TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

moonmixer Archive

View 0 posts and 190 comments by moonmixer 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

Lel, that two week old necro for something that was thoroughly and far more accurately explained already
/r/PussyPassDenied29/04/17 08:11 PM
2

When he says "if this sub becomes a neo nazi sub, I won't like it as much"? I mean, I presume he is. Even if it's unlikely, that's a solid reason to stop liking something...
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 03:04 PM
4

A) I didn't say verbal communication. What I implied was that honest and open communication was something to strive for, nonverbal is certainly a huge part of that. B) Arguing with anonymous strangers (who aren't even audible or visible) is completely different than arguing with someone you know well and is right in front of you. It is hard enough to communicate effectively IRL, even harder when there is no nonverbal communication and you have no guarantee the other party is acting in good faith…
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 02:50 PM
5

Nah, they probably don't respond to it well because it's sloppily done/sloppily recieved. Painful truth is a lot of people suck ass at effective communication.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 12:45 PM
1

Sure, "right" living at the end of the day is not something I can define. In my mind, not being a machiavellian asshole is far more rewarding, far less soul-crushing, and far more conducive to long-term happiness. It seems far more morally justifiable to be an open, caring, and empathetic person than to use people as a means to an end, as objects. Take that as you will.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/17 12:15 PM
1

the invisible hand Hmmm... and who, exactly, devised this concept? ALSO, assuming anything created by a white man is inherently patriarchal and negative to women is a fucking joke Can you not read? Even if free markets are patriarchal in design (which, to be clear, I am not entirely sure of), this is not an outright/overall condemnation of them. Try reading the posts you respond to before making wild assumptions and swearing at people... I certainly don't think that anything created by white men…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 02:41 PM
1

First of all, slow down. Even if free markets are patriarchal in design (which, to be clear, I am not entirely sure of), this is not an outright/overall condemnation of them. That said, theories of free market economics are inherently white and male in their origin. I don't know how you can argue otherwise... Unless you can provide the name of a single non-white, non-male economist from the Adam Smith era, of course. In other news, why is it so offensive to you to acknowledge that something migh…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 02:15 PM
44

So instead of just telling your partner the ways in which you're dissatisfied or want something more from them, you get passive-aggressive and try to manipulate them indirectly into doing what you want? Sounds healthy 🙄
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 12:48 PM
1

None of them have a "name" the way TRP does, because everyone's journey is different. Read some philosophy, develop genuine relationships, learn to trust and love... it's all any of us can do. That's the thing: TRP is basically good only for being psychologically manipulative and getting sex from women, and in doing so fosters some nasty beliefs about human nature (that aren't supported by any sort of science).
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 12:19 PM
6

That is the dumbest shit I've ever heard
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 12:17 PM
8

Lol, that's a reassuring response ;-)
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 01:22 AM
27

The fuck is "dread game"
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 01:08 AM
1

One is too much. You can get the same and better from any number of other, less toxic, less laughably pseudoscientific models of gender relations and life in general.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 07:24 PM
1

It is a fault of the system that we don't value education. It is also a fault of the system that there are such significant differences in career choice between men and women IMO, because "free will" in my view is much less "free" than most people think. Social pressure weighs on both men and women to take certain kinds of jobs, and it is damaging to our social fabric that this is the case. Better yet, social pressure causes male-dominated jobs to not offer paternity leave, which means that wome…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 12:08 PM
1

But to be fair, I wont say discrimination has nothing to do with it since the person I linked to clearly says she assumes there is discrimination involved somewhere Better yet, it seems that she is simply trying to elucidate the difference between a wage gap and a pay gap, or a within-job gap vs. a between-job gap (the latter of which exists, and is far less discriminatory) In other news, I was only arguing against the assertion that: discrimination has nothing to do with it ...which it seems yo…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 12:04 PM
3

do you believe that males are not capable of creating gender-neutral constructs? Actually, I don't believe that any people are capable of making entirely gender-neutral social constructs without painstaking effort and attention paid to doing so. Even then, I seriously doubt that anyone can ever be fully freed from bias in action and thought. Supply and demand is simply a reality of economics whenever you are dealing with a finite, transferrable good or service. ...but supply and demand are also …
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:52 AM
1

Here's an unsourced gish gallop, now go do "your own research"! Seriously m8?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:44 AM
-1

The assertion that discrimination has nothing to do with what you're describing seems pretty baseless to me, considering discrimination against women has been the norm for the majority of the past multiple centuries. Care to elaborate?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:43 AM
1

/r/madlads
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:38 AM
-1

Actually I'm pretty sure there is a wage gap, it's just far from 23% as many purport. Something like 3%.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:37 AM
4

Not really trying to take sides here, just want to point out that a lot of people would say that the concept of free markets were created largely by men. Now, free markets are certainly useful, but we also have to ask ourselves: do we really want our teachers to be paid based on their market value? If they are paid as such, and that is an inherently male-created valuation of their service, then maybe the word "patriarchy" actually makes a bit of sense no?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:35 AM
88

Just in case this is seen as promotion and you don't know what this subreddit is: don't fucking spend too much time there. It is not good for you. The abyss stares back into you and all that jazz.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:32 AM
1

