men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reactionary bullshit red pill rhymes with roosh

With Roosh V turning Taliban-lite, his old fans wonder: what happened to the guy who wrote Bang?

Roosh: What a grouch!
Roosh: What a grouch!

All is not happy in the world of Roosh Valizadeh. The formerly amoral hedonist, who built his online fiefdom on a bunch of books urging men to “bang” women in an assortment of countries, is turning into a moralistic, hectoring scold only a few steps removed from the Taliban.

And some of his old fans are wondering what the hell has happened to him.

Earlier this week, Roosh posted an especially dour and authoritarian post titled “How To Stop The Fall Of Women,” telling his readers that

It is completely your responsibility to create the environment of a good home, a good city, and a good country to prevent the fall of your women. It’s your responsibility to create the right environment where all women remain good instead of succumbing to an evil where within a short amount of time she becomes a useless, tattooed, overweight, and masculine slut. It should be clear to you by now that women absolutely can not save themselves, and have no inherent resistance to the pollution that tempts them in this world. It’s solely up to us men to shield their natural virtue so that they become the wives and mothers that allow you to fulfill your biological destiny while furthering the health of your society.

He continues on in this vein for several hundred more words.

It’s a big change from his older PUA writings, but one thing is consistent: Roosh doesn’t think women have the right to control their own lives.

Still, some of his old fans are having none of it. A reader pointed me to this interesting exchange in the comments to Roosh’s post:

Jacked • 2 days ago What the fuck has happened to you? Is this same guy that wrote Bang? You're entire life has been about fucking girls. No problem.. But this? What happened? You're drowning in hate and you see it everywhere. Now you want to "control" other people?? Did you flip at somepoint? 2 • Reply•Share › Avatar Lester Maul Jacked • 2 days ago Me too notices a change in Roosh. Why doesnt he tell us that we be the alphas who fuck them all? I dont want to settle down with family. • Reply•Share › Avatar Former Banger Lester Maul • 2 days ago Because Roosh is getting old. You degenerates are going to have to grow up too sometime. Your dystopian delusions of babe banging grandeur won't work anymore when you look like Yoda. 13 • Reply•Share › Avatar Bob Former Banger • 2 days ago Ok fair enough but what's an aging man to do? Settle down with one of these hambeasts? Live alone in emptiness? What should he do? • Reply•Share › Avatar Smart Alex Bob • 2 days ago Be rich and keep fucking 22 year olds till you die 2 • Reply•Share ›

A lot of Roosh’s old fans — like “Former Banger” there — are sympathetic to his new direction. But clearly not all of them. Alexa (an admittedly imperfect cataloguer of web traffic) also suggests that Roosh’s sites are losing steam, and losing readers. He’s still a long way from irrelevant, but he gets closer every day.


No wonder Roosh is so grumpy.


187 replies on “With Roosh V turning Taliban-lite, his old fans wonder: what happened to the guy who wrote Bang?”

Holy shit, is that a fox with a Dorito in it’s mouth?

In other news: I watched the latest MLP:FiM episode and it actually made me happily tear up a bit because there was some awesome character development that’s been a long-time coming.

You can tell me.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but the moment he completely discredited Paradoxical Intention’s links was pretty much an admission that they weren’t coming here to argue in good faith.

Paradoxy and PoM are charitable people who like to see the best in people, and so assumed it wasn’t a troll. I instinctively thought it was, which in this case means that I was right, but I wish I had their good nature.

I probably would’ve fallen for it if it weren’t for his linked website. Seriously, he’s telling us to go fuck ourselves with every post. Like a little kid holding his middle finger up every time the adult grounding him turns around.

(But don’t click it, because again, virus. No, bro, I don’t believe you that it’s not.)

@Aris Boch

I never said he tells the truth. I said he has admitted to having committed the crime, which he undoubtedly has. Do you even English?

I happen to also see no particular reason to doubt that this actually happened, since we’re talking about something that does definitely happen fairly often in actual reality. It’s not like we’re discussing UFO landings here.

Also, fuck off in general.

….duh, everyone knows foxes put leaves in their mouths because they need their roughage for proper digestion and lady foxes are always on a diet anyway! (kidding, if that wasn’t apparent, since text is kinda hard to interpret for the writer/speaker’s tone sometimes…)

Sometimes it seems people think that saying “look, a fallacy!” means they’ve won all the arguments (whether there is a fallacy or not is irrlevant) and ad hominem seems to be the more popular one – maybe because it’s in Latin.


