TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

silverdevilboy Archive

View 0 posts and 109 comments by silverdevilboy 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

It's interesting to see someone illiterate try to pretend to talk in a different voice in a comment. I can't tell which of the errors are on purpose and which ones are just you being a dumbass.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/23 08:54 PM
1

That's mostly the old 'see every problem as an opportunity' approach. Yes, awareness helps, and awareness of an issue can only come with increased dissatisfaction. But when the victims also start to see the problem getting worse, as your data shows they did when an openly racist person replaced the first black president and was openly supported by the rest of the republicans, that's not a positive no matter how you try and see it. Things don't need to get worse before they get better. It's entir…
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/21 04:53 PM
1

Sanity, mostly.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/21 02:02 PM
1

Right, because Obama dominated the race relations news in 2016 and clearly that was the driving force for black people to feel that race relations were getting worse. Not counting the initial boost from electing a black president and counting the drastic effect of Trump's nomination and election as part of Obama's impact on race relations is just intellectually dishonest in the most obvious ways.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/21 01:38 PM
1

55% of black adults said they were satisfied with race relations in 2007, and 51% in 2015. Barely changed. White people went from 70% to 45% in the same period. I'm sorry, what part of my comment were you disproving?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/21 01:21 PM
2

Based on the opinion polls, race relations didn't get worse for black people under Obama. It was only the white people who thought it got worse because they weren't able to ignore it as easily. Definitely got worse under trump though.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/21 12:32 PM
1

Imagine getting this mad about satire.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/21 12:30 PM
3

The irony of pointing out your own satire while taking this seriously.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/21 12:23 PM
-6

The US economy is still powerful enough to drag the world down with it. But the countries which actually handled the crisis properly are pretty much fully functioning again already. Uk is a bad example to use, it has brexit impacting it as well and is right next to the usa on the deaths per capita stats - we handled it just as badly as the USA.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 10:13 AM
1

There was no misunderstanding. You were choosing to take my words and twist their meaning even after being told explicitly that I was not talking about that topic at all. You've demonstrated your dishonesty outright now, and I was right in the first place to call you a liar for it. You've been blocked, and I'll be glad never to see your name again.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/19 05:15 AM
1

If by 'out of my depth' you mean 'not experienced in navigating dishonest arguments', you're right. I don't associate with people who do this kind of bullshit.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/19 05:03 AM
1

Well, at least now you're outright lying instead of trying to hide it. I guess I was right in the first place, you were never arguing honestly and you'd rather just fake moral outrage than try and actually engage with an argument honestly. What a fucking waste of time. Why do people like you do this shit? Are you that insecure that you NEED to 'win' every conversation you're in?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/19 05:00 AM
1

I know what I meant by what I wrote. Because I wrote it. I have never written a single comment that meant anything to do with how we should or should not assess the danger or potential for rehabilitation of offenders. Never. That argument is one I have never made a statement about and never taken a position on. That is why I know you are putting words in my mouth, because you're arguing that I've said SOMETHING about something I have said NOTHING about. There's no room for interpretation of your…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/19 04:53 AM
1

Good lord. I was not talking about that point AT ALL. I wasn't arguing the point you said was wrong. I wasn't saying it myself. I wasn't saying it was wrong. I was not discussing that point in any way. What I was saying was absolutely nothing to do with that point, and you can't seem to grasp that I wasn't arguing about that issue from any side. Do you understand that now? Can we get past this ridiculous back and forth of "But I conceded that point" and "That wasn't the point I was making at all…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/19 04:31 AM
1

This isn't your 4th time doing anything. You misunderstood what I said. You said: As for the first paragraph, you're absolutely right to have picked me up on this. I used the emotions of the family as an example of an objective measurement of rehabilitation potential, where they clearly are not. My bad entirely. I ought to have used professional opinion or psychiatric evaluation as an example, instead. THE POINT I AM MAKING IS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER THE OFFENDER IS DANGEROUS, CAN BE REHABILITATED…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 09:36 PM
1

