TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dragonadept Archive

View 0 posts and 75 comments by dragonadept on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the perpetrators, I was talking about how you dismiss male victims. You can't just talk about the victims without talking about the perpetrators. It's not going to get any less true because you deny it. It'll only get less true if you take a good hard look at yourself and say "a male victim is no less a victim because he's male" and "the existence of male generals in no way lessens the victimhood of a man forced to die in a war". Look, when you want to talk about …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:39 AM
1

So you would be completely happy to shack up for the rest of your life right now with literally any woman of any age, background, appearance, level of personal grooming, personality... literally nothing matters to you?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:38 AM
0

That doesn't change anything about the victims does it? Does it change anything about the perpetrators? EDIT: This response makes it clear you KNOW you're dismissing the victims, you just think it's okay because they're men - and you think they DESERVE to be dismissed. You can repeat this as often as you like. It's not going to get more true because you repeat it. I get that you want it to be true because that's the argument you want to have, but I think you should just go for a walk and win an …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:15 AM
1

"Value" is a subjective perception. You and I might well value one thing totally differently.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:11 AM
1

Suppose I got you to do something for me. Suppose I got you to draw a line down the middle of a blank sheet of lined paper. On the left you list all the men killed by feminist extremists, ever. How long do you imagine that taking you? On the right you list all the women killed just by explicitly anti-feminist mass murderers from 1989 to today. How do you imagine your page would look when you were done?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:10 AM
-1

In this scenario do the black people have a monopoly on social, military, religious and financial power?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:06 AM
1

Did you post this in the wrong subthread or something?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:01 AM
1

I am [...] antifeminist. At least you admit it, I guess. Please lead with that in your interactions with other people so they know what you are like.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:58 AM
-1

Do you not get that that is the precise behaviour I described you engaging in - dismissing male victims on the basis that there were male perpetrators? Nothing about what I said "dismisses male victims". Patriarchy hurts men too, and if you don't get that then you really don't get even the most basic feminist ideas. If you want to argue against things I never said you can do that in your own head in your own time. I don't need to respond to it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:54 AM
1

So you didn't know what I meant, but you got offended about something you imagined I could have meant?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:49 AM
0

And I hope that one day you realise that you're going to have a hard time fooling anyone about your agenda when your username gives it away before they even read the first word of your post.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:49 AM
0

Do you not get that a social power structure can perpetuate power remaining in the hands of men as a group while also harming some individual men?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:48 AM
1

How about "justifiably universally unwanted"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:46 AM
1

It's not a defence against someone saying they are offended. People can be offended about whatever they like and there's no point in gainsaying them. It's a completely valid defence against someone saying your words are "dangerous". As I have said elsewhere recently, I know you are not living your life in fear of being beaten to death by militant feminsts. Whereas women do have to worry about being raped or killed by men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:45 AM
1

"Less desired" is saying the exact same thing, but if you prefer that term I will try to remember to use it when discussing these issues with you. Using "low-value" means that they are inherently less valuable as human beings, which is inegalitarian bullshit. I think that's you projecting your own gloss on to it. Why "inherently"? I am pretty sure that if you asked even the most hardcore FDS poster if they think a man's perceived value as a partner would go up if they had more social skills, a b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:41 AM
-2

You've been arguing that male victims don't count because you can point to male perpetrators. No I have not. If you want to argue against a straw person who said that you can do it in your own time, you don't need to get me involved. It doesn't seem Then you need to read more carefully I think, and not just respond blindly to some imagined stereotype or straw person.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:38 AM
1

Sure, they aren't feminism. They're just spoken almost exclusively by feminists. Maybe you need to go back to primary school and revisit Venn diagrams? "Women should all be lesbians and live in communes with no men" is also something said exclusively by feminists, do you think that means it is something all feminists believe? They're not feminism. They're just campaigned to be put into law by feminist organizations. Say what? Feminist organisations have campaigned to have all men killed? I think…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:33 AM
1

Where did I mention disabled men?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:27 AM
-6

rofl, ''feminists saying/doing all these terrible things but you are the one who has bad intentions for spending time to expose it'' Category error. Feminism isn't, say, a political party. If The Feminist Party of Ruritania did specific things, or had specific things in their platform, then it would be completely reasonable to hold TFPoR to account for them. But feminism isn't a political party, it's an incredibly broad label to refer to a huge spectrum of ideas and agendas from all around the w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:26 AM
1

