There is plenty to criticize about Roosh. You don't need to mis-represent his views/statements in order to do so.
I guess I'm curious as to what exactly is satirical about it? Are you saying he doesn't actually mean it and is just trolling? Even if that were the case, does it make it any better?
There is plenty to criticize about Roosh. You don't need to mis-represent his views/statements in order to do so.
I don't think you understand the satirical nature of his post regarding the legalisation of rape.
He is satirising the over-reporting of rape, essentially saying that if we eliminated the definition of rape that extends towards intoxicated women, or women who were "asking for it" then women would be held accountable for their actions.
He is 100% an advocate for rape in certain circumstances. Don't mis-represent his views because you weren't sure on what was being satirised.
I guess I'm curious as to what exactly is satirical about it? Are you saying he doesn't actually mean it and is just trolling? Even if that were the case, does it make it any better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I don't think you understand the satirical nature of his post regarding the legalisation of rape.
He is satirising the over-reporting of rape, essentially saying that if we eliminated the definition of rape that extends towards intoxicated women, or women who were "asking for it" then women would be held accountable for their actions.
He is 100% an advocate for rape in certain circumstances. Don't mis-represent his views because you weren't sure on what was being satirised.
I re-read the article to ensure I wasn't mis-interpreting it myself. I wasn't.
He is making a point that he describes as satire. I would probably label it as an absurdity. In either case, he is definitely NOT advocating for "legalizing rape." When this article came out it accomplished two things: first it got Roosh all the attention he was seeking, and two it caused the social justice types to go bonkers because they weren't able to discern his actual point.
I shudder to think that people have no alternative but to interpret everything they read so literally.
The point he is trying to make - if you choose to avoid being conditioned by the rhetoric - is that Bad People will do Bad Things, regardless of the laws and the social justice nannies. So taking precautions to not be the victim of Bad Things happening to you make sense. That could mean taking precautions against: robbery, car-theft, rape, assault, etc.
If you were to read an article which said: "let's make home invasion legal, because then people will take home security much more seriously", you would probably not assume the author actually wanted to make home invasion legal, but was making a broader point about our attitudes towards home security.
The topic that he raises is actually an interesting discussion: he is saying that taking precautions and being responsible in avoidance of Bad People who might do Bad Things is not victim blaming, it's the avoidance of being a victim. This concept is somehow seen as taboo among the Social Justice set, for reasons that are not obvious to me.
Here's Roosh and Gavin talking about it. (I get a kick out of Gavin, which is why I'm aware of this discussion - I have no interest in Roosh's overall efforts.)
I re-read the article to ensure I wasn't mis-interpreting it myself. I wasn't.
He is making a point that he describes as satire. I would probably label it as an absurdity. In either case, he is definitely NOT advocating for "legalizing rape." When this article came out it accomplished two things: first it got Roosh all the attention he was seeking, and two it caused the social justice types ... social justice nannies ... among the Social Justice set ...
You were.
Or you mis-interpreted my post. It's most definitely satire, as his advocacy for the legalisation of rape is not meant as literal but is meant to shock people into thought (much like, not sure if it was you but someone mentioned Swift's satire which proposed the consumption of children).
He advocates rape outside of that post, not the legalisation of it, but committing the act itself. This is a quote from his site:
Quote:
"If you really believe the first no that she gives you in the bedroom, she will think of you either as a fool or a homosexual."
He also engages in victim blaming, advocacy for recording sexual encounters with women against their will, and other fun stuff.
Interestingly, he also takes the same stance against his critics that you do, relying on the term "social justice" often. Distancing yourself from him and claiming to be interested in the "integrity" of the conversation is interesting, but less so when you're just splitting hairs on WHEN he advocates rape and using the same tired broad-stroke "social justice" label to debase valid criticism.
It's rather hard to accept that article as satire when you read the rest of the stuff on his site.
Not to mention, the burden of clarity of interpretation is on the author, not the audience. If he's written something that he intended as satire (which I doubt) that it's on him to write in such a way that it's evident it's satire, which he hasn't (especially given the body of the rest of his 'work').
He advocates rape outside of that post, not the legalisation of it, but committing the act itself. This is a quote from his site:
Quote:
"If you really believe the first no that she gives you in the bedroom, she will think of you either as a fool or a homosexual."
I honestly don't give a #### about this guy, but this isn't quite the same as advocating rape. It's more a comment on the nuances of sexual communication not being fully addressed by the way we talk about consent. This is absolutely an issue; the BDSM crowd are really left out in the cold by the way the law works and a lot of totally consensual (on a common sense view) acts are currently, clearly, criminal sexual assault in Canada.
That's a hard question with no obvious answer. "No means no, in all cases" basically has to be the rule, I think, and we just have to accept that we're putting some handcuffs (lol) on sexuality in favour of safety. But that trade-off is tied up in a discussion about what the real risks are, the total lack of useful rape stats, obfuscation, myriad other problems.