And with that we hit the 4th time you choose to ignore the meaning I have now explicitly explained the difference between what I have ALWAYS been saying and what you're putting in my mouth three times to you. I have never once been saying that the emotions of the family should determine whether a person is in reality a danger or can be rehabilitated. Not once. I explicitly laid out in my very first comment that in the reasons for punishment, revenge for the family is entirely separate from the n…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 08:47 PM
1

If the criminal is in a position where going after people is a likely enough circumstance to make it worthy of genuine fear Unfortunately, emotions are not rational and you can't debate someone who is afraid into believing that the person is not considered dangerous enough to imprison. The people directly affected are ALWAYS going to be more likely to believe the perpetrator is going to come back, even if it isn't true. Victims have gotten relief from seeing that their dead attacker is actually …
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 07:23 PM
1

No, the suffering is caused by lack of closure, as I stated already and you seem to have ignored. There's nothing immoral about fearing that a criminal who effectively got away with it will come after you next, or again. There's nothing immoral about the loss of safety you feel if you believe that other such criminals have no effective deterrent. And you accused me of assuming bad intentions? I've not enjoyed our conversation, because it feels like you've ignored half of every point I've made to…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 05:41 PM
1

The suffering of the family will occur no matter what happens to the perpetrator That is a lie. If the perpetrator goes unpunished, or if they seem to get a slap on the wrist, the family will suffer more, and they will get less closure on the matter. THAT is the pain I was talking about, not the pain they have already suffered. As for the second point, you said above: the amount of pain they might feel is essentially irrelevant since it's so variable and subjective. Why does this only hold true …
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 05:08 PM
1

You're the one who said total suffering in the world. Now you're saying total suffering in the world except for the victims or their families and friends? Why does it not matter whether the suffering of the criminal is variable or subjective? Some people are fairly solitary by nature and will be much less unhappy in a prison than a very social and active person will be.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 04:37 PM
1

Along with your stated needs for it, it also needs to be harsh enough to discourage criminal activity in the first place, and you can't ignore the harm being done to people who watch those who are guilty get away almost unpunished, especially the victims and their relatives. 'not getting revenge' could also be seen as 'watching the person who committed a crime against you get away with it', and I hope you can see how that would cause harm to the well being of the victims. If you cut the punishme…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 03:57 PM
2

The phrase quoted above refers to the fact that revenge is an endless cycle. If you take revenge on someone, they're going to feel like they need revenge on you, or their friends or family will do so for them. You can't realistically take revenge on the faceless justice system, so the cycle is broken.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 12:30 PM
3

It really isn't. The primary purposes of a justice system are, in order: 1) Discourage crime. 2) Rehabilitate criminals and prevent reoffenders. (Current one in the USA is majorly shit at that.) 3) Remove criminals from society 4) Revenge for the victims. There isn't anyone to take revenge on when a faceless system sends someone to jail, so the chain of revenge stops there.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 11:58 AM
1

I'm saying when you change the context, you change the morality. He's not taking revenge for anything serious in this video. She started a fight. He won it, the fight stopped. There was no action that justifies him taking revenge like that, like there would be in the strawman you constructed.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 09:13 PM
0

It would definitely not be self defence, it would definitely be illegal. It would be revenge. Yes, I'd probably do it. And I'd probably say they deserved the revenge. But this is not the context in discussion. He has already retaliated in this case. Also, nice strawman. Learn to argue like an adult.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 08:52 PM
1

If you're in a fight, the other guy drops his hands, turns around, and walks away, you're the one in the wrong if you chase him and punch him in the back of the head. You're not defending yourself if you have no reason to believe you're being attacked.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 05:28 PM
1

She stopped, turned away, and sat down. There is no difference. If you continue fighting after the other person has clearly stopped, you are in the wrong. The safe course of action is exactly what he did. Sit in a different seat, so they can't hit you without standing up. If they stand up and turn around, by all means hit them. She didn't stand up, she didn't turn around, she wasn't able to hit him without those things changing.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 03:09 PM
2

If a man you've been fighting stops, drops their hands, and turns and walks off, you'd be in the wrong if you ran up and punched them in the back of the head. This is no different.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 02:54 PM
0

