TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

eaglitarian Archive

View 0 posts and 84 comments by eaglitarian 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)
4

Plenty of homophobia has been expressed in contexts where the homophobe would have nothing to fear from the homosexual (due to physical circumstances).
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:04 PM
7

Off the top of my head: Pre-nups can't control child custody or support arrangements Pre-nups can be set aside or interpreted with quite a high degree of freedom compared to most other contracts.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:00 PM
1

Yes. Ideally there should be a step between being pressured into doing something, and doing that thing. Realistically this often doesn't happen, which is why it needs to be a policy or training thing (if it becomes an issue).
/r/MensRights03/09/12 04:54 PM
2

I meant the ambulance medicc had the permission, not the "child safety officer". In the post OP says he spoke to the father on the phone. If the CSOs want the power to stop their charges from being taken to hospital by ambulance when required they should have signed permission saying that explicitly (I doubt parents would go for that, somehow).
/r/MensRights03/09/12 02:46 PM
44

Ideally, what should have happened is that the staff member should have asked the complainants what the problematic behaviour actually was, and taken the appropriate action (taken a look, seen that you were just there with your gf advising on clothes, and done nothing further). But staff members sometimes don't think that much unless there's a policy. I would write a letter to the store. I would describe the events, I would describe how it made you feel and I would ask whether their policy is to…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 03:56 AM
2

You need to work out the exact legal consequences of getting (legally) married, and not being legally married, where you are (effects on child custody, support/maintenance, tax, benefits, insurance, etc). You also need to be aware of any "common-law marriage" or other things that might land you with a legally-married(-like) status without an actual legal marriage where you are. You certainly need to talk it through with a good lawyer (whichever way you want to go). Chances are both have advantag…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 03:49 AM
7

I have seen Babe so many times I've developed an irrational hatred of pigs. Fortunately that's entirely consistent with a rational love of bacon.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 12:59 AM
22

Might be worth mentioning. Perhaps you can get your boss to have your legal counsel (I imagine you have someone) to write a strongly worded letter to these people.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:48 PM
2

The law should be based on morals and ethics. Generally (IMO) it should err on the side of non-interference. Unless the risk is truly excessive (for example, from allowing the unrestricted private ownership of the more dangerous nuclear materials) it shouldn't onerously restrict the rights of honest people just because of the dishonest minority.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:46 PM
37

In a case where you've actually spoken to a legal guardian and got permission, I can't see how you could be legally in the wrong (but I'm not a lawyer, etc). I think there should be an offence of actively obstructing the emergency services in the performance of their duties (there generally is for the police, but fire and ambulance services are rarely covered by something similar).
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:42 PM
2

You haven't said anything to actually support your position. I can see how you could argue it, but it's far from an obvious truth. To take one example, I would certainly still support the freedom of the mother to abort if it was a case of her life or the fetus's, even if you could convince me the fetus was morally equivalent to a person.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:38 PM
6

What zarquon989 said - SRS is off-topic here. You could try asking /r/antisrs (they're anti-SRS, or course, so don't expect an unbiased response, but you wouldn't get one here either anyway).
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:34 PM
6

Off-topic, but your apostrophes are backwards (you're using back-tick (`) instead of apostrophe (')). Also, since Reddit uses back-ticks as formatting marks this is also causing them to be lost and your text to randomly switch between normal and fixed-width. If you do want to use back-ticks, you can escape them by putting a backslash in front of each one (\`) to stop Reddit interpreting them as formatting marks.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 07:29 PM
3

A couple of things about this seem trollish, in particular... The thing that bugs me most is that the teenagers who caused all this are mostly girls. So because a bunch of girls cause trouble that somehow makes me a pedo? How is that even relevant? What am I supposed to do, just go back and dont go to the store? Am I supposed to never eat? Am I so disposable that all of society just gives me a big middle finger and wants me to rot in my own home? Just because I'm a male? The reference to male di…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 06:17 PM
10

