TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thewornoakdesk Archive

View 3 posts and 122 comments by thewornoakdesk 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)
2

'Merica!
/r/MensRights01/03/17 05:13 AM
6

Yelling only undermines your point. And it's immature and annoying. Can you please cite the statistics you discuss? Thank you.
/r/MensRights28/02/17 06:06 PM
5

Not sure how this relates to unequal treatment between genders....
/r/MensRights21/02/17 06:13 PM
1

It's pretty simple. Are they assaulting you ornl threatening you? Then do what is sufficient to make them stop. If that includes hitting back, pushing, restraining, leaving the area etc. Gender has nothing to do with it. It just happens that on average women will be smaller so there's less needed to defend yourself.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:40 PM
1

Ok, well, you and friends aren't using the word correctly because that's not what it means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(drug-related_amnesia)
/r/MensRights19/02/17 05:13 PM
1

Its funny cuz youre using it the common (but incorrect) way, aka the urban dictionary way. If you care at all about this issue you need to become informed. When someone blacks out they cant form long term memories, so the next day they can't remember parts of the night. But they otherwise are completely conscious and acting no different than any other drunk person. Its a form of amnesia. Third parties have no idea when someone is black out drunk. Its dangerous because people wrongly think that b…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 03:42 PM
1

Thank you understanding what "black out" means. Most people think black out means passed out. It just means they arent forming memories of what they are doing while they are otherwise conscious.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 06:27 AM
1

People don't understand what it means to "black out" and misuse it all the time, including you. There's no way that black out sex should be considered rape.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 06:21 AM
2

Fair point.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 04:18 PM
1

Ok well I just think we should maintain the standard and who cares about quotas. But you're saying, as a matter of policy, the military changes their tests in order to ensure a quota of females?
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:42 AM
1

How is that personal? Extrapolating from general stats to make conclusions regarding the dtes, with all the attendant presumptions, is a farce. Don't take it personally. And you cant answer the simple question Ive asked a while back. You dont deny that there is unequal treatment; you just claim the inequality is insubstantial and doesnt justify the outrage. My question is, as a matter of principle, why do you support inequality?
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:32 AM
2

Why cant there just be the same physical tests for all genders. On the whole men are stronger than women but not every individual man is stronger than every individual woman.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:01 AM
1

You looked at the rate of imbalance and found it wasn't significant enough to make a fuss (nevermind that your analysis of the DTES situation was a farce). You're ok with inequality as long as it's within certain limits. This has been good. I feel like I understand your reaction to the article better now.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 10:54 AM
1

You didn't use the word ignorant. You did use its definition, refering specifically to me. Anyways, this conversation has run its course.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 10:05 AM
1

Ugh, so you went with that you don't believe in equality as a matter of principle...which explains why you can't understand others' reaction.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 09:52 AM
1

I do find it interesting though, that the comment upset you although youre fine about calling me ignorant in the AMR sub. Anyways, again, I apologize and youre right, we shouldnt stoop to making it personal. Ive deleted the line. I look forward to your thoughts on this.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 03:33 AM
1

I retract that comment and apologize for making it. I look forward to your response.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 03:32 AM
1

Yes 38 beds out of 500 dedicated to one gender is a significant imbalance. Lets say the overdose death toll represents how many people would use the beds if they could. With 38 for women only and the rest for both genders, that being 462 beds distributed among the genders in proportion to their demand, 40% of men would receive a bed and 72% of women would receive a bed. That is a "substantial" difference. If I'm a homeless addict in the DTES, I have a nearly 50% better chance of getting a bed si…
/r/MensRights17/02/17 01:49 AM
1

Did you even read the article? The annoucement is regarding a number of treatment resources for women only. There are no such men-only treatment centres, despite the overdose and homeless rate affecting men much more (on a 4:1 basis). The rate of overdosing has increased at a higher rate for men than it has women (in 2007, the rate was a 3:1 ratio; now it's a 4:1--maybe because women have better treatment options?). The issue being raised here is pretty obvious. Why do you think it's justified t…
/r/MensRights16/02/17 12:48 AM
1