You can't attack people without any reason to believe they're going to attack you. They had their mouths closed, we're looking away, and had just sat down. He had no reason to believe they were going to attack him again. Attacking people who aren't trying to defend themselves and aren't posing any threat to you is wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 02:40 PM
1

She had her mouth closed, turned away, and sat down. He got back up, came over, and hit her again.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 02:31 PM
0

Because they've stopped, backed off, and sat down. He left and then came back to hit her again. Watch the video. The fight was over.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 02:31 PM
-1

And it's right to say he's in the wrong for doing that.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 01:33 PM
5

Bullshit. Go look at the video. He'd walked away, she wasn't moving towards him or even looking at him. That wasn't self defence, that was revenge.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 01:11 PM
5

Beating anyone after they've stopped fighting back is too far. Gender is irrelevant. Fight is over when one person can't fight.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 01:01 PM
2

Continuing to beat someone who isn't fighting back isn't dignity or self-respect. It's just wrong. Gender is irrelevant to that.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 01:00 PM
8

That wasn't the immediate response. That was after the fact, after the threat has stopped. Gender is irrelevant, if you continue beating someone after they've stopped fighting back, you are in the wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/18 12:59 PM
2

Still fine as long as people aren't allowed to be named by media until after being found guilty. Lurid interviews with the friends and family of suspect A are not as interesting and will be less prominent stories, in addition to not destroying innocent people's lives. Nobody except the media wins when the newspapers declare someone guilty and the courts find them innocent. That's the scenario we need to stop. After a guilty vote, go nuts. If the accused gives permission during or after being dec…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:32 PM
1

I mean, from everything I'm reading this doesn't make sense as an argument against it. The average CEO starts at 50. Pregnancy just isn't a factor for the majority of CEO candidates. 28% of women in management have been actively working in their current company for 10 years, 29% of men. Yeah, that's a decrease, but does less than 4% really justify the 25-1 ratio of CEOs?
/r/MensRights23/10/17 06:45 PM
1

Do you have any evidence that women at upper management level have shorter tenure on average?
/r/MensRights23/10/17 04:12 PM
1

Do you know what the turnaround for a CEO is, on average? It's less than 5 years in the UK. For a CEO who is being promoted from another role, it's under 3, and almost 40% leave within 15 months. If you're not reasonably expecting them to stay long-term in the role, why does it matter if they have the possibility of leaving the role?
/r/MensRights23/10/17 01:48 PM
1

The study explicitly says statistically significant and states the threshold for the test. You can read it yourself, it's linked in the article.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 07:44 PM
3

It doesn't explicitly account for different job hunting tendencies, but it does account for employer, location, and job title, so that specific case is partially explained. (It would be plausible that people who live further away might be offered slightly more to entice them to move. Not seen any evidence for or against this, nor about whether men or women are more likely to move for a job, but it is an unexplained factor.)
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:18 PM
1

That's the article summarising it. The study itself contains more information, including a specific mention of working hours.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:10 PM
2

It does count hours worked, if you read the study, and it separates base salary and total compensation. Both show significant differences. As for a difference in negotiations, this may be true but doesn't really change the point. If they're not negotiating for as much as men for the same work, there's something causing women to think they're not worth as much as men.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 01:22 PM
1

The study says significantly different.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 01:20 PM
-2

I'm sorry, why do you say it's within margin of error? The paper says that the difference left is still statistically significant.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 09:54 AM
-1

I'm curious if there's any real reason to believe that women are more likely to sue. Obviously, they're more likely to bring a sexual discrimination or harassment case by some way, but men are generally more litigious, I'm curious if that's a rational behaviour or if it's being informed by disproportionate media focus.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 03:27 AM
4

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/demystifying-the-gender-pay-gap/ 5.4% is the actual figure. Still pretty substantial. I know I'd be mad about a 5% cut. I'd be interested to see the results that explain the rest of the gap.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:53 AM
1

Nobody is claiming that anyone is intentionally paying them less specifically because of their being a woman. The claim is that women are judged as being worth less to the company. They're getting paid what their bosses think they're worth, but those bosses are on average thinking they're worth less than men with the same experience and qualifications. As this article shows, this is largely untrue in the UK. Still a fairly extreme hiring imbalance for senior management and CEO positions, but for…
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:48 AM
1