Legally (in at least most places) child support is held to be a right of the child. Thus, whatever the circumstances (even if you're forcibly raped), you're liable for child support for your progeny. If the woman in question has committed a crime or civil offence against you then theoretically you could sue for damages, but unless she has significant money/assets it probably won't do any good.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 05:49 PM
1

It's stupid, not only because of a bogus supposed male/female distinction, but because it makes sense to have a less lethal option even if you can carry a firearm or feel able to deal with threats physically (which doesn't really make sense for anyone when you consider multiple assailants with weapons). My response would be "Continuum of force, moron."
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:05 PM
2

What you described is unlikely to be murder, accidentally or otherwise. But it certainly makes sense to avoid killing or seriously injuring someone if you can, even as part of lawful self-defence.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:03 PM
0

Linked video is promoting manhood101/Manhood Academy if you check the description. (Not accusing the OP of anything.)
/r/MensRights23/08/12 11:32 PM
1

If you intend these things to be used in legal proceedings then you have issues of chain-of-custody, security and liability. The first question is: why would a court trust your website (websites generally can't be admitted as evidence, so some sort-of printout/recording from it) as providing accurate timestamps? I suspect the evidence itself without any legal backup could be attacked as being weak, given that it's an online-accessible system managed by someone with a political interest in the ma…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 11:18 PM
3

Ah. Didn't know that was one of your haunts.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 02:42 AM
3

It has, here. (The other post had a couple of CGI variables in the link which is why Reddit probably didn't tell you the link had already been posted.)
/r/MensRights23/08/12 02:29 AM
2

It's such a co-incidence that you should happen across this article from 2008 today.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 02:14 AM
2

Playing Devil's Advocate can make sense if you agree with a conclusion but disagree with the argument. It's helpful to challenge our own (potentially) bad arguments.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:59 PM
4

Firstly, I think this should be in /r/MensRightsMeta. Secondly, I think it's a bad idea. Everyone might want to play Devil's Advocate now and again. All you need to is preface it with "Playing Devil's Advocate..." or something of that ilk. Having specific accounts for it is just an unnecessary PITA.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:24 PM
4

If you're going to hang around here it really makes sense to invest in an industrial model.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:17 PM
3

My own experiences and observations strongly agree with this article. I didn't really start reading properly until I discovered books which were interesting and exciting. A (male) family member didn't get into fiction at all as a child, but learned very strong reading skills from reading non-fiction (catalogues, reviews, subject-oriented magazines, etc.) (It's also good to learn appreciation of literature, but the abilities to read and write well is the really important skill.) I fear that trend…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 09:10 PM
-1

Hmm. Hopefully people will recognise the difference between the question of what constitutes rape (though there are legitimate questions there, too) and whether a rape occurred. But perhaps I'm being naive.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 08:38 PM
5

as hateful as "i didn't want to get to know a group of people" This doesn't sound "hateful" to me. A little offish, perhaps, but "hateful" is a very strong word. There are various groups I might not choose to engage with socially, but I generally don't hate them, and age gaps do make a difference when you're young (but they were perhaps pre-judging a little). I don't think this is really a rights issue, and you've only given a fairly vague description of what was said. However, I think the stere…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:39 PM
3

Sounds to me like he's trying to back out of what he said by claiming he was talking about false accusations. I'm not sure this will lead to false accusations becoming a talking point (I'd imagine his opponents would rather draw attention to the initial implications rather than engage on false accusations) and even if it did I suspect it'd do more harm than good by tainting the issue :/ Also, you seem to have "sanitised" an account with negative comment karma, which is making my trolly-sense tin…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:28 PM
4

It says [spam filtered] and I've noticed that links to blog.telegraph.co.uk often seem to get spam-filtered by Reddit, so quite possibly not removed by a moderator - did you try PMing them?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:00 PM
2

I suppose you could make an argument that it's "more wrong" if it's intended to victimise a particular set of people, but I'm not sure it's a useful comparison. It's clear and deliberate discrimination - for whatever reason.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:15 AM
21

This. By declining the OP wasn't actually an asshole, but merely called an asshole. (Others have addressed the "transgender" comment.)
/r/MensRights21/08/12 03:54 AM
1