I was simply pointing out how stupidly gendered that insult was. Obviously, "pimp" is insulting, and gendered as well. The reason I didn't address that point is because, unlike "prostitute" this thread isn't littered with people saying "lol her boyfriend must be a scumbag pimp, that piece of shit!" It's really not that difficult to understand, unless you have some bizarre agenda to push. I was addressing the most relevant nonsense available to my eyes. If you want to focus on the boyfriend's hal…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/04/17 10:14 PM
13

(likely feminist) Fucking lol.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 08:30 PM
1

I mean, when what we're talking about is two specific, visible, can-confirm-exists people, then yeah. Also relevant: prostitutes can have (non-pimp) boyfriends. Are you so naive as to not be aware of this?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 08:26 PM
1

Lol, so you can't clarify that mess? Oh well.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 07:05 PM
2

The man who wasn't in the video, who for all we know doesn't even exist? That man?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 07:01 PM
2

Thank
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 06:52 PM
3

I literally couldn't understand it m8, lol. Here are a couple possible interpretations: You calling people sexist for insulting a person makes you yourself sexist... (because I think the insult is gendered? not sure how this follows) You calling people sexist for insulting a person means that actually, you are insulting that person (again, not sure how the fact that the insult is gendered plays into this) You calling people sexist for insulting a person means you're the one being insulting... (a…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 06:51 PM
1

You calling people sexist for insulting a person you are yourself are insulting because you think the insult is gendered, Wew, lad, try that sentence again?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 06:40 PM
-1

Are you actually retarded or do you just play one on reddit? I need to know whether I should bad for you or not. You need to bad for me if you are actually sympathy, because yes I am a retarded.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 06:39 PM
0

Who the fuck said anything about "allowed"? Of course you're allowed to say almost anything you like. Similarly, I'm allowed to call you out for it when it's despicably ignorant drivel. I'll also note that I think this woman is absolute scum. I just thought that calling her a prostitute was a bit loaded, Yknow, seeing as that label is much more commonly applied to women, especially black women. If you guys had stuck to the "asshole" and "idiot" labels, I wouldn't have said shit because there wou…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 06:06 PM
-4

Lawl yes, I was totally approving of the description of her boyfriend as a pimp when I said she wasn't a prostitute. Astute analysis sir.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 06:03 PM
-5

It would also "make a lot of sense" if black people had a genetically higher propensity for violence than white people. Just because it would "make a lot of sense" does not make it correct, nor does it make it even worth mentioning really.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 04:56 PM
1

Because this subreddit is not sexist, that's why. Make sense? No sexism here, just people calling a woman a prostitute with zero evidence.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 04:31 PM
2

Sorry m8, your Google search doesn't really prove anything in my eyes
/r/MensRights05/04/17 02:31 AM
1

Hey, if my experience is valid in the slightest then it's 100% possible, yeah.
/r/MGTOW15/03/17 12:03 PM
2

Hey man, if this couple is happy I don't know what you're upset about. Let them do their thing, you go your own way. Also, have you ever considered that maybe the cuckold gets to sleep around too?
/r/MGTOW14/03/17 01:20 PM
1

Are you really saying that not lying is "doing a favor"? Fucking lol
/r/TheRedPill22/02/17 09:33 PM
1

after the election millions of husbands get a little peace and quiet while pantsuit nation marches in on Washington DC Lol, that you really don't understand that most husbands of those women marching were probably right there beside them makes me think you are either trolling or an idiot. Or worse yet, so far up your own ass that your lower intestine is beginning to look like the outside world to you.
/r/MensRights30/01/17 05:17 AM
1

Wat? This article describes how men overwhelmingly went for trump (more specifically, white men). I have no clue how this is evidence of any such crock of shit as "gynocentrism", much less how it won the election for Trump. Edit: they also point out that Trump won white women in the first paragraph, further cementing my point that ethnicity/race played a larger role than whatever pseudoscience drivel you redpillers are spewing from your rear ends. I mean seriously, if anything it's evidence of p…
/r/MensRights30/01/17 01:01 AM
1

Source? And was it at record highs in all racial/ethnic groups?
/r/MensRights29/01/17 09:04 PM
1

Lol yes, "hypergamy" was one of the big topics that the libcucks lost the ideological battle on this past year Go back to your hole, troll
/r/MensRights29/01/17 04:51 PM
1

You literally sound like a cultist.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 02:34 AM
1

Lel, I guess almost every well known historian is just shitty at history then ;)
/r/MensRights28/01/17 03:03 PM
1

Sorry for getting testy, I realize now that I was too pissy before I realized that we really just had a fundamental difference in worldview.
/r/MensRights28/01/17 12:08 AM
1

I had honestly never seen a case of a father being allowed to do this sort of thing. It's not about "being allowed". It's about unwanted pregnancies happening with people who then vanish, and you not having the resources to chase them down or go to court over it (much less raise a kid on your own). Going to court isn't cheap, dude. Especially if you can't afford to miss work. In addition, I think you severely underestimate how easy it is to hide when your offense is simply impregnating someone a…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:28 PM
2

No he's not a "nice guy", he's a redpiller. One of the few on this earth who have it aaaalllll figured out. /s
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:10 PM
1

I'm not avoiding your question, I'm clarifying terms. You asked "do you believe in patriarchy?" My answer, if patriarchy is defined as it is in that wiki article, is "yes"
/r/MensRights27/01/17 07:23 PM
1

Lol I have no clue, when I asked you dropped a Wikipedia link and then got extremely snarky. Was that Wikipedia link representative of your definition?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:49 PM
1

