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

I’ll wait

imahawki

July 26, 2018
5512 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
https://i.redd.it/uq2ihtka3cc11.jpg
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 I’ll wait
Author

imahawki

Upvotes 5512
Comments 194
Date July 26, 2018 6:16 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/924q0d/ill_wait/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/ill-wait.897234
https://theredarchive.com/post/897234

Comments

[–]wrekd 731 points732 points733 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men are the kings of violence.

Women are the queens of violence by proxy.

[–]Zethin 76 points77 points78 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

DAMN

[–]Equilibriator 58 points59 points60 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Quit mansplaining.

[–]erikwidi 115 points116 points117 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Didn't have to wait long, did ya?

[–]Enderdidnothingwrong 54 points55 points56 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

It’s such a garbage attitude even if they didn’t get a reply. You’ll never succeed in an argument that way. Get the person you’re talking to to self realize their mistake and you might actually change someone’s mind every once and a while

[–]DiamondxCrafting 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

person you’re talking to to self realize their mistake and you might actually change someone’s mind every once and a while

man, that's like once in a hundred times.

[–]Enderdidnothingwrong 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but how many times has the alternative worked?

[–]ChurchOfAbortionism 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

How would we know either way? I've heard anecdotes of people changing their mind after getting it either way, but we don't exactly have any reliable stats on the subject.

Fuck it, let people do it their way. You'll have nice people and dicks talking to you about your beliefs, no matter what. If you're not the kind of person that is receptive to dicks, you'll probably just ignore them or argue over something irrelevant, like grammar. If you're not the kind of person that is receptive to civility, you'll just troll them the minute you don't have a good response. In my experience, different people are receptive to different kinds of communication.

The world don't move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you might not be right for some.

[–]Enderdidnothingwrong 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I want to start this off by saying you’re 100% right.

There is, however, a process that works for when someone isn’t receptive to your feedback. A few actually. Open ended questions always win

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

the point of a debate is to convince the audience though, not your opponent

[–]Enderdidnothingwrong 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You’re not wrong, but why should it be a debate all the time instead of a conversation?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

People immediately get defensive when their beliefs are subject to criticism, forcing a conversation into a debate. Everyone is guilty of this, especially on the internet. Attempting to have a "conversation" is almost entirely pointless and naive under typical circumstances.

[–]Enderdidnothingwrong 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That seems silly

[–]Rabb1tH3ad 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm so sick of current trends in internet language, on a side note. "I'll wait" and anything about dropping a mic specifically are both so pompous and arrogant that it's really a gross attitude to witness.

[–]mitzibishi1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

"......Oh wait!"

Wants a word with you

[–]Rabb1tH3ad 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That one doesn't bother me so much, but I still feel you.

But I see your "Oh wait" and raise you a "I'm not crying, you're crying."

[–]mitzibishi1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Who hurt you?

[–]Rabb1tH3ad 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bruh.

[–]xenemorph1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (38 children) | Copy Link

It would be interesting to see violence/war/bad decisions appropriately represented in a percentage rather than quantity. Like, did 30% of women leaders lose a war versus 45% of men?

[–]leveldrummer 353 points354 points355 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Your really starting to go down a dark path... You start expanding on those stats and pretty soon feminists will be bitching that women leaders only win 75% of the wars that male leaders win. This is obviously sexist and is a conspiracy of the whole world.

[–][deleted] 117 points118 points119 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Conflict resolution: Affirmative action style!

I'm sorry Billy, Sarah lost the last war and in order to keep things equitable you're going to need to sacrifice 30% of your citizens and forfeit the conflict to her. It's the only way we can make this fair!

[–]Talbooth 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But they all have to be male citizens.

[–]114dniwxom 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know it's sexist but this relates to the same biological imperative that causes most soldiers to be male. If you are going to lose 30% of your population and you can choose to have all of it be male, you're better off. The remaining 40% of men can breed with the women at virtually the same rate as 100% of the men. The tribe will recover much more quickly under these circumstances.

[–]Talbooth 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sad but true.

