Post: #1

About Amazon petiton, Bang Iceland, Battle of Montreal:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...eople.html

More or less standard, lazy critique.

Only 5 comments so far. We should weigh in but I'll wait for a bit in case people want to coordinate.

Post: #2

(09-07-2015 08:31 AM)HenryM Wrote:  About Amazon petiton, Bang Iceland, Battle of Montreal:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...eople.html

More or less standard, lazy critique.

Only 5 comments so far. We should weigh in but I'll wait for a bit in case people want to coordinate.

Thanks for the article.
However, it is in general quite appreciated by forum members to post an excerpt of the article and/or a resume of it, in case we can't/don't want to/ click on the provided link.

Post: #3

I didn't make it through the article - I stopped reading at about the 37th use of the word 'rape'...

Good find but why bother coordinating? It's the Daily Mail (where the typical male-feminist bearded brony homo and his pierced, fat, old-lady glasses-wearing tumblrina counterpart gets their 'news' - it's feminist and SJW city), and look at the comments, already pouring in.

Pretty sure they sell Nazi Paraphernalia on Amazon - Amazon does not seem too fond of censorship. Amazon is a business, if Roosh makes them money they won't be taking his books down. As a business Amazon (the world's largest online marketplace) is fairly antifragile - they might lose a few bucks from hardliners who refuse to buy from them if they don't remove the books...but what happens when said hardliners need to get...I don't know, whatever lame, tacky crap that people like them like to buy, and Amazon has by far the best price and supply?

When you're basically the only game in town, you get to make your own rules.

Quote:'To those who'll cry 'censorship' - back off,' she writes. 'He's entitled to write and think and say what he likes.He's not, however, protected from the backlash against his output, or removal of platform.

'Yeah you can say what you want, but if we don't like it we're gonna try to silence you!'...

'What is censorship'?, 'Correct for a thousand dollars...'

How do these people sleep at night? Not just because they're horrible but anyone who wrote the above sentence I just refuse to believe that their brain is evolved enough to communicate to their lungs that they need to keep breathing?

Post: #4

Meh, any article from the MSM regarding our "ilk" might be a tad bit slanted/anti.

Post: #5

It's a fairly short piece, though with quite a few photos. The headline is about the change.org petition to have Amazon ban the sale of Roosh's books because "pro-rape." The text mentions that the petition has gained 200,000 signatures, and duly notes the petition's "trigger-warning." Some excerpts from "Bang Iceland" then follow, with mention of two girls who were "sickened." Brief reference is made to Roosh's satiric proposal re: legalizing rape on private property and to the drink-throwing incident in Montreal.

All-in-all incredibly shoddy, one-sided "journalism" but I thought some of us should leave a comment.

Post: #6

They moderate the comments pretty heavily, doubt mine will get approved.

Post: #7

I notice that anyone can downvote all the shitty white knight comments without logging in or anything, shoudn't we at least all go do that?

Post: #8

Yeah only takes a second, might as well. It looks like there are only 5 comments on there. I've downvoted them all.

I don't have an account to comment on it though.

Post: #9

(09-07-2015 08:56 AM)Gmac Wrote:  They moderate the comments pretty heavily, doubt mine will get approved.

If you post it here, I will approve.

Post: #10

The only good thing about this article is the free promotion of Roosh works, this forum and the neomasculinity philosophy.

Post: #11

“Where they burn books they will in the end burn people too.”
― Salman Rushdie

Post: #12

(09-07-2015 08:50 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  Good find but why bother coordinating? It's the Daily Mail (where the typical male-feminist bearded brony homo and his pierced, fat, old-lady glasses-wearing tumblrina counterpart gets their 'news' - it's feminist and SJW city), and look at the comments, already pouring in.

I'm going to have to disagree. The Daily Mail is famous for it's trashy low quality journalism (it once published an article suggesting that Emo music was a cult), but it isn't particularly left wing. It tends to be more conservative.

Basically, all their journalism is about sensationalism and fear. Very few people take it seriously as a newspaper.

Post: #13

Cancer, immigrants and house prices are the Daily Mail's standard fear mongering topics. (It's definitely a right leaning publication...the website is just click bait though).

Basically, the things that middle England do actually worry about!


Anyway, all publicity and all that!

Post: #14

(09-07-2015 12:10 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  Basically, all their journalism is about sensationalism and fear. Very few people take it seriously as a newspaper.

You shouldn't dismiss them that quickly. The paper readership in the UK is high (for the present day and, unlike others, has not dropped as significantly) and the click-bait model it pioneered has turned the website into one of the most read North American news sources. You are what you eat, as they say, and The Daily Mail fills the bellies of many.

