Post: #26

(08-26-2015 11:18 AM)captndonk Wrote:  Okay, but I think your article on rape did the most damage. You now think it was a mistake?
It's hard to believe a random user can achieve the same.

The point isn't to avoid being controversial, but to avoid being needlessly controversial. There is nothing to be gained from making light of someone getting killed when the alleged killer has any sort of perceived connection to this forum.

Post: #27

(08-26-2015 11:11 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 11:05 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 10:42 AM)captndonk Wrote:  Why do you give the liars from the media so much power? They write what they want anyway.

Because they can screenshot hateful or other posts that make us look bad.

So what? I have no need to be liked by them. If they want us to look bad they will make us look bad. They spreaded the message that roosh promotes rape which is simply untrue. They didn't need facts for their hostility in the past and they certainly don't need it in the future.

The thing you need to bare in mind is that despite being a fun place most of the time this forum is part and parcel of Roosh's brand and by extension, livelihood, despite costing us members nothing in order to participate.

That in itself is a good enough reason to abide by the man's wishes on this one.

Post: #28

The shame of it is if these losers would read about game (and understand it) they wouldn't be mass shooters, they'd be too happy attracting women and improving themselves to flip out and murder people. But with a target on its back the RVF forum will sure as hell not be able to defend itself like that.

Post: #29

(08-26-2015 11:11 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 11:05 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 10:42 AM)captndonk Wrote:  Why do you give the liars from the media so much power? They write what they want anyway.

Because they can screenshot hateful or other posts that make us look bad.

So what? I have no need to be liked by them. If they want us to look bad they will make us look bad. They spreaded the message that roosh promotes rape which is simply untrue. They didn't need facts for their hostility in the past and they certainly don't need it in the future.

Keep in mind, the ideal is that we want a safe haven for men to openly discuss subjects. There are certain subjects which we simply cannot discuss in our public lives. Mainstream media reaches a far large audience to people we don't know. We don't know how these listeners can go out an do harm to us, or the media itself.

Consider what the next ROK article could be.

"Beta hackers goes out and steals lists of IP addresses and information from ROK readers and RVF users to get laid from SJW"

In order to protect the community, we need to post responsibly. Keep in mind, we still have day jobs, public faces and lives.

Post: #30

(08-26-2015 12:07 PM)Grange Wrote:  The shame of it is if these losers would read about game (and understand it) they wouldn't be mass shooters, they'd be too happy attracting women and improving themselves to flip out and murder people. But with a target on its back the RVF forum will sure as hell not be able to defend itself like that.

Yep.

Neomasculinity is about improving yourself as a man. Allowing yourself to be broken and resort to murder/violence is not masculine.

Post: #31

(08-26-2015 11:18 AM)captndonk Wrote:  Okay, but I think your article on rape did the most damage. You now think it was a mistake?
It's hard to believe a random user can achieve the same.

Post: #32

(08-26-2015 11:18 AM)captndonk Wrote:  Okay, but I think your article on rape did the most damage. You now think it was a mistake?
It's hard to believe a random user can achieve the same.

It's about applying wise risk management control, captndonk. There may be a low likelihood of some guy going on a killing spree being associated with the forum or the ROK site but it's always best to have some contingency control & not need it than to need one in a crisis & not have one already in place. As long as that slight possibility exists, we'd need to be ready.

Greater media exposure brings even greater hazard risks from different parties. Many in the mainstream media & society at large already have mainly negative or at best inaccurate preconceived notions regarding this space & the philosophy. Being Bat signal in the night clear that we're about self improvement & not about using violence or criminal acts to achieve our goals is a necessity. The Commander in chief has the right of it in a crisis. I'm glad this has been made official & crystal clear with this thread.

'The superior man thinks of evil that will come & guards against it'- I Ching

Post: #33

(08-26-2015 10:17 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 10:07 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  And lets not forget Elliot Rogers. Guy was on the forum and possibly browsed here too I bet.

This is a good example of what not to do. Do not imagine links that murderers have to this forum, especially when it's speculation like you just did. Elliot Rodgers didn't have an account here and there was no evidence he read the forum.

If you made such a comment during an emergency I describe, you would be banned immediately.

ok fair enough.

Post: #34

This is a smart policy. Like it or not, what's posted on the forum ends up reflecting personally on Roosh and on this "movement" in general. There's no sense in giving the enemy ammunition that can be used to dilute and distract from the message.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I've noticed a move away from specific incendiary words, name-calling, while simultaneously sharpening and intensifying and honing the message. It's a move forward. There's nothing conciliatory about that.

Post: #35

(08-26-2015 09:56 AM)Roosh Wrote:  2. No jokes or sarcasm, especially towards the victim. Absolutely do not make jokes about the victim or try to justify their harm, even if the victim turned out to have wronged the murderer (e.g. false rape accusation, bad divorce). Anyone who does this will be immediately banned without warning. Also tone down your use of animated gifs during this time. Consider that the world will be watching us during the media accusation and we have to be direct and sincere with our communication.

