A trap antifeminst, folks. AKA dude pretending to be a girl seeking validation from dudes online.
>>5663681
ah yes the notorious faggot.jpg
>>5663681
What exactly is an "antifeminist"?
>>5663710
Someone who is pro-family, not that you would understand this as a mentally ill hon
>>5663681
Feminists on gamer gurrls:
>HOW SEXIST OF MEN TO ASSUME WOMEN JUST GAME FOR MALE ATTENTION! LIKE EVERYTHING WE DO MUST BE FOR MALE ATTENTION RIGHT?
Feminists on girls who are anti-feminists:
>WHAT A FUCKING WHORE, YOU'RE JUST DOING THIS FOR MALE ATTENTION UGH I CANT EVEN
>>5663681
I like this girl, in case somebody wants to know here's her channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmCBKaKOtOrEqgsL4-3C8Q
>>5663681
>pretending to be a girl seeking validation from dudes
Sounds like a real girl to me.
>>5663681
this is notable how?
>>5663710
someone who wants equality for men and women
>>5664089
>Someone who is pro-family
Not necessarily.
Most anti-feminists are not traditionalists.
>>5663681
>A trap antifeminst,
Instant waifu
>>5663710
someone who enjoys having pointless arguments on the internet.
see also anti-theists.
>>5663681
Hella pretty
Does she have any nudes or vids?
>>5663681
>trap
You mean trans OP and besides she probably passes better than you
>seeking validation from men
Isn't it super sexist to assume that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoGTreN_iI8
>starts off by describing her feelings towards masculinity as a child tranny
hey that's interesting
>slowly derives into the MRA version of muh oppreshun
wew lad
At least their points are usually more grounded in fact than those of feminists.
>>5666265
She always had a strong jaw, still kinda cute tho desu.
>>5666265
Beautiful eyes. Both the MRAs and the feminists are whiny babies though. Just live your life, it's not that fucking hard.
>>5663681
Because someone can't possibly have different opinions, grow up.
She's not a "trap". She's a trans.
https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/695068485450215424
https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/694592449088368640
How can anyone like her? It's like she lives in some bubble of privilege and passing.
>>5666483
>https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/695068485450215424
This is a common meme, hardly original, see it all the time as well as theories on why it might be the case, but doesn't really seem completely true, but all the people I know irl that identify as feminists are decently attractive, at worst they have no particularly attractive features but that just makes them plain, not ugly.
>https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/694592449088368640
Don't even know what this is trying to say, why would going to the DMV be so scary? And yeah, just taking hormones isn't that big a deal, but there's a lot more than that to being trans.
I have problems with modern mainstream feminism. And tumblr feminism at that. The first has basically become a means to extend privilage to certain classes of women, at the cost of others. Tumblr feminism on the other hand, completely misses the point of "progress" and "action" and "rights", all in the name of promoting a nonsensical sort of plurality where respecting everyone while helping no one.
>>5666483
Bubble of privilege?
First video I saw of her was pretty good, but she seems to have fallen too deep into MRA.
Also that she uses "tranny" makes her not so cool.
>>5666581
Also they both have fucked up beliefs about trans people. Mainstream feminism either is just ignorant about it or is TERFy about it. Tumblr-type feminism uses trans-women of color as some sort of inverse status symbol. Its fucked up
How bitter do you have to be to make a thread about some trans person and hate on them constantly. lmao
>>5663681
Would let her sit on my face and fart down my throat desu
>>5666623
Pretty bitter maybe she triggered OP?
>>5663681
>everyone who doesn't think as i think is just seeking validation
were you wondering why no one takes feminists seriously?
>expecting people on 4chan will be mad at someone for having anti-feminists opinions
Top kek
>>5666628
Have you watched the human centipede, and if so, is it a fantasy of yours?
>>5663681
but modern feminism (aka gender marxism) is worse than cancer
>>5663681
So, as soon as they criticize feminism, they're no longer worthy of respect? Misgendering just goes right out the window?
This is why feminists are garbage, they only pretend to be your ally if you agree with them, if you don't it's right back to fag bashing.
>>5664206
But anon that is the very definition of feminism.
>>5666887
It's like the words "flammable" and "inflammable".
>>5666887
Um I thought dictionaries where triggering to feminists?
>>5666805
I wouldnt say its a fantasy but it was pretty hot.
>>5663681
as opposed to what?
a feminist trannymale that cuts his balls off to please the gender that he isn't?
>>5666657
>were you wondering why no one takes feminists seriously?
We already know why. It's because people don't like being called out and would rather ignore everything than admit they're in the wrong.