Again, I don't know about this guy and from where I sit it'd be nice to keep ignoring him, and I don't think these are his actual concerns. However, there is at least a worthwhile point of discussion underlying the hilariously thinly veiled inferiority complex evident in that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I guess I'm curious as to what exactly is satirical about it? Are you saying he doesn't actually mean it and is just trolling? Even if that were the case, does it make it any better?
I've been wondering about this lately. I think it makes it better, as a matter of certainty, and would be interested to hear how it possibly couldn't be. In any case where someone expresses a morally repugnant viewpoint, isn't it better if they don't earnestly believe it and are therefore unlikely to act on it in any way?
But I'm still not sure if the provocateur is a useful force in a free speech society. I can see the argument about pushing boundaries, and forcing the established perspectives to continue to defend and thereby self-examine, i.e. "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error". But even if you're just being a provocateur, if you're whipping up a mob of people who do earnestly believe what you're saying, it's a bit tough to swallow a defense of "I can't be held responsible for what other people who read my trolling do".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Legitimate question; if 2 of 3 charges are from one complainant from over a decade ago, what evidence is there likely to be besides her word versus his? Seems like really weak evidence for the crown to pursue charges on, so I assume there is something damning I'm not aware of.
A lot of sexual assault cases are simply he said/she said and in fact, that's not a bad thing. A lack of physical evidence shouldn't be a barrier for victims. The truth tends to emerge as credibility is established. Often times you're left with the most likely scenario....like is it probable that this particular victim would agree to being punched or choked. And did the defendant likely punch and choke the victim. My question is, does the mounting he said/she said evidence create it's own credibility...like if 4 victims all say he did the same weird stuff, does that make it a credible case in favour of the complainants? I can't imagine mixing up a GTI and a VW discredits or credits anyone.
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
I'm sure this person is not at all happy she came forward. Not sure that's the message you want sent. Although she could have avoided it by being honest about the emails afterward. Not sure how that really shows he didn't do what she says he did, but she still got raked through the coals.
I honestly don't give a #### about this guy, but this isn't quite the same as advocating rape. It's more a comment on the nuances of sexual communication not being fully addressed by the way we talk about consent. This is absolutely an issue; the BDSM crowd are really left out in the cold by the way the law works and a lot of totally consensual (on a common sense view) acts are currently, clearly, criminal sexual assault in Canada.
That's a hard question with no obvious answer. "No means no, in all cases" basically has to be the rule, I think, and we just have to accept that we're putting some handcuffs (lol) on sexuality in favour of safety. But that trade-off is tied up in a discussion about what the real risks are, the total lack of useful rape stats, obfuscation, myriad other problems.
Again, I don't know about this guy and from where I sit it'd be nice to keep ignoring him, and I don't think these are his actual concerns. However, there is at least a worthwhile point of discussion underlying the hilariously thinly veiled inferiority complex evident in that statement.
I think you're misrepresenting the BDSM community a bit. There's a pretty heavy message of prior consent, at least among the people I know that practice it. That obviously represents a bit of a grey area itself but it's not quite what your characterizing it as.
Quote:
I've been wondering about this lately. I think it makes it better, as a matter of certainty, and would be interested to hear how it possibly couldn't be. In any case where someone expresses a morally repugnant viewpoint, isn't it better if they don't earnestly believe it and are therefore unlikely to act on it in any way?
Yeah, I phrased that in the wrong way. I think it's still harmful regardless of whether he's serious or not because it's not an issue of absurdity. There are people out there who clearly don't have a problem committing violence against women.
Quote:
But I'm still not sure if the provocateur is a useful force in a free speech society. I can see the argument about pushing boundaries, and forcing the established perspectives to continue to defend and thereby self-examine, i.e. "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error". But even if you're just being a provocateur, if you're whipping up a mob of people who do earnestly believe what you're saying, it's a bit tough to swallow a defense of "I can't be held responsible for what other people who read my trolling do".
Yeah, exactly. I also firmly believe that satire is most effective when aimed at the powerful or the elite, not those who are being victimized. There are effective instances of satire that are aimed at bringing attention to the plight of victims, but this is clearly not one of them.
Whether you like the satire or not is unrelated to whether or not it is appropriate to mis-represent peoples' views. The most unhelpful thing we can do for the discourse is to be innaccurate or otherwise obfuscate the point someone is trying to make.
It is much better to take their point and criticize the merits of it, rather than deliberately attempt to bury it under inaccurate smears. It's a common tactic that seems to be pervading public discourse - and frankly is turning into a regular tactic for those on the Left. Think Glenn Greenwald or Reza Aslan.
I hope my defense of accuracy is not being conflated with a defense of Roosh. I don't particularly like what he does. (Although I do think that provocateurs have a valuable place in society - I really enjoy Gavin, and Milo Yiannopolis for instance).
As an aside, the above reasoning is why I am a staunch defender of ALL speech being free, regardless of its content. Much better to hear a stupid/offensive argument and discredit it, than it is to try to silence it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Buster For This Useful Post:
