks he can just say "strawman!" and people will just agree with him, or cower in fear at the accusation.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 12:54 PM
2

My personal theory is that he himself is circumcised, and finds the rhetoric about mutilation and the importance of an intact foreskin to be over the top and offensive. I actually agree with that, to an extent. As we see often in feminism though, being offended does not make one able to argue one's points, nor is it conducive to developing a coherent viewpoint. Then again, he might indeed be a troll. Anyone with an ounce of eyesight and two brain cells could see he wouldn't get much support here…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 08:26 AM
1

Well if you want to convince people, you're sometimes going to face disagreement. Reddit is a platform for discussion, and discussion can be free-wheeling, even getting into tangential topics. Indeed, the thread isn't even titled "let's discuss setting up a pro-circumcision sub-reddit" or anything of the type. By the criteria in your previous reply, the only acceptable answers to this thread would be "yes" or "no." This is not a place to set up an idea which is beyond reproach, and by stating yo…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 08:10 AM
2

It's funny that people aren't realizing the lesson we're being shown here: Feminism is, from top to bottom, based around ad-hominem attack. They as good as say that themselves when talking about "lived experience" and "subjectivity." A movement which ignores reality in favor of subjective value judgement cannot last, due to simple human nature. We're winning, and all we have to do in order to win is acknowledge that objective reality exists. They'll do the rest.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 07:01 AM
2

My recommendation is to give up on the idea of a new forum, and try to convince others in existing forums. A new MRA sub-set which espouses all the views of "mainstream" MRAs except advocating circumcision will get all the hate that MRAs do, but will lack the support of the main MRA community. It will be a tiny, TINY portion of the MRA which follows you, and that new area will become an echo chamber, gradually dwindling as your followers realize that the sole issue that defines your sub-set of a…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:53 AM
1

What's interesting to me is that most people are already in favor of circumcision. MRAs are some of the only people in the US and many other western nations who are against it. There's no need for a circumcision activism group in the general population, so convincing MRAs will be your main task, right? So why, in a thread which is an ideal opportunity to convince MRAs, are you refusing to state your arguments and refute those of others? This is the work you need to do, right here right now. Movi…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:46 AM
3

Hey, nobody's saying that's wrong, accepting the way you are is great. But that's different than making someone else the way you are without their consent. I know you're not really talking about that, but I hope you agree! If not, please let me know why, as I'd like to talk to you about it, rather than have that issue be avoided (Like the OP is doing). Seriously, convince me!
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:39 AM
5

Come on man, that's not an argument. Nobody's saying that parents don't have the right to make decisions for their children. That power, however, is not unlimited. Parents cannot consent to sex for their children, for example, and nor should they. The point being made is that circumcision does have risks, and its benefits can be achieved with either therapeutic circumcision to solve a specific problem or by being circumcised as an adult. Frankly I'm baffled at your unwillingness to engage here. …
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:35 AM
1

wait, wait, so do you really think that MRAs want to ban circumcision in adults? I've never heard anyone say that, and there certainly isn't anyone saying that in this thread. I'm seriously asking, not even sarcastically. Do you think that MRAs want to ban circumcision in adults?
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:28 AM
2

That makes sense from a mechanical standpoint, but remember that the foreskin itself has plenty of nerve endings which are stimulated by the very manipulation you describe. Also, when the head of the penis is exposed, it can result in decreased sensitivity, as the constant contact with clothes toughens up the skin of the penis head.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:20 PM
5

You see though, this subreddit encourages disagreement within threads. You talk about making another subreddit, and once you do you can establish alternate rules. If you don't want to address my points, that's also your right. The thing is though, I'm ready to be convinced by your point of view. Seriously, I am. I just have reservations that I'm asking you to address. Convince me, and I'll be convinced.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:15 PM
4

"off topic" and "disagrees with you," are not synonyms. By stating your advocacy for circumcision, you open yourself up to disagreement. Also, analogies and strawmen are also not the same thing. With the pulling teeth analogy I was addressing only the hygiene argument. By pulling those teeth most likely to decay as soon as they come in, one might decrease the risk of cavities, abcesses and other serious health issues surrounding those teeth. However, pulling teeth is something that can have comp…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:10 PM
7

also: "I don't think many pro circumcision people are interested in forcing the idea. I am sure not." While I'm sure you're not saying that everyone should absolutely have their children circumcised, by choosing to circumcise your own son, you are in fact forcing him to be circumcised. Not even making a value judgement about that, you have to admit that it wasn't his choice if you make the choice for him.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:58 PM
7

Hey man, not trying to derail or anything, seriously. I don't think my argument is a strawman at all. What I'm saying is that I don't think anyone objects to men deciding to be circumcised, but rather others should not be making that decision for those unable to consent to it. Pregnancy at a young age in my example is similar because, much like circumcision, while it confers many benefits, there may be complications. Therefore, it should be left to the individual to decide when and if it is done…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:53 PM
7

You know, I find the hygiene argument especially interesting. As an uncircumcised man with an uncircumcised father, I was taught proper hygiene early on. It's easy to teach and easy to do. I don't go in for the rhetoric about mutilation that a lot of MRAs use, but isn't advocating for circumcision due to hygiene concerns kind of like advocating pulling teeth to avoid cavities?
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:48 PM
12

Well, I don't think that many MRAs are against circumcision per se, but rather against it being performed on infants who are unable to consent. For a similar example, there are many, many health benefits associated with becoming pregnant before the age of 20, but I don't think anyone would advocate forcing underage girls to become pregnant in order to reap those benefits.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:43 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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