TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1V5Pi0e954&feature=youtu.be

The Blue Pill is currently blowing it's collective orgasmic load over the above video, in which widely known "PUA" Roosh V is being assaulted in what looks to be some sort of nightclub/bar district (video is dark and grainy and the camera person doesnt get the idea of "landscape" mode) in Montreal, Canada. They are taking great pleasures in their perception of this cosmic justice coming down against a vile, rape apology misogynist.

I just have a couple questions/observations on this, that maybe some of the BP regulars can clarify for me:

  • If you are any sort of TRP-satirizng, self-respecting Blooper, then you undoubtedly pay at least a cursory amount of attention to /r/theredpill. And if you have been paying even the slightest amount of attention to TRP over the past 2 months, you'd know that TRP and Roosh V have mutually parted ways and disavowed each other in no uncertain language. So why all of this orgasmic outpour over a man who has been marginalized into irrelevance on TRP?

  • Secondly, I find it sort of puzzling, even comically ironic, that a satire sub who shames /r/theredpill for it's lack of morality, is actually not only condoning, but cheering on the physical assault of another human being.

What if we flipped the script; i.e., a bunch of fat, brooding, neckbeard gamers started attacking Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn at a gamer conference, and threw Mountain Dew and Cheetos on her, and chased her out of the building in an aggressive fashion, shouting obscenities at her and pushing her around?

Would /r/thebluepill find that equally hilarious?


[–][deleted] 41 points41 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 points10 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 13 points13 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 points10 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SOwEDEtizolam18 points19 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

This comment pretty much sums up /r/TBP's reaction.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Funny you are down voted for linking to their own opinions.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's less funny, though unsurprising, that he's upvoted for posting to an unpopular comment that got downvoted on TBP.

[–]disposable_pants5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hard to tell if the comment was popular before being called out/downvoted by people who visited the link. Archiving is useful, folks.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice52 points53 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Yay, violence is suddenly justified because sombody said something we don't like.

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill55 points56 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yea but if we apply Roosh's own logic to the situation: He was pretty much asking for it.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I disagree.

I made the point earlier that going to the eye of the feminist shiticane, was a mistake, but just because what he says is anti feminist doesn't justify assault.

He should never have crossed the borders into the liberal frozen land, but I don't think this is a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Im not teying to justify the assault. However that beer attack was definitely good for his publicity and therefore profit.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like people who bought Harry Potter books to burn them. #feministlogic

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Made that point earlier as well.

The more men that view the hypocrisy of rabid feminism, the more that will join us.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He was pretty much asking for it.

Topkek.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

he thinks rape should be legal on private property. he got what he had coming to him. i dont know how anyone can stand up for this scum and feel good about themselves. his stupid face is just so punchable.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you had bothered to actually read the article in question you would know that it was fucking satire and neither roosh nor anyone in his fórums supports the legalization of rape.

You might as well try to attack Frank Miller for killing all those people in Mad Max. If you can't tell the difference between fiction, satire, devil's advocate, thought experiments and fucking reality you need to stay off the internet.

[–][deleted] 9 points9 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

I can't comment on the thing between TRP and Roosh because I don't know anything about it.

I can only comment on this video which is a perfect example of the mentality of humans. We know this reaction is honest because none of them stopped to think, plan, or contemplate their actions. It was a reflex programmed in their amygdala.

What we see is that women will use violence as a first response to a man who is making no physical threat to her. That other men will join her cause without understand the right and wrong of it simply because she is female who has declared a male to be a threat to her.

We also see accusations of rape and one female claiming that Roosh wants to rape "your sister" to further incite violence against her.

What I see in all this is this:

  1. Women use violence easier than men when they know they can get away with it (and they almost always can).
  2. Men will side with women even when women are wrong.
  3. Men will commit violence on behalf of women or upon their request.
  4. Women will up the emotion to encourage others to commit violence.

If we now examine the feminist perspective that all violence is perpetrated by men and that men have oppressed women and apply the above scenario to it we see that it doesn't match. We must ask ourselves some serious questions.

  1. If women have such automatic control over men then how could men every systematically oppress women?
  2. If men are willing to risk harm to themselves for a woman they may not even know and may even be in the wrong then how can a society truly be said to anti-female?
  3. If women can get men they don't even know to commit violence then why aren't women considered equally culpable when their boyfriends and husbands commit violence in pursuit of resources that ultimately go to her? Especially when she's demanding the resources and is in full knowledge of his activities?

This video belies everything that feminism says about men and violence and the power balance between the sexes.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You just perfectly described something called "The Halo Effect", in which women are automatically believed to be chaste, good, and wholesome, regardless of whether those traits are actually applicable to a particular woman.

[–]Purpuru3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Perhaps you meant the "women are wonderful" effect. The halo effect refers to how attractive people (not just women) are generally treated.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, probably a better assessment. I forgot about that one. South Park perfectly slayed the Halo Effect during the "Christmas Critters" Christmas special, where all of the cute, lovable, friendly, adorable forest animals were all actually Satanic worshippers.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I saw this:

  1. Women tend to chose non-violent means of aggression over violent ones. Men are more prone to use (threat of) violence.

  2. Men tend to hold strong in-group out-group views. They are more likely to band together to fight threats by an out-group.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you8 points9 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Women tend to chose non-violent means of aggression over violent ones.

It was the women who started the violence due to lack of fear of the consequences of doing so. Men are LESS prone to use violence or the threat of violence because they face far more serious repercussions for doing so.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Women are more prone to use indirect aggression. Men are more prone to use direct physical or verbal aggression. Here's a meta-analysis of studies indicating that this is the case. The video shows a woman throwing beer, pushing and shoving or hitting of which it is not clear whether women or men are doing it, and men threateningly walking after Roosh.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I think that even in 2004 the indirect aggression only argument may have already been out of date. Women have certainly slapped with impunity for many decades and with the lack of consequences for escalation beyond that I've seen women engage in direct aggression that would be unimaginable to even aggressive men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Nobody's talking about women only committing indirect aggression.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I meant only committing indirect aggression more i.e. they also commit direct aggression more.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I gave you a meta-analysis that shows that men display more physical and verbal aggression than women. It includes over 350 studies which use methods of self-report, observations, peer-reports and teacher reports and which span many countries all over the world. This meta-analysis names other, earlier done meta-analyses that are in agreement and names two theories (evolution and social role) which explain these findings.

I don't think it's useful to continue this conversation if you (and those upvoting you) really believe that a personal account is of equal value.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It isn't that a personal account is of equal value, it's that the research you provided is outdated and conducted during a period where innate biases weren't readily understood or acknowledged. I don't have data that directly contradicts what you have provided because such data is virtually impossible to come by because it is still politically incorrect to do such research. But if you're posting here you'll know about Erin Pizzey and how female direct aggression has been ignored and overlooked for decades precisely due to consensus on evolutionary theory (and feminists would say social role too).

If you don't want to discuss theoretical possibilities that's your call but you have to admit that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests women's direct aggression has been increasingly reported, whether this be due to it being more recognised or there being a greater number of instances occurring. Also, the fact that there isn't a great deal of research on the issue since the consensus on male direct aggression from the heydays of feminism because alternative narratives are still deemed politically incorrect.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're talking about the 60's and 70's while the meta-analysis is very recent. In this article (cited by 818) it's stated that indeed:

Buss (1961) claimed that women are so seldom aggressive, that female aggression is not worth the trouble to study. Aggression is, accordingly to his view (at that time), a typically male phenomenon. Olweus (1978), who investigated bullying, i.e., aggressive harassment, among adolescent school children, was of the opinion that bullying occurs so rarely among female adolescents that he excluded girls as subjects from his research. Later, he has changed his opinion, and he is now investigating bullying also among girls (e.g., Olweus, 1986), Frodi. Macaulay. and Thome (1971) reviewed 314 studies on human aggression, and found that 54% of these concerned men only, and only 8% women. These facts are certainly revealing.

However:

Later reviews on sex differences in aggression, such as White (1983), Hyde (1984), Eagly & Steffen (1986). and Bjorkqvist & Niemelii (1992), are much more cautious, and mention sex differences in quality rather than quantity. (...) If we limit aggression to physical strategies only, then it is certainly true that males are more aggressive than females, at least in Western societies.

I also find it highly unlikely that millions of years of sexual selection of dominant, muscled, wide-jawed, large-browed men who are willing to wage war and conquer did not result in any gender differences in aggressive behavior.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You are missing the point. If a woman eschews using violence, in favor of getting men (white knights) to commit violence on her behalf, it's the same as being/causing the violence yourself.

This is the entire concept behind a "conspiracy" charge in criminal court. Let's say a woman wants to murder her husband for insurance money. She obviously doesn't do it herself; rather, she hires a hitman to commit the murder for her.

This does not absolve her of guilt; rather, she is instead charged with "conspiracy to commit murder", which oftentimes carries the same penalty as the murder itself.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

If they were yelling "get him!" or "kick his ass!" I think you'd have a case against them for inciting violence.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

One doesn't have to overtly say "get him" or "kick his ass" in order to incite violence. Women know this, and therefore will often times use far more subtle cues to get guys to do their violence for them. Hell, most of the times all they have to do is cry on a park bench, point at a guy, and sobbingly call him and "asshole", and that's all she needs to get the White Knight Brigade to start polishing their armor.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying that women have to take into account that men are less able to behave responsibly in such situations?

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm saying that it's casually ironic that one minute women tell us they are "strong and empowered", and the next minute, they're appealing to a man to fight their battles for them, which is a tacit admission of female inferiority.

Of course, men aren't perfect, either, and yes, the majority of western men are White Knights, who's quest to hero their way into some pussy oftentimes trumps their sense of calm logic.

Just as a child can become quite adept at manipulating their parents to get what they want, so does a woman become skilled to manipulate men to get what she wants.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If men are strong and empowered, they can take responsibility for their white knighting actions.

Like men, children are also easy to manipulate.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I just want to say:

There's no moral equivalence between nonfeminists debating Big Red, and women assaulting and battering Roosh with beer.

There's no moral equivalence between calling out feminists for their views, and assaulting and battering Roosh with beer.

If you believe there is, then you're a bigot and a hypocrite.

You might not like Roosh or his views. But he did nothing wrong or illegal.

You might not like PUAs. But it is not illegal to be a PUA.

You might not like Roosh talking about sluts. But, it is not illegal to be a slut. It's not illegal to fuck sluts. It's not illegal to talk about fucking sluts. It's not even illegal to talk about women's declining value and worth.

The fact that you don't like those things does NOT give you the right to toss beer in his face.

If you think it is OK to toss beer in Roosh's face while defending the "right" of feminists to say "I bathe in male tears", you're a straight up bigot and hypocrite.

If you think it's OK to toss beer in Roosh's face while defending the right of Big Red to provoke, anger, and tell men to "shut the FUCK UP", then you're a bigot.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The hypocrisy is on full display for all you undecided folks out there.

Have a look at these people that imagine themselves as occupying the moral high-ground. Watch as they rationalize their hate in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance.

They truly believe they are 'better' than other people, yet they revel in violence and hatred against 'others' of their choosing. Disgusting.

Remember this thread the next time one of these reprehensible humans gets on their high horse and preaches down to us regular folk.

[–]Lonny_zone13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If a man did this to a woman she would have him arrested.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I've been reading these comments and I'm asking myself, "Why do any of these women think misogyny is not perfectly justified."

Anyone who experiences the kind of mindless hate and double standards that are expressed below cannot help but develop distrust and dislike of women.

[–]meditationboyk6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I would have thought at most people, regardless of their affiliation, would be against physical assault. Words on the internet are trivial compared to physical assault. Yet what can be seen here is a justification of assault simply because of some text written on the internet.

I think I will take TBP espouses with a pinch of salt now. Advocating or condoning violence against anyone because of their beliefs is frankly abhorrent. To view themselves as more moral tha TRP whilst simultaneously condoning violence against those they hate is a great example of hypocrisy.

I have no doubt now that most people in these liberal havens would be the first to viciously attack anyone who espouses something different. Until now, I viewed TBP as poor satire. Yet the way they are condoning this suggests that they actually do not view men like Roosh as humans who deserve basic dignity. To not be harassed when he walks because of his beliefs is too much to ask from these people.

Looking at what happened to Tim Hunt shows the sheer frenzy and vitriol of these educated men and women. They went to destroy a man's reputation based on information that was not verified. They trashed his accomplishments in science because they did not like his alleged views.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They trashed his accomplishments in science because they did not like his alleged views.

The sad part is Tim Hunt is not actually sexist. The whole crisis began from an individual woman taking his comments out of context.

Here are his words:

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. ‘Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry.”

He said that during a speech he was giving to women in science. Here is what he said afterwards:

He allegedly continued: “Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea.

“And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”

[–]XxGlasgowsmileXx0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Humans do violent things to eachother regardless of gender so how about remaining objective and not being emotional. So by your logic I should hate men for the actions of those who are violent.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

When a man commits violence unprovoked against a woman I can assure you that everyone except the most dark triad of TRP will condemn it.

And in any other forum EVERY SINGLE MALE will condemn violence against women.

Can you say the same about women? Why don't you look up "The Talk Catherine Kieu" to see how women react to violence against men.

Further, while you claim to "not hate" men I noticed that your condemnation of the violence women perpetrated in this video is conspicuously absent.

[–]asdfasd666OMEGA BUXXX5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't bother me. Roosh will harp on about sexual assault victims not claiming responsibility for their actions and accuse them of hiding behind a "big daddy government".

It's amazing how he suddenly "forgets" his stance on victim blaming and runs straight to the police - for getting wet and yelled at. He deserved it.

edit: To answer OP's question, I would find it hilarious when Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian start accusing assault victims of "asking for it".

