TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

firebadmattgood Archive

View 0 posts and 75 comments by firebadmattgood 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)
0

That story was an obvious fiction.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 10:15 PM
0

That is absurd. The argument becomes the following: Women control sex. Slur shaming occurs. Slur shaming occurs because women control sex.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 01:16 AM
-4

You need two premises to draw a conclusion. The bit about slut shaking serves as a combo of premise number 2 and the conclusion that follows. This is logic 101.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 12:09 AM
-7

A premise is explicitly restated in the conclusion. That's the definition of a circular argument.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:51 PM
-4

Basically, when it comes to sex as a resource women provide the supply and men demand it. Premise 1: sex is controlled by a female cartel. Slut shaming is a tactic used to reduce the supply of sex, which in turn increases the cost of sex. Premise 2: slut shaming is used by females to reduce supply of sex. Thus, slut shaming is better explained by a female cartel theory rather than a patriarchy. Conclusion: slut shaming is used by females to reduce supply of sex This is a circular argument that r…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 08:39 PM
1

The distinction is ludicrous. You simply never have the right to film someone having sex without their permission.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:06 PM
1

The guy who records people without their consent is more likely to be cognizant of the concept of acting honorably? You must be high.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:56 PM
2

If you don't plan on crying rape, what are you concerned about if someone is recording evidence? Because the "evidence" would be video of myself engaging in sexual acts? This is really fucking basic stuff here. Are you completely aware of the surveillance you are suffering right now just from posting on an American site? Emailing from an American provider? Browsing on an American network? Of course not, and it's not hurting you until you act like a douche bag and attempt to impact someone's life…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:29 PM
1

Are you high? Wearing a seat belt doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:16 PM
2

Yeah, compelling argument right there. I should be able to criminally violate the expectations of privacy for anyone that I sleep with, to ensure that the statistically insignificant chance of false rape allegations are reduced even further. Totally reasonable.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:43 PM
1

"Legible" is used to reference handwriting/print readability, and has nothing to do with whether the content or ideas expressed are communicated clearly, douchenozzle. If you use context clues, you can tell that my first post was calling attention to the fact that you are calling for recording sexual acts without informed consent. That's creepy beyond belief, shitnose.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:18 PM
1

Present your past on a manner that is legible I have no idea what you are trying to tell me right now.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:59 PM
9

woosh
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:36 PM
7

lol wat the fuck is consent?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:15 PM
-1

Awesome way to keep the place a hive mind.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:22 AM
-1

If you're making a broader claim, like Men's Rights supports homophobia, you'd need a cross section of comments to see how the idea is supported across multiple contexts. Again, I'm not making broad statistical claims. I'm conveying what I have been lead to believe by comments that I have read here. If you want to presume that I started at "r/MR is homophobic" and then hunted for evidence to support that, then I am not interested in changing your mind. Since I'm not debating any sample group, bu…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 09:04 PM
-1

Waiting until a comment has been up a day, and is the positive numbers, before commenting to say it proves your expectation is literally the definition of confirmation bias. What? You said that I'd have to give time to a post before declaring that the community supported or denied its statements. Is this no longer your position? You also seem to not understand the difference between selection bias and confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is seeking out sources of information that confirm ones bi…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 08:29 PM
-1

I'm not sure how we'd have a control, other than intentionally posting a homophobic comment to monitor. I'm sure another will be along shortly. I'll use your requested elapsed time of one day before commenting. Even then, if you're not willing to consider you may be experiencing a confirmation bias, I'm not sure that would be helpful. This presumes that I haven't considered it. I have already considered it.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 08:16 PM
-8

Does characterizing it like that, instead of 'damning faint praise,' encourage you to reconsider the possibility that you may be confirming a bias? Not really. I drew attention to this, so we'd need a control. Right now there's an imperative to prove me wrong.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 07:55 PM
-5

By those standards, I could find a terrible comment on all but the most active of subreddits that still reads positive. If this post was a day old, that comment had been up the majority of the time, and it had a more significant positive point margin, I'd say it reflected some common views of the subreddit. OK,let's give it time then. I suggested you consider it might be, not claimed it is, selection bias because it would be impossible for me to prove that claim. Fair enough. Why isn't it simila…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 07:32 PM
-24

