TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

semiorthodoxjew Archive

View 0 posts and 91 comments by semiorthodoxjew 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)
10

He was charged, but there's no further information about whether he was convicted... Perhaps he was just accused of it and the cops weren't so disbelieving this time?
/r/PussyPassDenied24/12/16 11:09 PM
2

Not sure why you were downvoted for this. Many women are not against the film; it's an important distinction!
/r/MensRights02/11/16 04:40 PM
4

To each their own, I love pleasing my girlfriend with my mouth, and there's nothing wrong with it.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 02:37 AM
1

He's not even that ugly though, that's what I don't get. He has a fairly symmetrical and proportional face, but he's a bit chubby - so fucking what? I bet half the women in the comments section will be similarly chubby at his age.
/r/MensRights13/09/16 08:11 AM
1

True, but at the same time, the internet is pretty well secured against political bullshit in the sense of controlling domain registrations, etc. If hate groups like the KKK can have a website, I think a harmless group that aims to provide a positive impact for half of the humans alive on Earth should be pretty safe. However, big organisations like Reddit do tend to cave to political pressure, so this sub is not as safe as a website would be.
/r/MensRights13/09/16 03:17 AM
10

scrolling Looking for a non-hateful comment... scroll Nope... scroll Ooh, someone that quotes studies without providing a source. scrollllll Oh a guy- nah he's also hating. scroll Ah, fuck it, back to reddit.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 02:56 AM
1

*their =P But your point is completely valid.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 02:54 AM
1

I don't think we need to worry about the entire internet being structured around blocking our views. They might be controversial to some, but they're not harmful, nor do they work against society. I think all that's required is a separate service, not on the "dark web"... Just not reddit either!
/r/MensRights08/09/16 08:00 AM
1

I don't expect her to say "no" in the slightest. Most women I mix with seem more modernised than that, so I've never experienced that behaviour. If a woman says no to me, then sex doesn't happen. Her loss, I (literally) don't give a fuck. Imo, while it may well be physical consent in a logical manner, it's still hard to decide whether the kissing is consent to kiss you, or whether you can go further. If she says no to sex and then kisses you, consent to have sex is not implicit.
/r/MensRights07/09/16 02:40 PM
1

No, I'm not operating under that paradigm at all. I would want a girl to stop if I said no - in fact, I have been in a position when she did not stop and it was very uncomfortable. Likewise, I think guys should respect that too. Sometimes someone's body and mind do not completely sync up - if anyone, male or female, says to stop during sex (or rejects you while appearing to make advances), you should tread very cautiously. That's all I'm saying. It's not a feminist or really any kind of -ist vie…
/r/MensRights07/09/16 02:37 PM
1

For example, this software (called Telescope) looks pretty great! https://crater.io/
/r/MensRights07/09/16 05:41 AM
1

We could, it doesn't look great for discussion imo (more of a blog), but there are probably better options out there...
/r/MensRights07/09/16 05:32 AM
1

It seems quite a few people disagree with it, and I can't fathom why. It's not exactly wisdom, it's common sense.
/r/MensRights07/09/16 05:30 AM
1

Well, I only made that comment because the most upvoted comments at the time seemed to indicate that the statistics were somehow justification for some sexual assault cases. I'm a guy, and I'm well aware that the vast majority of guys don't take that view... I was just a bit disturbed to see hints of it on here. Perhaps I misread, but that's certainly how it came across.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 11:32 PM
0

In the implications of many comments on here. Acting outraged at the evidence of stuff we already knew was true. Girls play hard to get, wow holy crap, how could we have known?! Doesn't give anyone a reason to act like they've lost their birthright. It's a behavioural and cultural issue in women, not a men's issue.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:07 PM
1

Given your apparent inability to read, I don't think we were going anywhere in the first place.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:00 PM
1

This is spot on, we're exactly in agreement, though I may have worded it less clearly. Women acting this way is an issue, absolutely. It's just not an excuse for people to ignore the "no", as you say.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:59 PM
1

