TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tastykebabs Archive

View 0 posts and 38 comments by tastykebabs 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)
7

I laughed at this three-post exchange more than anything else in this thread, and that's a grand achievement against some solid competition.
/r/TheRedPill24/02/14 05:45 AM
1

Denying that objective definitions are binding on everyone equates to a concession. Thanks.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 04:33 PM
0

Look up objective definitions of misandrist, tu quoque, and obfuscation. The definitions fit. They're not my definitions, they're everyone's, including yours. Objective definitions are binding on everyone.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 06:27 PM
7

We intuitively know what we like, but not how to get it, especially when the other side is strategizing and behaving insincerely, not even individually, but collectively, as an oligopoly. It's a game, like chess, played across all of society. The first humans, ones that hadn't yet developed language, didn't have to play it, because women couldn't strategize and collude. But once they did, the game was on, and men took a long fucking time to catch up.
/r/TheRedPill20/02/14 08:13 PM
0

I identified exactly what you're saying. What you're saying is the defense of a misandrist through tu quoque and obfuscation. This makes you a misandrist, as well. I guess you couldn't grasp it the first time.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 02:57 PM
-1

There's nothing mature about misandrists, nor trying to defend one through bad faith tactics like tu quoque and obfuscation.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 04:22 PM
-2

No. Identifying a misandrist is not misandry or misogyny or any other form of bigotry.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 05:29 AM
-2

No. I'm identifying a misandrist, not being one.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 12:05 AM
0

No, that's you personally. No, you attacked everyone in this thread. Like I said, I could compile a list, but it wouldn't change a thing.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 08:33 PM
0

The hypocrisy of telling a group that you don't want to associate with them, after arguing with them, over multiple days, that they should associate with you, is hilarious.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 08:24 PM
0

who know their shit better than you Insult. your narrow worldview Insult. These are not the only ones. Your performance in this thread has been composed of nothing but insults and shaming and other tools of psychological abuse. I'd go through and make a list of them, but we both know that's not going to change anything. You're going to remain just as misandric as you've always been. So I'll spare myself the effort.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 08:11 PM
0

You can't change the etymologically and consensually established meaning of a word by psychologically abusing people who set you straight on your misconceptions about the word. I know feminism doesn't have a lot of tools at its disposal except psychological and sometimes physical abuse, but it's just not going to work for you here.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 05:54 PM
0

How so? He was entirely on topic.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 05:47 PM
2

I commend you for maintaining your civility and your position in the face of all the bad faith psychological abuse that has been directed at you by feminists throughout this entire thread. You rose above them.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:51 PM
-1

No, it's a definition that has its roots both in etymology and common consensus.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:47 PM
0

It's not misogyny. You just don't fulfill the criteria. Your vagina does not entitle you to access to every group you desire. Your vagina is not God mode. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:46 PM
1

What male privilege? It's the females that have privilege here.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:44 PM
0

You don't get to call yourself hazed unless you've been hazed. That's correct. The difference is that frat hazing is voluntary. You can opt out if you want. Geekdom is not voluntary. You get abused for it without having opted in to the abuse, and you can't ever opt out.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:43 PM
1

They'd be just as guilty of misappropriation with fradulent intent anywhere they did so.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:35 PM
0

Attention and money, primarily. Sometimes the latter as a result of the former (as in Anita Sarkeesian) and sometimes as straight up cash or valuables (as in Tara Babcock).
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:33 PM
-1

It's not the expression that's the problem, it's the sentiment behind it.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:31 PM
0

That's a great big zero as a relevant response. It's just a baseless insult.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:12 PM
0

She was certainly gaining both recognition and money (neither of which she deserves) from the white knights in the community. People outside the community don't care enough about games to give two shits as to what she has to say. And people inside the community know enough about games to realize that she is completely full of shit -- except the white knights who, through some serious self-hate/cognitive dissonance, feel compelled to support her anyway.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:08 PM
1

Exactly. The abuser is the asshole, not the victim.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:02 PM
3

Anita Sarkeesian is the poster girl for this. She's completely unqualified to be doing what she presumes to be doing, but does that stop her? Nooo. And the white knight lapdogs grovel at her feet for ally cookies. The whole thing is sickening.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:01 PM
1

Please go and enjoy whoever will have your company. I want nothing to do with the kind of person who resorts to psychological abuse when they don't get their way.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 04:21 AM
0

They were accepted by other geeks, not by society at large. Look, this is pointless. You asked, you got your response, and you're arguing against the response that you asked for in the first place. You're not going to succeed. This is what geekdom is. This is how geeks see geeks. If you disagree, well, enjoy your geekdom of one.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:15 AM
0

The original geeks were outcasts, pretty much without exception. So you're wrong. There are a couple of ways to pin down the meaning of a word. You can track its etymology, or you can ask its current users what they mean by it. We've done both in this thread, and by both criteria, you're wrong. I guess you just can't accept being wrong.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 01:06 AM
14

The way out of this is to publicly shame this form of misandry wherever and whenever you see it, so that practicing it becomes a bigger liability than not practicing it. Those who ideologically buy into this form of misandry are very few, and they're beyond hope anyway. Most people, deep down, have no ideological commitment; they're normal and sane. They've just been brainwashed by feminist-influenced, toxic media. They need to be set straight.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 10:45 PM
7

Institutional misandry.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 10:43 PM
12

I love engagement rings. They're a great invention as a compatibility test. Ask a woman whether she'd like an engagement ring or a down payment on a house. If she says engagement ring, kick her to the curb immediately. Bullet dodged.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 09:45 PM
-1

I believe my etymological argument settles the issue.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 08:14 PM
1

Social ostracism is the very definition of the geek. It's where the word originates from. Its original meaning refers to those odd people at circuses and fairs who do disgusting but fascinating tricks. One tends to be amused by them, but doesn't want to be anywhere near them. This is not a personal call. This is as objective as a definition gets.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 06:30 PM
-1

Show me where I called you a fake geek girl. Because I didn't. I'm simply saying that you're not a geek if you haven't suffered for being a geek. I don't know whether you suffered or not. You do. So you decide whether you're fake or not.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 12:43 PM
-3

I was defining geekdom. Suffering, primarily from social exclusion, but also from tools of physical and psychological abuse utilized to that end, is central to the development of a geek. If you haven't experienced that, you're not one.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 03:10 AM
0

A definition is neither a meme, nor a card.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 02:57 AM
-1

Unless you suffered somehow or other for your supposedly geeky interests (it doesn't have to be a locker-stuffing, it doesn't even have to be physical, but it does have to be suffering), then you're not a geek. It's as simple as that. One does not simply walk into being a geek.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 01:49 AM
2

Complaining about fake geek girls is not misogyny, because it's not complaining about all girls, just the fake geek ones.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 01:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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