Post: #151

Well I think we can come up with a more detailed analysis than that. I'm talking about guys seeing quotes from his article without knowing the context who would make great members of this forum but are turned off by the most extreme out of context quotes.

Same with how Roosh had a great point of view about how women should be in shape but on Dr Phil all they wanted to talk about was his more controversial statements...I forget if it was about fat shaming or whatever else.(Did they mention the eating disorder article?)

I just wonder if the fun we get out of these viral hate reading articles and satires may come at the expense of winning the hearts and minds of some border line men who are on the verge of seeing the light.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about guys who read the article itself. Yes that is a fine filter/ IQ test for forum membership. I'm talking about the power of out of context quotes being used in media describing Roosh to dissuade men from joining our cause.

Post: #152

It's probably better to be talked about than ignored. If none of what is written offends them but still retains all our values, they just won't say anything. The enemy won't promote anything that helps men.

Post: #153

(08-09-2015 11:57 PM)bacan Wrote:  Well I think we can come up with a more detailed analysis than that. I'm talking about guys seeing quotes from his article without knowing the context who would make great members of this forum but are turned off by the most extreme out of context quotes.

A lot of guys are going to be made uncomfortable with this strategy because it's dirty. But there are variables and forces at play here that put constraints around the game of bringing in new readers. First, Roosh doesn't have a platform like a magazine or TV show to disseminate his ideas. He has what we all have access to: blogging, YouTube, and social media.

How do you grow your following? How would you do it? Koombayah, let's-all-hold-hands-and-figure-women-out sells to a degree that Roosh has pretty much maximized. Additionally, the goal has changed somewhat to a growing concern of just how damaged Western women are in general. You can say Roissy has delved into this. Who has done it better than him? And how big is he?

So I agree the best strategy here is to be a shock-jock. Post an essay or story with a sensationalist title, with over-the-top scenarios and exaggerated logic. Some guys will be turned off. But like I said in the Battle of Montreal thread, if someone doesn't understand that a "legalize rape" piece is satire, that "dating a girl with an eating disorder" is satire, or that doesn't see the humor in criticizing tattooed bitches or an article titled "24 signs she's a slut," they have bigger problems we can't solve. Those are people you just won't get. You live with that. But you created a chance.

Like a friend of mine likes to say, "Lo peor que alguien puede sentir por ti es indiferencia." In case you don't know Spanish, that translates to "The worst thing a person can feel for you is indifference."

Without a wide platform, the way to get larger chunks of audience is to infiltrate the wider platforms by nudging them. Use them to hook readers in, and hopefully some people will see the logic behind the madness. The alternative is to sit on your hands and wait for... what, exactly?

You can't win if you don't play the game.

Post: #154

Yeah, I think those are good points Kamikaze. I always enjoyed these articles while being concerned as well that they could come back to bite Roosh / RVF etc. in the ass. I suppose that some guys might see Roosh on the news because of his shock jock tactics that otherwise wouldn't have heard of him. Maybe through googling they figure out that the worst quotes were satire / out of context / etc and end up joining the community. If they don't, I guess it's no different than the outcome of having Roosh never appear on a TV news show and never coming across those guys' radar.

PS - I think you must have the highest Reputation to Post count ratio in the history of the forum? Nice work.

Post: #155

(08-09-2015 11:57 PM)bacan Wrote:  I just wonder if the fun we get out of these viral hate reading articles and satires may come at the expense of winning the hearts and minds of some border line men who are on the verge of seeing the light.

I'm not sure you really understand those articles if you think that the only benefit from them is "the fun we get out of" them. Consider how people sometimes tell a joke to make a point that couldn't be made the same way without a joke. The medium is the message. You simply cannot take everything found in a well-composed satire and convey it all successfully in a formal treatise. You just can't. Moreover, if you forego all of the more complex forms of writing just because people might misunderstand you and twist your meaning, then you're left with a weak arsenal when it comes to "winning . . . hearts and minds." That's what satire is for. What next, get rid of short stories and dialogues?

By the way, the press seems to have pulled from more straightforward statements, anyway. If they had tried to go with the "legalize rape" angle (and maybe some of them did; I'm not sure), the proposal sounds so ridiculous that the only people who would blindly go along with it are complete tools anyway. Those who aren't tools might look into the matter for themselves. Kamikaze makes this point in another recent post about this:

Kamikaze Wrote:Today I realize it was a calculated move just to bring in the people smart enough to realize it was goddamn satire. If people don't get that, they have bigger problems we can't solve. That goes for a number of the pieces on Return of Kings that put it on the map, which are equally satirical pieces laced with Truth.

There's genius in the madness. Rope them in. Poke at the hamster. Roosh and some of these motherfuckers have it down to a science. Get these broads to share everything on Facebook, on Twitter, on the goddamn evening news my senile grandma would watch. For what it's worth, my grandma would side with Roosh. Fo sho.

But the real goal is to reach disillusioned dudes who have a functioning brain and understand shit above high school reading level. They laugh at the ridiculousness, but actually read Truth here and there.

