TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

famasfilms Archive

View 5 posts and 105 comments by famasfilms 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)
3

Lonely men will do it for attention and recognition I find donating to twitch streamers harder to understand.
/r/askTRP22/01/21 03:35 AM
1

And then she shares her venmo and PayPal shit online like people are supposed to just send her mone It's called simping
/r/askTRP22/01/21 02:41 AM
2

Lol absolute nonsense.
/r/seduction21/01/21 05:16 PM
9

Yes, and I suspect he's paid to do that by the PC crowd. wat?
/r/MensRights15/01/19 03:08 PM
19

Piers Morgan regularly adopts an anti-PC stance
/r/MensRights15/01/19 03:00 PM
1

You're being a bit pedantic, do they put a contract in front of you after one message, no. Do they invite you to apply for positions, yes
/r/MensRights12/12/17 07:56 PM
2

Linkedin is mostly used by recruiters trying to find candidates.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 04:43 PM
-5

Prove it's female privilege and not white privilege, class privilege, or looks privilege
/r/MensRights22/10/17 10:46 PM
2

lol
/r/MensRights17/08/17 10:22 AM
2

I forgot about the pay wall as I have a subscription, I'll paste the content when I'm on my desktop She's "yet to be charged"
/r/MensRights29/07/17 09:01 AM
16

TLDR: Female teacher guilty of statutory rape (sex with pupil) could be victim of a false accusation. Hypocrisy as feminists don't believe that women make false rape accusations Edit: and here is some consistency from the author https://image.ibb.co/bz1DN5/rad_1.jpg
/r/MensRights28/07/17 06:42 PM
-4

Of course it's fucking fair, Christ
/r/MensRights12/06/17 05:46 PM
1

you seem to be missing the point completely
/r/MensRights07/06/17 03:47 PM
1

it was LD until 2015 when LD support collapsed nationwide post coalition with the Tories and in anger due to their broken tuition fee promises. Since reaching Parliament she's acheived the profile of a front bencher despite being a brand new backbencher, this has been accomplished with her feminist politics and personality. Her feminist views and loud outspoken personality are like marmite - some will love it, others won't. Combine this with the poor support for Corbyn and a campaign which speci…
/r/MensRights07/06/17 11:02 AM
4

They've gone about this the wrong way, such OTT leaflets are just as likely to get people to turnout for Phillips. There is plenty of actual comments from her about white men and white history months that could have been used. There's also her infamous comments about the Cologne sex attacks being the same as "every saturday night in Birmingham" It will be a missed opportunity if she keeps her seat
/r/MensRights05/06/17 06:34 PM
1

You should watch until the end, every episode ends with the gender and social studies types being confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The final episode in the series is especially powerful. The first episode very relevant to this sub
/r/MensRights04/06/17 09:54 PM
2

Give this documentary a watch and let me know what you think (turn the captions on) The entire series is worth watching but this episode is more relevant to the discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=150QBUAisoo&index=3&list=PLd9_g7lAICxtlGbxh4_z8ik178o8CDPnv
/r/MensRights04/06/17 08:58 PM
1

Just to anyone that doubts this stuff: We can see that girls are starting puberty younger and younger. There is research that shows gay men have less testosterone and gay women have more testosterone. A female bodybuilder that injects testosterone will develop more masculine features and a penis like clitoris. Male and female hormone supplementation is part of the transitioning process. We all start off as female and then something happens in the womb to start the conversion to male. Hormones ar…
/r/MensRights04/06/17 08:47 PM
1

BBC DJ 'stepped aside' while his wife performed sex act on young man because it 'empowered her', court hears Court hears Court hears The headline is reporting what was actually said in Court, which is the whole point of the article. Dear God
/r/MensRights03/06/17 10:37 PM
-2

