TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dbzer0 Archive

View 1 post and 84 comments by dbzer0 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)
0

dbzer0/r/MensRights26/11/10 03:39 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I've posted a link in another part of the thread
/r/MensRights03/10/11 05:26 PM
-6

So you get a definition and examples and you simply dismiss it. Par for the course with MRAs but it's nice to see you being so obvious it.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 12:06 PM
-7

What advantage are homelesss males proffering? Pretty much all of them
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:44 AM
0

No. It's a different kind of privilege in both cases. trans males (who are passable enough) male privileges (getting more chances for work, being listened to more etc) but may not have "raised-as-male" privilege.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 08:55 AM
-11

Spoken as someone who doesn't understand what privilege is. Yes. homeless males have male privilege.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 02:26 AM
-1

It's pretty well defined and obvious.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 12:56 PM
1

Trans women don't exist as "males". Their male-socialized privilege, I guess depends on how they were socialized from a young age and how much it "took" so to speak.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 09:41 AM
0

There's nothing evil about the male gender. You obviously haven't understood what I'm saying. But given that you're severely lacking in anti-oppression theory and you're just quote mining progressive spaces for circle jerk purposes, this isn't surprising.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:40 AM
5

Ooh ooh achievements! What do I get?
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:53 PM
0

Yeah. Lets see it then.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 07:11 PM
-4

I'd like to see the ban/deleted list of /r/mr. To compare it with /r/@ and see who's banhammer rules the day.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 01:09 PM
-2

You constantly bitch about cross-posts, yet 22 of your last 100 submissions were cross-posts. I don't "bitch" about crossposts. I point out that downvote brigades where you're not welcome are not a good thing. You constantly ban and delete comments from people because they aren't your friends and express an opinion you don't like As a matter of fact, I don't. I think the number of comments I've deleted can be counted on one hand. Nevertheless I don't complain that you people banned the feminists…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:54 PM
-1

no they came here to abuse How do you tell? And by the same token, you're still hypocrites because you were whining when MRAs got banned from feminist reddits for the same reason. and those banned are the ones who banned everyone I see. So you're fighting fire with fire eh? Given that /r/mr was boasting that is was not doing precicely that, you're still hypocrites.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:43 PM
-5

Those banned came here to talk.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:25 PM
-10

I didn't say you're bad. I said you're hypocrites.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:20 PM
-10

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Scumbag men's plights: Claims they champion freedom of speech in their own reddit. Bans feminists.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:12 PM
-6

Now now, believe me, there's deeper ones. /r/mr is just the most popular cesspool.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 02:26 PM
1

*these
/r/MensRights20/07/11 12:28 PM
-4

The "Yes, and" is meant to imply in normal speech that the argument is incomplete. This is because the argument is incomplete.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:04 PM
-5

Yes, and?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:44 PM
-4

People in that sub do not open discussions by calling people transphobic.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:41 PM
-7

I guess you don't call racists "racist" either.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:36 PM
0

This comment was deleted. and the poster was banned. Here's the original What you say?!
/r/MensRights18/07/11 10:07 AM
0

The stupid. It burns...
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:26 AM
0

Depends on how we want to define "oppression". Were there gender roles? Oh hell yes. Did both genders have roles? Yes. But if we want to define "oppression" as a relative or comparative term, then no. The average woman had a better life than the average man since... well since recorded history at least. I see. Well, I'm glad that you decided to pass into the absurd. I rest my case. Nice talking to you. Nope. Who settled the vikings? Who tamed the wild west? Who fucked over the Spartans? Wat? The…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:06 AM
5

I do, which is why I want to make sure that you are talking about the situation as you are trying to represent it: a minority (men) oppressing a majority (women). So, there was no female oppression 50, 100, 200, or 500 years ago. Is that what you're saying? Never claimed that. I claimed that social aspects of this society are as women want them. A ridiculous claim. So are these women "oppressing" themselves? It's called internalized oppression. Read about it sometime. But women, overall, are by …
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:55 AM
3

Oh gawds. The pwnage here is delicious.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:24 AM
1

No, we're not talking about racism, we're talking about sexism. Do you understand the point I was making or do you just want to avoid it? So either the social environment is what women want it to be or women are lesser creatures incapable of raising children to the values they desire even with significantly greater direct influence. Which do you suppose is the case? Not all women are feminists. Mothers are not the sole or even the largest influence on children. Oh, and before you raise the "mone…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:22 AM
4

no. There's a lot of different kinds of oppression. Systematic but unofficial oppression can be a far greater factor in people's lives than government rules. For example, the state might be official anti-racism, but racism can still be very prevalent in society.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:05 AM
1

