Post: #126

   

No, not gay at all

Post: #127

He's either gay or a liar.

Any man who has had regular sex with women knows that what women say and what women say and do are usually very different things.

Post: #128

(12-08-2015 11:11 AM)Oz. Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:00 AM)Benoit Wrote:  

That's funny because he is standing with a pretty strict posture while Roosh is very relaxed and slouched a bit

Yates dress like a older american lesbian women teaching esl to immigrants.

Post: #129

In that pic it looks like he has a skirt on.

Post: #130

I thought Reggie probably didn't realise what was really going on - at first glance, for someone like him, there is no harm, feminism is fine, doesn't affect him, until his own shit hits the fan.

It's only when you experience the shit first hand that you realise that for men outside of TV and the media, its a very different world indeed. All we're doing is not abiding by their rules; we make our own.

Post: #131

Reggie is so out of his depth talking with Roosh.

Roosh adds clear 'disclaimers'(only necessary for stupid people) about the philosophical aspects of his article, and Reggie still has to say he couldn't see the satirical angle.

Post: #132

That fucker is as bent as a nine bob note.

Post: #133

(12-28-2015 06:51 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  Reggie is so out of his depth talking with Roosh.

Roosh adds clear 'disclaimers'(only necessary for stupid people) about the philosophical aspects of his article, and Reggie still has to say he couldn't see the satirical angle.

To be "fair", Reggie could simply be acting disingenuous there(as is typical of that lot).

Post: #134

(12-28-2015 07:44 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:51 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  Reggie is so out of his depth talking with Roosh.

Roosh adds clear 'disclaimers'(only necessary for stupid people) about the philosophical aspects of his article, and Reggie still has to say he couldn't see the satirical angle.

To be "fair", Reggie could simply be acting disingenuous there(as is typical of that lot).

You could be right. I have noticed people who follow the popular narrative very much like to be disingenuous when confronted with ideas that aren't part of their narrative. A.Bosch could probably explain it well.

Post: #135

I find it interesting how he didn't notice the satire on Roosh's ''rape'' article. Specially for someone who literally grew up on tv. English is not my first language and I quickly noticed the satire in it.

Post: #136

(12-29-2015 02:15 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 07:44 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:51 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  Reggie is so out of his depth talking with Roosh.

Roosh adds clear 'disclaimers'(only necessary for stupid people) about the philosophical aspects of his article, and Reggie still has to say he couldn't see the satirical angle.

To be "fair", Reggie could simply be acting disingenuous there(as is typical of that lot).

You could be right. I have noticed people who follow the popular narrative very much like to be disingenuous when confronted with ideas that aren't part of their narrative. A.Bosch could probably explain it well.

It's not complicated: SJW's always lie.

Besides, it's television: the producers have already decided on the narrative they're pushing and the conclusions they want the viewer to draw before they start filming the show. The concept of collecting footage and interviews is a formality: anything that would threaten their 'script' will be discarded. Should they have to falsify events or reframe information to fit their narrative, well, the ends justify the means.

I don't have access to the show, but did anyone research the names in the credits? The BBC has transparency laws with regards to staff and salaries, so it should be easy to identify whom the writers, producers and researchers involved were, and quickly find out what they actually believe from their oversharing social media profiles.

If I was Roosh, I'd publicly shitlord by putting out a public call on Twitter asking to interview women on camera who have previously had sex with Reggie Yates in the past, so we can break down both his game tactics, his sexual manipulation of media fame, and his notion of 'legal consent' when he's not gurning like a simp in faux-moral outrage for the camera. Call it 'Extreme RY'. He's a public figure passing moral judgment on others, so the public has a right to know if he's a hypocrite. Offer to blur their faces. Since he's an SJW, I'm sure he's not secretly a raging hypocrite rapey male feminist, so he'd have nothing to fear.

Given his mannerisms and look, it could be also worth hiring some guerrilla marketers to tag some 'tea cottages' with his image and contact details, asking "Have you had anonymous gay sex with this man? We'd love to hear from you."

BBC Three is irrelevant enough to most viewers that they slashed programming budgets by 50%, and will transition from a terrestrial channel to online only in Feb 2016.

Post: #137

Reggie is nothing less than a fucking puppet!

Post: #138

This documentary was shown in a UK school. It appears the teacher made an assignment for the students to email me their opinion:

EMAIL 1

Quote:Dear Roosh. V,


Recently, I watched a documentary from Reggie Yates “men at war”, in which you took part on. The documentary was watched by students in my school aged 16-17. After completing the documentary, we were given a task to raise comments as a class about each character. Most comments during the class were pointed at you due to the negative points you made. I would like to tell you that the comments mentioned were indeed very negative.