[–]leveldrummer 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Otherwise... you're clearly a sexist.

[–]laxt 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for beating me to pointing this out.

A successful military tactician doesn't require any gender, race or background.

[+][deleted] -23 points-22 points-21 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is the dumbest fucking subreddit I've ever seen in my entire life.

[–]laxt 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Care to elaborate?

[–]PlasticSammich 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

nice try but you cant bait me into downvoting you

[–]canfamsham124567 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you tell us why?

[–]BiggusDickus- 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Historian here. It is has already been done. For every 100 wars a man wins, a woman will win 77.

[–]red_philosopher 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should really have 1k upvotes.

[–]TiredSludge 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Interesting stuff. Not doubting you, but I’d like to read more about that; so do you have a source? I only got stuff about wage gaps and shit like that when I tried to google it.

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

Mega whooooosh

[–]TiredSludge 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, it’s just a reference to the wage gap. Woosh indeed, then.

[–]Daemoniss 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Happens to the best ;)

[–]jijiloga1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Then you'll have to explain why women don't even have such ability (in case if the number is far less than 50%).

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

because women are generally too emotional to be objective under stress, which is crucial for any military leader.

no not all women

[–]StarkweatherRoadTrip"I cut my teddy bear a butthole and fucked it from 12-15" 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I do know that female leaders start wars at disproportionate rates.

[–]Cannabanoid420 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their are studies that show that female rulers (English) were actually more likely to wage war.

[–]Rationalbacon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

i dont think you have thought this through.

if the majority of leaders/heads of state in history have been men, then your adversary will be a man to, so for every victory a man leader achieves his adversary also a man gets a loss making no difference (equal win and loss)

so you can only compare men versus women heads of state conflicts. and so if women lose 30% of those conflicts by definition the men must lose 70%

[–]orcscorper 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

That's some gender studies-quality math you got there.

Imagine 10 women lead their countries into war, six against other women. They must go 3-3, and the other 4 win ears against men (giving 30% loss rate). A thousand men win wars against a thousand other men, and four men lose wars to women. How does 1,000-1,004 win/loss ratio equal 70% losses?

Might want to change that username to just Bacon.

[–]Rationalbacon 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

OMG this is actually hilarious, and what i love is you are so arrogant to think you are correct and im incorrect.

That's some gender studies-quality math you got there.

you are so stupid its hilarious so lets begin in showing the world what a proven moron you actually are.

A thousand men win wars against a thousand other men

ok so there are 1000 winners and 1000 losers which ARE ALL MEN! net result zero,

i.e for EVERY MALE WINNER THERE IS A MALE LOSER (how can you not understand this its fucking obvious)

so for men as a whole, total victories 1000, total losses 1000, net result 0 (male on male)

the exact same principle is true with "female versus female wins/losses" and "horse versus horse wins/losses" "ducks versus ducks wins/losses"

hence the only valid metric is "male versus female conflict"

if they have 1000 conflicts and females win X number of them then the men win 1000-X conflicts (assuming no draw just win lose conditions)

in my example i gave 30-70 split to show it has to always equal 100 as a percentage.

HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? are you genuinely learning impaired?

[–]orcscorper 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You can call me stupid, arrogant, learning-impaired, or whatever; it still doesn't change that you don't understand the original story problem. "For example, did 30% of women leaders lose a war" does not mean women must have a 70% win percentage. It doesn't count women who have never led a country to war. It doesn't count numbers of wars lost; if one woman loses two wars, it only counts as one. It's possible that out of 100 female leaders, 30 went to war an average of 3 times each with no victories, for a 0-90 win/loss record (all against men, of course). It's also possible that of 900 male leaders in the same time period, all 900 went to war exactly once. 405 (or 45%) lost a war to another male leader. 405 beat another man in a war, and 90 beat a woman, totalling 495 (or 55%).

I thought it through, and xenemorph's numbers add up. Your failure to understand the truth doesn't make it untrue. You made assumptions about information not presented in the original scenario, then declared it impossible within your blinders.

