TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

quindraco Archive

View 6 posts and 77 comments by quindraco on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-15

No. She didn't make fun of Tate for having a small dick, she made of fun of Tate for caring about the size of his dick. Context matters. Tate was an active problem for people in this sub because he embodied the criticisms people have of the movement, and everyone is a lot better off with him being thoroughly deplatformed and locked away. Greta is and was not.
/r/MensRights30/12/22 12:46 PM
5

Collards are green.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/19 01:07 PM
1

So do it. No one is stopping you.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/02/19 05:14 AM
-8

I'm ashamed of the MRA label when I see shit like this. Consent is a legitimately complex issue public schools basically completely ignore as a topic, so virtually no one in college knows what it is - leading to 95% of the rape-related issues we bitch about on this subreddit. What the fuck would persuade anyone to support a boycott on consent classes, when consent classes are exactly what we need to stop false rape accusations? Go die in a fire.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 05:04 AM
5

The man-hating dystopia never came. Yes, it did. Contextually, she's referring to a world where man dare not tell women at work that they are pretty, for fear of losing their jobs. Without making any judgments as to whether or not men SHOULD feel such a fear, which isn't relevant here, men absolutely DO feel such a fear today. She's simply, factually wrong. In fact, I've felt that exact fear at every job I've ever worked.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 05:03 AM
2

Very little about what school admins do to their students has any relation to what the people think is reasonable. It's a bit strange he only punished the victim; in my day, both the vic and the perp got detentions or suspensions. I never reported my assaults, because why would I want more punishment? Welcome to public school, bro.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 05:18 AM
-4

How did a blatant lie like this get upvoted to the front page? Linked article is about the trial commencing - the guy in question certainly wasn't convicted yet, let alone sentenced. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but OP's claims are completely unsupported by the linked citation. You should know better than this shit, MensRights. Have some actual fucking citations. Life sentence: http://www.woodtv.com/news/local/ottawa-county/life-in-prison-for-shovel-using-killer About as recent as his news g…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 02:26 AM
1

NP?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:51 AM
1

What does NP mean?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:51 AM
9

'Survivor'? I wasn't aware rape had a notable lethality rate.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 06:15 AM
3

How much is mm? You can't mean million million, and millimeters makes no sense in context.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 09:59 PM
3

MM? She was awarded over a trillion dollars?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:20 PM
23

FYI, speaking as a wikipedia editor: Wikipedia does not track your gender, and in fact has no means of doing so even it wanted to. That 9% statistic is fabricated from whole cloth.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 08:31 PM
2

As a long standing Goblins reader, I can assure you that Tarol is kind of uniquely dumb. It's probably a mistake to extrapolate from him out to a problem in Canadian or World culture in general. When I first read his blog post (again, I'm an avid reader of the comic) I tracked down the woman's twitter feed via Tarol's feed and read the comments in question, and Tarol was clearly in the right - he's just too dumb to realise it. TL;DR This is a problem with Tarol, not the world in general. Source:…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 03:56 PM
3

Real men don't pass on their mitochondrial DNA to their children.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 05:00 PM
1

Of course not - it's just broadly true that it's easier for women than men in Western cultures.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:58 PM
1

OP's point is that the idea that the male prostitutes are gay is unsupported.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:58 PM
1

I'm neither blindly assuming nor speculating, since I come from a Western culture, too.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:57 PM
7

True, but on the other hand, in Western cultures (such as Swedish), it's orders of magnitude easier for a woman to just go get laid than a man. Since people typically prefer to get something for free than pay for it, smart money is on most customers of prostitution being male.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:22 PM
3

I strongly suggest you sit her down and talk this out. Questions that need answering: 1) Does you want to stay, pretending for the moment that the kids don't exist? 2) Does she want you to stay, pretending for the moment that the kids don't exist? Why or why not to both? Once you know the answers, you'll be in a much stronger position to make the best possible decision.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 05:07 AM
0

The deputy, a 15-year veteran, is on paid leave, which is routine in officer-involved shootings. Wait, why doesn't MY job give me paid vacation every time I shoot someone?
/r/MensRights19/03/12 07:30 AM
0

That's not what objectionable means, bro.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:36 PM
2

Thanks!
/r/MensRights12/03/12 05:01 PM
3

I googled to confirm; cisprivelege isn't a word, google doesn't even know how to fix it so it IS a word. Does Reddit have any idea what this is?
/r/MensRights12/03/12 04:43 PM
0