Feminists have done nothing positive for men’s rights. The fact that this is getting upvoted says an awful lot about the state of knowledge here and the general ideological bias. Feminism [...] must be destroyed You said the quiet part loud dude. You are meant to pretend to be left wing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:14 AM
0

That is describing how the left use the term "woke". The term has been appropriated by the right wing and, as I said, has become a meaningless buzzword in their discourse.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:12 AM
1

If women wanted to change that, they could simply vote for non-sausage holders, and run for office themselves. Patriarchal social systems and ideas affect both men and women's behaviour, but that is not exactly breaking news. Roe v Wade was a decision made by an all-male Supreme Court. The decision to undo it was not. Okay... what did you think I meant when I said I was not a gender essentialist feminist? The support for and opposition to abortion are roughly gender equal. Not really. So please,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:11 AM
0

I await your response. Okay. I think you aren't responding to what I say in any meaningful sense and this isn't a good faith discussion, so I don't see any reason to spend more time on it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:06 AM
1

The difference as I see it is that men raping women is an ongoing, serious social problem that all women have to worry about. Whereas women going around killing men for being men is not. It's like the difference between me hypothetically saying "we should shoot all the MRAs into the sun" and a KKK spokesperson saying "we should lynch civil rights protesters". Nobody whatsoever actually has to live their life in fear of me shooting them into the sun. It would not be political terrorism to say it …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 01:59 AM
-4

This is entirely false. Well that's certainly a thing a person can say. And if you want to make that claim, then at least back it up with evidence. The floor's all yours. Show us the social progress you think MRAs have achieved.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 12:48 AM
-10

yes they are feminism, prominent/influental figures of feminism through its history weren't/aren't much different than them Feminisms just not one thing. It's a term that refers to a whole bunch of incompatible ideas which all relate to women and power. If someone spent that much time curating things they think make "feminism" look bad then that says something about their issues and nothing else. Show me a single self proclaimed and influental MRA who has said anything equivalent to ''kill all m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 12:38 AM
-6

wokeism "Wokeism" is a meaningless, regressive buzzword. It lets reactionaries complain about progress without making them specify what exact kinds of progress have made them upset. What is "woke"? There is no official list, or even a generally agreed upon list, of what is "woke". It's a meaningless term. It just means "whatever I don't like".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:46 PM
-14

I've been seeing a lot of those harmful hashtags "kill all men" and "misandry doesn't exist." There are many different, incompatible feminisms in the world. Feminists are people and some people are idiots, or trolling. If you don't like or respect feminists who use those hashtags, fair enough. You do not have to. But you are engaging in the fallacy of composition if you decide that those hashtags and the people associated with them are feminism. Left wing would mean fighting for equality for all…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:43 PM
1

What more sensitive, but commonly understood, term would you prefer we use for the men that for very sound reasons most women would never want as their partner?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:09 PM
-1

The earlier poster specifically brought up the issue of men trying to befriend women solely as a means to try to get sex with those women. If you think those men are mythical then (a) I have a bridge to sell you and (b) take it up with the earlier poster. My remarks apply only to the specific men who do that specific thing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:08 PM
0

That's an interesting take, as in it's interesting what it says that you posted it. Some men are just after sexual gratification. Some people are just after money. That is stating a fact, not "demonising" all men or all people. I'm not "demonising" people who really do care for each other having sex or loaning each other money. Those are both good things. But I was trying to explain to someone, who did not seem to get it, that it is entirely valid for women to be suspicious of or repelled by men…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:06 PM
0

You said that, not me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 10:59 PM
-1

In contrast, my original question was full of Caveats, because I've dealt with enough bad faith Redditors who try to misconstrue by moving goal posts. I was hoping you would not be one of them. The thing with goalposts is that both sides need to agree with where you put them before it becomes an argumentative sin to move them. If we both agreed that it would be sufficient evidence of feminists opposing war for there to be five notable feminists who did so, and I couldn't find five so I tried to …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 10:53 PM
1

It's tough. I think it's fair to say that probably 99% of the men who bring that stuff up to female feminists are incel dickheads trying to start a fight, with intellectually bankrupt bullshit nobody wants to hear again, and that ignoring them or making them piss off is the entirely correct response. So if you sincerely want to have a good faith discussion about those issues with feminists you will get lumped in with the incel dickheads because they have so thoroughly poisoned that well. But I d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 02:51 PM
1

