TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

hijinkshalo Archive

View 0 posts and 27 comments by hijinkshalo 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

Nice edit brah. Fruit flies aren’t human. You should bother at least reading some Darwin if you’re going to try to argue about evolutionary biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/18 01:11 AM
1

That’s a pretty respectable notion, given your perspective. I’d definitely recommend checking out Gray’s paper regarding the study of evo psych. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ldc/GrayEP.pdf It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it. It’s a pretty lengthy read though.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/18 02:28 PM
1

I don’t have the time to continue this at any respectable pace, and I still disagree with several of your arguments, but you’ve been refreshingly respectful for the most part so I’m dropping you an updoot and might pm you later as per your red pill ideologies. i saw a post of yours where you even called into question the idea of hypergamy, which seems to be a core rp tenant, and i’m curious what parts of that ideology you buy into and how you differentiate the worser parts from the ones you valu…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/18 10:11 AM
1

The attraction to tall people seems to be a pretty universal thing in society. It’s well-cited that tall men enjoy benefits in work and even among other men, and tall women receive similar recognition. http://timothy-judge.com/Height%20paper--JAP%20published.pdf As such, it seems almost redundant to claim that one sex is more allured height than another. Where do high heels play into this? Why does Western society value models that are on average two inches taller than the average American male?…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/18 05:24 AM
1

It's pretty far from 'as close as science has got in 40 years of study' as it's still pretty hotly debated amongst many biologists and historians. "Women don't like taller men because they've been socially conditioned to. Thats an instinctive desire in women. Same for men with higher SES/Education than her. Same for slightly older men. Women aren't being trained to do this, they are instinctively attracted to them for the same reason the female lions are instinctively attracted to the taller mal…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 05:21 PM
1

Again, I made no demands of you. I provided sources and never demanded you read them, though I did point out the irony in you not bothering to even glance over them. You're still playing into that victimized mentality - nothing was forced onto you. Debating topics as specific as 'evolutionary psychology' doesn't leave a lot of room for abstract, indirect arguments. It either is or it isn't. This is why objective facts are necessary. This is why sources are important. While this remains indirect …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 02:46 PM
1

Right. You could have in that case at least bothered reading the abstracts, but I understand that asking certain individuals to even vaguely educate themselves outside of their usual rhetoric can be too much. Can you provide non-anectodal examples of where Rosseau was wrong in his synopsis of human nature? As again, you are arguing objective facts. I’m not interested in a subjective argument of object premises. Most arguments begin from ignorance, but to continue forward from there means that co…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 12:21 PM
1

So you’re going to continue to attempt to circumvent my very direct, very concise question. Okay.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 12:11 PM
1

Well I feel like my specific question was whether or not there were implicit moral or intellectual disparities, as that seems to be a core of the red pill. Care to share sources?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 11:21 AM
1

Not only did you not read any of my sources, I feel like you didn’t read a single word of my post - if you had, you’d have seen that there’s a pretty obvious argument there. At this point, it seems likely that you yourself haven’t read the ‘source’ you cited, if you’re claiming to not know where the links I shared came from. And no-offense, but I’m not interested in discussing ‘science’ with a person more interested in sharing opinion than fact. You whined that nobody read your sources. I did. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 11:10 AM
1

different sexes* but you’re the one making the claim, so can’t you be bothered to provide evidence? I have mine. We can begin with http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796 and we’ll continue with whatever you provide.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 10:44 AM
1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886996002413 This citation links to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8366421/, which is in turn contrasted by https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.20584 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.00249.x https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(05)00062-0/fulltext And several more that I can provide, all of which support the idea that ‘attractiveness’ isn’t inherent but ingrained by specific soc…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/18 10:34 AM
1

Well, I provided a reason but I get that you didn’t understand it. Excellent strawman, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 11:32 PM
1

so you don’t have any actual sources, but anecdotes and analogies? sounds about right. attraction definitely doesn’t vary from society to society.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 11:21 PM
1

that women and men are mentally or morally imbalanced.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 03:42 PM
1

can you prove it? most rps seem to be pretty cool with accepting 'common sense' of proof, unless it goes against your prejudice of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 03:14 PM
1

you realize that humans can become aware of their behavior through understanding psychology, though? so like, maybe they just actually don't do it.
/r/askTRP23/05/18 02:54 PM
1

You didn't go to college then, it's safe to assume?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 12:37 PM
1

So what is it that you think you're doing? As a man, I feel like you're not competent enough to realize your own hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 12:35 PM
1

Men can't wear condoms? Christ, that's a pretty astonishing failure on the capability of that whole sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 12:21 PM
1

Are you somehow deluded enough to assume the two matters are in any way correlated?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 12:17 PM
1

Well considering that they're using facts and you're using - like most RPs - fantasies you've sketched in your head, I'd have to agree with monkeysin.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 12:15 PM
0

You should work harder to inform yourself on both human nature and biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation Hypergamy exists only in the minds of redpilled posters.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/18 12:06 PM
1

why would you modify such an old post?
/r/TheRedPill22/05/18 07:27 AM
1

But it was a retort to your debate, and not an insult to you specifically- by definition it’s not an ad hominem. That phrase translates directly into ‘to the man;’ or ‘to the person.’ It references direct aggressions. It could be argued pretty easily that their argument was a parody of your own.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/18 04:20 AM
1

she made a broadly generalized statement against a pretty wide swath of people... an ad hominem is by definition a targeted attack against a ‘particular person.’ This seems more like an instance where if you feel it’s irrelevant to you, just ignore it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/18 03:53 AM
1

In what way did that read as an ad hominem to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/18 02:21 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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