>>5667181
Because western feminists are pure innocent creatures that can do no wrong and are totally fighting for equality as opposed to trivialities
>>5667197
Implicit implications never implied: the post
>>5667197
Let's be honest, if you honestly think that picture you posted is from a real profile you're more nutso than any feminist
>>5663681
For such a hot transgendered girl with such a 'popular gurlz xd' attitude you'd think she'd have a better looking man. God damn, he looks like an ogre.
How come trannies that pass are anti feminist and the ones that don't pass are ugly hon feminists?
>>5667643
Maybe she isn't a judgmental whore like most trannies are?
>I'm a feminist SJW
What did he mean by this?
>>5666887
>that is the very definition of feminism.
Feminism is a movement _for_women_.
Nothing about actual equality.
>>5667688
Considering the deluge of judgemental, crude, and callous tweets I had to scroll through to even find her bf, I'm afraid I have to disagree.
>>5663681
Stop virally promoting yourself on 4chan you slimy attention whore.
>>5666474
>She's not a "trap". She's a trans.
what's the difference again? From the guy who doesn't expect her to have a dick point of view.
>>5666474
She'll always be a trap, or a faggot, to the people she is trying to appeal to. She's one of those people who feels that traditionalists will defend her if she defends them, even if she's trans or gay.
Not so.
She's just letting herself get used as a trans mouthpiece by them so they can undermine arguments for trans rights and cite her as one of "those people" who agree with them.
>>5667803
Ahh, yes, the old "if she identifies as female, she NEEDS to be a feminist" theory...
Im sure you'll answer back to this by claiming something about internalised misogyny, too.
As someone who was forced to live part of her life as the other gender to what she is, I think I'll take he view over yours.
And stop pretending all MRA's are "traditionalists"- this is simply not the case. My boyfriend is far from traditional, and yet he supports the MRA movement.
>>5667829
*her view
>>5666623
Her and her close followers are channers and use the far-right-wing sentiment here as a source of lonely, socially conservative white knight chasers to troll their comment sections with memes and defend them so they don't have to defend themselves.
>>5667829
>Ahh, yes, the old "if she identifies as female, she NEEDS to be a feminist" theory...
>Im sure you'll answer back to this by claiming something about internalised misogyny, too.
Having fun with that strawman?
>As someone who was forced to live part of her life as the other gender to what she is, I think I'll take he view over yours.
>My boyfriend is far from traditional, and yet he supports the MRA movement.
Anonymous posts don't mean anything. You could be her for all we know. In fact, it's probable considering she was an unknown here until maybe two-three weeks ago when she started promoting on 4chan.
That or you could not be trans whatsoever. Anonymous anecdotes and "support" are meaningless besides their ability to manipulate the emotions of the weak-minded.
>And stop pretending all MRA's are "traditionalists"
They are. They typically glorify some Mad Men rose-tinted yesteryear they never actually lived through as an ideal setup for both men and women. There is a lot of overlap with PUA culture as well, as evidenced from the recent fiasco with the international pro-rape rallies.
>>5667893
>Anonymous posts don't mean anything. You could be her for all we know. In fact, it's probable considering she was an unknown here until maybe two-three weeks ago when she started promoting on 4chan.
>That or you could not be trans whatsoever. Anonymous anecdotes and "support" are meaningless besides their ability to manipulate the emotions of the weak-minded.
Actually, Im a gay male, but you have fun with all that.
> international pro-rape rallies
Pro-refugee rallies, you mean?
But more seriously, deliberately cherrypicking quotes from a sarcastic article out of context proves nothing other than feminists will do utterly anything so that they win an argument, no matter how wrong they are.
Fellow trap antifeminist here, you'd think traps would be a very reliable source on gender issues because they experience both sides. Nope, shrill feminist harpies still shriek over your voice about how you have internalized misogyny, despite being the most privileged group in human history, other than the joos.
>>5667958
you sound just like another woman-hating dude, dude
>>5667958
>shrill feminist harpies still shriek over your voice about how you have internalized misogyny
Nah, most feminists won't say you have internalized misogyny because that would mean they're admitting you're actually female.
>>5667966
I don't hate women, I'm practically one. I just realize that men are stronger, and more able to lead. Muh feelz aside, if you look at the evidence, the cream of the crop will always be men in virtually every function.
>>5667966
>you sound just like another woman-hating dude, dude
Common feminist response to TG people- attack their viewpoint and deny their gender identity.
You seem like a pretty hateful person.
>>5667713
It's kind of both. Feminism is basically a movement aimed at achieving gender equality and focusing on women. There's no contradiction there, because at the time it was pretty clear that women were the ones who were lacking in rights and freedoms. Nowadays there's a schism between those who emphasize the focus on women and those who emphasize equality.