I get the empowerment - I think it's fun for all of us to pretend that we're equals on the sexual playing field, instead of beggars hoping for scraps - just not the humor. Oh well!
/r/MensRights07/03/12 10:06 PM
11

I just don't see how that's humorous. It subverts the trope, but not in a particularly amusing way.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 10:06 PM
6

How is this post funny? I scrolled down through the comments but couldn't find an explanation. It's just a very dry recounting of a story from school. Is there some stealth in-joke I missed?
/r/MensRights07/03/12 03:13 PM
4

You will be receiving all of my upvotes, now and in the future, sir.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 04:38 PM
40

Both of Malkor's points are correct, OP. Combined, it sounds like you're dead set on destroying your marriage, in which case, there's really no point at all to the therapist - just skip to the lawyer. There's absolutely no need to add to the pain you're causing and will cause by dragging it out.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 02:19 PM
-4

Wish I grew up in Arizona. It sounds like a lovely place.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 01:38 PM
-1

Careful, bro, I was downvoted to -10 for my comment.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 08:22 PM
-12

I'm glad this subreddit is suddenly officially endorsing bigotry. That's super. What's next? Straight History Month? White History Month? Male History Month? I'm with Morgan Freeman. The only appropriate way to address these issues is to cover all of history when you teach history, and stop emphasizing our "differences" (which aren't really differences, which is the whole problem) like this.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 02:32 AM
1

I only have two problems with that: 1) It's the woman's body but somewhere out there is a man who helped make that baby, and I cannot get behind giving him 0% rights and the woman 100%. I get that it is a very messy issue because the baby is housed in her body - which is certainly 100% hers - but I am completely unconvinced we cannot do better than extending the same priorities to the fetal parasite inside her. 2) That baby will someday become self-aware, and once that happens it's a person, and…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 02:03 AM
1

No, I am not. I admit, I had not considered genetic diseases, but I have long been convinced that there would be substantial merit in banning pregnancies in very young mothers, like age 13 and down, on the basis that they could not plausibly be a fit mother. A fitting punishment is very hard to select. I would like it to be as simple as forcing the mother to give up the child - effectively DCF deciding she's unfit preemptively, and that's already what happens when they decide that. I'm not sure …
/r/MensRights13/09/11 01:47 AM
1

Why not? No, really. What's wrong, at the end of the day, with telling people "sorry, you have a horrible, horrible disease, we can't allow you to force it on another human being, so if you want kids please adopt one of our many kids up for adoption"? I think all of the arguments people are likely to come up with against it will be based on a slippery slope - which is a fallacy. So long as the bannable list is kept short, and only for the most extreme reasons (such as a requirement that the tran…
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:57 PM
7

Here's the argument of this subreddit: It is inherently biased to use a word commonly used to distinguish gender to also distinguish specific personality traits. These traits include, but are not limited to, strength, aggression, and dominance. In fact, when you use the same word for both, people confuse the two, and when you assume all men are strong, aggressive, and dominant, you get what we have in the Western world today: a society terrified of its menfolk. After all, they're the strongest i…
/r/MensRights24/08/11 02:49 AM
2

Without responding to the substance of your comment - about which I am officially declaring no official opinion - I would like to clarify that I am not responding in any way to the part about using euphemisms, but rather to the bit with italics.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 10:49 PM
4

Then again, I actually enjoy men. This sentence only makes sense in a context in which men are defined the way she likes them, since she is saying she enjoys men who are men and not men who are not men. Men are defined in terms of her preference; her preference is not defined in terms of men.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 10:46 PM
3

I wasn't saying the OC was joking, I just didn't want to send the wrong message that we have to be all uptight about everything. Also, someone downvoted you to negative karma, which isn't cool since you're obviously not trolling, so I upvoted you back up to neutral.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 10:11 PM
10

Yes. Really.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 10:04 PM
7

Indeed. Just as this subreddit is vehemently opposed to the idea that because a person is male that automatically makes them a rapist, its premise is based on the idea that all you know about a male human is that they're male, and for everything else, you need to realise that the person at hand is simply a person and ought to be treated as such. That said, we do have a sense of humor, and I'm not trying to say we can't make stereotype-based jokes. I am saying we ought to realise that every group…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 06:12 PM
6

