TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

smackypies Archive

View 1 post and 28 comments by smackypies 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)
4

smackypies/r/MensRights01/11/14 10:07 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

He is friends with Felicia Day and they work together. His only real source of income (aside from charging for autographs) is through her Youtube channel. I'm not implying causation, only correlation. EDIT: In case you didn't know, Wheaton posted the results of an INCREDIBLY flawed survey about the men's rights subreddit on his tumblr and got all the tumbleristas riled up trying to confirm their bias that we are racist, sexist, traditionalist, libertarians, etc. The survey was easily proven to b…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:28 PM
1

It's still not enough for the law, as it is written.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 01:45 PM
1

I'm not asking you to. You could describe the important parts...I guess.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 01:44 PM
1

If I can't find that video, then I have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 07:10 PM
0

Can anyone confirm how much of the concern over burden of proof is valid? Does this literally shift the burden of proof to the accused, or is that hyperbole or just what happens "in practice"? Proving ongoing consent happened certainly seems impossible, but even moreso in a BDSM situation.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 02:49 AM
1

Here is an Omegle conversation I had regarding this issue with a feminist. You may find her defenses (which she seemed to back away from by the end) interesting, and especially her reasoning as to why no one should worry about it. Also, I know I was being kind of rude to her in the very beginning. I pretended to make assumptions that were incorrect in order to have her reveal that my actual assumptions about her were correct. My bad. http://logs.omegle.com/20f453e
/r/MensRights01/11/14 10:12 PM
2

They would still both be guilty of running a red light.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 02:17 AM
1

Wouldn't it just mean men are more likely to go for that kind of job? Probably true, but not the entire explanation. When discussing jobs that are still on the "lower end", we have to remember that both men and women "get stuck with" jobs, but when it happens to men, they sometimes get stuck with dangerous jobs that can kill or maim them. To deny this, would be insane. That would be like saying that everyone always gets the job they want. You can't possibly believe in that American Dream bullshi…
/r/MensRights28/10/14 09:34 PM
3

police responding to a man with the implicit assumption that he's guilty of something My suspicion is that men often see police vehicles when women would see ambulances, but I have no idea how to prove that.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 02:32 AM
4

This shit is so bananas. Could you imagine a fat woman being raped, defending herself, and then later getting in trouble for not restraining her attacker in a safe and controlled manner?
/r/MensRights27/10/14 04:13 PM
13

I don't think he missed anything. He said, if we "only" look at those things, we would think "x". He didn't say that we should "only" look at those things. For many years, people were exposed only to a side of the "equation" that showed that women were oppressed. They were then shown solutions that are reasonable only under the assumption that the whole "equation" was shown. That's pretty much the entire point of his submission.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 04:05 PM
6

We do need to admit that there is something going on with men, boys, and mass shootings. Do we though? The number of mass shooters is such a small, small number, compared to the general population (and yes there have been a handful of female ones). We know that males reach both extremes of a bell curve more often than females do, which could mean that for every male mass shooter there are just as many males who are abnormally docile, possibly moreso than ANY female.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 03:05 AM
2

Fuck Wil Wheaton.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 02:39 AM
-1

Are you sure that "administering" in this case, doesn't only pertain to drugging someone against their will or without their knowledge? such stupor or such imbecility of mind or weakness of body as to prevent effectual resistance This seems to be a lot more fucked up than "intoxicated, even if she isn't blackout drunk." What does this even mean? Does it mean someone may find themselves less inhibited and more willing, or does it mean literally, they cannot resist, as their body doesn't work well…
/r/MensRights26/10/14 02:14 AM
1

That means obvious to a reasonable person, which is only as vague as a lot of laws...They're assuming you speak fluent English, and I think you know what out of it means. And laws shouldn't be vague. It doesn't matter who they're drugged by Even themselves? The chart doesn't say that. This is no place to read between the lines. Otherwise what's the point of making a fucking chart?
/r/MensRights26/10/14 02:11 AM
1

whoosh
/r/MensRights26/10/14 02:08 AM
1

So it's ok for me to have sex with a minor as long as I didn't initiate it?
/r/MensRights24/10/14 09:30 AM
1

It requires that the rapist know that the victim is not willing, but then later says that it's still rape even if the rapist "doesn't know what they're doing". As for the vague part: "obvious that you were in no state to agree to anything" "out of it" "drugged" (by who?)
/r/MensRights24/10/14 09:20 AM
0

(4)(a) Every person who shall have forcible sexual intercourse with any person, or who shall have sexual intercourse not constituting forcible sexual intercourse or statutory rape with any person without that person's consent by administering to such person any substance or liquid which shall produce such stupor or such imbecility of mind or weakness of body as to prevent effectual resistance This law?
/r/MensRights24/10/14 09:06 AM
1

And he looks forward, in his own words, to the chance to turn a potential rapist loose on the streets. Meaning they are potentially not a rapist as well. cases where there are witnesses, signs of physical trauma on the victim, and DNA evidence Are you saying that any case that has these things is automatically a guilty verdict? Also, from this perspective, some of the witnesses have been compromised.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 06:43 AM
1

The law is the way it is so that a person cannot be exploited while heavily drunk So if your underage daughter has sex with a drunk adult man, she's a rapist - got it.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 04:50 AM
1

Actually it's vague and contradicts itself.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 04:44 AM
1

Present legal and social climate interprets that as male rapist and female victim. In places where the legal climate interprets that as rape at all, which, is actually the minority.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 04:28 AM
1

She and I were both coherent and sober This flowchart never said it's rape if you're not sober.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 04:23 AM
3

Only one of your examples involves a woman actually being charged with falsely accusing (charges which were, of course, dropped), and it is too entangled with the other crime of robbery. I am also too tired to make my point well, although I don't have a problem with anything I've said up until now. So I will have to simplify this: you're saying we shouldn't worry about false accusers when you yourself are worried about victims being falsely accused of falsely accusing. Even though none of your e…
/r/MensRights22/10/14 10:38 AM
2

Almost every rape accusation leads to a trial for a false rape accusation - the defense would be insane not to claim it was consensual. I'm not sure what else to say but standards of evidence and burden of proof... Just because someone is found innocent, it does not mean their accuser is charged with filing a false report. If the defense takes the specific course that you mention, and they create doubt that it was nonconsensual, that does not mean they have proved that the accuser knowingly file…
/r/MensRights22/10/14 06:06 AM
2

That link is not the best example for what you are trying to say. Yes, he does mention hysteria in a sense, but also he does just what you asked in debating how they are conducted. But it is ok to lump them into a group because they involve rape shield laws, while no other type of crime does. There is also no other crime for which so many vehemently protect false accusers, to the point where some agencies make it policy to not enforce the law, when any other false accuser would still be fair gam…
/r/MensRights22/10/14 04:11 AM
0

You two actually thought you liked each other. Fucking hilarious.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 02:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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