I feel like you are misremembering or trying to reinvent this conversation. You claimed that feminists did not want to "reform" the aspects of war that disproportionately hurt men, which I immediately disproved. And you asked your long, loaded question which I suspect you had cued up and ready to go: How many high profile feminists can we name who has seriously devoted financial and political capital to fix the latter from an explicitly anti misandrist perspective? How many escape hatches did yo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 02:42 PM
-2

Your link doesn't work, I think it got cut off. But I found it anyway. Fixed link. So now I know what you mean by the "black on black crime argument", but I am afraid I do not see what parallel you think there is with what I am saying. Saying I am "basically parroting the same tradcon arguments" does not mean anything to me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 12:11 PM
-1

I was wondering if someone would try to cherry pick my quote selectively...., looks like you're it. However, I will be generous and assume it was unintentional from you. It was intentional in the sense that I thought your question was loaded all to hell and not worth answering, because you had piled up so many arbitrary requirements that nobody could meet it. So I answered the better question you should have asked which is just "have there been loads of relatively famous and important anti-war f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:54 AM
-4

Can you unpack that a bit for me? What do you mean by "the black on black crime argument", and what parallel do you see between it and what I am saying?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:38 AM
0

You ever want proof American doctor's don't know shit about the male genitals? Well, you've found one paper which appears to be an outlier compared to the bulk of the available data, you have made some mistakes in interpreting the paper and you have at least one important factual misconception about the topic. So I probably wouldn't go waving this post around as proof that you know more about male anatomy than American doctors. So I want to lay out what this means, To suffer from meatal stenosis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 11:35 AM
-5

The point was more in regards to people giving that as an answer to "How do i meet women?" And yeah, i think that it is a bad answer, mostly for the same reasons you give. It basically feels like they want to answer "you don't." but don't want to say it outright. Because when someone asks for help you're not supposed to just say "no, you can't be helped." Women are 50% or more of the population, they aren't all walled up in a nunnery or on a space station or something. If you get out of the hous…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 09:43 AM
-1

Indeed, and I want to add for the benefit of OP: We egalitarians recognize both the areas where women are disproportionately victimized in war (sexual violence) and where men are disproportionately victimized (injury rate, fatality rate, long term chronic illness, PTSD, conscription, suicide rate) Most of this is right, but depending on what war you look at and how long after the war you keep tracking the "long tail" of morbidity and mortality, often as many or more women and children die as a r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 08:53 AM
1

Response to paragraph one: that’s a no true Scotsman statement followed by ideological guerrilla warfare. This is why we view self proclaimed feminists as akin to slimy car sales people. Feminists, of almost all denominations, rarely practice what they preach, so the “groups official statements and principles” are meaningless. It's not a No True Scotsman argument. I did not say "no true feminist hates men just for being men". But it's just a fact. There are pro-sex and anti-sex feminists, anti-w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 08:40 AM
-5

No, it was just a very few, very lucky men. The rest were footsoldiers with no say. That is how the oligarchy works. We are both perfectly well aware that the majority of foot soldiers did not get to be generals. We are also both perfectly well aware that those who did so were all men. I'm not sure what you think you are disagreeing with me about. Depending on what point in history we're talking about, both genders were basically uneducated slaves to the upper class. For example: medieval serfs.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 08:21 AM
1

Well, besides needing to know what hobbies generally have single women and which of the women in the hobby are single, what if the guy has no interest in those hobbies? (especially if they cost money to take up? Such as horse riding.) I feel like you are making this harder than it needs to be. Pick a hobby you actually like. Do the hobby things. Meet people. Maybe some of them will be single women, and if so then great. Maybe one of them will like you. There is no magical pussy vending machine w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 07:51 AM
-6

Wrong. You should look up the white feather society. Its a pretty disgusting and fairly recent historical example of women encouraging men to die in wars. At the same time, military careers were often highly sought-after and rewarding. While both men and women policed the social convention that men ought to go to war, it was men who got to be generals with all the social and financial benefits that went with that. While dead men obviously do not benefit from this, some live ones very much do. An…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 07:05 AM
1

