TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

marginalboy Archive

View 0 posts and 68 comments by marginalboy 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

Huh?
/r/MensRights09/10/25 11:35 AM
1

Testing
/r/MensRights08/10/25 08:02 PM
1

I think antagonizing someone because of their body is distinct from antagonizing someone for other reasons by preying on their insecurities. Like I said, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to disapprove of both. I just don’t think the latter is what people generally are referring to when they talk about “body shaming.” And I think, for various reasons, it’s also reasonable to object categorically to the former while making occasional allowances for the latter.
/r/MensRights08/10/25 08:02 PM
1

I think antagonizing someone because of their body is distinct from antagonizing someone for other reasons by preying on their insecurities. Like I said, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to disapprove of both. I just don’t think the latter is what people generally are referring to when they talk about “body shaming.” And I think, for various reasons, it’s also reasonable to object categorically to the former while making occasional allowances for the latter.
/r/MensRights08/10/25 08:01 PM
1

I think antagonizing someone because of their body is distinct from antagonizing someone for other reasons by preying on their insecurities. Like I said, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to disapprove of both. I just don’t think the latter is what people generally are referring to when they talk about “body shaming.” And I think, for various reasons, it’s also reasonable to object categorically to the former while making occasional allowances for the latter. Edit: it seems this was posted 3 tim…
/r/MensRights08/10/25 08:01 PM
0

Here is a better summary of the distinction I see. You’re welcome to disagree with it as well, of course, but I feel like we’re in the weeds in this thread.
/r/MensRights08/10/25 05:44 PM
0

Instead of retyping, I’ll link to where I summed up what I’m arguing here, and I think it applies to the analogy with Trump, as well.
/r/MensRights08/10/25 05:43 PM
0

I’m not saying anything of the sort, and I’m certainly no spokesman for “the left.” I think the position I’m arguing here might best be summed up by saying that there’s a difference between shaming someone because of their body and whatever this was. AOC wasn’t saying “you’re short, therefore I’m going to shame you for it.” That would be body shaming and wrong. Instead, she was basically saying “you’re a shameful person and I’m going to pick at insecurities to make you uncomfortable.” If you obj…
/r/MensRights08/10/25 05:41 PM
-4

I think you’re overstating the previous incident regarding AOC. I’m fairly well plugged into politics across the board and I’ve literally never heard of that before your post. And I’m not sure what you’re talking about, “checks and balances” for the left. Our right-wing Supreme Court is removing virtually all of the checks and balances on our Executive, and our right-wing Congress is refusing to exercise their own check on an Executive that is, without any question, violating the law and usurpin…
/r/MensRights08/10/25 02:23 AM
2

Yeah okay. For one, some people express ideas that are neither argued in good faith nor deserving of a thoughtful response. In such cases, petty ridicule serves the more valuable purpose, which is to erode the platform someone like Miller has built for himself. Second, I’m not sure if it’s naïveté or insincerity on your part, but don’t pretend for a second that a well-reasoned argument against white Christian nationalism is going to sway anyone sympathetic enough to that cause to excuse what Mil…
/r/MensRights08/10/25 02:18 AM
2

When you say “… simply because …” it’s not irrelevant. It’s literally your assertion. And men’s height has long been a matter of discussion; it’s not recent. I’m not arguing it’s right or classy to body shame. I just think you should know the pearl clutching reads as disingenuous.
/r/MensRights08/10/25 02:10 AM
-7

Do you imagine the obsession with dick size begins and ends with women’s aesthetic preferences?
/r/MensRights07/10/25 03:33 PM
-10

What consequences would you propose?
/r/MensRights07/10/25 03:30 PM
-31

POTUS body shames people on the daily. Presumably you’re just as outraged when that happens, yeah?
/r/MensRights07/10/25 03:30 PM
1

Nope. All too familiar with it because of folks like you …
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/22 11:21 PM
1

You’re really living your best Dunning-Kruger life here, huh?
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/22 11:24 AM
2

You really need to stop doubling down on this. Everybody gets your elementary (to the point of naïveté) point, but the strength of your desire to assign uniform moral failing to a physical condition doesn’t diminish the degree to which you’re clearly uninformed on the issue. And yes, the OP was incredibly stupid, all the same.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/22 11:23 AM
0