Yeah, I missed the "off those losses" in your previous comment. I was distracted by your terrible spelling, punctuation and logic. Being a smartass never works out when you're a dumbass.

[–]Rationalbacon -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

your stupidity is genuinely staggering!!! and im not joking here, you are literally an idiot.

and the fact you STILL think you are correct is embarassing.

want the proof?

here we go:

your claim:

Imagine 10 women lead their countries into war, six against other women. They must go 3-3, and the other 4 win ears against men (giving 30% loss rate).

show your working, show how that above scenario generates a "30% loss rate for females as a group"

[–]orcscorper 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Woman 1 goes to war against woman 2. Wins.
Woman 2 goes to war against woman 1. Loses.
Woman 3 goes to war against woman 4. Wins.
Woman 4 goes to war against woman 3. Loses.
Woman 5 goes to war against woman 6. Wins.
Woman 6 goes to war against woman 5. Loses.
Women 7-10 go to war against men, and they all win.
How many losses is that for women? What percentage? Do you need me to simplify it further? Like I said: call me what you will, but your lack of comprehension doesn't make me the stupid one in this exchange. That would be you.

Now are you going to continue to ignore the comment where I bitch-slapped you, and explained your original faulty reasoning? Of course you are. Either you didn't get it, or you are embarrassed by your own stupidity, so you have to double down on calling me an idiot. Either way, you're a dumb cunt. Don't reproduce.

[–]Rationalbacon -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

ok now dipshit do the exact same "Loss ratio" for 10 women all going to war with each other (i.e woman against woman).

now do the same for 10 men all going to war with each other (i.e men against men)

what is the loss rate for women and for men?

ITS FUCKING EMBARRASSING YOU HAVE TO BE WALKED THROUGH THIS LIKE A FUCKING IDIOTIC CHILD. SMALL STEPS EACH TIME BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO DENSE TO REALISE ON YOUR OWN. JESUS CHRIST GET SOME SELF AWARENESS

call me what you will, but your lack of comprehension doesn't make me the stupid one in this exchange. That would be you and

Now are you going to continue to ignore the comment where I bitch-slapped you, and explained your original faulty reasoning? Of course you are. Either you didn't get it, or you are embarrassed by your own stupidity, so you have to double down on calling me an idiot. Either way, you're a dumb cunt. Don't reproduce.

lol the fucking irony, all you are doing is confirming to the world you are an even bigger moron than people originally gave you credit for.

i genuinely think you might have a learning disability, you are literally that stupid.

[–]orcscorper 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Now are you going to continue to ignore the comment where I bitch-slapped you, and explained your original faulty reasoning? Of course you are.

Nailed it. You also didn't answer any of my questions. In the scenario I just laid out, three women out of ten are defeated in battle, or 30%.

You have yet to demonstrate any comprehension of anything I have said, or of the original comment that you claimed he didn't think through. You have not said how you thought any of it was incorrect. You haven't walked me through anything. You just keep ranting, because that's all your limited intellect is capable of. You're a dumb fucking cunt, and that's all you'll ever be. If you think I'm confirming anything to the world 15 comments down this rabbit hole, you're an even dumber cunt. Nobody's following this thread; nobody cares.

[–]Rationalbacon -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

you genuinely are the most stupid person i have ever met in my life, so stupid its actually depressing (genuinely depressing)

dont believe me? take this conversation to a statistics professor and he will show you S-L-O-W-L-Y with sock puppets just how retarded you are. becuase its pretty evident you are so fucking stupid YOU STILL CANT UNDERSTAND without some specialist intervention why what you have written is so idiotic and demonstrably wrong (despite it being teased out and walked through at you at length).

I would honestly guess you are in the bottom 5% of your country intellect wise (you are genuinely that dumb).

I am embarassed for you, as is anyone who reads this conversation who isnt a moron, may god have mercy on your soul, as you you are going to have a VERY hard life with the shit you have for brains.

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

just copying your comment because its so dumb i think you might delete it:

u/orcscorper

That's some gender studies-quality math you got there.