Well, we're on Reddit in a particularly insular community that has very strong views about feminism and all related terms. Why would I not double check that we're defining patriarchy the same way, in that context?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:43 PM
1

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/P60-255.pdf here ya go, ya fuckin troglodyte. From figure 3: 7.3 million custodial parents without agreements 17.5% of which do not have a child support agreement because they literally could not find the other parent. Unless you're willing to bet that none of those 1225000 people are women, then you've just lost this argument outright. Feel free to educate yourself with the rest of the article, lawd knows you need it.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:38 PM
1

Evidence for the existence of single mothers not receiving child support? Are you fucking serious? Would you also like evidence that moles live in tunnels?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:32 PM
1

Lol, the fact that you think all single mothers take (or are even able to take) the father of their children to court makes me realize you're not thinking about this very clearly.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:27 PM
1

Abortion, required insurance coverage of birth control (not specifically about Obamacare, but thank you for proving once again that you are unfamiliar with the issues here), support for victims of sexual assault, pushback against normalization of sexual assault by the president, support for racial minorities... Those are some actual issues, but it was also just a showing of support in general for people who are nervous about the coming four years. In fact, I'd argue that this was the main intent…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:50 PM
1

Would you also like evidence that the sky is blue? Do you think single mothers w/no child support payments coming in exist because they want to raise a child alone?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:40 PM
1

Lol, you conceded the abortion point and your "rebuttal" of the birth control point made absolutely no sense in context. Do you remember the whole hobby lobby fiasco? That is, in large part, what the fight is about. You didn't address that at all.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:39 PM
1

It made, at the least, two statements: that there are many who want affordable (insurance-paid) birth control, and who want abortion rights, and they they're willing to stand together and support each other on those (and other) issues. If you don't like the message, that's k bb. Again, you just sound like you have no clue what you're talking about though when you reduce it to "blind hate". It's OK to not understand something, but it's kinda dumb to spread lies and bs about it just because you're…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:23 PM
1

I didn't say "free", brother. This is going to be a tough conversation if you can't avoid putting words in my mouth. Did you go to a march? I did. It was, by and large, a supportive and positive environment for people who are concerned about the direction our country is going at the moment. It was in support of women who are worried about the government taking away their rights and arbitrarily restricting their access to healthcare. You thinking it was "blind and hateful" is a lot like an extrem…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:57 PM
1

Lol, what? In order for anyone to answer your prior question with a "yes" or a "no", they have to understand what you mean when you ask the question. This is a basic rule of argumentation.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:50 PM
1

No, there are plenty of men who walk away from pregnancies when the woman is unable to get an abortion, is what I'm saying.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:48 PM
1

Lol, the jargon is thick and meaningless in this one.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:47 PM
1

Consent is complicated. There is, as you pointed out, a difference between consenting to sex with a celebrity and having a celebrity "grab you by the pussy" because "they'll let you do anything when you're a star"
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:40 PM
1

Go back to TRP dude.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:36 PM
1

You do realize that plenty of women are also stuck supporting a child alone, without the man who impregnated her? I won't argue that child support sexism isn't an issue worth supporting: it is. This isn't a zero sum game though, something it seems like a lot of people here have trouble grasping.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:32 PM
1

The problem is that this is a necessarily gendered piece of advice. Men can walk away from a pregnancy, in many cases, with ease. Women can't, not even if abortion were free.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:30 PM
1

I don't think there is a significant portion of the population that cares more about a few bucks than about male suicide dude. You're kind of off the deep end.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:28 PM
1

You probably got downvoted for your assertion that women are privileged in every sphere of society, linking only to a site called "realsexism" to support your point. Just sayin.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:26 PM
0

Infested higher education and international politics? Do you have any support for that claim?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:15 PM
1

I don't think it's moot at all, as some of those pro-choice women would undoubtedly be denied safe abortions. Access to affordable birth control is another, though.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:12 PM
2

"Pro-choice" is a generally feminist stance though, and one that is seen as increasing bodily autonomy for women. If the president and those that surround him want to take that away, how is it hard to frame it as a women's issue? Just because a minority of women think the action is immoral? (notice, they don't make an argument from bodily autonomy)
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:05 PM
2

That Trump is an opponent to multiple of the aforementioned issues is KINDA the point.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 01:42 PM
1

I'm certainly not defending her, nor do I think she deserved to speak at the march, but I feel like 27 years in prison might have something to do with her "change of heart". I mean, wasn't this woman also forced into the sex trade when she was young? She's had a pretty fucked up life, and while AGAIN, that does not excuse her from the heinous crime she's committed, it does provide context.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 01:41 PM
1

What does patriarchy mean to you?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 01:39 PM
3

Sorry, I don't really buy this. I frequently see people on this sub dismissing women's issues precisely because they're argued for by feminists... The same way feminists might dismiss men's issues (depending on the feminist, of course)
/r/MensRights27/01/17 01:35 PM
1

All of them? I find that very doubtful.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:28 AM
1

The joke here is that you somehow think you did anything more than blow him off. Not a very funny joke though.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 01:30 PM
-2

When? No one gets sent to war involuntarily anymore.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 12:16 AM
1

Wow, imagine if you had said all this to him instead of "I didn't read your post because I didn't like it". You might have actually had some good dialogue!
/r/MensRights26/01/17 12:15 AM
1

Also known as "the circlejerk reached /r/all"
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:26 PM
1