Just looked it up. New one for me, thanks.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 02:43 AM
11

This, though I wouldn't consider them part of the "men's rights community" at all. They're not rights-oriented.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 02:38 AM
5

Another explanation, statistically, would be if women have a typically lower duration of abuse in a relationship (for example, if men put up with abuse for longer, on average, before ending a relationship). Thus while men have a lower chance of experiencing domestic abuse at some point, they're likely to stay longer in an abusive relationship if they do find themselves in one and so have a slightly greater chance of having been abused in the last year. I'm not saying that's what happening, just …
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:05 AM
6

You seem to be assuming that this is a US-specific legal question, when neither attribute was specified. And not actually reading what I wrote.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:05 AM
7

I didn't say that the RvW verdict was based on bodily autonomy (I'm well aware of the circumstances of RvW), I said I think most people who support abortion do so on the basis of bodily autonomy. My argument was moral rather than legal and not US-specific (since I'm not in the US anyway).
/r/MensRights20/08/12 11:59 PM
14

I think most people who support the right to abortion would do so on the basis of control over one's body, in which case the answer is obvious. (Remember, the alternative to "no say" is really "can override the wishes of the pregnant woman with regard to her own body".)
/r/MensRights20/08/12 11:08 PM
2

This isn't a less imperfect world, as I think my comment made clear.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 10:07 PM
2

Ok, to be more specific, equality-of-opportunity egalitarianism (which I think is what most Egalitarian MRAs would support, and is largely incompatible with equality-of-outcome).
/r/MensRights20/08/12 09:25 PM
0

Well, the ideal situation is to work together on things we agree on whilst promoting our (everyone's) own different philosophies. Unfortunately it seems that a desire to promote ideological agendas gets in the way of the former. It might be better to draw a line between practical advocacy and philosophical debate. (Also, I don't see why egalitarianism is necessarily tied to liberalism. It seems to me that it is also compatible with (almost implied by) libertarianism.)
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:12 PM
2

My perspective, is that anybody interested in equality should call themselves egalitarians rather than MRAs or feminists and distance themselves from the gendered movements that attract these kinds of people. Well, I'm an egalitarian but I disagree. In a less imperfect world there wouldn't need to be a male-specific "MRM", but as things are (and with a powerful gendered Feminism movement) we need to direct resources specifically at male issues in order to move towards egalitarianism. Egalitarian…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:06 PM
5

I think "Egalitarian MRA" is certainly the best term to use. I would avoid "EMRA" as certain other parties will probably try to conflate it with "Extremist". (Also, it's extra non-self-explanatory terminology and thus an additional barrier to communication.)
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:57 PM
9

Thanks :) I broadly agree with you. It may just be a result of my particular position, but I see the main division as being between egalitarians (equal treatment) and non-egalitarians (including but not limited to traditionalists). I don't have a "master plan" for dealing with it (and I'm not sure I really buy into the idea of the MRM as a single cohesive entity) but I think the important thing is to make the distinction. It's a difficult problem, though. On the one hand, I don't think we should…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:55 PM
4

Yes, with individual rooms they may as well be unisex, but I don't see that as a major equal rights issue if equitable numbers of rooms are provided for each sex.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:03 PM
19

It's not very helpful to try to bring up something like this without giving specific examples that we can see in context. Also, trying this with a zero-day account kinda shouts "concern troll".
/r/MensRights20/08/12 05:30 PM
11

Sounds like you're correct, unless there's some particular special circumstance (such as there being a massive disproportion in the gender of the likely users, for example in a single-sex school).
/r/MensRights20/08/12 05:15 PM
11

Unless she'd explicitly consented to sex continuing if she had a seizure then I think we would have to consider consent to have terminated at that point, just as if she'd fallen asleep or passed out. However, if he didn't know that she was having a seizure (and it may not be obvious) then there's no intent and therefore no crime.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 06:48 PM
14

I think that blog is probably satire/trolling. The Comins quote is a bit of a give-away. But it could be a Poe.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:20 PM
16

