Categories
empathy deficit entitled babies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA rape rape culture red pill return of kings rhymes with roosh

Check out my piece on Roosh in the International Business Times

Roosh V
Roosh V

I was asked to do a piece on Roosh V for the International Business Times, and so I did, arguing that his now infamous post on legalizing rape is not actually the worst or most dangerous thing about him.

Roosh, like many other gurus of so-called “pick-up artistry”, likes to pretend he’s discovered some secret codes that – like the cheat codes that make video games easier to play – allow men to charm and/or manipulate almost any woman into having sex with them.

In reality, of course, there are no cheat codes; women aren’t video games. But there is another, more old-fashioned technique that men have used since time immemorial when they want to have sex with women who aren’t interested in having sex with them. This technique is known as rape.

While Roosh indignantly insists he is no “rape advocate”, in his books and blog posts, he encourages his followers to treat a woman saying “No” as little more than a temporary obstacle to sex.

Read the rest here.

 

129 replies on “Check out my piece on Roosh in the International Business Times”

@dhag

Nope. We talked about it in a few unrelated threads, and David said he was writing a post, but it never got put up.

@Falconer
I’m so glad that kid and kitty are both doing better. It’s worrying when children or animals aren’t well.

Hope that your family recovers from your colds soon.

Dhag,

Exactly. Also, he is a rapist. He has more than threatened and encouraged. He belongs in prison.

The women who he raped and the women he convinced other men to rape did norhing.

I can’t be bothered to feel sorry for him.

> Kat
I have read about the threats only in the Daily Mail article : they say that it is why he called the police.
As you say, nobody here would do such a thing.

If real threats have been done, it is awful. Now, if it happens that it is some kind of forgery from his side (and by side, i mean him and his supporters) – you know, the kind of fakeness gamergaters had accused the one they had threaten -, then it is one more step in the low tier of humanity.

I just hope i do not look like i try to defend him for being a callous waste-thinking person.

@occasional reader
I see that the Daily Mail says that there were threats. Maybe it’s true. I’d like to see more information about it. And I have to wonder how DM found out that there were threats. Did the cops talk to the reporters? Is that even allowed?

And no, I don’t think that you were defending him. I agree with you: Death threats really aren’t the way to deal with someone you disagree with, no matter how awful their views are.

@dhag85

The doxxing of Roosh is really forcing me to question my morality. I’m adamantly opposed to harassment so logically I should be against Roosh being doxxed. On the other hand, however, Valizadeh is such a despicable, abhorrent human being who himself has doxxed many individuals; so should my moral judgement on harassment stop at Roosh? If I were to do that, wouldn’t that make me a hypocrite who’s actually in favour of harassment?

Also, does it make me a bad person that I’m experiencing Schadenfreude at the moment?

Dreadnought:

Doxing stinks. Thankfully, Roosh was not doxed. It takes two seconds to look up his address on White Pages. He posts under his real name after all. So I’m not sure how he can cry doxing. (I mean, of course he’ll cry doxing, but his cries are without merit.)

@Dreadnought:
My view on the matter is as follows:

a) You don’t actually oppose something unless you also oppose it happening to people you dislike, or in ways which advantage you. Otherwise, like Martin Van Creveld, the only thing you’re actually in favour of is your side winning by any means necessary.

b) Experiencing emotions never makes you a good person or a bad person. Morality is predicated upon actions; as long as you don’t act upon your dislike of Valizadeh or your schadenfreude, then feeling it is absolutely fine.

c) The fact that you are aware of this as a moral quandary, rather than simply rushing past it to congratulate Anonymous, says that your morality is stronger than your aggression. This speaks very well of you as a person.

I think I’ve answered my own question. Given that I believe a life free from harassment is a basic human right, I must extend that to all individuals regardless of who they are. Thanks everyone for letting me think out loud.

@EJ

Oh and thank you for sharing your views, it made me think and I really appreciate it .

@ dreadnought

Also, does it make me a bad person that I’m experiencing Schadenfreude at the moment?

No, it just makes you a human; feelings are by definition something we have no choice in.

It’s only your rational belief that you stand to be judged by; and the fact that your belief in this matter is that he should not have to face this, I would say, shows you are in fact a good person.

@Dreadnought

Seconding EJ. Doxxing and harassment is bad even when it happens to bad people. But I lose much less sleep over it when it happens to people who themselves would gladly doxx, harass and rape people.

I saw the photograph that accompanied the Daily Mail article and my first thought was “goddamn, did some idiot SWAT Roosh?”

Roosh claims to have received death threats, at least according to the Daily Mail article. A couple of caveats: nowhere in the article do they indicate where these claims are coming from. Is this the police account? Seems unlikely. Did they interview Roosh? Unclear. And, it must be said, it is not unknown for the British press to make up juicy quotes for a good story.

