Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Socialists rally against PUA, MPs try another country ban Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    'Activists' have forced him to cancel by essentially endangering the lives of his family members by sharing details of their addresses. This is what progressivism looks like in the 21st century. People need to wake the **** up and examine what it is they are supporting. Never mind staying quiet on Islamisation, and immigrant sexual predation/exploitation of their fellow sisters, feminism is fast becoming a fascist movement in its own right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Former foreign legion commander was arrested. I hope we see a military backed coup of Europe one day.

    This New World Order must be crushed and our traitorous leaders hanged like the dogs they are.

    We will never forgive them for what they've done to our countries.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Good to see this piece of vermin retreat into his lonely shell.

    This man proposed rape should be legalised and boasts about sleeping with women who were hesitant to consent and even asleep. He wrote an article claiming women were intellectually inferior and propped a 'fat shaming week'.


    When I heard this guy was a 'pick up artist' i presumed he would be teaching guys how to chat up women in bars, a bit sad but nothing harmful. Instead he's preaching about how women are basically inferior and evil. Thus his comments about rape seem entirely consistent with his other writings.

    To add to the irony, he lives at home with his mum. Pretty much sums him and the rest of the Mra movement up.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Really. You mean the 'satire', which he only identified as such when people got angry. Sure.
    Because he never thought he needed to. He assumed anyone able to read past the first few lines would have the mental capacity to detect it. It's nice to be able to think all of your readers have all of their brain cells but some people put too much faith in humanity.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Unless someone has incited hatred or violence they should not be banned. Leftie thought police, take a chill pill:mute:
    And anyone who'd seen what he's said would see he's done both with regards to women... As a fan of ironic punishment I think he should have been forced to do his talks anyway, but there can't be any serious arguments against banning him as a hate preacher beyond whether or not banning them is counterproductive as a result of the publicity.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    And anyone who'd seen what he's said would see he's done both with regards to women
    Oh aye? Hit me with his worst
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Are you as critical of the right wing for demanding that 'hate-preachers' like Abu Qatada are deported?
    Relevance?

    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Same thing no?
    Firstly, comparing a satirist and a bloodthirsty radical who openly calls for the 'killing of apostates', is not the same thing.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Oh aye? Hit me with his worst
    Regular support of rape (suggesting it should be legalised on private property to teach women a lesson), arguing women shouldn't be allowed to make any independent decisions straight off the bat - he preaches hate against women and with his comments on rape that tips into advocating violence against them.

    (Original post by Aceadria)
    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?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    He's not a satirist though, he's serious.
    What evidence do you have to show that he supports this or is this just something you 'feel' is the case?

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    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?
    No, they are not. The key difference being one does not promote killing individuals.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    What evidence do you have to show that he supports this or is this just something you 'feel' is the case?
    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?

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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
    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

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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Relevance?
    Is relevant because both cases are an example of excluding some person from the country because the government/society/whatever doesn't like what they are saying.

    However, when it's Abu Qatada it is absolutely necessary, when it's this dude it's an attack on free speech by the fascist PC brigade...

    All I'm asking for is a little consistency on the issue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    rape (suggesting it should be legalised on private property to teach women a lesson)
    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)

    arguing women shouldn't be allowed to make any independent decisions straight off the bat
    Can you provide some quotes for this please?

    openly calls for women to be raped
    Can you provide some quotes for this please?

    a bloodthirsty radical who openly calls for the killing of apostates" - are they really not the same thing?
    Self-evidently not? :erm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    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
    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?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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)
    Except he openly admits it's not satirical and legalising rape on private property is not incentivising people, it's providing a way back in for date rape and rape in marriage, as well as essentially making kidnapping someone to rape them a less serious crime. It's a horrific proposal and anyone who seriously agrees with it... words cannot describe how contemptible they are.

    Can you provide some quotes for this please?
    http://www.rooshv.com/women-must-hav...trolled-by-men

    Can you provide some quotes for this please?
    Missed the rape advocacy already linked to in this thread then?

    (Original post by Jebedee)
    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.
    :laugh: So saying it's not satire is satirical? Most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Biggest problem with your idea is that he never had any credibility to start with.


    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.
    So, he wanted their city of residence with an address kept in reserve for action against them as well as all social media details for what, kicks and giggles? http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/ne...emale-10847367

    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?
    If you weren't determined to claim it's all satire even in the face of all evidence then no, not really.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers;62693065

    [s
    )

    laugh[/s] So saying it's not satire is satirical? Most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Biggest problem with your idea is that he never had any credibility to start with.
    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?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.