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

Believe all women. The Woman Who Claimed Emmett Till Wolf-Whistled At Her Admits She Lied

benderXX

July 26, 2021
414 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://allthatsinteresting.com/carolyn-bryant
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 Believe all women. The Woman Who Claimed Emmett Till Wolf-Whistled At Her Admits She Lied
Author

benderXX

Upvotes 414
Comments 86
Date July 26, 2021 12:33 AM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ornph5/believe_all_women_the_woman_who_claimed_emmett/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/believe-all-women-the-woman-who-claimed-emmett.823605
https://theredarchive.com/post/823605
Top posts by benderXX

High school girls admitted to targeting and falsely accusing a boy of sexual assault because they 'just don't like him'. Boy was fired from his job, forced to serve time in a juvenile detention facility, is now home-schooled and suffers psychological trauma. School officials just didn’t care.

12687 upvotes
October 6, 2018
/r/MensRights

Wife faked her own kidnaping with her lover, accused her husband of wanting her dead—but when audiotape emerges proving her guilty she manages a no contest plea, gets shared custody, and $10k alimony. #ToxicFemininity

3530 upvotes
September 3, 2018
/r/MensRights

The University of Southern California has taken down an academic article documenting that men, on average, serve 63 percent longer prison sentence than women for the same crimes.

3443 upvotes
December 15, 2018
/r/MensRights

Wait, your worth as an employee is only as valuable as the income you help the business earn. That’s crazy.

2928 upvotes
August 8, 2020
/r/MensRights

Next Level Dad

2787 upvotes
June 25, 2020
/r/MensRights

Female psychiatrist loses license after having affair with patient, Several Canadain media outlets portrays her as the victim.

2740 upvotes
November 3, 2020
/r/MensRights

What happens when you rape an eleven year old child ? Well it depends what gender you are. 44 year old woman serves one year.

2735 upvotes
December 30, 2020
/r/MensRights

So Mensrights sub asking for equal rights for men in the courts and equal access to health and education resources is a hate sub. But TwoX that craps on men all day is not ??

2447 upvotes
August 5, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]shiftyfired1056 60 points61 points62 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And where did that poor Emmett Till get? Lynched, because some woman was obnoxious to say he wolf whistled her.

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn’t the lack of a Justice system and KKKK due some blame!

[–]redditme1 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Four strike outs?

[–]shiftyfired1056 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget though, 50's America was quite racist. Segregation was still a thing.

[–]BackAlleyKittens 64 points65 points66 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Believe all women when they say a crush is r*pe.

Believe all women when they say dying in a video game or r*pe.

Believe all women when the say it was r*pe when they retroactively retract consent after a break up.

Belive all Amber Hurds.

Yeah, y'all kinda played yourselves.

[–]unjustexistence 34 points35 points36 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I know dozens of girls and they all say it's rape if a guy has a crush on them and that consent can be removed years later.

[–]Ahielia 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't be around those, they're false accusations waiting to happen.

[–]Zipdox 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

PSA: you can sign a sexual consent form with your partner if you're paranoid.

Some consent forms also include a section to sign after the event to state that consent wasn't revoked during the encounter.

[–]sTixRecoil 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm doing that shit for sure, and in this society it's not paranoia which is crazy as hell

[–]Zipdox 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately the sexual consent form is kind of a pain to fill out tbh

[–]sTixRecoil 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's worth it if it doesnt ruin my life honestly

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

Get one with a section for after intercourse stating consent wasn't revoked.

[–]sTixRecoil 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Appreciate it, thank you

[–]throwawayincelacc 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you have to get that notarized?

[–]Zipdox 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, it's just a PDF you print out, fill in and sign. Then both parties keep a copy.

It's not an official document, but I'm pretty sure that it'll deter most people from making false allegations. And it can be used as evidence in case of an investigation.

I read somewhere that some universities are making their students sign these.

[–]throwawayincelacc 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I keep hearing about how they can just claim you forced them to sign it.

