TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dancon25 Archive

View 0 posts and 43 comments by dancon25 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

numbers were for the order of your responses (i had just woken up and didn't feel like doing the quote blocks thing) yeah I don't have much to say except for your last two paragraphs If the bullshit kritik-style arguments were relegated entirely to debate club, I probably wouldn't give a fuck. Well, no I'd give a fuck because "das racis!!!" isn't exactly a rational argument, but I wouldn't be bitching about it here. As it stands, I'm getting tired of seeing kritik-inspired lunacy out in the wild…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:32 PM
1

first of all, i feel ya on the work thing, I have all this free time because school just let out for winter break finally. happy holidays, by the way. in rough order of your response: 1 insofar as 4-sentence paragraphs are walls of text, sure 2 from the wiki article: Feminist theory: The advocacy of social equality for women and men, in opposition to patriarchy and sexism.[19] oh no not opposition to sexism, not men+women fighting evil shit, nooo to go more in depth though, not all approaches to…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 05:57 PM
1

Because I was calling you out for invading another thread. Well I'm glad we agree that I didn't, then. I'm subscribed to this sub, and neither /r/CriticalTheory nor /r/AskCriticalTheory do the brigading thing (nor is this thread linked to or discussed at all on either sub). And though most every SJW is a feminist, not all feminists are SJWs. CT, however, is exactly what laid the groundwork for the SJW bullshit. Very specifically, it's the arguments rooted in conflict theory repackaged with inter…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 11:29 PM
2

First, I'll say that you didn't respond to anything I said. Assuming you're actually like, interested in productive discussion when presented with dissenting viewpoints, it'd be neat if we could actually discuss those differences in opinion - maybe starting with my original post and its contents. But to answer your question, none. I saw this thread on my front page. I sub to MR and a lot of other political/philosophical subs exclusively on this reddit account of mine. I usually lurk this sub, bu…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 04:29 AM
1

That's an unfortunately terrible understanding of what critical theory is. Critical theory is just a blanket term for all kinds of different political and philosophical inquiries, from feminisms (many different kinds - postcolonial, poststructural, but not really the kind of third-wave feminism ya'll are against), to Marxist theories (autonomists like Hardt & Negri, or communists like Zizek and Badiou), to theories of psychoanalysis (Lacan, Zizek), or of race (like Wilderson or Sexton) or just n…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 07:48 PM
3

Who are you describing? You're just making sweeping claims about "critical theory" as if it's some knowable, single entity. Are you talking about Foucault? Are you talking about queer theorists like Butler or Sedgwick? Are you talking about critical race theorists like Jared Sexton or Frank Wilderson? Are you talking about weirdos like Zizek (who probably shouldn't necessarily be called a critical theorist honestly)? Are you talking about Bataille, or Deleuze and Guattari, or what? Or are you ta…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 07:42 PM
1

then i'll reiterate swiftly. Your exceptionally dismissive attitude is really not conducive to a productive or enjoyable debate community though. Tune it down, take a walk, go enjoy life, and then enjoy debate without the hyper-defensive reactions to teens on the internet.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 04:26 AM
3

I think we're talking about different things here. Regardless of what debaters' personal opinions are, we debate all sorts of aspects of issues - feminism included. When I say that you might be thinking of the wrong feminism, I mean that when we discuss feminism, it's anything from like, 2nd-wave feminism to anarcha-feminism to post-structural critiques of feminism and identity politics (something you might be more interested in), to the roles that race and sexuality and nationality has to play …
/r/MensRights06/09/13 03:32 AM
1

I never said a K aff has to kritik T, I've got no idea where you got that from. I just said that K affs already have answers to T. there are arguments on T that K affs can make beyond its criticism. For example, Cuba affs on the HS topic that accept Cuba's offer of disaster assistance from after Katrina can use Castro evidence that says that Cuba effectively has a QPQ on the US, meaning that the affirmative is a pre-req to having Cuba affirmatives since they say "no" to any other affirmative tha…
/r/MensRights06/09/13 01:39 AM
1

You are super defensive today. Please tell me where I was incorrect and why? I debate now, almost exclusively kritikal affirmatives and kritikal negatives, and while I doubt anything I said was wrong it doesn't hurt to ask and learn. What's wrong? That T and FW are their most commonly-hit arguments? Or that OP should stop trying to run a K aff just because they'll hit T? Please explain.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 12:19 AM
1