I would say it's excusable to misinterpret a "no" maybe once or twice, but if after being repeatedly asked to stop, you don't, then that's unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether she's flirting with you, or what she's wearing... You don't continue to make advances if she tells you not to. I don't frequent Tumblr, and I sure as shit don't identify as a feminist. I support genuine gender equality, and I get a bit sickened when I see other guys imply shit like: "seeing as 40% of girls occasionally …
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:55 PM
-1

You're a fucking idiot. Read my previous comment: I'm not saying that an explicit "yes" is necessary Someone who accepts an advance, verbally or non-verbally, is obviously consenting. I'm not disputing that. I have clearly stated on multiple occasions that implied consent is fine. My ONLY disagreement is that you can't overrule someone saying NO. How is that a difficult concept to grasp?! If the girl is clearly into it, then you needn't say a word during the whole encounter. But if, even for a s…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:46 PM
-1

You're missing the point. You come across as though you're entitled to "overrule" someone saying "no", because they're acting flirty. No one is arguing that you have to explicitly get consent; only that if you are explicitly denied, you must stop.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:43 PM
-2

I'm sorry, but your comment makes no sense to me. What is why "physical consent" and body language are more important than words? And what is physical consent? I also don't recall calling anything unimportant, and I don't know what a "false sign" is... I'm not saying that an explicit "yes" is necessary, I'm saying that an explicit "no" overrules everything else, and it doesn't fucking matter why someone said it. No number of stats will EVER make it okay to disregard someone saying "no" to a sexu…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:40 PM
-2

I disagree slightly. It's dangerous for women to say "yes", or "maybe" when they mean no. It's misleading and annoying, but not harmful if they say "no" when they mean "yes". Sex not happening doesn't harm anyone in nearly the same way as sex happening that isn't fully consensual. I completely agree that giving confusing cues and playing mind games is fucking infuriating, but some men do this as well. It's a matter of being an asshole, rather than being a woman.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 06:59 AM
1

Context matters - they are still entirely different levels of sexual contact, but there are varying levels of appropriateness depending on the situation. Kissing a stranger without any warning: bad. Kissing a girl you've just brought home from your first date: fine! Ripping the clothes off a girl you've just brought home, especially after she's said no: bad.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 06:58 AM
1

Exactly. In kink, there is is a separate understanding of consent that goes beyond simply saying "no", or "stop", as often "consensual non-consent" is part of a scene. On the flipside, if your partner were repeatedly saying the safe word, you would be wrong not to stop. "No" is the safe word of non-kinky people, and imo it should be respected regardless of whether or not you think it's reasonable in the moment.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 06:56 AM
1

Well I'd agree that is ridiculous, but it's a separate issue from women saying no when they mean yes... Imo (and I think in most common people's view) humping someone and touching their genitals or breasts is in an entirely different class of sexual interaction from kissing. That being said, if I went and kissed a random woman full out on the mouth, that would definitely be sexual assault. Same if a woman did that to me. It's all about context - if you're in an intimate setting, and you made an …
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:55 AM
8

I didn't say silence doesn't mean consent - I think there can absolutely be implied consent, but you should always be careful not to make your partner uncomfortable, especially if you haven't been together long. If a girl started kissing me (or I started kissing her) and things began to escalate, I wouldn't stop, but I'd go slowly and give her plenty of time to back out. And if she asked me to stop, I would. Not just because I don't want to get convicted of sexual assault, but also because I don…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:27 AM
3

Not entirely, no, and I definitely don't read it as rape apology! I think it raises some good points about the mixed message thing. Personally, though, if a woman said "no", and then we proceeded to the point where we were at my place/her place, kissing and whatnot, I would definitely double check with her before ripping her clothes off! (Or at least would go very slowly so as not to risk making her uncomfortable.) Not being cautious about these things is not only exposing yourself to legal comp…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:16 AM
3