That comment has a very unfavorable ratio of up to down votes. I don't have visibility to that information. Perhaps you've focused on it because it confirms your belief about this subreddit? Or perhaps I simply keyed into a misogynistic and homophobic comment with a positive score at the time of my comment. Couldn't I go to literally any subreddit and find a terrible comment or two? Yep, you definitely could, but you're presupposing that this is selection bias instead of demonstrating that it is…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:50 PM
-35

This comment is exemplary of the kind of discourse I expect to find on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:15 PM
6

Thanks for proving me correct here, buddy. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1aj20u/fox_news_airs_name_of_16yearold_steubenville_rape/c8y3c5z
/r/MensRights21/03/13 07:49 PM
1

I literally just criticized you for making claims without evidence. Not sure what these new one are supposed to convince me of.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:43 PM
1

One saw many innocent lives ruined by mere accusations due to popular hysteria over a crime everyone assumed was ever-present and threatening their entire community (especially their most vulnerable) so in order to protect themselves they tossed out the usual protections and legal precedents in order to ensure convictions. You are characterizing the prosecution of something that happens to ~1/10th the population (DOJ's figures) as an extrajudicial witch hunt instead of providing evidence that th…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:01 PM
1

That this occurs, and is supported by our legal system and culture, at rates far higher than they should be. I believe it happens with greater frequency due to the fact that we rarely punish those who do this and we don't hold them out to be contemptible. Again, that's not meaningful. At what rate do you think they are happening? Nonzero (trivially obvious) or something worth discussing? Most people of Salem weren't accusing others of witchcraft.But is that society remembered for it's commitment…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:29 PM
1

I didn't say they were common. Which is a subjective term and unnecessary for this discussion. What exactly did you mean by the following? "Destroying a man's reputation, possibly life, is too often viewed as less significant than a minor inconvenience for a woman." Are you saying something trivially obvious ("the fact that this ever happens is not OK") or are you saying something worth discussing ("This is something that frequently happens due to structural issues in our society")? Rape isn't c…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 05:30 PM
1

You realize every one of those was based on a recent, real world case? Man bites dog, therefore men biting dogs is common and is an indicator of structural issues in our society. Do you have any real data, or just a handful of anecdotes to support your assertion?
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:36 PM
-7

Very nice straw man/ad hominem hybrid.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 10:30 PM
-3

or 3) I am mistaken and there is an abundance of evidence to support this position and this is not "garbage." Furthermore, the person wasn't making a declarative statement, Actually he said the following "Destroying a man's reputation, possibly life, is too often viewed as less significant than a minor inconvenience for a woman." he was making observations about times in which it is possible to be falsely accused of rape. Oh, OK, then I can completely disregard his post because it's purely specu…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 09:13 PM
-4

There's no ad hominem (otherwise my post would have read "[personal attack] therefore [you are wrong]") and there's no appeal to common knowledge (otherwise my post would have read "everyone knows that..."). There's a reasonable response to a highly dubious, declarative statement that is offered with zero supporting evidence.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:59 PM
-13

Don't have the cab fare? Rape. Don't want to admit to cheating? Rape. Don't want to get caught looking at porn? Rape. Yeah, false rape allegations are routine in the circumstances you've described. Additionally, they are definitely due to a structural issue in our society that privileges women over men. Do you seriously believe this garbage?
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:21 PM
-21

Clearly this incident is an example of a huge, systemic problem. Confirmation bias? In my men's rights?
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:46 PM
-2

Well, yeah, for the reasons that I literally just outlined above.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 07:48 PM
-7

I am just shocked that there's another straw feminism post here. Both groups believe in an evil force that's out to destroy them. Except one group believes that there are social structures in place that benefit one group over another, and the other believes in an active evil that exercises human agency. Both groups believe they are born with faults they must overcome. Except one group believes in a fault that is learned behavior, and the other believes in a fault you were born with. Both groups …
/r/MensRights12/02/13 06:26 PM
3

"This confirms my biases. Upvote."
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:58 PM
2

Thanks for sharing your naked speculation with us.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 07:26 AM
2