Yes, the issue of women getting preferential treatment at the expense at men simply because they are women, which reveals a bias in society that exists against men. That's the issue.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 12:03 AM
1

I think it's irrelevent to the substantive discussion. And speaking of click-bait, or comment-bait, also known as trolling, that's how I would characterize your comment. Not intending to genuinely engage but rather intended to inflame. It took dozens of posts we finally got to the root of your perspectice. I bet you couldn't wait to see the reaction. I mean you said so yourself, and you're so proud of how many subs you get banned from. It's one thing to be provocative. It's another to be so and …
/r/MensRights15/02/17 11:04 PM
7

No. The programs are not currently focused on men. They are gender neutral at best. And the rate of ODs are going up for all genders. Well to be accurate, the rate is going up at great rate for men.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:12 PM
1

Thank you for explaining the definition of semantics. Your problem was not with the substance of the post but with how it was worded/how this discussion sometimes is framed. You got the responses you did because we assumed you were arguing in good faith on the merits of the post, rather than, in effect, derailing the thread and trolling for the sake of...something, I dunno. Thank you for your contribution.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:10 PM
1

Your entire tirade in this thread (how many times did you post?) is over semantics? Sheesh.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 08:19 PM
9

This is exactly right. As soon as you move out--good luck claiming rights to the kids. Youve just conceded that youre on the outside looking in.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 07:08 AM
1

Oh I see. So would you agree you're "losing your mind over words"?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 07:03 AM
1

You know, in another thread I defended your criticism of the MRM, because like any movement, it can be criticized. But having seen your post on the AMR sub I know see that you were never posting in good faith and were dishonest in that other thread. I can't post in the AMR sub because they don't permit criticism (as opposed to here, which is why you aren't banned), but I find your comments in the AMR thread suprising and, well, they are ignorant. The criticism here is justified. I work in the DT…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 06:57 AM
6

OBVIOUSLY theres things people can do that most of the time will prevent any BS from happening. Obviously. Thank you for pointing that out. What this discussion is about is the rest of the time.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 04:09 AM
0

Is that sarcasm? I'm not familiar with Spike.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 04:02 AM
0

Really? So authentic MRAs have to be Trump supporters now?
/r/MensRights12/02/17 05:53 PM
2

Im not sure why youre having so much trouble understanding why hes here and why he has his criticisms of this sub. A LOT of MRAs share that criticism. He, and others, are trying to save the MRM, or at least this sub, from devolving into a lame caricature of itself.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 05:46 PM
2

His post was descriptive not normative. He wasnt shrilling for that sub at all.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 08:28 AM
1

As a news item, as a piece of political activism, as an attempt to raise awareness....I dont care. On an individual level, I care about all violence and victims. If it were a woman victim, child victim etc. Id have the same reaction.
/r/MensRights11/02/17 07:05 AM
2

I would accept that if someone posted stats or studies but an individual story? Who cares.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 05:33 PM
-5

I dont really find that sexist. Theyre reporting what she said, not editorializing.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 06:04 PM
1

Which sub?
/r/MensRights09/02/17 09:44 AM
1

What sub?
/r/MensRights09/02/17 09:42 AM
-1

Why post this?
/r/MensRights09/02/17 09:35 AM
0

Yeah, so? Why is this compelling? What about the fact that smaller change is used makes this different than showing a picture of a one dollar coin/bill?
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:48 AM
1

Link?
/r/MensRights09/02/17 05:11 AM
1

Sorry, but can someone explain the meme?
/r/MensRights09/02/17 01:33 AM
9

Whoosh!
/r/MensRights06/02/17 03:48 PM
0

Go away
/r/MensRights05/02/17 04:50 AM
3

Thats a great response.
/r/MensRights05/02/17 03:50 AM
5

No one concerned that males are being added because they are a source of information toward figuring out the females problem? Adding men is a means to an end to helping women; the men are not an end in of themselves.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 04:49 AM
1

The general public isnt a good place to meet people, cat calling or otherwise. Go join some social groups, clubs, teams etc and get to know people in a comfortable setting.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 10:52 PM
7

Is this satire?
/r/MensRights03/02/17 07:29 PM
2

Just say what the question was.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 05:28 PM
13