Are you special? The headline is reporting her husband's defence,, that's his explanation. Dear God, this sub sometimes
/r/MensRights03/06/17 01:58 PM
2

lol you really are dumb the MRA narrative - she got off because she was female! the SJW narrative - she got off because she was white! You just said that the Guardian deliberately found lawyers to say "no actually the judge just followed the law" because that suits their narrative. You're clearly an idiot and not worth wasting any more time on. I'll block you in a few minutes, just giving you notice and to make sure I know you know you're being blocked and why
/r/MensRights21/05/17 12:18 AM
-3

Do you even know what you're talking about? The typical Guardian narrative is that she got a deferred sentence because she's white. You're on the same side as the Guardian and their readership, you both think she got privilege. The specific Guardian article I linked quoted two barristers who contradicted that narrative by saying "nope the judge follows the guidelines" I'm sorry that the two articles I linked were too long for you to read. Next time stay out of topics you can't understand, ok?
/r/MensRights21/05/17 12:10 AM
-2

genetic fallacy in full effect. When they are quoting ACTUAL BARRISTERS, it does not matter what publication is quoting them. Francis FitzGibbon QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, dismissed suggestions that the judge’s approach reflected any bias. “I can’t see any evidence that this was doing her a favour because she was a student at Oxford,” he said. “He has given her a chance to get clean. “The purpose of these guidelines was to introduce consistency in sentencing, to stop a judge taki…
/r/MensRights20/05/17 11:29 PM
-2

Try reading the whole article lol. And I guess the opinions of the two barristers quoted in the Guardian article I linked to are also wrong?
/r/MensRights20/05/17 11:09 PM
0

lol, whatever helps you sleep at night pal
/r/MensRights20/05/17 04:31 PM
1

And your comment about Bashir's "career potential" is absurd. His career potential should not influence sentencing for a serious crime of domestic violence, as both of these crimes are. The judge found a convenient excuse to re-sentence. How is it absurd: Where a defendant who has never been in trouble is facing a custodial sentence of 2 years or under, and where they have the prospect of employment, education or caring responsibilities, judges will often strive to avoid passing a sentence of im…
/r/MensRights20/05/17 04:22 PM
-1

your last reply to me was decent, shame you had to ruin it with this one.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 04:20 PM
1

yep, because he misled the judge was to his career potential. That does not change the fact that in the Oxford student case the judge was following established legal guidelines
/r/MensRights20/05/17 04:01 PM
-1

no, if you form an opinion on a subject, and then refuse to read something which challenges your opinion, then your opinion is worthless I'd also point out that you're just as much of an idelogue as the SJWs that say she got off because of race
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:45 PM
1

That's your opinion and that is not what UK law or sentencing guidelines say. There are lots of people that say George Zimmerman should be in the prison, even though (to best of my understanding) the Florida self-defence stand your ground law meant that he was found not guilty. The point: If you are talking about a specific legal case then you must KNOW and RESPECT the law of the Country where that case takes place. If I go on holiday to Dubai and try and smuggle drugs into the Country and get s…
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:44 PM
-2

except as mentioned in the blog, a man - an asian man at that, assaulted his wife with a cricket bat and made her drink bleach - and received a suspended sentence. How do you explain that?
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:30 PM
0

I don't need to read an article in order to form the opinion that stabbing someone is not ok. lol, nice straw man. Nobody is saying that stabbing someone is ok. You should really read the article before commenting. She has not got away with anything, her sentence has been deferred.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:30 PM
0

but as the blog explained, she was dealt with according to UK law. There was nothing out of hand or sinister. And the attack was not particularly serious: did not need hospital treatment. His fingers were steri-stripped and his 1cm leg wound required stitches which were inserted at the scene.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:18 PM
-1

the court must have regard to the statutory five purposes of sentencing – punishment, reduction of crime (including by deterrence), reform and rehabilitation of offenders; protection of the public; and making reparations – and will need to assess the appropriate emphasis in any given case. While stabbing with a bread knife is plainly serious, if the injury is not particularly grave, and if the court is of the view that more can constructively be achieved by avoiding sending a promising young def…
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:05 PM
1