Cool, thanks.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:44 AM
3

That system worked centuries ago Pretty sure that depends on who you ask.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 01:56 AM
-2

Do you not understand words like "logical fallacy" and "cognitive bias?" I mean, calling me a condescending diminutive is one way to make an argument, but it's not a convincing one. Maybe you could actually try to give an example of me not making sense? Are you unaware that your most recent post is exactly OBVIOUSLY I'M CORRECT AND EVERYONE IS WRONG. which is what you called me out on?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:11 PM
-1

Or you could actually read the conversation that actually happened.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:49 PM
-6

Herp derp none of my arguments are actually arguments therefore you're wrong! OK, that covers your first two points. when these true scotsmen are clearly not made entirely out of straw. Wow. Nobody's talking about the past. I am. Did you still not read what I wrote? I'll say it again. Everything you guys are pissed about is because we used to treat women as property. Instead of recognizing that, you're asserting that all that shit is because women are the ones in a position of privilege in today…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:17 PM
-8

First comment talks about a prevailing undercurrent in feminist dialog. It's not a quote, and does not need to be attributed to one person. Just look at the way feminism treats women as though they have no agency, and takes it as their job to speak for women everywhere. This is literally the definition of a straw man argument (refuting an argument that no one is making). Congrats. You have to address a specific argument from a specific person if you want to be taken seriously. Second comment fac…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:54 PM
-9

First comment talks about ideas that are attributed to no one. It's a straw man. Second comment speculates on the actions that might be taken by a straw man. Third comment does what I indicated here: They posit a straw feminist and then tear it down, or they attempt to provide evidence for a straw feminist by filtering all feminist thought through selection bias. when the "selections" are drawn from leaders and prominent public figures who are popularly cited as figureheads, how can that selecti…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:26 PM
-15

It's dedicated to bashing the people who either claim to fight for equality but fail, or who actively campaign for laws hurtful to men. That's weird, because none of the posts that I linked do that. They posit a straw feminist and then tear it down, or they attempt to provide evidence for a straw feminist by filtering all feminist thought through selection bias. This sub is actually dedicated to confirmation bias and persecution complex. Literally everything on this sub is about taking the natur…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:53 PM
-13

/r/MensRights is a legitimate subreddit, not focused on feminist-bashing http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17mggp/why_is_it_that_men_are_held_responsible_for_their/c86vhxs http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17mc86/death_penalty_for_men_only_texas_womans_execution/c86ve3y http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17mz8v/fleshing_out_the_straw_feminist/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17mgej/feminism_for_rich_white_women_only/ All from the front page, all explicitl…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:25 PM
1

You are assuming that every single man's personal experience aligns with yours. That's a huge assumption and something that you can't prove to be true. Even if you took a formal survey and every single man said that every single feminist was a selfish, prattling bitch, that would not be meaningful data, because the survey would be a collection of hearsay and opinions. That's not how science is done.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 03:24 PM
-6

Congrats, you just completely disproved statistical methodology, bro.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:23 AM
-4

OK? Your personal experiences are not meaningful data.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 10:06 PM
-7

In short, feminists tend to demand "equal rights" but keep very quiet about "equal responsibilities". I am going to take a single anecdote and use it broadly generalize.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 06:08 PM
-1

No? The central ethic to feminism is that men and women are equal, so an anti-feminist seems pretty clearly anti-woman.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:57 PM
1

If "you are a woman-hater" is invalidated by "I am a woman," then there is a premise that "Women can't be women-haters."
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:42 PM
0

It's one of my favourite films. It's a documentary concerning a public rally. I really can't think of anything in the film that lends credence to your statement. Really? The fact that the only women shown in the film are screaming fans doesn't lend any credence to my statement? There are 50,000 men running drills in Nuremberg, but apparently the only women there are acting in an observer's role. This despite the fact that a woman is filming the festivities. Germany in general (and Hitler in part…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:28 PM
0

Have you seen it? It makes it abundantly clear that women have no place outside of making babies for the fatherland.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 02:16 AM
-5

The hidden assumption in your laughing is that women can't be anti-feminists. That's plainly absurd. Example - Leni Riefenstahl, who directed a number of overtly anti-feminist films (chief among them are The Blue Light and Triumph of the Will).
/r/MensRights15/01/13 12:53 AM
1

