off topic open thread

Catch Your Man With Donuts: A Roosh-Free Open Thread

There's a BOFA joke here somewhere.
There’s a BOFA joke here somewhere.

It’s quittin’ time here at We Hunted the Mammoth. So let’s start off the weekend with a Roosh-Free open thread. Feel free to talk about anything and everything that is not Roosh. Like, for example, that weird old ad above. No trolls, no MRAs allowed.

213 replies on “Catch Your Man With Donuts: A Roosh-Free Open Thread”

I have blocked Sargon, so have no idea what he’s talking about. Bell Hooks is great and I can’t imagine him able to say anything to detract from that.

He basically tries to suggest that bell hooks’s use of a Marxian class analysis makes her a radfem and a communist (and therefore Anita Sarkeesian is a radfem and a communist). He gets an F in twentieth century social theory.

I think Sargon is aware he’s deceiving people. The research he does for videos is mostly accurate, but he makes illogical leaps in a way that makes it appear to gullible people as if he’s being logical and cautious. His listeners eat it all up.

The RationalWiki article on him is decent. He’s willing to be left wing on issues that suit him. He tries to make it seem like there’s no distinction between American progressives and communists (the Leninist variety or similar) and that they have vast influence on society in North America and the UK.

Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin is an intellectual in the same way that I was a pretty princess that day when I found that dress in the second-hand shop. Just because you wear the clothes and say the words, doesn’t mean you’ve done the years or have the faintest thing what you’re talking about.

However, for those whose idea of an intellectual is a talking head on Youtube who’s willing to insulate them from having to do their own reading, rather than a person who gives them a whole bunch of papers to look up, he manages to pull the costume off. He is, in short, the very definition of an ignorant person’s idea of what a learned person sounds like.

His whole I’m-exasperated-with-the-idiots-that-surround-me schtick gets really dull, too. For heaven’s sake dude, the world is full of wonder and full of amazing people. If you keep hanging out with idiots then that’s on you.

Excuse me for butting in, but I have a question. Well, I need advice/guidance, really.

I commented on this YouTube video:
in reply to Idiodyssey87, the third comment down. I don’t know why, it was a weak moment.

Anyway, this commenter has asked this question. I was going to just ignore it, as I couldn’t be bothered really. Would you? What would you say?

+Ashara Dayne I’m curious, what besides sexual interest should be the primary factor in selecting a mate? Do I need such an elaborate relationship for any other reason? It seems useless to be monogamous in any other aspect of relations, and I wouldn’t care to limit myself to only one other person’s opinion, or one other person’s sphere of interests et al. If you’re making the argument above, as it seems you are, that sexual attractiveness to your mate isn’t acceptable as the single most important characteristic then why is it the only aspect restricted within the relationship? Why must there be a relationship greater than friends where each is free to satisfy themselves sexually outside of the relationship? Additionally, why do so many men/women insist on restricting sexual intimacy to such a relationship if they aren’t attempting to syndicate the sexual value of their partner? As an addendum, do you consider possible genetic influences differing between the genders as establishing primary preference behavior for mate selection? That is, given female hypergamy and men’s lack there of, as most recently observed in the growing marriage gap with a resounding 70% of female college graduates desiring their mate to make as much or more money than themselves despite a 55:45% female: male graduation ratio, that men might be considerably more inclined to select a mate based on physical traits rather than the qualities which generate wealth etc.

@Ashara Payne

The answer is: do whatever the fuck you want, dude. If you don’t want a monogamous relationship, then just don’t get into one.

The commenter is also making flat out wrong assumptions, such as sexuality being the only aspect restricted within a relationship. I know, for example, that I wouldn’t be cool with my wife moving in with another person, pooling her money with that person in a shared bank account, taking that person’s last name, adopting cats together with that person, spending every day together with that person, being cuddled up in bed with that person every night watching youtube clips on her laptop, etc etc etc etc etc. In short, this commenter hasn’t thought this through.

In other news, Richard Dawkins recently had a stroke. Not as in “wtf is wrong with Dawkins, did he have a stroke?” (EDIT: I know this is ableist, and I wouldn’t actually say that in response to Dawkins saying something stupid), but in the literal sense. They say he’ll make a near full recovery, though.

Let’s hope he has a speedy recovery.

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.