Yes. This is more “GenZPassDenied” and quite likely satirical in the first place. Edit: to be clear, I’m not talking about OP, but the comments have gone feral and kinda gross (even for this sub, which by and large I enjoy in a “Justice Served” kind of way … these comments are starting to need some justice served)
/r/PussyPassDenied13/09/22 11:01 PM
-7

Y’all. This girl is obviously being ridiculous, whether it’s self-aware/satire or not. But careful with those generalizations. This comment thread is getting cancerous.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/09/22 01:42 AM
2

There’s one in this clip, actually.
/r/MGTOW10/01/20 03:03 AM
-1

There’s strong evidence to suggest at least a substantial portion of Trump’s popularity (not going to say “most,” but double-digits anyway) was due to dog-whistling to folks offended by the notion of a black man in the White House. Certainly, the demographics of support were different, so Obama’s wins don’t do much to acquit charges of racism against some Trump supporters. It’s also important to note that motivated people have spent a great deal more than “10 minutes” researching HRC and haven’t…
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/19 02:03 PM
2

I like how it’s always the people refusing lawful orders and escalating a situation who gripe about “police should have been de-escalating.” Like, what, you think they’re going to sit there playing “yes you are, no I’m not” with you for fourteen weeks?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/09/19 09:51 PM
6

If only that passionate “I ain’t going to jail, I can’t do that” instinct had kicked in at any point during her initial crime or subsequent parole violations, maybe this would all have been avoided.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/09/19 09:37 PM
4

She kind of is; she just lectured the whole UN. But nevertheless, we in the US are also major polluters, and per capital I think we’re far and away the highest.
/r/MGTOW24/09/19 03:04 PM
7

Nah, it was pretty justified.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/11/17 12:55 PM
-1

I think you're slightly misrepresenting the piece with that "gotcha" headline and excerpt.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 09:18 PM
3

Well, you certainly do your username justice.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 04:07 PM
4

I appreciate that you contributed a factual clarification to the (apparently) biased story. But on the question of what constitutes a citation, this impartial observer thinks you're being willfully ignorant to, at a minimum, the most common understanding of "citation", and to an unhelpful end.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 02:34 PM
1

I'm not sure if Cardiff Metropolitan is the last great hope of free speech, so your title here is a bit melodramatic. That said, what a stupid thing for them to do!
/r/MensRights08/03/17 08:58 PM
0

I think this is absolutely hilarious, and a worthy protest bill, and I think a woman who cuts off a man's penis in a fit of rage should spend the rest of her life in jail. (And I wouldn't cry if someone chopped off her clit, to boot.) So, nope. You're wrong and, in my opinion, a little too uptight to be healthy...
/r/MensRights20/02/17 11:08 PM
0

I get it. I'm not talking about a situation in which there are necessarily kids; that's irrelevant to my hypothetical. As far as the narrative is concerned, I'm not propagating anything. I'm saying that if the conditions of my hypothetical are met -- not that somebody says they're met, but if they actually are --then I think what follows is right.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 12:57 PM
1

That's fine, but you're talking about something not in my hypothetical: the spouse leaves their career reluctantly, at the other's urging in the scenario I was discussing. You're talking about someone whose motives weren't the same, and to whom an implicit (or explicit, even) assurance wasn't made as incentive for the decision.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 04:20 AM
2

No, but I'm not talking about a standard of living. In the hypothetical inspired by the tone of the argument, where one spouse leaves a promising career reluctantly at the urging of the other spouse with an understanding of patronage, I think it's appropriate to consider not only pre-marital standard of living, but also the forward-looking earning potential -- for a time -- that corresponds to that career. It's not at all clear that's what's happened here, but I put forth the hypothetical becaus…
/r/MensRights14/02/17 03:06 AM
2

I'm only going by the way the article sounded and mentioning the hypothetical. It may have been her choice and more than fair in that case.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 09:15 PM
1

I'm not really sure. Such evidence would certainly seem indicative. There may be other ways to prove it. Not saying it's what happened, just going off the tone or the article.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 09:14 PM
35

