TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

sizzlefriz Archive

View 0 posts and 56 comments by sizzlefriz 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)
4

Hell yeah!
/r/MensRights07/01/18 05:04 AM
1

You mean like the rights men had? If by 'the rights men had' you mean the right to vote and so on, then yes, obviously. Lol you're still upset about being called out for your childish self-important demands. Hahaha you think you upset me? Adorable. It's hilarious that you refer to my claim, which was that the MRM should try a more productive approach, as a childish self-important demand. I could never be made to be upset by such laughably stupid responses. You're so lacking in self awareness it'…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 12:28 AM
1

Right about what? They were right to pursue having their political rights officially recognized in law. Nevertheless, even if they were right, fanaticism isn't productive. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. it's not like they they had the option of voting on it. But wait a second, what is this newfound concern of yours for productivity? In the other thread you called me a concern troll for merely suggesting that the MRM should try to be more productive, and now you criticize OG femin…
/r/MensRights12/10/17 03:31 PM
1

I said "fanatics", not radicals. There's a difference. Let's assume they were always fanatical for a moment. Is that supposed to be bad, given that they were in the right? Wouldn't you be a 'fanatic' in the same way they were had you been in their shoes, i.e. not having any political rights and being barred from having said rights? I don't see how fanaticism about a cause is supposed to be a problem when the cause is clearly good and just. No. I said feminism "has been toxic pretty much from the…
/r/MensRights10/10/17 10:16 PM
1

That is factually untrue. The fanaticism was there all along. Well, they were always taken to be political radicals. Women having the right to vote was a radical idea back in the day. It's not hyperbole. It's accuracy. Support that. I'm not against entertaining conspiracy theories, insofar as they have some decent supporting evidence, but you've only asserted that they were always bad. Provide reasons to take the claim seriously.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 01:26 AM
1

You've refusing to listen since the beginning and now you're just imagining things, so I'm not going to waste any more of my time engaging with your nonsense ITT.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 01:07 AM
1

from the start. Why add this? Like, I don't understand this tendency toward the hyperbolic when it comes to criticizing feminism. Why claim it was always toxic when that's both historically inaccurate and generally irrelevant to contemporary criticisms of contemporary feminism, on top of the fact that it requires a whole shit ton more time and energy to even attempt to justify? I mean, it's largely false, but regardless, it still fails to add anything but vitriol to the current state of the grea…
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:26 PM
1

Tell me what responsibility first wave feminism wanted to take on. What about lacking this trade off of responsibility (besides the one that comes with having political agency and power) for political rights indicates that 1st wave feminism was a toxic movement, though? I haven't argued that women shouldn't have been subject to the draft in general, past or present, so I'm not sure why you'd expect me to justify that position. I'm not opposed to women voting. I'm opposed to women not pulling the…
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:13 PM
1

Well the burden of proof is on you since proving my position would require proving a negative. Well, no, it's not. That you have little in the way of options when it comes to supporting your claim doesn't make the burden of proof lie only with me. You were the one making the claim that being 'bad' resulted in the movement taking off and gaining popularity, and you then erroneously cited the documentary as if it supported your claim. But, it clearly doesn't. My position is that having a bad attit…
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:32 AM
1

So they do nothing. Because it's straightforward. Again, it's unclear what you mean by this. What action are we expecting them to take, again? It was you example. And it had nothing to do with the pay gap topic. Gender specific requirements make things complicated. But without them, few women would be included in many positions. The point was that these gender specific requirements are problematic and ought to be addressed/removed. They thought of themselves that way. Great. It still doesn't ind…
/r/MensRights30/09/17 08:08 PM
1

No. Only a year ago did we get the first ever documentary. Yes, and you haven't actually given any reason to think otherwise. That we just now got a documentary doesn't mean the MRM just got notoriety. Like, the mere fact that it's getting more popular can be attributed to a number of things, so I'm not sure why you'd pick "chip on the shoulder" as being the clear decisive factor. And that was inspired explicitly from the more aggressive, unapologetic MRM we know today. Being unapologetic and be…
/r/MensRights30/09/17 10:52 AM
0

The feminist response to this riddle has been to >do nothing what-so-ever<. Feminism does not like to pick up responsibility, it just pushes for advantage. Uh, what? It's not a riddle. It's straightforward. I used quotes, because the "pay gap" is an earnings gap, and it's entirely composed of issues just like this one. I still don't see how that's relevant here. The White Feather movement wasn't toxic? Are you actually claiming that the white feather movement was concocted by the feminist moveme…
/r/MensRights30/09/17 09:52 AM
1

this is what MRAs did for decades and nobody noticed. They did notice, though. Only when things got more "bad" did this change. It got more outspoken and had a radical message (not "bad"), and got a lot of help from things like the internet. Oh and those who were always "nice" are still called rape apologists and misogynists. And? Catch more flies with honey etc etc. That you're tired of getting called names isn't a reason to not try to convey your message with a level head. Are you deluded? No,…
/r/MensRights29/09/17 09:57 AM
1

