TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

sundown372 Archive

View 2 posts and 75 comments by sundown372 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I'm not your friend, buddy!
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 10:57 PM
1

I'm not your buddy, guy.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 08:03 PM
1

Sure, bud.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 03:37 PM
1

I always did. You just can't even read the articles you link to. You have still to cite one passage that supports your claims. You can't. Because it isn't there. And you just continue to deflect and post shit like "sure, bud" because you know it isn't there and you can't do it, but you also don't want to admit that you were wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 07:05 AM
1

Sure, bud
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 05:50 AM
1

You could always just admit you were wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 05:33 AM
1

I'm not lying to myself. You however, are lying when you say that Manafort was indicted for colluding with Russia to influence the election.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 04:05 AM
1

Sure, bud. Yep. That's all you have to do, just post one single thing that backs up your false statements, which you can't seem to do.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 02:41 AM
1

You would have an easy time convincing me if you, you know, posted anything that can back up your claims, but you seem to be incapable of that.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/18 11:59 PM
1

So you admit that You're lying.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/18 10:00 PM
1

again, you can't provide anything to back you up. I read every word and at no point does that article support what you said. If it does then give me the quote.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/18 04:20 PM
1

Everything in that article is perfectly in line with what I already said and doesn't say that anything about him being indicted for colluding with the Russian government to sway the election of behalf of Trump. Please try to find a source that actually backs up your false claim about him being indicted for Russian Collusion on behalf of the Trump campaign. Everything he was indicted for was for stuff he did before Trump ever decided to run for office and that article in no way contradicts that.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/18 04:53 AM
1

Except he never had a trial or indictment for Russian collusion on behalf of Trump or his campaign. He was never on trial for that. You're just blatantly lying. He pled guilty to "conspiracy to defraud the United States." He was accused of conspiring with Rick Gates, not Russia, and the "defraud the United States" refers to his financial crimes, not anything to do with Russian collusion. He was never on trial for anything related to colluding with Russia to interfere with the election in behalf …
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/18 12:50 AM
1

I don't need to wish. If Manafort was indicted for colluding with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign in order to influence the election then it should be relatively easy to provide one article backing that up. If you can't then just admit you were mistaken.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 10:09 PM
1

Yeap, I guess the media reporting and the FBI are a figment of my imagination. You've provided literally no evidence or a single source that Manafort was indicted for Russian collusion on behalf of the Trump campaign. This is because he wasn't. He was indicted for many things, but that was not one of them. So yeah, that's kind of in your imagination because not a single source backs you up on that.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 05:53 PM
1

Do you not read? I did read. You seem like you really need to calm down. You blatantly lied and said that Manafort was indicted for Russian collusion that took place during his work for the Trump campaign. I'm not gonna waist a single trying to explain something to a schizophrenic. You're the one imagining evidence of Trump colluding with the Russian government to influence the election where it doesn't exist. and our very own intelligence agencies Our intelligence agencies haven't stated that T…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 05:16 PM
2

Which means he paid her off because of the election. if she had come forward then, he would have paid her off anyway. HER reasons for choosing that time are irrelevant.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 04:57 PM
4

Why pay at that moment? because that was when she was planning on coming forward with the story they vote for him BECAUSE he is sexist and racist. He is neither of those things.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 03:59 PM
1

and then about HIS WORK IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO COORDINATE WITH RUSSIA. You're just inventing things out of thin air. He was never indicted for anything relating to Russian collusion during his work for the Trump campaign. Oh look at that! Some bitch infiltrated conservatives and the NRA to set up these back channels straight to the kremlin. Oh and she plead guilty too. Damn, seems like witch season. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the Trump campaign. You're really desperate here. Also you…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 03:43 PM
1

A lot dealing with collusion directly with Russia, he got indicted, tired for his work as a lobbyist, plead guilty for the russian charges. yeah, all for shit that happened long before trump ever decided to even try to run for president. It's for shit that happened while Manafort was working as an unregistered agent for the Ukranian government. Try harder. None of that had anything to do with his work in the Trump campaign or Trump himself. I wonder what conspiracy agaisnt and to defraud the Uni…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 05:10 AM
1

You neglect to mention that none of the indictments involve Trump colluding with Russia.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/18 12:38 AM
3

It's literally not illegal at all. An NDA is not illegal. The only reason the left is asserting that it's a campaign finance violation is because it could theoretically be considered a campaign expenditure that wasn't declared, despite the fact that she wasn't paid with campaign funds. The only problem is that, in order for it to actually be a campaign expenditure, one would have to prove that he would not have done it if the election was not happening, which is clearly not the case since he had…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/18 11:57 PM
2

Paying someone to keep quiet is not a crime. It wasn't even done using campaign funds.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/18 10:13 PM
0