"Benevolent sexism" is a term used by feminists to falsely portray discrimination against men as somehow being discrimination against women. i.e, you don't get it, and you have no intention of getting it. And this is why you are just asked to GTFO from an anarchist space.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 03:27 AM
1

This is not abotu government. This is about privilege and oppression.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 03:26 AM
-3

This is because it's been explained multiple times and you don't seem to understand it, that those are not missing men rights, those are benevolent sexism against women. But I doubt you'll even bother to understand what benevolent sexism is.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 08:19 PM
0

If we ever have less rights, then we can ask for equal rights. But now that we have more rights, this just sounds like whining for losing your privileges.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 08:09 PM
0

Preaches? No. There's no need for preaching. You just don't like dissent from your collective misandry. Yeah, that's it. We all hate men because we ask for equal right for women.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 07:54 PM
2

Again, known person who doesn't come there to understand, but to preach. And you wouldn't what an authoritarian looked like even if they ordered you to beat yourself up.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 07:48 PM
1

Note: You're not there to understand or learn. You're there to proselytize and agitate against feminism. You're a known element and treated accordingly for violating an anarchist space and the rules set in the sidebar.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 05:46 PM
2

Note: When wanting to learn orr understand something about a particular group, it's usually better to politely ask the group itself rather than those who hate them.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:56 PM
1

The male-assigned quality of strength has existed for a long, long, long time - it has existed since physical strength was, actually, a useful quality in a leader. It got translated into "men are better leaders" which, as you say, is wrong. If this was the case (and there's a lot of contentions I have with this presentation) it would just show that these kind of stuff are cultural, not innate. As for the need to express beauty. Many women have tremendous power over many men when it comes to expr…
/r/MensRights12/05/11 11:16 AM
1

While males do tend to build more muscle mass than females, this does not translate to logic and leadership and yet these are also things that young males express and compete in as much as they do in strength. In fact, as far as things go, muscular strength in our day and age is not a much a defining characteristic of manhood. And if the connection about males and strength is plausible based on such genetic predispositions, the connection about females and shoes or frilly things isn't. I do not …
/r/MensRights12/05/11 09:28 AM
1

I disagree strongly here. That women are driven to express beauty while men are driven to express strength is absolutely part of the socially constructed gender norms and expectations. There is nothing innate about it. Our Patriarchical society conditions children from a young age to think that a woman's worth is in their beauty while a man's worth is in their strength (of muscle, intelligence or leadership).
/r/MensRights11/05/11 02:18 PM
1

How can shoe addiction or liking frilly things be an innate thing? Womanhood yes, your brain is wired one way or another, but these things are not only culturally-specific but they didn't even exist for most of our species' existence.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 10:39 AM
2

I have no problem with you liking these stuff of course, but I don't like the implication that one cannot be feminine unless they do those, or one is less manly if they do those. These are the socialy constructed gender expressions that we fight against so much. Naturally I have no problem with you enjoying these things, but those aren't the ones that define you as a woman for me.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 10:22 AM
9

I like to consider myself a radfem and I don't hate you. However I don't think that radical feminism is a monolithic entity as most people think. There's quite a lot of variation in opinions there as well.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 08:21 AM
2

I have a shoe addiction. It can take me ages to get ready to go out. I need frilly things in my life. I am a woman. on a more tangenial note, surely you realize that a lot of women would have an issue with this statement?
/r/MensRights11/05/11 08:12 AM
1

No, perfect equality does not require totalitarianism. Equity is a market concept and therefore completely unnecessary for anarchism. You should learn what equality means and how there are more than one type of equality.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 07:24 PM
2

Equality requires anarchism you dolt.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:59 PM
-3

You should be ashamed really...
/r/MensRights14/04/11 03:40 PM
-4

Okay--give me your sources explaining why women shouldn't be considered sexual predators Ahaha, quoted for posterity. There's no need to argue with misogynists like you really. I only need to let them speak for themselves. Carry on.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 07:32 AM
-4

