RedPill thread.

The argument here is that men who might be mocked as "losers" by anyone (not necessarily feminists or the same people as the next group) are also being called rapists or dangerous by some, which RedPill holds is a contradiction. There is widespread agreement in the sub.

I think dropit's original comment on the topic had a couple of perfect responses:

1. You don't have to be powerful to have dangerous ideas, or to spread dangerous ideas (welcome to the information democracy), or to be capable of abuse.

2. Victims don't tolerate abuse "only because the abuser is so attractive." If they tolerate it, usually it is for other reasons.

I'd go further for two reasons. First, the unempowered might even be more likely to be abusive. And second, everyone is a loser some time.

It is simple blow back. We see school shootings, revenge killings, terrorism all the time from "losers." And a lot of them are called losers until they do become violent. Does anyone think a hypothetical Ariel Castro guilty of his accused crimes would not be called an ineffectual, powerless loser without those crimes?

It's worth noting the terrible effect of this mistake. It let's us believe abuse is not real, or is the victim's fault (they could have left because their abuser was not even attractive).

RedPill could argue against name calling and shaming generally and I'd agree. But instead the sub goes out of its way to carefully explain that only a very small number of people are capable of abuse.