If it's the one I'm thinking of, that's because it was a different country.....
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:38 AM
-2

Last time I saw a proper study done on the same basis in America, they found there was still a 7% gap unexplained by job, experience, and qualifications. Have you any source that explains the rest? 7% is pretty substantial still....
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:36 AM
1

information can be open to the public but not in the newspapers. People who have never met the lad don't need their first impression to be the accused in a rape case.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 02:01 PM
28

Public, fine. But it shouldn't be legal to plaster their name over the newspapers. Information doesn't need to be publicised to be public.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 05:47 PM
1

I'm against discussion with people who don't believe in facts.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 12:36 AM
1

They don't believe that's true. They may be wrong, but they believe there's still inequality that needs to be dealt with. Most religious people are wrong about their religion, just because they contradict each other. That doesn't mean they don't believe in their god(s) and their message, it just means they're wrong.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 09:10 PM
1

So your best example of how the patriarchy clearly didn't exist is royalty? Who would put a 6 year old boy on the throne before his adult sister? You're reaching, and you're a lost cause. Bye-bye.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 08:38 PM
0

What on earth makes you think that anyone is claiming women were or are the only oppressed group? The only thing that's being claimed is that women were oppressed by a society controlled by men, and deliberate action was taken to keep that control in the hands of men.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 08:10 PM
-1

And you misunderstood me. I don't want to actually discuss this issue with someone who denies that women were ever oppressed. I wouldn't talk about the problems with nazi ideology with a holocaust denier, I wouldn't talk about the possibility of mars colonies with a moon landing denier, I won't talk about feminism with a guy who doesn't think women were ever oppressed. You're coming from a completely absurd misunderstanding of historical fact, and there's no room for a productive discussion when…
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:56 PM
1

I mean, yeah you can split it up into many different sectors if you want. I don't know that there's any consensus on subgroups yet, as far as I know there's subgroups of feminism in academia, but not of feminists. But feminism refers to the supergroup, even if you do split it like that. And the core values of feminism will still be the values that the vast majority of feminists have in common.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:51 PM
1

I don't disagree with the idea that feminists need to denounce the radical parts of their group, though I would point out that many do, but it's not an interesting story so people don't hear about it. I do know that my university produced a feminist paper that on several occasions called out extreme feminists who crossed the line of acceptability, harassing other societies and shutting down talks. But regardless, the need to take action to give the public a better idea of what the core beliefs o…
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:43 PM
-1

No, I'm saying the idea that women were never oppressed by a society controlled and run by men, the idea that the patriarchy never existed, is crazy. You essentially asked me to find a feminist group that agrees with the claim that women were never oppressed. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why that group doesn't exist. If 10% of men can vote, and 0% of women can vote, and the only people you can vote for are men, thats a society controlled by men. Just because the poor vs rich divide was big…
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:35 PM
1

It's understandable, but that doesn't make it correct.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:16 PM
1

I didn't bother looking for an organisation that agrees with crazy claims, no. Because they're crazy claims. Women weren't allowed to study, vote, govern, or hold most jobs. They were oppressed by a society that was exclusively run by men. That is the patriarchy that academic feminism is referring to. Denying it is on par with holocaust and moon landing deniers. You can argue about the state of affairs now, but you can't dispute the historical facts without sounding like a crazy person.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 06:51 PM
1

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you'd gotten to the point of denying that women were ever oppressed by men, I thought we were still in rational territories. Have fun with your neuroses.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 06:33 PM
3

If you judge the ideology of a group by the most extreme activists, you'll start thinking every group is extreme. Do you really want to look at how conservatives or religious people appear if you take the activists who regularly protest as representative of their beliefs? The most extremist and active feminists are, by definition, not the core ideology of feminists. That's basically what extreme means. Far from normal. The majority of the western world calls themselves feminist. The only thing m…
/r/MensRights16/08/17 06:06 PM
6

The ideological core of feminism is gender equality. The cultural core is the problem, because the most outspoken groups are demanding equity, not equality.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 04:07 PM
32

Why do you assume she means those people when she says feminism?
/r/MensRights16/08/17 03:03 PM
3

