Good to see you standing by your writers so resolutely, Roosh.

(02-02-2014 08:16 AM)Roosh Wrote:  I want you to count how many people rush to Sara C Nelson's defense (after ROK's post goes live) like we aided Vincent after his book was censored.

When is this going up? I wanna have my popcorn ready

My recent post above (#101) was seen as a challenge by one of her coworkers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/christop...12219.html

Quote:A chap named 'Roosh' started a forum to discuss the issue. I say discuss, but basically what it amounts to is a bunch of meatheads pondering how to ruin a woman's career while simultaneously showing an utter lack of knowledge about media, law or humanity in general.

[...]

Please note that I'm not judging Vincent's book here nor am I passing judgement on when persuading a girl to have sex with you passes into rape territory - I'm merely demonstrating that with core beliefs such as these all of your arguments become moot.

Just a couple of points to finish. I'm not gay nor do I have a vagina. And to pre-empt your juvenile attempts to discredit me, I'm not a bitter, resentful virgin either.

Our Sara post is going up at 6pm EST. Tomorrow starts our theme week so there were scheduling conflicts to get it in before then.

Quote:what it amounts to is a bunch of meatheads pondering how to ruin a woman's career

Just a couple of points to finish. I'm not gay nor do I have a vagina. And to pre-empt your juvenile attempts to discredit me, I'm not a bitter, resentful virgin either.

Sorry, but any guy who uses a telling shaming term like 'meathead', is either sexually-jealous ('has a vagina'), sexually-shamed ('not a virgin'), or sexually-attracted ('gay').

I'm in a bit of a flame war with him on twitter.

A word to Chris York: if you call yourself a news reporter, where is your interest in the truth? The truth is Sara C Nelson got a book that she didn't read banned, and falsely accused the author of being a rape apologist. She has done this just because she was offended by an article he wrote.

Secondly, if you claim to not be a resentful virgin, how can you agree with Sara's position that the author is a rape apologist? Have you not noticed that sex with a woman isn't about asking permission for every thing you do to her?

I feel confident we made him look like the utter pussy he is.

(02-02-2014 02:18 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Our Sara post is going up at 6pm EST.

Me at work right now:

Thought experiment, re: 'meatheads'.

Would you seek advice about women from this Chris York:



Or this one?

(02-02-2014 03:20 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I feel confident we made him look like the utter pussy he is.

LOL at him calling us 'meat heads'. Someone like 2wycked would completely annihilate him in an intellectual debate. Fuck that actually, almost anyone who posts here would.

I'd love to see him engage somebody like MikeCF, who in his view would be a 'meat head', and watch him get pulverized verbally. The tide is close to turning, and these people just aren't intellectually capable of dealing with what's about to happen. Which is their rhetoric being exposed and dealt with swiftly and logically.

It's a given that people feel the need to label and insult. We're guilty of it too.

I've come to accept and welcome certain slings thrown our way. "Douche" and "Meathead" are like music to my ears.

It started with "Asshole". I noticed the happier I was and the better man I became, I started to hear "asshole" and "dick" more and more. I welcome hearing those words being thrown my way now because it means I'm doing it right.

Looks like I can add a couple new words to that category.

If you don't have the contempt of these people, you aren't doing it right. The hatred of manginas, chodes, white knights and feminists should be worn like a badge of honor.

The author displays the standard feminist inability to A) form a coherent argument B) not try to pass ad hominems as arguments and C) do both at the same time. Let's look at his points...

Quote:These Chaps Want Women to Stay in the Kitchen While They F**k Anything That Moves

No. First of all, we don't care where women are, as long as it is possible to form a warm sense of human attachment and loyalty with them as we work together to build a family. But in the absence of that sure, we'll gladly fuck anything that moves.

Except fatties, ugly women, old women, and some combination of the three of course.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:pondering how to ruin a woman's career

She is the one ruining her career by trying to act as the supreme arbiter or sexual morality in a very arrogant manner. We just want her to stop harrassing decent people and go do something positive instead.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:As well as this, she also received obscene and disgusting threats on Twitter (not necessarily from anyone to do the ROK but as a result of the backlash against the pulling of Vincent's book).

Thanks for being honest there.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:Let's have a look at Taliban's...

As I mentioned in the first paragraph, feminists seem chronically unable to make any sort of argument without resorting to insults. Since all of our members have never, to my knowledge, raped a woman, physically attacked a woman, sprayed a woman with acid, abducted a woman, prevented her from getting an education, prevented her from voting and etc., I don't see how we're the same as Taliban. But it's certainly nice to plant an implication, is it Chris?