WHO CARES
/r/MensRights01/02/17 05:41 AM
1

Haha ok. Then explain the facts.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:29 PM
0

That comparison makes no sense.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 03:51 PM
3

This is what keeps me up at night too
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:36 AM
1

Yeah this is true. Assault is basically scaring someone and battery is hitting them.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:31 AM
-2

Its not discrimination when it costs the insurance company more to insure men than women.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 05:59 AM
1

Any movement with vitality cant become an echochamber, which seems to be what you prefer. Nor will it achieve much change if the fanatics are the majority. Instead of telling him to fuck off when you could see that hes trying to help the MRM gain credit in society by calling out the underbelly of misogany that interferes with the actual, substantial, legitimate issues.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 01:03 AM
0

I cant think of a more accurate way to describe your comment. The march was extremely peaceful.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 10:20 PM
1

Much more than this this thread accomplished, thats for sure.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 10:19 PM
1

No, the point is has nothing to do with mens rights and is a lame attempt at trying to shit on feminists for behaivor that is not out of the norm. If a massive rally was held by men there would lots of little. Who cares.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 10:18 PM
-1

I agree with you.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 09:06 PM
1

Ok let me put it this way. I, for the sake of this discussion, accept everything you say about that this is littering, littering is bad etc. Ok? This was an egregious act of littering. Ok we agree on that. My point is...that is irrelevent to mens rights, irrelevent to any purported criticism of feminism, irrelevent to anything. Its petty and immature to point it out as if its some valid critique. Its tantamount to pointing out a typo in response to someones argument. And posts like this undermin…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 08:55 PM
0

This whole thread was created to discredit feminists on the basis that they litter, which is stupid and immature and embarrasing. Buddy gave an analogy to try to help you with your inability to use abstract thought and true to form, you found that too challenging and instead focused on the minutia of the analogy as if that was the point.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 07:35 PM
0

Youre a misogynist. We don't need you. You hurt the cause. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 07:14 PM
1

I routinely tell people that their posts make the MRM look stupid whenever its warranted. I dont blame the feminist-MR slash on MRAs. I dont object to posts that make feminists sound ridiculous. I do object to posts that try but fail to make feminists look ridiculous (like that there was a pile of signs left behind from the march) but only serve to make the MRM look ridiculous. They need to be called out because they undermine the MRM, especially among reasonable, neutral onlookers.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 06:51 PM
0

When you person swearing at others and foaming at the mouth tries to use the "lmao struck a nerve eh lolz" comeback you know they're floundering. Stop because the "debate" is asinine. To criticize a movement because they left a little mess is petty. Every large gathering of people results in some mess like this that is taken into consideration by the organizers and the city as part of natural result of the event. This really has nothing to do with mens rights. How does this advance mens rights? …
/r/MensRights22/01/17 06:44 PM
0

Just stop, please.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 06:35 PM
2

Whether the garbage is in peoples trashcans or in a pile in the city makes little difference to the garbageman. This isnt oppression against males.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 06:32 PM
2

People who care about MRs are trying to get the idiots to shut up. Those posts are dumb, petty, often reveal misogny, and make the MRM look stupid. Those calling them out arent trolling. On the other hand, this post seems to be trolling, and I seem to have fallen for it.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 06:30 PM
2

What is T_D?
/r/MensRights22/01/17 06:22 PM
6

Your policy preferences did a complete 180 based on a womens march?
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:16 PM
10

The hypocrisy of people bitching about what they admit they would also do if they had a march?
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:12 PM
2

The principle applies regardless the size.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:10 PM
1

Whether the garbage is collecting at home or at that location seems make no difference at all. The indignation over this is ridiculous. If the city asked them to put.the signs there to make cleaning up easier, whats the problem here, really?
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:09 PM
21

Thank you for posting some sanity. These asinine make matters worse.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 03:28 PM
24

It's posts like this why the MRM doesn't get taken seriously.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 03:27 PM
0

Fuck off
/r/MensRights22/01/17 03:26 PM
14

It is hard to believe that people would organize all the waste into one spot to make disposal easier?
/r/MensRights22/01/17 03:25 PM
24

