TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

pebble666 Archive

View 0 posts and 20 comments by pebble666 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

Yeah grown women are usually less vulnerable than children. A grown woman could sign up for a relationship, get abused, then through that abuse coerced to perform criminal activities. The woman in this SPECIFIC SITUATION is vulnerable. A 15yo boy might think he's a man and sign up for a gang, he's not vulnerable, he's naive. If he needed to be persuaded vulnerability would be a factor. Grown women who join gangs out of their own will should be punished just as harshly as men who join gangs out o…
/r/MensRights11/02/24 08:50 AM
0

Of course they can but you're ignoring obvious conflicting factors. Gangs are majority men and typically wildly homophobic, so if boys were a victim in a similar matter it should obviously apply. But I would bet it is basically non existent for these reasons. It's a whataboutism because it isn't a specific criticism of this practice, just pivoting to a different topic as means to discount the one being discussed when two things can be true. You aren't saying why this practice is wrong, just chan…
/r/MensRights10/02/24 09:15 AM
0

Whataboutism comparing a minor who can't consent Vs a woman that can. Nothing mentioned about being trapped in an abusive relationship, nice straw man.
/r/MensRights10/02/24 08:23 AM
1

External factors that sum up to make it a more desirable option are obviously real. But that isn't equivalent to being vulnerable, getting a boyfriend, then being beaten or threatened to do gang work because you're trapped in an abusive relationship. One is drawn by fast, easy money where good economic options for prosperity may be slim or just inaccessible. The other is coercion when all they signed up to was a relationship.
/r/MensRights06/02/24 11:36 AM
1

This article is about how some girls are groomed and they specifically should get different sentences. I've said in a different comment chain if a boy was threatened with violence to join similar measures should be taken. That would require a different study and a different article. But gangs are mostly men and wildly homophobic so the specific circumstances discussed are only applicable to girls which everyone seems to gloss over and jump to a whataboutism. Considering the demographics of gangs…
/r/MensRights06/02/24 07:44 AM
1

I'm just throwing out ideas as to why. Many sentence lengths seem ridiculous when compared to crimes of a different category. No Well grooming and pimping is still a thing
/r/MensRights06/02/24 07:41 AM
-4

Yes, a specific set of circumstances. Last I checked gangs are mainly main and often wildly homophobic. If they started doing the exact thing to boys I'm sure it would be in the same article. If they were talking about violent threats to get strangers/neighbours to join (the example I gave and you glossed over to immediately claim I wasn't giving any examples of how boys could be groomed) that is enough material entirely different article to be written. It's an article specifically about groomin…
/r/MensRights05/02/24 04:39 PM
-1

Omg Bro, this entire conversation is about the specific circumstance cited where women are abused into it. The article is about those specific circumstances being treated differently. Your shouting into the void calling my opinion sexist when you aren't reading the entirety of the article or my comments because you're itching to bring up a whataboutism. You're arguing against a figment of your imagination because your position is mine, except I'm arguing why these circumstances matter and should…
/r/MensRights05/02/24 04:27 PM
-15

In my reply I specifically cited a way men could be that I would make equivalent sentence reductions for. The examples in my first comment are specifically and materially different. I'm saying you're illiterate or dumb.
/r/MensRights05/02/24 03:55 PM
-23

Theres a difference in choosing a bad partner that abuses you until you comply and joining a gang that doesn't hold anything over you until you do. That article is very explicitly talking about women that are groomed in. I would hold the same opinion of boys that have been groomed in. For example, consistently harassed by a group, beaten or threatened to make the boy do gang activities/join. The lack of choice/agency will manifest differently. Either way being groomed into committing crimes shou…
/r/MensRights05/02/24 03:38 PM
-29

The first link seems reasonable, there should be a legal difference between explicitly choosing to join a gang and having a relationship that twists into feeling forced to participate in gang activities through fear. Particularly if they are targeting vulnerable women. Not to say men/boys that join gangs aren't vulnerable but it's vastly more likely to be a conscious choice at the initial point of entry.
/r/MensRights05/02/24 03:25 PM
-1

There is a double standard but I can see a fairly strong argument in favour of it when comparing drugs and sex: the drug dealer may be selling to someone vulnerable, while the buyer of sex may be buying from someone that is vulnerable and being exploited. When considering illegal weapons it doesn't line up so well But a weapon purchased illegally is more likely to be used in a crime is my geuss, so would more than likely end up being an additional charge. While selling weapons illegally you are …
/r/MensRights05/02/24 03:20 PM
-9

Or just not ad friendly...
/r/MensRights19/09/23 07:05 PM
-2

You don't actually know that because it's one side of the story from a source that is likely to be extremely biased.
/r/MensRights12/03/23 08:46 AM
-3

Have to bear in mind this is one side of the story told by a supposedly hard-done-by teenager. I imagine we really aren't getting the full picture and it still sounds bad.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 08:31 PM
-14

I wouldn't, what kind of cheeky prick thinks it's ok to bring up their teachers divorce at all let alone in the manner he did, in the context he did. He turned the potential of a constructive conversation about a broad issue into trying to drag up his teacher's personal life. If I was his father I'd be raising hell at home for being an insolent, contrarian prick. So many things he could have asked/brought up but instead chose to make it personal.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 02:38 PM
-1

Op what the fuck were you expecting to happing bringing up your teachers divorce? Your immaturity is blatant and both examples you have given show you aren't equipped for this conversation. Why do think asking a young girl how many women get jailed for rape is reasonable? I'd bet she has no idea how many men are and you probably don't either off the top of your head. You got suspended for being an obnoxious contrarian with a complete lack of empathy while personally commenting on the divorce of …
/r/MensRights11/03/23 02:34 PM
16

Seems to have worked on himself plenty, just not his personality/social skills. Like all skills they need practice and attention to get meaningfully better.
/r/MensRights12/09/22 11:42 AM
-12

You say that, but they were groomed as kids. Can't attribute full autonomy to them.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 03:06 PM
1

fresh and fit are chumps imo. Just posers faking it till they made it, then kept faking. Only bringing on the same type of girl that arent smart and the recent 'scandal' was not a surprise to me.
/r/MensRights04/09/21 05:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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