I take it you concede that I didn't dismiss his opinion because it's unpopular. Lol, sure. You dismissed it because you didn't want to read and consider something that contradicted your worldview. Is that really much better? What I read was uninformed. What, specifically, did you read that was uninformed?
/r/MensRights25/01/17 09:11 PM
-2

Somebody who cares about equality of both sexes is an egalitarian What makes you think feminists and men's rights advocates can't be egalitarian? Just the name of their "cause"?
/r/MensRights25/01/17 06:33 PM
1

I dismissed his opinion because it was uninformed (as I said). Ah yes, his opinion (which you didn't read) is misinformed. Got it...
/r/MensRights25/01/17 06:31 PM
0

Stopped reading after the first two lines. That's what you actually said. You asserted he was uninformed and ignored his entire post because of two lines wherein he barely took a position on any issues. So lol, what exactly is there to concede? That's why I've stopped engaging with "advice from clever outsiders who think we've got it all wrong". Sounds a whole lot like something an extreme feminist would say.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 05:41 PM
-1

I mean, you specifically alleged that his opinion was less popular than yours, and got downvoted for saying it. The point is that you said "I'm not going to read your post, but it sucks because it's unpopular" and were completely wrong. Thus, maybe you should read his post? Y'know, because you were utterly wrong about it?
/r/MensRights25/01/17 04:46 PM
2

Well yeah, they had just won the vote 20 years prior....
/r/MensRights25/01/17 02:04 PM
5

Looks like you're the one getting looked down upon m8. Maybe you should read his post now...
/r/MensRights25/01/17 01:59 PM
7

It's really not an oxymoron to be both. The only reason it "is" in this circumstance is "because I said so". You've offered no compelling reason.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 01:57 PM
1

Well Twitter thought it qualified as harassment, so he was banned. I'm not sure I understand your question...?
/r/MGTOW10/01/17 12:02 PM
1

I didn't say it was harassment... But ok. Keep raging!
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 08:42 PM
1

I made a very coherent point in my first post. Namely, that Shkreli never criticized her views. That's not why he got banned. Re-read my post if you want.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 05:40 PM
2

Yeah ok that's pretty bad, and I don't even know why she got mad about it. Mayhap both Shkreli AND Duca should have their privileges revoked, reading that TOS line. A shame that they don't enforce more fairly.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 05:01 PM
1

I heard what you said, I'm asking if you can link me to the tweet. If I search "Lauren duca fuck off" all I get is a bunch of bizarre Tumblr smut (lol) Nvm, think I found it https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/760228470601416704 Is that what you're talking about? I don't see how that qualifies as harassment. Harassing... Everyone?
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 04:33 PM
1

Then can you help me out here with a source for why she was the harasser instead of the harrassee (though I don't really think she was harrassed anyway)? Because the article in the OP paints the opposite picture.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 04:23 PM
1

Sorry, I guess I misread something in the article. Can you show me where she said "fuck off"?
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 04:17 PM
1

Sorry, but it's not. If you receive unsolicited attention from someone and you respond, that can never be considered harassment by definition. Not sure why you're making this argument anyway, I don't even think what Shkreli did was definitive harassment by any means.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 03:55 PM
2

Lol, yeah his supposed "sick sense of humor" is lost on me I guess. There are plenty of other people who have a "sick sense of humor" who I find hilarious, so something tells me it's not just me, but... I'm also not sure how Twitter trolling takes balls, but at this point I doubt I'll get it at all. Feel free to ignore me.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 03:24 PM
-1

Just not sure why you replied to my comment with something completely irrelevant. Whatever though, sorry if I've upset you.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 03:22 PM
-1

OK. Thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion, I suppose.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 01:55 PM
-1

Still not reading, apparently... If it was done in physical form (mailed collage and shopped photo) it would be harassment. If it was done in physical form
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 01:51 PM
3

Shkreli later posted a collage of photos of Duca, and updated his profile picture with a photo of Duca and her husband showing Shkreli's face superimposed over that of her spouse. Straight from the article that seemingly no one read. Does this really make you like him?
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 01:27 PM
5

Did no one in here read the article? Shkreli later posted a collage of photos of Duca, and updated his profile picture with a photo of Duca and her husband showing Shkreli's face superimposed over that of her spouse. Shkreli did this after she rejected (I believe a public) offer for a date. This isn't her opinion getting criticized... If it was done in physical form (mailed collage and shopped photo) it would be harassment.
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 01:25 PM
1

Are you guys really making fun of prepubescent boys?
/r/MGTOW09/01/17 12:14 PM
2

"Reverse genders and tell em what would happen" Presumably, instead of a lot of feminists and progressives protesting the president, it would be a lot of alt-righters, people from this sub, etc. I don't see why this is an interesting thought experiment at all.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 01:38 AM
1

Ah. Well considering this sub is pretty anti-feminist in all forms, I didn't think that a concept that originated within feminism would be considered feasible at all. My fault for assuming.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 01:34 AM
5

Im sure that a lot of feminists would say this is one of many places that "rape culture" exists...
/r/MensRights08/01/17 05:25 PM
2

I was just pointing out that it wasn't an unpopular sentiment/"narrative" in this sub.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 11:54 PM
103