The problem for Roosh is that up until now the attack in the UK has been fostered by young, affluent millennials. This article could attract a different class and generation.

Post: #15

Quote:The online retail giant currently stocks 22 books written by the writer, from Washington, who identifies himself as a champion of 'neomasculinity'.

Post: #16

Leave comments that attack the Femail for its inability to grasp satire:
The brass neck of Brass Eye
The DM are basically internet tough guys for people too old to understand the internet:

Quote:Television watchdogs yesterday let off Channel 4 with just a slap on the wrist over the sickening Brass Eye spoof documentary on paedophilia.

And last night, triumphally brushing aside even the mildest of official rebukes, the station said it 'will screen the programme again'.

The supposed satire, presented by Chris Morris, was almost universally condemned and provoked a record 3,000 complaints when it was shown in July and controversially repeated a day later.

Among those disgusted by it were Home Secretary David Blunkett, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and Home Office minister Beverley Hughes - who branded it 'unspeakably sick'. Even the normally liberal Guardian carried an article scathingly attacking it.

But yesterday the Independent Television Commission - which has the power to revoke a broadcaster's licence or impose huge fines - merely told Channel 4 to apologise on two relatively minor points.

The ITC and the less powerful Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which separately considered the issue, effectively ruled that programme-makers have a licence to use child abuse as a subject for comedy.

The BSC said: 'The BSC, like the ITC, affirmed the right of broadcasters to produce satirical programmes, even on such sensitive topics as paedophilia.

'It also recognised that satire will often only achieve its purpose by shocking and offending some people.'

Last night, Channel 4 was totally unrepentant. A spokesman vowed: 'We will show the show again.'

Director of programmes Tim Gardam said he and his colleagues 'don't have any regrets' and 'do not feel like apologising' because they believe they did nothing wrong.

'We apologise because we are directed to under the terms of our licence,' he added. 'We justify the programme because we think of it as a serious piece of satire. Satire is comedy with a serious purpose. I think Chris Morris is one of the most distinguished minds working in the media today.'

Chief executive Michael Jackson also showed no remorse, saying: 'Channel 4 is unwavering in its support for Chris Morris and Brass Eye and we would not hesitate to commission or transmit such a programme again.'

The watchdogs' ruling outraged children's charities. NSPCC chief executive Mary Marsh said: 'We felt after the programme was first screened that Brass Eye had overstepped the mark on this very sensitive issue.

'Channel 4 should not have repeated the programme, particularly after so many complaints. In this case, we think Channel 4 got it very wrong.'

National Children's Homes, which finds accommodation for abused youngsters, said it was disappointed by the ruling. A spokesman said: 'We still believe that Brass Eye made light of an issue that we believe should not be trivialised.'

Christina Brooks, 50, was duped into taking part in the spoof documentary when she answered an advert for the public to take part in a debate.

'I think they should have been fined,' she said last night. 'They will have made a lot of money from the adverts screened around the programme and they should be forced to give some to a children's charity.

'We genuinely believed it was a Kilroy-style discussion programme and then we found it was supposed to be a comedy about child sex abuse, which is no laughing matter.'

John Beyer, chief of TV lobby group Mediawatch, accused the ITC and BSC of misjudging the public mood. 'They are out of touch with the viewing public - the public's confidence in them will be undermined.'

A number of celebrities were tricked into appearing on the show, including singer Phil Collins. Their complaints are still being investigated by the BSC.

A spokesman for one of them, comedian Richard Blackwood, said: 'Richard still feels the show should not have been aired. He feels the same about that as he did before the ITC's conclusions.'

Sources at the Metropolitan Police's paedophile unit said inquiries are continuing into a possible prosecution over Brass Eye.

Although Channel 4 has been ordered to broadcast an apology for breaching two parts of the ITC's programmemaking code, it will cover only two relatively minor offences - the fact that it has offended some viewers and that it failed to provide suitable on-air warnings before the show was broadcast.

The ITC and BSC also cleared Channel 4 of inappropriately using child actors.

The ITC's decision not even to fine Channel 4 is astonishing - lesser misdemeanours have proven costly for the station in the past.

In 1999, the watchdog imposed a £150,000 over a documentary, Too Much Too Young: Chickens, which did not label a scene involving two rent boys as a dramatic reconstruction.

With Brass Eye, the ITC admitted that many viewers 'saw what appeared to them to be a succession of scenes in which children were apparently placed in highly inappropriate and harmful situations and significant offence resulted.

In some cases, this necessary protection was achieved through editing and montage or through special effects. But this artifice was invisible to viewers.'

