~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
adamwaldron95
[–]EvilPundit 233 points234 points235 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
When a man wants women to be treated like men are, he's called a misogynist.
That says something about the way men are treated.
[–]Number357 102 points103 points104 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Misogyny: What feminists call it when women are treated the same as men.
SEE: Violence against women. See also: Women being paid less money when they do less work.
[–]Ging287 32 points33 points34 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Don't let them have the word. Immediately call them out on it. Refer to it as "Ad Hominem" and "Insults." and repeatedly exclaim that the instant you insult someone in an argument is the moment you have lost the argument. You have no good points if you have to resort to name calling.
[–]41145and6 -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I don't agree with that. When particularly incensed, I'm known to pepper insults in with my actual points.
The insults don't discredit my very real points so much as to describe my feelings on the other person's character.
[–]Ging287 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not about whether or not you have real arguments, it's the principle. When you're trying to persuade the other person to conform to your own ideas, you don't insult them. You don't attack the person. You cite statistics from reliable, peer-reviewed sources. Calling someone "Stupid", "Retard", "Misandrist", "Misogynist" doesn't change their mind, it just makes you look like a douche, regardless of your side.
[–]salami_inferno 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's what subtle sarcasm is for, no need to resort to direct insults when you can be sneaky and smart about it.
[–]41145and6 -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I like a direct approach.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is what I call Constructive Criticism.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah it actually does discredit because the amount of time you spend talking crap about the other person dulls the actual cutting edge of your arguments and makes it seem as if you have beef with the person, rather than the issue at hand.
[–]41145and6 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's no reason for it to discredit anything. That's a cop-out.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When a man breathes he is a misogynist.
[+]SacreBleuMe -12 points-11 points-10 points 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
The Feminine seeks fluidity and boundlessness as the Masculine seeks rigidity and boundaries. Women can act like and should be treated like men, or women, or whatever else they want, but men should only act like and be treated as a man.
Edit: I'm describing the paradigm that explains this. The second part is not my opinion, but the implication of the paradigm.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Nice generalisations.
[–]SacreBleuMe -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If the shoe fits
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If the masculine seeks rigidity, why are there men able to do the splits?
Lawyered.
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Basically
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
This is sort of not nice to make generalizations.
[–]SacreBleuMe 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The thing about generalizations is that they have a basis in reality.
Reality isn't nice. Reality doesn't give a damn.
True sometimes, but generalizations are not always the reality
[–]SacreBleuMe 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well yes, of course, but a generalization is more likely to be true more often than being not true.
[–]Scythe_001 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They forgot to add "who is it legal to modify the genitals of without consent?"
[–]fukuaneveryoneuknow 83 points84 points85 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
xpost from funny
And what is so funny about this?
[–]Offensive_Brute 37 points38 points39 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I thought the same thing about half way through. I was like "I'm failing to find the humor. Wheres the joke? What no punchline? Just the picture of a puppy?"
[–]XtraStrongMint 51 points52 points53 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Hmm, I can give you my thoughts to why it's funny. There's a famous quote that goes as follows: The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel.
And when you think about it, however tragic it may be, it's ridiculous that some things are the way they are right?
I've got another one for you. Not too long ago there was an Iranian man that survived his execution (hanging). So now he's at a hospital to get better so that he can be declared healthy enough in order to be hanged again. I mean, this is tragic as fuck, but still funny as shit when you think about how fucked up it is.
thank you so much! im glad you understand the esoteric humor of this
I understand it but I had to have you guys explain it to me. TBH by the time I finished reading I forgot where it was crossposted from and didn't ask. Cute puppy though.
[–]KillJoy575 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I like that quote.
[–]Dronelisk 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[Insert snarky and sarcastic remark about the low quality of /r/funny posts]
[–]SatiateMe 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
OP posted this to /r/funny himself. They didn't find it funny either.
[–]139andlennox 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9l09FLNqWw
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
My mom killed my dad and only did 11 months in jail because she said he was abusing her. No evidence of abuse, but plenty of evidence of premeditated murder.
[–]silentthinker 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
You must be pretty confused! Should you want your mother to do more jail time as a human or should you accept it and be happy that you have your mother back so quick.
[–]ArchangelleNiggatron 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
No evidence of abuse, plenty of evidence of premeditated murder... I don't think he wants a person like that in his life, ever.
Yeah dude, she did it for life insurance. Couldn't even get it because of the slayers act which makes it impossible for a spouse to collect insurance if they kill their partner.
[–]silentthinker 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
We think rationally but to those in pain it is bot easy to decide.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Dude, I am not in pain, it was 20 years ago. I haven't talked to her for a year because I finally got a chance to move away and cut ties. I look at her like you might look at a homeless person.