Cohen plead guilty, meaning it wasn't actually adjudicated that it was a campaign finance violation because there was no actual trial. He was also convicted on tax evasion charges and likely plead guilty to the campaign finance stuff for a reduced sentence.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/18 10:11 PM
2

This hits home for me. Reminds me of the time the after school child care people had to talk to my dad because I committed the terrible crime of drawing a lightsaber.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 03:11 AM
6

It's just a joke.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 03:07 AM
1

It initially came from a sort of jab in the ribs to the old mentality that women weren't very smart. So when a person a long time ago said "women are smarter than men" they were just sort of taking potshots at the antiquated sexist ideologies of past. Now that girls outdo boys in school and almost nobody thinks that women are less intelligent, it has ceased to be funny and has just become insulting.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 02:15 AM
2

I don't particularly like the use of "their" to remain gender-neutral since it's a plural form the singular use of "their" has been around for centuries. Even Jane Austen used it.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 11:29 PM
3

I love how the had to underline "males" for emphasis.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 04:40 AM
0

If you were drunk and had sex of your own free will while drunk, no it was not rape. If you were so incapacitated that you couldn't resist or if you were drugged then it was. Since according to a girl on you floor, you took her to your room, I'm going to go with no.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 04:12 PM
3

FTFY Molyneux is just as bad feminists. He reads too much into media to support his own preconceived conclusions. He's also a major asshole, blaming all of the evil in the world on women.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 10:44 PM
1

in the early 19th century when children automatically went to their father's cutsody in divorce, that was real patriarchy. Then feminists got it changed to women being the ones who are awarded custody too, but apparently that's patriarchy now too. There are feminist lobbyists whispering into the ears of every liberal politician in the west. Feminism IS the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 03:52 PM
7

I figured they took things to another level when they lambasted Eric Gjoni for speaking out about his own abuse, calling him "shittier than a belly-flopping sewer worker" and including a picture of a crying man to mock him while simultaneously treating his abuser like an innocent victim.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 04:43 PM
3

complete BS, it's been addressed so many times now and? I'm not a politician so how the hell does that advantage me? Also the people who put them there are both men and women. There's nothing preventing female politicians from entering, they just don't run as often as men. Is there anything actively preventing women from obtaining these jobs? I've never had this happen to me. Nobody's ever assumed I'm more qualified for anything. are we living on the planet earth here? Is it suddenly socially ac…
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:26 PM
-2

This pisses me off, but it has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 07:16 AM
6

I'd be fine with this if this wasn't the exact same people who always complain about objectification of women. Except the descriptions are kind of a little creepy.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 03:02 AM
0

It's more akin to a tea partier wearing a racist t-shirt and then claiming it's ironic. Or if a police officer wore a t-shirt about killing dogs and claimed it's ironic. The thing is, feminists don't use "male tears" ironically. They use phrases like "male tears" and "manfeels" all the time to actually belittle men who complain about legitimate issues, writing them off as over-emotional
/r/MensRights17/08/14 02:49 AM
2

nobody's trying to wear masks on ID's, just when they're out in public. The government shouldn't be telling people they can't wear burqas if they choose to do so of their own free will.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 03:49 AM
7

The "male tears" shit isn't ironic. Feminists use that shit all the time whenever men have a legitimate issue to complain about to belittle the issue and paint the men who speak out as merely being over-emotional. “I enjoy that it bothers the men who don’t get it,” one Misandrist Book Club member told me. “It’s a good way to weed out cool dudes from the dumb bros.” As Zimmerman puts it: “The men who get annoyed by misandry jokes are in my experience universally brittle, insecure, humorless weeni…
/r/MensRights09/08/14 03:38 AM
4

Canadian Feminists don't exactly agree with freedom of speech. I remember a video taken at one MRA lecture protests where a group of feminists cheered when a male feminist stated that "free speech ends where hate speech begins."
/r/MensRights24/07/14 09:27 AM
5

What's the feminism like? Feminists marching up and down the street at night during "take back the night" walks screaming at the top of their lungs when people are trying to study because they think it will dissuade rapists. Posters hung everywhere trying to instruct men that consent is sexy (something already evident to any man who isn't mentally unstable) as if men are immoral beasts who need to be taught that rape is wrong. Posters that frame rape as if it's something that happens on accident…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 08:30 PM
1

These people seem to confuse "dickish" and "underhanded" with "sexist." seeking sex with women is not sexist.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 08:46 AM
6

I could stubbornly insist I am a liberal, per X definition...and I would be correct, technically. This doesn't mean I won't confuse people profoundly though. Just do what I do and call yourself a "classical liberal."
/r/MensRights11/07/14 12:27 AM
2

I don't really see anything wrong with the Erin Pizzey one. Mike Buchanan's was a joke. The entire point of the article was finding ways to associate terms used in relation to Wine to "whining"and he doesn't mean normal complaining, he's means feminist sort of complaining over trivial shit that doesn't matter and how he doesn't want his organization to have the same whiny tone as feminists. No he doesn't actually think whiny people should be put in a cellar or a small room, he was just looking f…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 11:17 AM
7

Men get raped, yes. When has anyone said they don't? The law does when it files a woman forcing a man to have sex simply as sexual assault rather than rape. Also if nobody is saying they don't then why do feminists always try to frame it as male on female? The fact that when two college students have drunk sex the man can easily be branded a rapist because getting consent from the other person is his obligation but not hers should clue you in that something is severely wrong with the way the iss…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 04:38 AM
8

Just because others now have the same rights as you does not mean you now have fewer rights. exactly. but by all means ignore the complete one-sidedness of family law, the leniency of courts on female offenders, the fact even if a woman physically forces a man to have sex with her it still isn't regarded as rape by the law, the fact that domestic abuse is still framed as a female on male issue, the fact that many people still repeat the whole "teach men not to rape" nonsense as if men are animal…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 02:48 AM
3

contraception is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to services Obamacare provides for women and not men.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 08:54 AM
1

I don't think it was "great" but I don't really see anything wrong with it either.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 08:53 AM
0

What? He's at the forefront of the MRM. A tremendously genius and great thinker nearly right up there with Paul Elam. so you're being sarcastic, I hope. Both of them are asshats, ESPECIALLY Molyneux.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:46 PM
0

are you being sarcastic or are you actually serious? Stefan Molyneux is a moron and is just as bad as any Feminist.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:29 PM
2

that a corporation’s right to believe in whatever bullshit it likes is more important than a woman’s right to insurance-subsidized birth control. You do not have a right to insurance-subsidized birth control. That is a privilege, not a right. Even if that was a right, according to the ACA, men do not have that right. So then why aren't these people fighting for the right for men to have insurance-subsidized condoms and vasectomies? because feminism is totally about equality right?
/r/MensRights02/07/14 12:00 AM
9

The first planned international meeting organized by MRA groups scheduled to take place in Detroit was cancelled, and the venue changed, after protesters petitioned the hotel where it was to be held. Yeah, "petitioned." No bias here folks.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 05:20 AM
3

a woman engaging in heavy flirting with dudes at bars is not provoking rape. Rape mostly happens by way of people they know. Such a false equivalence only promotes the idea that men are savage beasts who can't control themselves. Paul Elam claims that one leads to another but gives zero evidence to back that up. Does a matador demand to be gored? no but the entire point of bullfights is to provoke the bull. Men are not bulls. Men are not savage beasts with no restraint. does he deserve it arguab…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 02:53 AM
2

If you read those examples he may be trying to say that a lot of women in those situations actually do consent to sex, but then regret it later and cry rape. I find it pretty clear that he communicates that he doesn't see them as "real victims" because he feels they shouldn't be surprised when they get raped after heavy flirting and being a tease. I mean he equates it to leaving your keys in the ignition in a bad neighborhood.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 09:59 PM
1

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-shield-laws.html you keep saying i'm wrong and not giving any support.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 05:55 PM
1

Point is, argue with Elam on that. Argue that the system isn't that bad. Don't argue that it can never be bad enough to warrant non-cooperation of this sort. Argue that the system isn't that bad. the system is pretty bad, but the laws are the least of the reason behind that. Don't argue that it can never be bad enough to warrant non-cooperation of this sort. I didn't.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 05:53 PM
1

As opposed to your declaration that it's OK to convict a man before seeing his defense? Rape shield laws only prevent the bringing up of the accuser's sexual history, which would be irrelevant at worst and circumstantial evidence at best, and in the vast majority of cases, would likely be the former. I don't like rape shield laws but letting every single person accused automatically go free because they weren't able to submit evidence that would probably be irrelevant in the first place is absur…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 05:10 PM
2

when he is saying that advice on rape prevention is not victim blaming. He simply says that certain behaviors increase the likelihood of getting raped, even though he is also very clear that the blame lies with the rapist He basically equates what is perfectly normal behavior to leaving your keys in the ignition in a bad neighborhood. He almost outright states that these women should have expected to be raped and the fact that they weren't careful enough to not get raped makes them morons. And e…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 04:53 PM
1

That woman, a OWS protester, was sexually molested by a cop, probably deliberately in order to bait male protesters to leap to her defense. It was caught on video. The jury, however, never got to see that evidence. She was found guilty of assaulting a police officer. well of course, police corruption is a big problem. They "lose" Dashcam video all the time. But losing dashcam video is a far stretch from merely bringing up the accuser's prior sexual history. In the first it's cold hard evidence o…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 04:50 PM
1