Will Roosh's writings appeal to everyone? No. But there are other writers covering similar material in different ways, and they can appeal to audiences that might shy away, at least initially, from Roosh and other Return of Kings writers. I know of some people to whom I would recommend, say, Dalrock first, and then Roosh later on. That's just how it is.

Post: #156

Yeah, when I said "fun we get out of them" I was also lumping in less serious articles, like reasons to date girls with an eating disorder or reasons that girls with short hair are damaged.

Post: #157

This article reminds me of a satire piece called Paedophilia by brass eye which was shown on British tv in 2001 that was poking fun at pedo hysteria.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330093/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye

It has parallels to some of the extreme SJW views that the majority of men have these evil impulses and we can only stop them by education or harsher laws.

There was a lot of moral outrage at this episode especially from people who hadn't watched the show.

Post: #158

I don't think we should shy away from controversy. Leaders always attract haters, and not everybody wants to follow the same leader.

The "legalise rape" article was clearly satire, and it's indicative of the moronic mentality of the masses that it can be construed as anything but. Even if Roosh wrote a piece talking about how black the night sky was, "they" would find something offensive about it, no doubt finding some sort of racial microagression to trigger their hypochondria.

Yes, we should cast our net far and wide and aim to bring as many of those that can be saved into our ranks.

However, I think that most can't be saved. Humans are broken, lazy, fearful creatures - us included. That we manage to rise above our base instincts and strive for a better existence is relatively unusual.

We must provoke with these types of articles. It is a test. A test of which side of the fence you will come down on. But we know then where you stand.

We must aim for the quality of minds that we attract. Many of the SJWs are mentally ill, and this soft, feminised society handles them with kid-gloves. In another era these hysterical lunatics would have been kept inside, or committed. We can not win over the mentally ill and we must not compromise on our principles in order to appear more welcoming or friendly or inclusive.

Our quality minds, even in tiny numbers, brought about the victory in Montreal. We are better than them.

We must stand united or we will divide and fall. No compromises.

Post: #159

I took the time to transcribe the most recent discussion about this article during the McInnes interview (as of August 10, 2015). So here you will find the latest what Roosh says about the "How To Stop Rape" article. Bottom line is that it was meant to be a thought experiment, a satire, to remind women of their responsibilty for themselves.

The complete interview you can find here . The following excerpt is taken from Minute 5.18 onwards.

McInnes: “Well, that’s the irony I have found all about your controversy. You wrote an article saying rape should be legal. And before reading it everyone ran with it. My personal belief is because they were so happy they’ve finally found someone that fit the narrative. And rather than getting into the new ones of the discussion that is going on [they just said] “We’ve found a bad man!” and they run off and want to ban you from Canada. But in your argument you are actually trying to prevent women from getting raped whereas the slutwalks and [people who say] “women-are-the-same-as-men”, “they can go and get wasted” and “they can go to any party they want to”. That gets more women raped than your philosophy."

Roosh V: “You know, in that article everyone is quoting as some kind of … I clearly stated what the rules of consent are. I clearly state “No means No”. And I clearly state that the intention of this thought experiment – which is absurd, I mean you can’t legalize violence – is to reduce rape, is to reduce harm. It was a thought experiment to show how if women took more personal responsibility for themselves just like they do for their smartphone, their car or whatever that they own, they would be putting themselves less at risk. I mean a man who parks his car in a bad area, leaves the door open and leaves the key in there is going to be called an idiot if someone actually robs him. But when a woman has fifteen drinks at night and goes home with this sexy man, and in the next day she feels upset about it and misconstrues this event as rape we encourage and celebrate her. So I don’t get it why men have to be responsible for themselves and women, at the same time, when women do not have to be responsible for anything.”

McInnes: “Well, it really is the death of intellect. Cause when someone presents you with this cookie hypothesis that rocks your world the solution is not to scream your fucking head off and have a panic attack. The solution is to “Well, what about…” – and I would take up that solution right now in the near post this week. They had these guys - I think they are Puerto Rican, they are Hispanic. One of them got invited to an locale to fuck some woman. And he would leave the door open and a bunch of other guys come in – two other guys – and gangrape this woman. Here they are. They have the two other guys, they don’t have the main guy yet. Oh wait a minute, they have the main guy but do not have the other guys. They are pictured here [Title: Man charged in gang-rape robberies, 2 suspects still at large. By Kenneth Garger and Dana Sauchelli. August 9, 2015.] A hotel room is essentially private property. Just for the sake of argument. Doesn’t this fall under your legal rape umbrella?”

Roosh V: “If I was being serious with my thought experiment maybe it would. But if people really genuinely think that I would advocate for violence against anyone their IQ has to be under 80. I mean I am having a lot of stone-deaf autistic people - and I have nothing against men who have autism. But obviously something is up there that they cannot tell a satire. It’s almost like Jonathan Swift made his “I like to eat babies argument” now everyone would follow a twitter mob against him. And ban him from wherever country he is in. It’s just absurd. Just as you said, the level of intellect is so low that people can’t even read anymore. They cannot read. They can only read short soundbites disseminated by a biased media to get them up in a fraud.”

Post: #160

^ last word in that quote should be "froth", not "fraud".

Post: #161

thanks, but too late for editing.