[–]silentthinker 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well then sorry for assuming. I meant at the time it happened.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
She is probably the worst person I ever met. She's like the evil villain in the movie of my life. She stole my sisters boyfriend, she threatened to put my dog down after I moved away if I didn't call her every day, she sold the house my father built while I was still living in it. She's an evil bitch and she's gonna die alone.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Have you done anything to get back at her She sounds horrible
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Not talking to her definitely hurts her the most. I just pretend she doesn't exist. I don't do this to hurt her, I just think my life is much better without her. But a great byproduct is her going insane because her youngest son won't speak to her.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Nice, someone like that doesn't deserve any attention from you unless they fully admit and apologize, and even then it's still up to you.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
She's been lying so long about killing my dad she truly believes she was in the right at this point. She is my past, and I only move forward.
Nice.
[–]thehumungus 31 points32 points33 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
Who drowned 5 kids and got away with it?
[–]EvilPundit 43 points44 points45 points 12 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link
Andrea Yates.
[–]thehumungus 40 points41 points42 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link
She was sentenced to a high-security mental hospital and is still in a mental hospital (according to quick wikipedia research).
[–]EvilPundit 49 points50 points51 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
True. But a man who committed a similar crime would most likely get life imprisonment. There also was considerable sympathy expressed for Andrea Yates at the time, with some people even shifting blame to her husnband.
Would a man who murdered five children in cold blood receive a retrospective like this?
So how is Andrea Yates ten years after Houston jurors took less than four hours to reject her insanity defense? "She's doing very well," Parnham said. "I talked to her today. I see her perhaps once a month. She's close to members in the firm. For instance, my wife will provide transportation for her mother to visit her." Yates currently resides and is treated at the Kerrville State Hospital, which is located approximately 70 miles from San Antonio. "She is gradually trying to get acclimated to the normalcy of society," Parnham said. "She's taken an active role in the Yates Children Memorial Fund [created ten years ago by Parnham and his wife to spread the word about mental illness, in general, and about postpartum illness, in particular]. She makes cards and manufacturers aprons, which she sells anonymously, and then she takes the money and donates it to the Fund," Parnham said.
So how is Andrea Yates ten years after Houston jurors took less than four hours to reject her insanity defense? "She's doing very well," Parnham said. "I talked to her today. I see her perhaps once a month. She's close to members in the firm. For instance, my wife will provide transportation for her mother to visit her." Yates currently resides and is treated at the Kerrville State Hospital, which is located approximately 70 miles from San Antonio.
"She is gradually trying to get acclimated to the normalcy of society," Parnham said. "She's taken an active role in the Yates Children Memorial Fund [created ten years ago by Parnham and his wife to spread the word about mental illness, in general, and about postpartum illness, in particular]. She makes cards and manufacturers aprons, which she sells anonymously, and then she takes the money and donates it to the Fund," Parnham said.
Isn't it nice of her to donate money to the foundation set up in memory of the children she murdered?
[–]thehumungus 60 points61 points62 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Yes, men are punished disproportionately to women (black men especially)
Still, a lifetime of imprisonment in secure mental health facilities because you're flipping insane isn't "get away with it". I realize "disproportionately more lenient sentence" isn't as sexy as "got away with it" but it does have the advantage of being true.
[–]EvilPundit 32 points33 points34 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A fair criticism.
[–]adwilliams1987 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Can we stop calling it imprisonment and sentencing? Some people need these places and it is good for them. I'm not saying she "got away with it", but lets not equate centers for mental illness to prisons. One is meant to heal, the other is meant to punish.
[–]thehumungus -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
no. This wasn't just some "treatment center" this is a secured facility that only houses people put there by the justice system.
[–]adwilliams1987 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's irrelevant. Even if you're placed there by the justice system it still isn't the same as prison. The intent/method/end game is completely different.
[–]thehumungus -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I dunno, if you ask me such facilities should be compared more to prison than other treatment centers (or whatever your preferred term is) for the sake of people at the other treatment centers.
[–]GeorgeMaheiress -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If she's not allowed to leave, it's imprisonment.
[–]HalfysReddit 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I think what's happening here is that a lot of men receive sentences that are honestly just too fucking brutal for the crimes they have committed. Prison is a fucked up place and it should be reserved for only the most depraved of individuals.
In response to recognizing that we men have been historically punished much more strongly than is fair, I think some men want to return that favor to women in the name of vengeance. "Hey, society has taken a giant fucking shit on us in this manor for quite some time now, let's let women experience this bullshit abuse too."
Personally, I don't agree with it, but I do see a silver lining to this way of thinking. The more and more women are held to the bullshit standards that men historically have been held to, the more and more sympathy the people in those positions in general will get by society, and eventually something will actually be done about it because of that. Basically if you've got a shit-ton of nonviolent men getting raped in prison, no one gives a shit, because it's all men. Add women into the mix - who are actually capable of receiving sympathy - and you might actually be able to change the system. It's not an approach I agree with, but I admit that it's affective.
I think in the end it all comes down to hyperagency being attributed to men and hypoagency being attributed to women.
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Prison is a fucked up place and it should be reserved for only the most depraved of individuals.
Could you clarify what you mean here?
I'm more concerned with danger and destructiveness than I am depravity.
