TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

sharkjumping101 Archive

View 0 posts and 57 comments by sharkjumping101 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)
2

I need feminism because no one's life should be based on their genetics... Not sure if I should be laughing at the stupidity, naivety, or unintended insults. I'm sure as hell laughing, though.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:07 AM
3

A system which aims for equality of opportunity, for all its ability to be abused, is still inherently better than a system which aims for equality of outcome; for the latter is surely abused and abusive.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 09:18 AM
4

I'm personally for free speech, with all the good and bad "speech" that comes with it. A person should have the right to cat-call, just as any person should have the right to then tell the first person they're a pig. Not a single fuck was given, the world moves on. Simply, the government isn't here to fulfill your every single little need. It isn't here to regulate other peoples' behaviors to this extent. It isn't here to remove every single little thing that offends you. And it especially isn't…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 12:25 AM
16

Your wording was fine, and you got the point across. Very clever counter to the "I need feminism" stuff. Have an upvote.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 12:38 AM
2

I actually like this idea. Though, I'm going to stress the "try to avoid either of you falling in love" part. As Martin the Paranoid Android says, "it'll all end in tears."
/r/MensRights29/07/12 08:16 AM
6

Incredibly good point. Upvoted in support. [Hopefully both sides will do likewise and this "survey" of sorts will actually mean something.]
/r/MensRights27/07/12 11:25 PM
-1

... Baby don't hurt me... don't hurt me... no more... I fully expect to get downvoted to all hell for joking about your thread title like this. In seriousness, though; in the sexual sense, to me, rape is intercourse without consent of both parties.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 11:19 PM
1

Eh, okay. No worries, then, mate
/r/MensRights27/07/12 01:14 PM
2

So if a shooting happens, and no one immediately essential to you [wife and kids, perhaps siblings and parents, whatever] are near you, you would meat shield for any person? How noble, I guess. But see, it's not really cowardice to not treat your life like it is automatically worth less than everyone else's, it's more like being sane. Some of us would die for anyone [e.g. you], some of us would die for those important to us [e.g. me], and some of us would die for no one [e.g.... well, somebody].…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 06:22 AM
1

Well, they also say kids should respect their elders... BRB GOING TO LOCAL KINDERGARTEN, MAKING BALLISTIC VESTS OUT OF TODDLERS. WILL BE TOTES READY FOR NEXT MOVIE MASSACRE. [/joke]
/r/MensRights27/07/12 05:58 AM
1

Point well made, and I agree, shounen manga are still entertaining for me to this day. I kind of assumed something for teenagers meant more than just entertaining for the age range, but in retrospect this may have been a hasty and incorrect assumption. Apologies.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 08:08 AM
1

Upvoting because HHGTTG is easily one of my most favorite book series ever. Dresden Files is really good modern fantasy. Hell, I've been in a Dresden Files RPG campaign for over a year now. I love the books and setting that much. What I have to recommend against, though, is Shounen manga. Especially shounen battle manga. The target age range of Shounen genre is around 8-15 years, with shounen battle typically aimed at around 8-12, gore and violence notwithstanding; it really shows in the plot an…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 10:51 PM
3

I'm not really sure what you're asking for, but I can definitely list you the authors I most enjoyed reading as a teenager; William Gibson, Orson Scott Card, Frank Herbert, Rob Heinlein, Neil Stephenson, Alastair Reynolds, Iain M. Banks, Neil Asher, Kevin J. Anderson, Larry Niven. In retrospect, I'm not sure I knew what I should have been reading, I was just too busy being an SF nut.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 07:31 AM
10

Reverse-sexism How do you reverse something that isn't binary?
/r/MensRights24/07/12 06:11 AM
1

Depends. What is he doing by asking you to go to rFem? Is he challenging you to find the same supporting evidence as in rMR on rFem? Is he saying if you can ask him to go on rMR for evidence that supports you, he can ask you to go to rFem for evidence to support him? Is he saying rMR isn't a valid source of information because of perceived bias? And so on and so forth. [You can also try something like throwing an accusation of association fallacy at him for equating rFem to rMR, but I'm not sure…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 05:15 AM
4

