TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mrbaggins Archive

View 0 posts and 42 comments by mrbaggins 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

Err. You do know they used the term in the original as well do you not? Sure, but I'm letting you have that as "it was quoting someone else" . How many issues do you think a paper will gain by doing the same about a nobody? Like while I do public work at times, I’m in no way famou We've moved past that already. The paper is tied to celebrity profit. We're now referring to random public postings on Facebook or a website or similar. You have no idea how extradition works if you thinks that's the c…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/20 12:47 AM
1

It’s really quite funny. Right now you’re both claiming that The Sun, that amongst other claimed he’s a wife beater, is making a factual claim, that a court has accepted as true. Yet also claim to not think it’s been proven in a court that he is, which are two mutually exclusive stances. You can’t have it both ways I'm not claiming two things. You are. Gaslighting doesn't work in text mate. I'm only arguing what you've been saying, which to recap is: That the sun didn't commit defamation becuse …
/r/PussyPassDenied08/11/20 11:27 PM
1

Well at least you’re admitting that it was not proven in court he is beating her. What are you on about? That was never part of this discussion. Not much I can do about your lack of understanding of defamation laws other than say you need to read more cases on it Yeah nah. That's you buddy. It’s very clear that labels are almost never taken as statement of facts if you read the cases. Yo Double nah. Labelling someone is attibruting a quality to them that if untrue, can easily count as defamation…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/11/20 07:45 PM
1

So you acknowledge you know you don’t have a case despite your earlier claim. Great. No, I agree your example doesn't work. But that was based on a misunderstanding I attempted to clear up last post and now you're ignoring.. You’re right though that it would be no damage and therefore no case, but alas that contradicts your earlier claim that one could not make the claim. I did and now you admit it was certainly possible. No, it contradicts YOUR version of defamation. That made her action protec…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/11/20 11:19 AM
1

If you think you actually have a case you sue a John Doe and subpoena Reddit for my ip, and then my ISP for my identity. But you know you don’t have a case. You misunderstand. I'm not identifiable by your comments. Ergo, no damage. Speech in law is not so much speech as such but rather expression. But so what is an expression? Well legally, it’s anything you do which carries a point. Defamation is NOT carrying a point Can I have some of what you're smoking? None of that makes any sense. but sinc…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/11/20 10:35 AM
1

Sure I can. You’re a bankrobber. There, I did it. So sue me. Not identified. And yes they are. This is something widely acknowledged all ever. Not knowing this just proves you know absolutely nothing about defamation laws. K As for where freedom of speech ends, that’s not true either. No definition of the right uses that. US limits it only for when your words cause IMMINENT danger Except defamation laws and slander, even using your level of them, prove you wrong. And for your last. That’s not tr…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/20 11:25 PM
1

Not everything has a label no. I could as an example call you a bankrobber I'm sorry no, you cannot say I'm a bank robber without committing slander or libel. As for absurd. There’s a reason defamation cases in the US are virtually impossible to win even if you do have plenty of evidence. No they aren't. It is what it is and is a necessary evil if we want to have freedom of speech Freedom of speech ends at your responsibility not to inflict harm. Otherwise it becomes up to the receiver to determ…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/20 09:28 PM
1

So as long as I can say whatever I want is a "label" (and you just claimed nearly anything bad is a label) I can't be sued for defamation? Do you not see how absurd your position is?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/20 09:14 PM
1

The LABEL they can use with impunity. No, they can't. I cannot take out a front page ad calling you a wife beater. They can however with impunity say that Heard has said he beats her. According to the current court findings that at least is true. The label is not a claim of action. This is an absurd sentence. If not a claim about him, what is it? And there’s nothing subjective about calling people nazi any more than wifebeater. Both imply horrible behavior in the exact same way. Yeah no."nazi" h…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/20 09:00 PM
1

It is. No it's not. Your first argument was that they were quoting amber. Now it's that they could have said it with impunity because its subjective not objective. Calling someone a nazi is often subjective, suggesting they act in certain ways. Calling someone a wife beater is pretty clearly an accusation they beat their wife. I wanted an example of "wife beater" being used and justified as opinion instead of fact.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/20 08:51 PM
1

That's not the argument you made last post, and I'd like to see an example.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/20 08:27 PM
1

So he should resue for the headline in the title?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/20 10:46 AM
9

So you’d call yourself a feminist then? No. I very staunchly do NOT call myself a feminist . But I think YOU would call me one. If egalitarianism is simply equal opportunity It's not. Not how you're stating it anyway, because... where is there room for questioning the social pressures that push men towards these jobs despite their “opportunity” not to take them? In egalitarianism. Men shouldn't have to be 90% of miners and military, and women shouldn't have to be 80% of stay at home parents. Tha…
/r/MensRights09/12/18 12:37 AM
9

What evidence are you basing that claim on? Because you're saying feminism is very different to egalitarianism. Or if I've misunderstood your point, what you call feminism I think I'm for. I know many "feminists" though who are bat shit crazy over the top and are quite misandrist. Therefore there are multiple sorts of feminism out and about. Whether you call them waves or something else, they're out there. egalitarianism would not account for or correct for a social pressure for men to be drawn …
/r/MensRights08/12/18 11:33 PM
8