That sub is really toxic. Theres a lot of hate there. Its unfortunate really. Like a lot of controversial topics in society, the moderates on both sides are able to see the merit in the other side's position amd together they establish common ground and make progress. This is hampered by social indifference or ignorance but most of all by the hatefulextremists in each side. That sub is an example of the backward minority regressives. They are the female equivalent of TRP. They epitomize misandry…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 03:20 PM
0

Can you elaborate?
/r/MensRights21/01/17 05:53 PM
2

Oh, youre still struggling to come up with a sensible defence so now youre resorted to insults. Your argument was terrible. You took a definition and just ignored the very parts that apply to conclude that the definition doesnt apply! What do you want? Us coddle you? To validate your opinion? There are, at least some, more viable defences of MGM but they arent what youre shopping around. Theyre going to refuted buddy. Sorry that that upsets.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:46 PM
3

Your reading comprehension needs work. "To injure....by removing or irreparably removing parts." You left out the last part. The point is the permanence of MGM, which is why its not like scraping your knee or whatever you had in mind with your comparison. Again, you just ignore the most relevant aspect of the definition. Skin is an essential part, especially foreskin (thanks for pointing out its not a limb though--helpful). Why? Cuz your position is indefensible? Cuz youre struggling coming up a…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 08:32 AM
3

Shocking
/r/MensRights21/01/17 03:48 AM
6

Yeah no kidding its a sensitive topic. Millions of babies get their penis mutilated every year, unnecessarily. You are surprised thats its a sensitive topic in the mensrights subreddit?
/r/MensRights21/01/17 03:48 AM
4

Heres a fact. Look up what "mutilation" means.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 03:45 AM
4

Chopping off your arm helps prevent armpit B.O.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 03:29 AM
1

The problem is "feminism" represents too many divergent perspectives to be very meaningful. And there are lots of feminists who are reasonaable and sensitive to mens issues. I just interpret her comment to be referencing those feminists.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:30 PM
1

I upvoted your comment. But I wont explain why because that would be a waste of time.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:25 PM
2

All civil courts have the same burden of proof. "What we suspect may be the case here." You and I werent in the court room so what we may suspect here could be a lot different than what is the case. In fact Im sure it us. Im amazed what gets reported about cases that Im involved in. Look, you dont like this case. Maybe you think how courts consider conset is off and needs to change. Thats fine. But your solution is to throwing the entire fucking baby out with the bathwater and upheld centuries o…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 06:15 AM
0

You should do some learning because you clearly have no idea what youre talking about. Criminal and civil courts arent mutually exclusive, amd besides being able to import evidence from criminal trials into civil cases, they have no bearing on each other. She could have sued regardless what happened in criminal court. The judge did not decide they did something criminal. Maybe the terminology is tripping you up. The judge decided he raped in the civil sense, as in on a balance of probabilities t…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:59 AM
2

So you suggest we just eliminate general damages as a category of recovery? That's fucked up.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:51 AM
0

How did the government choose the civil system here? It was private actors suing each others. The government wasn't involved. But carry on with your conspiracy theory.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 02:48 AM
2

You can view it however you like. Your view just doesnt reflect what is the case in the real world.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 02:34 AM
1

Yes, youve just provided the definition. They're "general" damages in contrast to "specific" quantifiable damages exactly because they arent quantifiable. Thats the whole point.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 01:59 AM
2

She is being made whole in respect to general damages for pain and suffering.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 01:30 AM
1

Yeah, and assaulting someone is a civil "right" violation. Why is this so hard to understand?
/r/MensRights18/01/17 01:30 AM
4

First off, no one presses criminal charges. The crown decides to press charges based on the liklihood of conviction and if its in the public interest. Second, the defendant (they arent the accused) isnt guilty of rape. Guilt and conviction is only in criminal courts. Third, theres a huge difference in civil and criminal courts. One gets you a record and punishment, including jail. The other is restoring financial damages through money awards. You guys are as dumb as the people who want convictio…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 01:27 AM
2