Women initiate the majority of domestic violence incidents so it only makes sense. Women love to pick fights and then cry woe is me when they finally get a man to respond. The whole passive aggressive thing drives men crazy so it must really drive lesbians crazy when their own bullshit is used against them. This comment has 130 upvotes, so maybe he deserves a but more merit than you're giving him.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 03:18 PM
1

No, you just don't have the appropriate amount of respect for impermanence. "It wont happen to me." I'm not ignorant of the subject of this combination of phrases, I just see them as absolute baloney. "The appropriate amount of respect for impermanence", in my mind, refers to the fact that relationships change and people die. Such is life. I choose to acknowledge those facts with my partner and move forward together, because she gives me immeasurable support and benefits as a person. Much like m…
/r/MGTOW07/11/16 02:09 AM
1

I really barely know what you're talking about. You act like everyone is as bitter, cynical, and pessimistic as you. It's simply not true. You're so deep in your own existential wallowing that you're blind to how wonderful the world can be, and as sad as that makes me for you, it also means I can't be arsed to try and convince you otherwise.
/r/MGTOW06/11/16 03:37 PM
7

Jesus Christ dude, it isn't all that bad.
/r/MGTOW05/11/16 06:04 PM
1

Yes. Do you not understand the definition of the word?
/r/MensRights31/10/16 04:08 PM
0

Of course there are downsides and upsides. People should make the choice that best suits their lifestyle (which sometimes means getting married). I was arguing against the notion that marriage is never a good idea, all of your scenarios wherein it is not a good choice do not refute the basic premise that sometimes getting married isn't a bad choice.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:34 PM
0

What? I'm not insulting anyone. Divorce is a lot less likely for people who are emotionally mature, open and caring in their relationships. If you're insulted by such a bland statement of fact, maybe you should do some work to figure out why you're getting defensive.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:32 PM
0

I'm not saving shit. I'm not married. I'm saying that there are benefits to marriage, including (but not limited to) tax benefits.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:29 PM
0

The risk of divorce is not as high as the circlejerk would have you believe, though, especially not if you're an honest and emotionally mature person
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:28 PM
0

You dig up 10 links to "get people thinking" but then can't find one that you purport actually supports your point? Forgive me for thinking you're just blowing smoke. Whatever, you're probably just pulling this out of your ass. I suppose I'll never know.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:23 PM
1

Let's be clear: my stance (if you can call it a stance) is that things are probably maybe changing somehow, but I'm not sure how if they are. Yours is very specific and is supposedly supported by evidence (which you are unable to provide). 😐
/r/MensRights29/10/16 10:47 PM
1

Oh god, a woman? Everyone shield your heart, lest the conniving succubus steal it away along with your riches and status.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 09:21 PM
-2

I'm aware that there are still quite a few women out there that are well adjusted but that doesn't dismiss the fact that a growing epidemic is emerging. It certainly doesn't, because "quite a few" isn't even remotely close to an actual number. I don't doubt that marriage and relationship trends are developing and changing, what I doubt is that any of your behavioral analysis of vast swathes of the population has more than a tenuous link to reality. I doubt that whatever is going on is describabl…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 09:19 PM
-1

we have an entire generation of women who no longer understand what actual love is, let alone crave it. They need constant stimulation, like a drug addict. I'm sorry dude, but there's really nothing I can say to this. You're not making a sound argument, you're providing some anecdotal evidence of an undoubtedly complex phenomenon and then purporting to have figured out the average behavior patterns of an "entire generation of women". This type of vast, simplistic overgeneralization is not someth…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 08:26 PM
4

So we should model society on the behavior of high schoolers? Oooooooooookay
/r/MensRights29/10/16 08:02 PM
0

I'm not arguing that you should get married m80, simply arguing that there are definite upsides to marriage for some people. Not everyone's situation is the same, that is the crux of my argument. Juxtapose that with the post I initial replied to (as well as the multitude of other people in this thread) who seem to think that marriage is 100% pointless. It's not, that's patently false.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 07:59 PM
-1

various other benefits You know, like having one spouse work part time while raising the kids while the other gets a massive tax break. Or any other number of benefits not mentioned herein.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 06:56 PM
0

Men can do everything "right" and still be vulnerable to losing everything in divorce, and millions of men do each year. Such a simplistic view of interpersonal relationships. There is no right and wrong, there is only compatibility and trust. I highly doubt that women in compatible, trusting, beneficial relationships are just up and divorcing their husbands out of spite. You'd have to hold a pretty negative view of all women for that to be the case.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 05:32 PM
6

IMHO, that divorce rate speaks more to the state of the average person's emotional awareness and communication skills than the institution of marriage itself. EDIT: Also, doesn't that rate count the total number of marriages/divorces, thus including "repeat offenders"?
/r/MensRights29/10/16 05:12 PM
7

DON'T. GET. MARRIED! The chivalrous days of past have been dead for decades. There is literally no benefit for getting married today This is the post I was responding to. There are benefits, particularly to communicative and stable couples (as this mitigates the risk of either, usually the man, losing out in a divorce). I'm not going to spend time delineating those benefits further here, because I know a waste of time when I see one. The circlejerk always wins.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 05:01 PM
-7

in healthy, lasting relationships.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:28 PM
12

There is not equal risk in every marriage. Maybe the advice "don't get married" is thus pretty apt for the majority of the population, as most people (men and women) are too emotionally stunted and juvenile to do the required work to choose and maintain a healthy partnership
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:17 PM
36