Rose did acknowledge after being pressed that there is nothing in the text messages spelling out affirmative consent Is affirmative consent necessary in whichever state this trial is taking place?
/r/MensRights27/04/17 08:37 PM
2

Militant third wave feminists have, hence the protests
/r/MensRights21/04/17 08:00 AM
2

Admittedly they should watch the film before casting judgement - but Cassie could have chosen a better title - or at least a title that wouldn't lead to automatic associations that the film is connected to /r/Redpill ideology
/r/MensRights21/04/17 07:30 AM
5

One of them wasn't born female
/r/MensRights30/03/17 07:51 PM
2

You're fucked, did you miss this part: an honorary role
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:56 PM
-2

because in UK law only penetrative sex with a penis = rape he says that he was too drunk to consent, makes a counter allegation and the police charge her as well. or he could do the sensible thing (which he did) plead not guilty and maintain he reasonably believed she consented. Honestly, some of you guys are no different to radical feminists and I'd be equally concerned if you were on rape juries as I would be if a radical feminist was on a rape jury
/r/MensRights12/03/17 02:23 PM
5

too drunk to give consent (as the young man was in this case) That question was not under consideration by the jury. The question in UK law is whether the defendant could reasonably believe the accuser had given consent. Her behavior through the night from beginning to point she stopped the sex and he went to the bathroom was enough evidence to suggest she had consented
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:54 PM
-3

Dear God, this is generally a pro men piece, hence why I posted it here. The article is pretty critical of the girls behaviour, young people going out on the pull is a fact of life and part of growing up. There's no need to savage the girl further, lol
/r/MensRights12/03/17 10:43 AM
0

My sides. So a girl isn't being predatory and aggressive, she's just "on the pull". Cool your jets, that's common UK slang for going out to hook up
/r/MensRights12/03/17 10:27 AM
98

My teenage son and I have had the talk. No, not the awkward one about contraception, but the one about consent. Much to my own surprise, I found myself telling him last week that when he goes to university he should think about getting his girlfriend (or hook-up, I guess) to say loudly and clearly, “Yes, I consent,” before every close encounter. Even better, while larking about perhaps they could video each other agreeing to proceed on their mobile phones. Paranoid? Moi? Not long ago I might hav…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 10:10 AM
6

IT'S SATIRE Dear God, if you can't tell the obvious satire then you need to retink your life. Look at the authors name "Molly Tant" - it's an obvious play on Militant (feminist)
/r/MensRights11/03/17 03:22 PM
1

it's not impossible but extremely unlikely.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 12:57 PM
1

You overlook that people can piss themselves intentionally while 100% sober. Sober people deliberately pee in their pants? Are you for real?
/r/MensRights05/03/17 10:56 AM
4

yeah, it's ironic that the Right showed the Left how to silence him - with his own words (admittedly carefully selected and edited) rather than with violence
/r/MensRights21/02/17 01:24 PM
1

With 70m you could retire from movies and go live on a remote beach away from the cameras, people would soon forget about you.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 12:57 PM
5

never had a real job in her life This is accurate. Film acting involves a lot of "hurry up and wait" Standing around doing nothing (waiting), is not work and a lot of repetition even when the take seems good (to you, anyway) The first person perspective of the actor is irrelevant, it's up to the guy behind the camera, who is in the position of their intended audience to decide. Reptition of acting out certain scenes with interludes to take advantage of fantastic on set catering vs the repetition…
/r/MensRights16/02/17 12:41 PM
7

the irony is that it was articles like this one, specifically poorly researched, insulting, terrible Guardian articles about PUA Julien Blanc, that made me question feminism in the first place
/r/MensRights16/11/16 01:19 AM
4

err, the US is the world's strongest Country and your elections affect everyone
/r/MensRights11/11/16 10:53 PM
1

I applied for a Southampton screening via Tugg but Tugg said they were unable to help. Looking at other options now but not sure how much demand there will be
/r/MensRights01/11/16 01:23 PM
1