[–]HalfysReddit 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
What I mean is that prison should be reserved for only the people that are so depraved that they simply cannot be trusted amongst civilized society.
Pretty much only violent, serial criminals.
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure I agree that violence is depravity. If I look up depraved on wiktionary I get:
Describing a person or action that is perverted or extremely wrong in a moral sense.
Also corrupt in a moral sense, or disposition.
I get how we view violence as wrong in a moral sense, it's right under that meaning, but when we say 'action that is perverted' it reminds me of things like sodomy being condemned as depraved. Depravity and perversion are very sexually linked things and kinda associated with puritanical condemnations of deviant behaviours in that particularly area rather than general morality.
[–]HalfysReddit 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The problem is you're sexualizing the term perverted, which is not inherently sexual in nature.
There is sexual perversion, but not all perversion is sexual.
[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The more and more women are held to the bullshit standards that men historically have been held to, the more and more sympathy the people in those positions in general will get by society, and eventually something will actually be done about it because of that.
No...it won't work that way and do you know why? Because they are women. As long as the paradigm exists that women are held in higher value that men, then society in general will not look at the situation and say "This is truly fucked up; let's stop doing it to everybody." They will say; "This is truly fucked up; let's stop doing it to women."
Case in point; there is a debate in the UK right now where feminist advocates are arguing to abolish the entire concept of incarcerating women that have been justly convicted for crimes simply because they are women. That is what you will get if things keep going the way that they are going.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
True. But a man who committed a similar crime would most likely get life imprisonment.
She basically did. They don't ever have to let you out of the loony bin. It's like Charles Manson being "eligible" for parole. Sure he can go in front of the board, but they're never letting him out.
[–]EvilPundit 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Okay. I concede that the short slogan in the image is quite wrong.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that the public opinion treatment of Andrea Yates in the media was rather gentle, considering what she did.
[–]tyciol 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Looking at the "Manson" example, is he in a prison or a 'loony bin'?
We should perhaps look beyond periods of incarceration to quality of life at these places.
[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Charles Manson is in prison and in fact, he was just denied parole in April of '12. Most likely, as his next scheduled parole hearing will be in 2027 (in which he'll be 92), it is most likely that he will die in jail.
Furthermore, most of his family will probably remain incarcerated for the remainder of their lives. The youngest member of the "Manson Family" Leslie Van Houten (no relation to Millhouse) is 63 and was denied parole in June. One member, Bruce Davis was actually approved for parole by the parole board, but then had it vetoed by CA Gov. Jerry Brown last March.
But to continue...can we define "quality of life" in this context? We have to ask the question regarding the purpose of prisons; are they meant for rehabilitation, incarceration, or a little bit of both? Let's be honest here; criminal psychology really can't "fix" people who break the law because as it stands today, the American legal system is broken.
Look at ourselves; we jail people who use illegal drugs longer than we jail the people who sell them. As we intone in this sub, we know that there are certain factions that are more than willing to use the threat and reality of prison as a personal/political tool to further their own ends. Until we fix our justice system, then jails are just another evil that plagues our society; a necessary evil, but an evil, nonetheless.
[–]ZimbaZumba 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But a man who committed a similar crime would most likely get life imprisonment
No he'd be dead, it's Texas.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Depends on the state. Although even those without death penalties could have him die via in-prison violence or extra-prison vigilantism.
[–]Offensive_Brute 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
A man who did that would have most likely gotten the death penalty depending on the state.
[–]thehumungus -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I mean, if you want to create hypotheticals and get mad about them, go ahead. Men are, in general, more likely to get the death penalty, yes.
Here's a guy that went to a mental hospital after savagely beating an old man to death.
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=950331
[–]flyingwolf 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
How is beating an old man to death in any way similar to drowning 5 children?
[+]thehumungus -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's murder of a sympathetic victim?
[–]real-boethius 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No-one gives a shit about old men. if they did, charities would feature them in their advertising.
Old men get some level of sympathy, at least compared to other men. I'd say they get ranked below all kinds of women and children, but they still get some.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Shaft! I can dig it.
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Why are all these MRA posts being put up on funny? The people in the comments sections are doing a pretty bad job of representing the movement, and it really doesn't belong in that subreddit.
[–]timdesuyo 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm glad for it. It means that the movement is gaining traction.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Alas, the more members it gains, the more imbeciles it accumulates.
[–]timdesuyo 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
You'd be silly to expect anything else. In the entire history of humanity, there have been exactly zero movements where that(bigger cause means more idiots) isn't the case.
edit for clarity
[–]ArchangelleNiggatron 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, they come here, and hopefully the people here will be good enough to quell their misguided anger. Hopefully. A year ago /r/MensRights was those people.
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In terms of a net sum, sure. 5% idiots in 1000 is 50 while it's only 5 in 100.
But do you think the relative percentage would also increase? Is the theory here that more intelligent people are able to find and have the courage to ascribe to fringe movements, but as it expands, the less intelligent will become aware of the movement and be more confident about lending their weight to it?
