Rape Advocates Forced to Cancel Meet-Up Due to Safety Fears

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robstott/these-legal-rape-advocates-cancelled-their-plan...

I find this delicious. Roosh and his Return of Kings rape apologists have canceled a series of international meet-ups because they can't guarantee the bodily integrity of the attendees. (Their ears may be assaulted by people yelling things at them. Can you imagine how hurtful that would feel?)

This is the fine fellow who wants to legalize rape on private property. And his website, Return of Kings, is an excellent place to visit if you feel there isn't enough despair in your life.

lol

More irony for you, >1 RidgewayGirl:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/roosh-v-lives-at-home-with-his-mom.html?mid=twit...

>4 sturlington: actually, that surprises me not at all.

>4 sturlington: I saw that, and his charming neck beard. The man's a walking stereo-type.

I wonder what his mum thinks about "pro-rape".

>6 RidgewayGirl:

Speaking of beards, is it me or are they everywhere now? They seem everywhere.

I don't like them on young men at all. Better than moustache alone, but still icky.

>8 LolaWalser: My husband just up and grew one. Hah. I'm not really a fan either, but I figure it's better than getting a sports car. I think they are hipster style. Not that my husband is a hipster or anything.

>9 sturlington:

Lol! He's not a twenty-something, is he?! Older gents are exempt! ;)

Omg, the growth on the first one in your picture--it's exactly like the one in the blasted banner Amazon Canada had been running for... I want to say a YEAR but months is probably more realistic--in the ad for their Kindle I think... And yes, that dude was also in a flannel shirt! (bluegreen) and a baseball cap... but with bermuda pants... on a rooftop or something...

I noticed the other day he's FINALLY gone, now there's an Asian-ish dude in a canoe (beardless, I'm happy to say). I have never seen a woman in their banner ads, by the way, what's up with that?

Your Amazon Might Vary, I suppose.

>10 LolaWalser: Nope, closer to midlife crisis in his case.

I've never heard anyone advocate rape. If there is such a group, then it's relatively tiny, and drawing attention to it is the worst thing you can do.

>12 barney67: No, the worst thing you can do is ignore it. If people are not vocal about how unacceptable this stance is, it erodes the societal norm. More men will begin to consider that hey, it might be a mindset that is okay.

>13 2wonderY: Yes, one of the contributing factors to that toxic culture is the utter failure of other men to do anything other than giggle when some other guy makes an offensive statement about women (or anyone not a white heterosexual male). The lack of courage is not reassuring.

"More men will begin to consider that hey, it might be a mindset that is okay."

That sounds like fear and paranoia. I doubt very much that accceptance of rape as a social norm will ever happen here or probably anywhere. Let's stay on the ground.

• "when some other guy makes an offensive statement about women"
Which is obviously nothing like asserting that rape is or will become a social norm.

Look, if you feel insulted by someone, do something about it. Don't turn it into a worldview.

>12 barney67: You're a very sheltered individual, aren't you? The "relatively tiny" group is larger than most realize. They've never done a true "convention" to get an accurate headcount.

>15 barney67: Again, you're a very sheltered, unsocial individual, aren't you?

Not all. Someone who disagrees with you is sheltered? Hardly.

Go ahead and give me a number, then, of the people in this group, since you say it isn't small.

well, there are over 300,000 cases of rape and sexual assault in the usa every year, and since that would be an awful lot for a few people to "accomplish," i'm going to go ahead and say that it's a pretty fucking big group.

I'm talking about the "rape advocate" group.

Does anyone...anyone...know how to read?

And how pathetic is it that there are women who can't keep from dropping the f bomb on an internet forum?

About as pathetic as a man's rights advocate trying to "educate" a feminist theory group...

Y'all need to just stop feeding the troll. I know it's hard, but just block, and completely ignore the bullshit. After being ignored in one thread for a few days (no further responses at all) it went back and posted there again, trying to get a bite. It's clear the posts are pure trolling, so just pretend they're not there. You know you'll never actually convince a troll of real facts so, it's not like you're walking out on an opportunity to change misguided beliefs.

.Monkey. is right. He's just tossing out the most offensive and ignorant comments he can come up with in the hopes of getting a reaction.

Agree. He's not worth the time and energy of the members of this group, and his goal is to derail our conversations, so let's not let him do that.

i know, sorry. i've managed not to respond on multiple threads until yesterday. when i went back to erase it, it was too late. i was fuming, but have reset.

There's good reason I've a handful of people here blocked. ;)

I don't know why I kept feeding the troll. My mistake. Sorry.

i've been thinking of using the block feature for the very first time but have been hoping that he'd disappear as quickly as he appeared recently. i might not be able to outwait him.

I think it's helpful to listen to people from the other side of an argument, even if they drive you mad. You can sorta gauge the quality of their thinking.