I have zero idea what you are trying to say here. I'm just pointing to one of the arguments that is often made against having women in the draft (as things are right now). If there are two separate standards for women and men (rather than just one for both) then it makes the bar lower for women, making it actually harder to be found to be unfit for service if you're a woman. By this I mean, for example, that a weaker dude will not be drafted while a woman of comparable physical ability to that m…
/r/MensRights29/09/17 09:25 AM
1

Show me your feminists asking for women to bear a proper share of the pain and I'll bury you in feminists asking for special advantage for women. That there is disagreement among feminists about this might point to there being some substantive reasons involved, right? Like, you say "special advantage for women" when in reality one of the big issues some feminists raise about women becoming eligible for the draft as it stands is the need for first making fitness standards equal across the board. …
/r/MensRights28/09/17 02:27 AM
1

Did I say that selective service shouldn't be imposed on them? Also, Are you under the impression that feminist philosophers and feminists in general think that women shouldn't bear the same imposition? Seems like feminists are against the draft in general, but for women being eligible for it if men are, insofar as the standards for fitness become fixed across the board regardless of gender. What burden was imposed on women? None. And who do you think made that decision? Feminists?
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:54 AM
0

Since it seems you don't know about how feminism has made the situation for men worse It shouldn't seem that way, and if it does, that's just you making incorrect assumptions in bad faith, pal. I am aware of the harm to men that certain feminist organizations have caused, hence why I told you that I didn't need to filled-in. Again, I am fully aware of the reasons people criticize the views/actions of contemporary feminists. I don't know why you are taking my disagreement with you as a sign of my…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:27 AM
1

Exactly. The movement should focus on informing the public and helping the victims of inequality. This. 100% this.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:24 AM
1

I mean, sure. Any press is good press, I suppose. Although, given how much negative press there is out there about the MRM already, it's not clear that we shouldn't actively work on cultivating a more positive image. This post got 23k views. Imagine how many views (and shares) it would have gotten if it wasn't just a meme. Like, this could be featured at the beginning of a thoughtful essay on the topic that clarifies the issue. Memes just don't force people to engage with material on an intellec…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:20 AM
5

I disagree. Snarky internet meme < thoughtful conceptual analysis. This seems far more polarizing than informative.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 10:01 AM
2

Still believing the rewritten history that is the work of feminism. Please. I don't need to be "filled-in" on these topics, given that I am a member of this sub already and have been a member for years. I'm not some outsider who came here to poke the MRM hornets's nest. That said, I am also familiar with some of the significant work done by feminist philosophers, i.e. legitimate academic work that served as the actual intellectual foundation for the feminist movement. Feminism was never a good t…
/r/MensRights27/09/17 09:54 AM
3

Feminism is necessarily opposed to men's rights Not in principle, no, but that's beside the point. This sort of post doesn't spread awareness of men's rights issues, it's just engaging in what amounts to a flame war. There are enough anti-feminism subs out there already. This is the sub for men's rights. Shitposting of this sort helps no one, least of all the MRM.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 08:24 AM
1

I gathered. Peace.
/r/MensRights16/09/17 08:17 PM
1

I mean, at least two of my comments were marked as being controversial, i.e. both downvoted and upvoted, and they are currently situated at ~1. So, it's simply not true that everyone got the same impression as you did. Regardless, it's not like that would make your initial assumptions any less contrived.
/r/MensRights16/09/17 08:10 PM
1

No, I mean you. I don't know what the others thought, and I won't hazard a guess at what they thought (weird/reasonable, right?), but you were clearly mistaken from the very beginning of our conversation. I don't give a shit though. Just relax next time, so maybe you don't waste time arguing with someone about views you've imagined they hold when they clearly don't hold those views. Simple fix.
/r/MensRights16/09/17 07:29 AM
1

Clear that I argued that the main issue seems to be (and is) entirely distinct from the apparent issue of discrimination? Because that's basically what my point was. That you took my stated views (e.g. that I do think it is discriminatory) as evidence that I probably hold the view that men shouldn't be able to have a similar program, is utterly bizarre. Bruh, you made unfounded assumptions about my views and now you're acting like I'm somehow responsible for them, which is at the very least unre…
/r/MensRights16/09/17 12:41 AM
1