I wasn't implying that you don't know about critiques, my criticism was directed toward the maximilian fellow who gave a very useless comment. I have no beef with you and you have no reason to be upset. Neither will I measure our kritikal dicks against each other on the internet, nor do I care much, so you're fine. All K affs have to deal with topicality and FW, but those are the arguments they're most familiar with and blocked-out on because almost all neg teams include it in their strat. So ye…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 09:26 PM
6

I have no idea why you're so heavily downvoted. OP wanted a philosophical discussion about a kritikal argument, and you're talking about how it compares to feminist arguments ran in debate as well as other kritikal routes, like Deleuze and Guattari and the like. This is actually really helpful to read and it sounds like you know what you're talking about: thanks.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:49 AM
3

It's getting downvoted because "Your K aff isn't topical" isn't a worthwhile criticism. K affs know what to do about topicality, they're not concerned with being super duper strict to the topic wording. (And yeah probably some people that don't know what it means are downvoting it just cause.)
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:45 AM
1

To build on Torquie's response, the term "kritikal" is used because we refer to such arguments (of philosophical or sociological nature that have to do with cultural assumptions - such as feminism, marxism, psychoanalysis, etc) as "kritiks." This comes from the German spelling of "critique," and we used that because much of the literature base for such arguments come from German authors and philosophical tradition (Habermas, Heidegger, Husserl, Marx, Freud and more) but also because kids want to…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:42 AM
13

What makes you think that? In policy debate, we switch sides. We debate the pros and cons of all arguments. In the community, there is an overwhelming consensus toward the feminist arguments because women in debate have routinely been excluded from the activity itself as well as its upper echelons. And in debate, when we say "feminism" it's rarely the "feminism" you're thinking of - it's usually different types of theorizing about international relations, not SRS style stuff (although some argum…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:39 AM
1

I don't think you'd necessarily be banned for it, but then, it's not the most common thing that people see and are sick of. You keep saying it's because the comment was irrelevant, but it's right on their sidebar, rule #6. I don't think the comment was hateful or rude on its own, but in the context of the circlejerk (people post on CreepyPMs so that we can rail on creeps, not to be criticized about what the OP should have done), it was out of place, and it used to happen so often that they made …
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:52 PM
1

No, I was still criticizing the post you made on CreepyPMs - that's what I was called careless, belligerent, etc. You didn't read their rules and got banned for breaking them, there's really nothing to complain about. I really don't have a view on you honestly, I just think your comments/posts have been reactionary and jerkish. You're probably a fine person, just hot and bothered about some sub banning you. Is it really newsworthy for MRAs that you got banned from CreepyPMs, a known circlejerk, …
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:26 PM
2

I go to both MR and CreepyPMs. I don't think they brigaded the thread at all (but I think there's an SRS link here). Just because I comment there doesn't mean I'm like, some vanguard leader to rail against your MR establishment or whatever.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:21 PM
3

I don't know where this thread was linked. I frequent both MR and CreepyPMs, so I don't know who "you douchebags" are.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:20 PM
1

No, the rules of that subreddit specifically say to not tell the OP that they could or should have stopped messaging. That's the problem the OP of this thread is having - they were banned for not complying to rules, and they came here to call it misandry or just be confused or something like that. I would be with him if it was for writing "pony" in the comments, that'd be a silly thing to get banned over, right? But /r/creepyPMs has rules that he (admittedly willingly) just didn't care about, br…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:20 PM
8

Belligerence, in the context of attitude and writing, can refer to truculence, vitriol, or otherwise scathing language. Your comment was unwelcome and, in a forum made for criticizing those who harass others, absolutely useless and only critical of the OP. That is hostility - you admit that when you say "the post itself was bullshit" and that you "called OP on their bullshit." Regardless if you think she was creating drama or not (as if it's her fault that this asshole started getting creepy, an…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 05:35 AM
22

You directly violated their most commonly enforced rule. It really doesn't matter if you're ignorant to rules or laws, you're still subject to them. You got banned because you were careless and wanted to be belligerent for no reason - there really wasn't any "bullshit" in that post except for the creepy dude. Is MensRights for creepy assholes like that guy? Or other more legitimate causes?
/r/MensRights03/09/13 03:39 AM
8