This is not her attitude; she is very clearly defining men in a very specific way, not saying that she has a preference for a certain kind of man.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 06:07 PM
33

You know, just because your stereotype is different from the stereotypes in the linked article doesn't make it any less bigoted. Just because a man is submissive doesn't make him any less a man, and attitudes like yours are as much a problem for achieving equality as the opposite.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 05:03 PM
3

"Uintah County sheriff's detective Leonard Issacson, in a probable cause statement, said the child disclosed an incident of sodomy and sex abuse during a March 10 interview." Once you hit sodomy, I really don't see any plausible difference between this and what a male perp would do.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:56 PM
0

I'd like to see women get reprimanded for dressing like tramps at work That'll happen right AFTER women lose the right to wear skirts or both genders gain the right to wear shorts.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:35 PM
3

I flatly disagree; the judge is clearly saying that it's perfectly ok when the perp is female but the victim is male, even going so far as to say that the punishment would be even less if the judge could get away with it. I am in no way defending Warren Jeffs, but you will never see a woman put away for a substantial amount of time for statutory when the vic is male[1], and these stories are current and highlight the issue. [1] I actually have very little knowledge of any cases involving lesbian…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 08:05 PM
4

I see a lot of posts in this subreddit which aren't mens rights issues, so have an upvote for being incredibly relevant and interesting.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 07:40 PM
1

Oh. Well, to each his own, I guess. Ann. >.>'
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:43 AM
0

While I think this is a horrible attitude, I do think it's noteworthy that you're (presumably, based on your username) female and saying this, which is an interesting subversion on gender stereotypes. I like when people think for themselves.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:31 AM
1

You are judging people based on their actions, which is fair. OP was referring to judging people based on their achievements, which is not. You have no way, a priori, to judge how much effort someone put into achieving something. All 4 factors the OP listed can be handed to someone on a silver platter, as indeed they were all handed to me. I have all 4 without putting a speck of effort in, and I think we can all agree that I am a schmuck.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:27 AM
11

None of those 4 things indicate anything at all about the person's personality - they're superficial, and hence shallow. In fact, all 4 are primarily indicators of financial status, one of the most classically shallow traits to look for in a partner. It would be a lot less shallow to say that you're only interested in people interested in having a job, car, education, or place of their own, but that's not what the girls in question are saying. They're saying not having these things is a dealbrea…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 08:25 PM
8

Short version: Women can afford to be way more shallow than men can afford to be, and you're observing the results of that. It's a bad idea to start with and a worse idea if you're male, so I wouldn't suggest it for you.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 06:49 PM
2

Because that's not how forums work. Even banning posts of wildly inappropriate content doesn't eradicate the content itself. Reddit has no way of cutting off 'the head'. A much better analogy is that someone keeps pooping on your lawn; banning a post is like cleaning up the poop, banning a user is like kicking the pooper off your lawn, and banning the subreddit is like setting your lawn on fire. In all three cases pooping will continue to occur, and in all three cases the users will find a way t…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:19 PM
1

I totally agree with you that the company needs to maintain the right to ban content. Banning a subreddit is unrelated to banning content, though, as a subreddit is a place for content to occur, not content itself.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:56 PM
1

I totally agree with you that the company needs to maintain the right to ban content. Banning a subreddit is unrelated to banning content, though, as a subreddit is a place for content to occur, not content itself.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:56 PM
4

They absolutely have the right to ban any subreddit they want. That doesn't make it not a dick move - imagine if they just shut the whole thing down one day on a lark. Well within their rights, but hardly something we redditors would like to have done to us. Same principle here. Giving us a sandbox to think in and then arbitrarily restricting our ability to think is not something we should or do appreciate. I would be similarly quite irate if my ISP decided to cut off my internet tomorrow. Well …
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:16 PM
8

Automatic upvote; the banning of ANY subreddit, no matter who it offends, is frankly unacceptable. Posts obviously should be bannable - the most obvious example being people linking to child pornography - but there's flat-out no excuse for banning an entire subreddit.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 12:56 PM
1

Applying statements which are true of the majority of a group of people to every member of said group is the most common form of bigotry.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 01:29 AM
2

I got downvoted for expressing the same sentiment, and reloaded the list of comments to see if anyone else agreed with me. Glad to find at least one other Redditor who does. :) Have an upvote.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 08:24 PM
2