Imagine 10 women lead their countries into war, six against other women. They must go 3-3, and the other 4 win ears against men (giving 30% loss rate). A thousand men win wars against a thousand other men, and four men lose wars to women. How does 1,000-1,004 win/loss ratio equal 70% losses?

Might want to change that username to just Bacon.

[–]BassBeerNBabes 79 points80 points81 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Nefartiti, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Anne Bonny, Ching Shih.

Mmmmhmm.

[–]DolphinsAreOk 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Indira Ghandi

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

Anne Bonny is a stretch but yeah

[–]Whatsthisnotgoodcomp 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Eh, more deaths and destruction that some other 'wars' that get called wars

[–]Ovv_Topik 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Queen Mary aka 'Bloody Mary'. - war on Protesants

[–]problematikUAV 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don’t forget Golda Meir, she was a bad bitch

[–]Ctlaw1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha, this comment has me in tears!

[–]_LadyBoy 89 points90 points91 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Queen Marry of Scots (also known as Bloody Mary)

Edit: Sorry, Mary I of England, not Queen of Scots.

[–]brannigansmaw 46 points47 points48 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Wrong Mary. You're thinking of Mary I of England. Got the name for all the reformers she had burned at the stake

[–]_LadyBoy 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You my medieval scholar are indeed correct! Wrong Mary indeed! Needless to say, women do some war mongering shit, its not exclusive to men!

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

Certainly do! Wouldn't like to have crossed her

[–]fite_me_fgtI cant see period blood. We are good to go 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why would burning people bring the name "Bloody"?

[–]brannigansmaw 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Burning was a horrendous death and extremely bloody. Your blood would essentially boil, your skin melt off etc. Awful stuff

[–]gaynazifurry4bernie 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Best English queen if you ask me.

[–]Cthula-Hoops 56 points57 points58 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like a British problem to me. lol

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Olga of Kiev

[–]boywithumbrella 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That one was metal as fuck \m/,

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

Olga of Kiev

Holy shit she was everything Hitler wished he was.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lmao whoever wrote this wiki article was a total fanboy

She is known for her obliteration of the Drevlians, a tribe that had killed her husband Igor of Kiev. Even though it would be her grandson Vladimir that would convert the entire nation to Christianity, for her efforts to spread Christianity through the Rus' Olga is venerated as a saint.

[–]kappasquad420 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Catherine the great was a Polish empress of Russia, hardly British.

[–]Cthula-Hoops 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's fair, but not the other ones. Lol Catherine was fucked.

[–]NorwegianGodOfLove 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I mean, we have engaged in war with 9/10 countries..

[–]danceswithwool1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

“Morning, my Lord. I just wanted to inform you that 11 more countries have declared independence today and it’s half past 9.”

[–]NorwegianGodOfLove 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Never said they all went well...

[–]danceswithwool 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of that Eddie Izzard bit.

“England...what’s that behind your back”

“It’s India and a number of other countries”

[–]NorwegianGodOfLove 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a flag?

[–]danceswithwool 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No flag, no country! You can’t have one.

He’s the best.

[–]NorwegianGodOfLove1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

His skit on the difference between American and British are hilarious as well.

[–]danceswithwool 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I love that niche. I watch Joel and Lia on YouTube to get current fix on that.

[–]repete85 32 points33 points34 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Just go watch sons of anarchy. That fucking Gemma Teller caused everyone grief. If she had died in season one, show is over, everyone lives happily ever after.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Shes right up there with W. White's cunt wife and his SIL, I think

[–]LordDeckem 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I actually think his SIL wasn’t too bad, she was all for W. white Jr. to smoke dope so that makes her a pretty cool aunt. And during the last season you can’t really blame anyone for their actions, they all found out w. White is the meth kingpin of Arizona.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

K, his wife is definitely right up there on the cunt scale.

[–]LordDeckem 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

His wife was the worst. She was never capable of seeing that he only ever got into cooking to support his family, not for greed.

[–]laxt 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, think of who she married, though. It wasn't the man who Walter White would become.