>>5667805
The whole "women are ACTUALLY suffering in the third world, so first world feminism shouldn't exist" argument is ridiculous. Yes, women have it worse in third world countries, and that fact shouldn't be ignored, but it generally makes more sense for people to focus on problems in their own countries, rather than in distant places where they really have no power or influence at all. And saying we should the major problems of the third world before fixing minor problems of the first world is really just an appeal to bigger problems. I mean, within certain philosophical views (extreme utilitarianism) it makes sense, but if you accept that logic, you should also accept that billionaires should be obligated to sell all their extra homes to homeless people.
>>5667829
A lot of self-identified MRAs seem to be part of the alt-right, which tends to openly reject tradition but end up returning to the same traditional values anyway. For one, they tend to support strict gender roles, which is one of the reasons why feminists have issues with them.
>>5667924
>Pro-refugee rallies, you mean?
No, as far as I know they have nothing to do with each other. And I don't think the alleged "pro-rape" people are particularly in favor of refugees.
>But more seriously, deliberately cherrypicking quotes from a sarcastic article out of context proves nothing other than feminists will do utterly anything so that they win an argument, no matter how wrong they are.
I'm pretty sure there was no indication of it being sarcastic until AFTER feminists started attacking him for it. And whether it's sarcastic or not is irrelevant if his followers take it seriously.
>>5667989
>most feminists are gendercrits
>>5668008
I don't think the difference is really that significant. The only way men are drastically stronger is in physical strength, and that really has little to do with leadership skills.
>>5668069
I think you've constructed your own weird boogeyman of what an MRA is. They really really don't want traditional gender roles. It's like the whole point it exists, because feminism does fuckall for getting men out of gender roles. Feminists like to pretend they give a shit about anyone but themselves, but it's rare you actually see them follow through.
>>5668108
I'm just going off what my experiences with self-identified MRAs are. I would have no problem with someone actually trying to liberate men from gender roles (without forcing gender roles on women), however the people I know who are like that don't call themselves MRA's because of the implications that term has.
>>5668088
>No, as far as I know they have nothing to do with each other. And I don't think the alleged "pro-rape" people are particularly in favor of refugees.
I was referring to the events in Cologne, etc... "some" refugees seem awfully in favour of rape.... and killing trans people..... and LGBT people....
>I'm pretty sure there was no indication of it being sarcastic until AFTER feminists started attacking him for it. And whether it's sarcastic or not is irrelevant if his followers take it seriously.
And the "KillAllMen" hashtag is still being used non-sarcastically, so what's your point there? Not only that, but feminists actually DEFEND it.
>>5668069
>A lot of self-identified MRAs seem to be part of the alt-right
>seem to be
Come back when you have something more solid than "seems to be".
A lot of feminists seem to be people who hate all men and call for things like compulsory castration and enslavement of men, but not one word is raised in men's defence... except by MRA's.
>>5668125
>however the people I know who are like that don't call themselves MRA's because of the implications that term has.
Because of feminists creating a boogeyman surrounding the term.
>>5668088
Men have much more deviation in everything. You get really smart and really retarded men, tall and short, nice and mean. That's because women are too precious in evolutionary terms to fuck with their genetic coding. It doesn't really matter if half the men die because the remaining half can still fuck everyone. As such, the smartest, strongest, most cunning, most charismatic, and exceptional people are virtually always men. Of course, the worst people are also virtually always men.
Women just a big blob of mediocrity, where even the truly exceptional ones are just pretty good on the male scale.
>>5668138
>I was referring to the events in Cologne, etc... "some" refugees seem awfully in favour of rape.... and killing trans people..... and LGBT people....
Yes, but that's really a totally different issue from what's being talked about, it really has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm also pretty sure it was found that the people involved were not REFUGEES. Furthermore, why do you say "trans people and LGBT people"? Do you not think trans people are actually part of LGBT?
>but not one word is raised in men's defence... except by MRA's.
And that simply isn't the case, unless you're going to call anyone who cares about men at all a MRA. Which simply isn't how the term is used. By that reasoning, anyone who thinks women should have the right to vote is a feminist.
>>5668125
Im sure Eminem would say almost all women are whining, mentally weak, deceitful gossips based off his life experiences. See how muh anecdotal evidence doesnt really hold up well?
>>5668167
That's hilarious, feminists have been pulling that shit for ages, "oh you don't think women are trash? You're a feminist!"
We have gone full circle
>>5668149
Even if that is true (and it sounds kind of like a no true scotsman argument), it doesn't change the fact that the term has acquired a negative reputation.
