TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

djscrub Archive

View 0 posts and 21 comments by djscrub 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

I understand what you're saying, but she doesn't say that facts are meaningless. She doesn't say that stats lie, just that there are some truths that they can't tell.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 12:47 AM
1

Yes I know that. It's still not remotely what I'm talking about.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 08:10 PM
1

You are correct. Making generalizations about race and gender is a flaw of her writing. I am not what one would consider to be a disciple of her work by any stretch. She's kind of stuck on the idea that you can't understand black women's problems unless you are a black woman (but you can help fix the problems, as long as you don't empathize). It's a bit silly. But that doesn't make every single thing she has to say automatically wrong.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 07:26 PM
0

Are you still debating the random hypo I made up? I couldn't care less whether you think that 90% of threats are unreported. Since I admitted from the very beginning that I made that up entirely. The issue is this: suppose, theoretically, that such a problem does exist. Or if you find a clever way to measure my particular hypo, then replace with a hypo involving a problem that really is bad, but really does defy statistical investigation. Does that mean that we have to ignore the problem? Or can…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 07:11 PM
0

You are asking for an example of a real problem, that currently exists, that these feminists are currently arguing exists, but it's difficult to measure, so it's getting ignored? I'm sorry, I'm just not that involved with the movement. I'm a lawyer who studied these theories in school and have written on feminist legal theory, but not this kind of stuff directly. The book I mentioned in my first post, by the way, is a theory book, not an empirical one. It isn't talking about a specific issue and…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:59 PM
1

No, it's not. The argument in question is that it is possible for unprovable things to be true. Not that they are true simply because they are unprovable. There is a big, big difference.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:27 PM
1

Does anyone actually try to rebut that? Just read this thread of comments. A bunch of people are rebutting that. This u/IcarusLived guy is downright dogmatic about it.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:23 PM
2

I'll clear up what I'm talking about, then. All of this began as a response to a user who apparently thinks that feminists are not aware that many of their arguments are not backed up by statistics. I presented the fact that they are, in fact, aware of this, and have made attempts to explain why that does not make their arguments irrelevant. Since then, numerous people have mischaracterized and insulted straw man versions of the argument I presented (not as my own thoughts, but as the theories o…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:19 PM
-1

That's a ridiculous overstatement. You are invalidating entire academic disciplines, such as philosophy, art, and literature. Hell, anything subjective, under your definition, is not even nominally related to reality. What about moral ethics? Please show me a statistical model that proves (or disproves) utilitarianism, that making the most people the happiest should be the goal of society. Or maybe you think Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill just made all of that up, and could just as easily have sai…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:48 PM
-1

When did I say that no feminists do this? No one with a basic understanding of English could read what I said and come away with the conclusion that there are is no garbage research produced by feminist authors.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:43 PM
-1

And anyone who makes the sort of arguments you cite is being intellectually dishonest and counterproductive. If you are willing to have a conversation that begins, "Look, I think there's this problem, but stats can't really show it. What can we do about that?" then you are fine. But read some of the other posters mewling about Russell's Teapot, saying that without stats, everything is a lie. If you can't show math that proves it, then it's a lie, made up, no credibility. You might as well say th…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:42 PM
-10

So, again, if there is a problem that can't be proven with statistics, even though we are pretty sure it's there, we can't acknowledge it or do anything about it until we invent new stats methods that can prove it. Understood.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:18 PM
4

No, it isn't. I said "don't insult them, because they are not stupid, as evidenced by what they actually said, including the following arguments by a certain author." I never said that they were credible simply because they were academics, and I never mentioned degrees or professorships.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:12 PM
1

You will not like some of what she has to say. In particular, she does a lot of "essentializing," basically saying that "black woman" is a resume that gives you credibility to talk about race and gender issues, and whites and men are somehow less qualified. She also says that, while men sometimes suffer from gender stereotypes, they all benefit from them and perpetuate them, without exception. She is a radical, and she does see race and gender as "classes" with strong relevance to identity and c…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:08 PM
-6

So, to be clear, what you are saying is this: Suppose that threats of violence for intimidation against women are 10 times more prevalent than we think. The measure and funding currently in place to protect women from this behavior are woefully insufficient. Society has created a culture, inadvertently, that makes women refuse to report this to anyone. Currently, our statistical methods simply cannot prove that this problem exists. Several professors have gotten grants to do it, because of some …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:02 PM
1

You may think that this is a cheap shot. I was pointing out what hooks says, not what I believe. Remember that this discussion began with what I think was an unfair characterization of a certain intellectual movement. It doesn't mean that I agree with all (or for that matter, any) of what that movement says. As for the context of the lament that many (not all) male feminists emphasize things like "career women" as ideals of the movement, by "coincidence" an area in which men have a lot to gain, …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:54 PM
3

Two things: 1)I never said that hooks or anyone else is not an idiot simply because they have advanced degrees or a professorship. This is called an appeal to ethos, and I did not do it at all. I said that their arguments, or at least the parts related to the lack of statistics, are not stupid. Saying that evolution is false because I have nothing in common with a monkey is a stupid argument. If these feminists made arguments that stupid on this particular subject, I would agree with you. 2)bell…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:32 PM
5

Maybe you should re-read the post to which I was responding. He was indeed making the argument that radical feminists lie or make up fake data. Simply arguing that they have common sense in their field of study would be a defense of their character against that post.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:19 PM
14

Yes, this is exactly the argument that hooks is addressing. You can't combine the "statistic" that only 10% are reported with anything, because the point is that it's impossible to obtain that statistic. Imagine that you suspect that threats of violence are underreported because women are ashamed to admit that they happened. This shame is deep enough that they will lie to police and even anonymous pollsters. Serious question, not being smug or anything. What is the research model you would use t…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:17 PM
10

The point of my post is that radical feminists are aware that men like Rattatoskk want more stats and hard evidence, and they have refuted this point by saying that some problems defy statistical evidence or representation. Please explain to me how men refusing to report getting raped makes that moot? Is it possible that you are responding to my hypothetical, the one I explicitly said was just a hypothetical and not something I was claiming to be true? And, on the point of what bell hooks and he…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:10 PM
41

I understand what you're saying, and I do agree with most of what YetAnotherCommenter says, but please don't insult the last 30 years of academic feminists by acting like they're stupid. They are familiar with everything you just said, and they are aware that statistics would be nice. One of the key points of one of the most influential texts, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by bell hooks (yes, she spells her name all lower case), is that men love statistics and dismiss arguments that can…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:32 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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