Post: #26

(01-06-2016 03:10 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I think Jimmy is just following orders.

Going Godwin's Law on this, that's the same argument that didn't exactly pan out at the Nuremberg Trials ...

Post: #27

(01-06-2016 01:33 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 01:26 PM)youngblazer Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hMq6rFpk0

Embed that shit son!





Calling us a Men's Right group. Weak. The skit itself wasn't very funny. But it means someone on their writing staff reads RoK.

Oh yeah, I say "bruh" and "hella" so many times in a day, I usually lose count. Same with my red pill friends. Not.

The whole skit is completely unfunny. Why is it unfunny?

Because good humor is always rooted in the truth and reality. The star wars bit comes across as some metro sexual man's idea of what a men's rights movement and their members might be like, according to their PC way of thinking.

In actuality, it's not rooted in the reality of what the men's rights movement is like at all.

Hence the complete lack of 'funniness' in the piece.

Post: #28

It's like they ripped off the PC bros from Southpark.

Post: #29

(01-06-2016 02:57 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  We're trying to get the hashtag #CuckKimmel going on Twitter.

I'd ask everyone with a Twitter account to go and retweet my past few tweets about @jimmykimmel. And keep using #CuckKimmel.

We need to call in the cavalry on this one.

All over it.

Post: #30

(01-06-2016 04:32 PM)robreke Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 01:33 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 01:26 PM)youngblazer Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hMq6rFpk0

Embed that shit son!





Calling us a Men's Right group. Weak. The skit itself wasn't very funny. But it means someone on their writing staff reads RoK.

Oh yeah, I say "bruh" and "hella" so many times in a day, I usually lose count. Same with my red pill friends. Not.

The whole skit is completely unfunny. Why is it unfunny?

Because good humor is always rooted in the truth and reality. The star wars bit comes across as some metro sexual man's idea of what a men's rights movement and their members might be like, according to their PC way of thinking.

In actuality, it's not rooted in the reality of what the men's rights movement is like at all.

Hence the complete lack of 'funniness' in the piece.

The skit was written by either of these two types:

1. A neckbeard graduate from some diploma mill trying to get his big break in Hollywood.

2. A blue-haired hipster chick who thinks guys actually talk like that.

Post: #31

All I know about this guy is that he cried about a lion. I'm tweeting the hashtag but nothing is coming up.

In terms of a 'roast', this wasn't all that accurate, but it wasn't mean spirited or funny either.

Post: #32

Kimmel has become such a fag. The guy cried on the air at least 5 times last year over stupid shit. He started his career surrounded by hot chicks called "juggies" and now insults people who still enjoy the company of hot women. Not unlike his best friend, Howard Stern - that dude is a shell of his former self.

He's become a puppet, dutifully echoing every liberal talking point.

Also, he's be ripping off Tosh for the last few months. His monologue, which used to be traditional topical humor, is now mostly him commenting on viral videos.

All of that said, he's still better than Fallon and Colbert.

Post: #33

Well Kimmels writers are stumbling upon the site for content for their dick-tard pieces. Fair enough. But to not make the disconnect between MRA and neomasculinity show how mind-numbing TV watching really is to the sheeple.

Post: #34

(01-06-2016 02:17 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Their stereotype was so strange. It's almost like they didn't actually research who they were attacking.

The mention itself didn't drive much traffic. TV mentions rarely do.

It seemed like they want to show it as being a sort of frat house thing or if an online entity then perhaps the Misc, with the 'brah' and all.

Post: #35

Guys, this is serious....in a very good way.

The fact that Kimmel's writers thought the ROK article was worth over a full minute of airtime to satire is pretty impressive. Very often in history significant change begins with the establishment laughing at you and ridiculing you over and over. When you become important enough to be made fun of, you become a million times more important than anyone who's never been heard of.

In 2011, Obama spent over 5 minutes making jokes about Trump and his presidential ambitions at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Trump was one of the invited guests there and had to sit through the "roasting".

5 years later, I don't think anyone is laughing at Trump anymore.

I hope the mainstream continues to ridicule us more in the future.

