TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Anytime a feminist says " Women are more at risk of violence than men" Show them this

Clauderoughly

August 14, 2012
160 upvotes
/r/MensRights
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Anytime a feminist says " Women are more at risk of violence than men" Show them this
Author

Clauderoughly

Upvotes 160
Comments 65
Date August 14, 2012 1:06 AM UTC
(13 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/y6d63/anytime_a_feminist_says_women_are_more_at_risk_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/anytime-a-feminist-says-women-are-more-at-risk-of.1015914
https://theredarchive.com/post/1015914
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by Clauderoughly

17 yr old girl found in a pool of blood at comic con, first thing they do is arrest her male friend. Turns out she just fell from 6ft, male friend still up on charges though.

800 upvotes
August 1, 2014
/r/MensRights

Checked out the spot where JohnTheOther posted his posters... this is what has replaced them...WTF!

380 upvotes
September 17, 2012
/r/MensRights

Redditor has a dead bedroom, wife goes away for a work trip, gets back and starts fucking him again. Guy gets suspicious, and is totally justified.

362 upvotes
July 31, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Marvel comics offering STEM scholarships to encourage young people. Oh but fuck boys who read marvel comics.. it's girls only.

346 upvotes
October 10, 2013
/r/MensRights

Woman drives drunk, crashes into a house, crushes and kills toddler. 3x over the legal BAC limit. Gets 1 year 10 months. Max was 20 years.

341 upvotes
January 5, 2014
/r/PussyPass

Beta husband falls for the "polyamory trap" lets other men fuck his wife. Guess what happens?

292 upvotes
March 24, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Being Alpha gets you the top jobs - Apply TRP in all things

199 upvotes
August 27, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Feminists already scared of the mere concept of "sex robots"

153 upvotes
January 12, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]thrway_1000 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You should have provided a link to the source, since you didn't, I will: (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/data_stats/index.html).

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, thanks! I was just about to ask for the source

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the youth violence table is more important as well; suicide is something which will be blamed on the victim, violent deaths on stupidity, and feminists will try to draw false equivalency between homicide and rape.

The table for youth crimes only goes up to 24, but that's more than enough; the BJS shows us that the majority of domestic violence happens within this time frame, and the NCJRS shows us that most sexual assault/rape does as well. If within the given time frame most of the violence towards women occurs, yet men still suffer more violence, it stands to reason that the gap only widens after 24.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Since I was curious, I looked up the details for the United Kingdom and was led(sp?) to this page: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Excerpt from the PDF here (chapter 1.4, "VICTIMS"):

The risk of being a victim of homicide remains low, with 11.5 such offences recorded per million population during 2010/11. If the 172 homicides committed by Harold Shipman in 2002/03 are excluded from analysis, homicide rates peaked in 2001/02, at 15.2 offences per million population The homicide rate has consistently been higher for males than for females. In 2010/11 the homicide rate for males (16 per million population) was more than twice that for females (7 per million population).

[–]rottingchrist 31 points32 points33 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, that canard is total horseshit.

I don't live in a very safe city. There are gang wars, terrorism, murders and muggings for petty amounts of money. Even getting on public transportation can be hazardous to your life.

And I am constantly (I mean, almost every waking moment I am outside) trying to be conscious of what is going on around me and what people are doing lest I land in a situation where I'm taken by surprise and in danger of harm. I regularly travel at midnight and am approached by all manner of strange people. Groups of drunk people who're out of their minds and likely to start a fight, transvestites who can be extremely insistent that you pay them to go away and stop bothering you, people who are intentionally hideously deformed and made to beg by begging rings, etc.

I've been leered at in toilets quite a few times, sometimes when I was a teen. Been within 500 metres of terrorist attacks and rioting more than once, gone to work when political goons are out setting fire to stuff and threatening people.

I've had to develop an extremely cold stare and body language that threatens readiness for confrontation, even when I am 5'8" and 154 pounds, not really big at all. In my teens I was around 120 lbs., comparable to your average white girl. Even then I had to be similarly alert and looking out for myself.

And every single man I know has had to do something similar.

A woman in danger may even be helped by other people. A man almost never will be. And few people have sympathy for some weakling of a man who couldn't defend himself from an attack.