>>5668187
I'm just saying, by that anon's reasoning, either they're a feminist or they don't think women should have a right to vote. Which one is it, Anon?
>>5668176
Terms have to have some kind of accepted meaning to be useful. Either one or both of us is being deceptive and disingenuous, or we're really talking about two different things. What are the general core beliefs of what you refer to as MRAs?
>>5668195
>inb4 "socialist"
You claim MRAs have a certain belief, she says they don't, and now you scream "no true scotsman"?
Do you even know what that is or are you just parroting it?
>>5668167
>the people involved were not REFUGEES
[citation needed]. Because what I have seen says they most definitely were refugees, mostly from Africa and Afghanistan.
>why do you say "trans people and LGBT people"
Because muslims have often specifically targeted trans people to attack, repeating the term is known as emphasis.
>that simply isn't the case
Ok, please show which influential modern feminist publicly came out against the hatred of men in the feminist movement.
>>5667197
I love that this whale who hates white men has a portrait on the wall of a man who went off on a heckler with a racist rant
>>5668213
You're right terms have to have common meaning.
Unfortunately you are argueing that from the side that has created the largest double speak vocabulary in the world. Common words like misogyny don't mean anything because of feminism.
>>5667924
>Actually, Im a gay male, but you have fun with all that.
You could be anyone. Self-labeling on an anonymous site means nothing whatsoever. You have zero credibility.
>Pro-refugee rallies, you mean?
Nice try with the race-baiting thread slide attempt. Typical.
>But more seriously, deliberately cherrypicking quotes from a sarcastic article out of context proves nothing other than feminists will do utterly anything so that they win an argument, no matter how wrong they are.
Yeah, next time I write a sweeping political manifesto in keeping with every single extremist view spouted elsewhere on my personal blog, and invite people who take it seriously to political rallies, I'll just label it a "satirical thought experiment" after the media catches wind to help me backpedal.
>>5668223
"no true scotsman" in the sense that that anon seems to dismiss anything misogynistic that MRA's do as feminists false-flagging
>>5668227
>Ok, please show which influential modern feminist publicly came out against the hatred of men in the feminist movement.
So then every human being is either a feminist or a MRA?
>>5668274
Yeah for the amount MRAs critique radical tumblrfeminists, they behave in highly similar ways.
>>5668266
So will you describe specifically what you mean by MRA, or not?
>>5668273
>You have zero credibility.
As do you, anon.
>race-baiting
>Implying that in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia, it is not seen as the woman's fault for being raped if she out in public by herself.
>sweeping political manifesto
So you DIDN'T read the article. Ok . Thanks for admitting you have no idea what you're on about.
>>5668341
>>race-baiting
>>Implying that in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia, it is not seen as the woman's fault for being raped if she out in public by herself.
No one's denying that, however it's not really related to the discussion. You brought it up to try to change the subject.
>So you DIDN'T read the article. Ok . Thanks for admitting you have no idea what you're on about.
What article? I don't recall you posting one
>>5668341
>As do you, anon.
I never claimed to be anyone specific, nor did I try to use an assumed identity that matches the assumed primary userbase of this board to garner sympathy for my opinions as you did.
>So you DIDN'T read the article.
That's not a refutation, and now you're focusing on the article and not your original argument because it's indefensible.
Sliiiide.
>>5668458
>You brought it up to try to change the subject.
Wrong. Try reading the post. The start of the very next sentence is: "But more seriously," so basically, you derailed yourself by jumping to the islamic fascist's defence.
Nice try.
>What article? I don't recall you posting one
I didn't post it. I was referring to the article people have been whining about and cherrypicking from stating that it calls for legalized rape on private property. I did read it some time ago, and it is clearly sarcastic.
>>5668504
>use an assumed identity that matches the assumed primary userbase of this board to garner sympathy for my opinions as you did.
Incorrect, as always. I was responding to the accusation that I was the woman OP referred to.
>That's not a refutation,
And neither is your post a refutation of anything I said. You have still not read the article you referred to.
>and not your original argument because it's indefensible.
No, it's because I'm not the one making the claim. You made the claim that there are pro-rape rallies, and I called you out on your media-manufactured bullshit. If you haven't read the article, you cannot claim it was anything other than sarcastic. Because if you'd read it, it is clear that that is what it is.
>>5668543
>Wrong. Try reading the post. The start of the very next sentence is: "But more seriously," so basically, you derailed yourself by jumping to the islamic fascist's defence.
You're the one who made that post in the first place, and it had literally nothing to do with the topic of discussion. You posted it for the sole purpose of deflecting attention away from the MRA/PUA pro-rape rallies.