Post: #36

You can see how disconnected SJWs are from what they believe they're fighting against. The boogeyman is always a million times worse in their mind then actual reality. Reminds me of the fag who showed up to Roosh World Tour from Vice and thought he was blending in. Everyone in here immediately knew he was a gigantic faggot right away.

Post: #37

I think twitter maybe removing that hashtag. When I go to pull it up it only shows mine and Quintus' original one.

If SJW go after people who said sexist or content now against the party line, don't they go after their own?





Seems alot worse than donglegate.

Post: #38

Post: #39

I laughed. C'mon, the bench pressing and hair gel part is true...

"Men's Rights Activist" is basically the mainstream media's catch-all term for anyone who criticizes the feminist narrative. They don't understand the nuances between the various groups.

I remember a couple of years ago some online article cited Return of Kings and called it a "website for douchebag bros", so that's the stereotype.

Post: #40

The last few years on the internet have been eye opening in regards to how the media operates.

Every time someone like Roosh or Mike Cernovich gets some media attention we learn something.
Especially the Trump campaign and the commentary by people like Mike and Scott Adams who "get" it.

I think people are becoming less inclined to believe what they see in the mainstream media and especially TV. Now that it's so easy to google something, what is said on TV doesn't matter as much as it once did. The media were once somewhat trustworthy and you could rely on them to report news devoid of agenda. Now however, people would rather find out for themselves and simply google it.

This means that any mention in the mainstream media is a massive front page advertisement of our existence. They're shooting themselves in the foot by mentioning things like ROK because they get basically nothing out of it but ROK gets substantial value in the form of new viewers.

They are trying to do two things at once - keep their useful idiot viewers entertained and also cull us with ridicule, but I think they're failing at both.
The bloatedness of the MSM will be its downfall. Over the coming years they will lose their viewers to small online communities that they ridicule.

Post: #41

(01-06-2016 09:23 PM)Sooth Wrote:  The last few years on the internet have been eye opening in regards to how the media operates.

Every time someone like Roosh or Mike Cernovich gets some media attention we learn something.
Especially the Trump campaign and the commentary by people like Mike and Scott Adams who "get" it.

I think people are becoming less inclined to believe what they see in the mainstream media and especially TV. Now that it's so easy to google something, what is said on TV doesn't matter as much as it once did. The media were once somewhat trustworthy and you could rely on them to report news devoid of agenda. Now however, people would rather find out for themselves and simply google it.

This means that any mention in the mainstream media is a massive front page advertisement of our existence. They're shooting themselves in the foot by mentioning things like ROK because they get basically nothing out of it but ROK gets substantial value in the form of new viewers.

They are trying to do two things at once - keep their useful idiot viewers entertained and also cull us with ridicule, but I think they're failing at both.
The bloatedness of the MSM will be its downfall. Over the coming years they will lose their viewers to small online communities that they ridicule.

Admittedly it's a survey sample of one, but I'm a walking advertisement for the phrase 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'. It was a hitpiece on a ROK article that brought me here.

Post: #42

was there an increase in ROK traffic after this? that is the measure

Post: #43

(01-06-2016 09:23 PM)Sooth Wrote:  The last few years on the internet have been eye opening in regards to how the media operates.
Every time someone like Roosh or Mike Cernovich gets some media attention we learn something.
Especially the Trump campaign and the commentary by people like Mike and Scott Adams who "get" it.
I think people are becoming less inclined to believe what they see in the mainstream media and especially TV. Now that it's so easy to google something, what is said on TV doesn't matter as much as it once did. The media were once somewhat trustworthy and you could rely on them to report news devoid of agenda. Now however, people would rather find out for themselves and simply google it.
This means that any mention in the mainstream media is a massive front page advertisement of our existence. They're shooting themselves in the foot by mentioning things like ROK because they get basically nothing out of it but ROK gets substantial value in the form of new viewers.
They are trying to do two things at once - keep their useful idiot viewers entertained and also cull us with ridicule, but I think they're failing at both.
The bloatedness of the MSM will be its downfall. Over the coming years they will lose their viewers to small online communities that they ridicule.