I think ad hom is popular because the common misconception of what an ad hom is, is very easy to understand. If your opponent insults you in any way, just yell “ad hom”. Many fallacies (including actual ad hom) are more difficult to understand, and especially more difficult to spot in a real life conversation.


Against such people, you can reply with the words “fallacy fallacy.” It’s the learned term for the fact that just because you made a fallacy doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

I also have to admit that I am absolutely rolling at The Other EJ’s assessment that I have a good nature. LOL!

I think it’s a popular one because it can be used to tone police. If someone gets sick of your bullshit and addresses you in a less than pleasant tone or insults you, you can shout “ad hominem!” It’s a way to be a complete asshole and still (in their own mind) win the argument by transferring the burden of civility onto the person who’s chosen to not put up with their assholishness.

Yes, probably. Though I think it’s ironic how something that is meant to help people debate properly is now hindering communication. The whole “This person insulted me > Therefore this person committed a fallacy > Therefore I WINZ!” sounds like a fallacy itself.

I’ll start using this term from now on. I just had an youtube argument (because I’m dumb like that) with a guy who says “fallacy” as if the word was a bullet. I’ve given up on the matter once he asked me to provide a citation for my own goddamn message (that is, that I wrote what I wrote), but I’ll remember it for future meetings with pseudo-philosophers.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)says:

Aris Boch is an idiot and everything they say is stupid. /ad hominem

Aris Boch was–or perhaps still is–toying with us. This person’s posts were worded e v e r so carefully for the sake of plausible deniability. This individual was aggressive. This poster used the “But you SJWs are supposed to be better than that!” whine, complaining that we were engaged in hazing. And, as has been pointed out in many posts, this person asked for lots and lots and lots of information. ‘Cause this poster was brand new to all this stuff. And we were supposed to educate this individual. And this poster got to argue with us a lot. Everything about this person screamed, Insincere!

Tedious, tedious troll.

Pandapool, I think that’s still just an insult, not a fallacy. How about… pecunium hates mangos and therefore he cannot possibly tell what type of hat this is! (Context: he has Way Too Many Hats)

@Alan Robertshaw

You can be convicted on the basis of a confession alone in just about every common law jurisdiction on Earth.

Yes, but people make false confessions even without being tortured. These people might be covering up for a loved one or they might be highly suggestible and so simply believe that the police are correct in accusing them. Or they might be developmentally disabled or experiencing delusional thoughts.

Wikipedia has this to say (“False confession”):

[I]in the United States federal system, before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.

I’m not saying that Roosh is delusional. In the case of Roosh, I can believe that–to make a buck or cause a stir or make a name for himself as a Man’s Man–he would falsely confess to rape. For all I know, the guy is still a virgin.

Doesn’t matter. Roosh’s books are still rape manuals. So when Aris Boch demands proof that Roosh has been accused of or convicted of rape (or even rumored to have committed rape!), this individual is employing a diversionary tactic.

@weirwoodtreehugger | October 11, 2015 at 2:12 pm
I’m getting a strong Dubya-vibe from you “either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists rape apologists”.

you know, I used to think like that, and make those kinds of assumptions about people. But then I realized people make those kind of judgement calls exactly because they run up against so many others who do nothing but question them (and seemingly don’t want to listen to answers) so often

for me, it was/is in regards to arguing with creationists/pseudo-scientists rather than feminism, but if you can’t draw the similarities, then…I dunno man. Get out of the house and off the internet more often

@Miss Andry

There’s still Obsidian a-trollin’ in the Majority Report thread.

@ Kat

Yeah US federal law still uses the old concept of corpus delecti (the body of evidence).

There’s myth that that means you must produce a body in murder case, but what it actually means is there must be some evidence that a crime has been committed. That doesn’t mean evidence against any individual.

So if I walk into a police station and say I murdered a stranger 20 years ago, it would probably be enough to show that 20 years ago someone matching my description of the victim went missing.

Obviously if my description of my crime matched an unsolved case that would be even more satisfactory.

Basically it’s a way of preventing false confessions/time wasters.

Not all jurisdictions need that though. In England they’ll accept a confession even to a crime no one knows anything about so long as the confession isn’t inherently implausible.

Normally though there’s no doubt a crime was committed, it’s just who did it that’s in issue and if someone says “It was me” and the jury believe them that’s all the evidence that’s required.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)says:


What about “Aris Boch is an idiot so everything they say is stupid”?

Idk? My problem, if it can be called that, is that stupid and idiot mean the same thing in my head, so that reads, to me, like a tautology, not a fallacy. I could well be wrong here though!