The ITC has come under fire many times for being out of step with the public's feelings about taste and decency issues.

It rejected complaints about the Keith Chegwin programme The Naked Jungle, which featured nudist contestants.

It also rejected 163 complaints about the Channel 4 drama Queer as Folk, which showed a 15-year-old boy being seduced by a promiscuous 29-year-old man, saying that it was within the channel's remit.

There was further furore when it failed to act to stop ITV from moving News At Ten to 11pm. The ITC threatened legal action and months later ITV moved the bulletin back to its original slot on most days of the week.

It is only the third time Channel 4 has been ordered by the ITC to apologise to viewers.

In 1996, it apologised for an incest storyline in Brookside and in 1998 for misrepresenting environmentalists in a programme called Against Nature.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z3l4wanz2u
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Post: #17

The daily mail is mostly scare mongering although it seems to have a loyal following who will believe anything that is written. I'm sure out of the readers there will be some people who will be interested in the material and buy the books.

Post: #18

(09-07-2015 12:10 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 08:50 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  Good find but why bother coordinating? It's the Daily Mail (where the typical male-feminist bearded brony homo and his pierced, fat, old-lady glasses-wearing tumblrina counterpart gets their 'news' - it's feminist and SJW city), and look at the comments, already pouring in.

I'm going to have to disagree. The Daily Mail is famous for it's trashy low quality journalism (it once published an article suggesting that Emo music was a cult), but it isn't particularly left wing. It tends to be more conservative.

Basically, all their journalism is about sensationalism and fear. Very few people take it seriously as a newspaper.

The actual Daily Mail newspaper and the Mail Online website very noticeably have a different editorial slant.

Daily Mail is a pretty hard-right newspaper, with a very authoritarian bent - not many lovers of individual liberty on the staff there. Also is pretty much only available in the UK.

Mail Online, on the other hand, spends most of its time bumloving bruce/caitlyn Jenner, trannies in public life, gay pride parades and general female-targeted clickbait about celebrities, children with cancer and that sort of bollocks. It receives (according to its own stats) about 50% of its hits from North America. The Mail Online website is also, I believe (although I lack any proof) largely staffed by the 20-something female relatives of 'real journalists', interning there on daddy's dime, who are there specially to try to drive traffic to the site by producing crap like this Roosh article.

In short - you're both right!

Post: #19

More free publicity for Roosh.
Do these fools not realise by now; the more they deride Roosh. The more they add to his cause?
Not to mention; provide incentive for Roosh to continue the pursuit of his current ambitions?

Post: #20

It's all a money-making scheme.

If websites make money by writing about Roosh, why wouldn't they do it?

Roosh then makes more money himself and gets more exposure. In the process creating more outrage, so websites and newspapers can make more money off of this.

Feminists get a raison d'être and probably get money from various sources to "fight the patriarchy".

Works out fine for everyone involved really.

Post: #21

I bet Roosh books sales are sky rocketing now!

Everytime something gets banned or they try to ban it, all it does is make people want to see it!

Married with Children wasn't very popular until a woman complained which made it a number one hit! It wouldn't have made 11 sessions without her.

South Park... Same thing regaining Tom Cruise trapped in the Closet!

Roosh, you might want to use domestic violence next. "NEVER hit a woman unless she hits you first." A civilian man has a right to defend himself and stop the fight if provoked just like a bouncer or police man. Etc... This would rattle the cage some more and create debate.

Post: #22

I love how quickly the anti neomasculinity, Roosh, and other trash pieces kill the comments sections.

Roosh, if you're comfortable with announcing it, how have your book sales been lately? I'm curious if sales have gone up, remained the same, or dropped. I'm curious if the Streissand effect is helping us.

Post: #23

The Daily Mail has only 2 kinds of articles: fawning/gossiping about some random celeb with pictures or fear mongering about any kind of random topic. Take it for what it is, lol at it and then disregard it

Post: #24

If the books are taken off Roosh can sue for loss of income based on lies, slander and defamation. You should seriously consider at least consulting with a lawyer Roosh to consider your options.

Post: #25

Just went back to check on the comments section. Certainly got them stirred up a little by the looks of it...

Quote:Whose are all the red arrows?

Quote:The arrows make me question humanity.

But the absolute killer was "Kung Fu". Worst rated comment with 449 downvotes(!) for this horrible, offensive, should-have-a-trigger-warning comment...

Quote:He does not advocate rape. His website is about male improvement and I suggest you read it rather than let others put views into your heads. As for the pick up material, some men need it to avoid being out manipulated by women.