[–]weezel365 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'd repost this to Facebook, but all the women and their White Knights would call me a sexist, rapist, misogynist asshole
[–]spikyandy053 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Same.....I have a few rabid feminist friends....
[–]timdesuyo 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
defriend them.
[–]tyciol 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You should not defriend feminist facebook friends, instead, exploit them so they can water your crops on Farmville 2, never knowing that they are helping the patriarchy.
I appreciate you.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It seems most of them are exaggerations on the truth.
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Maybe. Some of them are less extreme than the truth as well though.
[–]nihilist_nancy 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I'm familiar with the cases and see no exaggerations at all. You might consider the Andrea Yates reference as an exaggeration depending on your viewpoint. I do not.
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
SMF seems to think that there's room to list sources in detail on such posters. Admittedly it would be nice to have some if people dispute claims.
Perhaps in posters like this, they could link to a web page, which could have room to list the sources in detail.
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
There's no way that will work. Even if you could fit it no one would read it.
I like your idea of a link to a webpage though. The problem is that most people are uninterested in parsing a lot of data and/or wall of text which is why that image is so effective.
I tend to think of things like this as planting a seed. Someone can argue that it's all b.s. and pay no attention to it - or they can do some research and see if it's true (see my comment about spoon-feeding).
Since feminism considers men's live a carefree life filled with "unearned privilege", free cars and apparently women falling from the sky into men's bedrooms and consistently ignores the plight of the majority of men (or worse claims it's the patriarchy which is set up to help us exclusively actually not benefiting us - a logical gordian knot) a simple reductive image or meme is hardly against our interests.
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Even if you could fit it no one would read it.
Wrong, some might. Certainly anyone arguing the content of the poster would potentially notice and consult it. Those of us who think critically about or are skeptical of poster claims would be motivated to check the source-link.
Or... you were talking about fitting in all the sources rather than a URL weren't you? =/
[–]nihilist_nancy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I was agreeing with your idea of a link. I don't think that you could make the data or multiple links fit into the image without taking away from the simplicity of the image.
Does that make sense?
Yeah I think we completely agree here. A small link to a page with a list of links, perhaps.
[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
"Come back with some sources. "
The reference to killing five children didn't need a source because the reference was so obvious. Nothing conjectural about that one.
[–]GeorgeMaheiress 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Except it was false. She didn't "get away with it".
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I am very sorry for you if you need sources for things immediately apparent to anyone with half a brain. Also please tell me how one supposed to provide sources for personal observations not discussed in academia? And also please tell me why we would need legitimatization from academia which is heavily leftist-feminist? If you need the written authorization of someone in a lab coat to recognize plain truth your opinion is worthless.
And all this is true even if the post exaggerates somewhat wrt a few details.
[–]grammarmage 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I was with this up until drowning five children. That's oddly specific.
[–]peacegnome 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think that the author was talking about Andrea Yates, and I do not think the post was supposed to be funny.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
How anyone can think anything containing that line is "funny" lost me.
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I guess that makes me a horrible person if I find this or this or this humorous then?
That shit was aweso....awful!
Don't remember saying anyone was a horrible person for it.
You didn't, but it's kinda related to the "how could anyone possibly think this is funny" type stuff.
Presumably those who find things funny that others don't think could possibly find humorous are horrible non-person alien invaders.
[–]XtraStrongMint 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The puppy was a nice touch.
[–]Wilhelm_Stark 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I thought it made it funny, Lol.
[–]shonmao 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
/r/MensRants is more suited to this.
[–]spankytheham 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I wish this would at least have sources with short descriptions under it. I am personally familiar with most of the stories or examples mentioned, but most others would probably read and think WTH is this nonsense post talking about or it's just exaggerations.
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Honestly those people would still deny them or find excuses.
[–]spankytheham 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I know, but the links would help with at least some of the denial and for those too lazy to google.
[–]nihilist_nancy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Here's my meta argument about spoon-feeding:
If someone doesn't want to believe what you have to say they will claim in any way possible that your links are biased. Someone thinking about it will say to themselves "is that true?" and possibly google it or ask someone. In my experience one retains more and believes a link is more credible that they found themselves rather than one provided for them.
They then have a basis on which to discuss things and better links can be provided should they be open to it.
*Clearly this is not true for everyone. I prefer to deal with people that are honest and interested rather than hostile or dishonest. YMMV.
[–]salami_inferno 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
In my experience one retains more and believes a link is more credible that they found themselves rather than one provided for them.
That sounds disturbingly like the excuse "it's not my job to educate you".
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can see how you got there. I was in part discussing an analogy to writing to read and how that works for retention.
I guess what you're saying is something is better than nothing which is at least as valid. I'm essentially weighing in my think out loud manner which is better. There's no right answer for everyone.
[–]spankytheham 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good point.
[–]xhabeascorpusx 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Its okay and even funny when hit in the testicles but it is wrong and unfair to hit someone in the same spot who lack them.
trope averted in King of the Hill
[–]Old_Army90 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"And here's a puppy."