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You just equivocated "regret sex" with "physical assault". Fail on all levels, but thanks for playing.

[–]asdfasd666OMEGA BUXXX1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah, according to him any woman who enters a private room with a man she does not know well is asking for it.

If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied. Without daddy government to protect her, a girl would absolutely not enter a private room with a man she doesn’t know or trust unless she is absolutely sure she is ready to sleep with him.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am not a fan of Roosh. I don't know how long you've been hanging around TRP, but anybody here worth their salt will tell you that.

That being said, what you just quoted was from an obvious tongue-in-cheek satire piece. It was more of a thought experiment than it was an advocation for actual legal change, and in context, it was written right around the time "Mattress Girl" was ousted as being an out-and-out rape-accusing liar.

So again, thanks for playing, but maybe some more sideline time is in order before you decide to start playing quarterback.

[–]asdfasd666OMEGA BUXXX0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If his tongue-in-cheek article was only to target "regret sex" he would have made a joke about signing contracts before sex, not suggesting that women should be chaperoned everywhere.

Not sure why you are telling me to do more lurking. I'm fully aware that TRP dislikes Roosh and I haven't implied anywhere that they do like him. I was answering the question in this thread.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So if it were you, would that be OK? Seeing your scrawny ass get the fuck beaten a little? I said in OP I don't like Roosh, but you seem to be missing the point.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]exejpgwmv1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are we all forgetting that Roosh is a rapist?

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Saying something and actually doing something are two categorically different things. Raping children is illegal, yet a group that talks about raping children, NAMBLA, is allowed to exist because speech is protected.

You are making a false conflation.

[–][deleted] -2 points-2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dr_warlockSenior Endorsed18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If you read that post by roosh, you would understand it was only a thought experiment. If rape was legal, how would women act in response? Would they inebriate themselves with copious amounts of alcohol? Would they wear skimpy clothing that arouses men? Would they walk by themselves in the dark?

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial17 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

These girls don't wanna hear you. They just wanna daaanceee

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

OK that made me spit coffee on my computer screen.

[–]dr_warlockSenior Endorsed5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Given that, statistically speaking, a woman is most likely to be raped by a family member, your "satire" is incorrect.

It totally misandrist that you think a man can't control himself from raping a drunk or short skirted woman though.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man33 points34 points  (55 children) | Copy Link

Ugh. Okay. I'm just going to go at this, rather than wait around. I'm not a big fan of Roosh at all, but I'm going to explain something. So put your reading glasses on.

Roosh did not advocate for legalizing rape. Roosh wrote a satirical blog post that rape should be legalized on private property, with the social commentary that if that hypothetically did occur, women would take personal responsibility for themselves and not get smashed and just expect men to reject her drunken advances, or maybe she would learn martial arts or carry a gun. This is called satire. He was critiquing the state of society where women feel like they have no responsibility to protect themselves, and I think it's a worthwhile piece.

I have made this point, time and time again, and I recall /u/gaylubeoil has also made the same point. The problem with bloopers is they do not understand literature. They don't understand literary devices, satire, exaggeration, humour, etc.

Anyone with a high school education should understand what roosh was saying, and it was a social critique, not an advocation of actual policy.

[–]scrantonic1tyNot BP22 points23 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I have made this point, time and time again, and I recall /u/gaylubeoil has also made the same point. The problem with bloopers is they do not understand literature. They don't understand literary devices, satire, exaggeration, humour, etc.

Agreed. We're dealing with the kind of people that would read A Modest Proposal and denounce Jonathan Swift as a classist monster advocating cannibalism.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man17 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Hence why I keep challenging people.

I am no fan of roosh, really. But his post wasn't advocating rape, plain and simple. Considering how many bloopers have bullshit English degrees I would expect them to be able to discern this.

[–]GridReXXit be like that-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it's because BPers don't believe his "spirit."

I understood that piece was satire, but part of me feels like Roosh isn't that great of human and that most of it was less satire than TRP Is willing to believe.

So sure it's satire. I just don't personally believe him.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this. I mean the dude is no deep philosopher, and frankly I wouldn't put some shit past him.

However, bloopers seem to be pointing at that article and yelling 'Touchdown!'. I mean come on.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't understand literary devices, satire, exaggeration, humour, etc.

Oh they understand it just fine, when someone on their side does it

[–]obstinatebeagle2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with bloopers is they do not understand literature. They don't understand literary devices, satire, exaggeration, humour, etc.

I dispute that. They understand it and employ it liberally when it suits their purposes - see anything written by Clementine Ford. But if you have a different opinion to bloopers, then somehow these devices are magically inadmissible.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man20 points21 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

That's not his logic.

He doesn't say women 'ask to be raped'. He says that women feel that they don't need to take any measures to prevent rape because womenz.

A comparable example would be if roosh got shit faced drunk, was talking smack and harassing women, and then got a beer over the head and maybe a punch in the face.

Asking a woman to a bar is not at all what his criticism is.

[–][deleted] -2 points-2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man15 points16 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Going out like what?

What was he doing that was obscene?

[–][deleted] -4 points-4 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man13 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes I would? I'm a libertarian so I firmly believe that everyone can say what they want. In turn, I am allowed to disagree. Valenti can prattle on, but I have the equal right to critique.

Now, back to the task at hand, what exactly did Roosh do that offends you, in particular what do you mean by 'going out like that'?

[–][deleted] -3 points-3 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ok, well now you're backtracking and it sounds very much like the 'victim blaming' feminists hate - he's a shitlord, so let him get assaulted.

He just went to a bar.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because just like those fat girls, he's a human being at the end of the day?

[–]Baldr2090 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

it happened on public property, even if he meant what he said literally he could still report it to the police without being hypocritical.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-1 points0 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Satirical? Lol. He has - by his own admission - committed rape in the past, and says he will do so again. His desire to legalise rape on private property, and his hasty "but I was only joookkinggg" whinge when called on it shows what a snivelling coward he is.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to repost what I said below. Bearing in mind I don't expect women to understand anything that involves critical thinking, so I'll excuse you-

Ugh. Okay. I'm just going to go at this, rather than wait around. I'm not a big fan of Roosh at all, but I'm going to explain something. So put your reading glasses on. Roosh did not advocate for legalizing rape. Roosh wrote a satirical blog post that rape should be legalized on private property, with the social commentary that if that hypothetically did occur, women would take personal responsibility for themselves and not get smashed and just expect men to reject her drunken advances, or maybe she would learn martial arts or carry a gun. This is called satire. He was critiquing the state of society where women feel like they have no responsibility to protect themselves, and I think it's a worthwhile piece. I have made this point, time and time again, and I recall /u/gaylubeoil has also made the same point. The problem with bloopers is they do not understand literature. They don't understand literary devices, satire, exaggeration, humour, etc. Anyone with a high school education should understand what roosh was saying, and it was a social critique, not an advocation of actual policy.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-4 points-3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

And I'm saying that he didn't intend it as satirical until he got blowback, whereupon he hid being the "I was kidding, can't you take a joke" coward excuse. If he fooled you, then sucks to be as gullible as you.

[–]b38497988Numbers Game6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Or maybe just like the exact same thing that is happening right now between your comment and EC, where you are not getting that it's satirical at first until EC explains it for you, the feminists and SJWs didn't get that Roosh's article is satirical at first until he explained it to them.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He can "explain " all he likes. Roosh back peddled when he was called on it.

[–]Quintus_PillusA danger to society3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If he fooled you, then sucks to be as gullible as you.

Great projection. His piece was obviously satire, you were fooled by it, and now project your reaction unto the other side.

Roosh is not a special snowflake protected by the media that he can allow himself to post retarded stuff like that. He's not Jessica Valenti or the other feminists from the clan who can get away by saying ridiculous things. Roosh would be in serious trouble if he really meant what he meant.

[–]Martin21130 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

Granted, I don't know much about this, but I think it is exceedingly unlikely that this fellow is admitted rapist. Seems kinda irresponsible to make that claim.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

In his own books, he has boasted about raping

[–]Martin21130 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

i know that is not true, but I will ask anyway, why did you read his books?

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

To know what to warn my daughters about

[–]Martin21130 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Clearly untrue.

Look, some people are assholes. It's not a big deal. You don't have to care about them or think about them or make up lies about them. Clearly the dude is a weirdo, and may have said some weird shit I don't care about.

But don't claim he is admitted rapist when he clearly isn't. Just ignore him. We both know you haven't read any book he wrote, and that he is not an admitted rapist. He probably is just a run of the mill asshole. So what. Stop lying about him and forget the whole episode. Accusing people of being rapists is fucking serious and you shouldn't do it.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/roosh-v-amazon-hit-by-petition-to-stop-selling-books-from--pickup-blogger-who-called-for-rape-to-be-legalised-10459319.html

Both his "bang" books are easily downloaded, and contain several anecdotes where he overpowered women in order to have sex. You can admit that, or just keep looking like a doofus.

[–]Martin2113-1 points0 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Many women like to be overpowered. I have dated women who wanted me to ignore their resistance and fuck them. I never would, because I just won't, I am not into that and that shit freaks me out. But there are women who want that. It's not rape. To some extent it is definitely true that no means yes on occasion. It's fucking complicated at times.

At any rate, your argument was that he was an admitted rapist, not that you believe he is a rapist.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

were these 'men can't help themselves' rape apologist comments satire too? - http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2012/08/02/roosh-v-has-a-little-trouble-with-the-concept-of-no-tw-rape-apologia/
http://www.rooshv.com/when-no-means-yes

does any red piller here agree with roosh that the average men can't stop themselves at a certain point (because of testosterone/evolution) even if a women requests it?

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

If I quoted some of your writing outside of its full context, would that be an honest way to present your ideas?

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

wait, go to the link i posted of roosh and tell me what is out of context?

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Your first link isn't to his site.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

it refers to a quote on the second link, which is why i included the original source, so there would be no worry about taking things out on context. the link to roosh's site is a very short article that would be hard to take out of context. do you disagree that roosh is saying that the average men can't stop themselves at a certain point (because of testosterone/evolution)? and do you think most red pillers would agree with roosh or not, on that sentiment?

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

He does go to far with that point, but the overall message -- that "no" doesn't always mean "no" -- is valid, and I think most red pillers would agree with that.

As for whether the "can't help themselves" comment is satire: It doesn't look like it, but I haven't read enough of his blog to know his style. I know he occasionally writes fully satirical posts; maybe he blends in a little satire or hyperbole in smaller doses more regularly? For example, this comment as a whole is a straightforward reply to you. Occasionally I write more humorous or satirical posts. If I end this comment with something like "clearly Roosh is literally Hitler" it's reasonable to question whether I actually believe that or whether I'm attempting to mock ideas I disagree with.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

i agree some of his posts are satire/hyperbole, i don't think this is.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree that it probably isn't satire, but considering that he uses satire elsewhere and that the rest of the post has a bit of a different focus, I think it could be.

Overall, though, it's inaccurate to say he's a rape apologist, pro-rape, or anything of the sort. It's clear that he's not trying to encourage rape -- he's just challenging the incredibly broad definition of rape that most feminists are pushing. Despite his missteps (and everyone has missteps) he has plenty of reasonable points.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's my point. Even the police, especially in Canada, are white knights.

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

You think people go to jail for years for tossing drinks? Lol

Small fine and 30 days probation, tops.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

they followed him back to his hotel, that like lynch mob, oh wait your probably social justice and love the lynch mobs

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Pretty sure a key requirement to be a lynch mob is the lynching part.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

and i am sure if had stayed out side his security would have been completely mobbed

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Roosh would definitely get that then

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (145 children) | Copy Link

Why is this hard for you to understand?

  1. Roosh is a rape apologist and a vile human being. I will applaud anyone who punches him in the face.

  2. If Roosh and TRP aren't BFFs anymore, why do you even care?

  3. Any feminist icon attacked in public gets many hoo-rahs from TRP every single time. I don't believe this is a debatable point.

[–]dakruNeither32 points33 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Roosh is a rape apologist and a vile human being. I will applaud anyone who punches him in the face.

Criticize what he says all you want, but how is physically assaulting him applaudable? I can think of plenty of feminists I disagree with strongly and some I even think are bad people, but I can't think of even one that I want to see assaulted.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 32 points33 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

And now you see the hypocrisy of feminism specifically and liberalism in general. The same exact violence that would be seen as horrific if enacted upon a woman, is seen as funny and downright applaudable if done against a man they don't like.

[–]f3yleafAlpha-Liberal3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

3w feminists are not liberals tho, You cant be a liberal and a marxist, they are mutually exclusive. They are about as liberal as Dick Cheney is libertarian. Confused Americentric tribalism.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I promise if you ask 90% of 3w feminists if they believe in liberal values and Marxist values, they would say yes to both. Its all a joke

[–]Schadrach5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Postmodernism in action. Words mean whatever you feel like they should.

[–]f3yleafAlpha-Liberal-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Words have no meaning anymore.

[–]scrantonic1tyNot BP0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You cant be a liberal and a marxist, they are mutually exclusive.

This is probably a confusion of terms on my part but Marxism refers to economic policy whereas most 'liberals' would consider themselves so in relation to social policy. One can support worker ownership of industry and believe in gay marriage, pro-choice etc. That'd be a liberal Marxist, at least how I'd term it as a non-American.

[–]f3yleafAlpha-Liberal-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing un-american about being pro-choice(first trimester anyway, late term abortions are a different issue but more a human issue than an American one), gay marriage should be up to the minister, banning someone from performing a gay marriage is just as un-american as forcing someone to perform one, but fuck the assholes trying to punish people for politely refusing to make a gay wedding cake, that is un-american as fuck, its their choice how they want to run their business.