I can promise that the gender thing is true. It's no longer legal to use gender as a factor, so merely changing your gender listed on the quote doesn't affect anything. Insurance companies use statistics that predict your gender strongly as a proxy. The same person with just their gender changed gets the same price. But the average female and the average male have very different factors that can be used for rating, and it's usually pretty easy to guess a person's gender based on all the other in…
/r/MensRights25/07/17 11:26 AM
17

If you're legitimately scared of the person you're with and believe they're dangerous, openly approaching someone to ask for help seems like a great way to possibly set them off. This version, where it's about catfishing and talking too much is absurd. Having something you can say to get the bartender to help you leave safely or to get them to call the police? Probably not a terrible idea.
/r/MensRights11/05/17 07:58 PM
1

Because he didn't lead with a statement, didn't try and justify his argument, didn't actually try and make a point in a reasonable way. He went out of his way to make it personal and place blame, and he took a screenshot immediately after he got the reaction he wanted. I mean, it's blatant trolling. He's there to piss her off, not to change her mind.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/17 08:29 PM
1

The dude is literally trolling. He may well be right, but he's not there to actually make a point, he's there to get a reaction. How you can say that someone who is intentionally upsetting someone for entertainment is not being deliberately antagonistic, i don't know.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/17 08:16 PM
0

What does that have to do with whether his argument is flawed or wrong?
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/17 08:03 PM
2

He did not make the point and does not need to provide sources. She would need to support her argument that a lack of women in STEM fields is due to misogyny. You specifically said he should get a pass because she hasn't proven anything yet.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/17 06:44 PM
5

No, there's no evidence provided that women's study students were potential stem students. If you had a politics course and split it into modern politics and political history courses, we wouldn't expect that to take away from the number of IT students. He's trying to argue that one person's decision is representative of an overall issue. The majority of men don't study stem fields either. One person does not a sample make. It's a flawed argument, neither of them have a jot of evidence to back u…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/17 06:10 PM
3

Ehhhh, that doesn't actually cover the argument. There's no reason why the misogyny that prevents women from going into stem is a lack of focus on female successes in stem related jobs and an attitude in media and in the public that women aren't good at stem subjects. Discouragement at the concept and lack of motivational figures could produce a lack of desire to enter the field, and all of those are realistically (i make no statement about the truth, just the plausibility) attributable to misog…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/17 06:03 PM
7

Just because her argument has a flaw doesn't mean his argument's flaws can be overlooked. They can both be wrong and stupid.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/17 05:57 PM
1

Aw fuck that's annoyingly close to accurate right now...
/r/PussyPassDenied04/03/17 11:56 PM
13

I'm just kind of bemused at the title. OUTRAGED. One woman who is the woman's officer described other peoples' reaction as 'horrified', and only one other person was even willing to talk and she was 'a bit surprised'. Seems like a journo had a really slow week and needed an article before the deadline, because one person saying other people are upset does not an angry mob make.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 01:35 AM
1

I don't think so, I've not even heard about that. If he was trying to get media time for an agenda, I think I'd have heard a lot more about that agenda. He can't both be competent enough to successfully get several media articles about his actions so far and incompetent enough to fail to actually use that time to get his agenda attention. I think he's just an attention seeker, possibly trying to keep his voters too.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 10:36 PM
1

No, that part of the process gets almost no media attention. I've never seen him pursue an issue that won't get covered by the media.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:24 PM
1

He tried to do the same thing to the bill proposing ratifying the istanbul convention, quite recently. It failed, and it has since passed through two windows where MPs can make submissions for rewording and additions. We have the right to implement that particular convention however we desire provided we meet the conditions. We could entirely legally include the very same protections for men as well. He hasn't submitted a thing. There will be no debates on the additions he could make before the …
/r/MensRights04/02/17 03:06 AM
1

Not of his, I'm from elsewhere in the UK. I just follow politics in my country.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 02:41 AM
2

Basically, yes. Writing the amendments and arguing his side via letters or emails or in the debates doesn't get public attention. An attempt to filibuster the bill at first reading will make the news. He doesn't care about doing it if he won't be seen doing it.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 12:23 AM
2