If Factory2 is a problem, as you say, then he is giving MRM a bad name because of the aggression and offensiveness of his language. [LMRA mods cited offensiveness as one of the main reasons he was banned, and I've been told explicitly that r/fem and r/askfem won't come to r/MR because we've got a bunch of jerks.] Feminism, on the other hand, is given a bad name by people who misrepresent their own movement, contradict their own movement's purported goals [read: equality], and so on. There is a p…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:23 PM
2

What the fuck kind of brainless, insipid, fuckwitted bullshit that has the audacity to challenge other peoples logic did you just make me read?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:34 PM
1

I did not mean that anyone was in debt to or obligated to have a discussion in this subreddit. That's CHOICE. I took issue with the reasoning behind the choice -- and reasoning behind choices can usually be disputed. My point is anyone avoiding the substance of or the entirety of a discussion, purely because the participants have somehow offended them or is perceived as likely to offend them, isn't someone who really cares about the issue all that much. Ego? What ego? Character attacks aren't be…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:27 PM
1

No. I'm really not confusing anything. Being unwilling is a form of being unable. Unwilling means rather than lacking in the direct method of doing something [literally unable], you lack the conviction to implement the method, with the end result that something not having been done. So if you're unwilling, you're still unable. If someone's reasoning, however valid or sound, has no importance just because their mode of social conduct doesn't conform to what you want it to be... what the hell are …
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:29 PM
2

Good thoughts, but I don't think that women [or men] AREN'T oppressed is the point. Merely that a tendency to quickly and universally adopt group-think means that the amount and degree of oppression they feel [or rather, they think they feel] is grossly disproportionate to the amount and degree of actual oppression they suffer.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:47 AM
1

Are you saying that /r/feminism and /r/askfeminists people won't come here because they're unable to rise above responding to tone? If so, then I am entirely okay with that. Not being able to rise above responding to tone is a serious limitation on productive and reasoned discussion and discourse.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:31 AM
1

If, at any point, an activist of one sort or another can't look past hostility, offense, and so on, to focus on the issue... ... well you've just failed at being a productive activist and have no business being in the movement. Offended? Whatever. It's never about the way something is presented. Responding to tone is barely above the level of Ad Hominem.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:01 AM
1

As I understood it, Ig supports their right to moderate their sub their way, without really making significant commentary towards whether their rules were right in the first place. In other words; DIPLO-DIPLO-DIPLO-DIPLO-DIPLO.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 05:52 AM
1

It's one thing where the system allows it and people abuse it. It's another to flaunt that you're changing the system to work against it. [What are the chances that the number of women with merit compared to men with merit are always equal or more than 4:6, for example?] Just my 2cents.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 03:29 AM
7

So, am I correct in deriving the implication that the selection process for people who are going to RUN A FUCKING GOVERNMENT actually shouldn't be meritocratic? Because the notion is appalling.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 04:06 PM
0

I don't think it MAKES people do anything, but it seems odd to insinuate that dressing to arouse and attract doesn't, well, arouse and attract. [And that, even if by coincidence iy does, it isn't somehow serving the intent.] There are also different stripes of rapists. Not every one is a psychopathic nut bent on destroying the most innocent. Cite your sources, though, and I'd be entirely willing to stand corrected if the data is compelling. Mostly right now I just think that if by dressing to in…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 02:44 PM
2

Depends on if they were upset at the incident or merely at the double standard of rape-jokes-not-cool-snipping-someone-fucking-hilarious. I was of the latter.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 02:29 PM
1

I agree. Right now the language strongly implies the penetratee is the victim, so you're right, it's basically about how they interpret this in legalese whether they let you spin it to include women raping men via envelopment. [If it were truly all encompassing and neutral it would read something like "where a party did not give consent". Currently, the "without the consent of the victim" points to the penetratee being the victim, and so does the language describing the kinds of acts.]
/r/MensRights21/07/12 07:13 AM
2

n can theoretically equal p+q, therefore n!= doesn't hold for all cases, therefore is untrue. I was just being a nitpicky jackass about that.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 01:14 AM
3

Defining n != p+q is both erroneous and irrelevant. Erroneous because n CAN equal p+q, but does not always. Not, strictly does not equal. Irrelevant because as your proof displays, it's never used again. But yes, Blackstone Formulation is getting close to it. I not exactly certain if everyone here thinks that an innocent person free is better than a guilty person punished, (I personally do) but at the very least all MRAs probably agree that a lot of people trivialize/marginalize the seriousness …
/r/MensRights20/07/12 11:57 PM
3