[–]uberpower[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As an MRA guy, I understand the non-hateful feminists' perspective (which I summarize as "men have the power" with power vaguely defined by glass ceilings, the old boy network, a majority of elected officials, superior physical strength, etc).
What I don't understand is the hateful feminists, the hateful MRA's, and how both groups (but primarily MRA's) are parodied based on their most extreme members.
MRA's don't like special laws or considerations given to women by courts. Feminists don't like anything which doesn't give them special legal privileges over men. One of these positions sounds more reasonable than the other.
[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If women were treated equally to men, lets say in regards rape, we would have to say that 99% of the women who are called rape victims today, are not victims of rape, and also that its funny.
[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I once had a girl tell me she just wanted me to treat her like I would the guys, she did not like that and was quick to tell me I was being an asshole. I don't think she fully understood what she was asking for.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
oh-oh but ... err ... male privileged ... an-and ... rape and ... i'm sooo oppressed. ... um ... Patriarchy!
[–]bhath01 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Man that puppy was a curveball
[–]N64Overclocked 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Cool graphic. But you shouldn't drown 5 children...or any children, even if it is to show that you can get away with it more often than a man. (or vice versa)
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I know it's been said before, but this subreddit is really not about disputing which gender is more oppressed, but to bring equality to both genders. With that said, these facts maybe valid, but to use them to prove that men are oppressed than women, to me, is counterproductive to our goals as a community.
[–]tyciol 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
this subreddit is really not about disputing which gender is more oppressed
Not the central purpose, but it's fine for us to discuss this since feminists frequently play the 'women are more oppressed so our issues take priority' card.
to use them to prove that men are oppressed than women, to me, is counterproductive to our goals
How so? Dismantling female bullshit about us being privileged and lacking discrimination compared to them is very much productive to our goals of contradicting the fuel for misandry and feminist prioritizing.
Aside from a few fringe cases, I believe that most people who are on this subreddit consider there to be a fundamental difference in the treatment of gender in our society. Perhaps I am wrong to assume this, but it does not seem logical that an organization concerned about gender equality does not believe that there is gender inequality; that would be absurd. As such, it is unproductive to reiterate to ourselves with these (very biased) info-graphics about how oppressed men are in our society.
I would argue, instead, that this subreddit should contain material that instigates fruitful, thoughtful, and productive discussion about gender inequality, specifically for males. Whereas this subreddit consistently cites Tumblr posts as examples of a very biased, misinformed, and immature examples of feminists, we also fail to distinguish ourselves from those posts with material, like this particular post, that is comparable to the Tumblr posts, both in how radical and how unsupported the claims are.
Generalizations made about men in the pop-cultural feminism movement about men is what created the problem of men's rights. With posts like these, we are simply perpetuating the problem by turning these generalizations against women, which is simply unproductive as it simply creates a tug-of-war between men's rights groups and feminist groups. With that said, we should not generalize all feminists to be misandrists who have an agenda of putting females first in society. Yes, there are feminist groups that do do this, and, yes, the term "male privilege" has widespread misuse and addresses non-issues that have nothing to do with men having more power. However, does labeling feminists as misandrists not have an uncanny resemblance to certain groups of feminists labeling all men's rights groups as misogynists?
Social justice is not a zero-sum game; both parties can win--we simply have to figure out a solution in which both parties benefit. Graphics such as this seek to gain by taking things away from others and putting others down is not what produces the desired result.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
You know, this is the sort of thing that reinforces my beliefs as a feminist. I don't think women should get better treatment in divorce cases, and I certainly think a woman who commits a crime should get the same punishment as a man who commits the same crime. Sex and gender shouldn't decide treatment; actions should.
Equality isn't a pick-and-choose issue, it's across the board - for the positive and the negative.
[–]tyciol 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
this is the sort of thing that reinforces my beliefs as a feminist. I don't think women should get better treatment in divorce cases, and I certainly think a woman who commits a crime should get the same punishment as a man who commits the same crime
The feminist movement is not interested in correcting these imbalances. When have you ever seen feminists campaigning for longer sentences against female criminals? Railing against preferential female custody? Protesting child support payments or alimony?
"Equality" is simply the lip service fake label. It is not the goal of feminism, and never has been.
Equality isn't the end goal, it's but a stepping stone in the minor realm of issues where women used to have disadvantages (like suffrage).
[+]mindscent -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Did the central feminist organization state all this in a press release?
Yes, just last tuesday. It was a 5 page report.
[+]mindscent -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Oh, link? Because nobody cc'd me on that one.
[–]MockingDead 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then you must not be a real feminist.
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I would link you but all the World Women Feminist association which rules over all other feminist groups' meetings are top-secret so you'll just have to trust me bro.
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why doesn't the government stop them? I mean, seriously, I know our government is effed up but why didn't Canada or Sweden or somebidy do anything?