That said, death threats are not an acceptable response even to Roosh’s vile behaviour. But I just know his apologists are going to be arguing that pointing out Roosh’s vileness makes David and us responsible for the death threats in the same way as, say, setting up feminists as hate figures based on distortions and posting their personal information online to “make them accountable” does. Why? Because I have already seen that argument made, particularly after the most recent Dawkins incident.

So be prepared for that.

Also, does it make me a bad person that I’m experiencing Schadenfreude at the moment?

Nope. I’m feeling it myself, and I haven’t done a thing to harass him (nor would I). I’m not in favor of harassment, but at the same time, this guy has done everything to bring a shitstorm down upon himself. It was only a matter of time before the combination of his vile views, sufficient public attention, and the fact that his real name has long been well known, and his address always was publicly available anyway (no doxing required!), would combine. Frankly, I’m only surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

And to be honest, I do so enjoy seeing a complete shitfuck’s karma run over their dogma. In case anyone forgets: Roosh is in favor of rape. He wants it to be legal so he no longer has to skulk in the shadows to do it and get away with doing it. All this “meeting of the tribes” bombast was aimed at forging a multinational movement to legalize the illegal and force women to accept the unacceptable. He supported Gamergate and kept it going long after it should have died its natural death. He’s made a career of hounding and intimidating women. And if his “Bang” books are not works of fiction, then one must conclude he’s a multinational rapist. He truly deserves every turd that’s landing on his head right now, and if he’s feeling hunted, well…now he knows what it’s like to be a woman.

I have absolutely no sympathy for him. I’ll save that for his mother, who must be so pleased to learn that she has a rape-culture troll in her basement, sponging off her for the money to travel, harm women, and spread diseases. (And just think, he used to be a microbiologist. UGH.)

Thanks everybody for their input. I’m literally not on my meds at the moment so I’m pretty scatterbrained.

And just think, [Roosh] used to be a microbiologist. UGH.

I thought you had to be reasonable and logical to be a scientist, yet I keep running across people who don’t act that logical, reasonable or intelligent yet have science degrees. What happened, science?

So. In light of the cancellation, are we still protesting tomorrow? DrNicolaLuna, I think you said you were going.

Even if no Rooshites turn up, protesting is always good fun and it’s nice to be able to shout about rape culture.

@ saphira

I thought you had to be reasonable and logical to be a scientist,

Yeah, but Roosh’s USP as a microbiologist is that he could understand the subject from a slime mould’s perspective.

For him it was less science and more hanging around with people on his own level.

(Apologies to any slime moulds who may be offended by the comparison, I know you’re actually much nicer)

I thought you had to be reasonable and logical to be a scientist, yet I keep running across people who don’t act that logical, reasonable or intelligent yet have science degrees. What happened, science?

I read somewhere – perhaps on this very blog – that the reason that a lot of these people seem to be very STEM-type people (the idiot Sargon, the idiot Roosh, the idiot conglomerGate) is that they’re so used to black-and-white “right” and “wrong”, that they can’t conceive that something that they’ve thought out “logically” with their supposed superior intellect could be wrong. That’s why they’re so unable to reason with people or be sympathetic to their feelings (e.g. “I’d rather not be raped”). Or something like that…

@ Vicki P

Interesting article, but I especially like the comments.

Is “I don’t know anything about this Roosh” the new “I’m not a racist but..”?

@ Alan

I do believe you may be correct in your interpretation. They’re pretty quick to defend, aren’t they?

@ Saphira

This article may explain why some scientists fall prey to illogical beliefs. It talks mainly about jihadists but I think it applies to feminism as well – or any other social issue.

The doxxing of Roosh is really forcing me to question my morality. I’m adamantly opposed to harassment so logically I should be against Roosh being doxxed. On the other hand, however, Valizadeh is such a despicable, abhorrent human being who himself has doxxed many individuals; so should my moral judgement on harassment stop at Roosh? If I were to do that, wouldn’t that make me a hypocrite who’s actually in favour of harassment?

At the risk of sounding like an armchair philosopher, I think that depends on whether you believe in moral absolutes or moral relativism. I tend to go with relativism, because absolutes get sticky and dogmatic. I don’t believe in doxxing, I’m against it. It’s mob justice, and I don’t believe in mob justice; I think it sets a dangerous precedent and does more harm than good.

HOWEVER, there are exceptions that I still think are morally righteous. Like the gang of 200 Indian women who, after being repeatedly ignored by the police when they reported a man who was terrorizing their area with rape, robbery and murder (he paid hefty bribes to the police to escape prosecution), all gathered together at his acquittal and physically tore him to pieces. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/16/india.gender

So even though I’m against mob justice as a moral rule, I can’t find it my heart to condemn these ladies. I think there are still exceptions to every rule, and you have to look at the moral relativism of the situation.

TL;DR, Morals can be adjusted to fit a certain situation, without you being a hypocrite.

P.S. I don’t think death threats or doxxing are still warranted in this case, 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.