If anything, promoting the idea that men shouldn't judge women for being promiscuous is the real misandry. It depends what you mean by "judging". I see nothing immoral about "sleeping around" (whether you're male or female) so long as you're not deceiving people, etc., and I don't see it as anyone else's concern. However, everyone has the right to choose who they're prepared to have a relationship with based on whatever criteria they wish - and it's not for anyone to cast moral judgements on tha…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 04:51 PM
12

I see the rationale but I fear that it will do more to reinforce the (feminist) notion of a "rape culture" through people who take in the headline but don't read the background than it will to dispel that or to draw attention to attitudes towards prison rape via the smaller number of people who will read the background.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 03:52 AM
3

Well, the "religious hatred" bit is bogus (and garners atheist interest), their opposition to Putin is probably a big factor, and it's a free speech issue (another red button for Reddit). Being female can help get media interest when you're a victim (or seen as a victim) but I suspect this would be all over Reddit if they were male, too.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:18 PM
1

I don't think it's obvious that the linked notices are false. (Though there may well be defences against them in law, and they do seem to be politically motivated.)
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:54 PM
1

I'd consider removing/deleting, just because the subject line and linked article are pretty accusatory and people might not read the comments.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:50 PM
1

Well, it depends what you mean by "false". The take-down notices that GWW received (according to her description) were clearly bogus and malicious, and the sender would very likely have committed perjury. This is not obviously the case with the Roth take-downs on that page. She has apparently used real ID info and has identified content which could conceivably be infringing. That isn't to say she's necessarily right or that she'd win a copyright action in court, but even if she lost that wouldn'…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:32 PM
3

Exactly.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:12 PM
7

So far as I can see, GWW hasn't (yet) claimed that the notices she received were from this "Surly Amy", either. So far as I know, it's just the blogger at "Atheist Revolution" who's drawn that connection, but doesn't really seem to have provided evidence that it was the same source in both cases.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:12 PM
4

How so? So far as I can see that appears to show that someone called "Amy Roth" (which I presume to be Surly Amy's name) is behind some specific take-down notices. But those are not the notices aimed at GWW, and there don't seem to be any commonalities with the notices GWW received that would make a clear case that they're from the same person. In fact, there seem to be significant differences, as I mentioned above. The only connecting factor seems to be timing - and that's an awfully weak argum…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:07 PM
8

That might well establish that "Surly Amy" is behind those DMCA take-downs, but those are not the take-downs that GWW received, which is what this thread subject claims.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:03 PM
11

What's the MR angle? They're described as a feminist band but this seems to be a don't-annoy-Putin issue rather than anything actually feminism- or MR-related. (Edit: The judge did talk about "considering men and women to be equal" somehow constituting religious hatred. I think this is fairly clearly more to do with anti-Putin protests, but either way I don't think we have any reason to be happy about the verdict.)
/r/MensRights17/08/12 03:58 PM
17

Umm... before we go on with this, do we actually have confirmation that this person was also behind the bogus DMCA take-downs received by GWW? It seems that the quoted take-downs had real ID info and identified specific content in the videos, where as the notices GWW received did not. Timing could be co-incidental (or one could have been inspired by the other).
/r/MensRights17/08/12 03:43 PM
27

In Germany, even under the new, improved law, it's still illegal without a court order that will only be granted "if it is decided that child will not significantly suffer from the information". Wonder how that plays out with child support.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 12:30 AM
3

It's a measure of trollishness rather than a measure of troll quality.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 08:45 PM
7

Trollometer |------->--| 8.1/10
/r/MensRights15/08/12 08:21 PM
5

Given the recent fracas in Canada, there's no real way to tell if this is someone who thinks this helps us, or someone who's trying to make us look bad. I note the photo shows a hand-written sticker.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:07 PM
3

Perjury. You really don't do your homework, do you?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:35 AM
2

My secondary thought would be that it would obscure GWW in a crowd of supporters, if she ever lost her channel and had to start again. They would never know who the real GWW was in the future, so the trick wouldn't work again. The problem with that is that a single channel with many viewers is better than spreading the support over many channels. I think using a proxy entity of some type is probably the long-term solution to this.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:42 AM
6