So don't give me that crap about "women being so scared to be out at night". Women know almost nothing about how dangerous the world is for men, who are always expected to look out for themselves and every poor, defenceless woman with them.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't even understand this graph.

[–]bikemaul 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, why is the y-axis in billions of dollars not number of lives?

[–]Planner_Hammish 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I came here to say the same thing

[–]occupythekitchen 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

according to the graph each one thousand lifes is = to one million dollars.

[–]bikemaul 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One thousand each? Why not $5k?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The title is:

Total Combined Medical and Work Loss Costs of Violent Deaths

[–]kanuk876 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What they say: "Women are more at risk..."

What they mean: "After ignoring/excluding people who don't matter (ie: men), women are more at risk..."

Judge people by their actions, not their words.

[–]underskewer 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They mean women feel more at risk than men do. girlwriteswhat mentioned a study demonstrating this in an interview with her.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, women are smaller. They're less likely to be attacked, but more likely to be overpowered when they do get attacked.

It's like pedestrians and drivers. Drivers are more likely to hit other drivers, but pedestrians still feel nervous due to drivers because pedestrians are more likely to die if they hit a car. Even though a pedestrian collision is rarer. That was a bad analogy, but there you go.

[–]underskewer 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I can't back this up, but I think that most violent assault on the streets would be by groups of thugs.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What I said still applies.

[–]underskewer 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a man is attacked by a group of thugs, he's equally likely as a woman to be overpowered.

[–]ssj4kevin 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Gonna be honest with you. As much as I appreciate the gesture, this bar graph is not very useful to me. Anyone can make a bar graph say anything. This graph would be far more useful if it was part of some research which described by what means they gathered and analyzed this information. Not that I think it's wrong, it's just not useful.

[–]DavidTheWin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This guy posted the source

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NUMBERS2357 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't see why it matters. This isn't, or shouldn't be, some sort of contest between the genders to see who's better. If I say "there are more resources to help female crime victims than male ones even though there are more male crime victims" I'm not trying to somehow say men > women, so saying that men are more likey to be the perp doesn't have anything to do with anything.

[–]thrway_1000 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And how does what gender the perpetrator is change the fact that the victims are male. Victims are victims no matter who did the deed. Isn't this commonly called derailing.

[–]rottingchrist 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

but I think the usual argument is that men are more likely to hurt women than women are to hurt men. And that's true.

Men are far more likely to hurt other men than women. So no, it's not true. The amount of violence directed at women by men is well reciprocated. The remainder of the violence by men is overwhelmingly targetted at other men.

Also, it is a fact that women often get off by being charged under lesser charges than "murder".

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]rottingchrist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Where are those extra murder victims coming from? Transvestites?

....

Also, it is a fact that women often get off by being charged under lesser charges than "murder".

Also, violence doesn't necessarily always end in murder.

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Anybody who claims that women get hurt more than men do is obviously wrong, but I think the usual argument is that men are more likely to hurt women than women are to hurt men. And that's true.

And black people are more likely to hurt white people then white people are to hurt black people.

What's your point?

[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

The point is that men are more likely to hurt women than women are to hurt men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why does that matter from a victim's viewpoint...?

There'd probably be more women hurting men if most women had the ability to hurt most men. Women generally are less physically able to cause harm to men.

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Don't you mean that men are more likely to be arrested and/or charged than women?

[–]yourfaceyourass -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Women arent charged for murders? Cmon dimissing that most violent crome is commited by males is fucking stupid.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

Women arent charged for murders?

Getting away with murder is a female privilege.

That's due to the female sentencing discount, and the twelve female-only defenses.