>I didn't post it. I was referring to the article people have been whining about and cherrypicking from stating that it calls for legalized rape on private property. I did read it some time ago, and it is clearly sarcastic.
Then maybe you could post it to we don't have to take your word for it?
>>5668581
>pro-rape rallies.
There you go again... meming.
>Then maybe you could post it to we don't have to take your word for it?
It is clear to me, WHO HAS ACTUALLY READ IT, that is is a satirical takedown on feminist thought regarding rape, and their claims surrounding rape and its causes and reasons.
Here you go:
http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-stop-rape
>>5668543
>Incorrect, as always. I was responding to the accusation that I was the woman OP referred to.
But you can't respond to that with any credibility, first of all.
Secondly, they said
>Anonymous posts don't mean anything. You could be her for all we know. In fact, it's probable considering she was an unknown here until maybe two-three weeks ago when she started promoting on 4chan.
Do you not understand the concept of anonymous posting? You could very well be her despite saying you're not. In fact, like the anon said, it's highly probable considering she was a complete unknown a month ago with almost no comments or views on her videos until posts about her started springing up on /lgbt/ trying to bait and recruit people to rally around her as if she's an established public figure.
>>5668620
>But you can't respond to that with any credibility, first of all.
Well, Im not about to post my face on 4chins, so what would you accept?
>>5668613
>There you go again... meming.
I'm not "meming" (which isn't even how it's spelt) but quoting something stated earlier in the thread.
>>5666887
better to use egalitarianism if that's the goal
>>5668613
>It is clear to me
No one knows or cares who you are, so your agreement or disagreement with something doesn't somehow carry more importance than anyone else's.
But really, it's "clear" to you? So clear that Roosh had to put "this is a satirical thought experiment" above it in bold letters (only after the media started covering him) and backpedal at length in another post about how this extremist sentiment that matches the tone of all of the other outspoken "neomasculinist" beliefs expounded on his blog, and is directly used to garner support for his international political rallies, is nothing more than one big "joke"...
Sure anon. Crystal clear.
>>5668636
That you stop trying to assume identities you can't prove to garner false credibility with the percieved majority.
>>5668702
So once again, you failed to actually read the article.
You managed to actually read the disclaimer edited on top after the death threats started coming in, which surprises me.
Well done.
Now keep reading. Here, for your benefit, I will post the first paragraph;
>"I keep reading in the mainstream media that there is a rape culture in the United States. 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."
(from: http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-stop-rape)
>>5668768
This guy sounds like he's from the 1820s or something, talking about how women shouldn't be "unchaperoned" around a man they don't want to have sex with. And I think even back then that was mainly a custom for the upper classes.
>since the verdict is still out if punishment stops a committed criminal mind, but to have a way to keep them off the streets
I wonder how long the verdict would stay out if a law was passed allowing anyone to legally rob him? (Don't worry though, I'm not seriously proposing this, it's just a satirical thought experiment)
>For all other rapes, however, especially if done in a dwelling or on private property, any and all rape that happens should be completely legal.
Would private property include businesses?
>After only one such sour experience, she will actually want to get fully acquainted with a man for longer than two hours—perhaps even demanding to meet his parents—instead of letting a beer chug prevent her from making the correct decisions to protect her body.
This of course assumes that all rapes are due to drunkenness and poor judgement, and that seemingly good men will never eventually turn abusive. And if that happens, of course, the girl will have no recourse. If girls act to preserve their own safety, as this guy suggests, the logical end result is a complete cessation of sexual activity.
>Because women will never enter a man’s apartment without accepting that sex will happen
And this of course sets gender relations back a couple centuries. And what if a woman is being pursued by a violent criminal outside and runs into a man's apartment to escape? Would she be obligated to have sex with him? What if a man's sister came to his apartment to visit him?
>My proposal eliminates anxiety and unfair persecution for men while empowering women to make adult decisions about their bodies.
The only "adult decision" this policy will "empower" women to do is to become political lesbians or asexuals.
>>5668865
It turns out that we don’t need more laws, policies, and university propaganda that treat every man like a criminal and every woman like a mild retardate—we need more common sense that can only come from making rape legal. Such a change will provide a mature jolt to American women who have been babied for too long, who are protected and coddled as if they have no agency or intellect of their own. If a woman is indeed a child then maybe we really need to keep promoting “rape culture” as a way to keep them safe, but if they are actual adults, which is often claimed, then we can start treating them like adults by allowing them to take responsibility for the things that happen to them which are easily preventable with barely a strain of cognitive thought, awareness, and self control.