[–]nihilist_nancy 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Then you might consider abandoning feminism. Feminists have pushed for the Tender Years doctrine. Most Family Court Services counselors are feminists. Feminists continually push for lighter sentences for women and not men. Feminists often testify in cases to absolve or reduce culpability in criminal court cases.
If feminism were actually about equality and not advantaging women over men this movement would not exist.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I think those people are focused on what it is they think their movement is as opposed to what it actually does.
Kind of like how most people that voted for the hope Obama promised felt betrayed by the fact that he was a status quo wall streeter and not the new dealer he ran as.
There really is very little room for idealism in politics and it's best to focus on concrete reforms rather than pie in the sky dreams or quasi-utopian philosphies (which never turn out well).
/telling you things you probably already know
[+]mindscent -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Which group in particular are you indicating by "they"? Can you direct me to, like, a website for the organization?
Look up Radfem hub...
I'm going to reply to my own comment so it's a little more visible, but this is in response to /u/nihilist_nancy, /u/tyciol, and the rest of you who commented seriously.
I do not keep up with modern feminist doctrine. I do not agree with the extremists whose voices scream out above the rest. I do not believe that women as a group are inherently better or worse than men as a group.
My experience with feminism, which caused me to identify as a feminist, was learning about the original leaders of the movement: women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. They believed in equality for women and men fiscally and politically. I took those ideals and applied them to other concepts, such as the justice system and domestic affairs. So although I do not identify with many modern feminists, I will still continue to call myself a feminist.
It's my personal choice, after all. Does every single person in the Men's Rights Movement agree with everything posted here? Likely not. Each one of you is an individual, with your own experiences, opinions, and knowledge. Disagreeing with the group doesn't mean you're not a member; it means you're thinking about what message you want the group to send. That's what I do when I say that I am a feminist, but disagree with what the majority of modern feminists say.
[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Good for you, CuteQueenPika...you backed up your declaration with some history. I salute you.
But here's the problem; feminists like you are being way too silent while the other ones are misrepresenting your set. You need to rally your sisters and take your set back from these (according to you), false-flagging misandric feminists who are giving good feminists like you a bad name.
We can only judge "feminism" as a whole based upon the actions and words of your most active members.
When we see lauded feminists like Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Kate Harding, and others espousing ideas that scream of hating men and then subsequently seeing those ideas being actually considered; what are we supposed to think?
When we see the largest Women's Rights organization openly stating that "father's rights" organizations and the idea of shared custody will only help men abuse their children, then what message are we supposed to deduce from such a statement?
When the primary piece of federal legislation in our country that deals with domestic violence (VAWA) contains no gender-neutral language within it's text and makes no mention to succor or support male victims of domestic violence, then how are we supposed to believe anything other than what this implies?
I'm not doing this to bash you personally. I'm just trying to illustrate a point and explain to you why people here feel and think the way that we do. If "your feminism" was the dominant form of feminism in this country, then we would not be having this discussion. But as you can see; this is not the case.
Second wave feminism made the political personal and vice-versa. The intentions of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and their contemporaries have been mutated, perverted, and warped into something frighteningly out of control and the things that have spawned from it have already done severe damage and are now ramping up to do more.
So I implore you to please get back in the trenches, rally the sisterhood, and do something about what these people have done to your movement.
Wow... reading that was actually pretty inspiring! I hope someone gives you gold for that.
I agree. Feminism these days is far too reactionary and definitely too extreme. I can understand and even respect more extreme measures in extreme cases (Phoolan Devi and similar women, although not considered feminists per se, are the sorts of women who take/took extreme measures because of the horrible societies in which they live/d, and although I don't agree with their actions I fully understand the reasoning behind them). However, I do not believe that condemning half of the human race will get anyone anywhere. Nor do I believe that women are the sole caregivers of children; that sounds very misogynistic and misandrist to me. That sounds like the sort of thing that feminists should be fighting instead of encouraging.
As for VAWA, I actually very much agree with it: when it was enacted, domestic violence against men wasn't considered to be a reality. Now that we know that it is, and now that it is becoming less taboo to discuss domestic, sexual, and other forms of violence against men, I think we need to extend it to protect male victims.
I do what I can to spread my interpretation of feminism, but as a freshman in college with only the most infinitesimal power on the internet, there's not much I can do... yet. For now, all that I can really do is talk to people and present my side of the argument. Which I do quite happily. :)
[–]rebelcanuck -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So who's the chauvinist pig, the puppy?
[–]Hamburger77 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Boomerang! This was posted here, then reposted to funny, back to here.
[–]theopopp -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You do realize that feminism is against all that. You have a very odd view of what feminism really means.
[–]medfunguy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism is, but the most prominent feminist these days?
[–]gman1401 -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
holy grammar batman.
[–]Setmasters -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
While most of the facts cited in the image are true, generalization is never ok, we have good men and bad men as we have good women and bad women, this image is pure hypocrisy.