What you're calling feminism is narrow and not the only one used. What separates what you call feminism from egalitarianism?
/r/MensRights08/12/18 10:30 PM
4

My formal dress code is pretty straight shooting, but in the real world I have to wear pants and sleeves through summer, and closed toed shoes. If I was an exec I should also wear a jacket. Meanwhile the girls can wear skirts, dresses, no sleeves (they can't be strapless though) and open toed shoes.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 10:29 PM
0

There's a reason that cancer is typically a terminal disease.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 10:28 PM
2

Making multiple use plastic products is better than having single use plastic products. might be more ethical to have a long term cup but only if it’s creation is not considerably more toxic than a single use one. Harder than it sounds. Those canvas bags for shopping take multiple years of normal use to counteract normal shopping bags, and that's assuming the normal ones aren't reused at home for any reason.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 10:26 PM
1

My point was that it has absolutely been made illegal for the press to say things. It's not some glorious omniscient rule that means it's currently true that they can say what they want.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:12 AM
3

But it keeps coming back, in various forms. You can't say ifreedom of press is absolutely protected when for over a quarter of the time the USA has been a thing there's been a sedition law in place.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:31 PM
9

You need to look up the history of sedition laws in the USA. It's been illegal multiple times to publish negative material about the USA government. Not to mention that the laws that they can't write include libel, slander, revolutionary, etc. Other laws (like sedition) mean they can't/couldn't write "scandalous content about the president" for multiple different periods of time
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:05 PM
7

No! The first amendment says there's one thing they absolutely are allowed to write about. There's plenty of rules about what they can't write about.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:52 PM
1

It's sexist to say it would get MORE done
/r/PussyPassDenied05/08/17 02:15 AM
1

Yes. But this tweet is a shitty argument for equal representation. It argues more would get done. That's sexist.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 10:36 PM
1

You're using the word literally wrong Where at all does it mention representation? All it mentions is "what would get done" Ergo, she is saying the women would do more stuff than men. And fyi, this thread is the only time I've ever posted in this sub. "You people" lol. Didn't stop /r/twoxchromosomes auto banning me though.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 10:23 PM
1

Sure. Irrelevant to this tweet and this conversation, but sure.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 09:51 PM
1

Except that's not what she said at all. She says imagine if half were women. Not if half our population was properly represented, or if half of the population wasn't ignored. The only factor the tweet talks about changing is the gender of the politicians. It makes no mention of representation. Would equal representation be good? Of course! But all this tweet says is if more women were in power, more stuff would get done.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 09:06 PM
1

She seems to think more stuff would get done if more women were in power. That's sexist.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 08:59 PM
3

Mate, she said more or better stuff would get done if more women were in power. Do you at least agree to that?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 08:59 PM
7

If the Twitter pic is arguing for proportional representation, then it's doing so with a sexist argument. That's the problem. We don't want equal rep because they're better, we want it because its Fair and equitable.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 01:06 PM
7

And then the giant "BECAUSE" followed by "imagine what could get done" which implies getting more or better stuff done than when the ratio is more men. I'm not arguing against fair representation. But this tweet is NOT ARGUING FOR IT EITHER.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 12:50 PM
12

It massively implies women would be superior. That's pretty much all it says. It makes no mention of voice or representation.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 12:35 PM
15

I don't see how to can take the statements as written to mean what you're saying. You're the one stretching She is CLEARLY saying "imagine what could get done... If all we did was elect more women" Why the fuck does the gender matter to what we can get done?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 12:20 PM
18

Who's twisting words? Where did she say representation, equality, or fairness, that you have brought up? She is clearly implying with "imagine" that "more good" stuff would be done. And by doing nothing except changing some genders. Ergo, women are better than men. Should there be more ladies in politics? Absolutely. Would it be great to see more female representation? Sure. That is NOT what is being said here.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 12:07 PM
17

That's not what is being said at all. That would be a moderately sensible point of view. She's making the point that with nothing else changed, women would get more done than men in the same role. That's outright sexist
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 11:52 AM
55

It's almost like she thinks one gender is better than the other...
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 08:04 AM
9

father somehow gets "tricked" by the woman and she gets pregnant -- how stupid do you have to be to not use a condom? That's pretty solidly victim blaming.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/01/17 03:31 AM
19

So why does the amount vary based on incomes? Surely the minimum standard cost of raising a child is largely consistent.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/01/17 03:30 AM
0

Men absolutely put themselves above and in control of women. Past tense, just to avoid that problem in advance
/r/MensRights30/12/15 12:45 AM
-1

Sure buddy. I'm all for men's rights, but lying about or selectively ignoring history is not helping.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 09:57 PM
-1

That's a statement of the situation, which was true. What about the list of things that they want changed?
/r/MensRights29/12/15 09:19 PM
2

Care to pick out a particular part of that that reflects that view? I skimmed it and it seemed okay on a quick look
/r/MensRights29/12/15 07:04 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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