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You're too nice dakru. I think you should embrace others agony and suffering as your own pleasure.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The BDSM community approves.

[–]Prometheus720Bio-Troofs Are Defeatist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[Approximately half of] The BDSM community approves

FTFY

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but where in the liberal canon does it state that liberals are pacifists? We're not.

Also, if you sooooo concerned with assault, you should oppose a fucking RAPE APOLOGIST with a searing hatred. Punching an asshole in the face is one thing, supporting violent sexual assault on women is quite another. There is a significant difference.

Roosh is an apologist for men who perform one of the most traumatizing forms of assault there is, but you look past that because whores(!). However, someone gives Roosh a bloody lip?

<fainting couches>

[–]dakruNeither2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, you're saying "but you look past Roosh", "you should oppose Roosh", etc. Has anything I've said tell you that I support Roosh? I did say I don't support getting physical against him, but that doesn't mean I support him.

Truth be told, I neither support nor oppose Roosh. He's said some things I like and some things I don't like. I haven't read much of anything he's said in quite a while. If he actually condones rape then that'll push me over the edge and make me specifically oppose him, but I haven't seen him say that before. Any links?

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

  1. So you condone violent assault upon those with whom you disagree. Got it.

  2. That's the question I'm asking you. If Roosh and the sub you satire aren't BFFs anymore, why does /r/thebluepill care?

  3. http://imgur.com/a/QDbyt#9

I'd like to see an example of a feminist, minding his/her own business, being physically assaulted, and subsequently cheered on by TRP. I gave you an example in my OP. I'd like to see yours.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

*2. TBP is not just anti TRP, they are anti pretty much everything TRP related

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial20 points21 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

When has a feminist icon been physically assaulted and applauded by TRP?

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-5 points-4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I remember you all getting pretty cheerful about Brianna Wu getting run off the road by a crazy mra.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Please provide proof of both Brianna Wu getting run off the road and TRP getting excited over it

[–]Schadrach9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not just run off the road, but run off the road "by a crazy MRA."

I apparently missed when this happened though. Only thing I recall about her was her being "driven from her home" then more or less immediately giving tv interviews from the home she was driven from.

[–]RELTIH88Red Pill Man6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Any feminist icon attacked in public gets many hoo-rahs from TRP every single time. I don't believe this is a debatable point.

I haven't seen anything of the sort. Disagreeing with feminists is not the same as beating or raping them.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Read OP's example. If that occurred there would be TRP leaping to applaud en masse.

[–]RELTIH88Red Pill Man5 points6 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

If that occurred there would be TRP leaping to applaud en masse.

But it hasn't. It is only pure biased speculation coming from you.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

I seem to recall a gamer girl controversy a while ago. Zoe Quinn was involved if I remember correctly.

Did TRP have anything to say about that...?

Hmmmm...

[–]RELTIH88Red Pill Man4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Ah... I see you are changing your original premise. When did Zoe Quinn get beaten in the street? Or is disagreeing with feminists akin to brutally assaulting someone again.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I'm absolutely consistent in my premise. Gamergate created real death threats that were taken seriously by authorities and that people involved. Is that just a "disagreement"?

And again, what did TRP have to say about Gamergate and Zoe Quinn?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Zoe Quinn was never beaten, assaulted, or battered.

Roosh was physically assaulted and battered.

That's the difference.

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard30 points31 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Why is this hard for you to understand?

  1. Pro-abortion advocates are vile human beings. I applaud anyone who punches them in the face.

Funny how immoral behaviour only seems acceptable when they're done to people you disagree with.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial26 points27 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminist advocates are vile human beings. I applaud anyone who punches them in the face.

You're right. Very funny.

For the record, no I do not actually condone punching feminists in the face. I don't believe in violence against others based on their views

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 22 points23 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And do you see how easy it is to induce their violent rage? /r/thebluepill is currently soaking it's collective panties over this video, and as I post this reply, it's currently the 2nd or 3rd most upvoted post on /r/thebluepill.

They're watching this assault video with the same enthusiasm and fervor that a teenage boy has when he sees a porno for the first time.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If a bunch of men did this to even the most extreme SJW feminist I would feel horrible

[–]f3yleafAlpha-Liberal14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah me too, I think most guys who frequent trp would. But I stopped looking for logical consistancy from left-radicals a decade ago, its just not there, its all based on feelz and proletariat vs borgoisie refurbished marxist bullshit.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-5 points-4 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Why would you force someone to birth a child they don't want, can't look after, may kill them, may be incompatible with life or may be disabled?

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not anti-abortion, I'm merely making a point.

[–]Eulabeia13 points14 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Why do people force men to support kids that they don't want?

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-2 points-1 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

They don't. They expect men to participate in raising the children that they helped create.

[–]Eulabeia10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They don't.

Then why is child support mandatory.

They expect men to participate in raising the children that they helped create.

Yes, and some of those people have that same expectation for women too. So there, you answered your own question about abortion.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, child support may be mandatory in a perfect world, but enforcement is patchy at best. Secondly, the forced birthers are only considering accidental conceptions by healthy, consenting, adult potential parents.

[–]Eulabeia7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

child support may be mandatory in a perfect world

OMG! Why would you force someone to support a child they don't want?

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So who should look after the child? They can't support themselves.

[–]Eulabeia11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The person who decided to keep it?

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

For which they have legal recourse to recoup funding. Too bad for the kid, though.

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

For which they have legal recourse to recoup funding.

What? Did you just condone this?

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Made it up.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man[🍰] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not pro-life myself, but that question has a very easy answer for pro-lifers. They can be given up for adoption to a person who does want that child. Of course, that's best case scenario. But to the pro-lifers I've met, living a hard life is better than never having lived.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The pro birthers I know really don't care about any babies. They just want to punish women for being "sluts".

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man[🍰] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Those pro-birthers are dumb. Sluts don't just suddenly stop being sluts after having a baby, it is barely a punishment. Most of the pro-lifers I know are religious women, who may or may not dislike sluts, but definitely are baby-crazy.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If they were baby crazy, they would look after the babies already born but unable to be cared for.

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I will applaud anyone who punches him in the face.

Wooo! Violence is now the answer.

I wish you luck with that.

[–][deleted] 12 points12 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 14 points15 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

Why is this hard for you to understand? Roosh is a rape apologist and a vile human being. I will applaud anyone who punches him in the face. If Roosh and TRP aren't BFFs anymore, why do you even care? Any feminist icon attacked in public gets many hoo-rahs from TRP every single time. I don't believe this is a debatable point.

I'm copying and pasting /u/SkinnySweaty's comment here for when he/she deletes it. But yes, this is what they believe, and this was the exact sort of knee-jerk reaction I expected when I posted this.

Any and all sort of reprehensible violence is acceptable to feminists when that violence is levied upon the target of their rage.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is honestly why I don't participate in PPD as much as I used to.

Some anti-TRP poster will say something ludicrous, immature and immoral while at the same time calling TRP the same things. Then when you call them out on it they disappear like scared children. Then they get upset when you say women aren't as mature.

Mind fuck

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks!

[–]DeseretRainFangirl0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand how people can claim to have morals while at the same time saying they think "morals are subjective." Morals aren't subjective, some things are moral and others are immoral, and the things I believe in are moral because obviously they are, if I didn't truly believe that then why would those be my morals? I wouldn't have chosen those as my morals if I didn't believe they were correct. If you've chosen a particular set of morals but still believe morals are "subjective," obviously you don't believe that strongly in your morals, and therefore you don't have any.

People in this thread are saying feminists can't be Marxists- so do you think we'll ever get communism without a revolution? Do you think we won't get blood on our hands? If you're not willing to kill and die for something, you must not be that dedicated to it.

Does anyone really believe we'll bring down capitalism and the patriarchy with cute little non-violent protests? Casualties are acceptable in war, and the thing is, nearly everyone believes this- how many people would say we shouldn't have fought in WWII? Yet, somehow, people will still act like feminists are hypocrites if they promote violent opposition against their oppressors.

Imagine it this way: say a serial killer went to jail for 20 years, and an innocent man went to jail for 20 years. Most everyone would say that it's not right for the innocent man to be jail, but it was OK for the serial killer to be in jail- even though jail is literally psychological torture, the loss of freedom is one of the worst things to humans! But it's OK to think that since current society would agree being a serial killer is wrong. So you KNOW that you think if someone does something that is truly wrong, they deserve for bad things to happen to them.

But suddenly if there's a moral issue that society doesn't have such a consensus on, you're expected to say "Oh even though this person did something immoral, they don't deserve anything bad to happen to them." As if morality is based on what current human society agrees upon.

[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Morals aren't subjective, some things are moral and others are immoral, and the things I believe in are moral because obviously they are, if I didn't truly believe that then why would those be my morals? I wouldn't have chosen those as my morals if I didn't believe they were correct.

Saying "morals are subjective" doesn't stop you from believing that certain morals are correct. It just means that you think "this is the moral system that I have determined to make most sense to me" rather than "I have discovered the one true moral system".

Does anyone really believe we'll bring down capitalism and the patriarchy with cute little non-violent protests? Casualties are acceptable in war, and the thing is, nearly everyone believes this- how many people would say we shouldn't have fought in WWII? Yet, somehow, people will still act like feminists are hypocrites if they promote violent opposition against their oppressors.

Most people here (I include myself) don't believe that we live in a patriarchy or that women are "oppressed".

But suddenly if there's a moral issue that society doesn't have such a consensus on, you're expected to say "Oh even though this person did something immoral, they don't deserve anything bad to happen to them."

The ideal is to use physical force to punish someone or take them away from society when they've gone through a trial and been found guilty of breaking codified laws that were agreed upon beforehand, rather than "I think this person is bad so I'm going to do something bad to them".

As if morality is based on what current human society agrees upon.

Do you believe that a universal, objective set of morals exists somewhere? If so, where can we find it? Also, why have people spent so much time arguing over morals throughout history if the objective set of morals exists somewhere?

[–]DeseretRainFangirl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So how can you not believe with live in a patriarchy? The actual definition of a patriarchy is a society where men hold the vast majority of power positions, ie high-ranking government officials, religious leaders, wealth holders, and media creators. In our society, most of the House, Senate and Supreme Court are made up of men, we've never had a woman president, almost all religious leaders are men- many of the more popular religions don't even allow women leaders- men hold most of the wealth and virtually all ad execs and movie directors are men. By the actual definition, we live in a patriarchy. Like it's not even a debatable thing, it's a fact that our society fits the definition of a patriarchy.

And women are oppressed, and you're oppressed by capitalism. There's no way we'll get rid of capitalism by going along with the court systems, do you see any of the billionaires who ruined the economy in jail?

Asking that is like asking, "Well if there's an objective truth in science, why have we spent so much time in history arguing over science?" It takes people a while to figure things out, and even once we do there will still be some hold outs, like the creationists who refuse to accept evolution.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Casualties are acceptable in war, and the thing is, nearly everyone believes this- how many people would say we shouldn't have fought in WWII? Yet, somehow, people will still act like feminists are hypocrites if they promote violent opposition against their oppressors.

You're seriously comparing women struggling against "oppressors" to WWII?

[–]DeseretRainFangirl0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm comparing it in principle- the example was to show that most people agree that violence is acceptable in some contexts, even though people like to lie and say that they're totally against violence in all instances. Also, I was talking about a communist revolution in that part, so it literally would be a war.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I understand what you're showing in principle, and I agree with it -- in specific, rare circumstances violence is necessary. But look at how far apart these situations are:

  1. World War II
  2. The vaguely-defined struggle of feminists against "oppressors"
  3. A guy getting a beer thrown at him in a bar

1 is light years away from 2, and 2 is pretty damn different from 3 as well. What use is proving a concept in principle if the actual situation we're discussing is almost nothing like the example you use to prove it?

[–]barbadosslim-4 points-3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You are a dishonest person co-opting the language of nonviolence, all the while furthering rape culture and hate for women. You are totally unable to post a rational or honest thought about it. If you weren't so anti-intellectual maybe you could improve yourself.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm gonna pose a challenge to you: can you go through an entire 24 hour day without saying the words "rape culture"? Hell, go a week on Reddit without using the words "rape" or "culture" in one of your comments, and I will give you gold, how does that sound?

[–]gprimeMGTOW4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So anyone who disagrees with you or who you don't like doesn't deserve basic human rights like protection from physical assault? Is this really what you believe?

"No, of course not. It's different this time because this particular belief is too offensive to be tolerated, and crosses some arbitrarily set personal threshold. But you know other disagreeable speech is totally kosher, so I can still cling to the illusion that I'm not a violent psychopath with no regard for free speech." - Skinnysweaty

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man9 points10 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

On what basis do you say he is a rape apologist? I don't think he is.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a meaningless term, they'll change it as necessary to fit whoever they don't like.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They could make Hillary Clinton a rape apologist if they needed to.

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman-2 points-1 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Well he did say rape should be legal. And has also admitted to raping women himself sooooo...

[–]disposable_pants3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Source?

[–]OfSpock-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Technically, he's an admitted rapist but explains it away.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Source?

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

His book 'Bang Iceland'

While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated. I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This could easily be him simply pointing out how a normal interaction in many countries is criminalized in the U.S. In many countries no one would think a woman who's had two drinks is unable to consent, but many people would claim that here. In no way is this admitting to rape.

[–]Quintus_PillusA danger to society9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Any feminist icon attacked in public gets many hoo-rahs from TRP every single time.