I think that's what makes her an important character, like an anchor to who Walter used to be and who she always wanted him to be -- a boring high school chemistry teacher who works at a car wash part time. You can't realistically expect her to be on board upon learning about his meth business, especially after hiding it from her for how long, which is a pretty serious betrayal for any normal marriage, right?

It isn't cunty to want one's family to stay on the right side of the law.

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

Completely agree. The character gets a ton of criticism, but critics never consider the situation she was thrust into. I think she is perfectly characterized considering the circumstances.

[–]laxt 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Walter White is Heisenberg?!? OMG spoiler!!! Thanks asshole!!!

(j/k -- you mean New Mexico btw.. close enough)

[–]laxt 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I haven't watched Sons of Anarchy, but the new Jurassic Park has a similar deal with the ending.

Not gonna spoil it, but anyone who has seen it knows what I mean about who is responsible for how it ended. I'm tempted to even spoil it because it's kind of a disappointing ending that leaves it open for a new level of sequels to a franchise that perhaps needs to go extinct.

[–]Jiandao79 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Queen Elizabeth II

[–]Bobthemime 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

TBH when Tony Blair declared war on Afghanistan in the 2000's he had to have permission from HRM QE2

[–]AggressiveSloth 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

She also prevented a war with Iraq previous to the well known invasion.

[–]Bobthemime 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

so?

The question was who declared wars, not who prevented one.

[–]AggressiveSloth 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Exactly...

The PM asks her to declare war. She has the final say not PMs

[–]Slateski 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

.. But would never use that final say. ANY bill passed by the UK Parliament requires royal assent. Can anyone give an example of royal assent being withheld in the last oooh..three hundred years? I'll wait...

[–]AggressiveSloth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

She keeps her actions secret to remain in good image.

The point is she is the people's person. She represent the common folk better than the elected do.

If the Parliament voted on something the general public wouldnt want or demanded too much power she wouldnt allow it https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html

All the info you can find on her vetos are from a leak so there is no doubt many more.

Also the Queen meets with the PM every week to voice her opinion.

[–]Slateski 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The point is she is the people's person. She represent the common folk better than the elected do.

Are you out of your mind? We are her subjects. She doesn't represent us, she's just mildly popular among the dim and tourists. Not that I have anything against Madge personally, of course.

[–]AggressiveSloth -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She represents the masses way more than the current party who have their own agenda and plot.

[–]Slateski 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Repeating the same stupidity doesn't make it more true. How does the result of 1000 years of inbreeding and unelected privilege represent the masses? Do you even know what representation means?

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

3 times in the last thirty years. Once to stop a discussion about invading Iraq. Twice for bills to transfer Crown powers to parliament.

[+]Timb0b -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Errr, pretty sure she doesn't? PMs will go to war with or without royal backing.

[–]BritishInstitution 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She is the Head of the British armed forces.

[–]marksworkreddit -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She is a figurehead. She's also the head of the Canadian armed forces, but that doesn't make a lick of difference to us when we send out our military. The governor general signs the bill or there's a constitutional crisis that ends inevitibly with the end of the Crown as a legal concept. Her choices are to give royal assent or to risk being deposed; that's how constitutional monarchy works.

[–]BritishInstitution 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Three times in the last 30 years the Queen has withheld consent against two bills and one military actions debate. She said no. Parliament obeyed

Edit. Just want to say I'm not implying she isn't a figurehead with less powers than ever etc just that there are examples of this happening. As you say it risks being deposed but she is still here and I never said she had those powers in Canada which is why I didn't use Canada as an example

[–]Longzx -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you have any like bod to those examples. I’m genuinely interested in her reason in doing so?

[–]AggressiveSloth 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No to do so they would need to change law

[–]ShwayNorris 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No they wont. Without the Queens approval they cannot declare war.

[–]Timb0b 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm fuzzy on the subject. But declare war > do it anyway? If Parliament / PM wanted to bomb and the Queen said no. Shit would still be getting dropped.