The mainstream media is only as viable as the people behind it.
Take a look at the thread about Martin Shkreli where a Washington Post chick
wound up on a Tinder date with Shkreli.
Did she take it as a chance to conduct some serious investigative journalism?
Nah.
She was just hoping for some retarded '50 Shades Of Grey' fantasy to come true,
so she could abuse Martin's wealth as much as Martin abuses his customer base.

Post: #44

Welcome noooobs

Post: #45

(01-06-2016 02:17 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Their stereotype was so strange. It's almost like they didn't actually research who they were attacking.

The mention itself didn't drive much traffic. TV mentions rarely do.

What kind of mentions do drive traffic? Something web-related, I'm sure, but do certain actions (links perhaps) drive more traffic than, say, a feminist-leaning main-stream article bashing you?

Post: #46

The irony of his new show trying to mock guys for wanting to look at "huge jugs":

(first 4 minutes)

Post: #47

I watched the Man Show when I was younger, I think it had helped develop some of the humor of being a man. Watching it now brings back some nostalgia. Those guys running the show could have been some heavy hitters in this sphere. Sadly we all have our price.

Adam Corolla I think faired alot better, doing what he has majority control over. He wrote a book which I have called "In Fifty Years we'll all be Chicks". It's pretty good, but it seems to be mainly a collection of rants, but it was his to do with.

I know we are using the hashtag cuckkimmel but it should be #jimmytheeunch.

Post: #48

Quote:What kind of mentions do drive traffic? Something web-related, I'm sure, but do certain actions (links perhaps) drive more traffic than, say, a feminist-leaning main-stream article bashing you?

1. Facebook virality... truly massive traffic
2. Twitter virality... smaller and shorter lived
3. Mentions in online news articles
..
..
239. Mentions on TV (but it builds good buzz/credibility since it's so visual and high-profile)

Post: #49

You have to take in account that the media and especially TV channels are having mayors hits from new forms of entertainment, and the old guard in board rooms do not like that, younger people are not consuming TV at all, TV is becoming something like vinyl disk, something you associate with old people, despite the attempt by the producers to attract millennials to TV with "young" "cool" "hip" shows like The Daily Show and Colbert, the reality is that when you see the age of people watching the shows, is usually over 45, the young millennials men I know who watch TV does it just for sport, once a big internet streaming service get the contract to transmit big sport events, TV network will go to hell, young millennials women spend more time on Instagram and facebook or watching cat video on YT than watching TV, add to that the entire generation of kids below the age of 6 that nw watch more content on netflix than TV, once the people whom mainly watch TV (45+) die, you will witness serious shit.

What Kimmel is doing is basically running in panic, attack the media that most young people are using at the moment to try to sound cool and edgy to the same crowd of people that still watch his show.

This is not the first time he does this, he attacked lets players and games months ago, you know, attacking video games, the real cool and form of entertainment that is actually making real money, more than Hollywood http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/22...sters-now/

Post: #50

(01-07-2016 03:48 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  You have to take in account that the media and especially TV channels are having mayors hits from new forms of entertainment, and the old guard in board rooms do not like that, younger people are not consuming TV at all,

PostOfTheYear.gif

You just nailed it, brother. Some stats would be nice, but I know the smell of Truth when it wafts in my direction.

This leads to the next question: how fast is advertising collapsing?

I don't need to tell you that folks in the [Alt Right]/[Let's Play]/[Movie Review] industries are having difficulty securing advertising dollars to enable the content they upload - between adblockers and cynicism, the revenue's going down...

Should we believe that television is doing any better? Good Lord, have you seen the Superbowl Commercials, desperately pushing social justice in a pathetic attempt to stay relevant? Right now we've got a monolith, a multi-billion dollar industry with extremely high production values, being supported by multi-billion dollar advertisers, who are perhaps... starting to notice how little return they're getting on their investment?

The internet isn't an alternative, though; I'll put money on the fact that Coke will never advertise on RoK. They'll remain locked-in to television, which benefits just as much from the veneer of respectability as from its massive teams of PR managers, but ultimately it's a sinking ship.

Christ, we live in interesting times. Please tell me I'm wrong about all of this.