The ruling seems fair, but after reading the story, I'm wondering exactly how the decision for her to leave her career actually happened. It sounds like it might be possible that she left it reluctantly, at his urging, with the promise that she would be "looked after." If so, and if it was his decision to divorce, then I think he should be on the hook for more. That would have amounted to a verbal contract, which is generally enforceable in most jurisdictions.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 07:48 PM
1

The American president has nearly as much influence over the direction of their countries as their own elected officials; this is the world we live in, and the responsibility we have as Americans. We should always vote for our own interests first, but we should be mindful that our country is in a unique position to make the world better or worse for everyone in it. Besides, why is the idea that voting into office a person that's respected by the world so offensive?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/02/17 02:36 AM
2

It looks like it isn't autocompleting for you, but demonstrating that falls short of proving your statement "this is an intentional act of political censorship by Twitter."
/r/MensRights05/02/17 03:02 PM
1

My...narrative? I have one of those? What, pray tell, does it say?
/r/MensRights25/06/16 11:06 PM
2

That article is really badly written. If the author and editor can't get their basic grammar right, what does that say about their ability to manage the facts of the case? "Democrats in the largely conservation state of Arizona are well know for corruption and pushing liberal, progressive and feminist philosophy down the throats of average Arizonan’s. " --aside from the blatant bias, this was clearly not even proofread. Come on guys, there are better sources (and better stories) than this!
/r/MensRights25/06/16 09:02 PM
2

As I said, I agree with you. My point, and I promise this is the last time I'll say it, was that "taking priority" need not involve misrepresenting the difficulty of others. I can't do anything about it when SJWs play the "rights are a zero sum game" game, so I at least appreciate that you've had a rational discussion on the matter. I'd encourage you to consider approaching the problem more holistically, because reasonable people can be turned off by that approach, and the hard truth is they're …
/r/MensRights27/05/16 01:16 AM
1

Gotcha. That's a fair point. I hope it's useful to know that point wasn't apparent in the way it was presented, at least in the way I read it. Edit for clarity: This comment thread originated with the following top-level comment by you, which I think is what obscured the point you just mentioned: "I can't follow the conversation very well with the names blacked out but it seems like at one point you agreed that women are oppressed, they are not. Western women are the most privileged class in his…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:01 PM
1

This isn't a productive line of thinking. It gives truth to the allegation that there's no difference between "men's rights" and "anti-women's rights" - it's SJW-ism in reverse, and it's toxic to the cause of men's rights, ironically. If you insist upon arguing against women's rights in order to achieve men's rights, you're making it hard - to the point of impossible - to make headway for men. You're setting yourself up to undo a hundred years' worth of social change before you can start making …
/r/MensRights26/05/16 03:38 PM
1

Simply saying "it's legal, end of story" misrepresents the difficulty many have in exercising that freedom, and those difficulties are architected by agents of the government. The fact is that reproductive choices for both men and women are actively curtailed by our government, which to my admittedly libertarian mind is a fairly perverse reality. While it is true that women have a legal right to an abortion, it's also true that there are many in power - mostly men - seeking to abridge their righ…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 03:22 PM
1

I understand what you're arguing, and you have a point. But the reality is outrageous enough; there's no need to go misrepresenting it and jeopardizing your credibility.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 01:49 PM
1

Perhaps, but one can't argue with the fact that the amount of effort spent making them difficult to obtain varies from state to state, and is often considerable.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 06:53 AM
1

To be fair, there aren't many things said about Trump in this article that are untrue; the man is a walking implosion. It may be true that this fact endears him to his supporters, but I think there are several other topics on which HuffPo bias is more evident and that track less with reality.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 04:25 PM
31

Not to nitpick, but I think you mean it's "hard to overstate"...
/r/MensRights13/05/16 03:02 PM
4

I know I might be crossing over into r/JusticePorn territory here, but I'm dying to know: what did she say?!
/r/MensRights24/04/16 05:30 PM
1

Ya know, sneering headlines like this one, with all the adolescent pun-slurs, contribute as much to the misperceptions of MR as any radical feminist could ever do...
/r/MensRights13/04/16 06:11 PM
2