[–]Zipdox 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a pretty bold claim, that constitutes forgery.

[–]throwawayincelacc 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At the same time, have you not seen all the news articles of men being put behind bars for much, much less than that? the burden of proof would still fall to the man to prove he didn't threaten her when she signed. And it would still lead to the woman being able to say "well he still did things that I didn't agree to in the contract"

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What kind of fuckups social circle are you in? Lol

[–]BackAlleyKittens -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ikr. I've only read articles. No way would I actually socialize with this scum.

[+]Acceptable_Branch_81 -12 points-11 points-10 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But it doesn’t work that way. Throw a pity party but you are far more likely to be wrongly convicted of murder than rape. If your theory held true 90% of rapes would not go unreported.

What about kids? If a kid is being molested do you think the kid should be left with uncle pervert till proven guilty?

[–]HPUnicorn 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have stats to back up that assertion or is it just a guess.

[–]BackAlleyKittens 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A: get your head out of you ass and start paying attention.

And B: fuck your whataboutism.

[–]Ridewithme38 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is by saying '90% of rapes go unreported', you are perpetuating the problem. You are assuming that these are true accusations, without any evidence or proof. For all we know, none of these accusations are true, or only 10% or 15% are true. What we do know is, since they were never reported, there is no way to ever know.

[+]Acceptable_Branch_81 -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What the hell are you saying? How do you compare being attracted to someone is rape? By using absurd examples you undermine the validity of this topic

[–]BackAlleyKittens 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

My examples aren't made up. Women are the ones posted this shit and I'm merely responding. Don't get mad at my justifiable anger; take it up with The Sisterhood who came up with them.

How do you compare being attracted to someone is rape?

Ask the women posting about it.

By using absurd examples you undermine the validity of this topic

Oh, it's very, very real. It's women doing the undermining but I'm not surprised that in your ignorance you automatically blame men.

And it makes me sick how they've destroyed "belive all women." Fuck Amber Herd. And fuck Disney for continually punishing Depp. I upheld it as truth for years but can't any more solely due to women's behavior.

This guy is kind of a dick but here's some perspective on what men have to deal with

[–]Salt_Cranberry9967 35 points36 points37 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Never believe all women if you do your stupid and foolish

[–]Ispirationless 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should never aprioristically believe anyone, men or women. It’s just a dumb practice.

[–]Wunderlust1977 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never believe any system that says all, every, 100%

[–]AmuseDeath 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you're*

[–]Isheian1 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Require proof.

[+]Acceptable_Branch_81 -10 points-9 points-8 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How do you prove rape? How do you prove child molestation?

[–]Isheian1 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I believe there’s a legal system and forensic tests for that. Our nation is founded on a unique legal precedence: “Innocent till proven guilty” and it’s to be applied to everyone equally.

Keep in mind almost all of the televised “rape” stories were later quietly retracted when proven false. And yet the lives their lies ruined were left ruined and the accusers faded into anonymity, free of repercussions. The only just method is to require proof before anything can happen.

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

It's crazy how many people think that the legal philosophy is actually:

"Innocent until proven guilty...unless the crime is difficult to prove, in which case, just assume guilt without any evidence"

I'm sorry that rape is basically impossible to prove without a confession. I truly am. That absolutely sucks. To be the victim of a crime, and knowing in your heart that there's no chance it will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and therefore the fucking scumbag who did it will walk free. That sucks. I get it.

But our entire fucking legal system, and by extension, our society, is built upon the philosophy that it is better for 10 guilty people to go free than for a single innocent person to be imprisoned.

So it might suck to be a rape victim and watch the asshole who raped you go free. But that is a better alternative when compared with innocent people being imprisoned, because "well it's too hard to prove rape definitively, so we'll just assume guilt when it comes to this one crime in particular."

[–]HPUnicorn 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A forensic test does not prove rape, that is something that so many people forget, the test only proves that the DNA of someone is on the person , that's it, that's all it proves.