Perhaps we should be looking at a different platform, in case this sub does get locked down? I recall seeing some alternatives around on voat.co and the like, during the Ellen Pao banhammer incident. Would be good to have some guaranteed continuity of this sub as I really enjoy the discussion and literature on here, and I believe it's an extremely valuable resource and support network for many of us.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:48 AM
3

I only said yes for fear of being hurt! Yeah, that's bullshit. Yes means yes - unless she revokes consent by asking the guy to stop, she has absolutely no grounds to later cry rape. On the flipside, you do have to apply some discretion with the "enthusiastic consent" thing. The last thing you should want is to make your sexual partner feel uncomfortable or pressured, especially early in a relationship. If she goes along with it, and doesn't say no, then I don't think there are any grounds for ev…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:44 AM
4

No idea why you got downvoted. This is a far more relevant question when it comes to rape accusations and the like. Men don't have a right to sex, so frankly, if a woman says "no" (even for a fucking stupid group dynamical reason)... it still has to be respected. On the other hand, if she says "yes" and then cries rape for other reasons, that's a major issue that men do have to contend with in the real world.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:41 AM
6

Yep. Just because someone says "no" for a tangential reason doesn't make it any less valid. Their loss, don't press the issue.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:37 AM
5

No means no. These stats may back up some well-known issues about how women view their own sexuality, but frankly, it's not a men's rights issue. If you proceed to touch someone, male or female, after they have said "no"... You are very likely engaging in sexual assault.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:36 AM
30

Not all people will physically resist if they are assaulted, so a lack of fighting back doesn't mean you haven't crossed a line. As soon as someone says "no", if you don't respect that and at least clarify their intentions before proceeding, you are definitely in the wrong. These stats are interesting, and they reflect social issues that need change, but they're not an excuse to disregard explicit rejection.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:34 AM
24

As a guy that has been sexually assaulted by two separate women who didn't respect "no", I'm kinda surprised to see this so highly upvoted on /r/MensRights. Surely most of us can agree that if a women says "no", you should respect that. Even if 40% of women do this "more than once in their life", that doesn't mean that the vast majority of the time they don't mean it. On the flipside, what doesn't mean no, is "yes", followed by "oh shit, I regret doing that, I'm going to claim it was rape." Even…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:31 AM
22

It's a shame this cocksplat gets any airtime at all. Shitty show, shitty person.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 12:36 PM
13

As a New Zealander, this shit is exactly why I'm leaving this country as soon as I graduate. I've struggled academically for many years due to learning disorders that until quite recently were passed off as "oh, he's just a boy". Fuck 'em.
/r/MensRights15/08/16 07:23 AM
1

Of course. I'm not disputing that. I think the article is harmless, and there's no need for outrage about it. However I also think that the objectification in that particular article is not all objectification - it can be much more severe. So objectification, in itself, can be an issue. That's all I was trying to say - not that it is an issue in this instance.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 10:13 AM
0

I completely understand why people draw attention to this, and I know how easy and tempting it is to point out double standards... However, I feel that there are better and more emotive examples than plain old "these men are hot" articles. Picking on mild, clickbait objectification seems excessively picky to me. If it was more abusive in tone (for example, I've seen some female writers talk about wanting to sexually assault "hot" male celebrities) it'd absolutely be something worth making a scen…
/r/MensRights10/08/16 09:48 AM
0

Not unacceptable, but I personally find it distasteful and don't watch it. I prefer to use my imagination than to see actual people engage in sex acts (often in the knowledge that those people are not gaining pleasure from said acts). It just doesn't do it for me. Porn is a special case in my eyes, because (assuming the actors and actresses are consenting) it's voluntary objectification.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 09:44 AM
1

You misunderstood me - I was referring to outwardly visible statements of the idea that someone is only a sexual object. You're welcome to think whatever you want in your head, and no one is telling you otherwise. It's just poor taste to share those thoughts.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 09:41 AM
11

