TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mindbleach Archive

View 0 posts and 62 comments by mindbleach 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

Okay, cool, so this sub is plain misogyny now. Aaand blocked.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/10/20 02:37 PM
3

Getting your account back from hackers.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 08:04 AM
-2

As ever, I must point out that this suicide statistic is almost totally divorced from the number of people living with suicidal depression. Most suicide attempts are by women - and though numbers are damn difficult to come by, it's entirely possible that most suicidal individuals are women. The real suicide/gender statistic worth noting is that most depressed women seek medical help and most depressed men do not.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 12:27 AM
0

I said it was explained by their using the method they expect to actually help end their pain. Okay, partly my fault for pronoun use, but I mean the women's abnormally high death rate. For the methods they are using, and thus for the fatality rate per attempt, the number of women dying from suicide is significantly higher than expected. That is what we are trying to explain, here. Without knowing recidivism you don't know that, especially in case where mere ideation is counted as an attempt. Yes…
/r/MensRights20/04/15 03:01 AM
0

What says they are? I said "if." And then I explored the opposite possibility. Neither matches the narrative you're defending. Which explains both the 80-20 suicide rate with men being higher and the female higher attempt rate. The notion that their abnormally high death rate is explained by an urge to not actually kill themselves is simply ridiculous. Ignoring how many questionable and sexist assumptions are inherent to the motivations you're proposing, that's STILL up to three times as many wo…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 11:58 PM
0

You're still disguising how many men and women per capita are dangerously depressed by focusing on deaths alone. The abject misery of untreated suicidal depression can't be summed up by measuring piles of corpses! But fine, let's look at those numbers. Men's suicide attempts are ten times as likely to succeed. So why is is the ratio of deaths 80-20 instead of 90-10? If people who survive a suicide attempt are very unlikely to try again, an 80-20 split for a 10x difference in the fatality rate wo…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 11:35 PM
0

As ever, I must point out the majority of suicide attempts are by women, but men tend to use more effective means. The rate of suicidal depression is much less gender-imbalanced than death alone can convey.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 08:17 PM
0

both men and women are doing the judging, That's literally all I'm saying, and this circlejerk doesn't want to hear it unless there's a "but women are especially to blame!" after it.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 08:39 PM
1

It's behavior from both genders, even if it's only toward one gender. We are talking about blame. Thus we are talking about the behavior's perpetrators, not its victims, you mentally entrenched illiterates.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 08:34 PM
0

Not blaming women entirely for how both men and women act = denying women's agency. You're a fucking idiot.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 08:26 PM
-30

these problems are something specific to men, And then literally the very next thing you write is both men and women...
/r/MensRights15/01/15 09:35 AM
-34

Jesus fuck, this subreddit. Study says men and women have the same problem. Obvious goal is gender equality. Top comment? "FUCKING WOMEN!!!" You are why people outside this sub use MRA as an insult. You are hurting your own legitimate cause, you one-note moron.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 09:09 AM
1

A comparable number of men and women will attempt suicide at least once. The 3:1 ratio is one of those neat little factoids that disguises the whole story. This is a serious gender issue, what with most suicidal women and barely half of suicidal men seeking mental health services, but nobody is helped by pushing these sloppy statistics.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 12:41 AM
1

75% of suicide attempts are by women.
/r/MensRights10/10/14 07:12 PM
5

Literally 'he was asking for it.' What the fuck.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 03:11 AM
0

Forced conversion is not advisable... ever. Certainly not a primary interface. Even if people stay dumb and stick with GIF, I'd rather not watch an MPEG that's been GIF'd and then WebP'd and then GIF'd again.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 01:37 AM
2

I can open a dozen articles or albums in tabs without turning my music down or pausing the TV show I'm watching. Video content takes more attention than that. The only thing wrong with GIFs is how old the format is. WebM is much better.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 02:37 AM
2

I'm more annoyed that news outlets are reporting on the outrage... which they started... in equal measure to the actual fucking story. I know the story right now is "they're missing, shit sucks," but what the fuck, NBC?
/r/MensRights07/05/14 08:47 PM
7

if you edit a page without prior written approval, you will get banned. Then why is it a wiki?
/r/MensRights27/10/13 06:35 PM
5