[–]KrombopulosPhillip1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

The British Armed Forces aren't gonna get far without their commander-in-chief

[–]Timb0b 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Dunno why I'm getting down voted on this? The UK Monarchy has very little bearing if they go to war or not.

[–]Timb0b 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh wait, we're talking historically aren't we! Sorry, my bad, thought we were talking current.

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

It's because you're are not correct

[–]Slateski 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wrong. Hilarious, but still wrong. Did Phil the Greek order the retaking of the Falklands?

[–]cosmo7 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The UK hasn't formally declared war on anyone since WW2. They just go and drop bombs on people and let them figure it out for themselves.

[–]Elric1971 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Thats garbage. Falklands War, Gulf War, 2nd Gulf War, Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia. All of these have had boots on the ground and not just been "dropping bombs on people". If you're going to make some sort of snarky remark, then please at least attempt to be factually correct.

[–]cosmo7 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_by_Great_Britain_and_the_United_Kingdom

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

Declarations of war by Great Britain and the United Kingdom

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. In the United Kingdom, only the monarch has the power to declare war and peace, under the royal prerogative. There have been no declarations of war since the Second World War, though British Armed Forces have taken part in armed conflict on numerous occasions nonetheless.

There has been a long-running debate regarding whether Parliament alone should have the power to declare war and more widely to commit British forces to armed conflict.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–]laxt 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was hoping for some Photoshop of her as a Rambo-type commando. M60s in each arm, headband, etc.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No photoshop needed m8

[–]Quailpower 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

With a little research you could probably fill a thesis on women who declared war.

  • Boudica,
  • Onomaris,
  • Cartimandua,
  • Elen Llwyddog,
  • Matilda (technically not a queen but gave a damn good run for her money),
  • Maria Theresa of Austria,
  • Isabella of Castile,
  • Artimesa (who fought alongside Xerxes),
  • Zenobia,
  • Cleopatra,
  • Cleopatra Thea,
  • Theodora, Hatchepsut,
  • Meryt Neith,
  • Amina of Nigeria,
  • the numerous Xhosa cheiftess',
  • and the last ruler of Hawaii who's name I can never spell....

[–]Whatsthisnotgoodcomp 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't get how people forget about Boudica

You'd figure raising a 100k army, taking london and almost kicking the roman empire off the british isles would be something feminists would go for in terms of historical figures, but eh

[–]FlameSpartan 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope, they prefer to idolise victims, manhaters, and Rosa Parks, oddly enough. Just her, none of the other women involved in the civil rights movement.

[–]Quailpower 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And god forbid they acknowledge the trans women at stonewall and the early LGBT movements.

[–]Spaghetti-is 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

(Because Rosa parks is the only one they know because they have no knowledge of history)

[–]gaynazifurry4bernie 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the numerous Xhosa cheiftess',

Seeing how well women are treated in South Africa, it is kind of surprising to find out they had women in power.

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

It varies, a few of the traditional tribes / groups actually have female cheiftess'. Some, I believe (though none currently) had a seat of matrilineal power, based on the idea that a mother always knows her child but a father has no such guarantee.

[–]laxt 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Uhhh yeah, uhhh.. I'll wait for more names, THAAAAAAANXZZZ

/s -- great list.. my favorite at the top.

[–]Skyphe 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Did she have a response?

[–]rxsheepxr 35 points36 points37 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That would require admitting they were wrong.

"Name an instance where a woman has admitted fault... I'll wait."

See, we can do it, too!

[–]FlameSpartan 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm still waiting for my mother to admit that it was a bad idea to grab those scissors from me when I was like five.

She just grabbed em by the blades, not even thinking there was a chance I'd close them before letting go. I was a kid, she was a grown ass woman, you tell me which one of us should have known better.

[–]tallwheel 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah. She just dropped the mic and danced away victorious into the sunset... never to be seen again... and never to check her replies either.

[–]Skeith_Hikaru 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Statistically woman have started more and bloodier wars.

[–]a_typical_normie 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t know about bloodier, the two world wars plus Stalin’s war on his own people (not sure if that counts, but it was a result of the war) were pretty bloody.