Keeping content up, somewhere, isn't too difficult. The problem is it doesn't have the same persuasive power (particularly for people who aren't specifically following her content) that a single established channel has. Similarly, there are alternatives to Youtube, but the advantage of Youtube is a large user-base and social features (comments, favourites, etc.) which can bring in people who were previously unaware of the MRM.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:22 AM
3

To make things clear, I think we need to distinguish between the problems with the DMCA, and the problems with Youtube/Google's implementation of it. Now, as I understand it, under the DMCA someone who submits a valid take-down notice gets your details if you submit a counter-notice so that they can sue you and have their day in court. Now, this does strip the person in question of anonymity before establishing any wrong-doing, but it also allows for liability and penalties for the complainant i…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:15 AM
3

Perhaps, but a DMCA takedown notice must state that, “under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the notification is accurate” - which would be a bit of a clue.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 11:01 PM
5

In practical terms, if they've either used an anonymising proxy, or someone else's Internet connection (eg, coffee shop wifi or whatever) and haven't done something stupid like using some of the real information, then they are effectively anonymous for their purposes here. No-one's going to be raiding some server in Indonesia or going through CCTV recordings for this. I suppose they might have been mind-numbingly stupid, so it might be worth pursuing just in case, but I wouldn't expect success.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:30 PM
14

Real throwaway e-mail address, fake name.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:19 PM
10

They can easily use real, throwaway e-mail addresses with fake names, while making infeasible to trace those e-mail addresses back to them.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:19 PM
15

The problem is there's no mechanism to ensure that the complainants have provided real ID details (as they're supposed to) to ensure they're actually held liable for fraudulent claims before the responder has to provide theirs (and lose anonymity).
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:17 PM
3

Yes, the thing is I doubt very much that whoever's behind this have provided real information. It doesn't take much to cover your tracks sufficiently online to make it infeasible to trace them. (For this purpose - if someone like the FBI is after you it's a bit trickier.) So I'm hoping there's a way of making a "request is clearly invalid as false identification used, so don't need to provide personal details in counter-claim" response. The problem is dealing with a huge company and automated sy…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:47 PM
10

He also seems to be comparing releasing information obtained by research and deception (which is an admittedly questionable approach - but it's also been used by respected investigative journalists so there is at least a public interest argument there) with breaking the law (substantially) by knowingly making false DMCA requests.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:39 PM
7

Yes - the case against Youtube seems a bit weaker. Would it even actually be unlawful for them to have a policy (if they so wished) of taking down every DMCA-requested video without reference to the poster, no questions asked? A PR offensive may work better. Presumably others (including non-MRAs) have been attacked in this way.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:36 PM
4

I'm not intimately familiar with the DMCA and related US law, but presumably to be valid a DMCA take-down request needs to specify the identity of the requester. Presumably to avoid fines the spurious requests don't use real info. Perhaps it would be possible to fight the request on the basis that it is invalid (as opposed to legally flawed/false) without revealing real-life ID details?
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:32 PM
9

I don't know what the objective of your study is, but if you're trying to get a representative sample of the population (or even of Reddit users) then asking here may not be a good idea - you're likely to get a rather skewed sample.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:51 PM
16

To be fair, from the quote it doesn't appear that the article is saying that. However, it does seem doing the classic jump from "woman does terrible thing" to "she must be mentally ill - we should have sympathy for her too" (with a slight hint of victimhood there, too). (And there is sometimes an argument for this, but chances are you wouldn't see it if a man poisoned a woman because he was rejected or ignored.)
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:41 PM
1

Yeah, OP pretty clearly trolling (weakly). Reading too much into grammatical gender is at best stupid.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:40 AM
2

Could be a result of stress or a coping mechanism (making light of the situation).
/r/MensRights13/08/12 01:47 AM
5

Sadly, there are a number of such examples.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 01:38 AM
4

Does anyone not find Travolta to be weird? (He is a Scientologist, after all.)
/r/MensRights13/08/12 01:21 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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