TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

t-rexclub76 Archive

View 0 posts and 20 comments by t-rexclub76 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

If some guy tries to explain how this is sexist, her head will literally explode
/r/MensRights08/06/17 02:41 AM
2

Miss Swann
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:21 PM
3

Whole thing is sarcasm. Edit: To clarify, the sarcasm I'm using is just amplifying the Feminist/SJW narrative to highlight its absurdity. I'm trying to show how absurd it is. Maybe I'm not effective because real people actually say things like this. The idea that men aren't impacted by others is absurd. The idea that men somehow get to walk the streets without being confronted by society is absurd. Part of the whole thing that progressives are supposed to be fighting for is equality/diversity bu…
/r/MensRights21/08/16 06:26 PM
3

The whole rest of the world is for just white males right? I mean, like, minorities and women never have an impact on the lives of white males. They just get to walk the earth in confidence, unapproached by beings who are aware of their unprivileged status in society. Women have one space in the entire planet and it's taken away by men who must force women to constantly interact with them.
/r/MensRights21/08/16 05:58 PM
-4

The news should not be characterising it either way. They are not judge or jury. They should report on the facts that, in this case, an older woman, a teacher, had sex with a male student. That's it. That's the news. Maybe throw in some quotes and say what the police are doing about it. Calling it a relationship or rape or categorizing their behavoir beyond what is absolutely necessary to convey factual information is a pretty clear attempt at skewing a story. At that point, its not news anymore…
/r/MensRights04/06/16 12:27 PM
5

I am so sick of anyone trying to use a advertisement to prove any point about anything. It's like one step away from complaining about comedians.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 11:39 AM
3

I can see the reasonableness in an honest effort to achieve equality. However, modern movements seem to push beyond seeking equality into the realm of "we've been victims so now you owe us even more" and "everyone is guilty but me." In a society where people are hypersensitive to these issues, it seems like certain movents are trying to take advantage. The reality is that a good reasonable people can mostly agree what equality is and figure out a path forward. The problem is that there is always…
/r/MensRights04/04/16 05:29 PM
10

Well.... If everything is racist etc. Then the word has simply lost its meaning. I mean, words are only helpful to the extent that they differentiate things. If your definition of "racist" includes inanimate objects and all people regardless of their beliefs and actions, your definition is broken. People that push these ideas like "as a white male you are automatically part of rape culture or racism" are absolutely blind to how dumb that is. That idea is in itself racially and sexually prejudici…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 08:38 PM
1

Lawyer here so get ready. Not really. I think as far as men's rights are concerned, equal protection is a big issue. There is a case where men's drinking age was higher than women's and it was upheld. There are probably plenty more examples. (Maternity vs paternity leave) Abortion rights for men is a huge issue too. The idea that a woman can secretly abort a child without any input from the husband/partner. Right to life. Men are more readily forced into security and military roles. Right to mar…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 01:09 AM
1

This seems to be applicable to every single person who's identity depends upon an ideology. Confront that ideology and the person usually lashes out. Through my experience, however, I am sure there is about one confident, non-confrontational ideologue four every two outspoken insecure idiots.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:35 AM
1

My example is perfectly valid. After looking into it a little more, the problem is that people use the word "some" incorrectly in everyday English and it is a common misconception. The word some encompasses many. If someone were to say not some but many as you suggest, they would be using the word some to mean a minority which is outside of the words definition. People misuse words all the time and this is an example of that. If somebody says I have some French fries, they could have tons of Fre…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 12:53 PM
0

As you can see, even if the person said "I do not have 'some' French fries" with added emphasis on some it does not mean I have a majority of French fries. The crazy thing is that you are making the same mistake she did and you are still rationalizing it after I pointed it out. Everyone can agree on what she meant. The question is, are you smart enough to realize how her statement is inherently flawed. It is one thing to lack the intelligence to initially recognize it when the mistake is made, b…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 07:40 PM
0

Your requested Example: Do you have some French fries? No. I do not have some French fries. The person has "not some" aka none.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 07:10 PM
1

I'm not "ignorant" if I don't consider your minority definition correct. The definition provided is the dictionary definition smart ass. Most intelligent discussion of the word "some" is focused on whether it can mean all or less than all. That is the debate! Not minority majority. Once again you are absolutely wrong. Look it up. How ignorant is it to call someone ignorant when you are actually wrong and continuing to have a conversation on a topic that you are entirely ignorant to? That is wher…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:58 PM
0

You sounded intelligent. I guess I incorrectly assumed that you weren't just speaking out of your ass. "people use it that way all the time" I'll remember that rule. Let me write that one down so when I am doing my job I can make sure to have it handy to explain why it's okay to speak like an absolute idiot. I expect that people actually know what they are talking about before they tell someone they are wrong. You have some balls downvoting my shit and telling me I'm wrong when you have Jack squ…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:45 PM
1

I would greatly appreciate some authority on this point if anyone can provide it. As I have plenty to back up what I have said.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:34 PM
1

My whole point is that her use of the word some does not make sense as she used it. The only way to make it make sense is through the use of flawed logic. We can not logically say that "but not all" is any more specific than "but not all." The problem arises when she says "not some." If you have a quantity that is not "some" it literally means that you have one or none. Using the word some to mean a minority is an incorrect use of the word as defined. If you can cite to some authority that says …
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:13 PM
1

Colloquially, that may be true. But the definitional meaning is clear. It's actually flawed logic to assume some means less than anything other than 100%. Some is by definition vague. If she wanted to make her point accurately there are plenty of other words in our language to do that. I guess she got her point across but I thought it was interesting that the words she chose actually meant quite the opposite.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 05:23 PM
0

Edit- some also means "more than one but not all"
/r/MensRights07/01/14 04:30 PM
-3

She is actually using the word "some" incorrectly as the opposite of most. Some actually just means more than one. So if it's "not some men" it's one or less. So reading her statement appropriately leads to the conclusion that very few men abuse women but more than one man doesn't abuse women.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 04:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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