My problem is in the line of thought that is so prevalent that modern musicians can't have talent. Nobody here is saying that. Nobody here is saying anything like that. We are specifically talking about One Direction. This particular band could have creative talent... but doesn't. At least, none they're demonstrating. They're just performers. One Direction could change from their current pattern and make amazing music in a few years. And Nickelback could release a prog-rock masterpiece, but it's…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:50 AM
2

Strawman. Lennon & MCCartney wrote the vast majority of their expansive discography. Even their first LP was mostly their own original work. The fact they covered a few songs on each album doesn't negate the obvious breadth and depth of their talent. Meanwhile, One Direction covered their entire first album, and 75% of their second - and the few songs they did help write, they didn't help much. You are trying to compare a manufactured boy band to one of the last century's most critically and com…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:36 AM
1

you know all of the members of One Direction and their educational backgrounds. We know they didn't write any of their own music. They've got partial credit on three songs on their second album - along with about eight of their producers. They aren't artists, they're just performers. their families and personal histories Relevance: nil.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 12:06 AM
2

Hey, it meant Harrison got to save up everything for All Things Must Pass, and I can't say one unkind word about that.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 12:00 AM
49

While The Beatles were the original pop sensation ensemble, they were also massively talented, writing most of their own songs since the very beginning. One Direction co-write three songs on their second album - on tracks with about eight listed writers. They merely performed their first album. Lennon & McCartney produced dozens of excellent songs and churned out chart-topping albums every nine months for seven straight years. Harrison started writing as they slowly shifted from lovey-dovey pop …
/r/MensRights14/10/13 09:08 PM
5

Score another point for Bruce Wayne.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:47 PM
7

Well, yes - but if we're going to violate their first amendment rights then let's not violate their fourteenth amendment rights in the process.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 04:42 PM
4

It's only sexist if there's an implication that single dads aren't equally capable. The argument you're making sounds a lot like anti-gay arguments about how mom and dad are equally necessary. It's bullshit. Two parents are simply more capable than one - but one, of either gender, is sufficient.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 05:41 AM
7

Child porn is one of those minefields where emotions and incentives are too ugly for sensible discussion, so everything it touches becomes illicit. Just owning it is illegal, regardless of origin, so distributing it is naturally verboten. This is typically excused by saying it "encourages pedophiles," which always sounds suspiciously similar to claims that adult pornography "encourages rapists." It's getting to the point where some countries want underage drawings outlawed - like a doodle of Lis…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 11:37 PM
4

In loco parentis doesn't apply when the parents demand their kid's $400 phone back. Schools do not have carte blanche to steal valuables. At best, they could hand it over to the police.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 11:02 PM
0

Keep it simple. "Is equality sufficient?"
/r/MensRights29/01/13 04:32 AM
2

Yeah, this guy's an /r/Conspiracy regular. Stone cold crazy. Goes on about black flag bullshit, water fluoridation, Jews doing 9/11 - the usual.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:36 AM
2

Crossposting is when you submit a link that's already been submitted in another sub - it's not linking to a comment in another sub.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:26 PM
16

Fuck the idiots telling you to become a fugitive refugee in some non-extradition hellhole. If your lawyer can't be bothered to produce your tax records and demonstrate that your part-time side business doesn't magically produce full-time career profits, fire his useless ass and explain what's going on here to the judge. Defending yourself couldn't possibly be worse than having a lawyer who refuses to acknowledge reality.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 04:41 PM
-1

It's #3. It's possible this guy was creepin' hard on her, but the whole thing sounds trite when written out so clinically.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 03:10 PM
3

It could still sell, assuming your bookstore had a BDSM section.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 09:44 PM
-6

Well... there are more of them overall. All things being equal, more women than men should graduate from college.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:12 PM
0