More is also probably wrong just based on how little women had power in the last 2000 years

[–]Skeith_Hikaru 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Look up the word statistically, say (these are made up numbers) there were 1000 male kings and 10 female queens, 100 kings went to war and only 8 queens went to war. STATISTICALLY more women have gone to war. 10% vs 80%

[–]a_typical_normie 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not certain there is ANY way of validating that, if you can please post a source.

[–]ChurchOfAbortionism 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't have to wait long. Could've saved some embarrassment by looking it up before speaking about it so confidently.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Also Isabel I of Spain, and Isabel II.

There are also women that have destroyed their countries from within, like Angela Merkel, but that's a different conversation.

[–]battlerythym 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Joan of arc

[–]Staggitarius 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She was a Military Commander, but the war was started by Edward III of House Plantagenet.

[–]SVMESSEFVIFVTVRVS 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Feminists seem uninterested in facts.

[–]FlameSpartan 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In other news, water is wet and fire is fucking hot.

[–]SVMESSEFVIFVTVRVS 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, try to understand where they’re coming from but often I just can’t sympathize.

[–]FlameSpartan 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand where they're coming from most of the time, but god damn do they take perfect reason and facts and twist them into something barely recognizable as logic.

[–]SVMESSEFVIFVTVRVS 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think they just feel marginalized as a group oftentimes and just say these things because they sound good and never really check the facts. Ironic that’s a feminine trait undermining the feminist movement.

[–]cnctec90 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't need to wait long

[–]sm1ttysm1t 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My wife when I leave my dirty socks in FRONT of the clothes hamper.

[–]kikkamokkeli 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

> Throughout history, queens were more likely to wage war than kings

https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/

[–]BigGreenYamo 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't care about the topic, but I LOVE anytime one of these "i'll wait" posters gets an answer in the form of a list.

[–]memory_of_a_high 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These blanket statements "All ??? was started by...". Are propaganda and they work really well. You would be amazed.

[–]Cheveyo 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do you set your reddit to look like the pornhub comments?

[–]woodysdad 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I meant... in my lifetime

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Orange is bad upvote please.

[–]johnchapel 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im so fucking tired of young people gravitating towards progressivism when its entire core existence is based entirely around either denying reality, or ignoring it enough to not realize it.

[–]Varkasi 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cersei Lannister

[–]Iminicus 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Margaret Thatcher's declaration of War was due to Argentina seizing English lands and declaring them property of Argentina, thus breaking several International Treaties.

Kind of makes her declaration reasonable.

[–]imahawki 118 points119 points120 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

She didn’t ask for an example of unreasonable declarations of war by women. She’s trying to claim, clearly without even 30 seconds of research, that no woman has declared war.

[+]Iminicus -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm aware, I was just giving this sub some context on Margaret Thatcher.

[–]imahawki 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And I upvoted you for doing so. Not trying to shout you down at all.

[–]Iminicus 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All good my man

[–]-CleanYourRoom 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm aware, I was just giving this sub some context on Margaret Thatcher.

Bullshit and your word choice gives it away.

Kind of makes...

Uhh, yeah, somehow you thought we were all discussing the reasonableness of any given declaration of war, lmao. Nerd.

[–]Bobthemime 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even Maggie has to get one thing right in her life

[–][deleted] 158 points159 points160 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Declaring war is not necessarily an unreasonable thing.

[–]continous -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

True, but I would argue in that case it was less Margaret Thatcher declaring war, and more Margaret Thatcher getting warred upon. The OP in the image is definitely referring to an initialization of war.

[–]Whatsthisnotgoodcomp 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Was a (dumbass attempted) annexation that resulted in a war declaration by the UK, thatcher was in power and her + elizabeth II are the ones who started the war

[–]sicknick 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thatcher was also responsible for a lot of innocent lives lost in Ireland. God rest their souls.

[–]Slateski 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

.. And the deaths of a lot of terrorist cowards who murdered the innocent.

[–]Slateski 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There was no declaration of war against Argentina.