[+]ryannayr140 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think excluding men from a venue could be allowed as long as it is 100% privately funded. If there was a women's library I'd be pretty upset.
[–]fyradiem -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.
If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
[–]slawthed 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah I tried looking up men's only gyms that were banned and I couldn't find any.
[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
For the first, there are quite a few situations where this has actually happened.
The most notable case in history was the "Burning Bed." Francine Hughes set her house on fire with her husband inside, killing him. While it is colloquially "assumed" that Hughes was a battered wife, there was never any genuine physical evidence found of that abuse (some say the reason for that is the police in her home town knew about the abuse but "overlooked" it as it was just "something between a man and his wife," so there was no documentation of the abuse). In addition, Hughes had the presence of mind to calmly bundle up her children and put them in the family car before she doused the house with gasoline and igniting it. Nevertheless, she was found not guilty of murder by reason of "temporary insanity."
However, I would guess that the OP was referring to the overwhelming feminist defense and support of convicted murderer Jodi Arias. She consistently cited abuse as her grounds for murdering Travis Alexander, but there was no evidence found of the alleged abuse. But based upon her claims alone, there was massive feminist rallying behind her defense.
As for the "private gym" remark, there were countless lawsuits against "men-only" institutions and businesses citing sexual discrimination in the 70s, which included gyms and health clubs but today we see several national franchise health clubs specifically for women (i.e. Women's Workout World, Curves, etc....).
If you google gym sex discrimination, you will see many discussions of sexual discrimination lawsuits against these "women only" gyms...and you will also see that they most of them get thrown out of court or dismissed. Wisconsin was recently forced to set up a policy excluding same-sex gyms from their sexual discrimination law because of the recent rash of lawsuits going after the practices of women-only gyms. Only recently, the state of California has ruled that women-only gyms are illegal.
If you want to see how this can go horribly wrong, look no further than this case in Detroit. This health club had two locations available for members and then they changed one completely to "women only," leaving men access to the other location only. But it gets better; the remaining location has alternate days that are "women only" as well. So the men who have paid memberships to this health club can only use one location on alternate days while women have full access to one club and shared access to the other. However, men can come in to use the weight room only on women's days if they upgrade to a $99.00/month premium membership.
Personally; I have no problem with single sex health clubs. But the issue is the "have your cake and eat it too" attitude that feminists have regarding men-only institutions. If somebody opened a men-only health club and didn't let a woman in, we would hear about it all over the news, but we are supposed to just say nothing about women-only health clubs because..."women," right?
On another note, let's look at the constant feminist uproar about The Augusta National Golf Club's men only policy for membership. Note that they do not prevent women from playing there; they just cannot be actual dues-paying members of the club. Augusta is the last remaining men only country club in the US and has staunchly defended itself from countless lawsuits. As it is a privately-funded organization and receives no support from any federal, state, or municipal government, they cannot be forced to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
But then there's this case about a woman who sued a town for not letting her participate in a men's only tournament. Even though the town has two women's tournaments, five men-only events and several mixed ones, she sued because she wasn't allowed in one particular members-only tournament for men. And she won based upon Title IX logic. Despite the fact that the town had fewer tournaments for women simply because there was less interest in golf by the women in the town. But the court ruled in her favor because the golf course didn't host an equal number of tournaments for women, offering them the opportunity to participate. Note the lack of logic here because all they had to do to gauge the interest of female golfers is to look at the turnout of the women's only and mixed gender tournaments.
Let's look at other examples of that double standard. Girls can join the Boy Scouts, but when a boy who identified as a girl joined the Girl Scouts, there was a massive uproar about it by women.
The truth is simple; the feminist attitude being illustrated by these situations is that "it is only discrimination when men are involved. If it's being fostered by women, then apparently there's a good reason for it."
[–]fyradiem 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You are very welcome.
[–]fyradiem 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You could just behave like a real man and stop whining.
[+]mindscent -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
This post kind of makes it sound like men are jealous that they don't "get" to lie, murder, rape and steal...
Your comment makes it sound like you have nothing better to do than to shame other men for wanting equality.
[+]mindscent -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Only if you don't understand my comment.
[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
What text in the image "kind of" praises the idea of victimizing other people? Be specific.
[+]mindscent -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
"Gets to use", "gets away with", "can use"
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
"...who gets the larger sentence..."
Using consistent inferential grammatical logic, does that indicate to you that the author feels a longer prison sentence is good? If I tell you that someone murdered my dad, and now look how she gets away with it, does that wording suggest to you approval of whoever murdered my father?
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
"...who gets the larger sentence..." Using consistent inferential grammatical logic, does that indicate to you that the author feels a longer prison sentence is good? If I tell you that someone murdered my dad, and now look how she gets away with it, does that wording suggest to you approval of whoever murdered my father?