I'm just telling you why people downvoted you. And I'm just pointing out that the reasons you have given for why people downvoted me are poor and contrived. So you should go back and read it to see why in retrospect that your position on this seemed clear to most reading it. And I am saying that nothing in what I wrote should give anyone that impression, not under any reasonable and charitable interpretation anyway. The reason for such a response seems clear, and I already mentioned it: uncharit…
/r/MensRights14/09/17 11:38 PM
1

If it's that big of a deal they should have made a special area for them not restrict acces to half of the population That's what they did, though. They weren't getting the whole gym. Are they usually laughed at, touched or anything like that? No. So don't restrict acces. Tell that to the people who own/operate the gym facilities. I'm sure they'd love to hear your views on the social injustice of their decisions. I personally think those owners/operators can do whatever they want to do because i…
/r/MensRights13/09/17 08:11 AM
1

First I didn't downvote you. That's decent of you. Second, go read what you wrote, you gave the impression that you didn't think this was necessary because you didn't even mention it at all. You got that impression, but I don't think I gave it off, so I'd recommend you reread what I wrote, but this time without assuming to know what my views are regarding topics that I haven't addressed. Like, most of what I was talking about was distinguishing scheduling issues from issues of discrimination. I …
/r/MensRights13/09/17 07:58 AM
-1

No, since paying for membership has never meant that you have free range of all the facilities at any and all hours of your choosing, e.g. when the gym is closed for the night. The permissions gained via gym membership are granted by the gym and are limited to what appears in the membership contract. Generally, the owners of the gym, not the members, ultimately get to decide what the rules of the gym are.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 09:00 PM
1

So you don't think there should be 2 hours blocked off for men then? What on earth makes you think that I would think it's not okay for men to have a similar program? Of course I think it's okay for men to have such a program, and for the exact goddamn reasons you give in your reply. I am getting the sense that you and some others ITT (thanks for the downvotes y'all) aren't being very charitable when reading and interpreting my replies. It's not clear to me why that is.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 08:39 PM
1

I think it is. It should be noted that I'm using 'right' in the technical/legal sense of the term, i.e. we don't have the legal or contractual right to use the gym's facilities whenever we feel like it, e.g. when it is closed or when the owners of the gym allow groups exclusive rights to their facilities at a specific time. Gaining membership to a gym generally doesn't make you part owner of that gym, you dig? Double standard much? And what's the big deal that someone looks at you? Not really gi…
/r/MensRights12/09/17 08:25 PM
1

So this whole thing is trivial.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 08:05 PM
2

Good talk.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 07:58 PM
0

That's literally what i say further down in this thread.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 01:08 PM
-1

Of course it has to do with discrimination. That's the whole issue. The whole issue is about prime workout hours, not about the existence of the program or the fact that the gym's hours of operation get reduced by 2 hours overall for men. Here's the scheduling problem, as it was initially laid out by khalbert1: its prime workout hours. If they want their own time make it at off hours. But don't block 50% of the population from being able to use the facility in the most convenient time of day. As…
/r/MensRights12/09/17 10:21 AM
1

Okay? I'm not sure how this addresses my reply. I already stated that I think it is discrimination, just not really anything egregious, in that the most relevant issue (the prime workout hours thing) has nothing to do with the apparent discrimination.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 09:09 AM
-8

I agree, but that's kinda beside the point, as that issue isn't one of discrimination, just scheduling. EDIT: Apparently, agreeing with my interlocutor calls for being downvoted. Cool.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 08:24 AM
-15

Yeah, but come on, some women aren't trying to have their asses stared at (directly or via the mirrors all over the place) by a bunch of dudes every time they go to the gym. Let em have the 2 hours. Also, being allowed to use the gym whenever isn't a right.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 06:30 AM
1

To preface this, let me clarify where I'm coming from here. I'm not defending modern feminism. I could be referred to as a feminist, and it wouldn't be an inaccurate label depending on your definition of feminism, but I probably wouldn't refer to myself as a feminist, except in the philosophical sense. I find the term/label (and many terms used in the feminist academic tradition) to be historically significant and important, but troublesome in a number of ways in contemporary discourse (e.g. wha…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 08:46 AM
2

It was developed in the early 1980s (about a century after feminism began), so it's a fairly recent thing. Wikipedia has it as "the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States" as of 2006. Third-wave feminism (modern feminism) began about a decade after the Duluth Model was initially developed, and probably had a lot to do with its use being so common today. That makes it pretty damn modern. If it's not exactly modern feminism, it's certainly modern enough.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 08:45 PM
1