Heard from them last night, tug not available in UK,, which makes me wonder why my local cinema even came up as an option
/r/MensRights31/10/16 07:07 AM
1

I have applied via Tugg to screen the film in Southampton, UK on December 15th 730pm. It takes a few days for Tugg to respond to the request, then I just need to sell enough tickets
/r/MensRights28/10/16 05:23 PM
1

There is a London screening on November 19th, location TBC. I have applied to host a screening on the South Coast, December 15th 730pm More details will follow when my screening is approved
/r/MensRights28/10/16 05:21 PM
1

The same Battle of Ideas event was held this weekend, Camille Paglia gave a talk, unfortunately I didn't hear about it until it was too late to go. Relieved too see i didn't miss Sommers also, this video is from last year's event
/r/MensRights23/10/16 05:13 PM
2

She went to the police to fill in how she got there They answered her and decided the sex was rape,, they can find it what happened from cctv etc, you're really not very bright are you Its really not complicated, now fuck off
/r/MensRights14/10/16 07:43 PM
3

Did you miss the comment I posted seven minutes ago you halfwit? https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappeal.pdf Point 10 is the relevant one
/r/MensRights14/10/16 07:04 PM
6

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappeal.pdf Point 10 is the relevant one
/r/MensRights14/10/16 06:56 PM
5

Sigh, it only depends on your source if you are reading untrustworthy sources eg papers with an agenda. Try reading actual court transcripts or legal blogs: As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-buste…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 06:31 PM
-1

You wake up in a strange hotel room with no memory of what happened. Hang on, of course I'm sure, go read up on the case
/r/MensRights14/10/16 06:19 PM
18

she didn't accuse him, she went to the Police with no memory of what happened and the Police decided it was rape. They lead this witch-hunt, not her.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 04:26 PM
1

Why don't you post an example? I have plenty of links bookmarked for when I need to debate an SJW or a feminist, surely you have the best examples bookmarked. You are talking absolute shite, next you'll be telling me the Guardian is secretly a MRA platform and that RooshV and Julien Blanc will be the next co-editors
/r/MensRights05/10/16 08:54 PM
1

Put down the conspiracy theory tin foil crack pipe, Christ. Vice "neoconservative" you utter fucking moron
/r/MensRights05/10/16 08:50 PM
1

some subtlety neoconservative backing rag Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. VICE is cut from the same cloth as the Guardian - identity politics PC/SJW agenda Neoconservative would imply they've suddenly become Fox News, lol
/r/MensRights05/10/16 06:58 PM
0

Well we start off as females in the womb and then something happens which causes us to develop as male. It's possible that M t F transgenderism is because the foetus mind still develops as female whilst the body becomes male and the child later grows up to feel like a female in a male body. You could also argue that cross dressing as a woman is a sexual fetish for many men and those who try it might eventually want to transition full time. That was what happened to the first Wachowski brother to…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 01:12 PM
1

best (worst) bit: suggesting to a woman being trolled on Twitter to ignore the trolls = "instructing" and mansplaining. FUCK THIS SHIT
/r/MensRights13/09/16 09:21 PM
2

an SJW has posted this article on my FB. Do you have any links/stories on Kimmel?
/r/MensRights06/09/16 11:50 AM
1

yes you're right, accusers in sex crimes have a lifelong right to stay anonymous
/r/MensRights11/08/16 09:02 PM
2

link to the actress name? or PM?
/r/MensRights03/08/16 08:03 AM
2

I'm a Liverpool fan, from Liverpool. I was 7 years old when Hillsborough happened, my dad went to Anfield to pay his respects and felt the need to explain to me what had happened. I've just posted this on Facebook, I'm willing to put aside my Scouse/LFC connections for this one
/r/MensRights16/06/16 08:02 PM
2

Two of the most abused were: Professional troll Katie Hopkins (whilst she has written some anti-feminist pieces, she's also been responsible for some utter nonsense) And "More feuds than hit songs" Azealia Banks.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 11:00 AM
3