Teachers and students were unhappy about some negative comments you raised while giving the speech to men, but in my perspective, I believe that some points are understandable. However,I would love to give you an advice, I might not be experienced enough but it is worth a try to and maybe it will make others understand what you want to achieve. Changing the way you speak to the audience and using appropriate words, as in not swearing or offending someone, might help others understand how you feel, it might be challenging because maybe you are angry about the fact that women are more protected than men, for instance, what happens when a woman rapes a man? How would the law have an impact on this?. The way you spoke about women sort of discouraged me to watch the video as well as other students, but if you want to get your point across everybody, then you should try remove you anger and explain yourself, try to make others understand your point.


I agreed with some of the facts you raised and some personal feelings, but others will disagree because they might interpret it differently. In addition, I believe that if you try to make more positive comments and trying not to offend people, more people will start to agree with you and understand you.

EMAIL 2

Quote:Dear Barack Obama,

Recently, in our English and literature class in the International School of Azerbaijan, we watched one of your video that was released the year before by BBC One when Reggie Yates was the presenter called Men at war: Extreme UK.

I am writing you this letter to advise you to try a different way to express your ideas due to the fact that many countries do not accept you because of the way you express your thoughts and also because of the way you communicate and the terms that you use.

I am a little intrigued about some arguments that you gave about the emasculation of men. For example, when you said that women and gay people have more right than men. You give really fascinating points such as the point you made about rape for example. However it is just the way that you format them that gives us, the audience, the absolute feeling that you have a complete animosity towards women. Nevertheless, you are very passionate about what you talk about.

I am looking forward to receiving a response to this letter and to the ideas I have suggested from you.

Yours sincerely.

Post: #139

Was the teacher male or female?

Post: #140

(11-07-2016 05:02 PM)roberto Wrote:  Was the teacher male or female?

Don't know.

Post: #141

(11-07-2016 05:02 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 05:02 PM)roberto Wrote:  Was the teacher male or female?

Don't know.

I did laugh when reading that international school students from Azerbaijan are sending you letters on advice on how to be more politically correct.

Seems like some high school students are practicing their IETLS writing skills, meanwhile the teacher assigning them this task is trying to make a point. The passive aggressive tactic has been overdone by feminists and their kin, 'We understand that you are angry'. It's a way for them to target your personality or character and avoid responding to the content of your video.

Post: #142

These two guys are what I call "choking on the blue pill".

They have an innate masculine sense that the pretty lies they are being fed & trying to get their heads around are plain wrong & destructive on every level.

They can sense the truth, but their programming is skizting out & it's uncomfortable & therefore "you need to say it more nicely".

The important part is that they ultimately get it, or want to get it. They will in time learn what it really means to be an angry man.

And then it will all become clear what it is they have to do.(edit. and they will feel like capricious dicks for their gay, finger wagging emails)

Or they will pussy out.

Post: #143

@Roosh
I would very much like to point out that it srrms as if you had already taken measures similar to the ones these emails "suggest" while mantaining a proper frame of strength that demonstrate that you are not an easy target.
I base the observation in your behaviour with shrill activists attempting to scream you down and the sober matter-of-fact and even scientific tone you take in your latest book and in your recent periscope vids.

Post: #144

(11-07-2016 05:30 PM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  These two guys are what I call "choking on the blue pill".

They have an innate masculine sense that the pretty lies they are being fed & trying to get their heads around are plain wrong & destructive on every level.

They can sense the truth, but their programming is skizting out & it's uncomfortable & therefore "you need to say it more nicely".

The important part is that they ultimately get it, or want to get it. They will in time learn what it really means to be an angry man.

And then it will all be come clear what it is they have to do.

Or they will pussy out.

The interesting question is: Is the teacher trying to subversively introduce the red pill to the kids or is it a SJW trying to brainwash them? Option 2 has a very high chance of backfiring on them.

Post: #145

This is stellar.

It is more evidence of the recent trend, from the craziest SJWs, to superficial Youtube celebrities, and now on down to barely literate schoolchildren of young people assuming they carry all the wisdom and need to educate their elders.

How many times have you heard, "You need to educate yourself on (blank)?"

I hear this over and over, from crazy feminists confronting Lauren Southern to Laci Green in that annoying perky mock-patient voice cramming affirmative consent down the viewer's throat, and from everywhere else. I even heard it recently when Jordan Peterson was on a talk show pitted against a crazy tranny gender studies professor, and the Zir/them was basically denying every tradition of Western knowledge, freedom of speech, civil discourse, and even biology, talking pure madness. Peterson was calmly but forcefully tearing his arguments apart and it made no impression whatsoever.