Chapter 12. Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: The Twelve "Female-Only" Defenses P.254 Each violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection to both sexes under the law. P.254

1. The "Innocent Woman Defense"/"Innocent Woman Principle P. 255

2. The “PMS Defense”: paves the way for the "TP Defense"--the "Testosterone Poisoning Defense” P.261

3.The "Husband Defense": quintessential "learned helplessness”. P.261

4. The “Battered Woman Syndrome" Defense: Pre-meditated murder is now self-defense--but only if a woman is accused; and only if a man is murdered. P.262

5. The "Depressed Mother" Defense: Baby Blues and Terrible Twos P.271

6. "The Mothers Don't Kill" Defense P.271

7. The "Children Need Their Mother" Defense: More a rationalization to free women than a prioritization to love children. P.272

8. The “Blame the Father, Understand the Mother” Defense P.273

9. The “My Child My Right to Abuse It” Defense: A million crack-addicted children have been born since 1987; only 60 of the mothers have faced criminal charges. P.274

10. The "Plea Bargain" Defense: Women are seen as more innocent, their testimony more valued, leading prosecutors to offer them the plea bargain in crimes committed jointly by a woman and a man. P.275

11. The “Svengali Defense”: Men have always exercised malevolent influence over women, and women seem to be soft touches for it. P.276

12. The “Contract Killing Defense”

We now consider it liberal to favor a woman exercising the death penalty and to oppose the government exercising the death penalty. P.280

Contract killings never get recorded as a woman killing a man. P.281

We can decrease abuse and murder when we get that for both sexes, abuse does not derive from power, but powerlessness. P.282

Speaking of stupid things:

Cmon dimissing that most violent crome is commited by males is fucking stupid.

When we talk about race, it's politically correct to complain about disproportionate amounts of black people in jail, but politically incorrect to mention disproportionate crime committed by specific individuals in the black community. In short, it's not OK to blame crime on blackness. Yet, when we talk about gender, it's supposed to be OK to blame violence on maleness. "Blaming the victim" is OK if a man does violence to a man.

[–]Patrick5555 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really hate reading that stuff, thank you though

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

In the 1970s women were murdering men at approximately the same rate as the reverse in the US.

What happened?

We already know that blacks are more violent than whites.

Your point?

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Because you are engaging in bigotry and the bigotry becomes very obvious to you when I point it out in a way that you can relate too.

Being a bigot means you can't really see your bigotry. Just one of the services we offer in /mr!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The serious problem here is men being murdered. Of course, to a bigot, men's experience of violence isn't important because "men are violent." Thanks for letting us know why /mr is here to call out bigoted opinions like yours.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good comment, but I'd like to see some more neutral sources if possible.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the process of court cases being dropped or plea bargained down to lesser charges.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

We are discussing rates, not aggregate numbers. This bears out the fact that getting away with murder (or any crime) is a female privilege.

That's due to the female sentencing discount, which is shown in the previous link you read on Glenn Sacks site, to a study by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System. (Do not pretend that you haven't been given good sources.)

In a similar way, aggregate numbers can show more white people being ticketed while driving. However, the rate at which it happens to black people is grounds for the term "driving while black."

In this discussion, the relevant point we are discussing is "victimized while male". Your bigoted complaint is about male violence. Your argument has been destroyed by comments pointing out that men are the ones charged the most, while women benefit from a sentencing discount for "killing while female".

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Why do we discuss rates of people being profiled for "driving while black", when white people get more tickets by aggregate? How can we say black people are underprivileged with excessive incarceration rates, when the jail population is only 39% black? Why would we measure probability of outcome for individuals, instead of an aggregate number for a group? This is really easy to understand if you aren't a fucking moron.

You are trying to lump unlike things together. You can not lump violent people into a group by "maleness", while ignoring that victims of violence are also defined by "maleness."

Why do people discuss certain disparities about race, but not certain gendered ones you're trying to avoid, you little shit?

It's plain bigotry that makes you derail this discussion, to whine about "maleness" causing violence (that's as bigoted as saying "blackness".) Violent crime, in general, is also well addressed with crime rates going down for decades. (Or rather, it's being shifted into sky-high incarceration rates that include vast amounts of non-violent offenders. Look up the gender disparity between marijuana use and unequal convictions, for evidence of how misandry pervades the justice system independently from violent crime.)

The real problem here, is that men experience violent crime at 2-4 times higher rates than females. Men are also punished at higher rates than females. (They make up the vast majority of prisoners in america's hyperincarcerating society, that has a higher rate of imprisonment than totalitarian China, or any other country- one of the many contradictions to "patriarchy" bullshit.) When women commit crime, they are more likely to be let off free. That is female privilege, exhibited in countless specific cases that use the "twelve female-only defenses" posted above, that you pretended not to know about.