I'm not sure I follow. The statement is made in natural language. If I wanted to parse it down to analyze it, I'd begin with semantics. To me it reads:
F does atrocity, f gets less severe consequences M does atrocity, M gets more severe consequences Justice only if f & m do atrocity & consequence f = consequence m
In any case, I'm not implying that OP actually wants to do all that stuff. Im saying that the sentiment behind the post kind of comes off as : "here is a list of benefits given only to women." He meant it (I assume) to demonstrate an inequality. That's fine. But the thing that might make someone raise an eyebrow is the list of supposed benefits. They kind of smack against moral sensibilities. Like, "oh that's not fair! She gets away with murder, why can't I get away with murder?" Just seems like an inverted sort of evaluation.
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure I follow.
It's quite simple. You gave "gets to use" etc as examples of what comes off to you as author approval of these crimes. However, those phrases do not - in and of themselves - indicate approval as my counter examples pretty obviously demonstrate, unless you think the author also looks fondly at the idea of long prison sentences. It seems like this "jealousy" that you're reading into this isn't really present.
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Oh, I guess I wasn't being clear enough. I said in my last comment that I don't think OP actually approves. I just think the wording can be interpreted as suggesting approval.
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No, I understood what you meant. I don't think what you're suggesting is a reasonable interpretation, though, because you can't point to anything concrete to support this or explain why my counter examples don't disprove your hypothesis.
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Counterexample? To my opinion?
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep, to your opinion. Do you think your opinion on the meaning of a text is immune to rational examination?
[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Way to sensationailze. Recognizing that women are punished more lightly for crimes and frequently get off scott-free without punishment for them in comparison to men is not the same as saying that it's legal for them and they're never punished.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The way you guys carry on about it, one would think that women can legally murder people
One might think that if one lacks reading comprehension. The concern is that people can get away with murder, or receive a slap on the wrist for crime in general. Whether this happens due to actual law or misapplication of law is irrelevant to the end result and the concern it invokes.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of you regulars cringed and ran screaming from every woman you saw.
That's ridiculous, I cringe and walk away in a slow quiet robotic fashion so as not to upset them with excessive noise or movement that might frighten them into calling the police and saying I assaulted them.
Any bros also cross the street to avoid women? It's not just black men who feel pressured into doing this, these days. Motivation is a mix of concern for their emotional wellbeing and concern for one's own freedoms.
Maybe we just don't like sentencing disparity based on sex or gender, and aren't gullible enough to believe privilige is still sexism.
Coming to that conclusion would require reading some of this sub before arriving at pre-determined conclusions though, so I understand how you're confused on the issue.
I like how you also tried to make a fake comment thinking it would get agreed with, but got proven wrong.
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Poe or SRS troll account?
[–]theozoph 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Username : Fedora-bro-69
Draw your own conclusion.
[–]nihilist_nancy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Point taken.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's not really true, it is true they get far lower sentences but it's a bit extreme
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]EvilPundit 233 points234 points235 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Number357 102 points103 points104 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ging287 32 points33 points34 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]41145and6 -5 points-4 points-3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ging287 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]salami_inferno 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]41145and6 -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]41145and6 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]SacreBleuMe -12 points-11 points-10 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SacreBleuMe -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]SacreBleuMe 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SacreBleuMe 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Scythe_001 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fukuaneveryoneuknow 83 points84 points85 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Offensive_Brute 37 points38 points39 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]XtraStrongMint 51 points52 points53 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KillJoy575 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dronelisk 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SatiateMe 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]139andlennox 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]silentthinker 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]ArchangelleNiggatron 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]silentthinker 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]silentthinker 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thehumungus 31 points32 points33 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 43 points44 points45 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]thehumungus 40 points41 points42 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 49 points50 points51 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]thehumungus 60 points61 points62 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 32 points33 points34 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]adwilliams1987 7 points8 points9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]thehumungus -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]adwilliams1987 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thehumungus -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GeorgeMaheiress -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HalfysReddit 13 points14 points15 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]HalfysReddit 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HalfysReddit 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZimbaZumba 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Offensive_Brute 12 points13 points14 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]thehumungus -4 points-3 points-2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]flyingwolf 12 points13 points14 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]thehumungus -8 points-7 points-6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]real-boethius 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]timdesuyo 10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]timdesuyo 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ArchangelleNiggatron 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]weezel365 13 points14 points15 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]spikyandy053 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]timdesuyo 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 15 points16 points17 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (11 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GeorgeMaheiress 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]grammarmage 4 points5 points6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]peacegnome 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]XtraStrongMint 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wilhelm_Stark 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shonmao 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spankytheham 4 points5 points6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]spankytheham 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]salami_inferno 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spankytheham 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xhabeascorpusx 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Old_Army90 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]uberpower[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bhath01 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]N64Overclocked 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 4 points5 points6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent -5 points-4 points-3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]nihilist_nancy 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rebelcanuck -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamburger77 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]theopopp -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]medfunguy 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gman1401 -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Setmasters -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ryannayr140 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fyradiem -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]slawthed 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]fyradiem 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fyradiem 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent -9 points-8 points-7 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]mindscent 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (9 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]tyciol 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]theozoph 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nihilist_nancy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link