When the 'activist' refuses to actually take any action, refuses to write an amendment or a rewording, he deserves no plaudits. He's an attention seeker. He stood up to complain about wording during the one phase of the process when you CAN'T change the wording, and he stays seated when he could actually do something. He is no activist. He doesn't take action. He just wants attention. It's like refusing to use a computer because you can't change the settings before you log in. He could just vote…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 07:07 PM
2

That's not even remotely true. Private member's bills go through every single stage that a normal bill does, they're just allocated less time in each session. He still has months to make submissions and three chances to argue his case. There are still two more debates and a committee period where amendments and wording changes are to be submitted, one of those debates being exclusively dedicated to the wording. He stood up to complain about wording during the one debate and vote that is explicit…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 05:57 PM
2

But that's not the purpose of this vote. this vote is about whether the issue is important enough to address. The voting and debate over the actual wording happens over the next several months. If he wants to change the wording, the way that is done has NEVER been to refuse to allow the bill to be discussed until rewritten. It has always been done by agreeing on a new wording in the debates and committee. If he isn't willing to put the work in to propose a reasonable amendment and argue his side…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 05:53 PM
2

I'd propose an amendment during the three windows of opportunity that MPs have to propose amendments. The entirety of a bill can be rewritten during the process. If the amendments and changes were refused, I would then vote against it when it comes to the actual voting, which is three readings and debates, and a full committee down the line. He didn't vote against passing the bill as-is, he voted against discussing the bill at all. He voted against getting the chance to propose those amendments.…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 05:20 AM
1

Well I don't know, maybe it's the fact that you're literally including a positive trait in the term. An honour killing is a killing done for honour. Honour is good. Honour killing is therefore better than killing for fun or spite. Key words there: IF YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS. Most do not have specific knowledge of the subject. In particular, government officials who have to read government briefings on the subject and then make decisions based off the information they get. If you know and understand …
/r/MensRights03/02/17 04:16 AM
2

During the committee stage, every single clause and sentence can be changed, removed, or replaced. He is more than free to propose amendments and suggest edits to every single sentence to add 'and men' to every line mentioning women, or to change women to 'people' or whatever else. He hasn't bothered to do so about anything else so far. He just whines.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 04:07 AM
1

It's useful when you want to soften the image of these people and paint them in a positive light for their community. If you want to hold murderers accountable for their atrocities it does nothing but weaken the impact. I really don't trust your motives here, and whether you're a shill or just a moron, I don't care. I ask you honestly and wholeheartedly to kindly fuck right off now.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 04:00 AM
2

hurr Durr if people think those people murder people as opposed to killing them honorably they won't care anymore. Hurr calling people honorable means they're evillllllll Do you even speak this language properly? You're a fucking joke. If you want something to be condemned, don't literally give it an honorific.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:53 AM
2

What the fuck are you on about making the problem disappear? The whole fucking point is to make people take it MORE seriously by talking about murder, rather than this shitty euphemism. The whole point is to make the issue appear MORE important. You're acting like as soon as the government reports start talking about how the Muslim community murdered 17 people as opposed to committed 17 honour killings they're just gonna go 'oh, I guess that's ok then!' and fuck off? What are you fucking on that…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:48 AM
8

Honour killing. HONOUR. The entire meaning of the term is a killing based on principle. Fuck their honour, fuck their principle, murder is murder, and you call a murderer a murderer, not an honour killer. It's like calling a terrorist a freedom fighter. What the fuck are you on about ignoring the problem? The bill doesn't ban reporting on the crimes, it bans using the term honour killing when reporting on the crimes. They're not going to stop reporting on the problem because they have to use a s…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:42 AM
7

Call them what they are. It's murder. Euphemistic bullshit that implies it was somehow justified doesn't help anyone. The whole point is to describe the crimes properly.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:36 AM
2

Because he's not proposing a rewrite or an amendment, he's proposing refusing the bill entirely. His response to 'lets help women with this issue' wasn't 'lets help men too', it was 'lets not help anyone'. He needs to start doing some actual work on these movements, not just standing up to be seen. Write a fucking amendment, propose a rewording, make a positive step, don't just try and block anything that someone didn't do for him the way he would have done it if he could be arsed.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:35 AM
2