I want to hear more about how gay men dominated society. Then I want to hear about black men. Finally, I want you to show me how poor men were responsible for how society is run. This seems like a series of straw person arguments. Who said gay men dominated society? Who said black men dominated society? If you interpret someone saying "society was/is male dominated" to mean "dominated by all men equally" then I think the problem is on your end, because that's almost certainly not what they meant…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 06:42 AM
-1

This is a straw man argument based on a misunderstanding of what people mean when they say "the world and society has always been male-dominated". They don't mean that every single man from the lowliest slave on up lived the life of a king and nothing bad ever happened to any of them. They mean something closer to "the world and society has always been predominantly (not completely) dominated by a subset of the population who are mostly men and who actively maintain that male dominance in that a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 06:31 AM
2

Your question is misconceived, because there is no one, unitary "modern feminism". There are many, many different feminisms. So before you can label "feminism" a "hate group" you need to define which specific feminist group you mean, and then show that based on that group's official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities, that is has beliefs or practices that attack or malign men just for being men. You could probably find one or two such groups, but I don't t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 06:09 AM
56

Probably social institutions that get men and women out of the house and mingling, from childhood through to adulthood, would fix most of it. I think organised religion is awful (overall, taking everything into account) but one thing churches did do is get people out and into social situations. That role has largely been taken over by capitalist enterprises like bars and dating sites that exist to make money off lonely people, not necessarily to help them. Men to whom women are inaccessible alie…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 05:56 AM
1

Can't we feminists think that PUAs and rinsers are both repugnant? Is that okay with you?
/r/MensRights20/10/12 08:09 AM
1

Well you can stop holding your breath. Would I be way off base if I guessed you've never even lifted a finger to check those stats yourself, just swallowed them whole because they suited your prejudices? In Australia a 2005 survey on that precise question showed that women were the victims of sexual assault about three times as often as men. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/cat/4906.0 That's roughly in line with the 2003 data showing that 82% of reported sexual assaults were against women…
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:58 AM
0

Where's the hypocrisy? If you're hitting on someone totally out of your league that means you're either completely socially inept, mentally ill or contemplating sexual assault. Either way you're unpredictable, scary and icky to be around. Plus most creeps do not leave after a polite rebuff, they just redouble their efforts. Public social shaming for these unpleasant nuisances is the best solution.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 02:17 AM
1

It's never any comfort if it happens to you. The point was just that this isn't a "men's rights" problem, it's either a problem for everyone or a problem feminists can claim.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 02:00 PM
1

For pity's sake, the feminazi police are not going to take you away because a train is crowded. Grow up. Occasionally creeps try to dry-hump women on crowded trains, and they deserve to be shamed and prosecuted. It's got absolutely nothing to do with normal, accidental contact. Sheesh.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:34 AM
3

You can't find one anomalous figure in one study, ignore every other study ever done on the topic, and declare your oddball statistic the universal truth. There's a reason why the MRAs only ever cite this one small part of this one study, and ignore all the rest of the scholarship on the issue. It's because it's the only study with even one small part that says what they want it to say.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:19 AM
2

"An analysis by a Deakin University criminologist, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, shows that only three of the 18 defendants who have successfully used the defence since 2005 were women."
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:09 AM
-1

If you make a move on a woman which is clearly has no rational hope of success then she has to assume you're totally socially inept, mentally unstable or hoping to sexually assault her. Or all three. Whichever it is, you're a social affront at best and a threat to her safety at worst. Yes it sucks for fugly people because the percentage of people they can ask out without being a creep is relatively low. Gays and lesbians have the same problem of a tiny dating pool and limited options. I feel sor…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 03:47 AM
4

Creep shaming's a good thing. People shouldn't make creepy sexual advances, and should know when they are being creepy. How hard is that to understand?
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:13 PM
-3

I know it's an idea utterly foreign to the MRA community, but sometimes a women dresses up because she wants to look a certain way, not because she wants attention from you personally. Especially if you're a creep. Few or no women dress up because they want attention from creeps.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:58 AM
1

Yup, the glorious and all-powerful Founding Fathers wanted you to be able to rape, as long as you didn't mess the woman up too much. They realised that a one-in-a-billion chance of two women trying to frame you for rape was too big a risk to take, compared to the piddling one in four chance a woman will be raped in her lifetime. Men clearly have it worse! We've gotten way off the original topic, which was the law about sex with drunk people, and I'm done here. Don't let that stop you from postin…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:42 PM
-1

Yes, I read the article about the basketball player, he got convicted. That proves the exact opposite of your point. Women sometimes makes false rape accusations, sure. Two or more women independently? Not so likely, if you think about it. Also you seem to be disproportionately worried about women accusing you of rape, which is pretty weird. If two people get together to frame you for a crime there are all sorts of other ways they can do that, and there is only so much any possible court system …
/r/MensRights17/10/12 04:34 AM
0

Keep moving those goalposts dude. Are you going to get around to supporting your claim that testimony alone doesn't count as evidence any time soon? Or are you going to keep quoting things that don't say anything like that, and acting like they are evidence to support your claim? If two different women with no motive to lie say this guy was groping people and dragging them into basements that sounds to me like really good evidence he's a creepy, dangerous guy who belongs behind bars. I guess a j…
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:24 PM
0

Uh huh. You post a link that doesn't say what you claim it does, then wave your hand towards "massive amounts of precedent" that somehow has left no trace on the internet that you can find. Then you try to make it my job to find a case that disproves your claim, instead of supporting your own claim yourself. Nice try. Next time try not repeating dumb MRA talking points unless you've checked them out for yourself beforehand, because the MRA movement's grasp on the law is hit-and-miss at best.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 09:31 PM
-6

Since the alternative to him being a troll is him being genuinely interested in upskirt pics of school children, I think calling him a troll is actually doing him a favour.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:43 AM
-9

The article draws false equivalence between outing a child, and outing an adult troll who encouraged people to post upskirt pics of school children.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:14 AM
0

Got a legal source for the claim that testimony does not count as stand alone evidence, or is this a legal rule from the MRA collective hallucination? As far as I'm aware a jury can convict a defendant on whatever evidence it likes.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:01 AM
-1

You seem really worried about women making a rape complaint against you. I suggest not raping women if that's your concern, and not sleeping with women who are mentally ill or have a criminal history. If I steal your wallet, and you and one other person see me steal your wallet, plus there's some physical evidence to support the theory I stole your wallet (say a tear in your pocket where I ripped it out), that sounds like a good basis for a conviction to me. If the woman says she was raped, and …
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:17 AM
1

I don't really want to get off the topic of the "slightly drunk is rape" meme, because life's too short to go over every aspect of sexual assault law, but your link doesn't say what you think it does. In that link it looks like he was convicted on the victim's testimony, plus the testimony of the person she reported the rape to who said she was "hysterical, shaking, trembling, afraid", plus the fact she had vaginal tearing consistent with a rape. If that's not enough for a conviction you're sett…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 11:13 PM
0

It's not rape unless you are too drunk to consent. MRAs have this myth that having sex with a slightly sozzled woman will get you dragged away by the feminazi rape police, but oddly enough they can never cite an actual case of this happening because it never has.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:57 AM
1

Congratulations on being the one person here who actually understands the law, as opposed to the made-up version of the law MRAs have invented so that they can feel all persecuted.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 02:18 AM
0

No it's not. We know that the creepy guy has been creeping on women for some time and has a reputation for it. All we know about the girl is she made an unwanted advance once. That's not a double standard, it's having different information about different people.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 02:16 AM
-1

I've heard of a few stories where police planted drugs and a knife on totally, completely innocent people for no reason too. People lie. Odds are the guy accused of groping really did grope someone. I guess maybe very occasionally there will be a false groping accusation, but they're going to be wildly outnumbered by the cases where a creep goes the grope, gets called on it, and then spins a tale where it's not their fault at all.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 02:13 AM
1

It's still three people's word against his, with no reason presented to think any of them were lying. Even at a party with eighty people a determined predator can find opportunities to get women alone, so the "there were eighty people, it can't have been rape!" theory is not very strong. Unless you think it's normal for three separate women to decide out of the blue to frame a completely innocent guy, you have to think that it's highly likely this guy is a sexual predator who belongs behind bars…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 02:00 AM
1

Get your facts right. Lie detector tests are never admissible in court. Ever. They cannot use it against you in court if you fail one. They can lie to you about that, of course. They can also use the failed lie detector test as a lever to try to get you to confess. What they absolutely cannot do is use the test itself as evidence in court.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:55 AM
0

They're drunk, not hallucinating. Seriously, grow up.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:53 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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