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:Congratulations, you've displayed a basic knowledge of biology.

In the age where feminism is vehemently denying biology (for example, claiming that gender is a social construct, that women become more sexually attractive as they age and so on), having a basic knowledge and appreciation of biology is actually rare.

As the saying goes, common sense is not actually common.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:This "fact" is due to the biological differences between your brain and those of the rest of modern society. I believe it's a swelling in the Primary Fuckwit Cortex.

Seriously, can you go five seconds without throwing out more inane insults? You could have actually provided an explanation of why this claim wasn't true, but again you chose the wrong way.

Here is an example: "I don't believe that cuckoldry is a strong enough evolutionary force to make men prefer virgins". It's a weak argument, but it's a start. Why do I have to give you a walkthrough? You studied journalism, not me.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:You're actually correct here: Things won't do things they don't like. Just like women won't stay in relationships they don't like. Or like how cows won't piss on electric fences.

Nowhere in the original claim that men react to external stimuli does it say that women do not. Of course they do (for example, near-guaranteed custody, child support and/or alimony encourage women to divorce at whim instead of working to solve common marriage issues).

And what do cows have to do with this?

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:Like what? Human sacrifice in Aztec Mexico? Morris dancing? Easter? Oh, you mean the old school classic of subjugating women. Have you thought about moving to Saudi Arabia? Those guys don't even let bitches drive, dude!

How about "women and children first"?

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:Women are weaker? Oh, of course. That's why you feel so comfortable ganging up in your little forums and insulting them over the internet while firmly hidden behind your computer screens. You are so manly I think I'm getting an erection.

First of all, the word "insulting" is an exxageration. Is valid, well-spoken, science-based criticism "insulting"? Second, try threatening women with lynch mobs, losing their careers and being arrested for "hate speech" for voicing valid criticism and see how many write under their real names.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:Well, by your own reasoning you're worth approximately fuck all.

So original! There is no way I saw such a clever turnaround coming... oh wait.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:So basically, give women a choice beyond being a domestic slave to one man and they will do things that terrify your tiny mind, bring out your crippling insecurity and make you realise your penis is an appendage not a weapon.

First of all, in the vast majority of the world, women are not domestic slaves and never have been. Second, women have had voting and economic rights for more than a few generations now, in some places even more and things seemed to work out fine until the last few decades.

Only when women become the legally favored sex and become fully protected from the consequences of their own actions do we start seeing the destructive effects. The problems that are occurring are caused more by narcissism and overindulgence than by something inherent to women.

And please try to stop yourself from ad hominems for a minute and try to argue like a rational human being. Come on, you can do it! I believe in you!

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:I didn't know Karl Marx had a vagina.

Where does it say that destructive feminist principles are only espoused by women? Just look at your article for an example.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:Or that social theories can decrease fertility rates. Are libraries radioactive?

Social theories catch on to produce actual social changes through legislation and new habits. For an example, consider a hot issue of primitive habits like female circumcision. In parts of Africa, the social theory behind it has been around for so long and so strong that in some places it seems like the only logical thing to do, and is practically self-supporting. And guess what - it didn't emerge from a library either!

Surely if strongly espousing female circumcision for a few centuries can entrench it, then espousing various factors that lower fertility rates can do the same?

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:I'm merely demonstrating that with core beliefs such as these all of your arguments become moot.

No, you're not. You haven't even scratched a single core belief, let alone associated it with something bad. The fact that you believe that you demonstrated something by writing a few haughty paragraphs without a single actual argument merely testifies to the low quality of your journalistic work.

Chris York, Huffington Post Wrote:Fuck, I'm not even a feminist - I'm just a reasonable human being.

Judging by the foaming-at-the-mouth drivel I've dissected above, you're wrong at both counts.

Better luck next time, Chris!

Handsome Creepy Eel, I just tweeted him your post. That was gold.

(02-02-2014 04:06 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Handsome Creepy Eel, I just tweeted him your post. That was gold.

Much appreciated!

RoK owes its thanks to Chris York. A long whiny HuffPo piece with multiple links to the site and some delightful quotes from various posts is just what the doctor ordered. They know it but still can't help it. Thanks Chris.

I think he may just be one of the most effeminate men ever. There's just no testosterone in his whole body.

If I'm doing everything so wrong, then why do women keep coming back to me after I've fucked them, when I've 'violated' them with my 'evil disrespect'? Why do they keep texting me for my attention, and throwing shit fits when they don't get it? Why do they make grand statements about 'moving on' and 'wishing me well' only to come sniffing around months later?