It's for government documents. It's a bit of a token gesture, but it means the government will be forced to call a murder a murder, rather than this shitty euphemism.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:32 AM
-1

Because he does this every single time on any bill that specifies women, but he NEVER actually proposes an amendment or rewording during the debates and readings to fix the issues. He makes a token stand but he isn't willing to actually do shit about it. He'll do the same here, there are a minimum of two readings and three windows to submit rewordings or amendments to actually make the changes he argues for. He won't do a thing.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:30 AM
2

That's the main reason this guy gets no support in the commons. He argues that because the bill isn't gender neutral now, it should never be introduced. Amendments happen later, and people could make an attempt to have it rewritten or amended to cover men as well. This guy never proposes or writes amendments to these bills. He's willing to stand up and talk about it, but he's not willing to actually do any work to fix it. He makes a token effort at best, and everyone there knows it which is why …
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:29 AM
5

You've missed the point there. That part of the bill is so that these crimes are described properly. Instead of 'honour killing' it's now going to be called what it is, murder. That's the good part of the bill.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:25 AM
1

I'm sorry, but there have been 8 attempts to reclassify the law on rape in my country so that rape exists in the other direction. Every single one was rejected because of repeated protests and rallies by feminist groups. There were 3 attempts to prevent newspapers from releasing the identities of accused rapists before the guilty verdict, all rejected because of the massive appeals by feminist groups. The latter is pure misogyny, there is no benefit to women from seeing men accused of rape (and …
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:14 PM
30

The problem is that those non-extremists are doing nothing about it. On the other hand, whenever anything is done to try and fix one of those issues, there will be an extremist feminist group or three protesting it and stirring shit up.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:13 PM
2

Did you save a list of everyone you disagreed with on any front just to come back to do this? I predicted trump to beat her before she won the primaries. She always had too much history and too much shit in the closet to beat a candidate who is willing to drag up every story and take the low shots. From one of my posts in this conversation: I utterly hate Hillary. She is a reprehensible human being with little regard for the wellbeing of anyone else, and thinks rules are for everyone else to fol…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/16 05:15 AM
2

You mean, the other side's media castigated them both for health problems? I saw dozens of articles about her collapsing at the memorial. A couple of very very left wing magazines made the sexist claim, not her or her campaign. And yeah, when you make a fuckup like that recording in public, it's going to be abused politically. It would be being abused just as hard if it was blatant racism as it is for the blatant sexism.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/16 04:55 PM
1

What does her health and them ignoring it have to do with being a woman? Where did she ever claim or try to claim a PP on health? There's no PP. She's not dismissing any issues with her gender, she's using her power and money to make the media ignore them. This isn't /r/richpassdenied.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/16 04:08 PM
1

Yeah, that's a great argument to put against her. Real believable. Why does it need to be about that at all? Just hit her for what she did. There's no need to make a reach to contrast it with an imaginary concept of a male that may or may not be affected.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/10/16 06:18 PM
1

Then you shouldn't make accusations like "any and every male politician who used emails the way she does would be in jail" If you care about her not getting the presidency, don't promote fake attacks on her that will only make her look better when the facts come out.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/10/16 01:46 PM
2

Colin Powell was also reported in the state report as having misused a private server. So was Jonathan Scott Gration, but I was wrong about him being SoS, he was an ambassador and approved his staff to use private email. As for the punishments: Powell is currently ignoring requests for more information and is generally being rather obstructive with the investigation. He has not been punished, though the report also recommends that the information be legally demanded. Gration was expected to be d…
/r/PussyPassDenied17/10/16 01:15 PM
1

2 previous (male) SoSs used insecure servers. They were reprimanded, but not prosecuted. The only difference is they didn't run for potus.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/10/16 05:27 AM
1

Well, in this case, the prosecution agreed to it based on not having the child testify. So the family agreed that they were happy with that level of punishment in trade for not having to have their child stand up in court and have to talk about it. The punishment for the crime if fully implemented would have been jail time. They cut a deal, gave her a lenient punishment and got something they wanted from it.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 10:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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