He was accusing Peterson of oppression, hate speech, actual violence; he was in looney land basically, and then while the moderator was trying to ask Peterson a question, the tranny burst in with, "Are you willing to be educated?"

I wonder how it is that young people of today, starting with the millennials and moving forward, (exceptions being people on this forum) have been so socially engineered to believe that not only do they have nothing to learn from Western culture, they also have nothing to learn from anyone older than they are, but that they, and they alone, out of the gate, know what is best, and all they have to do is announce their beliefs and other people should simply adopt them as their own.

That is the hallmark of a successful conversation for them and their wide awokeness.

I find it pretty eerie that both of these students pretty much had the same advice for the student Roosh, be nicer, as this is pretty much how women have argued from time immemorial:

If you can't win with facts, make the whole conversation about how the other person is communicating.

I cannot think of a better way of dumbing down generations of people. Convince them that somehow they are great teachers needed to correct the errors of others, no matter how little talent, brains, or experience they have.

A while back I read an account of a cult, and one of the methods they use to keep bad thoughts away from their zombies was to have them say to themselves internally, "Satan get thee behind me Satan get thee behind me" over and over again any time someone outside the group was talking.

"Are you willing to be educated"

The latest cult self talk permutation

Post: #146

This is hilarious. I only have one question for these soon-to-be-gender-reassigning-rugrats...

What about Roosh's communication method is bothersome? One of Roosh's strengths is that he doesn't use harsh language. He doesn't use hyperbole. He doesn't scream, he doesn't yell, he doesn't get emotional. He puts his arguments in very clear, concise terms. So what are they criticizing, exactly?

I've even made a Roosh fan out of my own mother. We share a lot of the same opinions on culture and politics, even down to my take on women not voting. I don't show her the bang material, but I've shared a number of videos and articles with her and she was quite impressed and always makes a point to say that she likes HOW Roosh presents his arguments.

Post: #147

(11-07-2016 06:11 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  So what are they criticizing, exactly?

A difference of opinion.

It is girl logic which is SJW logic.

If you disagree with me, you must have done something wrong, even if I don't really know what it is.

Post: #148

Those kids can't write for shit.

...but good thing they had 12+ years of public school! Otherwise it would be anarchy in the streets. Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!!

Post: #149

(11-07-2016 04:58 PM)Roosh Wrote:  This documentary was shown in a UK school. It appears the teacher made an assignment for the students to email me their opinion:

EMAIL 1

Quote:Dear Roosh. V,


Recently, I watched a documentary from Reggie Yates “men at war”, in which you took part on. The documentary was watched by students in my school aged 16-17. After completing the documentary, we were given a task to raise comments as a class about each character. Most comments during the class were pointed at you due to the negative points you made. I would like to tell you that the comments mentioned were indeed very negative.


Teachers and students were unhappy about some negative comments you raised while giving the speech to men, but in my perspective, I believe that some points are understandable. However,I would love to give you an advice, I might not be experienced enough but it is worth a try to and maybe it will make others understand what you want to achieve. Changing the way you speak to the audience and using appropriate words, as in not swearing or offending someone, might help others understand how you feel, it might be challenging because maybe you are angry about the fact that women are more protected than men, for instance, what happens when a woman rapes a man? How would the law have an impact on this?. The way you spoke about women sort of discouraged me to watch the video as well as other students, but if you want to get your point across everybody, then you should try remove you anger and explain yourself, try to make others understand your point.


I agreed with some of the facts you raised and some personal feelings, but others will disagree because they might interpret it differently. In addition, I believe that if you try to make more positive comments and trying not to offend people, more people will start to agree with you and understand you.

EMAIL 2

Quote:Dear Barack Obama,

Recently, in our English and literature class in the International School of Azerbaijan, we watched one of your video that was released the year before by BBC One when Reggie Yates was the presenter called Men at war: Extreme UK.

I am writing you this letter to advise you to try a different way to express your ideas due to the fact that many countries do not accept you because of the way you express your thoughts and also because of the way you communicate and the terms that you use.

I am a little intrigued about some arguments that you gave about the emasculation of men. For example, when you said that women and gay people have more right than men. You give really fascinating points such as the point you made about rape for example. However it is just the way that you format them that gives us, the audience, the absolute feeling that you have a complete animosity towards women. Nevertheless, you are very passionate about what you talk about.

I am looking forward to receiving a response to this letter and to the ideas I have suggested from you.

Yours sincerely.

Lulwot.

Is this when you know you made it?

Post: #150

Can't really rip on them, as they are just impressionable kids. There is a positive though. Send them invites to the forum. We'll teach them more in one sitting than the entire lifetimes they have ahead of them.