You can't have the tax benefits and various other benefits without signing the paper. You ignored half of my post.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:11 PM
101

Yeah, because fuck tax benefits in healthy, lasting relationships. Literally no one can benefit from marriage!
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:01 PM
2

"Fairly normal," FFS I've never seen anything remotely close to this in real life. The Internet really fucks with people's perception of normalcy.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 06:41 PM
-4

Using "orthodox" as an adjective in this sense is basically a weak no true Scotsman. If someone says, "but look, prominent feminist x and feminist advocate group y don't do that" you can easily just say "they're not orthodox feminists". Edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure it's simply a weasel word. It's a seemingly innocuous qualifier that you can invoke later on to muddle the argument or invalidate someone else's point. Either way, don't use it.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 11:22 PM
-1

Ah, so a feminist organization that pushes a competing model, not feminists. That is a very different question, which I will attempt to answer. However, to be clear, I think the assertion that "the Duluth model of DV is that most commonly pushed by feminist organizations" is much fairer than that which you seemed to be making previously.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 11:18 PM
-2

It's possible to take any set of numbers, take pretty much any position and pick data points to match your argument. In other words, the literal action you took.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 11:12 PM
0

You can't ask me for an equal or greater number without first saying the number it needs to be equal or greater to.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 10:02 PM
3

Why not just use the actual numbers? Surely they support your point better than obviously false ones that are crafted to make a point?
/r/MensRights28/09/16 07:52 PM
-1

Who, "orthodox" feminists? The ones you've defined as lobbying for the Duluth model? I've never heard of "orthodox" feminism until just now. How am I supposed to challenge your definition of a term that I've only ever seen you use? That is, in my view, defined by the very fact you're challenging me to refute?
/r/MensRights28/09/16 07:43 PM
1

Sorry, what "numbers" are you referring to? Your claim is just vague enough to be able to deny the less favorable interpretations of it should someone interpret thus, but also to imply said interpretations. If you want to actually discuss this, you'll need to be more explicit in your rhetoric.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 07:37 PM
1

He narrowed it down to "orthodox" feminist (whatever that is) but sure subsequently went on to generalize such a view to all feminism. Equating a viewpoint to its most extreme form and implying that anyone who doesn't conform to said form isn't "really" one of those people is a definitive no true Scotsman. I would like to hear back from the OP though, he might have meant something different.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 04:20 PM
1

the only orthodox feminist approach to this Presumably this was stated to invalidate any other "feminist approach" that might be described? In other words, a no true Scotsman?
/r/MensRights28/09/16 02:16 PM
1

Yeah dude cuz I'm just a typical _____ SJW (fill in blank with whatever adjective describes SJWs this week).
/r/MensRights09/08/16 06:37 PM
1

Typical SJW, you count win with logic so you resort to names. Haha whoa, there it is. Another hilariously ironic comment from the king of vapid irony. How is saying "there's no problem with victim blaming in criminal investigations" an "SJW" activity. (Whatever the fuck an SJW actually is. Does it actually mean anything, or am I just an "SJW" because I obliterated your pathetic attempts at being argumentative?)
/r/MensRights09/08/16 06:23 PM
1

the problem you just want to whine about it like a child Did you not read my last post? I don't think there's a problem, at least not one that requires "a solution" or "a plan". This should be apparent from every position I've taken thus far; but again, feel free to keep setting up straw men. My argument is, and always has been, how do you pursue justice without inevitably questioning the truthfulness of the accusers story. My argument is... ...how do you pursue justice without inevitably questi…
/r/MensRights09/08/16 05:55 PM
1

Never said I wanted to ban questions, but keep setting up them straw men. My argument was that avoiding victim blaming is not mutually exclusive with pursuing justice. You seem to think it is, but you've provided no solid rationale as to why. In the scenarios you outlined, the questions are no longer "victim blaming" and are entirely relevant to the case. In short, I don't have "a plan" because I don't see a need for one outside of further awareness and the passage of time. At least, not when we…
/r/MensRights09/08/16 05:32 PM
1

K.
/r/MensRights09/08/16 05:14 PM
1

Lol, congrats, you can come up with corner cases where the typical "victim blaming" questions actually become useful investigative tools! So proud of you bb, that was obviously in the spirit of the question and initial topic of discussion.
/r/MensRights09/08/16 05:04 PM
1

It was a rhetorical device commonly used on internet forums, in this format. What you actually said is quickly verifiable by glancing an inch upward. Don't get so up in arms about it.
/r/MensRights09/08/16 04:50 PM
1

Describe to me how the questions "why were you drinking?" or "why were you dressed like that?" could ever be useful or appropriate in such a situation. (for the record, maybe you should read my posts before you respond. I already quoted these two questions directly.)
/r/MensRights09/08/16 04:47 PM
1

Reread my comment, I think you misunderstood what I said initially.
/r/MensRights09/08/16 04:34 PM
1

You mean the questions the commenter explicitly offered as examples of objective questions? Oh, you mean these questions?... "Why were you dressed like that?" "Why were you drinking?" Because those are very different than "why did you go to your ex-husband's house at 3 am", and they're directly quoted from the post you're referencing. Maybe we need to go back to square one: what questions are you referring to? For a second I thought you had defined your terms in this lil tete-a-tete we're having…
/r/MensRights09/08/16 04:04 PM
1

those questions As I explicitly stated earlier, you never made clear what "those questions" are in the first place. I'm not a mind reader, "those questions" could have been anything from "Why did you wear that skirt if you didn't want attention from strange men?" (bad) to "Why did you go over to your ex-husband's house that night?" (good) A principle of good argumentation is being explicit in your terms. My argument was that investigators could ask questions that were non-accusatory and still do…
/r/MensRights09/08/16 03:34 PM
1