On what basis do you think I'd be inclined towards straw-man arguments? The (frankly subjective, because I don't see any cited, rigorous studies other than the OKCupid data, which isn't used for most of it) arguments presented in this article are the sort of thing that make it harder to achieve meaningful equality, not easier. Fuck everything about it.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:49 PM
3

Are you trolling? If so, well done. If not, though, wtf? This article is the sort of thing this subreddit is devoted to opposing. Highlights: [Women's] men­tal­i­ties are more com­pli­cated than those of men; [...] Men [...] focus almost entirely on phys­i­cal attrac­tive­ness. Most men do not care whether a woman is “bright” or “successful. Number one reason this article is anathema to this subreddit: Women are more impor­tant to human­ity than men [...] I'm throttling my rage because I don't w…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:50 PM
7

Honestly, politicians always make laws more draconian for votes. It's like posting a kitten picture to reddit. Look at the response to Casey Anthony - a couple Congresspeople immediately tried to respond by making our laws even harsher. I'd blame them first for this, and that's not gender-related. I seriously doubt the laws are worded in a gender specific way. Gender bias is endemic to our court system, so that's what I'd blame second, and I guess I just don't think of that as 'feminism', since …
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:32 PM
27

I don't see any relation to feminism, but upvote for heartrending story.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:07 PM
4

What if she shouted surprise first?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:23 PM
5

I feel it's worth noting that the article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/21/russia_robbery/) and the OP's link contain absolutely no information about the nature of his rape, despite the implicit assumptions of the bottom FB poster. Even if he was straight - a big if - there are plenty of things a woman can do to a straight man that could be full of do not want while being classified as sex, like shoving stuff up his butt or applying a cheese grater to his testicles. There's simply no rea…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 03:55 PM
5

It's only worth taking a bold stand for the rights of those no one cares about - when everyone cares their rights will be guaranteed by society.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 03:51 PM
-1

Upvote for hilarity. Your math was pretty poor, though. Please watch that in the future.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:29 PM
2

This is an answerable question, as Africa is full of women who've been circumcised and raped.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:24 PM
1

Oh, did he? My bad, I must have missed it. Still, as I already said, that's hardly justification. Who are 'people'? Is this guy famous or something?
/r/MensRights12/07/11 08:15 PM
8

Contempt of court has never BEEN reasonable - it amounts to a judge putting you away because he feels like it, not because you actually broke any laws (if you did, he wouldn't need contempt). I upvoted you anyway, since I agree in spirit.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 06:45 PM
5

Did anyone read the bit at the bottom about how he has a wife and kid of his own? I wonder how ok he'd be with the idea that his wife did to him what what Jill did to Ted. Of course, even IF he'd be ok with it, that wouldn't justify his actions. I upvoted this for train-wreck horribleness. What an absolute asshole.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 06:39 PM
2

Certainly not, but often the situation is not as dire as you describe. For example, in your cited source, the man was released when the duping was revealed. As another, notarised consent is not useless, because not only does she have to claim she withdrew consent afterward, but she has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did so, which is flat-out impossible in almost all cases. I subscribe to this subreddit for a reason, so please don't think I'm not a kindred spirit here, but honestly, …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:33 PM
3

This should have been either funny, or shorter. Most of the list is redundant or a lie, and what's left is REASONABLE, like checking age. The lies are unforgivable, though. Like the one about being responsible for having sex with crazy; the cited source was clear that the man was charged for being negligible in leaving his kid with crazy despite warnings that she was incredibly dangerous, NOT responsibility for her crime as claimed.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 04:55 PM
1

The bias that men are sexual predators is blatantly obvious. a) I am not willing to equate blatant obviousness with hard fact. D: That's why I like nice, hard numbers. It might APPEAR to be true, but we might be missing something (for example, maybe the media is very biased where the courts are not, but we can't tell since we only find out about sex offenders through the media). Clearly a rigorous study is called for, for SCIENCE! b) I think the really interesting - and relevant - claim is that …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:21 PM
2

That sounds plausible - and interesting. Do you have a handy link for me with hard numbers so I can read about this?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 03:39 AM
17

Awful, but hardly specific to men (or sex offenders). Same ruling will apply to people of both genders committing all sorts of crimes.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:04 AM
12

Upvoted, but for the record, this isn't just about insulting men, it's about insulting everyone. Part of the implication is that women are soft and fragile and incapable of taking care of themselves, so it's extra horrible that something happened to them, rather like something bad happening to a puppy.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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