Youre right. No one is suggesting that. Not sure why you're mentioning it. Why the civil standard should be BOP is justice system 101. But just as a hypothetical, lets say you get into a car accident and are hurt badly. You sue other driver. Youd be unable to recover even though the judge is really sure the other guy is at fault. In fact he is almost certain. But he still has a kernal of doubt. Youd be shit out of luck. And thats a horrible justice system.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 01:23 AM
2

The problem is exactly the burden of proof. Do you get that its easier to prove a civil claim than a criminal one? To require a criminal conviction would be to import the criminal standard into civil claims. Properly speaking, they werent "sued over rape." They were sued for assault and she saught and got damages. And talking about "rights" is unhelpful because it confused the matter with human rights. Read up on O.J. on how the process works. A conviction of rape can be sufficient but not neces…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 12:43 AM
7

Yes it is too much to ask. The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt, which is much higher than the standard of proof in civil cases, which is a balance of probabilities. Your suggestion would elevate civil cases to the higher standard. It's as ridiculous as when people suggest the criminal standard be lowered to the civil standard.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 05:58 PM
22

I think people need to mention what country they are from when discussing the court system. Every country is different.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 11:25 PM
1

So....the answer isnt to normalize what the man is doing but to condemn what the woman is doing. FFS, no wonder so many people dont take MR seriously.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 10:28 PM
5

Wtf? You think having sex with a minor is fine as long as the minor "wants" it?
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:14 PM
1

Including that he impregnated her.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:13 PM
1

Haha! That was so cute!
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:38 PM
1

Links?
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:47 AM
2

Yes, thank you. The more reasonable people need to keep calling these dumb posts out because otherwise this sub risks going to shit.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:39 AM
1

Nope, you're right. TRPers are generally messed up. They are the equivalent to feminazis.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:31 AM
3

What does MGTOW stand for?
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:28 AM
1

Its downvoted because its ignorant to compare the plight of black people in earlier US history to the challenges men face today. Sorry, but for all the issues men face today, and there are obviously legitimate ones, it doesn't come close to what black people had to endure. "Man" in the poster, btw, refers to "human," not men.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:43 AM
2

Sorry, apparently I need to spell it out for the dense. The Civil Rights Movement (proper noun, referring to the specific movement of the 1960s) had nothing to do with mens' rights. Shit like this makes MRAs look stupid.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:37 AM
8

Jesus, this is about race. Don't co-op the civil rights movement by pretending it had anything to do with mens' rights.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:35 PM
1

Yeah I see what he meant now.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:11 PM
1

I think you meant to say "understatement." As it stands, you're saying it got more than zero attention.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 06:18 AM
1

Link?
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:32 AM
2

Meh...the other side lost. Doesnt mean they didnt have a chance of winning and that it wasnt worth a shot. You fight for your side.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 03:57 AM
2

Haha ok. I'm talking about the law in North America.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 05:48 AM
2

Of course, but youre not describing non verbal communication of consent to do anal. Are you for real? You really think having vaginal sex with someone verbally communicates consent to anal sex?
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:52 AM
3

I'm telling you, under law, that is not assault, whatever the merits of that is. I'm making a descriptive claim. Are you? You seem to be making a normative claim.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:49 AM
3

Its not assault. The discussion was about whether it was assault, not whether it is "very harmful." Its clearly very harmful. But its not assault.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 08:33 PM
3

Hmm, not buying it. You dont consent to plausible possibilities during sex. You possibly will consent to possibilities during sex...after getting the consent. Anal sex is a categorically different type of sexual act such that you should ensure the other partner is ok with it. Otherwise, you're just being reckless.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 08:29 PM
6

So then ask first. What's so hard to understand about that? If you weren't cool with anal sex, would you be fine with someone putting the tip in you? Just because it happens a lot to others?
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:50 PM
1

This has nothing to do with mens rights and should be deleted. Dont align mens rights with trump.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 12:20 AM
0

No, it's "nice," and Trump doesn't represent "masculinity." He's sexist, a liar, a bully, and willfully ignorant. It's not a good situation, and really, this has nothing to do with mens rights. Don't align mens rights with Trump. That just undermines the MRM.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 06:13 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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