I said feminism promotes some pretty shitty stuff No. You initially said: Feminism has been a load of crap since the beginning. It's always relied on the safe exterior of its name of "equality" to promote heinous ideas onto society. This is what I was initially responding to. I asked the question because women's suffrage movements marked the beginning of feminism. If you didn't mean to imply that you weren't a fan of women having the right to vote, then it's not clear why you would claim that fe…
/r/MensRights16/04/17 10:22 PM
0

Getting them the right to vote without having to sign up to the draft is not equality. I asked you if you believed that women getting the right to vote was a heinous idea. That women currently don't have to sign up for the draft has nothing at all to do with that. It's a red herring. So either make it the same for everyone or don't call yourself a movement for promoting equality between men and women. Most feminists are against the draft in general (like most people), although I'm pretty sure mo…
/r/MensRights16/04/17 10:51 AM
0

Feminism has been a load of crap since the beginning. It's always relied on the safe exterior of its name of "equality" to promote heinous ideas onto society. You can't honestly believe that women getting the right to vote was a heinous idea.
/r/MensRights15/04/17 10:58 PM
2

Go into /r/feminism or /r/askfeminists and use a coherent logical rebuttal to a feminist ideological idea and see just how quickly you are banned. I mean, this is pretty inaccurate. One of my first posts on reddit was in r/askfeminists, calling the continued use of the term patriarchy into question. I didn't get banned. I didn't even get downvoted. I got a really constructive conversation from the community there, actually. If you were banned from these subs, it probably wasn't because you were …
/r/MensRights15/04/17 10:51 PM
2

Your butthurt whining fuels my dark power, and unnatural youth. I'm totally stealing this. Have an upvote.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 09:38 PM
1

I'm sure the kid knew what he was getting in to. Have you ever met kids?
/r/MensRights09/03/17 09:13 PM
1

I don't think this 16 year old had any problem with this. You think this, even though the 16 year old said that he had a problem with it?
/r/MensRights09/03/17 09:08 PM
9

Schabang? Regardless of what that word means, I'm gonna say no, probably not. If I did schabang, I'm sure that I'd remember having schabanged. I hope to have adequately addressed your questions with this reply.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 11:47 PM
16

Holy shit I think I went to high school with this woman. EDIT: Confirmed. I didn't know her well at all, but I immediately recognized her face while scrolling on my front page. She seemed like a nice girl from the few times I'd spoken to her. Bummer.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 05:20 PM
2

Did you think the sub just randomly, for no reason, calls themselves that? Uh no. Certainly not, hence my mentioning both the red pill sub/movement and the fact that it's clearly a matrix reference. Like, I'm very aware that both are matrix references. My point/question was about whether she was simply referencing the matrix (in ignorance of the existence of trp sub/movement) or referencing the matrix in the way trp does, specifically as a nod to trp.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 02:01 AM
1

But, wait, why is she calling it "The Red Pill" if it's a documentary about men's rights? They seem like very different movements. Maybe I'm assuming too much, though. She might just be referencing the matrix. Still, seems odd.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 01:03 AM
2

It's ok, but let's drop the pretense that you're some kind of authority. Never implied that I was an authority on the word, but the word does have a definition, and it doesn't align well with the one you are using. Entitlement is knowing it's wrong and thinking it's ok to do it anyway Not exactly. If you are entitled to something then you have a right to something or deserve some special treatment. If someone knows that doing x is wrong, then they wouldn't necessarily say that they have a right …
/r/MensRights03/09/16 01:17 AM
2

No. Again, I don't think the word entitlement means what you think it means. If someone breaks a rule, it doesn't necessarily mean that that someone believes they have a right to break the rule. And, obviously, if she felt entitled to be there as a woman, she wouldn't have felt the need to disguise herself as a guy. She clearly felt remorse for her deception too, which wouldn't make sense if she felted entitled about it.
/r/MensRights02/09/16 08:19 AM
1

It's like they could only pretend to be respectful until she was out of the room, then it was all about how much of a slut she must be in bed and how they couldn't wait to find out. I think you might have it a little backwards here if you think that the pretending happens when the girl is around, rather than when a couple of guys are hanging out talking mad bro shit with each other.
/r/MensRights02/09/16 07:39 AM
2

You'd think that she wouldn't have gone through the trouble of disguising herself if she really had such a sense of entitlement. I don't think the word entitlement means what you think it means. Someone guilty of trespassing doesn't necessarily think they're entitled to go where ever they please.
/r/MensRights02/09/16 06:56 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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