Yes, it IS A GOOD SOLUTION. lolwut wait... aahahahaha wnd.com ahahahahahahahaaaaa I stopped reading right there. The vast majority of cases of child abuse involve family members as perpetrators; Then it is irrelevant to our discussion about how most cases of stranger sexual abuse is done by males. Plus I doubt that this report you cited is just about sexual abuse.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:29 AM
0

Actually, a growing number of studies are showing that women are the primary abusers of at least as many, if not more, children Is this in abuse from stranger cases or abuse from families? Also [citation needed] It's just that women have been shielded by preconceived biases about women being virtuous from accusations of pedophilia, even when the evidence is clearly against them. Yeah, according to you women are rampaging among the children, therefore it's better to consider both male and females…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 06:30 PM
-5

Yeah, it's the feminists' faults that most such perverts are males. Obviously...
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:16 PM
-1

Dude, all you have to do - all you had to do from the start - was simply to ignore my supporting comment. So all we have to do to "Go your separate ways" is that you stop trying to talk to me. The fuck is wrong with you?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:36 AM
-1

It seems to me that you're the one who is desperately trying to "start shit" here. Let me repeat myself. I was not even addressing you.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:20 AM
-1

I didn't even address you!
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:06 AM
1

I admire your courage in posting in here :)
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:03 AM
-1

The patriarchy works towards benefiting women. Right. Because we all know that women just love being relegated to the house and as a child raising tool and being appreciated only for their beauty. Le Sigh arent you just doing the same regarding men's rights? Not when I see comments like this tolerated around here
/r/MensRights26/10/10 12:14 AM
-1

Feminism helps males because it is actively attacking the Patriarchy. Mens Rights does not help males because it denies the Patriarchy exists.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 11:03 PM
0

Yeah, because a movement created for the emancipation of women is at fault when it doesn't cater to men. Are you reading what you're writing?
/r/MensRights25/10/10 10:56 PM
1

Read up on evolutionary psychology or don't even bother replying to me at all I have read up on evolutionary psychology but it hardly says what you claim it does. It has some indications to such an extent but at the moment it's mostly correlation. All this "propertarian social relations" and "male privilege" talk are nothing but ideological musings; not at all, it's based on historical and anthropological researches.
/r/MensRights27/10/09 01:51 PM
2

Those "socially constructed reactions to women" were born precisely out of biases with evolutionary roots. A bold assertion. It's very much likely that many of those followed from benevolent sexism which followed from sexism born from the rise of the propertarian social relations and the subsequent male privilege. And am I misreading you?[...] You're reading me wrong. Read what benevolent sexism is
/r/MensRights27/10/09 01:02 PM
1

Look, I'm not saying that I don't believe you. You make a compelling case and I'm painfully aware how incompetent state legislation is. Unfortunately there's only two alternatives, legislation that doesn't go far enough to actually protect and prevent abuse, and rework, from the ground up of the whole social relations and rules built around them in order to make such cases irrelevant/impossible. I'm in fact for the latter but I'm not certain you are.
/r/MensRights27/10/09 07:18 AM
2

As I said, I really don't know anything about your case other than what you tell me so I can't accept that this was in fact the sole reason why your kids were taken away from you given your natural bias.
/r/MensRights27/10/09 07:01 AM
2

This is not a novel idea. This article was just horrible. Just anecdote piled over opinion piled over unbased facts. It was stunningly lacking in evidence save this lone quote The Justice Department's 1998 "Intimate Partner Violence" report reveals that 1/3 of total domestic violence murder victims are male. Which misses the point which not all or even most must end in murder and ends up looking extremely like a specifically-picked factoid to give some semblance of authority but fails miserably …
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:49 AM
2

Now this was in court, you see. She appeared to be afraid of me in court. Assuming I was a violent offender, I would have to be a complete idiot to attack her in court. Ok, you're confusing two different things here. I won't claim to speak about your case since I know almost nothing about it but I can very well consider the wife of an abusive husband to remain in fear just in proximity of him, even in a safe area. People are still irrationally afraid of bugs fer crying out loud. I can even compa…
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:40 AM
2

Sorry the "emotional" comment was made in light of the information you had provided at that time. You now provide more information which make it seem as if you're being more rational about it. You do have more of a case now and make more sense (in the way that it is plausible that this is in fact common). However I'd like to see how common it is compared to actual cases of abuse based on something more solid than anecdotes and third-hand opinions. There's also the point to consider that such a r…
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:37 AM
2