This guy talks like he's "empowering" women, but he's doing so by creating a society in which they have objectively less power than men. Since these manosphere types talk about "divorce rape" and women taking all their money, I would propose that women be allowed to legally take possession of any money a man is carrying when he enters HER apartment. And note that this STILL leaves the balance of power clearly in favor of the man - obviously he can choose to not bring money with him.
>>5668768
>rape of women should be legal because it would make it easier for men to rape women
>in order to teach them a lesson that they're in danger of being raped by men
>even though there are laws on the books that both acknowledge and try to mitigate this danger
>that should be repealed
>because women are in danger of being raped
Hooooooly shit.
>>5668986
>I CANT INTO SARCASM
>>5668999
>if I say it's sarcasm enough times, that makes it true
Nice try Roosh
>>5668999
>>5669014
>>5669026
Even the first paragraph is dripping with it.
You're just deliberately trying to be offended.
Was it this paragraph that hurt the most?:
>I saw women wholly unconcerned with their own safety and the character of men they developed intimate relationships with. I saw women who voluntarily numbed themselves with alcohol and other drugs in social settings before letting the direction of the night’s wind determine who they would follow into a private room. I saw women who, once feeling awkward, sad, or guilty for a sexual encounter they didn’t fully remember, call upon an authority figure to resolve the problem by locking up her previous night’s lover in prison or ejecting him from school.
>>5669038
You know, failing to defend your stance and going full troll-mode isn't helping you here, in the same way it didn't help Roosh backpedal enough to downplay his political manifesto.
>>5669056
>I AM DELIBERATELY BEING OFFENDED; THE POST
>>5669079
What a refutation.
>>5669038
>Was it this paragraph that hurt the most?:
>>I saw women wholly unconcerned with their own safety and the character of men they developed intimate relationships with. I saw women who voluntarily numbed themselves with alcohol and other drugs in social settings before letting the direction of the night’s wind determine who they would follow into a private room. I saw women who, once feeling awkward, sad, or guilty for a sexual encounter they didn’t fully remember, call upon an authority figure to resolve the problem by locking up her previous night’s lover in prison or ejecting him from school.
No, though personally I consider it inaccurate - not all rapes occur as a result of drunkenness, and I am not convinced that false rape accusations with malicious intent are nearly as common as Roosh is implying they are.
>>5669051
That article being sarcastic does not imply that Roosh's article is. You have to draw some connection between the two to make a meaningful argument.
>>5669090
I really don't care. The article is clearly sarcastic and full of hyperbole, and you are going out of your way to treat it as serious and offensive. I have nothing that needs to be defended.
>>5669079
>literally getting triggered by being called out for trolling
>>5669100
>does not imply that Roosh's article i
Nor does the fact you're offended mean it is not.
>>5669108
>Thinks I have been trolling the whole time
Nigga wat?
>>5669100
>That article being sarcastic does not imply that Roosh's article is. You have to draw some connection between the two to make a meaningful argument.
Especially since this is found under the "humor" section of this horribly maintained site. Roosh's argument was only labeled as "satire" after people started criticizing him.
>>5669107
>I really don't care.
>I have nothing that needs to be defended.
Evidently. That's why you're trying to pass your argument off as a troll now to save face while you continue to defend it... because you don't care and have nothing to defend.
>The article is clearly sarcastic and full of hyperbole, and you are going out of your way to treat it as serious and offensive.
The article was clearly a political manifesto touted as "sarcasm" after the fact because he can't actually defend what he proposed to the public at large in any real sense unless he's speaking to his cult members. Nor can you.
>>5669107
And the way I see it, the article is a pro-rape manifesto that the author later claimed was satire to cover his ass. It doesn't matter what you think. Unless Roosh actually signs something saying "Any circumstance in which one continues to engage in sexual intercourse after their partner(s) explicitly state that they withdraw consent should be legally classified as rape" I am going to consider him incompatible with modern society. And given this guy's attitudes on gays and trannies (ex: https://archive.is/x59vn), I don't see why you're trying to defend him here. You'd probably have better luck on /pol/, some of the stuff this guy writes (like "The End Goal Of Western Progressivism Is Depopulation") sounds like it would be right up their alley.
>>5669120
I'm not "offended" and I never claimd it proves it isn't. But you have failed to offer a substantive argument that it is satire. I don't consider myself obligated to agree with everything you say just to take pity on you for your inability to support your claim.
>>5669169
>I don't see why you're trying to defend him here.
Oh but didn't you see? He's a "gay male" (that happens to be anonymous and unable to prove it) and plenty of guys "just like him" agree with this guy who actively speaks out against gay people.
>>5669156
>you're trying to pass your argument off as a troll
Except Im not. Im refusing your argument that I have to somehow defend what I said because your fee-fees are hurt.