Can you show me evidence of this? A feminist icon being assaulted and the attacker getting "hoo-rahs" from the TRP subreddit?

[–]PemBayliss 6 points6 points [recovered] | Copy Link

You're a bigot.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Name calling always works when logic fails.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

You're OK with men being assaulted for their perfectly legal views and expressing those views in a legal way. You're OK with men getting physically assaulted and battered.

No man ever, ever physically assaulted or battered any feminists for those feminists expressing their views in a legal way. Ever.

But Roosh was assaulted and battered, and you're OK with that.

Bigot.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

he was threatening the woman who threw beer on his face to call social services to have her kids taken away from her. yes she did assault him, but he was in the wrong too.

what do you think about this? http://youtu.be/Czb4rImsph0

in this video the woman is clearly harassing the man, and in the end he hits her accross the face. although in the end, his charges were released and she got a felony assault charge because SHE provoked him. maybe roosh should take some responsiblity for his actions, and stop making a big deal out of it

No man ever, ever physically assaulted or battered any feminists for those feminists expressing their views in a legal way. Ever.

can you prove this? and are you seriously comparing being hit with having beer chucked on you?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No he wasn't in the wrong. It's not illegal to tell someone that because they did something illegal, he will report that person's illegality. Which is all the "I'm gonna tell on you!" statement is.

There's nothing illegal about saying: "I'm going to report you to Social Services for engaging in illegal conduct".

So no, Roosh was NOT in the wrong. At all. He was engaging in perfectly legal conduct, being somewhere he had a right to be, harming no one, doing nothing wrong, doing nothing illegal. A bunch of butthurt people don't like Roosh, don't like what he advocates; and didn't like that he was there, so they assaulted and battered him. SImple as that.

EDIT: And yes, being hit is the same as having beer thrown on you. They are both battery. THey are both offensive touchings. Both of them are exactly the same in the eyes of the law. Beer thrown at Roosh was intended to cause offense. The fact that Roosh wasn't injured is completely IRRELEVANT. It was an offensive touching, plain and simple.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What if I gave you a nasty titty twister that technically didn't cause any real harm? Would that be justified?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I haven't done anything to deserve that. also I would just kick you in the balls

edit: WHY am i getting downvoted for this?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The point is that it didn't do any permanent damage.

But a nasty titty twister is still a battery. Pouring a beer on someone is still a battery, even if it causes no permanent damage.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But a nasty titty twister is still a battery.

seriously?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Roosh was not assaulted in that video.

I'm a guy. If Roosh is at a bar, acts like a doosh, gets his ass into a bar fight, he needs to man up and act like a man for a moment and take responsibility for the his part in taunting the people pissed at him and the instigating that's in that video.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes, he was assaulted and battered. They threw beer in his face. Battery is an "unwanted or offensive touching". Physical injury is not required. All that's required is that the touching would be offensive to a reasonable person or that the victim didn't want to be touched in that way.

If you go up to a girl and touch her tits without her permission, you've just battered her.

If you squeeze some random woman's ass, you've battered her.

You didn't physically injure those women. But you still battered them. You touched them in a way that a reasonable person would understand as offensive, or they didn't want you to touch them that way.

So yes, those women assaulted and battered Roosh.

Believe you me, if you walked up to a waitress in a bar and you squeezed her ass, the cops would be on you like flies on shit and you'd be taking a trip downtown in a squad car.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Once again, TRP shows their true colors.

Bravo.

Roosh got beer splashed on him. He got yelled at. If there wasa real crime committed, went is her not pursuing legal action. Or is he?

Meanwhile, TRP is busy lamenting the fact that is so unfair you cannot grope women in public. Squeezing a woman's ass in public against her expressed desire and getting an appletini thrown in your face are NOT the same in the eyes of the law. Sorry.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, actually they ARE the same thing.

And no, no one said anything about it being "unfair" that it's illegal to batter women. What's unfair is that people like YOU believe that it IS OK for women to batter men. You believe it IS OK for women to get away with illegal conduct.

And yes, getting a drink thrown in your face IS battery. It is. You're just flat out wrong about this.

You are a bigot, because you are OK with men being battered. You want one set of rules for people you DO like, and another, more stringent, less protective, set of rules for people you DON'T like.

Straight up bigotry here.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm a man, why in the world do you think I'm okay with women assaulting men on the reg? Because I'm not.

And again, if there's a crime being committed in that vid I don't see it. And I'm going to guess that a magistrate in Montreal would see it the same. Do you really think there's a case for criminal prosecution here? Seriously?

No, Roosh got laughed at and cursed out. The squid clouds of butt hurt over these thrown drinks do more to demonstrate the fragile egos of TRP guys than anything else.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You ARE ok with Roosh getting assaulted and battered, because that's what happened and you are downplaying and minimizing it.

Yes, a crime was committed. He was battered. Yes, there is a case for criminal prosecution. Throwing a drink in another person's face is textbook "offensive touching". How many times does this need to be said? That's the definition of battery.

The fact of the matter is, you just don't like Roosh, and that's why you don't think there's a case for battery here.

But if Roosh threw a drink in a woman's face, you'd be up in arms calling for Roosh's head on a platter. Hell, he did nothing illegal, and you're still calling for his head on a platter.

That's why you're a bigot. You want one set of rules for Roosh, and one set for everyone else. That's straight up bigotry.

[–]AryaBarzanProud Fat/Slut Shamer8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Untrue.

Roosh is a rape apologist and a vile human being. I will applaud anyone who punches him in the face.

Well, a "rape apologist" is a made up term from feminist groups to slander anybody whom doesn't shoulder their extreme beliefs regarding rape. I am happy that, as a feminist, you've also admitted to utilizing violence to support this cause and hurting those whom don't share your exact beliefs. I will say, that I hope that if you or any of your cronies act violence upon an individual for their beliefs, that the attackee adequately defends him/herself by any means necessary. And I mean any means necessary.

If Roosh and TRP aren't BFFs anymore, why do you even care?

Because I believe that people should have a right to their opinion without physical violence being directed at them.

Any feminist icon attacked in public gets many hoo-rahs from TRP every single time. I don't believe this is a debatable point.

Please provide a single "feminist icon" that was physically "attacked" in public without attacking first that received any "hoo-rahs". Especially if that "feminist icon" was a woman.

[–]effortlessgrace0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Any feminist icon attacked in public gets many hoo-rahs from TRP every single time. I don't believe this is a debatable point.

Like, physically assaulted? I can't imagine even the most bitter of TRP-ers, rooting for feminists to get the shit kicked out of them in public. I mean, fuck Roosh, but can you cite an example of this?

[–]chasingstatueszion was part of the matrix3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

These particular people might be hypocrites and anyone who actually got off on the video might be a hypocrite (depending on what their beef with Roosh was to begin with).

I personally think that Roosh goes out of his way with some articles to insight rage in people and that he enjoys doing it. So it's unsurprising that, at some point, he's going to deal with the backlash from that.

[–]steelpuppy11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Physically assaulting somebody isn't him "dealing with [the] backlash" it's cunts committing a crime.

[–]GridReXXit be like that-4 points-3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The horror of being sprinkled with beer at da club.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Two drinks thrown in his face, shouts and screaming in his face, surrounded by an aggressive mob, forcefully cleared away from the scene for his own safety, etc. does not equate to being sprinkled with beer.

[–]GridReXXit be like that-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow you guys are really enraged by this for some reason.

Maybe I'm desensitized because I watch too much trashy reality TV.

Those two women were asses for deluging his mane of hair with yeast water. I agree.

But that's all the "outrage" you're going to get out of me.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Just trying to get you in touch with the reality of what actually happened. I appreciate that if you watch so much trashy TV that this didn't shock you, you may indeed be desensitised.

[–]GridReXXit be like that-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah I blame VH1 and Bravo. If a drink wasn't thrown, a night wasn't had.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People still watch VH1 and Bravo? TIL...

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

For someone who wanks on about how much unwanted physical contact he dishes out; he's crying like a baby when he gets it handed back to him.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What does that have to do with my pointing out bis hypocrisy?

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit, we have a lot of yellow penalty flags on the field here.

"15 yard penalty, loss of down."

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

i think she was in touch back territory

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"We have a Safety for the defense."

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Logic has the ball and going going going gone

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Why is so much deleted? Why not just hide it and let us decide if it's something we want to read?

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

How would we hide it?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Some sites just minimize the comments so you can't see it. There is a button that asks you if you want to read the comment even though it's been downvoted.

I think it's important not to censor. I guess some people want to be offended and would like to not see it, but still, for context reasons, it's good to be able to see what people are getting deleted by downvoting or complaining.

Maybe reddit doesn't have this feature but it's a good one to have.

This subreddit seems to have a lot of deletions.

It says Purple Pill Debate but when things are censored that's not a debate. That's an echo chamber.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate the response, but I could not disagree more.

I think it's important not to censor. I guess some people want to be offended and would like to not see it, but still, for context reasons, it's good to be able to see what people are getting deleted by downvoting or complaining.

We don't censor because people are offended. This isn't /r/Feminism. In fact, we do not censor any viewpoint on PPD.

What we do censor is circlejerking, which this thread happens to be full of.

It says Purple Pill Debate but when things are censored that's not a debate. That's an echo chamber.

No, an echo chamber is what we are preventing, and the Orwellian double speak here is pretty egregious.

In your view, allowing rpers to answer a question for BP (asked by a rper), and dominate the thread is not a echo chamber. But the mod team deleting those responses is somehow creating one?

That does not make sense.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (68 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of RPers in this thread are really putting emphasis on 'physical assault'. They threw a drink over his head to humiliate him, not to cause him any physical pain or serious threat.

RPers whining and claiming that liberals think it's okay to cause bodily harm to another person because they don't like them or disagree with them are being ridiculous. It's just hyperbole.

I'm cool with it. This guy is a rape apologist who routinely humiliates people he disagrees with all the time. They're pretty much just giving him a taste of his own medicine. I always find it hilarious to see RPers point out liberal types as being hypocritical but it's a pretty simplistic position to take. It's only hypocritical if you've already espoused the idea that all violence, whether physical or emotional, is bad. For instance, a person might well believe that it's perfectly fine to humiliate a person who believes that it's okay to humiliate people he simply disagrees with and does so regularly. For him to complain that what happened to him was wrong and that what he does to other people is okay would be hypocrisy.

It's also not hypocrisy to accept that seeing a guy you think is a dick get punched in the face is wrong, but still enjoy it anyway.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man14 points15 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So are you someone who buys into the fact that 'Fuck her right in the pussy' is assault? This shit has been all over Canadian media like hotcakes the last fee months.

Do you take the view that yelling a stupid statement like this is worse than pouring a beer over someone's head? And if so, how much worse?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fuck her right in the pussy is hilarious, IMO. It's just boys being dumb for fun.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well in Canada, where this is set, this is a fucking feminist shitnami tidal wave. Just google it. A dude got doxxed and fired from his job for it here. All under the guise that it was assault.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial26 points27 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Funny how the barometer of what is and isn't assault drops dramatically when it's someone who doesn't share the same beliefs as you.

The guy was threatened with physical harm by a mob of angry people, which included guys who looked much bigger than him and could do him great harm if he didn't leave the situation.

The woman was yelling out that Roosh wants to rape someone's sister to incite anger and violence. Don't pretend that he would not have been seriously harmed if he stayed there.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

The guy was threatened with physical harm by a mob of angry people, which included guys who looked much bigger than him and could do him great harm if he didn't leave the situation. The woman was yelling out that Roosh wants to rape someone's sister to incite anger and violence. Don't pretend that he would not have been seriously harmed if he stayed there.

And I don't think that behaviour is okay, although knowing that he didn't get hurt, I still do find the video funny. I would be okay with any attempt to humiliate him as much as possible though.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial16 points17 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. Although again, if what happened to Roosh happened to an extremist SJW feminist activist I would not approve and would feel sick to my stomach.

So I'm assuming if he was actually punched or hit you wouldn't be laughing then?

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I would be laughing, because being punched is not the end of the world, and it can be quite humbling in the right circumstances.

Whether I think it's okay to punch someone in this situation is a different question, to which the answer is no.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial16 points17 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

That's kind of an immature stance to take considering one could simply say that punching/ raping a feminist would put her in her place and be humbling.

To which I'm sure you would strongly disagree with, as would I.

How old are you if you don't mind me asking?

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

LMAO, I also asked how old this cat was because of his responses. Funny how age changes perspectives.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

A feminist being punched in the face might be humbling, but that doesn't mean it's right or okay to do.

Rape isn't the same thing. It's worrying how lightly RPers seem to take rape.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial14 points15 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

So should people go around punching people who don't agree with them in attempts to make them humble?

[–]AryaBarzanProud Fat/Slut Shamer8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I would be okay with any attempt to humiliate him as much as possible though.

Probably because you relate very much with the exact kind of woman that he routinely describes in his articles. If his biggest "humiliation" was words on an internet forum, then this is FARRR more severe and nowhere near warranted. Once again, making up crimes like "rape apologism" doesn't suddenly justify other crimes. But that's feminism for ya!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I definitely don't, given that I'm neither a feminist, nor a woman.

If his biggest "humiliation" was words on an internet forum, then this is FARRR more severe and nowhere near warranted.

I think it's fair to say that his targets would feel legitimately humiliated by some of the things that he has said.

[–]AryaBarzanProud Fat/Slut Shamer2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's fair to say that his targets would feel legitimately humiliated by some of the things that he has said.

Boohoo :(

Internet is serious bidness.

