@counteractivist / counteractivist.tumblr.com
End of year predictions! Fun!
5-20M dead in the US, 100-500M dead globally from the virus itself, another 50-150K in the US from other causes as a direct result of Corona (crime, Healthcare collapse), 2.5-10M globally
10-30% unemployment in the US
Completely economic collapse of the planet
Complete Healthcare collapse in the US
5-10Y recovery for the US, 2-3Y most other countries
Unless we act a bit more than we are, anyway.
Anyways, Happy St Patrick's day.
Should I revive this blog?
My general rule of thumb is when bad things happen to bad people, it's a good thing. I go so far as to consider the person who punches a Nazi to be a true patriot, and champion of individual liberties and freedoms consistent with some of the core values this nation was founded on.
“What the fuck? That makes no sense! What about the Nazi’s First Amendment rights!”
Then let me explain. To punch a Nazi, someone willingly sacrifices their own personal freedoms and rights in an effort to protect the freedom and liberty of others (they know they risk imprisonment, or worse, for doing punching someone).
What's in it for them? Nothing. They gain nothing personally (expect a pat on the back!), and risk everything (literally). They do it for one reason: to try to stop the spread of an ideology that says some people are not people, and by extension the idea that some people shouldn't get the same freedoms or protections as others, based on their physical characteristics or their personal ideologies*. In other words, they are true patriots because they are willingly and voluntarily sacrificing themselves to protect a core principle set forth in the founding of this nation; all men are created equal, and that we all enjoy equal personal liberties, rights, and protections and applications of law.
Like the right to exist.
Toxic ideologies like this are literally killing people. People are being stabbed, shot, hung, beaten, harassed, stalked, terrorized, and more, just for existing. These ideologies tell those attackers that the victims are inferior in some way, and that they are the 'enemy'. When these ideologies penetrate into positions of power, they become validated and legitimized. Victims of crimes are afraid to come forward, perpetrators of crimes go free.
How can someone protect those spreading these ideologies? How can someone consider themselves "patriotic" when defending the groups trying to undo the things this country stands for? "I'm protecting the first amendment!" is neither good enough, nor is it even your responsibility in such private cases. When the Government attacks the First Amendment, THEN it's your responsibility. To give a relevant example: When the Federal Government attacks, condemns, bars from access, silences, or openly displays favoritism towards or against specific private press agencies, THEN it's your responsibility to speak up.
* So, should punching Nazis be legal? Should people be arrested for being racist? Nope, and nope. Because personal freedom is important. That's the whole point of this post. If your ideology is that you’re a racist piece of shit, you should still enjoy the same freedoms, liberties, and protections under law.
“What?”
Pay attention.
The government has no business telling the people what we can or cannot say, and citizens have no right to execute their own punishments on other citizens; when they do, they break the law.
Punching a Nazi is not a government act. There's no congressional vote to determine left hook or right. You're first amendment rights don't protect you from a privately owned fist. Other laws protect against that, and those laws should remain in place, and will remain in place.
Just because something is morally reprehensible, doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Racists exist, and will continue to exist. They cannot and should not be outlawed in any fashion, because then we give the Government the authority to decide what we can think, say, or believe.
Then again, just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean it’s morally reprehensible. Assault is illegal, yes. Arrest the puncher, press charges and convict them. Give them the standard punishment equal to the severity of the offense (because ALL should enjoy EQUAL protection and application of the law, which, in an ironic twist, is the very concept the puncher punched to defend), and move the fuck on.
Dear anon: I have no idea what post that ask is in reference to. Reblog the post with your question/comments if you feel I made a mistake somewhere.
Guys I just found out there are ZERO resources for male victims of domestic violence in the whole state of Kentucky. NONE.
Too funny. Even a year later, this experiment holds true. From a blog that is THEMED on helping men, no less
The experiment was to see if people who claim to care about victimized men care more about actually helping them, or care more about criticizing feminists.
The shocking and ongoing conclusion, no. The people who claim to care about male victims are actually more concerned with criticizing feminists than they are actually helping men. If you actually gave two shits about helping men, you wouldn’t have re-blogged this without first looking it up.
I posted the below one week prior to this post by the way. It has two notes.
http://counteractivist.tumblr.com/post/108773255144/if-you-care-about-helping-male-victims-more-than
Thanks for playing.
I find it absolutely incredible that meninism is defended as satire by the same people who think there is actually a killallmen movement.
Seriously, which one is more likely? Someone thinking “bitch make me a sandwich” or the genocide of half the planet? Really?
There are a lot of women who took the kill all men tag seriously though
Do you have any sources of women going on killing sprees of men under the banner of #killallmen?
Considering there are “a lot of women who took it seriously” it should be easy to find the examples, but gosh darn it I just can’t find any.