This just in: people of all genders support gender equality. Film at 11. I can't stand when feminists insist on "equal" rights but still swear a woman should never be hit (even if she deserved it) or should have doors opened for her, chairs pulled out for her, and her dinner paid for. You're confusing rights with social customs.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 03:20 AM
1

the insurance companies need men to pay before they crash as well as after The money left over from long-time customers who drive safely covers the accidents of unsafe drivers. It's a risk pool, not a Ponzi scheme. Old unsafe drivers paying higher premiums cover new unsafe drivers paying the haven't-crashed-yet price. If the average man pays that low price for shorter than the average woman, then so be it, but we shouldn't punish people for things they aren't responsible for. to try and charge o…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:04 PM
1

You pay an equal amount for services rendered to the other gender. If I crash a $20K car into a $70K car, services rendered by insurance are worth $90K regardless of what's between my legs. If the average man needs that service sooner than the average woman then it will be reflected in the higher average price men end up paying thanks to customers who've had their premiums raised after a crash. you pay based on the likelyhood that you are to need that coverage The likelihood you're going to need…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 12:42 AM
1

I suppose you could say it's not prejudiced because of its overall accuracy. Statistics remain irrelevant. Gender equality is a natural right. You're suggesting a degradation of the system in your own favour, not an improvement. I'm suggesting a change for ethical reasons. It's an improvement if you care about any metric besides money. It happens to work out in my favor for this particular instance. I'd suggest this same change everywhere, even where the change works out against me - salaries, f…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 08:50 PM
1

For instance, if I say that on average brown people are poorer than white people, that is not prejudiced, because it is true. Saying an average white person has more money is statistics. Acting as though all brown people have less money than any white person is prejudice. Similarly, it is entirely accurate to say that men have more car accidents, but it is prejudiced to treat every man as though he is more likely to crash than any woman. I could go my entire life without a single accident and st…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 02:23 AM
1

Prejucide is about holding preconcieved notions not based on reason or experience. You've never seen me drive. You have no experience on which to base my safety as a customer. Suggesting that I deserve to be treated as a bad driver because you've seen bad driving from people who physically resemble me is blatantly prejudiced, regardless of how good your statistics are. How I was born is completely beyond my control and thus should not be a permissible basis for judging me as an individual. I gue…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:09 PM
1

The system also treats old and young people differently ... and is therefore ageist as well as sexist. Ageism is far more tolerable than sexism, both legally and ethically. It's not because we're men that we get discriminated against, it's because we're statistically more likely to have an expensive crash - they just know this because they know we happen to be men. The underlying reasons are irrelevant. Money alone is not sufficient reason to permit overt sexual prejudice. 100% yes. I applaud yo…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:29 PM
1

It's not about gender per se I am so tired of people telling me that systems which treats men and women differently 'aren't about gender.' Men are riskier drivers, and hence we generally pay more. If white people had more accidents on average, would we tolerate tiered pricing based on race? If hispanics stole more on average, would we tolerate a surtax on Mexicans who shop at Wal-Mart? There are two ways of doing insurance False dichotomy between all or nothing. Why not charge me based on my act…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:21 PM
1

Being charged more from the outset is not equality of opportunity. insurance rates being equal across the sexes, Yes. and also requires quotas on who works in board rooms, and all sorts of positive discrimination. No. What are you talking about? Affirmative action is the opposite of demanding that businesses ignore gender.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 03:25 PM
1

Alright, yeah, there are relatively rare cases where people insure themselves piecemeal, like a porn star getting his dong appraised in the event he had complications with some sort of... penile surgery. There must be a clever portmanteau for that. My point was that sometimes insurance companies have a damn good reason to discriminate "It would be more expensive not to" isn't a very good reason at all. Reality-based, yes, but then you could play all sorts of statistics games to justify inequalit…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 03:57 AM
2

It would be significantly cheaper for a man to insure himself against getting breast cancer, and that's completely OK. Prostate cancer would cancel that out. Anyway, who insures themselves against specific cancers? What a morbid bet that would be. The problem with car insurance isn't (at its core) that the discrimination is based on gender I disagree. Sexism of any significant magnitude shouldn't be tolerated without a damn good reason. Being born male is further outside one's own control than g…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 01:45 AM
2