Honest, I'm happy that they do. They probably should feel legitimately humiliated since he generally addresses 1) feminists 2) sluts 3) fat chicks and 4) single mothers. All of which are mostly degenerates.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

RPers whining and claiming that liberals think it's okay to cause bodily harm to another person because they don't like them or disagree with them are being ridiculous. It's just hyperbole.

Your response and /u/SkinnySweaty are an example of this.

I'm cool with it. This guy is a rape apologist who routinely humiliates people he disagrees with all the time. They're pretty much just giving him a taste of his own medicine.

Has Roosh ever poured a drink on a girl's face, gotten a group of friends, and started to chase her down the streets?

Even assuming Roosh says vile disgusting things, when has he ever gotten violent and endangered someone's life.

It's only hypocritical if you've already espoused the idea that all violence, whether physical or emotional, is bad.

It's hypocritical because criticism of Roosh, TRP, and the manosphere in general often come from moral ought arguments. "A good human being ought not to use TRP" and so forth.

Yet in this video we have the beginning of a lynch mob. 10-12 drunk people chasing a man.

For him to complain that what happened to him was wrong and that what he does to other people is okay would be hypocrisy.

Has Roosh ever poured a drink on someone's face and started to chase them down the street? What does Roosh do? All he has done is speak and write.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Your response and /u/SkinnySweaty are an example of this.

We've already clarified that what I enjoy seeing/and what I think is deserved might not be right.

Has Roosh ever poured a drink on a girl's face

No, but he has humiliated many girls in the past. Unless you think that the girl was trying to drown him you don't really have a point here. It doesn't matter if the action isn't the same, when the motivation and effect is.

gotten a group of friends, and started to chase her down the streets?

No, and that is wrong, even if it is hilarious.

It's hypocritical because criticism of Roosh, TRP, and the manosphere in general often come from moral ought arguments.

It's only hypocritical if you believe that no violence, physical or emotional, is ever justified. Essentially, you can think TRP is immoral and still throw beer on Roosh's head without being a hypocrite.

What does Roosh do? All he has done is speak and write.

And words can never be harmful...?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

And words can never be harmful...?

I never said that. Roosh writes. Does he go out to feminist rallies and yell at women? Does he even speak about his beliefs in public?He writes and posts videos.

No, but he has humiliated many girls in the past. Unless you think that the girl was trying to drown him you don't really have a point here.

How has he humiliated women? Has he gotten into women's face and started to yell about false rape claims?

Roosh sticks to articles and videos. Nothing he does is equivalent to what occurred in the video.

Essentially, you can think TRP is immoral and still throw beer on Roosh's head without being a hypocrite.

You can find a moral basis for any action; whether it's raping a girl, shooting a man, etc.

The hypocrisy comments come from the most common reasons and underlying beliefs for criticizing TRP: "people are human, have certain rights, and TRP treats them as inhuman.".

It's only hypocritical if you believe that no violence, physical or emotional, is ever justified.

Not at all. If I believe that violence is only justified in self-defense, then this is hypocritical.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I never said that. Roosh writes. Does he go out to feminist rallies and yell at women? Does he even speak about his beliefs in public?He writes and posts videos.

Roosh's material is still harmful and humiliating to certain people. The medium isn't particularly relevant, only the motivation and effect. And yeah, he appeared on TV once to talk about his views but threw a hissy fit online when it turned out that they were going to be mean about him. Poor fella :( His material is public, the internet... is public.

http://www.returnofkings.com/2099/the-9-ugliest-american-feminists

Here's one example.

You can find a moral basis for any action; whether it's raping a girl, shooting a man, etc.

What's your point here?

The hypocrisy comments come from the most common reasons and underlying beliefs for criticizing TRP: "people are human, have certain rights, and TRP treats them as inhuman.".

Are they treating him as inhuman, or just a shitty human? Again, it's only hypocrisy if you think that humiliating a person who has been guilty of humiliating other people before isn't okay, but that this instance with Roosh was okay.

See, I do think that TRP is shitty and encourages immoral behaviour, but I also don't think it's necessarily wrong to give someone a taste of their own medicine if they are engaging in particularly shitty behaviour. I imagine that there are some people who share a similar standpoint.

Not at all. If I believe that violence is only justified in self-defense, then this is hypocritical.

Yeah I should have added 'and in self-defence'. Or any other justifiable reason to cause violence. This point isn't actually particularly salient.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Roosh's material is still harmful and humiliating to certain people.

People are offended

The medium isn't particularly relevant, only the motivation and effect.

You're saying there is no difference between racists publishing an article on stormfront and racists going out in public and talking to people?

but I also don't think it's necessarily wrong to give someone a taste of their own medicine

That is exactly the thing! Giving Roosh a taste of his own medicine would be: writing about him, making a video of him, or even just insulting him. Gathering a mob and chasing him is not consistent with his actions.

it's only hypocrisy if you think that humiliating a person who has been guilty of humiliating other people before isn't okay

You're comparing publishing an article on a site to pouring a drink on someone and gathering a mob.

I should probably stop responding...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

People are offended

Humiliation isn't the same as offence, look up the difference.

You're saying there is no difference between racists publishing an article on stormfront and racists going out in public and talking to people?

Motivation = spread racist ideas

effect = diffusion of racist ideas

There's a difference in the way it's done but the motivation and effect is the same. I imagine more people actually see this stuff and digest it when it's online given the far larger audience. RP has how many members exactly?

That is exactly the thing! Giving Roosh a taste of his own medicine would be: writing about him, making a video of him, or even just insulting him.

But would it have the same effect? Let's say a heavyweight boxer punches a child? Would it be a taste of his own medicine to let the child hit the boxer in return or would it be a taste of his own medicine to have the boxer feel the same pain and fear that the child would have had?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

People who regularly browse stormfront make up a small proportion of the general population. Racist posts on stormfront is preaching to the choir. It mostly effects people who go to that website. You don't

Racist speech in a public park or street corner is not the same as stormfront. I have never been to stormfront and I will never accidentally wind up there or browse a racist article. I do however walk the streets, go to parks, and could overhear racist speech.

Medium is very very important. It determines your audience (who is listening to you speak), the strength of your message, and more.

A taste of his own medicine would be finding a relationship between the child's body, force generated by the boxer, and the child's pain. Then having the boxer get hit by a robot or a very large boxer.

To be honest that is just a shitty metaphor. Unless you think women are kids and Roosh posting articles in the manosphere is comparable to a heavyweight boxer jabbing a child.

I'm done with this discussion.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People who regularly browse stormfront make up a small proportion of the general population. Racist posts on stormfront is preaching to the choir. It mostly effects people who go to that website. You don't Racist speech in a public park or street corner is not the same as stormfront. I have never been to stormfront and I will never accidentally wind up there or browse a racist article. I do however walk the streets, go to parks, and could overhear racist speech.

And yet hundreds of thousands of bitter men end up on these websites, don't they? Listen, no one is going to become racist because they heard someone on a street corner shouting racist things. You can't possibly think that.

Medium is very very important. It determines your audience (who is listening to you speak), the strength of your message, and more.

Yes, but medium is irrelevant so long as what matters is the motivation and effect, which are what matter in this case.

A taste of his own medicine would be finding a relationship between the child's body, force generated by the boxer, and the child's pain. Then having the boxer get hit by a robot or a very large boxer.

Yes, so why do you insist that these people try to humiliate Roosh online when it probably wouldn't have the same effect? Unless it turns out that he is actually a big sissy.

To be honest that is just a shitty metaphor.

But you understand the point so it's fine.

I'm done with this discussion.

That's boring.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 23 points24 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

They threw a drink over his head to humiliate him, not to cause him any physical pain or serious threat.

This is "aggravated assault" in the eyes of the law. Period. Funny how you try to marginalize and hamster it away as "OK". I have a feeling you'd be singing a different tune about this if it was a guy throwing a drink at a woman. I'm sure you wouldn't be "enjoying it anyways".

If I posted a "haha funny" thread, laughing my ass off about Jessica "I bathe in male tears" Valenti getting beer and gum thrown in her hair, would you have such a cavalier attitude about it? Doubtful.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Yeah in the 'eyes of the law' but as we can clearly see it's just a guy getting wet and being humiliated. So we can continue with the hyperbole and pretend this is on the same level as someone getting physically harmed or we can be real.

I'd be fine with that, I chuckle whenever I see anyone get what they probably deserved.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"Probably deserved", as judged by whom? You? Who died and made you the god of morality? Bottom line is, if Roosh wanted to press charges, that cunt would be arrested and brought up on assault charges. Fists, a bat, or beer, it makes no difference. Whether a black eye or a wet shirt, doesn't matter. I have the same right to occupy a public space as you do, to occupy that space unmolested, and I have the right to not have a drink thrown on me because I offended your fee fees with my presence.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How am I supposed to take you seriously when you think that a black eye is the same thing as a wet shirt?

Roosh himself has no care for anyone else's right to live unmolested and not be humiliated. He's failed to show respect for anyone but his own feelings, so probably doesn't deserve to have his feelings considered.

and I have the right to not have a drink thrown on me

Yes you do, but rights exist to be practical, not as inalienable bastions of morality.

I offended your fee fees with my presence.

Let's not pretend that RPers aren't the ones who are deeply troubled by the idea that people aren't going to stand by idly while TRP and ilk peddle their hateful and dangerous views. You guys are outraged. My fee fees aren't hurt by the existence of TRP types.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

Twenty one. Hopefully your curiosity is sated. If not you can always use my age to convince yourself that I couldn't possibly be right, which I'm sure was never your intention.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Bigot.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Eh? What makes you say that?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Because you are OK with a man getting physically assaulted. If this were a woman getting beer dumped on her, you'd be all up in arms over it. But because it's Roosh, an eeeeevil mis-og-uh-nist, it's A-OK.

Right?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm okay with it because Roosh is guilty of repeatedly humiliating individuals in public himself, so this is really just a case of him getting his comeuppance.

I've actually said like a million times already that I thoroughly enjoy watching anyone get what they deserve, man or woman.

So uh, wrong.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Roosh never humiliated anyone in public. Show me where Roosh did any such thing.

So you're OK with a man getting physically assaulted because of his legal views. You're a misandrist. You hate men.

You're a bigot.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.returnofkings.com/2099/the-9-ugliest-american-feminists

Go easy on the hyperbole, I'm sure Roosh's shirt is fine.

I am actually a man and I don't really hate men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're still a bigot, whether you're a man or a woman.

[–]NineInchPitchfork1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

< aggravated assault

These facts are not even close to aggravated assault. To qualify as such the assault needs to wound, maim, disfigure or endanger the life of the victim. The endangerment of the life needs to be real not theoretical. There needs to be a permanent injury.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-268.html

Note: I've actually conducted these trials.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Say I threaten someone with an unloaded gun.

  • No wounds
  • The victim's life is not in danger
  • No permanent injury

Would I not get charged with some sort of assault?

Also, you yourself claim this is aggravated assault or worse later in the thread:

Throwing a drink in someone's face is actually aggravated assault in most legal jurisdictions, ask any cop, they will tell you; "aggravated" because the beer, in the eyes of the law, is a "weapon". If the liquid was a high proof spirit and someone nearby was smoking a cigarette, now you're talking about negligent homicide potentially.

If you were in my evidence class I would give you a 0/10 for this ridiculous answer.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-268.html

Why should I trust your opinion on the applicable law when you confidently answer the question in two completely opposite ways? Hilariously, you're using the same source for both positions.

[–]AryaBarzanProud Fat/Slut Shamer11 points12 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

  1. "Rape apologist" is nothing but a made-up feminist term to slander anybody that disagrees with their extreme views on rape. There is no such thing as a "rape apologist".

  2. I find it funny that feminists whom whine about the tiny smudge of "violence against women" and nonsense like "rape apology" are suddenly justifying throwing drinks at peoples faces and being violently interrogated over simply disagreeing with others.

  3. Roosh never grabbed a gang of his friends, interrogated somebody and threw drinks at them in an attempt to "humiliate" them. Believe it or not, saying mean things online aren't the root of all serious problems. Grow some skin and stop making up words like "rape apology" to defend your agenda.

  4. Please screenshot/save this post in order to show all others that feminism is not so concerned with "violence" when it's not directed at them. Thank you for helping our cause :)

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Dude, Roosh wants to make rape on private propety legal.

I find it funny that feminists whom whine about the tiny smudge of "violence against women" and nonsense like "rape apology" are suddenly justifying throwing drinks at peoples faces and being violently interrogated over simply disagreeing with others.

Yeah, having beer thrown in your face is not the same as being raped.

Believe it or not, saying mean things online aren't the root of all serious problems.

And neither is having beer thrown in your face! It's almost as if they're both just acts done to humiliate the other person.

Please screenshot/save this post in order to show all others that feminism is not so concerned with "violence" when it's not directed at them. Thank you for helping our cause :)

I'm not a feminist, sorry.

[–]steelpuppy7 points8 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Dude, Roosh wants to make rape on private propety legal.

Sufferers of Asperger's syndrome shouldn't read satire. They just don't get it.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

It's difficult to tell when something is satire when it comes from someone who could well be serious.

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

No, it's just you (and number of BPers).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Not really. Roosh espouses a great number of backwards ideas that are legitimately harmful to women. It's bad satire, because if you read the article you'll find that he does hold a lot of the views expressed therein. It's not unreasonable for anyone to take the logical conclusion that he wants to legalise rape.

You could better describe it as a thought-experiment but realistically the only people who would see it as such are people who read his articles extensively. I think anyone else can be excused for believing that a person who holds the views that he does is being serious. You can't just put up a piece of potentially serious material online and then when people react to it say it's just a joke, because no one who doesn't follow him would clearly be able to see that it is.

You're not clever for being in on a shit joke...