The article was clearly poking fun at hyper-feminist people like you, who cry rape even when no such thing occurs, and uses similar reasoning to highlight your inconsistency and foolishness. The prelude clarifying that is sarcasm was clearly added after butthurt idiots on the internet, like you, started bleating about misogyny and rape culture.
There should be no need to defend it because, since it IS sarcastic, you cannot attack it without first assuming it is to be taken seriously.
>>5669182
>you have failed to offer a substantive argument that it is satire
Read it. It oozes sarcasm from every line, drips irony from every letter... oh wait, that might mean you'd understand it, so it's best to just not actually read the whole thing, and rely on a preconceived opinion created by the media mill to garner viewers.
Even the first paragraph should tell you it's sarcastic AF.
>"I keep reading in the mainstream media that there is a rape culture in the United States. 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."
>>5669212
>Except Im not. Im refusing your argument that I have to somehow defend what I said because your fee-fees are hurt.
You don't need to defend what you said "because [someone's] fee-fees are hurt". You need to defend what you said is because your claim is disputed. No one is under any obligation to accept your claims unless you can support it.
>There should be no need to defend it because, since it IS sarcastic, you cannot attack it without first assuming it is to be taken seriously.
You also cannot defend it without assuming it is sarcastic.
>Read it. It oozes sarcasm from every line, drips irony from every letter... oh wait, that might mean you'd understand it, so it's best to just not actually read the whole thing, and rely on a preconceived opinion created by the media mill to garner viewers.
I did read the whole thing, and posted an analysis of it above.
>Even the first paragraph should tell you it's sarcastic AF.
The first paragraph does sound a bit sarcastic, however the rest sounds pretty sincere, and even if it IS satire, it's pretty clear that this guy thinks there is an epidemic of false rape accusations with malicious intent. I see no reason to look at him as anything but a delusional nutjob.
>>5669304
>pretty clear that this guy thinks there is an epidemic of false rape accusations with malicious intent. I see no reason to look at him as anything but a delusional nutjob.
*ahem* actually:
Valid, peer-reviewed research puts the current "best estimate" rate of false rape reports at 41%: http://falserapesociety.blogsp...
https://archive.is/0mEW8
http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf
There are criminal prosecutors and police who who have gone on the record as saying that, at least in their locations, the number is higher:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/craig-s-court-i-call-them-as-i-see-them
http://starlocalmedia.com/planocourier/news/sexual-assault-victims-afraid-to-face-court/article_73d3e79f-7584-5e60-ab0d-633dd9b03ff8.html
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/search/4103217.A_detective_inspector_explains_the_process_involved_in_a_rape_investigation/
So at least _41%_ of ALL rape claims are LIES.
Not to mention:
+ there is enormous pressure on defendants to plead guilty to avoid harsher sentencing.
+ most legal systems work on the presumption of guilt in rape cases
+ male defendants receive little to no sympathy or support, unlike female "victims".
+ even if the defendant is proven innocent, their lives and reputations are generally ruined anyway
+ there is almost no punishment of false accusations.
Oh and here's an example, a male student was expelled for rape after a girl “withdrew consent” for a blowjob she was giving him while he was passed out. His rapist “withdrew her consent” while he continued to be unconscious and _he_ was expelled for rape. Let that sink in.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu
I too have a friend who was given a BJ while unconcious by a female. He's gay. Is he a rapist?
>>5669304
Oh, and not to mention women like Molly Shattuck, the 48 year old mom who drugged her sons friend, and then proceeded to orally rape him. And ya know, she’s only getting around 40 weekends as her “punishment”, because the kid was "lucky" or something....
Turn it around and if it were a 48 year old dad who drugged and raped his daughters friend, then everyone would be freaking out and he would get a well deserved sentence.
But only men can rape, amirite?
>>5669380
Only those with privilege can rape and women aren't privileged, sorry sweetie :)))
>>5669404
>privilege
Nice troll attempt.
>>5669352
Would you classify the following as a false rape accusation?
A woman goes to the apartment of a guy she's dating. She previously made an informal agreement to have sex with him that day, however when she gets there she really isn't in the mood. The guy reminds her that she promised to have sex, and then points out that she has no transportation and leaving isn't an option. She perceives this as a threat and does not resist having sex with him, because she fears that resisting would only make him hurt her. However, had she felt she could safely say no and leave, she would have done so. Later, after sex, the guy allows her to leave and she reports to the police that she was raped.
>>5669418
>Would you classify the following as a false rape accusation?
Trick question, because Im not a jury, and you have deliberately only presented her claims, and in such a way that we are supposed to sympathize with her.