The Telegraph is confused. On the hand one it prints articles by Martin Daubney who recently printed an article critical of Trudeau, and whose very presence on a radio talk show was enough to upset a "feminist comedian" and get her to quit the show. On the other it prints articles by Radhika Sanghani, her sole purpose is to write articles about how everything is sexist
/r/MensRights23/05/16 12:12 PM
1

You're obviously not old enough to understand why using a word invented by feminists gives that word more credibility. I can't believe that I need to explain that to you
/r/MensRights11/05/16 09:57 PM
1

it has nothing to do with the subject, so is therefore irrelevant. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand How old are you?
/r/MensRights11/05/16 06:16 PM
1

I'm not discussing that word, so not sure why you keep bringing it up.
/r/MensRights11/05/16 11:36 AM
4

I don't think you understand. By using mansplaining you are agreeing with the feminists that it is a valid concept, when it is actually a term they've invented to invalidate male opinion. So yeah, keep using it if you want to side with the feminists, lol
/r/MensRights11/05/16 10:19 AM
5

don't use feminist terms like "mansplains" in your titles please.
/r/MensRights11/05/16 07:19 AM
2

she went to them over a missing handbag
/r/MensRights22/04/16 06:56 AM
3

have you even read the report? She got in a taxi with McDonald who text Evans to say he was with "a bird". He arrived at the hotel after them. I'm not disagreeing it was a dodgy conviction, just find it funny that you claim to read the case notes yet get a basic fact of the case wrong. Plus it was the police that said it was rape, not her
/r/MensRights21/04/16 10:36 PM
1

err whilst I agree with most of what she said, for starters Katie Hopkins is not a "renowned journalist", she was on the UK Apprentice and like some reality TV contestants she was able to turn that appearance into a z-list celebrity profile. She gained that profile by being a complete cunt, basically saying controversial things in order to stay in the public eye, things like calling migrants "vermin" and insulting peoples babies for their appearance on Twitter. She is far from a reputable journa…
/r/MensRights21/04/16 06:25 PM
4

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
/r/MensRights21/04/16 11:52 AM
2

www.chedevans.com admittedly a biased source, think you can also find the original ruling online too.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 11:01 AM
15

It was a highly spurious conviction in the first place. There were rumours that the accuser had been tweeting about how she was going to "win big" in the trial eg via compensation. http://chedevans.com/ is an admittedly biased source but gives some insight into the facts of the case
/r/MensRights21/04/16 09:11 AM
-2

where the fuck did you come with the idea that in the UK we think that "teenage girls can do no wrong?"
/r/MensRights15/04/16 08:33 PM
9

obvious troll is obvious This explains it better than anyone here will be able to http://helensatheistblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-feminist.html
/r/MensRights13/04/16 07:58 PM
2

you obviously don't know anything about Twitch chat. I used to watch a lot of pro Dota games, twitch chat is NOTORIOUS for being spammed with memes and general nonsense. It doesn't take a crystal ball to realise that a bunch of feminists streaming on Twitch are going to attract a lot of abuse. Honestly, some things are worth posting - other things just make the OP look like a paranoid tin foil hat wearing loser, this is one of them. Not everything is a feminist conspiracy guys
/r/MensRights08/04/16 05:31 PM
3

I don't think she had a point at all
/r/MensRights04/04/16 12:12 PM
2

I have some free time now so I'm able to destroy your post, which just like your failure to understand the word "allegedly", demonstrates even further you have a poor grasp of the English language. The quotes around the "one-sided" but not around "dismissive" indicate the author is trying to lend credibility to the accuser. You use quotes if you are repeating word for word what someone said. Dismissive is an adjective - which means it is describing what the police said, not repeating what the po…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 03:38 PM
2