Thanks for not presenting any argument whatsoever and just blindly projecting your hate onto me. It makes the decision to mark and ignore you a simple one.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:28 PM
1

What you are failing to see is that statistical risk DOES predict, to a high degree, individual conduct. I'm not ignoring the uses of demographic statistics, I'm saying they aren't relevant the definition of discrimination or necessary for the success of an insurance company. Discrimination is the use of a profile in a way that doesn't reflect reality No. Discrimination is prejudicial selection based on simple categorization. The statistical accuracy of this prediction is irrelevant. There is no…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 08:18 PM
1

That's kind of racist to jump on race for every discrimination argument. People jump to racism in arguments about discrimination because it's a point of reference that everyone understands. It's obvious, it's wrong, we sorta-kinda fixed it, and we try to avoid it. It forces people to ask whether the criteria for treating people separately is legally and ethically sound by framing the problem in slightly different circumstances. For example: if it's acceptable for insurance companies to charge me…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 08:10 PM
1

Profiling is discrimination. That is literally all the word means. It's looking at one aspect of a person and making a decision based on that characteristic. When the chosen characteristic is race, we call the decision racism. When the chosen characteristic is sex, we call the decision sexism. Now imagine if they didn't charge based on statistically certifiable risk, everyone who isn't high risk would shoulder the additional cost this high risk group generates. You mean they'd have to charge peo…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:42 PM
2

Discrimination shouldn't be a dirty word. Hence "justified." It's still not the same thing as equality. Feel free to argue that these laws are just, but stop saying they treat men and women equally, because that's clearly false. If we cost more charge us more. That's equality. What's equal about having different prices for "us" versus "them?" It would be hard to find a more obvious division into unequal groups! I've cost my insurance company nothing so far. They charge me more because people lik…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:31 PM
2

Maybe check how they file their census forms. Anyway, gender isn't absolute, either. About one out of every hundred people is born with mixed or indeterminate genitals. Another few will choose to alter their physical sex. As many as a dozen might be gay or bisexual, and I'd be interested to know how that affects accident rates.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:54 PM
4

So therefore, if it were a verifiable fact that black drivers cost more in claims, charging them twice as much wouldn't be racism? Good luck with that. This is NOT discrimination based on gender, but on accident rates. If this is the OP's first car, his accident rate is presumably zero. I'm starting to think redditors have no idea what "discrimination" means. It is literally nothing more than treating someone differently based on a particular trait. The OP would receive different treatment (lowe…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:40 PM
3

It will just raise the rates of women. Or it might lower the rates of men. Or both, if prices average out. In what way is that not a solution?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:31 PM
6

Equality is the way it is currently. Equality is treating men differently from women? The sexes are equal but different. You are describing justified discrimination. It's not the same thing as equality, for reasons that should be blindingly obvious.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:29 PM
3

The whole insurance business model relies on being able to charge high risk groups higher rates. False. It's entirely possible to charge a wide customer base equally so long as total income exceeds total expenses. Discriminatory pricing based on risk is just more lucrative.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:23 PM
27

Also age-ism, location-ism, and a few of other -isms. You're being treated as a demographic statistic. Welcome to having insurance.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:20 PM
38

PS: Ask for resignation of the sender Or you could call someone out as an asshole and get them reprimanded without threatening their career. Just a thought.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:50 PM
1

You've switched from complaining about the sentence from complaining about the conviction. My post only addressed the sentence. I agree that the conviction is bullshit - she claimed emotional distress from a communication he explicitly blocked her from seeing - but it's impossible to have a sensible argument if 'what makes it a matter of free speech' is whichever aspect pisses you off most from moment to moment.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 06:19 PM
-3

If the maximum sentence he's facing for not posting the apology is a reasonable punishment for his actions, then the apology was nothing more than an option he could have taken to reduce his sentence. This is only a matter of free speech if he was facing the maximum reasonable sentence with the apology and twice the maximum reasonable sentence without the apology.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 05:37 PM
0

Let's be honest here - the best case scenario is 'not guilty' on any charges for reason of insanity. Decapitation is a few steps beyond premeditated murder and well into psycho bullshit territory.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 05:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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