Socialists rally against PUA, MPs try another country ban

Oh look there's more of you. As much as you dislike the guy, he does not want rape to be legalised. No amount of false press or angry mob tactics will change that I'm afraid.

Really. You mean the 'satire', which he only identified as such when people got angry. Sure.

Unless someone has incited hatred or violence they should not be banned. Leftie thought police, take a chill pill

It's baffling that people think banning someone from speaking will actually make a difference. We need to have faith that the majority of society will not agree with ludicrous ideas, such as those suggested by this individual (even if ironic). But I assume the 'Regressive Left' is more concerned with peoples' emotions than basic rights.

Are you as critical of the right wing for demanding that 'hate-preachers' like Abu Qatada are deported?

Same thing no?

Oh aye? Hit me with his worst

Relevance?



Firstly, comparing a satirist and a bloodthirsty radical who openly calls for the 'killing of apostates', is not the same thing.

He's not a satirist though, he's serious.

So what that should actually say is "comparing a violent misogynist who openly calls for women to be raped, and a bloodthirsty radical who openly calls for the killing of apostates" - are they really not the same thing?

What evidence do you have to show that he supports this or is this just something you 'feel' is the case?

Odd satirical article that has the author putting a postscript in the comments saying: "One more thing to add is that this article is not satire in any way. I firmly stand behind the recommendations I made." https://archive.is/pTJOi

No, they are not. The key difference being one does not promote killing individuals.

Relevance?

Does him admitting to being serious count or are we just going to pretend he's a satirist so we don't have to confront the vile nonsense he espouses?



I could also point out that he's gone on to harassing female journalists as well, including advocating doxxing them and sharing their personal details online, which is clearly not satire, it's harassment, but a confession should be enough



Both promote violence and hatred and it'd be overly simplistic to suggest that killing people immediately makes it far worse.

Posted from TSR Mobile

1. This article indicates that the vision presented is satirical (dubious, NGL)

2. The article was framed in terms of encouraging women to take care of themselves by way of incentivisation. Not demonstrative of hatred necessarily, and certainly not inciting violence (legalising something =/= condoning it)

Can you provide some quotes for this please?

Can you provide some quotes for this please?

If you mean when he said directly after the article that it isn't satire, that is satire. If it wasn't satire why would he backpedal now? That would mean he loses credibility and wouldn't make sense.

No, he was doxxed himself and he said he would post the names of the journalists that lied about him and who they work for, he never said he would post their personal details, that is another media lie.

He has never advocates for violence against women, or anyone for that matter but you are free to find evidence. With 3000 articles it should be easy for you to find a second, non-satirical article advocating violence. No?

Ever seen those "satire" tags introduced to facebook? Well they were implemented because idiots were getting annoyed when they were fooled by outrageous news articles by getting all angered up about it then being lambasted for being too stupid to see satire.

I don't like those satire tags, they defeat the point of satire.

This is the same thing, people who can read and understand don't need to be told if something is satire but some do. You fall in with the latter.

The very first paragraph refers to Buzzfeed and Huffpost as professional journalists. Does that come across as a factual statement to you?

Wrong. I'm well aware of what is satire and what isn't, it's my favourite form of comedy. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and claims to be a duck, I'm quite comfortable saying it's a bloody duck and not maybe a chicken masquerading as a duck.

They're journalists and work it as a full time paid job, so yes.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok, if you had any experience with his writing or any in the manosphere then you would be well aware of their common opinion of Huffpost the like who are often spreading untruths. The fact you aren't aware of this speaks to why you think this is not satire. However, anyone who has read a few articles can catch on.

Here is the quote again "This issue concerns me since I have a sister who I don’t want to be raped, so I carefully examined the articles on Salon, Buzzfeed, and Huffington Post that were written by professional journalists who pursue truth and justice over mass hysteria and delirium."

How about the last few words, can you not pick up on sarcasm either?

Here is another you missed ". Thankfully, a man only has to be told the phrase “rape is bad” at some point after puberty by an overweight feminist to definitively stop his future brutal and bloody rape career."

Again you missed the sarcasm.

I think you should steer clear of any kind of fiction based literature to be honest. You might hurt yourself trying to fly on a broom through a giant peach while trying to harpoon a whale.

Mindless drivel

So they just made up the screenshots from his forum as a smear? grow up and admit you're wrong. Roosh is not a satirist, he's just a misogynistic bellend.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm looking at it now and he specifically states in brackets about the journalists (don't publish addresses but save them for future use).

I don't see anything resembling an admission to not writing satire but feel free to link to it.

You're right Roosh isn't a satirist, he wrote 1 satirical article out of thousands. He might be a misogynistic bellend to you and it is your right to think that but it doesn't justify censorship or the media spreading lies. If he was as bad as they say why would they need to lie?