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I don't have a problem with understanding satire, when it's recognisable, but whatever if you insist on just telling me I'm retarded over and over again this isn't going to go anywhere.

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

Errr... aspies aren't retarded by simply being aspies. Unless you count the lack of understanding basic social and interpersonal skills as being retarded. You're just different to the rest of us which is completely ok. It's apparently not conductive toward appreciating satire but that's really an unfortunate side effect from my point of view.

[–]AryaBarzanProud Fat/Slut Shamer7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Dude, Roosh wants to make rape on private propety legal.

No, he doesn't. That is another exaggeration a "feminist apologist" like you would make.

And neither is having beer thrown in your face! It's almost as if they're both just acts done to humiliate the other person.

Having beer thrown in your face and having an actual beer bottle thrown AT your face is a HELL of a lot more serious than bad words on the internet. Sorry, mangina.

I'm not a feminist, sorry.

Just a mangina/white knight type. My bad.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's weird that you're suggesting that I'm a 'mangina' when you're the one crying over a wet shirt.

Oh boo hoo, his pour wet shirt :( That's assault! THHATS fUCKING AGGRAVATED ASSAULT uNDER THE LAW. Thatperson got his shirt wet!!!QQW

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

WOW

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The drink was the first salvo. Then there was shoving and punching. Then they followed and stalked him all the way back to an apartment or hotel.

All the while the women taunted and egged the situation on.

Tell me: Would it ever be acceptable to shove a woman in a bar or punch her?

Would it be acceptable to get your friends together and follow her down the street taunting her and threatening violence?

The only reason more violence didn't occur is because some bystanders happened by that didn't know what was going on and did their best to stop them and assist Roosh in escaping.

No one would tolerate this happening to a woman. Yet, here we see plenty of BP's that think it's awesome that it happened to a man.

[–]ProgressiveInformer0 points1 point  (43 children) | Copy Link

He had a beer thrown in his face.

I think the biggest issue most of you TRP people have is the fact none of you have been punched in the face

You guys as kids were the people who comment on youtube

[–]ChigibowRed Pill17 points18 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think the biggest issue most of you TRP people have is the fact none of you have been punched in the face

OOOOOOH

Watch out all of you dirty misogynists - ProgressiveInformer, the ultimate defender of women as well as a supreme gentleman would totally punch you in the face would he see you in real life!

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Please, don't hit me Mr. Internet Toughguy! I've learned my lesson, I'll treat women ohsonicely from now on!

[–]ProgressiveInformer-3 points-2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I said this to another guy and too lazy to restart a new reply so,

Haha, the Internet. I wonder what you people actually do in your real lives!

Think about it, you spend your free leisure time posting on an internet site about how much you generalize and disrespect women. that's so fucking lame

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Think about it, you spend your free leisure time posting on an internet site about how much you generalize and disrespect women.

Think about it, you spend your free leisure time posting on an internet site about how much you dislike misogynists and how women need protection from words!

that's so fucking lame hahhaah

Pot, meet kettle.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I spent leisure time doing this, but you spend your leisure time doing this.

ok cool story bro

[–]ProgressiveInformer-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Haha what're you doing today after work?

"Uh I was going to post how I bought this chick Olive Garden and she didn't want to unfriend zone me on the Internet. Girls are stupid !"

;)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Buying a girl food? pfffft beta af

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

http://imgur.com/a/QDbyt#0

"10 yard penalty, replay 1st Down."

[–]Prometheus720Bio-Troofs Are Defeatist3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have been punched in the face and honestly, I'd be more bothered by the beer. Now my clothes stink.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Not to throw it out there,but I'm 6'1", 240lbs, and muscular enough. Anybody throwing a drink on me, man or woman, isn't going home in the same fashion they showed up in. Promise that.

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

Did you know physical escalation is illegal?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So... you're OK with a woman hitting a man? You're OK with that?

If so, you're a bigot.

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Where did I say that? Please show me. I don't think you understand the difference between self defense and retaliation.

And having a drink thrown on you is nothing like getting hit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Do you agree that what the women did to Roosh was wrong?

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Morally wrong? Nope, he's a piece of shit and calling him one is not violent or wrong. The only thing legally wrong was the drink getting thrown in his face but that doesn't warrant violent retaliation, you can just walk away like an adult.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What should have happened to the women who threw a drink in Roosh's face? Should they be prosecuted for assault and battery? Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

If you say or believe "no", then you are a bigot.

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol. If he'd like to press charges that's fine with me. You seem to think that throwing a drink in someone's face is gonna land you in federal prison for years. I'd gladly pay the $500 fine and 30 day probation for the privilege of tossing a beer in his face. I mean, that's what my uncle got for punching my dad in the face, can't imagine throwing a drink on a rapist is gonna net much more than that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're a bigot. And a proud one at that.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Did you know I won't tolerate public emasculation?

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fighting back is the absolute worst way to handle this situation.

[–]ElectricFleshlightBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Enjoy your felony

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Where can I purchase you?

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So those guys yelling at Roosh threateningly were breaking the law?

[–]ProgressiveInformer-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're 6'1, 240, and muscular. You think it would be of equal consequence to punch someone near 50% your size?

Cool muscles bro

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

did you see the full video where they follow him back to his hotel like a lynch mob?

[–]ProgressiveInformer0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

And? Is this your people's definition of an assault? the government is required to give you free speech, but if you're being a douchebag and a group of people react that's just life

I'm sure the beer will wash off

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You're a POS, advocating for the physical assault of a man who did nothing to the people who assaulted him.

Bigot.

[–]ProgressiveInformer-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

He had beer thrown at him. If that's where in the sand you draw your line of what is bigotry and assault then you my friend are a giant internet pussy

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah. Assault is wrong, regardless of who does it and who the perp and victim are. Roosh never assaulted or battered anyone. You don't like what he does or his views, but they are legal, and he never committed any crimes. He was assaulted and battered, though, and you're OK with that.

Bigot.

[–]ProgressiveInformer0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

He was neither assaulted or battered either

He was chased away, antagonizing, and got the reaction from the fire he poked. A very non violent reaction

You're 50. You've had a lot of time on this earth to think this one through.

I'm not saying let's take away his right to speak, but realize what you say has consequences in this case a splash of water and "fuck you's"

You've had this anonymous online world warp your idea of what it's like to be a human adult. You can't stick your face in front of everyone saying antagonizing things and think you're always protected like the Internet allows

Loser.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're a bigot. You're OK with people committing crimes against people you disagree with.

Yes, he was assaulted and battered. Assault is putting someone in reasonable fear of being battered. Battery is "an offensive touching". Throwing beer in someone's face is the very definition of "offensive touching". There could not be a clearer case of battery. It was intended to offend, to piss off, to cause humiliation and injury.

and you approve of it.

You are a straight up bigot.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

IT called intimidation, and the fact you can see a problem with a mob of people following a dissident back to his hotel while threatening him doesn't shine well on your progressiveness.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

What if we flipped the script; i.e., a bunch of fat, brooding, neckbeard gamers started attacking Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn at a gamer conference, and threw Mountain Dew and Cheetos on her, and chased her out of the building in an aggressive fashion, shouting obscenities at her and pushing her around?

didn't she get a lot of death/rape threats? like assault, those things are against the law (people chose anonymous threats to terrorize her to avoid the risk of prosecution). roosh could have called the police (maybe he did, i don't know). anyway, we already have laws to protect his right to not be assaulted. furthermore, can you post an upvoted comment of a red piller saying those anita sarkeesian death/rape threats were wrong? a lot of red pillers are outraged that he got assaulted, where are their posts of outrage when anita sarkeesian / zoe quin got death/rape threats? in the absence of those, how are red pillers any less hypocritical than blue pillers?

edit: here's an example of red pill's sympathy for anita sarkeesian's death threats - https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2etc4v/feminist_selfproclaimed_pupcutlure_critc_anita/

top upvoted comment is the threats were faked by her. did any blue pillers claim roosh paid someone to punch him (is roosh any less of a media whore than anita sarkeesian?)?... because that would be the equivalent level of denial. even if roosh didn't pay someone to punch him, isn't he all about media attention? isn't his style to be salacious, to work people up? this doesn't justify his getting assaulted, but some people like negative attention as much as positive attention. if that negative attention isn't really that dangerous, it's that much more desirable to someone with an attention seeking personality. do you think anita sarkeesian's death/rape threats were more or less scary than roosh's getting a beer thrown on him, and apparently hit in the face (i didn't see that but i'm taking people's word here that it happened)? historically, men are more likely to kill women, than vice versa. if you had to bet who is more likely to get killed by a crazy person, a female activist or male in the manosphere? who would you choose and why?

[–]AnOldRichDudeA bit old fashioned19 points20 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you trying to draw an equivalence between physical confrontation and assault as well as driving him out of a place of business and anonymous threats by internet trolls, something a lot of public figures put up with all of the time (I imagine Roosh gets his share of these as well) ? Heck even I had had random trolls threaten me, it's not that abnormal, but other than to make sure I am fully anonymous I don't sweat it. Physical confrontation is a completely different beast.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Are you trying to draw an equivalence between physical confrontation and assault as well as driving him out of a place of business and anonymous threats by internet trolls, something a lot of public figures put up with all of the time

i consider anonymous death/rape threats that include an address (and did drive her out of her home) scarier than a beer thrown at me and a punch in the face in a public place. he could have called the police at any time. why do you think he didn't? would you rather have a beer thrown at you and be punched in the face or have a female you care about get a rape/death threat with her address in it? which is more upsetting to the individual?

[–]AnOldRichDudeA bit old fashioned13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I saw the video, it appeared he had a mob following him (with some guys in it as well) and shouting at him in addition to the physical confrontation. That would certainly be an extremely scary situation. I don't know if he called the police or not.

I agree having people threaten you with a more specific threat that includes an address is worse than the typical online threats, but I don't necessarily think it was a real immediate threat. (maybe it was, if you have a family you have to take it seriously either way)

Unfortunately, I don't think sarkeesians's side acted any better during that time frame. In any event, under any circumstances 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[–]Ben--Affleck2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you confusing Wu's lies with Sarkeesian's? I'm pretty sure Wu was the one falsely claiming she was driven out of her own home.

[–]Prometheus720Bio-Troofs Are Defeatist4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Everyone I know on YouTube who says anything political or controversial gets death threats and awful comments.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But why would feminists validate his opinion on assaulting women buy assaulting him? Seems strange to me.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

people don't always behave rationally, especially when alcohol is involved. why is red pill which is so pro male, so dismissive of women, so preoccupied with, fixated on women? if it was just about sex, wouldn't paying for prostitutes be far more rational?

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Paying prostitutes is a valid sexual strategy which SOME people on trp participate in (MGTOW, rich dudes, getting over a crazy ex, virgins).

I personally think that having success with women is a side effect of improving ones self and TRP emphasizes that pretty often.

Also, you need a lot of money to get an escort to have sex with you after going for a hike, or spending a weekend at a cottage just drinking, smoking and fucking. So there's that. Plus you don't want to always bring an escort to outings with friends or to check out cool places around the city.

EDIT: Holy shit BPers are good at derailing arguments and changing topics. Kudos to you /u/taiboworks.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

top upvoted comment is the threats were faked by her.

That's not sympathizing with the perps but nice try. Just like thinking a chick faked a rape accusation isn't sympathizing with rapists.... well at least to everyone with a brain.

Also two completely different motives here.... Anita could benefit from a victim personality, real or fake, Roosh and men in general cannot. Taibo, what possible benefit could Roosh get potraying himself getting beer thrown in his face?

He sells "composed Alpha" for Chrissakes.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-5 points-4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

do you think red pillers anger/animosity/poor-history with women makes them, on average, abnormally, irrationally unsympathetic to women?

what possible benefit could Roosh get potraying himself getting beer thrown in his face?

people are talking about him, you are talking about him, that's what he lives for. he's an attention whore.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

do you think red pillers anger/animosity/poor-history with women makes them, on average, abnormally, irrationally unsympathetic to women?

No, I don't think RP men are unsympathetic to women, I think the world is overly sympathetic to women. It's not unsympathetic to the actual plight of victims to not listen and believe tm on demand.

people are talking about him, you are talking about him, that's what he lives for. he's an attention whore.

And yet I'm still not likely to visit his crap site without archives or Ad Block, I don't have a positive opinion of him and I don't plan on buying his seminar tickets. If he was so desperate for attention as you said, he'd be putting information out there at a much more reasonable price. Money is what he's after.

If there's no possible motivation, then yes I'll be more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt. Still no motivation.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I don't think RP men are unsympathetic to women, I think the world is overly sympathetic to women. It's not unsympathetic to the actual plight of victims to not listen and believe tm on demand.

the world could be overly sympathetic to women, but that doesn't mean red pillers are not irrationally unsympathetic to women.

And yet I'm still not likely to visit his crap site without archives or Ad Block, I don't have a positive opinion of him and I don't plan on buying his seminar tickets. If he was so desperate for attention as you said, he'd be putting information out there at a much more reasonable price. Money is what he's after.

more attention increases the pool of potential clients.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually think you make a decent point in that Roosh obviously believes (probably correctly) that for the causes he is advancing this video is probably working in his favour.

[–]I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVEPositive Pill!3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Idk, I've received death threats. They aren't a big deal to me. But I understand to other people these things might seem scary.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-4 points-3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

have you received death threats with your address in them?

[–]I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVEPositive Pill!5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been asked how my Aunt was doing (when she was still around), so close enough. It's really not hard to pull a person's addy off the web. I'm not trying to downplay over-the-top harassment here, but there's a difference between getting an email from some angry nerd and looking them in the face.

