TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Saw this on my roommate's computer while he was browsing 9gag

World_Traveling

March 18, 2016
45 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://imgur.com/njA9SfB
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Saw this on my roommate's computer while he was browsing 9gag
Author

World_Traveling

Upvotes 45
Comments 58
Date March 18, 2016 7:37 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4axbwi/saw_this_on_my_roommates_computer_while_he_was/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/saw-this-on-my-roommates-computer-while-he-was.953773
https://theredarchive.com/post/953773
Top posts by World_Traveling

Just saw this lovely piece of trash on my Facebook

61 upvotes
June 12, 2016
/r/MensRights

Airport issues

9 upvotes
December 12, 2015
/r/MensRights

Found on r/Texas

0 upvotes
January 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]KrisK_lvin 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

That’s just the same as the bowl of M & Ms thing.

It’s irritating, fatuous nonsense.

[–]mrstickman 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Picture a bowl of M&M's. Now picture yourself eating the M&M's.

I like my hypotheticals better than SJWs'.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose some of them could be poisonous, that is far less likely than all of them being delicious.

[–]Grubnar 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn you to Hell!

Why did you have to go and write that ... now I am hungry for some M&M ... and all the shops are closed!

[–]aesopstortoise 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s irritating, fattening nonsense.

FTFY.

[–]KrisK_lvin 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Heh : - ))

[–]soalone34 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's literally the argument used to support Jim Crow laws. Holy shit.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It is?

[–]soalone34 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, the idea was not all blacks are criminals but some are, so assume they all are. Insane.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I see - I got confused at the reference as I thought Crow was about segregation. That makes sense now though.

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't get it, sorry.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You don’t get why it’s "irritating, fatuous nonsense” or you just don’t get it at all?

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The 2nd one, sorry.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you having a laugh? What’s not to get?

[–]Alkomb 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not that smart, sorry.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

OK, imagine there are 10 potatoes and … oh, damn wait that’s [not] going to work, is it?

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, sorry.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]SporkTornado 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

WordSwap time

By the "not all muslims" logic, russian roulette is a perfectly safe game to play. Sure one of the chambers has a bullet in it.

But not all chambers.

[–]RunawayGrain 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

WordSwap time

By the "false rape claims are rare" logic, russian roulette is a perfectly safe game to play. Sure one of the chambers has a bullet in it.

So maybe we should check all of the chambers before hand?

[–]SSapplejack 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

stefan molyneux did a fantastic podcast about this logic not too long ago, I'll find it for you when I'm not in mobile !

[–]thatlowdowndirty47 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

pm me it when you do.

[–]snakebyter 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

An actual strawman. One assumes playing Russian roulette is voluntary and the exact ratio of bullets to empty chambers is known. It's impossible to know the ratio of rapists to non rapists in exact terms.

[–]Anonymous--Rex 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not a strawman but a simple false analogy. The logic here also applies the gambler's fallacy where a repeated application of one probability is presumed to be an increasing probability. Remember, Russian Roulette's probability increases only by virtue of removing chambers as its played. The ratio of rapists to non-rapists can only approach 100%.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also russian roulette is literally random with known chances.

Neither bullets nor guns have agency.

[–]GreatRedYeti 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like it perfectly fits feminists. "Not all women are like that!", but enough are...

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or even "not all feminists."

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Yes, all feminists"?

[–]Underballbuttered 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That analogy can apply to any risk ever! Some kids kill their parents, KILL THEM! Some wives poison their husbandS, KILL HER! Some husbands throw battery acid on their wives, KILL HIM! Some people will rob, rape, kill, torture etc you, KILL EVERYONE AAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

Aka fear mongering.

[–]soalone34 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget Jim Crow. Not all blacks steal, but some do, so assume they all do.

[–]coppercock 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

There are only two kinds of chambers in Russian roulette. One kind kills you, the other chambers are completely inconsequential... neutral... irrelevant.

So what they're saying, basically, is that AT BEST men are completely irrelevant.

Not misandrist at all, nope!

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, sirree.

[–]under_score16 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was my reaction as well. It's a horrible, cruel thing to say about someone. That they are at best, worth nothing.

[–]PotatoDonki 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are really only judged by their impact women's lives. They are rarely seen as human in their own right. There's a /u/girlwriteswhat video that touches on this, but I can't remember which.

[–]FaustyArchaeus 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whats wrong with your room mate? He is on 9gag..

best I got it is late

[–]Leinadro 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Swap men out for feminists or women then tell is why its wrong.

[–]socialinjusticewar 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, since somebody died in a car accident once, better ban all cars. Otherwise, you know, Russian roulette logic.

[–]soalone34 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By the "not all blacks" logic

[–]PromethiumElemental 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right. One has a bullet. 1 out of 167 chambers.

[–]ghebert001 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Idiot doesn't realize the same thing could be said about women.

[–]WhiteThrone 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not All Feminists.