And one day you may be ready to talk with adults. I've already cast doubt on your age by twice asking how old you are. Try thinking of your own insults instead of just repeating mine. You don't know what allegedly means. You're the classic example of a tin foil conspiracy theorist who thinks the world is out to get all men. Have fun spending your sunday afternoon obsessing over the choice of language in news articles. You're not worth my time.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 11:24 AM
2

A more impartial, and accurate statement would have been "...who claimed she was drugged and raped". I stopped reading here. Do you even know what allegedly means? It means exactly what you think they should have written. Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed: an alleged conspiracy; an alleged traitor; an alleged victim of a crime. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/allegedly I'll ask you again, how old are you?
/r/MensRights03/04/16 11:04 AM
2

please quote the relevant parts of the article that indicate bias towards a particular outcome on the part of the author.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 10:37 AM
2

I'm aware of that. I'm showing you the difference between impartial reporting of an incident with quotes from both sides, to a one sided opinion piece. How old are you?
/r/MensRights03/04/16 10:03 AM
2

Try reading this article to see what real bias looks like http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/ruling-against-kesha-free-kesha-dr-luke-woman-told-her-body-isnt-her-own No quotes from Dr Luke or his team, no mention of the evidence or lack of evidence, just pure outrage. The two articles are world's apart
/r/MensRights03/04/16 09:49 AM
3

Your arguing with me about the neutrality of the bbc. Being impartial means reporting of the details without expressing an opinion. So if you think they're not impartial then that means you think that the author has expressed an opinion, because it's that opinion that shows they are not impartial. Unless you're now backtracking The article goes Alleged victim gives her side of the story Police response via South Korean media Victim response to police and what she plans to do next. The BBC attemp…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 09:44 AM
0

If you think the Guardian and the bbc are remotely similar then /facepalm Where exactly in this article has the author expressed any opinion?
/r/MensRights03/04/16 09:31 AM
0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/ Do you know what not being impartial looks like?
/r/MensRights03/04/16 09:21 AM
1

Where exactly is the bbc angry? The bbc is legally required to be neutral. This article has had nothing in common with the kind of anti men opinion piece you'd typically see in the Guardian And everyone is entitled to a fair investigation, be it accuser or accused.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 08:51 AM
-1

It is clearly tongue-in cheek. Some people need to take a deep breath and think before posting
/r/MensRights12/03/16 12:31 PM
2

Please tell me where I'm attacking her,, actually don't, bored of your nonsense
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:21 PM
4

When you have a he said / she said situation and you don't know the truth, the "right" thing to do is to be supportive and protective of your friend, but without materially damaging the other person. Kesha and Luke aren't my friends. The job of any INVESTIGATOR, JUROR AND JUDGE, is to approach every case NEUTRALLY and consider the FACTS and EVIDENCE. There is no evidence to support her accusations. There is evidence from herself that casts doubt on her accusations. To convict anyone of any crime…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 05:27 PM
5

Some woman on my facebook feed claimed false rape allegations were only 0.6%. I then pointed out that was a UK statistic and therefore not relevant to a discussion about a USA legal case. I then hit her with actual USA statistics that suggest the false rape allegation rate at between 6-10%
/r/MensRights24/02/16 03:53 PM
7

First, the media frenzy hasn't set its sights on Dr. Luke yet, I just searched for Kesha on the Guardian, 6 articles in the last couple of days, none of which question the evidence or suggest Luke might be innocent. They write as if Kesha is telling the truth and as if it's an open and shut case If you're going to be objective, you're going to have to recognize that it is likely, not certain, but likely that Luke did in fact rape Kesha. NO NO NO NO NO. There is ZERO evidence to back up her claim…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 03:27 PM
16

what a complete load of nonsense and you've completely misunderstood the issues. The SJW crowd are declaring someone guilty of rape without a single shred of evidence and despite the 2011 testimony from the alleged victim that states he never did anything to her. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone on which every decent legal system is built. Sure there are cases in which there might be so much overwhelming evidence that make it logical for most people (but not the courts) to reach a…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 02:14 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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