[–]Isheian1 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Better than blind baseless accusations. Again innocent till PROVEN guilty.

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

absolutely.

[–]DreamTheaterGuy 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If Cosby can go to prison, she should as well.

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cosby is free dude

[–]TheChocolateBarsGuy 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Conservatives were the original believe all women types.

Don't let them make you forget that !

[–]Rhum-runner 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Both political spectrums fall victim of the women are wonderful effect.

They just react differently.

[–]ShoutoutsToSimple 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. The way I've thought of it for a while is that neither side of the political spectrum is friendly to men's rights, but the conservative end at least isn't actively hostile.

It's easy to see liberal feminist after liberal feminist, and build a false dichotomy in your head, where liberal is against men's rights, and conservative is for men's rights. But it's not true. Conservatives aren't pushing for men's rights. But it's still true that they are less nakedly hostile toward men's rights, because they aren't huffing feminism all day every day.

[–]Angryasfk -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Hmm. But who’s really pushing this now?

[–]TheChocolateBarsGuy 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The progressives.

Just like the progressives used to push for freedom of speech in the 1960s while Conservatives were against it.

Each side changes their opinion based on what is beneficial for them at the time. If you can't see that then you are either ignorant or you are one of them. Simple as that !

[–]ShoutoutsToSimple 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. Some individuals are more principled than others. So any given person might actually be such a great person, that no matter the circumstances, they stand by their principles.

But when it comes to groups, it's all about what benefits them. When a group is in power, they are much less likely to be for free speech, because that only benefits their opposition. Whenever a political group is currently on the outs, that's when they will be the side pushing hard for free speech, because they need it to exist.

There's no "party of free speech". The left are for free speech when they feel kept down by the right-leaning establishment. And the right are for free speech when they feel kept down by the left-leaning establishment.

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Conservatives are still against freedom of speech which is why they want “the view” and “snl” cancelled. They’re still banning books. Don’t like it change the channel or don’t read the book.

[–]HPUnicorn 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that conservatives are no better than liberals, but lets not let liberals off the hook either.

[–]Rhum-runner 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both political spectrums call for book bans or cancellation.

[–]Prototype8494 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a difference between ppl saying they hate something and want it gone and a politicwl party being in with social media, hollywood and education which are all actively censoring things.

[–]Prototype8494 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes no sense. That just sounds like muh party switch crap.

[–]Wunderlust1977 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Dude. Never had such a policy existed. In many states it’s still legal to rape your wife. Clearly there are some young and/or uneducated men on here

[–]TheChocolateBarsGuy 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes it did you moron.

Who do you think lynched black men based on a white woman claiming that he raped her with fuck all evidence??????????

[–]HPUnicorn 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Which states is it legal to rape your wife???

[–]sTixRecoil 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There arent any

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchal systems are alive and well! Some laws consider spousal rape to be rape only if it involves physical force—a loophole that overlooks incidents in which the victim was drugged, unconscious, or otherwise unable to consent. Some states have exemptions for spouses in their statutory rape laws. State sanctioned rape. Who really is more likely to be victimized?

[–]HPUnicorn 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

links???

[–]sTixRecoil 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends if you can prove that with actual proof instead of bullshit feminist written articles full of hearsay

[–]Imperium_Britannia 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe a word that came out of women. They need to prove everything no matter how trivial.

[+]ModsAreThoughtCops -22 points-21 points-20 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I have mixed feelings about all this.

She is right when she says

nothing that boy could’ve done would’ve justified what happened to him

I agree with that 100%

But what I don’t get is: what exactly did she lie about?

If she lied during the court case, it likely meant nothing. The jury was all white; the defendants were both white. The victim was black.

Odds are, not a single word uttered in the courtroom changed the outcome. They were bound to be acquitted no matter what just because of race alone.

She is hazy on how her husband found out (husband was one of two people charged in the murder). She initially said she told him when he returned home from a trip. Then she said she never told him at all because he was likely to go beat him up.