Nope, that’s still just an insult.

Ad hominem: This person is a Jew, so obviously anything they say is untrustworthy.

An ad hominem doesn’t have to be an insult. The person in question actually is a Jew! The fallacy is the assertion that the person’s status as a Jew has something to do with their credibility. The ad hominem fallacy often draws on stereotypes, typically racist or sexist, and depends on the listener understanding that we’re supposed to believe Jews can’t be trusted; therefore, if this person is legit a Jew, we can’t believe what they say.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)says:


But they’re legitimately an obtuse asshole; it’s not an insult if it’s fact. 😛

(I’m feeling rather mean today, apparently.)

LOL I’m not going to argue with that. 😀

But note that when these super-logickal STEM men say in as many words that women are overemotional, they are engaging in the ad hominem fallacy. It always makes my heart glad when someone tries to prove how logical they are by engaging in fallacies of logic.

What about “Aris Boch is an idiot so everything they say is stupid”?

Technically, this is an ad hominem fallacy, because of the “stopped clock” rule. No matter how willfully stupid someone is, they’ll probably say something true occasionally, if only by accident.

I’m not saying that Roosh is delusional. In the case of Roosh, I can believe that–to make a buck or cause a stir or make a name for himself as a Man’s Man–he would falsely confess to rape. For all I know, the guy is still a virgin.

Doesn’t matter. Roosh’s books are still rape manuals. So when Aris Boch demands proof that Roosh has been accused of or convicted of rape (or even rumored to have committed rape!), this individual is employing a diversionary tactic.

This. Roosh not only instructs men TO rape, he also instructs them HOW to rape. That alone is all the proof you need that his books are rape manuals. Whether he has practiced what he preaches is irrelevant. He has made a living, albeit a squalid one, off the preaching, not the practice.

Also, Aris, if you’re still skulking around reading this, I cordially invite you to go click yourself. (Hey, I’m just responding to your puerile idea of humor in kind!)

Also, the fact that an ad hominem argument is fallacious only means that it’s not valid, i.e., the conclusion doesn’t follow on from the premises*. That doesn’t mean that it’s ‘wrong’ (because of the fallacy fallacy), or that it can’t be persuasive, or that it isn’t worth making. ‘X is on retainer with British American Tobacco, therefore their research paper disputing the link between cigarette smoking and emphysema is wrong’ is an ad hominem argument, but there’s a reason we make scientists disclose sources of funding.

Re: foxes carrying leaves in their mouths – in the UK at least, foxes actually eat very large quantities of vegetation and fruit (apples, berries, rosehips) in the autumn, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they at least sometimes eat leaves.

*There are plenty of arguments of which the inverse is true, as well – for example, question-begging or circular arguments.

Sadly I do not encounter foxes around my part of Southern California, and the leaves here come in two varieties; alive, and dead. What color they are, well usually some shade of burnt by the sun brown. The drought has been punishing and I’m pretty sure my rose trees are done for despite my careful tending, regular feeding, and allotting them the most water on the days watering is allowed. I hate climate change, but hey at least I’m fairly certain that I’ll be dead when the sea level rises to my front door/the planet flips the poles/volcanoes all erupt simultaneously and plunge the world into the next ice age thanks to those conservative death panels for senior citizens whose healthcare costs too much. And I’d been planning a complete overhaul at a plastic surgeon so I could be the hottest old lady in the neighborhood and belle of the senior center!

@msexceptiontotherule, there are several species of foxes in California, including the introduced red fox, the tree-climbing grey fox, and desert-dwelling kit foxes. Reds and greys are especially versatile, doing well in forests, cities, coastal biomes and grasslands. There are probably some foxes around: you just don’t see them. 🙂 If you wanted that to change you could always leave out some food, although that might attract raccoons, stray cats, rats, and angry neighbors instead.

I think they’re just playing with the leaves. Leaves of deciduous trees are unlikely to have much nutritional benefit for an obligate carnivore, but they’re clever animals with a well-developed sense of fun.

“turning Taliban-lite”? You mean: true colors. Wasn’t that always the point of all this He-Man posturing? It’s the usual ‘Tea Party’ “women’s submission”/”legitimate rape” tripe (think Duggars, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Fox Snooze, Christian Right/Libertarians, von Mises Institute, Ron Paul, etc., etc…)… only with “Muslims.”

We don’t refer to “red pill” types as teahadists for nothing, you know:) Maybe some of them will eventually figure out they’ve been played by fundies and white supremacists with a common interest in subordinating women to the whims of douchebags:) Not holding my breath, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.