So it's he said/she said that she did not consent. not if you literally have video of the person knocking her out. If you literally have video of the person knocking the other person out and then proceeding to copulate with their unconscious body, what grey area is there? But what if being knocked out and fucked while videotaped is her thing? What if it's the kink that gets her off? regardless of whether she said she wanted it beforehand, having sex with someone who is unconscious is legally con…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 04:33 AM
4

You are guilty of (a) misrepresenting Elam's work where did I misrepresent his work? attempting to silence someone for the heinous act of disagreeing with you. where did I attempt to silence anybody? calling someone out for saying pretty despicable things is not silencing.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 04:21 AM
1

Because you can never know what the evidence is. so if they happen to have video of the guy knocking her out and raping her, you should still vote not guilty because of rape shield laws? If they have pictures of the guy having his way with her while she's passed out you should still acquit? Should we just let everyone accused of rape go free until rape shield laws are reformed or abolished?
/r/MensRights05/06/14 01:36 AM
5

What evidence do you have that you're only falsely convicted a small number of innocent men on account of that one item? because there's only a few unlikely circumstances where the accuser's sexual history would be relevant at all. I'm not saying that I like rape shield laws, I don't. But to trying to vote not guilty even when the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty is just immoral. The reason you disagree with Paul Elam is that you're an asshole who doesn't …
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:55 AM
2

Nobody is saying you are a troll. It's that using a zero-day account is the sort of thing a troll would do. I agree but I assure you I'm not trolling anybody and everything stated in this thread by me is my genuine opinion.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:10 AM
2

Paul has already responded to this by saying he used to say extreme statements to troll feminists into running his articles in order to increase his viewership long before he had the support and base that he does now. regardless, statements like that only give them ammo and only aid them in portraying MRAs as misogynists, and the fact that Elam is so prominent in the movement would make it seem to the uninitiated that that's how MRAs in general think. I see no reason not to speak your mind and c…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:08 AM
-1

So regardless of your real life behaviors, today's "I am an egalitarian and I think Elam sucks balls" is exactly the behavior one would predict of a concern troll. I'm using a zero day account because I normally just browse and don't post. But i felt that this needed to be addressed. But I guess I'm a troll just because I used a new account to do it.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:00 AM
-1

You are obviously trolling here, but I thought the genuine mras here might like to know just how much you are twisting shit to suit your agenda. and what agenda would that be?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 11:50 PM
3

I'm not a troll at all, it's just that feminists have been using stuff that Elam Actually wrote as representative of the movement in general. And that could normally be brushed off as "oh he's just some random dude" but in Elam's case he's one of the most prominent people in the entire movement.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 11:49 PM
3

I dislike rape shield laws but to throw the entire trial to the wind because of them is ridiculous. They're mostly about not giving the accuser's name to the public (though i think this should be extended to the defendant as well), and not being able to bring up the accuser's sexual history, which, in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, would be simply irrelevant. I am sure he is simply pointing out that you can never establish guilt if you cannot know what evidence the defence has been r…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 11:44 PM
6

No, I'm saying we should call him out when he says reprehensible stuff and not give him a free pass simply because he's an MRA. Because when he says shit like this it makes the movement as a whole look bad. It only gives feminists ammo. Why is it bad when feminists don't speak out against the radicals in their movement but it's okay for us to just overlook it when a highly influential MRA spouts reprehensible stuff?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:57 PM
3

You are making no sense. If you're on the jury then by definition it's your decision as to whether the accused will be found guilty. They clearly cannot already have been found guilty. I didn't say "found guilty". "found guilty" is what happens after the trial has finished. i said "proven guilty" and whether or not someone has been proven guilty is an individual decision for each juror. Elam is advocating that, even if the evidence has proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant i…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:51 PM
2

Seems sensible. The point of course which you miss, is that "all the evidence" is preceisly what you cannot be sure you have seen because of feminist hate laws that have made it illegal to present a proper defense of the accused. what "feminist hate laws" have made it illegal to present a proper defense? The problem isn't being able to mount a defense, it's having juries too quick to convict based on little evidence and over-broad definitions of what constitutes rape. What Elam is advocating is …
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:46 PM
7

Paul Elam is to men's rights what Radicals are to feminism: a good way to get attention to an important cause, and a lousy messenger. But we rag on feminists all the time for not calling out the radicals in their movement and distancing themselves from them. I think we need to make it more clear to people that these kinds of opinions are not the norm in the movement.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:15 PM
4

I browse here but don't normally post on reddit. Sorry if making an account because I wanted to post something for once is a crime.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:04 PM
4

As such, a juror should use the power of jury nullification to say that the law is bad and due to the bad law there is no possible way to remove a reasonable doubt. but there is. He said to even vote not guilty in cases where it's been proven. The law isn't what's bad, it's that juries are usually too quick to convict on rape trials. but that is not justification for voting not guilty on someone who has been proven guilty.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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