Here’s the crux of the lie though: her account of what happened that day has changed. At first it was cat calling. That’s likely the story that the husband heard which resulted in the boy’s death. In court, she said that he was physically (somewhat aggressively) flirtatious with her.

But the thing is, the version that got highly publicized and still taught to this day is the milder version. He whistled at her/cat called her.

I want to reiterate, nothing that transpired inside that store should/could/would have justified beating a kid to death. Nothing. But she has never said (and nobody has ever said) that there was absolutely zero interaction between the two.

Her story about him being aggressive towards her wasn’t brought up until the trial, likely as a means to spare her husband prison time by making it seem more justified.

The story the husband heard, whether from her own mouth or a third party, was in all likelihood the milder version.

Her lie didn’t cause Till to be murdered.

And because of the race of the victim, the race of the suspects, the race of the jury, and the time and location of the whole event, I have very large doubts that anything she said would/could have changed the outcome of the trial.

My frustration comes from the fact that headlines like these undermine the facts of what actually occurred. They almost frame the situation as if she completely made up any interaction between Till and herself.

It makes it appear that she had some evil intent in her that she was gonna frame a young boy in order to get him killed for no reason. In reality, he probably did cat call her a little. She likely then went home and told her husband, probably not even in hysterics, but more like “the weirdest thing happened to me today” and then the husband and his brother went out and murdered the kid.

That chain of events is disgusting enough on its own. Using headlines like this to frame it as “white woman invents story to get black child murdered” is dishonest and only serves to lessen the impact of the true story itself.

The point is, her lie didn’t result in his death. Her lie may have helped with the acquittal, but I am extremely hesitant to believe that.

Her lie is essentially inconsequential to the events that occurred, and the people focusing on her lie are dishonestly distracting from the reality of what occurred. Till wouldn’t have survived if she didn’t lie. He is still just as dead regardless of what she said in court months later. And that’s what we should leave the focus on.

If you read all this rambling, I appreciate you. I’ve been thinking this ever since 2017 when the headlines started popping up and seeing the discourse around it. I’m from Mississippi and I don’t want to downplay the severity of what occurred. I’ve wanted to get my thoughts out but haven’t known the right Avenue to go about it. This post is here, I had some free time, so I tried to lay it out the best I can.

[–]Gynocentrism_Can_SMD 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My guess is that she's lying about lying to help make it a better story in hopes of something good coming from it.

the version that got highly publicized and still taught to this day is the milder version. He whistled at her/cat called her.

Media today are doing the same thing.

[–]ApprehensivePrice552 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If it wasn't the lie that she admitted to telling that caused the boys death, what was it?

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I suspect it the claim Till went behind the counter, grabbed her waist etc.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’d heard that he (Till) had a dare with the black kids in the town about talking “fresh” to a white woman. Remember there was Jim Crow etiquette - in the way black guys were supposed to interact with white folks, especially white women. Hence the “dare”. I also get the impression that the original aim was to give him a “thrashing” rather than kill him, but he not only declared he was as good as they were, but they found out he had a white girlfriend in Chicago. And those guys did not want any of the local n%ggers getting those sort of ideas, and wanted to send an message of what would happen to them if they did! Is this REALLY what happened? I don’t know, but it’s the tale I’ve been told.

So Till’s murder was more about racial politics/rules in 1955 Mississippi than believe all women. But the point still stands! The “believe all women” types are calling for what is nothing more than lynch law.

[+]TheGasChamber1488 -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Emmett Till was an invader who had no place in America. Both him and the bitch deserve eachother.

[–]sTixRecoil 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jesus christ. He was a legal citizen and even if he wasnt he didnt deserve to die

[+]Acceptable_Branch_81 -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Actually there isn’t. If a man rapes a woman with a condom on there is no proof unless the rape is extremely violent. And then there are bastards who could claim “she likes it rough”. Most evidence in all cases is circumstantial. Unless dealing with a minor or someone clearly unable to consent, handicapped etc, testimony, I.e. a persons word, IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE. By making blanket statements such as all women lie you undermine our entire judicial system. If we were to operate by that theory no one could be convicted of a crime. The reality is there will always be a small pool of innocent people swallowed by the judiciary. However, false rape is one if the least representative of that pool of innocents.