In any case, she could still have left, and if the guy had stopped her then, yes, it would be rape. In your scenario, though, she did not leave, and was not physically restrained in any way.
In any case, you're basing this purely on what she claims she felt.
And that word is very important. "Claims".
If there was actual proof, then
>>5669477
*If there was actual proof, then things would be very different.
>>5669477
>Trick question, because Im not a jury, and you have deliberately only presented her claims, and in such a way that we are supposed to sympathize with her.
I'm actually basing this on something that (allegedly) happened and was described from the accused man's perspective. I don't even KNOW what the woman's claims were, but from the way the man described it the most logical conclusion was that the woman felt threatened and that's why she did not resist. And the fact that you're not a jury is irrelevant, doesn't make it a "trick question", I'm asking for your interpretation.
>In any case, she could still have left, and if the guy had stopped her then, yes, it would be rape. In your scenario, though, she did not leave, and was not physically restrained in any way.
Again, it's presumed in this case that she did not resist or try to leave because she felt it would only result in her getting hurt. And yes, whether it's reasonable to interpret the guy's statement as a threat is debatable. But do you refuse to acknowledge that there are some cases where it is reasonable to assume resisting will put one in greater danger? Think about it. She was in a relatively unfamiliar neighborhood, had no transportation, and its quite possible that the man was stronger and faster than she was. Now, what the guy instead said something along the lines of "You're here to have sex with me, and you're going to have sex with me whether you want to or not. And if you try anything funny I'll smash your face in." And the woman goes along with it, based on the logical reasoning that she has no practical way of preventing herself from being raped, and resisting would just put her at greater risk of being hurt. There is no benefit to resisting in this situation. So in this situation the woman does not resist, and gives consent, but only under duress.
>>5671141
(cont)
Now, assuming events DID indeed happen as described at the end of the above post (the version with the man making an actual blatant threat), would you consider that to be rape? And keep in mind, this isn't about whether you would blindly trust what the woman says (which you shouldn't), it's about your definition of rape. For the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, assume things did indeed happen as described. If you're still insistent on evidence, suppose the woman managed to film the entire thing on her phone.
>>5671141
>>5671167
>"You're here to have sex with me, and you're going to have sex with me whether you want to or not. And if you try anything funny I'll smash your face in."
Yeah see this phrase turns it into rape. Because of the threat.
The only problem then being proving that he said it.
Now, the problem exists when we have only her word for it. She could easily be lying.
I fail to see how you can imagine that I would think it is not rape with that overt threat.
If there is evidence, such as she recorded the sound on her phone, then that is a clear-cut case of rape, if the facts are as presented.
The problem is, that most such cases are "he says, she says", and a 41% chance that she is lying does not bode well for the accused, especially since normal rules (such as innocent until proven guilty) do not apply.
>>5671174
>especially since normal rules (such as innocent until proven guilty) do not apply.
Really? Is this actually listed as part of legal doctrine anywhere? It seems odd that they would make the normal rules not apply for one specific category of crime.
>>5671231
It's not the rules, it's the application, at least in the US. Names are released at arrest, not at charging or conviction, so people who are innocent have their lives ruined anyway.
>>5671609
Okay, so then it's not actually "guilty until proven innocent"
>>5671623
In a way it is because once charged the onus is on the man to prove he did not do it.
If it worked like that for shoplifting, it'd be up to you to prove that you could not possibly have stolen whatever from the store.
There is pressure to not examine the testimony of alleged victims for inconsistencies or impossibilities, also.
>>5671231
Presumed guilt is overwhelming in North America. I can't speak for other countries. Thanks, mainstream media!
>>5671649
What is the actual policy for determining legal guilt? Is it guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty? I'm asking how it actually works in the courts, to determine whether one is sent to jail or not - I'm not talking about what random people hearing about the case think.
Didn't this woman come out saying she was against using puberty blockers on trans kids, then also went on about how non passing trannies creep her out?
Sounds pretty hypocritical 2bh. If she wasn't genetically gifted or hadn't had her natural puberty delayed, she'd be one of the unpassable trannies that creep her out so much.
>>5671805
>then also went on about how non passing trannies creep her out?
Her friend Theryn must creep her too then.
>>5666865
Can we please stop the 'x Marxism' meme? Tumblr bullshit has nothing to do with actual Marxism.
>gay lgbt poster with conservitive values
Im so cool guys, we arent like those other faggots nazis are hot you guys
>mtf with conservitive values
wahh thats our thing! fucking tranny freak!
fucking typical gay posting
>>5674280
Nothing "reality check" in those posts, just stale memes and incomprehensible nonsense.
Are you mad because I want to have sex with her and not you or something?
