Post: #51

Now is not the time to panic. I almost deleted my account here when I found out Master Roosh was targeted by the SPLC. But I stayed and continued to learn from this forum. In the words of Bennie Franklin:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Post: #52

(05-24-2014 07:34 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  Amanda Hess from Slate weighs in, special mention to this thread in her article : http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...ponse.html

The last psychiatrist did an interesting piece on Amanda Hess's silly opinions.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/05/c....html#more

Post: #53

(05-24-2014 04:41 PM)masterblack Wrote:  I am currently working on a guide to keeping safe while online, covering a more in detail analysis of the different types of protections and methods and why you should choose one of the other.

I was considering this as well, have been a bit busy moving. PM me if you want to mash up some ideas.

Post: #54

Tuth, it doesn't get said enough, but I'm really grateful for you, Roosh, and the other mods. Thanks for keeping this forum a high quality place where we can have important discussions during events like this.

Post: #55

(05-25-2014 11:54 AM)renotime Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 07:34 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  Amanda Hess from Slate weighs in, special mention to this thread in her article : http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...ponse.html

The last psychiatrist did an interesting piece on Amanda Hess's silly opinions.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/05/c....html#more

Ha! I'd actually read his article when he published it, and never put 2+2 together.

Post: #56

(05-25-2014 09:51 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I can happily say I never visited this PUAhate website. I at most can stand browsing the misc on bb.com as a lurker.

I dont see why members here would concern themselves with these types, ignore them but keep an eye on them is the best strategy.

I like the spirit of your post, but how do you propose keeping an eye on them while ignoring them and never visiting their site?

(05-25-2014 02:24 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Tuth, it doesn't get said enough, but I'm really grateful for you, Roosh, and the other mods. Thanks for keeping this forum a high quality place where we can have important discussions during events like this.

I was thinking the same thing.

While I don't want to get too carried away with painting this crazy incident solely as a product of puahate, I think that place is dangerous because their lack of moderation and the community vibe there encourages men like this to let their hatred grow and fester. It makes them feel like their ideas are legit.

We get some of that current sloshing around even here sometimes - that anger towards women and the world in general - but the moderation and the campaign to keep a quality membership keeps it at bay somewhat and at least creates opportunities for others to counter those extreme ideas and point out flaws.

In the end, this sort of insane meltdown is a risk when you center your focus on hatred and discontent, and especially if everyone you interact with is embracing those same dark thoughts.

Much better to focus on positive change than everything you hate about life. I don't want to simplify this guy's obvious mental issues, but I do think that his focus in life played a role.

Even pschopaths can be functioning members of society with a better attitude.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #57

PUA Hate, which I didn't even know about till this week, is dangerous for a reason so obvious we missed it: it contains the word "hate" in its title.

What sort of people would start or join a site with a micro-focus like that? As much as we complain about feminists, overweight women, tattoos, I don't see any of the regular members of this forum joining a group called (for example) Tattooed Chick Hate.

Imagine if this group was re-focused to revolve around "hating" a small wedge of a topic like that. Kind of leaves out room for discussion of the larger context, doesn't it? Even as someone who despises tattoos on women, I'd never join such a group because I'd run out of things to say after a day.

Media types writing about this guy should focus less on the "pick-up" and more on the "hate." Because my guess is if there had not been a site hating PUAs, the killer would have found another site directed towards hating someone else and built his ideology around that. The Virginia Tech killer resented consumerism. I wonder if a "Capitalist Hate" site would have gotten this guy to think women rejected him because they were pawns of commercialism and he'd have attacked people at a department store or someplace like that.

Post: #58

(05-25-2014 10:39 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 09:51 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I can happily say I never visited this PUAhate website. I at most can stand browsing the misc on bb.com as a lurker.

I dont see why members here would concern themselves with these types, ignore them but keep an eye on them is the best strategy.

I like the spirit of your post, but how do you propose keeping an eye on them while ignoring them and never visiting their site?

I should clarify. If someone is trying to bait you or throw the toys out of their pram from reasons to do with what you did online then ignore it but watch their activities.

By all means keep an eye on websites like those, information is key when dealing with these sadists but stepping up to voice your opinion with them is like arguing with a woman.

I know it is a bit rich coming from myself who is not known to these people but it has helped me a lot in the real world.

Post: #59

(05-24-2014 07:26 PM)Monty Brown Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 06:28 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  ^ that dude had to have an account here. I'm sure of it.

I think I found it

/user-21753.html

Wow I think that is him.

Just read his thread.

Look at the way he was treated here. Probably didn't help anything at all.

Even though it's hard to decipher a beta newb from a troll, which I understand, I think there's no need to take things so personal and be confrontational towards posters like him.

We could have helped him. Instead we attacked him and banned him. Just my opinion right now. Someone convince be otherwise. Can we even confirm that was him?

But if it was him. How do you feel that we banned him without ever truly helping. Granted people should help themselves but still.

Post: #60

No, that isn't him, think before you post.

Post: #61

Oh ok. I will think from now on thanks for the tip.

So say that's not him. But someone else who because of getting the ban hammer here becomes a member of 'puahate' and starts lashing out at members and any dude trying to learn game and better himself. How is that helping anything?

Think when you read a post. You know what I'm getting at. And if you didn't. Now you do.

I'd assume majority of guys joining here are not banging hot females every weekend. They're probably a lot more like this kid who just killed people because of his frustration with never having a girl.

Post: #62

Posturing is a relative issue to that. Apply the top dog attitude where it fits, but not with all newcomers, especially when it doesn't fit the prescription of aid. More to do with showing out rather than helping the clueless. I don't that was him either, yet I agree that the individual in question was probably in dire need of help.

That really brings this question to the front: is our purpose community outreach, even if it diminishes our gains of self-selected effort for personal betterment? Do we go insular with rabid self interest and basically abandon the community aspect altogether? Is it somewhere in between with less extreme means?

The reality is that there has to be losers. Nature oppresses this reality on all organisms. Helping is humanitarian, but a choice rather than a necessity.

If we go the community movement route and most men become aware of game.

-The only logical following after that would be to start a movement to get men to be at the top of their attraction and play mgtow at the same time to attempt a coup in dating norms, where women would work harder to get male attention and approval(start new norm behaviors away from slob women). To get all men to adhere to a unified strategy seems counterproductive.

Post: #63

"someone else who because of getting the ban hammer here becomes a member of 'puahate' and starts lashing out at members and any dude trying to learn game and better himself. How is that helping anything?"

This is not much of a money making operation - there's no reason to try to cater to as many men as possible at the risk of alienating the more desirable ones. If a guy can't be civil and know when to shut the fuck up yet asks for help and demands advice, there's no place for him here, or among any self-respecting group of men. Even if Rodger came here and we turned him away (for which there is zero evidence), we would still be blameless. This isn't society's toilet bowl.

Post: #64

Instead of speculating whether member XYZ was Rodger himself, why not compile a list of the emails of all present and past (i.e., banned) members of RVF, and search for words "elliot" and "rodger"? Roosh or Tuth could do that, and there's no need to disclose the results of such search, for obvious reasons.

After all, Elliot used his real name on PUAHate.com, which shows his utter cluelessness and suggests that if indeed he ever joined RVF, he probably used an email that does not obscure his real-world identity.

Post: #65

(05-26-2014 10:36 AM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  Wow I think that is him.

Just read his thread.

Look at the way he was treated here. Probably didn't help anything at all.

Even though it's hard to decipher a beta newb from a troll, which I understand, I think there's no need to take things so personal and be confrontational towards posters like him.

We could have helped him. Instead we attacked him and banned him. Just my opinion right now. Someone convince be otherwise. Can we even confirm that was him?

But if it was him. How do you feel that we banned him without ever truly helping. Granted people should help themselves but still.

That 100 percent WAS NOT him. Do you realize how common the name Rodger is? Do you realize he would have been banned here for posting one tenth of what he posted elsewhere (which he didn't)? Do you realize that that banned member was a guy traveling around Europe and not going to college in California? Not only that, as others have suggested, the PUAHate Killer used his real name everywhere else, not some super-common pun that happens to use word Rodger. A basic IP address analysis of his posts removes all doubt. It is both stupid and irresponsible for you to even suggest that.

Furthermore, we are under no obligation to embrace any mentally unstable weirdos and try to help them. This is not a haven for the bizarre. If you'd bothered to read the original post (or watched how this place has been moderated for years) you'd see that it's the complete opposite: You get booted from this place for failing to pass some basic standards of normalcy and legality.

Post: #66

This mention of relative frequency of names and surnames reminded me of this hilarious scene:

Post: #67

Im on mobile so apologies in advance for being terse and misspelling shit.

There are newbies that show up hear looking for help but proceed to ignore all advice when they get it. That pink shirt dude who was trying to pull 18 year olds from the mall back to his Hyundai comes to mind. He posted again about his lack of facial aesthetics and got the ban hammer. His mentality reminds me of Rodger, particularly the obsession with superficial things and his ability to ignore relevant advice. Is it possible to confine these sorts to the newbie forum? They need do need help, and simply banning them sends them to shitholes like wizardchan and puahate.

I realize that this also represents a risk of an influx of trolls, and that has to be considered as well. I'm just trying to think of some way we can have an outreach to these sort of people and provide some sort of personalized advice. The bodybuilding misc forum is a pretty good resource for these types, at the same time few of these ultra omegas have thick enough skin to withstand the inevitable hazing and mockery they will get in between the legit advice they'll receive.

Post: #68

Roosh has mentioned before that he thinks of this place as being like his 'house'.

He's under no obligation to let any degenerate in, even if he were confined to one room (the newbie forum).

A collaborative community such as this starts from a presumption of decency and tolerating toxic characters would greatly diminish its quality.

Post: #69

I agree completely about keeping the place free of undesirables, and inviting people who clearly have issues to be part of a collaborative community does have negative consequences. I'm just trying to think of some way to provide help or guidance to these types because as Roosh showed in his rok article they will receive absolutely no help from any mainstream source, whether that be psychiatrists or school counselors or clueless parents.

It seems like the options are either accepting that these people exist and ostracizing them and condemning them to their fates, or providing a proactive solution and guidance. The former is a lot easier and has a hell of a lot less risk. I recognize the latter is akin to inviting a destructive force into your home.

It's very difficult to accept that doing nothing is the only thing that can be done.

Post: #70

I agree that the support provided to these people is currently unsatisfactory.

The type of intervention someone like Elliot Rodger needs however goes beyond what we could ever hope to achieve in the forum.

Maybe another online community focused more on people with these issues or mentalities could help, but RVF isn't it.

Post: #71

^ How many times have you tried to give a buddy advice regarding a toxic woman or similar, only to have him ignore you completely?

I just see the system for what it is, try my best to navigate my way around it to where I want to be, and be thankful I have this golden opportunity to join the top 10%

Post: #72

(05-26-2014 01:59 PM)dog Wrote:  It seems like the options are either accepting that these people exist and ostracizing them and condemning them to their fates, or providing a proactive solution and guidance. The former is a lot easier and has a hell of a lot less risk. I recognize the latter is akin to inviting a destructive force into your home.

It's very difficult to accept that doing nothing is the only thing that can be done.

As you get older, you'll learn to recognise the difference between those who are capable of learning, and those whose mental issues make them lost causes, and will just have a toxic, destructive influence on your life. Some people just cannot be helped, instead, they will use your concern and attention to manipulate you emotionally.

This shooter did *not* want help - he was too arrogant and full of himself to believe anyone else could have provided him with that. If he came here, (or anywhere else), he would simply want us to function as an audience who recognised his genius, and when we didn't, would have burnt everything to the ground out in narcissistic fury.

I watched this movie the other night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RAC0uwuIr8

I thought it was a great illustration of how trying to help the mentally-weak ends up dragging a strong man down.

Post: #73

Elliot Rodger was a lost cause plain and simple. It is not in the average member of this forum's hands or even the higher repped ones to help those who are that far gone. I agree that people need help and we should help when we can, but there is only a limit to what we can do.

I am also of the opinion that self-entitled twats that don't know how to ask for help and instead lash out against members deserve to be banned. Engage in civil argument and take the advice without making it personal. It's not that hard. Too bad that most people these days don't know how to keep their emotions in check(I myself have been guilty of this on occasion so I'm not exactly speaking from a moral high ground but from a logical standpoint). I'm much more for helping those that are civil rather than those who do not know how to behave themselves.

Post: #74

(05-26-2014 03:59 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  PUA Hate, which I didn't even know about till this week, is dangerous for a reason so obvious we missed it: it contains the word "hate" in its title.

What sort of people would start or join a site with a micro-focus like that? As much as we complain about feminists, overweight women, tattoos, I don't see any of the regular members of this forum joining a group called (for example) Tattooed Chick Hate.

Imagine if this group was re-focused to revolve around "hating" a small wedge of a topic like that. Kind of leaves out room for discussion of the larger context, doesn't it? Even as someone who despises tattoos on women, I'd never join such a group because I'd run out of things to say after a day.

Media types writing about this guy should focus less on the "pick-up" and more on the "hate." Because my guess is if there had not been a site hating PUAs, the killer would have found another site directed towards hating someone else and built his ideology around that. The Virginia Tech killer resented consumerism. I wonder if a "Capitalist Hate" site would have gotten this guy to think women rejected him because they were pawns of commercialism and he'd have attacked people at a department store or someplace like that.

Yeah I agree. When you have a website or subculture whose existence revolves around being against an ideology, group of people, a band, or whatever you are bound to attract people who are naturally negative and spiteful.

I've always wondered why people involved in the organized atheist movement are so negative and angry and I've come to the conclusion that it's because the type of people who would care enough to the point of joining organizations dedicated to nothing but what they DON'T believe has to be someone who is naturally drawn towards negative energy and is bitter in general.

Post: #75

PUAhate posters always bitched about how women only cared about looks, and how if you were a failure with women you had no chance to improve.

Rodger may have been unstable to begin with, but its not hard to see how the message of hopelessness he heard at puahate could have pushed him over the edge.

That is a terrible website, along with all of the other "incel" websites. Hopefully that sote stays dead.