These are known facts about gender, that violate supposed principle of equal treatment. And all you do here is make shitty mush-mouth whining about how the poor poor ladies need more white knight protection.

Why are you spewing bigotry on this site, instead of educating yourself about things you clearly have no grasp on apart from indoctrination? Go read a book before commenting again, and stop wasting our time.

[–]Watermelon_Salesman 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Whenever I mention that most victims of violence are men, most women I talk to say something in the lines of "yeah, but all these homicides are perpetrated by men, so..." -- What are your thoughts about this?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A victim of homicide doesn't care about the gender of the person who killed them. All they care about is the fact that they are dead.

It's not like men are all in one group together. It seems to me like feminists group all men together under the guise of patriarchy so that if a the violence is man-on-man it's just men killing each other within their own "group" or "power structure." In reality these men were probably not friends and could even be strangers.

[–]ssj4kevin 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then you can point out to them that being a woman apparently doesn't make them a victim of violence. If it's true that men perpetuate more violence (it's not, by the way) and that the majority of those victims are men, then that just says that men are the primary victims of violence, it certainly doesn't suggest that women are the primary victims when they're less likely to be subjected to violence.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That men are primarily killing other men, not women. Women are less at risk.

[–]cthulufunk 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...men who were mostly raised by single mothers, so...

Another parry to such a stupid rationalization is: most perpetrators of crime in black communities are black, so....

[–]VerySpecialSnowflake 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I am curious as to what percentage of men murder women, men murder men, women murder women, and women murder men.

[–]MartialWay 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

IIRC, it's about 3 to 2 women to men in domestics (you would think it was 10 to 1 by the media). One fact I find fascinating is that the numbers were almost exactly one to one before the current wave of domestic violence laws. The the number of murdered women remained the same, but around six hundred male homicide victims instead suddenly became prisoners of the state. You can draw your conclusions.

[–]bikemaul 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you are a homicide victim how can you become a prisoner?

[–]wavegeek 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You would have been a homicide victim. These days though it's easier for the woman to ring the cops and claim you abused her, and get you thrown into prison.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/injustice-in-delaware/

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]VerySpecialSnowflake 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am talking violent deaths, not specifically domestic violence.

[–]Canadian4Paul 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This graph shows the number of dollars spent towards prevention. While there is an implication that the prevention dollars are being spent proportionate to actual violence, this opens you up to the rebuttal that money is being spent on male prevention despite higher violence towards women, a la patriarchy.

A graph denoting actual cases of violence would be better.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The graph is actually medical and work lost cost, not funds spent on prevention.

[–]Canadian4Paul 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My mistake, but most of my point still stands.

[–]HowardB 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

thanks for this post

I have been discussing this issue online with an Australian Emily's List Senator Anne Urquhart in advance of her government introducing an Australian VAWA to be known as "The National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children [but not men]"

The propaganda being promoted is an Australian Human Rights factoid that "Domestic violence is the single biggest cause of homelessness in Australia". This supposedly justifies a $100M to protect "victim" women.

But Senator 90% of the homeless are men. 40% of DV victims are men. We get $300K for Men's sheds. What's going on?

Anne Urquhart "Data from the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey shows that while men are more likely to experience violence this is more often at the hands of a stranger or acquaintance than by their partner at home. Sadly for women they are more likely to experience violence from a partner or former partner. The data on homicide tells a similar story, 51 per cent of women victims of homicide died at the hands of their intimate partner compared with 13 percent of male victims of homicide."

I know she is playing the stats but didn't have the facts ready

[–]Hypersapien 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is the y-axis showing dollars instead of the number of people?

[–]anaovt 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

  1. The prevention dollars rather than number of deaths here is very confusing and probably throws the numbers off a but

  2. Why isn't non-fatal violent crime included? By which I mean assault and rape. I think including those would even things out a bit more.

[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you tell us what country and time this is?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are the current statistics from the CDC, so America. This guy posted the source, and I expanded on it with corroborating information.

[–]tdltuck 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't show anyone this graph except to expose that it doesn't make sense according to your title.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I usually tell them "well durr, everyone's at risk of violence, I'm actually thinking of murdering you in cold blood right now".

[–]ZimbaZumba -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Excellent post, makes the point very clearly.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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