You have to make a decision. How likely is it this isn't bullshit? Even if there's some merit, is it worth being afraid to leave the house? Of course not.

I rank about 90% of the online death threats I see right below "uneven sidewalks" in the big list of things that will likely result in my demise.

[–]scrantonic1tyNot BP1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doxxing isn't very difficult, especially of a public figure like Sarkeesian.

[–]abacuz4Blue Pill Man1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Is this what we call "holding frame?" What will we do when Roosh chips a nail, call a SWAT team?

Being able to see things in perspective is a useful ability, and throwing a shit-fit because your man-crush got his hair wet is not that.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 11 points12 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Got it, shaming language. What if it was a woman "getting her hair wet" because a man threw his rum and coke on her? Would your attitude be so dismissive?

[–]abacuz4Blue Pill Man-2 points-1 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Yeah probably. Getting a drink tossed on you just isn't that big a deal. I'm trying hard to shed a tear for Rooshie Boy, but I just can't manage it.

Just for my personal knowledge, though, are all manosphere-types this big of drama queens? I mean, I suspect that the answer is yes, because you can't bilk moronic losers for their cash without getting your name out there, but I'm interested in your perspective.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man10 points11 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Tell you what. Next time I perceive a woman's views as contrary to my own, I'll dump my beer over her head. Do you agree that is justifiable?

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well of course he would. That's what he said, right? When we disagree with what somebody says, we just dump our drinks on their heads, right? Totally socially acceptable!

[–]abacuz4Blue Pill Man-4 points-3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I mean, if you felt compelled to do so, I probably wouldn't really care. That being said

perce[ing] a woman's views as contrary to my own

!=

thinking raping women is hunky dory.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Don't know what your getting at. Your post is incomprehensible.

[–]abacuz4Blue Pill Man-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

"!=" means "not equals to"

By the way, the fact that you don't understand something doesn't mean that thing is incomprehensible.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm aware of that.

I'm confused as to where you decided I advocated, or roosh, that rape is, 'honky dory'. I've seen in movies that means 'okay' from uneducated people... I'm unfamiliar with the term.

[–]abacuz4Blue Pill Man-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Roosh does think that rape is hunky dory. Sorry, did you post in this thread without having the slightest idea of what it's about? Because that explains your confusion.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No he doesnt, and I explained that elsewhere.

The topic is how despite the mass amount of useless English degrees bloopers have, they don't understand satire. Scroll down a bit and you will see my full point.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

hes RP he doesn't understand that stem science speak the that us comp sci people know

[–]mashakosMastered Himself, Mastered The Pussy-1 points0 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

Gotta be honest, that doesn't look like assault to me. Public shaming, yes, the throwing of drinks in faces, absolutely but assault?

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man20 points21 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

JP is right, it is also aggravated assault under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Can confirm.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Why is it assault and not battery? An actual unwanted touching occurred

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Long story.

Canadian law makes assault a criminal thing (meaning the government needs to pursue it, needless to say they won't).

We still have battery as a civil thing, but you're gonna need the right lawyer and such to pursue it in the courts.

Long story short, we separate them.

[–]sumant28-2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Battery tends to be an intentional tort from what I've seen

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

My memory of crim law is awful. I'm remembering common law. In most jurisdictions assault has taken over for criminal battery, it's still a crime in a couple of states like Kansas

[–]sumant280 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand how battery can be a crime. There is usually little public policy rationale to prosecute de minimis cases of battery but private individuals should be allowed to pursue that if they wish.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sumant280 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

things appear to be different in the states, the common law theory around battery includes the eggshell doctrine which points strongly to it being something imposed among individuals rather than the state

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In most states battery has been subsumed into assault

[–]NineInchPitchfork-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

< 7JP is right, it is also aggravated assault under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Can confirm.*

I can confirm that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

An aggravated assault (under section 268 of the Criminal Code of Canada) is intentional contact of another, without their consent, which causes grievous bodily harm ("wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life").

In order to qualify for this charge you need to cause a permanent injury. It is more serious than an assault with a weapon charge and is just below attempted murder. Dumping a beer on someone? GTFO

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-268.html

Note: am Cdn lawyer

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right.

This isn't how I remembered this. I'm missing something...

But then again, I'm a real lawyer, not a criminal one :p

Edit - I was thinking of 'assault with a weapon', not 'aggravated assault'. And I specifically remember after my first year of law school (the last I dealt with this area) some recent case brought the standard really fucking low.

Either way, assault works.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 30 points31 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Throwing a drink in someone's face is actually aggravated assault in most legal jurisdictions, ask any cop, they will tell you; "aggravated" because the beer, in the eyes of the law, is a "weapon". If the liquid was a high proof spirit and someone nearby was smoking a cigarette, now you're talking about negligent homicide potentially.

[–]sumant288 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Edit.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for your professional input.

[–]NineInchPitchfork3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think you took law school at Lionel Hutz University. You are completely wrong on this. I have done many criminal law trials in Canada. I am annoyed at you guys bullshitting about this. You would get laughed out of court if you charged an aggravated assault for dumping a beer on someone. Jesus christ.

An aggravated assault requires the infliction of a permanent injury that "wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life" of your victim.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-268.html

[–]PIBagent3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

An aggravated assault requires the infliction of a permanent injury that "wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life" of your victim.

So your saying that as long as my method of attack doesn't cause permanent injury, does not wound-maime-disfigure or otherwise kill the person I attacked I can't get in trouble with the law? Good to know.

There are quite a few things that can be done that satisfy those conditions but I'm sure I would still be charged with aggravated assault if I did them.

[–]NineInchPitchfork-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Here are the different personal injury offences in Canada (in order of seriousness from least to most):

• assault (intentional infliction of force without consent) - example: a slap;

• assault with a weapon (assault + use of or threatened use of weapon) - example: brandishing a knife or hitting someone with a bat and no significant injury occurs;

• assault causing bodily harm (assault + a "significant but non-permanent injury" ) - example: punching someone and breaking their jaw;

• aggravated assault (assault + "wound, maim, disfigure or endanger life" while causing a permanent injury) - example: stabbing someone and causing a wound that requires surgical repair;

• attempted murder (assault + specific intent to kill) - example: stabbing someone repeatedly while yelling "die you sob";

• murder (assault + victim dies) - first or second degree or manslaughter depends on proven intent.

[–]sumant280 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes I have to clarify myself. I skimmed the video and was relying too much on the way the guy above phrased the beer being thrown at the person which made it seem in my mind like it was a beer bottle that was thrown and not as the video (which I just now watched fully) shows as a cup of beer being poured onto the person.

If it was as I thought it was everything I said would still be correct. As an aside stop being so arrogant, I did criminal law at the top ranked institution in my country, this has nothing to do with not understanding theory and more to do with a reasonable miscommunication.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Lol and here comes the mods deleting all the top posts

[–][deleted] 10 points10 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Those posts were all from redpillers, and this question is for bluepillers. Why should those posts be left up?

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Redpillers were building on top of the OP and blue pillers were responding with their opinions. No need to delete them just because a redpiller commented. It still builds on the topic and hand.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Another way of saying it is that redpillers were dominating a thread meant for bluepillers and strawmanning the BP position.

That's why we delete those comments. This thread was tagged (by OP not us) for BP, and then every single comment that get's upvoted is a RP comment. That's a circlejerk, and conversations like that should be taken to /r/TheRedPill or one of the other subs that allows stuff like that.

[–]NineInchPitchfork1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

< Throwing a drink in someone's face is actually *aggravated assault** in most legal jurisdictions, ask any cop, they will tell you; "aggravated" because the beer, in the eyes of the law, is a "weapon". If the liquid was a high proof spirit and someone nearby was smoking a cigarette, now you're talking about negligent homicide potentially. *

If you were in my evidence class I would give you a 0/10 for this ridiculous answer.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-268.html

[–]mashakosMastered Himself, Mastered The Pussy-4 points-3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

yeah... I will stick to my own standards of assault. Screaming "she assaulted me!" after a drink is thrown in your face is not exactly a display of Alpha assertiveness is it?

EDIT: Then again, men in the west might just have been driven insane by all the laws that can land them in jail for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person...

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 19 points20 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

yeah... I will stick to my own standards of assault.

That's cool, I'll stick to the law's standards of assault.

Screaming "she assaulted me!" after a drink is thrown in your face is not exactly a display of Alpha assertiveness is it?

I wouldn't scream anything. I'd simply call the cops and have her arrested and press charges, same as I would do if a man threw a drink on me. Women want equal rights, so I'll give them equal rights. There's nothing "alpha or beta" about it. She can laugh with her girlfriends about her humiliating me, right up until Officer Buzzkill hauls her off in her high heels.

[–]fuckin_retard 4 points4 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Women should not be allowed to throw drinks on a man. If a man does that to me, he's getting his shit rocked, in a snap second. Why can a woman engage in the same behavior without similar repercussions? If you want the privilege of being treated like physically inferior little angels, then you need to act the fucking part and stop starting shit with men.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My point exactly. If women want equal rights, they need to assume equal responsibilities.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial14 points15 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Exactly! Because men are more responsible for their actions than women and women shouldn't be held to the same standard of responsibility that men are held to. Women have the maturity of teenagers and can do whatever they want without agency.

Didn't realize you were TRP. My bad.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

WOW

[–]sofcknwrong0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why do people keep saying he was punched? I don't see that in the video, and he hasn't reported it? Also, the woman who threw beer on him stated that he touched her waist to steer her into a bar. Unwanted physical contact could conceivably warrant defensive actions. He's got no leg to stand on, any more than someone reporting that he 'assaulted' them by shaking his beer-soaked wig around (ALL the lols) and shoving a chair at the other patrons. Would have been interested to see what would have happened if his handlers hadn't managed to hold him back from all the knights.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In a crowded bar or nightclub, I will frequently put my hand around a woman's waist or on her back in order to let her know someone is behind her, and often times, I'm doing so as to not have her back up into my drink and spill it.

Should I deserve to have a beer thrown on me for every time I commit such a "heinous" act?

[–]rulenumber3031 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, the woman who threw beer on him stated that he touched her waist to steer her into a bar.

Yeah that would freak me out, coming from a notorious rapey asshole such as Roosh. Nonconsensual touching of that sort is damn unpleasant anyway just from randoms, add in the creepy rep and he's bordering on the territory where even mild mannered women (in some ways, especially mild mannered women of what used to be called modesty) might read it as threat and deliver an instinctual violent response such as a shove or scratching his hand bloody before they even know what they are doing. If he had carefully cultivated the same widespread reputation of playing fast and loose with men's consent that he has cultivated with women's consent, that sort of behavior towards another man would lead to him laying down bleeding in the gutter more often than not.

[–]impartiallypartial-4 points-3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

As a resident of Canada myself, I had the chance to keep up with the whole Montreal issue after peeking over at Roosh's forum, left me puzzled. Red pilled men talk so much about "holding frame" but here you guys are supporting a guy that loses his cool after having beer thrown on him, completely exaggerating the entire incident. Roosh ordered some of his followers to harass a lot of the feminists online, spread misinformation about them, and then had his forum members abuse the Yelp rating system to down vote a cafe in Montreal where his picture was taken. Lets not forget that Roosh provoked all of these reactions from the women themselves, and then threatened to sue them for reacting how they did. This entire incident would be like a guy in school provoking a girl, getting attacked by that girl, and then running to tell the teachers how the girl attacked him. How can you all of you even defend that guy now? At this point it isn't taking sides, it is just blindly supporting a guy because he has some of the same beliefs as you.

Roosh prides himself off of the attention he gets and he will likely boast about being assaulted, all of this is great marketing material for him. I just find the whole incident to be pathetic but I also feel the same way about feminists. As much as you want to dislike Roosh, the man knows how to pick his fights carefully. A lot of the feminists he is going against are so dimwitted that they can hardly do anything to put him in his place.

[–]mr_egalitarian10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This entire incident would be like a guy in school provoking a girl, getting attacked by that girl, and then running to tell the teachers how the girl attacked him.

How is the girl justified in that scenario? If you reverse the genders, it would never be considered acceptable for a boy to attack a girl in school because she "provoked" him. So why is it ok for girls/women to attack boys/men when they are "provoked"?

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Did Roosh order any of his "followers" to commit physical assault? Yes or no.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been keeping an eye on the situation, including over at RVF. Not once has he condoned anything illegal or violent.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Weren't they trying to get this woman's children removed from her custody under false pretenses of unfit parenting and child abuse? That's a felony, iirc

[–]SubtletoriousZen of Red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. The comment was to report her for abandonment of her children to spend so much time tweeting. Stop and think about the absurdity of such an allegation. Absurdity is the basis of humour.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

wut?

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a Northerner myself. And what you are saying is absolutely indefensible if you believe in 'equality'.

You've been brainwashed by the liberal Canadian narrative.

The man has views you don't agree with, and went to a bar. It doesn't justify this, end of sentence.

[–]Prometheus720Bio-Troofs Are Defeatist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not supporting him, I thought he was being an idiot. i would have just left.

But I'm not supporting the bitch that threw her drink on him, either. What a pathetic thing to do, no matter how much you hate him.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Started becoming the Ann Coulter of the manosphere basically

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I second.

I really like Ann Coulter.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

TRP is not a collective. He spoke out against the subreddit, had a few criticisms, and advertised his books/site.

Personally, I don't care. Roosh is a champ.

[–]impartiallypartial-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP doesn't like roosh anymore? what happened?

Don't be fooled, TRP still supports Roosh even though they might not directly show it. Roosh has a lot of passionate followers on that sub who are more than willing to defend him every chance they get. Saying anything bad about Roosh on that sub is grounds for being banned.