Oh come on. This article is rather embarrassing. The girls were not selling cookies. Girl Scouts selling cookies are really obviously selling cookies. The guy sounds like a creep who randomly started talking to two little girls from his car. As a 38 year old gay man, I would have found that suspicious enough to alert someone, and I'm really opposed to most hysteria.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 03:48 PM
1

That commenter must be really old, to have endured centuries of oppression.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:17 AM
12

That article was incoherent.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 01:49 PM
5

No, man-hit-teen-girl in this case is also 'hahahah' ...
/r/MensRights21/07/12 10:22 AM
1

I think you may have hit upon the only real source of discrimination here. If there's one thing about actuarial science, it discriminates pretty fairly. That's its entire goal. But if traffic violation data figures heavily in those calculations, then I imagine guys get off worse unfairly. How many tickets do you hear men getting out of by crying and showing cleavage?
/r/MensRights27/05/12 01:15 AM
1

I've heard his songs. I've a mind to sue him for 100 grand/month in pain and suffering... But for real, this is just dumb :-(
/r/MensRights21/05/11 02:46 PM
2

I don't think it's vague at all; if the authors had intended it to be read that women were injured at a higher rate, they would have said "women also reported higher rates of injury than did men". Reporting a higher rate of causing injury, in a self-reported study, means exactly what it says.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 10:46 PM
2

I don't think of men as evil and women as good. For Christ's sake, I'm gay. If anything, I might be (not inaccurately) accused of feeling precisely the opposite. And I firmly believe modern society socializes against men; I've been making that argument for over a decade, long before I ever knew there was such a thing as a "men's rights movement". But, again, a dictionary is charged with describing usage. The imbalance of the terms is not propaganda emanating from the dictionary, as OP suggested.…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:20 PM
1

I agree with you, but I don't necessarily agree that such a restriction would apply in this case. The entry documents the first use of the word "masculinism" dating to 1918.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:02 PM
2

Thank you for doing this research; I feel it underscores my point. The means by which something is defined in Wikipedia is notably different from a dictionary (unless we're talking about Wiktionary). Dictionaries document current usage. Hopefully the sentiment that drove the Wikipedia entry will persist long enough to affect MW's assessment in the next edition. If I'm not mistaken, the front matter of a standard MW dictionary contains contact information for reporting new or erroneous usages. I …
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:00 PM
3

Logic is not misandristic; by asserting that it is, you're weakening a valuable argument. Not to put too fine a point on it, but by mischaracterizing a descriptive dictionary entry as prescriptive, and proceeding to cry "propaganda", you're perpetrating the same irrational conclusions that are often rightly attributed to feminists in this very subreddit. In a spasm of pleasing irony, I'd say it was hysteria.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 01:54 PM
1

Further, it's not as though Merriam-Webster is some news outfit, ethically obligated to "balance" the usages it documents.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 01:30 PM
4

What a stupid clarification to make. I think finding an unfavorable definition is insufficient evidence that the Merriam-Webster editors are abetting misandristic propagandists. In fact, the evidence supports both that conspiratorial nuttiness as well as the dictionary's stated goal: to document words as they gain usage. And, for what it's worth, they document "misandry" and "misogyny" exactly the same way: "a hatred of ..." men/women, respectively.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 01:28 PM
2

If the word is in use, a dictionary will attempt to include its usage. That's the way dictionaries work.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 01:24 PM
7

Are you accusing the dictionary as being complicit in propaganda? I agree the disparity of terms is both telling and prejudicial, but I pause before conspiracy. Dictionaries report on the current usage of a word, not so much prescribe it.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 05:25 AM
2

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22college+really+isn't+necessary%22+lynzee+stauss
/r/MensRights10/12/10 01:50 PM
1

As we define it, pedophilia is a pretty new concept ...
/r/MensRights02/12/10 11:39 AM
2

This is a very interesting list of tips and a really good post. The sentiment is commendable, too. But I don't think you should unnecessarily silence or censor yourself. These points might be summed up to suggest that if you aren't a member of the "complaining party", then you have no valid insight into the situation. I'd disagree with such a notion.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 12:33 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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