[–]eseka0cho 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean... they did the exact same thing iirc

[+]Kyrkrim -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Elizabeth I's declaration is justified because I M P E R I A L I S M

Love how y'all down vote an obvious joke. Lol reddit

[–]Staggitarius 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Salty Argentinian is salty.

[–]Kyrkrim 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I was really just making a light hearted imperialism meme joke. American btw

[–]Staggitarius 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Could also be because Elizabeth I died 415 years ago

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Elizabeth I of England

Elizabeth I (7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603) was Queen of England and Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death on 24 March 1603. Sometimes called The Virgin Queen, Gloriana or Good Queen Bess, Elizabeth was the last monarch of the House of Tudor.

Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, his second wife, who was executed two-and-a-half years after Elizabeth's birth. Anne's marriage to Henry VIII was annulled, and Elizabeth was declared illegitimate.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–]Kyrkrim 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, imperalism was still a thing back then. It still makes sense

[–]BurgerUSAIncel cunt knuckle 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women destroy societies. Prove me wrong. protip: You can't.

[–]CharitableMiser1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Angela Merkel's open border policies have basically decimated Europe.

[–]Slateski 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which part of Europe are you from?

[–]I_have_12_fingers1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD! MUSLIMS ARE BAD!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women were more likely to declare war.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I mean the guy could just make the overall point that women are less violent and commit less violent crimes which in the whole is accurate

(Although the packs of teens are giving those stats a run for their money lately)

[–]FissureKing 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't know about women being less violent. Recent studies have found them far more likely to be the abuser in relationships that are not reciprocally violent.

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That's probably true but women commit far less violent crimes than men

Edit: holy shit you dumb nerds - women aren’t doing b&e , murders and rapes anywhere near what men do

[–]FissureKing 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would like to see a real study about that.

They are far less likely to be charged, less likely to be convicted, and will likely get a lighter sentence.

So, it's likely true, but probably to a much lesser degree than you might think.

[–]master_gecko 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I take it she didn’t have to wait long

[–]AramisNight 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, here we are: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23337

[–]OTK-Tobias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens

[–]laxt 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Let's also remember that lady who lead the vast syndicate of pirates during the she of sail.

Ching Shih

Pretty disingenuous to praise her for such ambition, but forget her when it's time to recall women in history who had ruled through violence.

EDIT: Holy crap, how could we have forgotten!! Joan of Arc!!

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ching Shih

Ching Shih (simplified Chinese: 郑氏; traditional Chinese: 鄭氏; pinyin: Zhèng Shì; Cantonese: Jehng Sih; "widow of Zheng"), also known as Cheng I Sao (simplified Chinese: 郑一嫂; traditional Chinese: 鄭一嫂; pinyin: zhèng yī sǎo; "wife of Cheng I") (born Shi Yang simplified Chinese: 石阳; traditional Chinese: 石陽; pinyin: shí yáng; 1775 – 1844), was a pirate in middle Qing China, who terrorized the China Sea in the early 19th century. She commanded over 300 junks (traditional Chinese sailing ships) manned by 20,000 to 40,000 pirates—men, women, and even children. She entered into conflict with the major nations, such as the British Empire, the Portuguese Empire, and the Qing dynasty.Ching Shih and her crew's exploits have been featured in numerous books, novels, video games, and films about piracy, pirates and their way of life in China as well as worldwide.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

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

Some argue that all men only go to war because of women. Women that they wanted or for something a woman wanted. Now of course that being the case every time is stupid but in less developed times, a sizeable amount probably was over this.

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

Hope she didn't hold her breath lol

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

Also Aisha; you know, the prophet's child bride. Went to war with "Commander of the faithful"

[–]im2gr84u 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Link?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How in the fuck does this have anything to dowith anything here

[–]johnchapel 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can safely assume OP was "Women have never started a war".

You can also safely assume that OP was a woman....even if OP has a dick.

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

No I meant why are we screen capping conversations on reddit iant this place lile justice served but for women claiming they can do anything because they are a woman?

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