That is a straw man. She puts the blame on the men's right's movement, which is much more about recharacterizeing men as the primary victims of the cultural fallout of treating women as chattel. You are conflating "men's right's movement" with "any man that actually tries to point out the fact that men have issues."
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:20 AM
-10

Your headline is hilarious, considering that a huge portion of the men's rights movement is about recharacterizing the fallout of anti-feminist social policies to make men the primary victims of them.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:58 PM
1

I want to focus on how traditional masculine roles had the potential to negatively impact men, especially lower class ones. OK? That's something frequently discussed using the lens of feminism. This is about how how those of status can hijack masculine roles for their own ends. No, it's about how a certain view of females as chattel can disadvantage both genders. You are using personal attacks to attack my ideas without debating the ideas themselves. This is poor form. I won't do the same to you…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:16 PM
1

Here of course i am referring to how lower class men were uniquely exploited for warfare because traditional socialization saw war and violence as part of the masculine role. Yeah, see this is exactly what I was talking about. You are recharacterizing the social consequences of treating women as chattel as though it was actually the result of an anti-masulinist part of culture. Women didn't go to war because they were thought to not have human agency. They didn't send cows to war either. A smug …
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:07 PM
2

No you have not.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 01:32 AM
2

Shall I repeat myself again? You're so ready to answer questions that I didn't ask. That's really strange.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 01:10 AM
3

Again, HOW DOES THE LINKED IMAGE SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 12:51 AM
1

You are drawing a false equivalence between body rights and financial obligations.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:32 PM
1

Broader questions need to be asked and broader perspectives need to be considered. This is a meaningless statement. can i assume you will support my efforts to deconstruct gender from a non feminist frame work then? That would depend entirely on whether or not your deconstruction is reasonable. If you're mostly interested in reinterpreting the social consequences of a patriarchal society as "female privilege," then I'm going to take a pass.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:20 PM
1

This shouldn't threaten you. Why would you assume that I am threatened? All I did was criticize a bunch of really poorly formed arguments and ask for proof to support allegations that were presented in the absence of evidence.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 10:48 PM
-4

Unfortunately, when it comes to politics and the law, semantics are VERY important. OK? That's not relevant to an argument formed and supported solely by a dictionary definition. Which parts would you like citations for? The declarative statements that were pure allegation.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:48 PM
-12

If they're for equality in all regards, why don't they call themselves egalitarians? This is a semantic argument. Everything else in your post is a laundry list of allegations with a giant [citation needed] at the end.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:50 PM
-10

The rest of his argument is actually a complete mess that assumes there is some sort of monolithic feminist entity, goes on to say that there's no female oppression in the US, then finishes off by characterizing the feminist entity as something that throws scraps to men. Nothing he wrote in any way supported the ideas he was espousing, it was 100% pure allegation.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:39 PM
-13

Because feminism tends to shut down the voice of men. Your evidence for feminism not really being about equality of the sexes is the fact that feminism shuts down male voices? This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." Your conclusion is implicit in your premise.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:53 PM
16

counters the "feminism=equality" for both sexes trope. How? How does this present evidence that feminism is not really about equality for both sexes?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:21 PM
2

First of all, no that's not the question. Firex726 made a claim, so it's not on me to disprove it, it's on him to support it. Second of all, the answer to your question is "In the books of Christina Hoff Sommers and Naomi Wolf." You make yourself look really ill-informed when you suggest that feminists don't decry sexual objectification universally.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:58 PM
0

His point is that it's a double standard. It's a cultural problem, not a feminist one. Then why did he explicitly state that this is a problem with feminism?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 07:43 PM
1

You are an idiot. You're taking a photo of women who are voicing fandom of a crappy vampire romance and saying that A) They are actually voicing a desire to fuck teenagers, not an appreciation for a specific film/book series B) They are feminists C) This attitude is broadly supported within feminism Get the fuck out of here.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 07:00 PM
-2

That is an absurd photo to post as support to your allegation that feminism structurally supports this shit.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 06:48 PM
-8

That's satire. You're the idiot if you're reading it straight.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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