[–]inuzupunupi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought this was /r/TumblrInAction for a minute. Jesus, I hate these stupid fucking analogies.

[–]Datastream -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Tbh I agree with the sentiment but applicable to so many other things.

[–]Muesli_nom 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The sentiment being what?

There are so many presuppositions in that false equivalency that it's hard to keep track of the sentiments that go with them.

[–]Datastream 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Apply the same sentiment to marriage. Half of marriages fail and most divorces are initiated by women. If you apply the same sentiment it would mean you shouldn't marry because the chances of failure (and thus financial and mental ruin) are too high.

[–]Muesli_nom 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

the same sentiment

But which sentiment in particular? The assumption that it's possible to avoid risk altogether? The denial of people pre-selecting for risk factors? The denial of risk factors being discernible? The (non-)comparability of outcomes?

There are a lot of things going on in that comparison, that's why I asked which sentiment in particular you find applicable.

[–]Datastream 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The assumption that it's possible to avoid risk altogether?

This one. It's possible to avoid the risk altogether by not partaking in something risky.

Also applicable to immigration btw.

[–]Muesli_nom 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So I should not cross the street because I could die?

Meaning: There is no risk-free. When does "risky" begin? 5%? 10%? Does that risk increase with each iteration (as is the case in Russian Roulette, but not in marriage)?

Are there maybe additional methods I could utilize to lessen my risk? In Russian roulette, no. In marriage, yes: I can pre-select my partner for certain risk factors. Does not eliminate the risk, but makes it less likely. I can take other precautions (like ABR, or contracts) against getting shafted by divorce.

But even not marrying doesn't make you risk-free. My brother never married, he's still paying for a child that may not be his and an ex-girlfriend that threw him out of their house. Could he have avoided that by not getting involved with a girl? Maybe. It would have lessened his risk. But even if you avoid women altogether, it's no guarantee for risk-free. There's cases of single men imprisoned on the mere say-so of a woman they didn't even know.

[–]Datastream 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No but you can avoid things that carry a risk and are your decision. That's the sentiment. Getting randomly shafted by life is not part of this. It's not like suddenly you are in a game of forced russian roullete because you go outside. The analogy is that you put that gun on your head and accept the risk. It's not about precise risk assessment. Because in a lot of instances you won't know the risk so you can't adjust your actions to it unless you want to become paranoid.

In marriage, yes: I can pre-select my partner for certain risk factors.

This I find debatable. Sure it might work but in the end they're all women/human. And when a human is given the utmost power in something they will at some point abuse that power. Unless they're some holy saint but nobody is. But that's a different discussion.

Just don't marry a divorced woman, if she initiated the divorce, there's like 80% chance that they will initiate the next divorce. It's all profitable.

[–]--Visionary-- 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The issue isn't the "known risk". It's the hypocrisy that we're ALLOWED to generalize negatively about men, but not about women, black people, muslims, or any other group.

Perhaps white people and christians are starting to line up with men in that regard in the US).

[–]Datastream 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's the hypocrisy that we're ALLOWED to generalize negatively about men, but not about women, black people, muslims, or any other group.

Ah, but I'm saying that we should. :)

[–]--Visionary-- 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Either way, it should be consistent, and then one can debate the merits of the policy.

[–]Muesli_nom 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not about precise risk assessment.

Marriage isn't. But Russian Roulette is. The risk is 1/number of chambers. It's very binary this way. Just as the reward system is binary (none/death), and marriage's is not. This is why the equivalency is so pernicious: It takes things that appear similar on a surface level, but are not when you examine them, in order to inject the qualities of one into the other - as if the "risk factor" of a man was the same thing as putting a gun to your temple. As if the outcomes were as binary as nothing/lose. And so on.

And when a human is given the utmost power in something they will at some point abuse that power.

I'd offer a counter point, but as you say, it's a different discussion (and one where your basic view of your fellow humans invariably colors your whole perspective. Which is why it's pretty futile to discuss without solid figures one way or the other).

I do agree with one sentiment anyhow: You can never be completely risk-free. All you can do is take steps to ensure to minimize risks (some of which you have outlined) while maximizing your gains. Since Russian Roulette offers no gains in itself, there's another point why it's a false equivalency. Because, twisted and shitty as feminism has made relationships between men and women, there's still something to be gained for the individual - if at an exorbitantly increased risk.

[–]socialinjusticewar 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Applicable to absolutely every single thing, actually. Thinking of sitting in your house? Well, one time a guy was doing that and an airplane crashed on his head and killed him. Better not sit around in your house!

[–]Datastream -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Those are not actions you control. Russian roullette is. You put that gun to your head.

[–]socialinjusticewar 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're in the wrong place to be this stupid. Try tumblr, it's more your speed.

[–]Datastream 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice, you got nothing so just throw some ad hominems and hope for the best, amirite?

[–]soalone34 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like Jim Crow? Not all blacks steal but some do, so just assume they all do right?

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