I am old and haven't experienced this, therefore it doesn't happen and isn't a problem. Seriously? Maybe I wasn't being clear? I didn't mean "typically, people ask victim-blaming questions", I meant "these are examples of typical victim-blaming questions".
/r/MensRights09/08/16 03:17 PM
1

If a woman divorces her husband and then a week later she claims she was raped at his house at 3am, the investigator shouldn't ask what she was doing at his house? You wouldn't find it suspicious that someone would take legal action to end a relationship with someone and then shortly afterwards be at their house in the middle of the night? Glad you actually decided to outline a specific scenario, because obviously this specific question is one that would need to be asked. See, once you stop bein…
/r/MensRights09/08/16 03:14 PM
1

How is this dismissive? You're not likely to find many practiced criminal investigators in this thread. We're telling you that there's a difference between investigating and accusatory questions. You're firing back with "but what does this practically mean??", as if that's a question that anyone is going to be able to satisfactorily answer. So I ask you, who is being dismissive here? I can think of loads of times when those questions would need to be asked. That's a quote from your post. Can you…
/r/MensRights09/08/16 04:19 AM
1

Sure, but that doesn't mean the typical "victim blaming" questions need to be asked (why were you there? what were you wearing?)
/r/MensRights09/08/16 02:43 AM
2

The investigation can consider the possibility without asking accusatory questions. If you're unsure of what this "practically means", perhaps you should study investigative techniques and forensics.
/r/MensRights09/08/16 02:41 AM
0

There's a middle ground, for sure. Reddit circle-jerks a bit too hard over TWs on Tumblr to recognize that they're a legitimately useful tool to help people attempt to live normal lives. Not saying all uses are correct (very obviously, this is not the case and they are often overused).
/r/PussyPassDenied11/05/16 03:29 PM
2

Yo, what the fuck? This is men's rights, not /r/misogyny
/r/MensRights08/01/16 06:40 PM
0

Okay but what you're not getting How am I not getting this? I've repeatedly stated that consent can be coerced. I'm not arguing that saying "have sex with me or I'll hate you forever" or "have sex with me or I'm not sharing my toys" can constitute coercion in terms of sexual consent, FFS. I haven't argued that point once, because it would be idiotically inane, it's a stupid fucking point to bring up in the first place. So why do you keep bringing it up?
/r/MensRights07/01/16 05:44 PM
3

If you say yes, without threat to yourself in some way, be it physically, financially, blackmail etc, is not rape no matter how you try and spin it. Well that's exactly what I'm talking about. The person doesn't have to say no and does not have to be incapacitated for it to be rape. You can be raped after saying "yes", because a situation can easily dictate that "yes" does not equate to consent. Guilting you by saying, ohh but im mad at you make it up to me by riding me" is not rape. Obviously n…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 04:08 PM
6

Not like guilting them into it. That's an extremely simplistic view of a much more complicated issue. There is such a thing as "coerced consent", or "sexual coercion"
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:51 PM
-3

I think the problem in many ways is that some men don't actually understand what can be considered rape (this isn't an especially large group, though). The situation is not as clear as theft: take what's someone else's without permission and its a crime. Consent is a much trickier line to discern and an easier one to cross. That said, I get the point, I just don't think this is a good "ad" to demonstrate it. I feel like it's a much better idea to describe how a lot of upstanding male citizens ha…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:37 PM
9

But there are people who don't understand that a husband can rape his wife, or that rape doesn't have to be extremely violent or overtly coercive to be rape.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:26 PM
-6

which is what its trying to compare to how "teach men not to rape" groups all men together with horrible criminals I've never felt grouped together with horrible criminals... I've also never felt targeted as part of a campaign to "teach me not to rape". If someone did try to "teach" me such a thing (I can't even imagine this scenario), it would probably be so laughable that there's no point in even acknowledging it...
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:24 PM
6

When it comes to a community of 100k, on a website that is predominantly made up of one demographic, on a specific subsection of that website that is further gathered under one common cause, "sweeping statements" become much more accurate. Of course many people on this sub care about men's rights, but judging by a lot of stuff I see on here, there's also a large amount of anti-feminist agenda going on. And that's what he's speaking to.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:22 PM
6

I legitimately laughed at "talking like a child". What a terrifying child that would be.
/r/ExRedPill17/07/14 06:29 AM
13

Does this analogy hold up? Every time I see a woman charged with murdering her kids in the news, there is a veritable media shit storm and EVERYONE I talk to about it wants to see her in jail for life.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/14 03:43 PM
1

Oh man, you have anecdotal evidence? Apologies. I was under the impression you were actually trying to argue an empirical point. I see now that you don't even know what that is. My beta mind can't handle this. I'm gonna go fap to Facebook pictures of the girl who friend zoned me in elementary school now, sorry for bothering you with my mediocrity. Btw, I'm not borderline trolling anymore, this is the real deal. Please get the mods to ban me so I don't waste anymore time in this cesspool of idioc…
/r/askTRP23/12/13 05:04 PM
1