Does that prohibition still apply in an applicable case where comparisons could be made to the fictional events in The Denouncer? Should we avoid any reference to that story? I'm unclear on the rules when it comes to referencing your own work during a crisis.

It's similar to how I was unsure if referencing the "How to Stop Rape" article a few weeks ago would have been a violation of the War-Time Rules because the media could spin it as inciting violence against women, even though it's your own work. The media could similarly spin any reference to "The Denouncer" as justifying harm to a victim.

If the policeman from the end of the story were to come here and post his tweet, "If you ruin a man’s life, don’t be shocked when he tries to ruin yours”, would he get the ban-hammer? The moral I learned from the story was that it was wrong for the new intern to get him fired over his tweet, so would it be wrong to ban him from RVF?

There was already the case a few months ago of Alexander Kozak, a security guard in Iowa who was fired based on a woman's complaint of sexual harassment and then killed her in retaliation. How should we react if someone like that was a reader or member here?

It's important to ask "why" when events like this happen so we can figure out what's going wrong in society and prevent the next tragedy. But the media likes to pounce on anyone asking "why" because apparently that's the same thing as justifying the violent actions.

There is clearly a distinct difference between "justifying harm to a victim" and "asking why a victim was harmed". A clarification on how you define that distinction would be appreciated, because that distinction is sometimes a fine line and often ambiguous in text. For example, stating, "If you ruin a man’s life, don’t be shocked when he tries to ruin yours”, is an attempt to understand why a violent act occurred, the media could easily spin it as justifying the act itself. Just like at the end of "The Denouncer."

Hopefully if any member here found himself in the same situation as the fictional Brad or real-life Alexander Kozak, he would be smart enough to seek feedback from the RVF community on becoming an entrepreneur and getting his revenge by becoming richer and happier than those who were trying to ruin his life.

Or at the very least, he should do us a favor and join Jezebel before his murder spree.

Post: #36

Quote:Does that prohibition still apply in an applicable case where comparisons could be made to the fictional events in The Denouncer? Should we avoid any reference to that story? I'm unclear on the rules when it comes to referencing your own work during a crisis.

Referencing a relevant story, article, or video that doesn't endorse the murderer or denigrate the victim should be fine, especially if you stick to the facts.

You brought several other marginal cases that I won't attempt to codify right now, but since you're a new member, it will be best to follow the lead of senior members during such an emergency.

Quote:Also, if I'm not mistaken, I've noticed a move away from specific incendiary words, name-calling, while simultaneously sharpening and intensifying and honing the message. It's a move forward. There's nothing conciliatory about that.

If anything that has made the forum more effective in constructing devastating arguments against the enemy. A lot of what starts here spreads outwards onto other platforms.

Post: #37

Suggestion: Once wartime rules go into effect, any new member is unable to post until things return to status quo. This prevents trolls from making illicit posts and then screen shotting them.

Post: #38

That's not a bad idea, I had this suggestion: In case of a situation, make the forum not readable unless you sign into your account. Also make it impossible to create new accounts in this time.

Post: #39

(08-26-2015 03:44 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Suggestion: Once wartime rules go into effect, any new member is unable to post until things return to status quo. This prevents trolls from making illicit posts and then screen shotting them.

I was actually galvanized to create an account during the Battle of Canada after months of lurking because I felt like I was a passive observer during a very eventful time.

Post: #40

Also don't apologize for what you say. Turn it back on the media.

Post: #41

(08-26-2015 07:11 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 03:44 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Suggestion: Once wartime rules go into effect, any new member is unable to post until things return to status quo. This prevents trolls from making illicit posts and then screen shotting them.

I was actually galvanized to create an account during the Battle of Canada after months of lurking because I felt like I was a passive observer during a very eventful time.

Then you'd be able to understand more why this rule would be in effect and there wouldn't be any issue.

Post: #42

Roosh,

This article by The Last Psychiatrist is both pertinent and interesting. (I'd call it Required Reading, but this isn't my forum.)

This is my proposed outline for your Immediate Video Release after someone connects your message to a mass murderer.

(1) "First of all, and most importantly, I would like to express my condolences for the families of each victim. (Note: If you can name each victim by First Name Last Name, do so.) I am not a father, so I won't insult you by pretending to know what it's like to lose a daughter or son so senselessly, but I know what it's like to lose, and I'm so very sorry that this happened to you."

(2) "The most senseless part of this tragedy is how the killer didn't even know the people he killed. (Note: DO NOT name the killer by First Name Last Name; he doesn't deserve to be acknowledged as a human being.) He was obviously bitter and angry - how else could he have killed so many people - but he wasn't angry at people he didn't know.

(3) "Less than twenty-four hours after this mass killing was professionally and sensitively reported by Name News Agency here, many bloggers and news agencies, including John Doe of the Website Whatever and Random Feminist Reporter of News Station Whatever, unprofessionally and non-empathetically reported that the killer was a frequent reader of Return of Kings (or frequent poster to the Roosh V Forum) and asserted that the killer was inspired to kill by my so-called misogynistic message."

