TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

das_baba Archive

View 1 post and 18 comments by das_baba 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)
2

Mathematical, even. So then how do you get "equality of opportunity"?
/r/MensRights18/06/21 12:13 PM
1

The only thing that makes us is our genes and our environment. There is very significant variance for both of them. I don't see how there can be equality of opportunity unless you eliminated those variances. We both can still achieve success what that means will be different to each individual To some simply heving a family is a success others want fame and fortune. But one isn’t necessarily better than the other These goals also don't emerge in a vacuum. Society and culture generate people with…
/r/MensRights18/06/21 10:49 AM
1

Isn't equality of opportunity impossible too? If both of my parents are alcoholics and yours are loving, caring and achieving, we are not equal in our opportunities. If I'm born with a higher drive for success than you are, we are definitely not equal in our opportunities.
/r/MensRights18/06/21 08:21 AM
10

Agreed. But I've also encountered a lot of unreasonable women.
/r/MensRights25/05/19 08:51 PM
10

Or just 80% with a 5 inch dick and 20% with a 6 inch dick. Na but it's definitely normally distributed, like height of males and most other anatomical measures.
/r/MensRights25/05/19 08:46 PM
-6

That's just one of the many definitions. I understand that in mid 19th century, the most glaring manifestation of gender inequality was the subjugation of women by men. But this has changed over time, as evident by the popularity of this sub. But now we also have a lot of people who identify as feminists for the reason of supporting gender equality. This is from a sociology professor at Wake Forest: At the most basic level, feminism involves a recognition of gender inequality and the practice of…
/r/MensRights04/04/19 08:12 AM
0

Physicists are still arguing about what exactly is gravity (with regards to quantum physics). The question of how speech should be limited is arguably an even more complex question, as there are so many degrees of freedom to consequences of speech, and so many different opinions on what type of a world we want to live in. There are so many examples you can come up with that fall in the grey area. For some of them, a direct link can be seen between speech and consequences, for some cases the conn…
/r/MensRights24/03/19 12:13 AM
34

Yeah, so there is a limit. Not all speech is free. The reason I dislike the meme is that it sort of renders everyone stupid that is trying to have a conversation about that limit. But I do disagree with many proposed hate speech laws.
/r/MensRights22/03/19 02:49 PM
-1

She's a dum-dum. Too bad because when it comes to climate change, her ambitious plans are exactly what the US needs. Wish she was someone who credible enough who could actually defend them.
/r/MensRights22/11/18 10:41 PM
2

Why would you count the number of job places when talking about unemployment rate? There's a term 'job vacancy rate' for that. This woman's got a degree in economics, I'm sure she knows this. If you're making a point about semantics of incorrect vs wrong, I apologize I'm ignorant about the difference, it's my second language.
/r/MensRights22/11/18 07:55 PM
1

Very fair point.
/r/MensRights22/11/18 07:46 PM
2

Huh? I was trying to link to this comment: "Mathematically, she's not wrong. Getting multiple jobs would drive up employment numbers without driving up actual employment. " Which is simply incorrect, yet being upvoted
/r/MensRights22/11/18 03:34 PM
6

The comment chain. AOC (who has a degree in economics btw) and the sub doesn't seem to know how unemployment rate is calculated, and they're not willing to hear anyone tell it to them.
/r/MensRights22/11/18 03:31 PM
1

I like her very much. The point of this post is the tribal nature of r/feminism.
/r/MensRights22/11/18 03:26 PM
3

This is correct. I was confused by something. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out for an idiot.
/r/MensRights25/08/18 04:35 PM
2

No no. If 50% of marriages end up in a divorce, and even 1% of these marriages happen before or after a young son is involved, then any young boy has a >50% chance of being raised by both parents. Actually the assumption would have to be that every boy has a 50% chance of their parents divorcing when they're young. There's other assumptions too. E.g. that giving birth to several young boys does not increase the probability of divorce for the period when these boys are young. Lastly, and maybe mo…
/r/MensRights25/08/18 03:35 PM
4

To apply that math, you'd have to assume that all those divorces happen when there is a young son in picture. Edit. I've been corrected.
/r/MensRights25/08/18 01:10 PM
5

Idk who you refer to as "you guys", but this lady is hardly blameless for the confusion. I heard Debra Soh on Joe Rogan last week, and she seems to have stepped on an interesting goldmine with this sex pop-science activism. As a neuroscience graduate student myself, she sounds pretty confused about certain basics. She does have her PhD from York University, Toronto, but her focus was on pedophilia. Her citation count is at 24, and while I don't read much into that number as a measure of her comp…
/r/MensRights07/08/18 11:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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