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't watch that video right now so pls excuse if I'm missing things

I know a guy who poured a beer on his girlfriend when she was being shitty. It's not okay, but it's also not on the same level as a punch in the face IMO and I wouldn't condone putting someone in jail for doing it.

[–]nemma8830/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bummer, but not unexpected really.

BP find it funny as they find it justified.

[–]DoxasticPoo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Roosh V and TRP parted ways...? What does that even mean? Was he one of the mods?

I'm not trying to be an ass, I really have no idea to what you're referring

[–][deleted]  (36 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 15 points16 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

Humiliation is not violent physical assault. Please do not tell me you are trying to draw equivocation between the two. The former is not illegal, the latter is an arrestable crime.

[–][deleted]  (34 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I will go on record and say if a feminist was physically assaulted for coming to a speaking engagement and TRP condoned it I would seriously question TRP and my involvement in it.

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-2 points-1 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

What you're missing here is that every time a woman says anything--even if it's positive- RP responds literally with "get out, whore"

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

When did this happen?

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Any time a woman on RP reveals herself as a woman.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Any time a woman on RP reveals herself as a woman.

Nope.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They're usually trolling and if they aren't they are directed to rpw.

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

With a polite and very self-improved "get out, whore!"

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 13 points14 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

No problem, I'll always take the opportunity to call out hypocrisy when I see it. As /u/Cyralea poignantly said, it's damn near impossible to be a liberal and not be a hypocrite.

Cat-calling a woman in Harlem? Vile! Evil! Misogyny!

Physically assaulting a PUA? You go girl! Throw beer on him! Punch him in the face!

[–][deleted]  (21 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Canada is a SJW haven. No justice system would bother.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

It pays to not be a douche

  • It pays to not wear short skirts, although I agree rape is wrong.

Is that what you believe^ ? It is logically consistent with your comment.

[–][deleted]  (17 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Someone who has made inflammatory comments gets a drink poured on them:

It pays to not be a douche, although I agree physically harming someone is overboard.

Someone who has worn revealing clothing gets sexually assaulted:

It pays to not wear short skirts, although I agree physically harming someone is overboard

...

Explain how they're logically consistent

In the first circumstance, you say that drink throwing isn't random, but is linked to the victim's words and actions.

In the second circumstance, someone says that sexual assault (groping, catcalls, rape, etc.) isn't random, but is linked to the victim's clothes and behavior.

Logically consistent or not?

edit:

From your comment it's logical to assume that you think victims of sexual assault play a role in their assault.

[–][deleted]  (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

That is not what I'm saying and I'm pretty sure you know it.

I'm not talking about the actions, but your comments on them:

if you say negatives, people might hit you. violence is not ok though.

.

if you dress scantily, people might grope you. assault is not ok though.

These two comments are logically consistent. Here is your position:

If x is true, y may occur. y is not ok. ex.1 If short skirt, groping may occur. groping is not ok. ex.2 If asshole, drinks may spill. drink spilling is not ok. 

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You like victim blaming.

Do you victim blame women that get raped? Or is it only OK if it's a man that gets assaulted?

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You have constructed a run-on sentence.

And no thanks. I haven't got much time for that.

So, are you in favor of, or against, victim blaming? This post looks like you're in favor of.

(Me too!)

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (51 children) | Copy Link

Look most of them do not know how to (or care to) separate the Terps from the MRAs and PUAs..manosphere, whatever. When they see Roosh and his 'views' they think of all the men who have killed women because of viewpoints like his. The most recent and fresh in their (our) memory is Elliot Rodgers.

That being said, violence is never the answer.

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The most recent and fresh in their (our) memory is Elliot Rodgers.

Elliot Rogers was a self-proclaimed enemy of all the groups you mentioned. He did not kill women because he was RP, but in fact he was as blue as a smurf and couldn't cope with his cognitive dissonance he was cought in.

He thought that only by being born rich he should be entitled to pussy, while in reality he didn't even come close to smelling a stinky finger which touched one.

Stop bringing him up as an example for TRP.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

His manifesto is eerily similar to what appears on TRP.

[–]DietyzPurple Pill2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

For some reason that guy lacks the desire to provide substance for his ego like a regular guy would. He sounds like he has NPD or something so i'm guessing hes just so delusional that he cannot question himself or put any blame on himself for his situations in life. That is the key difference between what he says and TRP

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

See the problem is he left behind a manifesto...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really

[–]Ultramegasaurus6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Look most of them do not know how to (or care to) separate the Terps from the MRAs and PUAs..manosphere, whatever

Which is funny considering they geld you for calling feminist-labeled bigotry by the name: feminism.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 18 points19 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

So you are saying that women aren't capable of critical thinking, i.e., separating one group of men from another? They literally think Roosh V=Elliot Rodger? So if I declare myself a redpiller publicly, I risk being equivocated with Elliot Rodger or Charles Manson and subsequently assaulted by women and their white knight brigade?

And we allow women to vote why, again?

Do you know what other group of people lack critical thinking skills and become violent and panicky at the drop of a hat? Children.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

Actually they just do not care. Why should we care about your little movements? No one gives a shit. You all sound alike. It comes down to women suck, get rid of their rights, blah blah blah.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Come on now Pandy, if they didn't care about the movements, why did these bitches react with such vitriol? Shouldnt he have been ignored altogether, maybe the odd chirp? This looks to me like some butthurt feminists committing assault.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

why did these bitches react with such vitriol?

I told you. They see you guys as Elliot Rodgers wannabes.

And yeah, I do not condone violence.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying you agree with this, but I'm challenging your view that these women 'don't care' about these 'movements' be it TRP, manosphere, whatever.

They obviously do care.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah they do care. Because they see you guys as Elliot Rodgers...that's why they did petitions etc. They do not care to separate them. Separate.

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. This is characteristic of liberals in general.

Ever see a protest of any kind in Canada? I'm sure you have, as have I. Ever protest is about everything - gay rights, feminism, income inequality, the environment. They're all conflated as if there is some sort of puppeteer masterminding it all.

That being said, I don't actually care about the separating part. I would agree that the fact these women don't distinguish between PUAs, TRP and MGTOW is a non-issue.

[–]I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVEPositive Pill!3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually they just do not care.

Chad keepin' 'em occupied.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 5 points6 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

Wow. Do you also tell black people and asians that they all "look alike" to? I mean, who cares, right?

[–]chasingstatueszion was part of the matrix1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think how these people reacted was in anyway justified or okay. But I think that TRPers are people grouped by ideas, whereas blacks and asians are grouped together by physical attributes. So saying you guys sound alike isn't that outlandish when you do subscribe to similar ideologies.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 9 points10 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

lol now there's the Ad Hominem I'm used to from pandora!

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

You get what you put out JP. I am just telling you as I see it. You're all a bunch of Elliot Rodgers.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial7 points8 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

LOL who says women aren't immature and incapable of putting well thought out arguments...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

Hey you guys group all streams of feminism together. Is it really that shocking that we might group you all together? It just sucks because you actually have some murderers in your group...and yeah, being affiliated with a murderer is never good.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial8 points9 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

How many TRP members are murderers? How many MRA's are murderers? Why am I even bothering having this discussion?

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

i hust want to point bane666_au did video series disproving and links between eliot rodgers and the MRM, elliot rodgers had ties to pua and anti pua areas.

[–]Xemnas811 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am yet to see a group of feminists who are wholly, totally sympathetic of men's views divorced from women's views. The closest you can get is a feminist who is sympathetic of all men's troubles, provided that he willingly emasculates himself.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Nah. Elliot used a lame Glock pistol to shoot those sluts. I've got far, far bigger guns in my gun safe, not the least of which is my Colt Police Grade AR-15.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Now you know why they see you as Elliot Rodgers.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

LOL you guys really don't know tongue in cheek sarcasm when you see it, do you?

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

i wish they would stop throwing the MRM in PUA TRP and MGTOW

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately that's how most news media do things. They rarely separate.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

MRA, PUA, TRP, MGTOW and RooshV followers all have similar beliefs that overlap each other. Most are just different reactions to the beliefs. MGTOW gives up, PUA takes advantage of it through outer game, MRA want to change it through the legal system, RooshV is just a famous PUA brand, and TRP is taking advantage of it through inner game and breakdown their beliefs in abstract ways.

Their beliefs are the same hence why TBP lump them together.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

MRA,

MRAs really dont

please tell me how the ability to get my dick sucked correlates to MGM education the draft IPV, rape and other mens issues. i await you response with baited breath.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

MRA don't care about getting their dicks sucked. Strawman.

Edit: Get their dicks sucked without a rape accusation or their sperm spat out to be used to create a child.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

what?

[–]foxmulders-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd do the same.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

good to know.

[–]AryaBarzanProud Fat/Slut Shamer-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Endorsing violence against men and supporting male genital cutting. What a great feminist you are! :)

Please screenshot this response everybody. Let's make sure everybody knows what "feminism" is really about!

[–]foxmulders-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a feminist.

[–]impartiallypartial-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So the red pilled men on this thread want the same exact treatment as women in society, at the same they are on their sub talking about how it is so great that you get to earn everything as a man. The red pill itself admits that women are powerless in physical confrontation and have to use manipulative tactics to overpower men, it was on the sidebar if OP bothered to read it. I can't be the only one who is puzzled by all of this. When you look more into the situation you will find that Roosh is far from innocent, he was the one who attempted to ruin the lives of the feminists that criticized him.

Lets put all that aside and see this thread for what it really is, OP is a roosh supporter who wants his man to gain some sympathy from the public. It is no mystery at all, regardless of what happened between roosh and TRP, that Roosh has a lot of supporters on that sub who are rooting for him. OP seems to want all of us to feel sorry for his man.

Now lets go back to my example about the little boy who provokes a reaction from the girl, gets attacked, and cries to the teacher. We can talk "double standards" all day about how if the situation was reversed, the boy would be in so much more trouble. What I wanted to point out was how pathetic it is for that boy who provokes a reaction to cry to the teacher the same way Roosh is crying to the public for having a drink poured on him.

Sure violence isn't the answer but if you're running a blog on how to be a man, you won't be earning respect from real men for crying over having drink spilled on you. You can cry double standards all day but a guy crying over being hit by a woman is pathetic, especially after he provoked the attack.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but are you new here? You must be if you're calling me a "roosh supporter". Notice not even the bloopest of bloops are saying this, because they know better.

[–]impartiallypartial-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree with the red pill more, cut the act because you aren't fooling anyone. You posted this thread to win support for roosh, actions speak louder than words.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL whatever you say, tiger. 17hr old account and 6 posts later, you've got me all figure out, right, sport?

[–]barbadosslim-4 points-3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

What if we flipped the script; i.e., a bunch of fat, brooding, neckbeard gamers started attacking Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn at a gamer conference, and threw Mountain Dew and Cheetos on her, and chased her out of the building in an aggressive fashion, shouting obscenities at her and pushing her around?

The difference is that Roosh is a malicious person who harms people and Sarkeesian et al are not, obviously. Your "flip" makes a mistake of false balance.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

So one person deserves to be attacked physically for his speech, whilst another person does not deserve to be attacked for their speech? Got it.

Secondly, "malicious person who harms people"....whom has he actually harmed? Who gets to be the arbiter of who is malicious and who is not? You? Plenty of gamers would argue that Zoe Quinn was indeed a malicious person who manipulated an entire industry, using her vagina, for selfish reasons.

[–]barbadosslim-2 points-1 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

So one person deserves to be attacked physically for his speech, whilst another person does not deserve to be attacked for their speech? Got it.

Yes. This only sounds weird to you because you're getting trapped in your own false equivalency.

Secondly, "malicious person who harms people"....whom has he actually harmed?

Victims of the rape culture he supports.

Who gets to be the arbiter of who is malicious and who is not? You?

No one.

Plenty of gamers would argue that Zoe Quinn was indeed a malicious person who manipulated an entire industry, using her vagina, for selfish reasons.

Yes. These gamers are wrong and can't put a rational thought together about it. You're getting tripped up by the false balance again.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You do realize you are making absolutely no sense, right?

"victims of the rape culture he supports?" LMAO, Jesus Christ, which campus slut walk did you stumble out of?

[–]barbadosslim-2 points-1 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

With an attitude like that you might never have to learn anything at all! Just keep on being a committed misogynist, you seem to prefer it to having to think rationally.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

If you actually, truly believe we have a "rape culture" in the west, then yes, we have nothing further to discuss.

Rape culture? Please. Let's buy some plane tickets, and I'll take you on a tour through Saudi Arabia (where women are stoned to death for getting actually raped), ISIS-controlled Iraq and Syria (where women are literally sold as sex slaves), then off to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Thailand (the capital of female-exploitation by western sex tourists), and I'll show you a real rape culture.

Equivocating campus "regret sex" in the US with the real actual rape that goes on in other parts of the world is actually an insult to those women.

[–]barbadosslim-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You're showing very poor thinking skills. Let me know if you ever decide to quit with your irrational, anti-intellectual, sexist shtick.

In any case please don't rape anyone. You sound like a potential rapist :-/

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

http://imgur.com/a/QDbyt#0

"10 yard penalty, replay 2nd down."

[–]barbadosslim-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That wasn't a fallacy because it wasn't a counterargument. You really aren't able to think about this subject, so just please try not to rape anyone. You sound like you pose a danger to others.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You leveled criticism about my supposed lack of intelligence, my lack of rationality, and you called me a sexist. Those are all personal attacks, and therefore Attacks Ad Hominem.

Please try not to have sex with men on college campuses. You sound like you pose a threat to them with a false rape charge.

[–]rulenumber303-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So has he pressed charges?

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter