TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thro_way Archive

View 0 posts and 194 comments by thro_way 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)
2

Wait you just called yourself the kettle
/r/MensRights03/10/18 07:24 AM
1

No there's literally not a base. She hasn't spcified a place or a date, the entirety of her claim is "he assaulted me somewhere on some day"; it's non-falsifiable. If someone said "DeathByPianos committed a crime against me" and nothing further, how would you begin to verify this?
/r/MensRights03/10/18 07:19 AM
3

He just told you. They wouldn't have been able to delay Gorsuch for two years, they might be able to delay Kavanaugh for a month.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 07:17 AM
6

Sotomayor: I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. I don't know many feminists who wouldn't agree with that, or non-feminists who would. Every person who speaks like this is identifies as a feminist.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 07:13 AM
0

Michael Kimmel is Jewish? What are the odds.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 07:16 AM
3

They don't, though. At this point all public pressure comes from leftists.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 09:00 PM
6

These people run the courts. What sort of judge is going to give up their career to protect a racist?
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:25 PM
1

These people run the courts. What sort of judge is going to give up their career to protect a racist?
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:24 PM
12

My brother is adopted into a white household, and after he went to college he came back convinced that white people are oppressive and our parents view him as an object and all that. Be careful.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:23 PM
2

These demographics are growing (and therfore have less need to conform to white people's ideals), and are now being taught this stuff in school. It's only going to increase buddy, hold on for the ride.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:17 PM
2

If you need a peer reviewed study to tell you that men are more likely than women to prattle on at a party about proof of stake vs. proof of work, get out of the house.
/r/MensRights18/09/18 05:04 PM
1

Oh God. I don’t think there’s any name someone could call me or thing they could say that could upset me 1/10th as much as that behavior.
/r/MensRights18/09/18 04:35 PM
1

“Those” meaning the phrases in the original post: constructive criticism, honesty, and telling it like it is. I view those as positive, and rarely are those what I hear described as mansplaining. can you support your assertion with credible evidence Of course not, it’s just been my experience. If it hasn’t been yours, feel free to downvote.
/r/MensRights18/09/18 04:20 PM
1

I’m a guy, and strongly anti-feminist/anti-leftist. What hill am I dying on exactly? Is “mansplaining is a garbage concept but for a more specific reason than just “its bad”” really that common a position among feminists?
/r/MensRights18/09/18 12:45 PM
6

The behavior feminists call “mansplaining” is different from those (which are positive), it’s a blusterous, self-absorbed obliviousness to the fact that the other person either already knows or doesn’t care about what you’re talking about. It is annoying. Where I think they miss the mark though, is that it’s not a thing men do to women- the people (more frequently men) who do it do it to everyone. Women see “men do this thing to me, women don’t, therefore it’s a thing men do to women” when that’…
/r/MensRights18/09/18 11:20 AM
1

She didn’t say anything about men; her sign is an inter-women comparison.
/r/MensRights16/09/18 08:47 PM
1

I don’t think people would really have a problem with that...? The comparison seems to be between parents vs. single 20-somethings, not men vs. women. It’s corny, but I don’t really see a reason to take offense to it.
/r/MensRights16/09/18 08:45 PM
0

If I get drafted I really don’t want to have to deal with women in my squad. Imagine that “oh hahaha I missed the ball isn’t that cute” attitude they have in gym class sports, on the front line.
/r/MensRights15/09/18 07:58 AM
2

Everything you've said is correct, and it's incredibly frustrating. But I don't think any of us want the resolution of this double standard to be that both genders get hysterically offended by things. The correct answer is for both forms of jokes to be acceptable, not for us to legitimately start getting offended by lame jokes. I totally support calling women out for it IRL, but amongst ourselves there's no reason to take issue with the joke itself.
/r/MensRights30/08/18 03:06 AM
3

Ok? The joke doesn’t involve that information.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 10:16 PM
2

Again, the funny part is not that he was beaten. The joke was that we’d expect him to change his mind based on something casual, but it’s revealed that he’s actually been compelled into it. That reversal/surprise of expectations is what’s funny, not the beating itself. Hence why simply the statement “my wife beat me to change my mind” wouldn’t have been a joke.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 10:15 PM
13

It’s a joke. We make jokes all the time about people dying, getting injured, and so on- it doesn’t mean you approve of them. The joke in this instance is the subversion/unexpected reason of why the man changes his opinion on the woman’s soup, not an approval of assault.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 09:20 PM
1

I'd much rather be raped again than go to prison for 3 years. One's kind of gross, the other is years of your life/youth you'll never get back.
/r/TheRedPill25/08/18 12:34 AM
2

Asians are overrepresented in tech. Asians are discriminated against in hiring processes. Both of these are true! Yeah, they have every right to complain.
/r/MensRights17/03/18 09:53 AM
6

Just fyi, white people are actually underrepresented at Google and in tech in general.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 12:51 PM
1

I agree with your position, but "Oh man, there's so much your missing" isn't really a point. And then the third comment went off into /r/iamverysmart tier; I would have downvoted it too.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 04:24 AM
7

Here's a meta-study of the topic. It cites hundreds of sources.
/r/TheRedPill24/05/17 12:32 AM
-6

No, he was Antifa. That is a fact. You didn't way that he was antifa, though- you said that he "was the one who threw a brick that busted some guys head open".
/r/TheRedPill16/04/17 09:39 PM
13

"Hindu" is shorthand for Indian, where 95+% of it's practitioners live. His joke is lazy, but I don't think you actually had any confusion as to what he meant.
/r/TheRedPill04/04/17 10:22 AM
0

What right do you have to tell other people what jobs they can and cannot work?
/r/MensRights01/11/16 12:33 AM
2

That's a bit of a jump. One can believe that men commit a comprise a disproportionate amount of the homeless without considering themselves a victim.
/r/TheRedPill26/10/16 10:19 PM
2

People say mean things about Trump. Is that because they're racist against white people, or is it because Trump holds political views they disagree with? I don't think you need to search for a hidden reason why Republicans said mean things about the Democratic presidential candidate.
/r/MensRights15/10/16 02:21 AM
10

A case for something, sure, but not the same crime as pulling a women into the bushes at knifepoint.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/16 03:14 PM
3

What empirical evidence do you have?
/r/TheRedPill06/03/16 08:32 PM
8

She didn't die I'm looking for an instance where a woman did, intentionally.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:15 AM
14

Honest question: is there any recorded instance of a woman voluntarily giving her life to protect men?
/r/MensRights19/12/15 02:33 AM
40

Plus, black people when given private education etc. Etc. Perform to the same standard as white people. They actually don't. White students from households that earn under $20,000 have the same average SAT score as black students from households that earn over $200,000.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 11:15 PM
20

I know what they are, dude. In addition to being very nice, louboutins on men are also very loud, and in most circumstances tacky- which is why you get comments on them. You won't get many comments on, say, john lobbs, despite being equally nice.
/r/TheRedPill08/12/15 11:56 PM
28

As I said, shoes that are loud/tacky.
/r/TheRedPill08/12/15 09:43 PM
23

Mine as well. My cheap lime green loafers get comments, the ferragamos do not. People notice shoes because they're loud/tacky, not because they're nice.
/r/TheRedPill08/12/15 08:35 PM
3

For an IQ over 130 lets say there would be on average the same amount of whites and blacks. That's completely and utterly false.
/r/TheRedPill15/11/15 04:50 AM
4

Very few Republicans consider Sanders the best candidate. It's pretty obvious that /u/MattClark0995 falls into that group.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 06:39 PM
1

What about the women with no talent or interest in sewing who would rather be working outside? What prevented them from working outside?
/r/MensRights24/04/15 03:57 AM
7

What a lot of people don't understand is that the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. aren't male leagues- they're open to anyone. We already live in a society in which men and women compete together in sports, it's just that there are zero women who have the ability to make it to the highest levels.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 07:18 PM
5

If you disagree with him, it's probably a better idea to address his argument rather than his association with a group.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 04:07 AM
1

I thought you meant directly linked to. They're directly linked to being male, which is why they're men's rights issues. Hence the name of the sub. Issues caused by being gay that happen to men aren't "men's rights" issues any more than issues caused by having Chron's disease that happen to men aren't "men's rights" issues. Men's Rights is about issues that affect men because they're men, not every issue that affects any man ever. For example, the fact that gay men tend to face more of a social …
/r/MensRights25/01/15 04:01 AM
2

Violence committed by women against men is not taken seriously. This is an issue that affects all men, including gay/trans ones.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 01:44 AM
6

Just pulling links from the current front page- http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2tiiml/i_think_mens_symptoms_of_heart_attack_are_being/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2te9x4/case_sends_clear_message_that_domestic_abuse_is/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2th4g3/female_teacher_assaults_pupil_while_classmates/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2til5o/this_is_what_masculinity_really_means_to_men/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2tgwhf/being…
/r/MensRights24/01/15 04:53 PM
3

But it shouldn’t be women’s responsibility to fix men or deal with their misogyny. Isn't the notion that it's men's responsibility to take care of women one of the outdated gender roles that feminists want to eradicate?
/r/MensRights15/01/15 08:28 PM
7

I hate to break it to you, bud.
/r/TheRedPill06/12/14 12:06 AM
3

What issues do whites face, as a group? Being treated as second-class citizens by the US government, for starters.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 10:48 PM
3

If you control for black on black crime, the US has the same gun death rate as Luxembourg.
/r/TheRedPill11/11/14 12:00 AM
1

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
/r/MensRights05/11/14 08:07 AM
1

when you control for those things black kids aren't more likely than any other demographic to commit violent crime. This is false. Race correlates with crime far more strongly than poverty does.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 05:59 AM
2

But the basic "write a pointer that gets the sum of x and y" I don't think you know what pointers are.
/r/TheRedPill19/10/14 08:58 PM
9

There are lots of real people I wouldn't date. Not wanting to date someone does not mean you don't consider them a real person.
/r/TheRedPill08/10/14 06:19 PM
-1

I suspect that lesbians are far more likely to be part of the sort of social circle that views being victimized as a status symbol.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 02:36 AM
1

It's never happened to me. Every women I've been with has wanted me to be in control the entire time and clearly would have been repulsed if I asked her to dominate me. It's one of the reasons why I subscribe to TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 09:20 PM
3

There are a number of girls I socialize with but I wouldn't really consider any of them friends. They're fun to talk to, but none of them would have my back in a fight, drive two hours in the middle of the night to help me fix a broken car, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 09:17 PM
1

Honestly it's just good business sense. When was the last time you were able to walk across a college campus without hearing some blue-haired coed gossiping with her friends about Richard Branson's 5 New Leadership Techniques? This "can't-get-enough-Forbes-magazine" mania that's so consistently entranced generations of college aged feminists has always been their cash cow, so it's only reasonable that they'd go to such lengths to avoid pissing such a prized demographic off.
/r/TheRedPill24/09/14 11:41 PM
9

Literally any human interaction can be framed as "objectification"; it's a non-falsifiable claim. This is a really common feminist tactic. Take a word that has emotional power, redefine it into total ambiguity to the point where it's no longer deserving of it's original significance, and then classify your opponents with the etymology of the new definition but the connotations of the old one. We see this with "objectification", "sexism", "patriarchy", "rape culture", etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/14 02:57 PM
2

Isn't the idea that it's men's responsibility to protect women one of the outdated gender roles that feminists oppose?
/r/TheRedPill21/09/14 06:48 AM
1

You don't understand what the topic is. Are you serious bro? You're the one who introduced analogies. And now that I used an analogy one to deconstruct your analogy, they're suddenly no longer valid? I'm talking about someone defining another person's philosophy in a way they disagree with. (eg "You believe X, I heard it on Fox News." "No I don't.") What you think he's saying: "These people describe themselves as socialists, therefore they must want X, Y, and Z because Fox told me that socialist…
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 05:08 PM
1

Let's give this a try. Here's me. I'm black. The majority says that I'm not black, and that "black" means someone of dark skin/African descent, but they're not right just because they're the majority. After all, I, the black individual, defines his beliefs. Not some mob. The mob can define a black man as whatever they want, but to black people like myself that is irrelevant and incorrect. Agreed?
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 04:39 PM
5

Western Europe/Canada are free market countries with increasingly socialist components. They're very, very far from a state who's citizens exercise democratic control over the means of production.
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 04:27 PM
3

Are they basically hippy farms? Yup. Thousands exist, and for some reason none of them have managed to evolve beyond a collection of huts whose residents sell bracelets on Etsy. It's almost as if in societies where no individual person has any incentive to put in the work to build infrastructure, nobody puts in the work to build infrastructure. Imagine that.
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 04:10 PM
4

I just can't imagine the mindset that leads people to think, "Sure, this has never worked before and failed thousands of times, costing hundreds of millions of people their lives, but I'm so absolutely sure that this time I've got it right that I'm not just going to live it myself and let others follow my example if it succeeds, but I'm actually going to force everyone else to do the same, because I know better than them."
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 04:02 PM
1

If you were right then (eg) in 1940s if gays were defined as devils by the mob, then it'd be "correct" (according to you) to believe they're devils. You're conflating the difference between words and the concepts that they refer to. If the word "gay" was defined as the concept of the devil by most people, then the majority of people would not be referring to men who have sex with men when they used the word "gay", and they would not be wrong to use "gay" to mean "the devil" because that's exactl…
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 03:47 PM
9

I'm personally extreme socialist. If you don't mind me asking, whats stopping you from being a socialist? Thousands of communes exist in the US; you could join one tomorrow and live under the exact economic system that you want.
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 01:35 PM
9

Capitalist corporations do not define socialism. Socialists do. Letting proponents of an ideology provide the definition for their ideology gets us platitudes like, "If you believe in equality, you're a feminist!" or "If you want to help the poor, you're a Democrat!" The only correct definition of a word is what the majority of people use it to mean. Socialists are obviously going to have an extremely biased viewpoint on what socialism is.
/r/TheRedPill15/09/14 01:27 PM
1

He probably also doesn't have any scientific data to support the notion that it's a bad idea to greet customers with "Hello sir" instead of "Hey fuckface", but he still probably lets that belief drive his business practices. You really don't need a study to tell you that people will avoid a business if they're likely to be harassed there.
/r/TheRedPill07/09/14 09:18 PM
-4

How dare she be disappointed about losing a job she loved, and then later apologize for voicing that disappointment in the most innocuous way possible. Fucking hamster needs to learn to keep a frame.
/r/TheRedPill04/09/14 11:19 PM
8

Have you ever thought about how horrible life would be if you were born an ugly woman? No more horrible than it is for 90% of men. An ugly woman has the exact same options that most men do.
/r/TheRedPill01/09/14 07:41 PM
9

Not all women are whore or boring. SOME ARE as are some men. "For the most part", "with the majority" It's almost as if he explicitly stated, in the first sentence of his article, that he's talking about what most women seem to do, not every single woman ever.
/r/TheRedPill22/07/14 12:12 AM
3

"Our policies should be judged by their intentions, not by their results!" --Liberalism in a nutshell
/r/MensRights09/05/14 07:37 AM
0

Oh, absolutely. The most intelligent, dedicated guys I've met at my SEC school have consistently been fraternity guys; being in a fraternity is a pretty damn good indicator that you've got a solid head on your shoulders. Ya'll are deservedly overrepresented in every student org- the more prestigious, the more there are of you. My only point is that there are some good eggs outside of that world, so don't write off GDI's too fast.
/r/TheRedPill27/04/14 06:16 AM
11

GDI here. Understand that some of us respect the shit out of your organizations but have our own things going on as well. Y'all have getting laid down to a science, but many of us legitimately do prefer ROTC, undergrad research, the crew team, etc. I apologize for the loud minority; most of us don't hate you guys at all.
/r/TheRedPill27/04/14 05:52 AM
7

From an ideological perspective, fraternities are the last bastion of organized masculinity in North America. From a pragmatic perspective, fraternities will get you all sorts of ass in college and pay dividends down the road. Either way, I can't advocate for them enough.
/r/TheRedPill27/04/14 05:44 AM
17

For real though dude, there's absolutely no reason (anymore) to give women the level of undeserved respect and decorum that we've been socialized to give them, because they're no longer abiding by the social contract. If a woman ever says something stupid to you (what are the odds of that ever happening), you tear her the fuck up. She'll love you all the more for it, and knocking her down a peg carries the societal benefit of making it easier for everyone to interact with her.
/r/TheRedPill27/04/14 04:59 AM
45

Women who engage in casual sex set higher standards on their new boy-toy than they place on men considered relationship potential. That's funny as hell, because saying the exact opposite has been one of the main talking points for why we should promote women riding the carousel for decades now: "If we're slutting it up, we'll be having sex with you more!" No you won't honey, you'll just be having sex with the same top 10% that you've always been, just 20x more often. The bottom 90% are as incel …
/r/TheRedPill27/04/14 04:08 AM
1

I've always just answered this one honestly, and they think I'm kidding when I'm not.
/r/TheRedPill26/04/14 11:55 PM
8

Is this really a gender thing? Making video games socially acceptable doesn't really have much to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 08:04 PM
3

I don't think he was saying that the two words were equivalent, but rather that they are used with the same intent. Think of how a stone spear and an M-16 aren't equivalent, but they're used with the same intent.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 10:31 PM
1

one everyday male privelidge which affects most peoples lives is that men dont have to choose between career and family Jesus Christ, you're calling it a privilege that we don't have a choice?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/14 09:01 AM
2

Alright, I'll start now. Please don't infantilize your speech; it reinforces the patriarchal notion that women are immature.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/14 11:55 AM
9

Or, you can completely reject the system in place and do your own thing. That's the entire point, men can't reject the system. Choosing to be active instead of passive requires the cooperation of nobody but yourself, but choosing to be passive instead of active requires someone else to be willing to expend the energy to pursue you. Once they do, men & women! Approaching each other mutually! Dealing with rejection and acceptance equally! No more uphill climb with the silly passive-women/active-me…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/14 11:12 AM
5

Do you really believe that most men feel comfortable taking the risk and approaching women? They do it because they have to. The only way women would start to approach men is if they were forced to instead, which is the opposite of making them feel comfortable.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/14 08:34 AM
2

And I would not exclusively define TRP as a sub of sexual strategy. You're doing the exact same thing again. When someone says that X is Y, it's foolish to interpret that to mean that they believe that X, and nothing but X, is Y.
/r/TheRedPill15/03/14 10:56 PM
2

Why? This issue could very well be more present in women than it is in men. And even if it isn't, it's understandable why someone in a sub about sexual strategy would, for a trait that is present in both genders, only focus on the relevance of it in one of those genders.
/r/TheRedPill15/03/14 10:37 PM
1

The OP explicitly stated that he wasn't making an absolute statement about all women.
/r/TheRedPill15/03/14 09:43 PM
7

"Don't tell whites to not step out in the night. Instead, teach blacks better." Can you understand why someone might consider that offensive? Does taking issue with that statement mean that you oppose educating people about rape? Does the fact that most crime is committed by blacks make the above statement acceptable? Of course not, and the same is true of the linked post.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 09:11 PM
1

Eh, I don't know how true that is. Fred Rodgers was undoubtedly a more confident guy than Adam Lanza, but for some reason he didn't have the same sort of following. Women prefer guys who exhibit anti-social behavior; you don't need to make excuses for them.
/r/TheRedPill02/03/14 08:33 AM
2

Correct- feminism and unchecked hypergamy is a total betrayal of the social contract, but executed correctly, it's undeniably the optimal female sexual strategy. For women as a whole? It's a terrible, shortsighted strategy that could very possibly cause the collapse of Western civilization. For each individual woman, however, it's in her best interest to act as hypergamous as possible. Similarly, the strategies that comprise TRP capitalize on the same betrayal of the social contract in order to …
/r/TheRedPill25/02/14 04:28 PM
10

Glad you made it, dude! Try not to resent the girl- what she did was optimal female sexual strategy, the equivalent of TRP for women.
/r/TheRedPill25/02/14 11:20 AM
2

If you don't mind me asking, do you not agree that liberalism inherently leads to an r-type environment? Women don't want to settle down with betas; they're forced to do so to secure a provider. By implementing social safety nets, the government takes on the role of the provider, and post-wall women no longer have to settle down with a beta male (the government will provide for them). This breeds a tremendous level of instability, because 1. the tax burden has increased and 2. the demographic th…
/r/TheRedPill25/02/14 10:50 AM
1

Obviously they vary from person to person, but common sexual standards among women include a physically attractive body, a personality they find attractive, and the ability to provide for the woman and her future kids. For many people, their romantic standards are a subset of their sexual standards. That is to say, they won't have sex with someone unless that person meets their romantic standards as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/14 03:51 AM
1

Standards for sexual/romantic partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/14 03:21 AM
1

Most of it boils down to a difference in standards. "Good girls" have high standards, sluts have low ones. You're not going to respect someone with low standards, but if they've got something to offer you'll take advantage of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/14 02:55 AM
1

Have to have sex with a slut, if they want to have casual sex. Obviously they don't have to have casual sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/14 02:04 AM
1

They absolutely want more than a one night stand, but the guy won't give it to them. This is an incredibly common complaint among women.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/14 10:14 PM
0

How is this any different than men who engage in casual sex using the old "you can't bring her home to your mom" description, or, as I often see on TRP, a "pump and dump," attitude toward women they prefer to have casual sex with, but not pursue relationships with? I think the difference is that men don't respect sluts, but respect good girls, while women respect alpha fux, but don't respect beta bux. A manipulative long term relationship is worse than a manipulative short term one. Edit: Also, …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/14 09:57 PM
5

Who is "they"?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 07:50 AM
3

Everyone is worth the sum of what they are and what they do, the difference is that what a woman is is tremendously more valuable than what a man is. When a woman does something valuable, it's not like people ignore that value because she's a woman.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 07:02 AM
4

Just roll with it. Fine, if you want to make a distinction between sex and gender, then I don't judge people based on gender, I judge them based on sex. If you make a distinction between sex and gender, then I don't want to date someone who's gender is female, I want to date someone who's sex is female. Words are defined by however people use them, and people sure as hell don't mean "someone who identifies as the female gender" when they say "woman". Dictionary games are stupid.
/r/TheRedPill20/02/14 04:35 AM
19

Why the bitterness? I commend any woman who's got enough intelligence and foresight to lock down a guy who's going to make it big.
/r/TheRedPill12/02/14 08:48 AM
5

The two situations could not be more different. Guys marry single mothers because it's the best option they've got- providing for her kid is the only way they can land steady pussy. Sure, guys will try to pass it off as their choice, but it's obvious that in most cases, they're raising someone else's kid because they couldn't do any better. That's not the case with adoption- there's no reason for a guy to do it other than out of a genuine desire to do some good in the world. I have a tremendous …
/r/TheRedPill12/02/14 07:40 AM
2

TIL the 1% keeps their money in a mayonnaise jar buried in their backyard. Here I was, thinking that they invested their wealth.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:16 PM
2

I think you might be thinking of testicular cancer. Prostate cancer is one of the most benign types of cancer.
/r/TheRedPill08/02/14 09:07 PM
0

If I was an attractive women on a dating site who routinely received offers to do weird shit for money, had made it quite clear in my profile that I was a prostitute, and had a lengthy conversation with the guy where at no point did he do anything that would indicate he was joking, like saying something funny? Absolutely I'd assume he was serious. You seem totally unable to understand that being a woman isn't the same as being a man. Male solipsism at it's finest.
/r/TheRedPill02/02/14 08:45 PM
-25

Aren't jokes usually funny? Without any indication that you weren't being serious, it's pretty clear why she would assume you were. You sound like a weirdo who got rejected and wants to pretend he did the rejecting.
/r/TheRedPill02/02/14 08:51 AM
1

If you see completely normal conversation like "what's up" as a "challenge to the hamster", I think you might be overthinking things a little bit.
/r/TheRedPill30/01/14 11:09 PM
18

It's extremely logical. Telling a guy that they should show emotions better equips them to filter out the sort of guys who would show emotions if they thought it'd be acceptable. Sure, if their goal was to help you get laid it would be illogical, but that's not their goal. From their perspective it makes total sense and really is optimal female strategy.
/r/TheRedPill30/01/14 09:07 PM
1

When you assume a leadership position, you take on additional responsibility. In the same way that feminists think that women should be treated as equals without being held to the same standard of responsibility, you believe that husbands should be treated as leaders without being held to the same standard of responsibility. That's not right.
/r/TheRedPill30/01/14 06:17 PM
4

Yeah, it is his fault. Man the fuck up and take responsibility for your choices.
/r/TheRedPill30/01/14 04:31 PM
1

What is illogical about that, though? If your SMV is plummeting, it makes total sense to capitalize on it while you can. It just seems like optimal sexual strategy to me.
/r/TheRedPill28/01/14 05:44 PM
3

I think women generally lose respect for you when you do it. I don't actually mind going down on chicks, but I pretend like it's something I'd never do because the knowledge that they're with a guy who doesn't care about pleasing them seems to be a bigger turn on for most women than the physical sensation of oral sex.
/r/TheRedPill27/01/14 01:42 PM
13

Sounds like she might get to enjoy a bit of male privilege! Just like most men, her only option is to aggressively pursue younger partners who don't really give a shit about her, but will reluctantly have sex with her if she'll subsidize their life. Then if they get married, the guy can divorce her and take half her shit. Wait, what do you mean she has no interest in doing this?!
/r/TheRedPill26/01/14 08:07 AM
2

That's interesting. The girl you mentioned is exactly what I think of when I imagine the stereotypical pornstar- a busty blonde with huge T&A, who's face is ok but not necessarily great. If we're "programmed" to like anything, that seems to be it.
/r/TheRedPill25/01/14 06:39 AM
4

I doubt it. If the other guy was alpha there's no way she'd be able to stop herself from rubbing it in this guy's face. "Oh my god he's such an asshole; I know you'd never do something like that".
/r/TheRedPill25/01/14 05:38 AM
4

Preferring a girl with one good trait is better than preferring a girl with all good traits? I'm not sure I follow.
/r/TheRedPill25/01/14 05:06 AM
-1

I'm not arguing that anyone in this sub should use suboptimal strategy. I'm arguing that folks should advocate for a suboptimal strategy, because the adoption of that strategy by the general populous results in 1) a society in which it's easier for a RP male to achieve their goals and 2) a net benefit for society as a whole. Christianity helps everyone; atheists and Christians alike.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 08:15 AM
0

Think of the prisoner's dilemma. It's not the optimal strategy for any individual player, but if you can convince everyone to play by it, it helps you all. Christianity worked the same way.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 04:34 AM
4

I've always felt that presenting it like some grand revelation comes across as really naive. It's just so blatantly obvious that men are more capable than women. Every man knows it, every woman knows it. Pretending like they're equal is just something men do as a means of showing off their ability to provide. Talking about how "Whoah, women kinda suck!" just shows that you're cluelessly unaware of the game everyone else is playing. I could be totally wrong, though.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 04:32 AM
5

Rigging how your answers are weighted destroys the utility of their algorithm to the same degree that rigging your answers does. A 99% no longer means that you share similar opinions, which is all it ever meant. "Chemistry" is a female construction used to rationalize attractions that don't align with their worldview/view of themselves. "I didn't like him because he was <sociopathic trait>, we just happened to have chemistry. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ " I don't believe for a second that you'd pass up a 10/10 wit…
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 04:12 AM
1

Surely you can understand the benefits to a society where the village chieftain doesn't take all the women for himself, and when you piss someone off at the well, he decides to turn the other cheek instead of trying to slit your throat. Being kind, by the way, is a sign of high T. It shows you're not threatened.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 03:54 AM
3

He rigged the bots to maximize their compatibility score; doing so obviously causes that score to lose all predictive power. This is not a failing of OKCupid, or proof that their estimate of compatibility is useless.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 03:35 AM
2

God knows how many resources we gained from Vietnam. And who can forget the blood shed for control of the Bordeaux wineries during World War II. "Purple gold", they called it.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 03:21 AM
-10

The Christian ideal is alpha as fuck, and Christianity put in place most of the values and institutions that we constantly lament the loss of.
/r/TheRedPill22/01/14 03:11 AM
-4

Next time someone's girlfriend in /r/relationships promises she didn't do anything when she spent the night in another guy's bed, I really hope you're not there giving this "take every story at face value" advice.
/r/TheRedPill19/01/14 04:49 AM
-2

I hate to break it to you bud, but sometimes when people tell a story, they leave out information that would weaken the point they're trying to make.
/r/TheRedPill19/01/14 04:34 AM
-8

I'm not saying you're wrong You also missed that part.
/r/TheRedPill19/01/14 01:31 AM
1

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a world of difference between high-fiving your buddies as you stomp on in with your Beats blaring, and carefully, apologetically, trying to enter while causing as little a disturbance as possible. I'd have a problem with the former, I wouldn't with the latter, and it's got nothing to do with gender.
/r/TheRedPill19/01/14 12:58 AM
2

I don't know how much RP philosophy applies here. As far as Kunis knows, this guy is just another paparazzi trying to make a buck off her name, and the lovable goofball thing is just a shtick. That's where the initial tension comes from; it's not romantic. Given the circumstances, she's incredibly nice to the guy, and does her best to give him the material he needs.
/r/TheRedPill19/01/14 12:45 AM
7

Why do you think it's weak? Surely if you've got plenty of money, but less time and energy, it makes sense to use your money to pick up chicks.
/r/TheRedPill13/01/14 10:57 PM
1

Just because you're putting physical work in doesn't mean that work has value for her. If you're the one who wants sex, then she's the one who's doing a service by providing it.
/r/TheRedPill13/01/14 10:50 PM
2

Let's try not to do the whole "redefine words to fit our agenda" thing that feminists love so much. If you want to call physical abuse a sign of weakness, then 4 in 10 women fantasize about their partners showing signs of weakness.
/r/TheRedPill12/01/14 07:12 PM
5

Physical abuse is undeniably dominant. It's a shitty, immoral thing to do, but that doesn't mean it's not dominant. You're more than capable of dominating someone without abusing them. At least, you should be. Absolutely.
/r/TheRedPill12/01/14 06:54 PM
2

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. No, of course Rihanna didn't fall in love with Chris Brown because he walked up and cold clocked her. His physical abuse of her was most likely one (extreme) example of a pattern of consistently dominant behavior, and that behavior as a whole is most likely what she was attracted to.
/r/TheRedPill12/01/14 06:26 PM
3

They kinda do, though. Fred Rodgers was a powerful, confident man, but for some reason he didn't have the same pull that Chris Brown does. Power on it's own isn't particularly attractive. Using that power to demean and dominate others is what seems to attract women.
/r/TheRedPill12/01/14 06:03 PM
1

Tribal armbands were considered "timeless" at the time. No such thing exists.
/r/TheRedPill09/01/14 02:22 AM
2

It's not bad in a moral sense, it's bad in the sense that it's indicative of a need that most men will have trouble fulfilling.
/r/TheRedPill05/01/14 06:38 AM
3

For some guys she might be, sure.
/r/TheRedPill04/01/14 06:56 AM
3

In what society were widows prized?
/r/TheRedPill03/01/14 10:27 PM
6

There's a world of difference between "this is how things are" and "this is how things inherently should be". I couldn't care less whether or not a woman wants to be dominated. Most do, however, so it's rational to act accordingly.
/r/TheRedPill03/01/14 09:57 PM
2

Check out the comment I posted down below: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1ublzk/redditor_finds_out_his_girlfriend_had_a_mfm/cegkgbk
/r/TheRedPill03/01/14 09:15 PM
9

Men are different from women, and men generally participate in threesomes for different reasons than women generally participate in threesomes. Women generally want to be dominated, and engaging in an MMF threesome indicates a preference for a level of domination that most men have trouble providing by themselves. Engaging in a long term relationship with this type a woman is a bad idea, because it's harder to keep her attracted to you. Engaging in an FFM threesome as a man, on the other hand, i…
/r/TheRedPill03/01/14 08:57 PM
13

How crazy would it be if men and women were different, and women generally chose to have sex with 2 men for different reasons than men generally chose to have sex with 2 women?
/r/TheRedPill03/01/14 08:55 PM
11

Many women are attracted to experience in men, so they assume that men are attracted to experience in women as well.
/r/TheRedPill03/01/14 08:50 PM
20

The problem is, it's a fairly rational move by women to do this sort of thing. Imagine how much of a shame it would be to be tricked into reproducing with a low T male who was taught by his father to act as if he had high T. By teaching young men to be beta, and then seeing which men overcome their programming, so to speak, women gain a better perspective from which to filter out men who are not genetically fit.
/r/TheRedPill26/12/13 05:31 AM
6

They are only shallow whores if they care about how driven and talented a man is when they are not driven and talented themselves. Valuing traits that you lack in yourself makes you a shallow whore? Are men shallow whores for preferring petite, submissive women while they themselves are strong and dominant? Am I a shallow whore for preferring vaginas despite having a penis? Sexual attraction is asymmetrical; it's ok for people to prefer partners who aren't clones of themselves. People succeed th…
/r/TheRedPill02/12/13 08:07 PM
15

Women are shallow whores for caring about things like how driven or talented men are. Us men care about what really matters in a person- their facial structure and breast size.
/r/TheRedPill02/12/13 05:38 PM
1

Having money != spending money on women. I can't understand how you think being born with a certain facial structure is more deserving of respect than building a business, or fighting your way to the top of the corporate pyramid. You are one of very few people who would describe Jay-Z, Larry Ellison, or Richard Branson as "lowly individuals".
/r/TheRedPill20/11/13 12:43 AM
1

Don't fall into the trap of assuming women value the same things we do. Desire inspired by high status men is just as genuine as desire inspired by one's appearance. You're kidding yourself if you believe women would rather fuck a handsome loser than a hotshot banker.
/r/TheRedPill19/11/13 05:08 PM
0

I'm completely serious. What's the difference?
/r/TheRedPill19/11/13 06:57 AM
0

Nobody gets laid for "who they are", or any of that bullshit. Who cares if she uses you for your money vs. your facial structure?
/r/TheRedPill19/11/13 06:24 AM
3

No, the original statement was correct. The fact that an impassioned life is preferable to a submissive death goes without saying.
/r/TheRedPill11/11/13 06:00 AM
-3

I hope you realize that TRP and PUA is the direct equivalent to plastic surgery for men. It's fine if you hate makeup and whatnot, but understand that you're playing the exact same game.
/r/TheRedPill07/11/13 08:30 AM
2

Eh. Showering these girls with compliments requires next to no investment, and seems to be the optimal sexual strategy if your goal is more pictures. Sure, it comes at the cost of feeding her ego, making her a nightmare for guys to deal with in real life, but hey, that's their problem.
/r/TheRedPill07/11/13 08:26 AM
-4

An 8 who turned into a 9 through surgery is better than a natural 7.
/r/TheRedPill07/11/13 08:06 AM
1

Men impress women by dominating other men. Calling them misogynist, neckbeard virgins is a great way to do this.
/r/TheRedPill29/10/13 04:25 AM
10

As weird as it sounds, men and women are actually equally likely to be a victim of rape. Check out http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
/r/TheRedPill24/10/13 05:15 AM
1

If the odds of getting caught are low enough and your valuation of sex high enough to offset the possibility of prison, and morality wasn't something you cared about, then yes, there are circumstances where rape would be rational. It wouldn't be rational for me or you, but there are some people for whom it would be.
/r/TheRedPill22/10/13 01:22 AM
13

And hordes of guys fall over themselves to give them that attention. It's a perfectly rational strategy on the women's part, why are you mad at them for using it?
/r/TheRedPill21/10/13 06:01 AM
1

But when the original poster gives an example where her idea (which she later proved to be a good one) is dismissed purely on the grounds of being a woman, that is pretty clear cut sexism. The fact that she is a woman, and her idea was dismissed, does not mean that her idea was dismissed because she is a woman. Open source project mailing lists are notorious for being utterly ruthless towards anyone, and I think it's far more likely that her ideas were dismissed because of the usual nerd politic…
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:52 PM
1

She is right to say she is discriminated against in some ways. The thing is though, she might not be. If men can't understand how women are treated in tech, then it stands to reason that women can't understand how men are treated in tech. It's possible that what she views as different treatment might not be different treatment at all.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 07:26 AM
1

you get what i'm after No, I really don't. You originally said that newspapers that contain things that aren't newsworthy should be removed from campus. Clearly that's not what you meant, since you agree that most newspapers contain things that aren't newsworthy, and I assume you don't think they need to be removed from campus because of that. I'm trying to understand your point; it would be helpful if you could speak more precisely. my distinction for 'including features beyond the news' would …
/r/MensRights14/10/13 05:55 AM
2

Do you consider TV listings, comics, op-eds, Dear Abby, classifieds, and children's birthdays to be newsworthy? What's wrong with newspapers including features beyond the news?
/r/MensRights14/10/13 04:36 AM
2

What specifically do you see as sexist about naked pictures of women?
/r/MensRights14/10/13 04:30 AM
0

And women hate communities like this one for the same reason you hate makeup- they want men who are naturally attractive, not ones who have to work at it.
/r/TheRedPill13/10/13 08:12 PM
25

I don't think there's any mistake made, they'd just rather have status than your idea of quality.
/r/TheRedPill01/10/13 12:39 AM
13

Check the picture. It's a dude.
/r/TheRedPill17/09/13 06:49 AM
1

Because it gets you laid?
/r/TheRedPill16/09/13 06:04 AM
1

The vast majority of men aren't Brad Pitt. I'm not sure what your point is.
/r/TheRedPill15/09/13 08:09 AM
18

I see it as a version of the prisoner's dilemma. While it might be in our collective interest to disincentivize this sort of behavior, for each individual male, it's in their best interest to pander to women.
/r/TheRedPill13/09/13 08:02 AM
8

Don't you know? Women are more caring than men and don't want to burden others with their death. /s
/r/MensRights30/08/13 04:52 PM
10

Interest groups are not a bad thing. There's a reason we have the NRA, PETA, NAACP, ACLU, etc instead of just one big group called, "Make the World Better".
/r/MensRights14/08/13 10:03 PM
35

It's completely rational behavior on their part. Women have an excess of potential suitors to sort through when selecting a mate, they need ways to eliminate some of them from the running. Creating hoops for guys to jump through and giving misleading advice allows them to filter out guys who aren't sufficiently dominant.
/r/TheRedPill07/08/13 06:31 AM
0

Right, but why do you think that it is immoral to introduce bias?
/r/MensRights29/07/13 05:40 PM
1

The rationale behind the Prime Directive is that there's a huge potential for unforeseen consequences to arise when making decisions that affect an entire planet; there's a very real possibility of interference resulting in disaster. Shooing away vultures that are about to eat a child? Not so much. The odds of that interference worsening the child's life are so infinitesimally low that any reasonable person would consider it moral to intervene.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 06:12 AM
1

we're only supposed to record events without effecting them Why do you believe that?
/r/MensRights29/07/13 05:44 AM
0

Why do you believe it's immoral to break your role as an observer?
/r/MensRights29/07/13 05:43 AM
1

What if I were to show up at practice, not to admire their intelligence or kindness, but to ogle at their ability to throw a ball around? What if the only aspect of the players I cared about was their ability to run 90 feet quickly and hit baseballs long distances? Would that be wrong? Why is it fine to value people solely for their athletic ability, but not solely for their appearance?
/r/MensRights22/07/13 02:43 AM
8

I don't care if my doctor is smart or kind or caring, I only care if he is a good doctor. How is that any different?
/r/MensRights21/07/13 06:41 PM
13

Other people don't have an obligation to care about things you just because you want them to. If I don't think someone has a particularly interesting personality and have no interest in their hobbies, but appreciate their skill as a world class surgeon, it's not immoral for me to interact with them solely because I want them to perform surgery on me. Similarly, if you don't think someone has a particularly interesting personality and have no interest in their hobbies, but you find them sexually …
/r/MensRights21/07/13 06:39 PM
11

When I hear my friends gawk after women and make some statement on their "fuckability" without in the slightest knowing them that is objectification. Under that definition, isn't commenting on any solitary aspect of a person objectification? If "damn, that chick has huge tits" is objectification, why aren't "boy, that guy is tall" or "man, she volunteers 30 hours at the homeless shelter" objectification as well?
/r/MensRights21/07/13 06:19 PM
-2

Just because something mentions a certain sex doesn't mean it's sexist. I understand that you're trying to go tit-for-tat with the absurd examples of "sexism" feminists come up with, and that's fair, but I hope none of you are legitimately upset by this.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 03:00 PM
23

Yeah, absolutely. And you know that she doesn't give two shits about the man- if she could find someone of greater or equal status, she'd marry them instead. Women use the word "love" very differently from men.
/r/TheRedPill14/03/13 03:51 AM
29

My favorite part: I will always be there for him I'll always be there for him, as long as situation seems beneficial to me.
/r/TheRedPill14/03/13 03:15 AM
2

I'm not disagreeing with that, dipshit. I'm disagreeing with your repeated statements that looks are all that matter, which the text you just quoted, which you yourself wrote, contradicts.
/r/TheRedPill23/02/13 05:24 AM
7

http://www.goldmansachs.com/who-we-are/leadership/board-of-directors/index.html What a bunch of studs. Sure, if you limit your definition of successful to movie stars and musicians, an ugly person will have trouble succeeding. If you expand successful to include CEOs, doctors, lawyers, military leaders, and bankers, however, you'll see a lot more unattractive people. There absolutely is a larger proportion of attractive people among successful people than you'll find in the population as a whole…
/r/TheRedPill23/02/13 05:19 AM
5

Yes, absolutely. The guy I'm responding to, however, thinks that looks are all that matter.
/r/TheRedPill23/02/13 03:38 AM
3

The fact that a man will receive special treatment for being attractive does not mean that being attractive is the only way to get that sort of treatment. Men and women view different qualities as attractive. Of course the only factor in female attractiveness is facial structure, but extrapolating that idea to men makes about as much sense as a woman thinking men care about her career. All men with social status receive this same treatment, so it's ridiculous to claim that good looks are the onl…
/r/TheRedPill23/02/13 03:25 AM
8

They call you crazy because your theory is so obviously wrong. Look at any athlete, musician, or business executive out there with a hideous face. Almost all of them pull ridiculous ass anyways, and the ones who don't have the option to but choose not to exercise it. Looks don't mean anything, social status does. And it just so happens that being attractive automatically grants you a certain amount of social status. Being attractive is one, but by no means the only, way to get laid.
/r/TheRedPill23/02/13 12:43 AM
2

Man, you need to do some serious introspection. Your example of sound logic is one of the most common examples of shitty logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). Your example of shitty logic, on the other hand (that more points scored devalues the worth of each individual point) is perfectly valid.
/r/TheRedPill23/02/13 12:33 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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