I can't believe this is still a thing. In fact, I can't believe this was ever a thing. Humor should be free, and people should grow thicker skins. Getting offended at jokes, especially at a pre-planned event with a comedian known for shock humor is just... insipid and idiotic. Wanting the comedian to be fired is worse; it's censorship, it's narcissism. It's asking society to get rid of something that you happen to find distasteful. It's not the job of the world to make your life the best and hap…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 11:15 PM
2

I think how one person defines oppression is irrelevant. What matters is how oppression is defined in a greater context or common reference. E.g. a dictionary. Thus, let us try Merriam-Webster. Oppress (v.) To crush or burden by abuse of power or authority. To suppress. (archaic) Suppress (v.) To put down by authority or force. To keep from public knowledge. To keep from consciousness. Anyone claiming oppression should justify their examples of oppression vis-a-vis these criteria. E.g. Unfair le…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 10:14 PM
1

I concealed carry my 1911 in condition one, always travel with two EDC knives [one for utility, one for defense] and have no qualms about garotting someone with the self-woven 550cord lanyard I keep my keys on. Am I doing it right? In seriousness, blackjacks, and similar things like yawara sticks and saps, are fairly decent as small and concealable self defense instruments. If used properly of course.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 08:26 PM
5

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds t…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 08:07 PM
3

I was taught that treating women as less able and so on, was also sexist. What do.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:41 PM
6

The problem with the article; unjust implicit messages are carried by the developers singling out violence against women to be "the problem". [e.g. women are somehow more valuable than men.] Your take: circumstantial evidence [many or all women in GoW games are innocent bystanders, unsubstantiated, no reference to any male bystanders] supports the explicit decision to cut back on violence against women. Do you see the disjunction?
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:34 PM
1

You just missed my entire point about how you should not be drawing context in reverse from a game's content, and that it isn't relevant here. Kudos. EDIT: Also what is with all of the straw man argument trolls in RMR today.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 06:40 PM
2

Your unstated assumptions are that all women are; All women are noncombatants. All men are combatants. Substantiate your claims. Also, this doesn't change the fact that saying violence against women is bad is unfair; it at best doesn't address violence against males, at worst suggests that violence against men is okay. It doesn't matter that there are circumstances in which this developer in this game are right to remove violence, and that violence may be directed at women. The message they sent…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 06:24 PM
3

But... Kratos murders everyone. Does this mean everyone is not equal because Kratos can't murder them equally?
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:41 PM
2

There were female spartans. Given the diversity of human population at that point, coming from different planets, and the fact that genetic markers indicating compatibility to the chemical and surgical modifications needed to be addressed as much as traits of intelligence, agility, strength, and so on. Thus, you [err, Halsey] picked the ones that fit best. And some of those happened to be female. Halsey had such stringent and varied requirements that it is unreasonable to assume every person/cas…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:40 PM
4

Sources? And are you saying that there will be absolutely no male noncombatants in the game? That's beside the point anyway. They're explicitly targeting violence against women is the problem we're discussing. Why specific acts of violence are good choices to be removed isn't relevant to the discussion. In a discussion of should video games moderate violence more? Yes. But that's not what we're talking about. If the developers wanted to remove violence against innocents, they would say so. Accor…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:24 PM
6

Because the kind of people that make straw man arguments never take a step back to realize they're making straw man arguments and correct themselves. Such is the problem when a person is trying to use logic to justify a point they arrived at through belief.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 04:55 PM
1

Just going to throw my experience out there. In grade school, children occasionally joked about small penes, though none of us knew why. In middle school, we joked about small penes, because a bigger penis made you more of a guy. [Bigger is better right.] In high school, we joked about small penes, because large ones proved you were manlier, as you were able to better satisfy a woman. I can't for the life of me remember that there was any actual legitimate reason to worry about penis sizes, othe…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 06:08 AM
-1

Well, many fellow RMR redditors ITT have taken the liberty to tackle the issues alluded to by the image, such as the double standard being expressed, how it leads to silencing men with any criticisms while encouraging women to be more, for a lack of a better term, mean, and so on. Is there no merit in this? Must we look at every OP at face value?
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:57 AM
4