[–]HPUnicorn 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

And if the two people are saying the opposite thing the law should say , we will find the person not guilty. That's how the system is supposed to work.

The most feminist friendly stats put false rape reports between 2 - 10% of reports, this means that are several thousand a year, that is NOT a small pool by any stretch of the imagination.

[–]sTixRecoil 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We shouldn't convict only on words. Want a conviction? Prove your case. Otherwise eat a dick

[–]LondonDude123 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you know what else undermines our entire justice system? Convicting people of a crime based solely on one persons word, and no other evidence. Could you imagine if we did this for other crimes as well? "He killed that man" but theres no body and no murder weapon. Life in prison!

[–]ShoutoutsToSimple 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's crazy how many people seem to think the philosophy is actually:

"Innocent until proven guilty...unless the crime in question is really hard to prove definitively, in which case, guilty until proven innocent"

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If we were to operate by that theory no one could be convicted of a crime

That is the theory we operate by and you are a bigot.

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Congratulations you got the point! And how do you make any conclusion about my views of race? Stop playing the race card. It’s pathetic

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, you are stating that our judicial system operates solely on the use of direct evidence to convict defendants? Clearly you are not well versed in law my friend

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're a bigot. You're not my friend.

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just to educate you on the law most convictions in criminal cases are won primarily on circumstantial evidence not direct evidence. That is a fact!

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's also a completely irrelevant fact, bigot.

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I’d rather be a bigot than a worthless stain on society. Get over yourself

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get the feeling you're both, but you're a bigot based on your own words here today.

[–]ShoutoutsToSimple 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry for how harsh it sounds, but too bad. It's the lesser of two evils. Our entire legal system, and by extension, our society, are built on the philosophy that it's better for 10 guilty people to run free than for a single innocent person to be imprisoned. So if a crime is currently very difficult to prove, I'm sorry, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It sucks, and I agree completely, but it's better than the alternative.

Sometimes, we have to go with the lesser of two evils, despite it not being an optimal solution. Consider that men have no say when it comes to the life of their unborn child. If the father wants to raise his child, even if he has to do it alone, and the mother does not want to carry the child to term, then she can abort it against the father's wishes. This is absolutely terrible for the man. But guess what? It's the lesser of two evils. I would rather men be denied their children, as heart-breaking as that is, than let men compel women to carry a pregnancy to term against their will. Despite it working against my selfish interests as a man, I am willing to accept that this is the lesser of two evils, and therefore the best solution we have at the moment.

People should do the same when it comes to rape. No one is saying it's ideal to let guilty rapists go free, despite being huge pieces of shit. But we're saying that it's better than the alternative, where a person can put anyone they want in prison by accusing them of a crime which defaults to guilty out of convenience.

It's the lesser of two evils.

[–]HPUnicorn 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just as an aside, it isn't the lesser of two evils , there is one other 'evil' that is much better, give the man an OUT so that he isn't held responsible for a child he didn't want AND had no decision on making that child.

[+]Lucy_Heartfilia_OO -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

From what I understand it started as "believe women" and that the "all" was put in by it's opposition to make it an easier thing to attack. Like how a man made of straw is an easier opponent to fight.

[–]DavidByron2 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both phrases mean the same.

Both are hate speech.

[–]Acceptable_Branch_81 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Exactly! 80% of rape goes unreported due to a list of factors such as not being believed and revictimization. Taking a tiny handful of cases and using it as weaponry is low—lowbrow, low thinking, lowlife

[–]HPUnicorn 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How do you know 90% of cases go unreported, if they are UNREPORTED.

[–]sTixRecoil 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And how exactly do you know that of they are wait for it.... UNREPORTED

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many rapes are not "reported" because the actions are legal due to the sex of the perpetrator.

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