There is nothing helpful about trolls.

>28 2wonderY: Yes, when they're arguing in good faith. When their purpose is just to throw up a bunch of offensive and ignorant nonsense in order to get attention, not so much. He's been escalating into open racism and it's time to let him find greener pastures.

>28 2wonderY:

Don't you think there was plenty of opportunity to gauge this particular specimen already? Not just in this group recently--this has been a pattern for years, although it's true he chose a group with a particular woman-positive slant to troll more viciously than any other.

I also quibble with the idea, if serious, that it's about "thinking". He's acting out his psychological problems, not engaging in real debate (if there is, in the first place, any "debate" to be had about what we are to think about rape and people who feel they ought to have a "right" to commit it.) I guess it's cheaper than therapy, but obviously it isn't helping him any.

My suggestion is: put the loser on "Ignore" and let him do as he will--he's actually contributing to this group's activity rating and visibility on the "Groups" list :)))

That pleasant and amusing irony compensates for the inconvenience of the blanked-out space, at least to me.

ETA: x-post with 28 & 29

*pokes at the box of white silence he's found himself in*

It's like saran wrap, but with more air bubbles...

>32 gilroy: Bubble wrap?

>33 2wonderY: Naw. Not the same ripple effect.

Now I get called two names: a "man's rights advocate" and a troll.

• To the first, I don't even know what that is and I don't know why it was said. As far as I know, I'm not one.

A lot of what I see in debate today is trying to figure whether someone is on your team. I don't belong to a team, not in the sense in which debates define them, and that frustrates people. They don't know what name to call me, so they keep calling me names until I respond predictably -- which I rarely do.

• Nor am I troll. Let me define what a troll is as that word applies to the internet. My New Oxford American dictionary, ed. by Erin McKean, describes it as "an e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader."

It's a shame that people feel indignant about what I write. That's not my intent. If it were, I could write much more provocative, inflammatory opinions, such as exist on this forum every day. I could imitate those responses to me and simply turn the tables, something done to me many times. If you think I'm the one writing in a trolling way, you haven't been playing very close attention to other posts and threads.

It's certainly possible to read what I wrote without getting indignant. If you do find yourself indignant, that's your fault, not mine. Perhaps if you cool off, then post again when you are not so indignant, you will be less likely to see trolls wherever you look for them. Disagreeing isn't trolling, nor is arguing, asking questions, or responding to opinions. Because you get indignant, you assume that it was my intent to make you that way. But it wasn't. You can disagree without getting indignant. Right?

• I can't prevent people from questioning my intent or motives. But I remind gentle posters that calling someone a troll is a personal attack and therefore a violation of the TOS.

And it doesn't do much for you or your argument anymore than profanity does. Of course, you're free to stick your fingers in your ears and say "blah blah blah". You're free to say what you want within limits. But occasionally I will defend myself, if I want.

Partisanship can be blinding. Impartiality takes effort and is incompatible with impulsivity and excessive anger and fear.

21 -- You mention "no further responses for a few days." If you were expecting a reply from me and I didn't reply, I apologize for that. If you want me to respond to something, go ahead and make your point. I'll do my best. Probably.

You also refer to me as "it," which is of course dehumanizing, turning me into an object, which I thought feminists were against. I've always been against treating people as objects. The problem is many people say they're against it, but then go right ahead and do it anyway. Debate points get used so often that they lose their meaning and require restatement.

I'm not sure what to make of people who don't know honesty and sincerity when they see it.

I asked a poster to give me the number of people in this rape-advocacy group. Here is how some of you responded:

• "His goal is to derail our conversations, so let's not let him do that"
It is? How do you know my goal? You can read minds? How is my question irrelevant to the conversation?

• "He's just tossing out the most offensive and ignorant comments"
My question isn't ignorant, unless you consider all questions ignorant because they seek answers, but it certainly isn't offensive.

• "You know you'll never actually convince a troll of real facts so"
I just gave you a chance to give a fact, but you refused. All of you did.

• "He's been escalating into open racism"
Oh, really? That's a despicable thing to say. You don't know me. Where is my racist remark? You are violating the TOS again and undermining your own claims and opinions.

Look, if you can't rebut a point, that's fine. But don't attack me or my motives. If you don't have an answer to my question, then say, "I don't know." But please refrain from writing all this ugliness. All you're doing is confirming the lowest opinions of yourselves.

Edited to fix typos.

>35 barney67:

But I remind gentle posters that calling someone a troll is a personal attack and therefore a violation of the TOS.

I'm pretty sure that Tim had decided that this wasn't the case a few years back, specifically because it's descriptor of a behavior that is specifically disruptive to group dynamics and is helpful in allowing members to monitor the tenor of interactions.