FOADSASCUM I can't upvote your post hard enough. One thing though, chr0n05, I realize I'm about to get into arguing semantics, but for reasonable discourse to take place such gross exaggeration-for-effect cannot be allowed; the total denial of all rights How the heck does rape totally deny all rights to a person? How does rape violate your right to free speech? To freedom of religion? To life? To recognition before the law? The list goes on. Take a look at what you say when you talk about seriou…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 04:28 AM
3

There is something to be said that for being a rape victim, most of your suffering is self enforced, though you probably can't help it. For being wrongly accused, especially when these accusations bear fruit and invite punishment, not only do you suffer in your own mind as you lose faith in self and others, but on top of that you have consequences enforced by others onto you. Your own troubled mind? You can go to therapy. Therapy can't make the time you lost in prison worthwhile, it can't cure t…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 04:06 AM
4

Among reasoned and moral people, which one earns sympathy and care, and which one earns scorn and hate? Rapist or victim? If you are a victim and you're being scorned by your friends; you have shitty friends. If you are a rapist [but wrongly convicted] and you're being scorned by your friends; it's the system and the accuser that failed you, not your friends. So yes, technically both have a chance of destroying your reputation, but I'm sure you appreciate the difference here.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:56 AM
3

feminism is a dirty word A few things: One; it's not, not everywhere at least. Most major public media tend to use feminist/feminism as terms with positive connotations, unless specific situations show a specific feminist to be absurd. Two; Ideally we'd unite under the banner of egalitarianism. Specifically, gender/sex egalitarianism, which means equality between sexes. We don't, and note that feminists coined their movement first. The very term "feminism" reeks of "being centered around, divide…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:29 AM
-5

All I ever hear is hypothetical examples of someone, somewhere saying that "she deserved it for dressing like a slut" or "she was asking for it". Even so, "she", would be asking for it, in a sense. The fault of the crime is the perpetrator, obviously, but one of the causes of any specific victim being the target can include "dressing like a slut." If you invite a higher probability of misfortune by willfully doing something, you are "asking for it. E.g. People can be spontaneously struck by ligh…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:18 AM
2

Teacher-student relationships are frowned upon, because they're seen as abusing a position/relationship of trust. The article also explicitly points out that he was found not to have had relationships with minors. I'm not really seeing a problem here. It's entirely possible that Sergei said "protect the kids" as offhand for "protect the students." Students are often equated to kids.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 01:56 AM
4

Round and round it goes. Where will it stop? Nobody knows!
/r/MensRights19/07/12 07:09 AM
2

Well, the egalitarian ones would be EXACTLY the same as the current r/F and r/MR due to the difficulty of moderation. The non-egalitarian ones would just be a rotting cancerous cesspit of trolling and countertrolling, because the people who belong to this faction couldn't take the hit to their egos to openly display their wrong views. [Note that part of the problem lies in the feminists who view that there is a "patriarchy", which is nothing but personal and social perception, believe it should …
/r/MensRights19/07/12 07:06 AM
4

I think what MrShenanigans meant was that they misrepresent the movement as it should be: Feminist (n.) Advocate of social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men. Versus what the majority of the current movement are or are perceived as. There is an important semantic distinction between what is and what should be. This distinction is often lost or muddled, and it only serves to confuse issues.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 07:02 AM
1

The moderation required is equally unfeasible. But that's just internet community logistics 101.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 06:49 AM
4

A few factors: - There are people who consider feminism to mean "advocating womens' rights" and not "advocating womens' equal rights", and other similar term confusion. - The people who misrepresent their faction still consider themselves as being of that faction, and identify themselves as such. Thus, anyone is reasonably justified in also identifying them in that way. I see your confusion though; you are expecting everyone to be semantically correct at all times. Given that we're humans, that …
/r/MensRights19/07/12 06:34 AM
1

Not to mention there are many men who take significant time off work to raise kids.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 06:20 AM
8

The best of both movements are egalitarians, striving for social, legal, and political equality of the sexes. The problem comes with the rest of them. For example, part of the reason feminists are jabbed is because a vocal group of them mislead or misinform others about MRA, and/or out-right hate on MRA, or men in general. These are not equality feminists, they're more like women-first feminists. [Read: Massive fucking hypocrites.] People who are and aren't massive fucking hypocrites naturally g…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 06:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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