[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm telling you that, unless they're deliberately trying to modify what they're doing so as not to run afoul of the precedents, the people you know who practice it are almost certainly engaging in behaviour that is sexual assault according to the law in Canada. Even with the high concern for safety and prior consent. This just demonstrates how hard it is to come up with an across-the-board set of rules on consent.

You're definitely more educated in the law than I am, so I'll concede the point.

Second, it's generally the case that you're right in so far as the most effective satire is a check on the tyranny of a majority viewpoint or idea, or at least a highly popular idea even if it isn't necessarily a majority one. In this case, the majority viewpoint is "no means no, period, in all cases", which it seems to me that vast numbers of people agree with. Hence, that idea would be a totally valid target for satire.

Is it the majority viewpoint, though? Among feminists, progressives (and even some of these are wolves in sheep's clothing), etc., it would be, but I've also had plenty of conversations with dudes who think like Roosh does.

And on the former point, where we were talking about trolls whipping up supporters who end up doing awful things, I just want to point out that I really struggle with that. Where is the line? Let me give you an example - the Chapel Hill shootings. Three Muslims killed by an atheist shooter. Now, there's no evidence to suggest that there's any truth to this whatsoever, but let's imagine it WERE true: several people used this as an example of atheism motivating violent behaviour as a comparable to Islam doing so. Again, no reason to think it happened that way, seems to have been a parking dispute... but imagine the shooter had said, "I've read my Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, and I agree with them that religion is a force for ill. I'm so convinced that I now think religious people must be eradicated, and so I've decided to start by murdering these three."

Would Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris bear any moral responsibility for those actions? I'm inclined to say no. Yet, it's not so easy in the case of a Donald Trump, who whips up xenophobic sentiment, if a Trump supporter were to say, "I'm with Donald, we need to keep these people out, so I beat up a muslim and told him to go back to his country". Does Trump bear any responsibility for that? I still think probably not, but I'm a bit less quick to respond, right? And then we get to this Roosh guy, who we both seem to think should probably bear some responsibility... Again, where's that line?

Well I think the clear difference is that Hitches, Dawkins, etc., where concerned with getting people to think critically, not attempting to mobilize them the way that Trump and Roosh are.