Statistical research can be done on the ground for which judges allowed such protection I assume. You said it yourself that in your case, the judge actually said "well, she looks scared" so I'm guessing similar stuff would have been declared by other such judges passing such judgement.
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:30 AM
2

Ok, don't you think that you're being too emotional on this? I can understand you feeling slighted and betrayed by justice but do you think this is enough ground to make sweeping statements?
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:27 AM
1

It quite important to know "How much money" because if that was a couple of grand, it is far from making up for homelessness. I'm not saying it's not possible that she wasn't afraid, but there is no indication that that is what she was thinking. There's no indication of anything! That's the point. We have just one guy's one-sided story which is why I asked for more background. There's no reason to make any assumptions here, let alone one as severe as the one you're making. I'm not making any ass…
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:19 AM
2

No. As we all know families are far from unquestionably supportive and friends tend to be critical if they are decent. So we're left with either the option that the woman must have been a scum, with a very "blood is blood" traditional family and scummy/uncritical friends, or that the guy was not telling the whole story.
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:15 AM
2

It's possible but, speaking from personal experience, women who are scummy don't tend to have friends, scummy or not. Two scummy women will practically implode their friendship. On the other hand, men tend to show camaraderie with their scummy friends while turning their scumminess externally. As much as it sends shivers down my spine to agree with AnnArchist on anything, that has been my experience as well.
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:13 AM
2

Stupidly, the way our system is set up, fear for any reason, including a valid fear of losing custody for valid reasons, in practice works when petitioning for a protection order. Sorry but I can't take this on your word. Any statistical evidence at the least?
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:10 AM
2

You're pointing to socially constructed reactions to women, not evolutionary evidence. While such evidence exists in relation to babies (even animal babies) you have not provided evidence that such a "women-first" syndrom is the result of evolutionary psychology and not remains of benevolent sexism.
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:09 AM
1

Pity he didn't first delete said posts before deleting his account.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 09:39 PM
2

Sorry, was I the one being skeptical of the OP's claim or the MRAs? Was the vast majority here immediately jumping to the conclusion that he was deserving the benefit of a doubt when he provided no information at all? This is in fact a good example of the male privilege you bask in. A simple question expressing skepticism about the OPs appeals to emotion and one-sided post is interpreted as misandry or whatever you like to call it. Of course, i read a feminist book [...] and declare anyone who d…
/r/MensRights26/10/09 09:24 PM
3

So do I and so do many women. Why do you assume that this one doesn't? Why do you assume that friends and family would be facilitators? But yeah, it's all anecdotal so it's not likely to reach an agreement without an empirical research on this issue.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 08:35 PM
0

Fleeing one's home is not something anyone does lightly.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 08:07 PM
1

Furthermore it's debatable whether this is really the most likely solution even if it is the simplest, and that in itself is questionable. Debate it then Seeing as we don't know there's nothing wrong with humouring the guy. Actually no. Even the thought of helping an abusive husband track down his fleeing wife or providing him with emotional support is repulsive to me. It's you who should be thinking why you were so quick to assume he's in the right when he provided zero background on this and s…
/r/MensRights26/10/09 08:06 PM
0

I think it's a good assumption that any woman who would want to leave a marriage would want to take her children with her. That goes equally for both genders, but to take the drastic action to flee the home is something that no woman or man would decide easily to do. In my personal experience, the women who do feel the need to leave everything behind and flee, do so because they feel too threatened to stay and work it out like adults.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 08:03 PM
4

I disagree. Men tend to get as much if not more unquestionable support from their friend. In fact, the more scummy the man and his friends, the more unquestionable the support. So no, I disagree that people have any psychological effects hardwired into their brains for a women's call for help.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 08:01 PM
-5

Occam's razor. Lacking more information, it's the best conclusion to jump to.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 05:42 PM
4

Well, what's the full story? I mean you seem to be giving a very one-sided view of this and since you claim that friends and family refuse to disclose where she is, it's obvious that people support her actions so they don't seem to be unwarranted. So what's the full story?
/r/MensRights26/10/09 02:22 PM
3

or subreddits that are vastly out of your intellectual league. MensRights? Lulz
/r/MensRights24/09/09 03:25 PM
3

is misandrist. You start to sound like a broken record.
/r/MensRights24/09/09 08:05 AM
0

No we can't, nor should we. The OP is absolutely right in calling out the insidious use of this kind of fallacy.
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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