I think objectification is a spectrum... On the low end, it's fine. However, if you're viewing someone (male or female) as a sex object without regard to their humanity, then I think that's wrong. Commenting that someone is attractive, to their face or otherwise is objectification too, but not harmful and to a normal person, flattering... We live in a sexually liberal society, there's not a lot that can be done about that! FWIW, there are plenty of articles on hot female Olympians too, and I hav…
/r/MensRights10/08/16 04:18 AM
1

While I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying here, there are morally defensible reasons to take another person's life that aren't psychopathic. If someone is immediately threatening the life of your child or someone important to you, and you have an opportunity to shoot them, you're most likely going to, regardless of your sanity or level of empathy.
/r/MensRights28/07/16 01:18 PM
1

I'm sorry, as someone who is moderately well read on bioinformatics and AI, I can assure you that modern science does not have the ability to test for intelligence using DNA. We still even don't fully understand how DNA works. We can in some cases narrow down geographic origins, but it's very much a work in progress. There is more neurological difference between races than pigment Fair point but I still think it's a small difference. Smaller than the difference between gender, and on that note I…
/r/MensRights17/06/16 02:01 AM
2

How so? I fail to see this at all. Race is entirely appearance based, and gender is a completely natural occurrence that is present unilaterally across all of humanity. Cultures often arbitrarily have fixed opinions on important topics, homosexuality is more alarming because it's far less common and conflicts with many people's internal standards of normality, and nations conflict over simple issues like resources and feuds between those in power (or historical wrongs). Not saying it's okay to h…
/r/MensRights17/06/16 12:59 AM
58

I've almost stopped being angry about this now, and it just makes me sad. Why can't we all just get along? Divides between nations, cultures and sexualities are one thing (because there are tangible differences that lead to misunderstanding), but race and gender? What the actual fuck. Humans are remarkably stupid.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 03:37 AM
1

All good haha. Probably not the best choice of words on my part.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 03:24 AM
3

Extremely prejudiced against a group, by suggesting it would be amusing for someone to be raped and beheaded. I was agreeing with you.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 03:17 AM
236

I had no issue with Obama's statement until he said "do it better". Why is it necessary to fucking say that? To placate the female supremacy nuts? Why does "equality" require women to be better than men? Fucking hell
/r/MensRights16/06/16 02:56 AM
2

There are two types of people on /r/MensRights, evidently... facepalm
/r/MensRights16/06/16 02:54 AM
3

Just the tip??
/r/MensRights16/06/16 02:52 AM
0

Also possibly the more-than-a-little fascist attitude, amirite?
/r/MensRights16/06/16 02:52 AM
3

That's what I read as well!
/r/MensRights12/06/16 06:35 AM
1

Yeaah... That made me wince a bit. Making someone uncomfortable unintentionally and then backing off immediately is a very gray area, for both genders. And in most situations it's as uncomfortable for the "perpetrator" as it is for the "victim".
/r/MensRights21/04/16 10:26 AM
2

Plenty more where he came from. sigh
/r/MensRights21/04/16 10:19 AM
2

On a special interest group in the deep bowels of the Web. This needs to be published somewhere that neutral individuals are likely to see it; not just people who already agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 12:16 PM
3

This is what I read a long time ago, though can't find the study. Women's IQ has less spread, but the same average.
/r/MensRights14/11/15 09:41 PM
7

girls are sluts, guys are heroes I dunno about you guys, but I never recall being considered a hero in high school. I recall being shunned by the princesses and the "high achievers" (girls) who all thought I was a boring nerd.
/r/MensRights02/11/15 01:44 PM
1

Actually there's a great article about that word in today's new posts. You may not like it, but it's a fairly accurate and reasonable term to apply.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 03:26 PM
4