I mentioned this before: a girl last year I picked up one night. I was walking her back to my bike, down an alley across from an outdoor restaurant. She was hanging onto me for protection, I kissed her, she kissed back, I escalated by pushing her against the wall, kissing her harder, made her suck my finger, then slid my hand up her skirt, into her panties and soon had a finger inside her.

Were we fully in the dark? Not really? Could people see? Probably. Couldn't give a fuck. She didn't care - she was thrilled, and was still talking about how hot it was a week later. She said she didn't know sex could be like that, that my dominance was a turn on, and the way I stretched her pussy with my 2nd and 4th fingers whilst using my middle finger to tickle and tease, made her realise she was with a man and not a boy, because "You weren't fumbling with it [her puss] and unsure, and knew exactly what you were doing."

I said "You would have blown me there if I'd told you to, people watching or not."

Big eyes. "I think I actually would have."

I know what Sara or Chris would say: that she was obviously dumb, (she was a uni student); or a slut (wonderfully, blissfully tight); who didn't respect herself, (slim, athletic, feminine); or I'd forced myself on her, (I can read sexual interest from a woman); or was having meaningless sex, (we spent 30 minutes in a lotus blossom position, me deep inside her, connected, can still see the arch of back showing off her beautiful tits); and that she'd just need to be educated to learn her natural body response, (heightened arousal, lip-biting, erect nipples, shortness of breath, spontaneous lubrication), was unnatural, and that what makes a woman excited is dinner dates, not being viewed as a sex object, talking about her politics and asking for permission every step of the way.

I'm telling you right now: both these writers have never experienced that kind of sexual heat and passion in their lives: where the man dominates and teases a woman enough to want to do anything to please her man, and allows her the absolute freedom to let go, and be the sexual creature she so longs to be.

This is what I'm saying. The guy has never evoked that sort of attraction because he doesn't possess enough testosterone to even want to evoke it.

I have this secret fantasy of confronting any of these people in real life. And I don't mean violently.

Just tap one of them on the shoulder while they're in line for their double vanilla soy latte, and when they turn around, simply look down on them and say, "Remember that guy you were making childish insults to? That's me. How's it going?" And just give them a sick grin and watch their reaction. Better yet, get a hidden camera and film Fisto doing this.

Shit would get real. This imaginary online bravado coming from these progressive shit-talkers would evaporate real fucking quick.

Edit: It would be awesome to have an entire series of this, of forum members confronting these dweebs in real life. Watch Fisto tower over some poor pudgy neckbeard, or AnonymousBosch or 2Wycked calmly take them apart piece by piece, or McQueen making a loud-ass scene and start making out with the most progressive girl of the bunch. They wouldn't stand a goddamn chance.

(02-02-2014 04:24 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'm telling you right now: both these writers have never experienced that kind of sexual heat and passion in their lives: where the man dominates and teases a woman enough to want to do anything to please her man, and allows her the absolute freedom to let go, and be the sexual creature she so longs to be.

(02-01-2014 03:28 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 02:04 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  


WB.

Take a number...

http://img100.xvideos.com/videos/thumbsl...4f8.20.jpg nsfw

Feminist logic: rape is cool when you're getting paid to enjoy it.

(02-02-2014 05:09 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  Shit would get real. This imaginary online bravado coming from these progressive shit-talkers would evaporate real fucking quick.

I often wonder this too. You know how they frown on any kind of stereotyping of races and groups, but it's cool to pick on Poor, White Southern, Christian Trash? They put their publicly-searchable names and faces on the worst kind of insults to these socially-disadvantaged groups, claiming they're ignorant, backwards and borderline-retarded, yet never see the obvious risk they're taking, where I would weigh up insulting a bunch of people who mightn't understand sarcasm, mightn't possess the IQ to be reasoned with, and whom all share a love of automatic weapons.

I mean, shit, I have no love of the ignorant either, but I've enough common sense to not publicly-mouth off at people who might be crazy enough to jump in their trucks and go hunting. I know there's certain bars I walk into here where I'd be stupid to start shit, because one man can't win in a physical fight against 20.

I think it's a sign of their comfortable-bubble of existence, where guys like me from poverty realise just how dangerous other people can be. Either that or they assume government response to their personal safety is instantaneous.

It's hilarious that she claims to be a writer but got her homophones mixed up and used pedalling instead of peddling in the email she sent.