TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

knoberation Archive

View 1 posts and 23 comments by knoberation 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)
22

Most people don't check the comments, also as far as I can see no one called bullshit on this submission until the last hour and the submission has been up for 3.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 02:49 PM
22

God damnit guys, this is obviously satire/fake. EDIT: Not saying it's definitive proof, but "Mort" is not a particularly common women's name.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 02:05 PM
8

It can be, but it depends on the context. Would you say it isn't murder if someone intends to beat someone so badly that a reasonable person would not expect them to survive it, but didn't "intend" to kill them? That's what this case seems like to me, though I don't pretend to have all the facts. Also: This differs from first or second degree murder in that the killing is accidental -- resulting from recklessness, criminal negligence or in the commission of a misdemeanor or low-level felony. How…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 01:08 PM
17

I'm also unclear on why this is being described as manslaughter rather than what it really is: Murder. When you literally beat someone to death, it's not manslaughter.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 11:02 AM
13

Agreed, though I'd say it depends on how long the police officer "badgered" him for. If it was long enough for OP to get annoyed it was probably too long, unless OP has a low annoyance-threshold.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:58 PM
2

Not usually, because its for a good reason: the safety and well-being of the child. An unsupervised child is through the nature of being a child not safe in a number of situations. For the same reason we don't allow children to drive or drink. Children are not fully developed, and don't have the same rights as adults. It has to do with responsibility as well. Most people would agree that children (to a certain age) are not responsible for their own safety, principally their parents are. Who is r…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 03:53 PM
-3

By the same token, is it not sexist if men are allowed entrance only if accompanied by a woman (or vice versa)?
/r/MensRights10/07/13 01:23 PM
33

It's not sexist, but it is ageist, which isn't good either. Hardly a men's rights issue though.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:59 PM
2

She's a fucking sexual predator and they call her "hot"? I don't know in what way her crime(s) have anything to do with her physical attractiveness. I'd say she's above averagely attractive. Strictly speaking I don't know why you'd take offense at someone pointing out an entirely unrelated positive thing about someone, just because they've committed a crime or wrongdoing. That said, I completely agree that media coverage of female sexual predators is, on the whole, terribly disturbing, but I don…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 08:53 PM
–

While Yahoo Answers certainly is the place where questions go to die, there's still a lot of "truth" to this example in my opinion. That said, the endless "I apologize on behalf of my gender" or "I'm ashamed to be a woman" or whatever else posts does need to stop. You're not defined by other people who inhabit the same gender/race/nationality/whatever grouping as you do.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 10:09 AM
16

Want to help? Get Nightline on the case, have them go undercover at parks with a father and child, and use television to shame people who do this. It's a form of bullying and deserves to be called out as such. This actually sounds like a really good idea. I hope to see this done some day.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:08 AM
20

Wasn't the point that he will be having genital reconstruction surgery when he is older? Ergo, he will get genitals when he's older. Just not naturally. There's no point having the surgery yet, because he's so small and the genitals would either be way too big for him now or he'd grow out of them.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 01:03 PM
8

Yeah, this is just a joke. It's also equally offensive to women (the implication that if a girl is pregnant it's because she's stupid, or the implication that the man isn't to blame). It's at best moderately humorous, but to say that it's "disgusting" is to bring a lack of a sense of humor to a whole new level.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:39 PM
–

I wouldn't be surprised if loads of people are specifically insured against breast cancer. Many people are at extremely high risk for that, and they know it. Other people basically make their living off their body and couldn't afford to lose a breast. To name a few examples. It was an off-hand example and wasn't meant to be taken too specifically. There are loads of oddly specific insurances people have, that was just one that came to mind. I disagree. Sexism of any significant magnitude shouldn…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 01:58 AM
–

It would be significantly cheaper for a man to insure himself against getting breast cancer, and that's completely OK. That doesn't mean this is. The problem with car insurance isn't (at its core) that the discrimination is based on gender, it's that the discrimination is based on statistics regarding a defined group's behavior (statistically more men are reckless drivers and/or get into car accidents), rather than statistics regarding a group's likelihood to succumb to ill fortune that is essen…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 01:32 AM
–

I believe you're wrong. I believe that large parts of the population just flat out doesn't realize that that joke e-mail is offensive in the first place. It is meant to empower women, but I honestly don't think the original e-mail has anything at all to do with sexism towards women.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:48 PM
–

Yes, that is offensive. Of course it is. Everyone agrees that it is. And no one in their right mind who understands that this is offensive would send this out in a workplace setting. The original is equally offensive, yet some people don't see it. Clearly, because it was sent out. The only point of that post was clearly to turn the tables so that everyone can plainly see how offensive the original chain mail was. So yeah, in the way it accomplished that I think that post was pretty clever.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:02 PM
24

To be fair, in (at least parts of) Europe it's very rare to show pictures of people in these contexts. For the same reason names of people are rarely given. Privacy and that, it's not really anyone else's business that you've been accused of something, also it spares any family members from potential embarrassment.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 03:12 PM
35

But when the woman demanded more, the exhausted man said no. A police spokesman said: 'He complied with the woman's wishes another few times so he could finally leave the apartment. 'But when she continued to refuse and demanded even more sex from him, he fled to the balcony.' Sounds like rape to me...
/r/MensRights30/04/12 02:40 PM
8

Original incident (from April 17th) Second incident Couldn't find English articles with the full details, unfortunately... The Daily Mail one is a bit thin.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 01:11 PM
2

I wouldn't say #15 is funny, but it is where I decided to stop reading. Sheesh.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 06:52 PM
13

No, it's because they're blatantly honest about their slant so you're able to see past it if you want to. Other news outlets pretend to be unbiased when they're not. Colbert and Stewart are purposely biased and proud of it.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 01:18 PM
10

They seem to somehow get around this by throwing what is essentially a non-concept buzzword, "rape culture", into the mix. Oh, you're a man who never raped someone? Well seeing as you're a man you're contributing to rape culture which is just as bad. Case closed.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 09:51 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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