No, that has nothing to do with the content or context of that thread. Even if that's reasonable, it could go anywhere else. Saying that "feminism is up to debate" in a thread where a woman is being harassed by some asshole for nudes and other demeaning things isn't the time nor place to share that kind of sentiment. Sure, feminism and its degrees are debatable. Right then and there, though? not really.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 03:34 AM
5

disposability - people don't matter when they neither produce nor consume. when bodies are literally demarcated by their value (the wealthy, the poor, the more- or less-valuable), the can also be valuated as "the nothing." A person can be negative-valuable if they soak up resources without consuming or producing - welfare etc, and the violence against them. Capitalism equivocates market value with value to life. spatial violence - the "refugees" that fled NOrleans after Katrina were living in su…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:58 PM
2

Yeah, I just don't see why it's relevant is all. Like, they think differently! Get them!
/r/MensRights24/07/13 03:46 PM
-7

Oh hot damn! You blasted me! Tell it to the sociologists and philosophers that adhere to the left. Has Marxism been redeemed since then? I dunno, it sure has progressed though. Marxism is repugnant and false - not like Capitalism is perfect either. By virtue of its ubiquity, Capitalism has caused far more suffering than anything else in history.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 03:42 PM
20

Not that it should matter? What year is it, like 1952? A Marxist! Somebody quick - lock her up already!
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:15 AM
8

Clever but I think you know what I'm getting at. MRAs have a reputation on the web for being very militant for mens' rights but also not having nearly as much enthusiasm for womens' issues, even though they paint themselves as the "true" equal rights group. Is that really so? Lord_Perseus' comment doesn't make it seem so.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 10:37 PM
33

And all the reactions are "pssh it's just a joke." I find that telling. I also find it interesting that it found its way to SRS first. MRAs didn't even care, you only posted this to be contrarian with the feminists. Are SRS really misandrists?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 07:25 PM
7

...is it okay that women are the butt of the joke then? Is this the "equal rights" sub or the "men's rights" sub?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 07:23 PM
-4

It's just unnecessarily inflammatory. I don't dislike either the MRAs nor the radfems but sheesh, you're not helping a cause too much by bashing the other side of the coin, are you? and jesus it's from fucking 4chan. That's what's on the front page. A copypasta from 4chan.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 02:04 AM
-4

I dunno, it's a bit acidic to me. /b/'s trolling on either the feminists or the MRAs but either way it kinda sucks.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:31 PM
-7

Isn't "take a joke" one of those things that MR activists (really any social justice types) hate? "man up," "take a joke," etc?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:24 PM
-2

him.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:23 PM
-11

Unsub'd.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 10:22 PM
3

It could go both ways, but I think that Better_than_Beckham's interpretation would me more popular. And make more sense to more people. This is just my opinion though.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:19 PM
1

The first one was what I had in mind I guess, but going down on a guy that's asleep? I guess there's a fetish for everything.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 04:05 AM
1

How does a man get raped by a woman while being unconscious? You know what, I don't think I really want to know.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 03:52 AM
2

Seems legit, thanks.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 02:24 AM
2

Thanks! Do you have a source for that?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 11:45 PM
-1

Whose one-in-four rape numbers are you talking about? I'm really not sure what you're referring to. Those are interesting questions. You seem to imply that I believe that your (somewhat straw-man-ish) definition of rape as being so violent is the only definition of rape; I absolutely don't agree with that. Those other kinds of rape - although coerced sex isn't exactly rape in a legal sense, I don't think; then again, I'm not honestly sure - and sexual abuse (coerced and persuaded rape is probabl…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 11:35 PM
-2

All he said was that male rapists rape more violently than female rapists. You seem to think the opposite. I disagree, as I'm sure that most people would, and I'm pretty sure that on average a male will be more, perhaps much more, violent in rape than a female rapist. I'm also fairly sure that neither of us have sufficient, if any, evidence to back up our claims, so it's really just contemplation and a difference of opinion. Nothing to get sarcastic about. ass.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 10:23 PM
3

I actually got the opposite impression.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 09:42 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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