(4) "These reporters undoubtedly intended to portray themselves as significantly different from me, and you know what, they succeeded! (Cue picture of John Doe.) As you can see from this picture, John Doe doesn't have a body that he can be proud of. (Cue second picture of John Doe.) And from this picture, he doesn't have a smile that displays how happy he is. None of his pictures display a beautiful wife, nor a loving family."

(5) "(Cue picture of Feminist Reporter.) And Feminist Reporter is very much the same. She isn't beautiful. She doesn't have a body she can be proud of. She doesn't have a strong man to love her."

(6) "More importantly, if you read their articles, none of them expressed any sympathy for the victims and their families the way I did at the beginning of my video. Were they so in a rush to demonize me that they lost their basic humanity in the process? Are they so lacking in empathy that all they could think of is tearing me down?"

(7) "But most of important of all, neither of these people know what it's like to go on a six-city World Tour, to be told by multiple upright, strong, self-made, intelligent, successful men, "Roosh, thanks to your books, I am successful. Roosh, thanks to your forum, I am so much happier. Roosh, thanks to your bravery and your message, I have finally found myself. Roosh, thanks to reading your books, I discovered that I could only succeed by building myself up - NOT tearing others down."

(8) "My commentators, fans, and followers have all discovered that Building Themselves Up is the path to happiness. But the media members who attack me are still stuck in their Tear Everyone Else Down paradigm. Worse, just like the killer, they don't have the balls to confront me over whatever article made them angry. Rather than exploring whether they misinterpreted me, they assumed they're 100% correct and then demonized both me and my followers."

(9) "But I know that my followers are much more saddened by this tragedy than Media Member One, Media Member Two, (and so on), will ever be. And their handling of this tragedy has never made me more proud to call them followers and friends."

--------------

Naturally, you can alter this depending on the exact details of the tragedy. But I hope this illustration of Frame Control and Out-Grouping is helpful. (Thanks, as always, to the Anonymous Conservative , without whose blog this outline would not have been possible.)

Post: #43

Also, report the controversial poster to law enforcement because publicly declaring to commit a crime is a crime too such as threats, etc.

Post: #44

I am not sure if Last Psychiatrist is being sarcastic or not there?

Post: #45

Roosh, these policies are strategic and practical. I would only suggest extending the types of incidents covered beyond only murders, to include any serious or outrageous crime.

Post: #46

Oh, yes, when such an event happens (it's not if, but when) the MSM is going to have a field day. It doesn't even have to happen in the US, it could happen everywhere.

Post: #47

I applaud this move, and fully endorse it (for whatever that's worth )

That said, I can't help but see a contradiction here - a hypocrisy you might say. Whenever a man goes and commits violence against women in the name of being oppressed or vilified as a man, or being sexually worthless, there have been posters here who publicly sympathize with him, often along the lines of "bitches/feminists had it coming for being bitches/feminists." This line of thought can even appear to be the party line, where posters feel pressured not to disagree publicly. On the one hand, you want to promote free speech and thought, but on the other, you're providing a home for men who condone violence.

The distinction here is merely a tactical one - show no support for violence when the media limelight is on the forum. But what about when it isn't? If it's the right thing to do, condemning violence, shouldn't you do it when no one is looking? If condemning violence isn't the right thing to do, wouldn't it be a lie to suddenly condemn it in the face of media attention?

Post: #48

Unlike you, Basil, some of us here care about the long-term longevity of the forum, and understand emergency situations that require us to modify our behavior when the world is examining our every word.

No one here embraces or encourages violence during peace time, though sometimes we try to empathize with frustrated males who believe they have nothing to lose. During emergencies, you can share any empathy with such killers through private message.

Post: #49

Follow the protocol , nothing to see here, all is well.

Post: #50

(08-27-2015 08:35 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  I applaud this move, and fully endorse it (for whatever that's worth )

That said, I can't help but see a contradiction here - a hypocrisy you might say. Whenever a man goes and commits violence against women in the name of being oppressed or vilified as a man, or being sexually worthless, there have been posters here who publicly sympathize with him, often along the lines of "bitches/feminists had it coming for being bitches/feminists." This line of thought can even appear to be the party line, where posters feel pressured not to disagree publicly. On the one hand, you want to promote free speech and thought, but on the other, you're providing a home for men who condone violence.

The distinction here is merely a tactical one - show no support for violence when the media limelight is on the forum. But what about when it isn't? If it's the right thing to do, condemning violence, shouldn't you do it when no one is looking? If condemning violence isn't the right thing to do, wouldn't it be a lie to suddenly condemn it in the face of media attention?

There may be some who post here who might sympathize with those who commit beastly behaviour, but my recollection has been that the overall forum trend cuts strongly away from justifying murder.

What is said here publicly by one person will be taken to represent the forum by those who wish us ill. I personally do not want to be represented by someone condoning heinous acts.