No, citation NOT needed, because it was a passing comment and isn't strictly relevant to my argument. This is men's rights, not "examples of stupid people who squander their opportunities". And there are plenty of examples of guys wasting educations in this world. Hell, you could compare her to Steve Jobs: he dropped out of uni to do something stupid/crazy. Of course, he was successful, but plenty of others aren't. The gender here is not relevant.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 03:06 PM
2

You, sir/ma'am, are an intolerant, judgemental douchebag.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 02:51 PM
2

How is this related to men's rights? Sure, she's a fucking idiot - no sane person would deny that - but plenty of guys give up similar opportunities for equally stupid reasons. This seems to be more an example of one privileged woman being stupid...
/r/MensRights01/11/15 02:30 PM
3

Post exposure prophylaxis for HIV? Perhaps as a precautionary measure? I dunno... Or am I completely off the mark here?
/r/MensRights20/10/15 01:02 PM
11

Holy shit that makes my blood boil. I'm so sorry that that happened to you.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 04:43 PM
2

I second this - we do have our fair share of feminist crazies, but it's not so prolific as to be a lost cause. Our law and policing is probably less anti-male than in the USA (I.e. the police, at least until relatively recently, won't simply arrest the man in a domestic dispute because he is male).
/r/MensRights06/08/15 04:33 PM
1

GTFO.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 05:34 AM
2

Hey, hey! Check your privilege!
/r/MensRights14/06/15 03:21 AM
2

The number of times I've been told by my feminist acquaintances that my views on equal rights "make me a feminist" cracks me up.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 09:54 PM
8

"We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, 'You can have ambition, but not too much. You can aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten the man,'" Oh yep
/r/MensRights12/06/15 09:51 PM
2

Actually his comments did come across as quite sexist, and they referred to "girls"/"women" as a group, rather than an individual. Criticising all women is different from criticising an individual. So his point wasn't really proven by the fact that there was an ugly response to his comments - the larger issue is that people can say things like this about men and no one reacts. Really we shouldn't tolerate comments like his about either gender.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 09:46 PM
15

This seems to be how feminist activist groups work nowadays. If someone who people might actually listen to raises a valid point, they'll go out of their way to bury that person, lying as necessary. It's situations like this where there is direct evidence contradicting their claims, that an example should be made. And not just in the form of a YouTube people that only we will watch - feminists need to see this, and men and women who are on the fence need to as well.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 09:36 PM
11

Those were poems? I thought they were just poorly written, self-important monologues...
/r/MensRights12/06/15 09:30 PM
1

FWIW, my mom thinks the way men are treated in modern society is disgusting. :P Also, while I agree those men are a huge problem... I'm not quite sure how one would approach communicating with them? As soon as anyone tries to hold a "men's rights" seminar, this happens.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 02:49 AM
1

Agreed, that were the roles reversed, there would have been no backlash (and possibly even nodding of heads), which is messed up. But, I do find his comments pretty sexist. I don't know one woman in science that is the type to just burst into tears at criticism. Edit: And some degree of backlash is justified... You can't publicly say things like that and not expect a backlash. The real issue is that when people say the same things about men... There isn't a backlash.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 02:40 AM
0

Okay, so you're not a feminist, I apologise for associating you with that group. You are, however, trying to nitpick on a distinction which isn't particularly important. As I said in another comment, they were so underage as to not be able to consent - that's the same as non-consensual sex with a very drunk person, which is rape. And from another comment on this thread: They are still rape... An 11 year old is not going to be able to give consent with full maturity and thought concerning sex. Th…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 04:03 AM
1

Brilliant. Thanks for that clear explanation! I may just read that book.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:10 AM
1

Perhaps you had fantasies, but you don't know that these kids even consented. It's clear that she pressured at least one of them, and very likely others. At that age I wouldn't have known what was going on. And even if they HAD known and HAD consented - at that age, there's no way you'd have the emotional intelligence to understand the impact of making that decision. So no matter which way you spin it, it's fucked up, and no less damaging than it would be for a girl.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 01:48 AM
2

I feel like we shouldn't be downvoting these comments. If they were further up the top maybe it'd become clearer how prejudiced so many -"feminists"- are. How is this person pushing for gender equality? How is this person being constructive? It's not like men who rape don't get punished enough - this is solely about downplaying the severity of the exact same crime when the roles are reversed. And feminists say they're not sexist and don't hate men. Hahahahaha.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:56 PM
1

No, "statutory" actually refers to legal technicalities. That would maybe be relevant if they were adolescents. These children were, without a doubt, psychologically unfit to consent. This is minimally different from having sex with an extremely drunk 18 year old girl at a party, who is also unable to consent. If you're saying this isn't "rape", then neither is taking advantage of an extremely drunk woman (or man). Legally it might be "statutory rape", but rape is rape. I thought you feminist ty…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:50 PM
5

But let's be honest, there is absolutely no way this is going to fuck those little boys up the way being raped will fuck up a little girl. No, LET'S be honest - you know jack shit about child psychology, and your understanding of men goes no further than "they like sex". It is extremely damaging - read the literature before you make sexist claims based on your own misconceptions. I feel sorry for you. You've obviously either interacted with only the most despicable of men, or everything you know…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:43 PM
3

This is exactly why these double standards occur. These boys are NOT lucky. They are kids, they were exploited, and that's just as much of a crime as if it happened to a bunch of girls.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:35 PM
1

Yeah, before you know it female teachers will be raping all over the show, just like most men already do. The rape culture in today's society just gets worse and worse! /s
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:33 PM
5

saying sometimes outrageous things either to try to win an argument or to gain attention. Funny, every time I have heard that said about someone (and I hear it a fair amount!), there has actually been no evidence to support it. How do people know he's saying it to win the argument? It could very easily be that the stress caused by the argument brings out pre-existing feelings, that are very real and not at all "outrageous" or "silly". Same thing goes for "attention seeking" - is it not reasonabl…
/r/MensRights05/06/15 01:58 AM
7

Perspective is irrelevant. He's innocent. How does punishing him severely for something he didn't do in any way compensate for those other scumballs getting off with a slap on the wrist?
/r/MensRights21/05/15 02:24 PM
3

Errr, what does this have to do with men's rights? This seems completely normal to me, and sounds like things are being done right - the women were allowed access to the same opportunity as the men. None of the women made the cut this time. That's that.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 03:09 PM
5

I too would be interested in seeing this.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 07:05 AM
1

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, you make an extremely relevant and valid point.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 07:04 AM
1

Presumably where the alleged "act" was committed?
/r/MensRights24/04/15 07:03 AM
13

Hahahahahahahaha. You think he even has the tiniest sliver of a chance of winning? I mean, I would LOVE for him to win and get paid huge damages... But I think we all know who society favours in this sort of situation. Guilty until proven innocent - feminism's wildly successful rape policy.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 07:02 AM
2

Unfortunately it's not that simple. If the age of consent is 18 and a 19 year old has sex with a 17 year old... Does the 19 year old deserve to rot in prison for a decade? Absolutely not. It's more complex than just "the age of consent". However, there should be no debate that whether you sleep with an 8 year old or a 3 year old, you're equally fucked up.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 07:54 AM
2

Sorry... If you force yourself upon a pre-pubescent kid, you should get the same treatment, regardless of their exact age. Very few 8 year olds have a higher sex drive than the average 5 year old. Or 3 year old. It's not a difficult or complex argument at all. Yes, age has some impact - sex with minors from 13-16 years of age could possibly be considered less severe (depending on whether there was a degree of consent on their part). But an 8 year old? That's absolutely sick.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 07:50 AM
3

Someone posted this in the comments of the article. He's obviously an immature prat, having a laugh. Frustrating that people like him do this, because his behaviour undermines the subtly misandric attitude of the interviewed students.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 12:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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