What material? Of course I came to this with a critical viewpoint. This is what any discerning person does when attempting to understand a new ideology, especially when that ideology claims to understand so much about human experience in general. If you're an atheist or critical religious believer, you'll sympathize easily. And yes, I began to try and poke holes in the philosophy. Why? Because I saw holes, I saw areas where baseless claims were being made with no regard to simple logic or schola…
/r/askTRP23/12/13 04:51 PM
0

The burden of proof lies with you. If you're not willing to substantiate your claim, then I have no reason to believe it. It's the way science works, it's the way the court system works. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something is true. And despite your "statistics" you're touting, you still give me no source with empirically rigorous methodology to show me that they're, in fact, real statistics. Once upon a time, people thought the earth was round, and that the s…
/r/askTRP23/12/13 11:10 AM
1

I'm sincere in my inquiries, but no one has given any empirical evidence to support the truth claim that most girls (and not men) who sleep around have deep-seated emotional issues. It's simply not statistically substantiated by anything I've seen as of yet, and so I just don't believe it. If all I'm going to get out of this is anecdotal evidence and "common sense" then I've made my decision. Thanks for your time explaining though.
/r/askTRP23/12/13 11:00 AM
0

Where did drug addiction come into this?
/r/askTRP22/12/13 08:18 PM
0

Wait. Statistically? Can you quote the stats? That would resolve my confusion pretty much immediately. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think you're just blowing hot air. EDIT: let me be clear. You're making truth claims. Define your terms and then substantiate with non-anecdotal evidence, otherwise you still have the burden of proof.
/r/askTRP22/12/13 08:17 PM
1

My response to TUKINDZ in this same thread is relevant to your post. Thanks for your input though, it is insightful.
/r/askTRP22/12/13 05:29 PM
1

http://illimitablemen.com/2013/11/10/dissecting-the-red-pill-part-2-q-and-a/?relatedposts_exclude=55 This is the article I made my OP in response to. As far as I can tell, /u/IllimitableMan seems to be a sort of authority on TRP. Though I enjoy your nuanced viewpoint, it is contradictory to this article. "Your power is in your pussy (to begin with) your ability to keep a man lays in your personality traits." Thoughts?
/r/askTRP22/12/13 05:27 PM
-2

The fuck would you know about it? You're the only one shaming here. Keep your idiotic, unsubstantiated opinions out of this. And no, I'm not going to feed the troll. You've heard what I have to say.
/r/TheRedPill22/12/13 02:06 AM
2

? I'm attempting to understand the complexities of your philosophy, and I'm met with ridicule?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 11:22 PM
2

I'm not in this for short. If most men can't handle the thought of their girl being with someone else, then how is it not an admirable, rare and powerful trait to be able to do so? Wouldn't it be excessively common and easy to just go with your gut reaction and reject the slut?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 11:04 PM
2

I was under the impression that TRP offers a universal paradigm to counter the universal paradigm of feminism (among other goals). If it doesn't, then why not just learn not to give a fuck? Wouldn't that make life easier?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 11:04 PM
1

Haha I don't know, I'm really new to this stuff. Why not?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 10:30 PM
2

"There are many social ways to spin it... ultimately a used up chick is a used up chick. Many men have a 1 dick per fantasy rule... so imagine thinking of your darling LTR prospect, and all the dicks that have been in pounding away at her past? Fantasy ruined, for most." You say "many men" and "for most". Is this not just a matter of subjectivity in that case? If few men are able to move past a girl's promiscuous past, does this not make those men who are able the more unique, powerful type?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 10:29 PM
3

So the girl's selectivity in choosing sexual partners is the attractive aspect (or a large part of the aspect) for an alpha?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 10:05 PM
3

That makes sense, but it brings me back around to a previous question: can a woman not become a good LTR candidate for an alpha through realization and acceptance of her past? I guess it boils down to my misunderstanding of why male acceptance of a woman's promiscuity is inherently beta. Is it a trust issue, or a matter of aesthetic preference? Perhaps aesthetic is not the right word, I'm just attempting to speak to the personality qualities I mentioned in my OP. Is a promiscuous girl less attra…
/r/askTRP21/12/13 09:12 PM
3

So you're saying that male acceptance of a female partner's past promiscuity is an inherently beta-type behavior? Otherwise, how do you substantiate that women who were sluts in the past will end up with betas?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 08:55 PM
3

So essentially once a girl has slept around, she then sleeps around? In other words, a woman cannot change in this regard? Is she born destined to be either a good LTR candidate or a slut? If she can "recover", is there a certain point (a number or general amount of men) at which she must stop sleeping around in order to be able to go through said "recovery" and become a truly fit candidate for a LTR?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 08:38 PM
1

So as far as TRP philosophy is concerned, women (or at least most women) are unable to offer anything but a veneer or dateability after sleeping around? If that's the case, how does one tell who the "veneered" women are versus the ones who are actually "reformed" or dateable after they cool down from their slut years?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 08:33 PM
2

I'm confused. Are you saying honesty is or is not a LTR trait? Are you saying honesty is a LTR trait unless it's honesty about your sexual past?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 08:17 PM
1

The "boyfriend cycling" ones are the ones you're calling the "closet sluts"? And are you're saying there are two types, or three?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 08:14 PM
1

So you would say that all the women you've met fall into two camps: slut, or worthy of commitment/LTR?
/r/askTRP21/12/13 07:12 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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