No no no. I did not make my point clear enough. I apologize.
What I meant to say with that was that the “killallmen” tag was coined as a joke by feminists first but some actually use it to show their dislike of men. I did not mean they actually went on killing sprees. Just like meninisim is satire, but actually taken seriously by some people.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of rad fems who wouldn’t mind if half the planet got slaughtered.
Fair enough
Reblogging for the clarification
I find it absolutely incredible that meninism is defended as satire by the same people who think there is actually a killallmen movement.
Seriously, which one is more likely? Someone thinking “bitch make me a sandwich” or the genocide of half the planet? Really?
There are a lot of women who took the kill all men tag seriously though
Do you have any sources of women going on killing sprees of men under the banner of #killallmen?
Considering there are "a lot of women who took it seriously" it should be easy to find the examples, but gosh darn it I just can't find any.
I’m sorry to hear about your friend anon, false accusations are indeed a terrible thing especially when they result in destroyed lives. This does indeed happen on occasion and it is unfortunate.
you can be wary of them, sure. However. I said ‘if false accusations are among your top concerns’ there is something wrong.
There were 33,000 deaths as a result of traffic accidents in 2010. What happened to your friend is terrible, but if you are afraid of false accusations more than you are getting into a car, Statistically speaking, you have some weird priorities.
I’ve seen far too many cancer adverts with only women in them.
It’s important to remember that men are equally at risk of developing cancer, and I don’t think there is a tough enough focus on it.
Men are actually more at risk of getting and dying from their respective cancers then women:
Breast:
Ovarian
Cervical
Uterine
Prostate:
Also you failed to include that in your own source it states that the mortality rate of Prostate cancer is only actually higher than breast cancer at advanced ages, and that, according to your own source, you are at least two or more times likely to die of Breast cancer compared with Prostate cancer until the 75+ age bracket. Prostate cancer mortality rate doesn’t even represent a blip on this chart until age 40-44.
I’ve seen far too many cancer adverts with only women in them.
It’s important to remember that men are equally at risk of developing cancer, and I don’t think there is a tough enough focus on it.
Men are actually more at risk of getting and dying from their respective cancers then women:
Breast:
Ovarian
Cervical
Uterine
Prostate:
Wow that’s just crazy. #antifeminism #antifeminist #feminism #feminist #sjw #cringe #why #facepalm #stupidity
A single google search indicates this was actually posted by a troll.
The twitter account in question:
You know sexual objectification doesn’t make any sense as a concept. Like it’s not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like that’s not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because that’s what our biology states. So, we don’t turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the ‘user’, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively ‘discarded’ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Don’t we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing we’re trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part I’ll admit I’ve seen some weird stuff but that’s the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isn’t something that human’s will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People don’t see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesn’t take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.
Also I don’t think you understand how sex works. If it’s consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If it’s not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isn’t normal.
If it’s consensual sex and you aren’t getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you aren’t getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didn’t get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say it’s intentional not to get you off you can’t project their intentions onto them. It’s very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They can’t read minds and neither can you.
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
Very constructive argument.
I can’t refute anything that you’re saying! So, I’m just going to tell you to leave so I don’t have to listen to you any more!
Alright.
Let’s be sure we are on the same page before we begin: You claim sexual objectification is a silly concept. How would you define sexual objectification? Please be as detailed as possible, even use examples if you can.
Well it’s a silly concept and so I don’t believe in it. So I don’t need my own definition but let’s use the one I got when I first looked up this concept and the one that most people seem to use when talking about this. Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as an instrument of sexual pleasure.
And for all the reasons I’ve stated above doesn’t really make any sense to describe a normal person with. Normal people don’t treat other people like that.
Now, if you were going to ask me to describe the concept as a physiological disorder it’s a sexual fetish focused on particular inanimate objects. Which is a a serious mental disorder and doesn’t really occur often in humans for obvious reasons.
I’m still put off by you just telling me to leave. If you were really interested in having a conversation it’s counter productive.
I also don’t know why you are asking for my definition. It’s very clear what we’re talking about here and you should be able to refute my claims in the above section without needing to come in and ask for a definition. I really hope you don’t turn into an Anti Intellectual Demagogue Spouting Pseudo Intellectual Gibberish. Now, while I have yet to determine you are an AIDSPIG. You should have lead with what do you mean by X instead of immediately going into an argument and then telling me to fuck off if you were unsure by what I mean by X. At this point I’m wary and wondering if you are going to lead me around by the cock arguing over the definition of a word instead of talking about the actual concept here.
Well it’s a silly concept and so I don’t believe in it. So I don’t need my own definition
You do, actually, if you want to actually have a meaningful discussion on it. Why should I bother sitting here discussing a topic with someone who doesn’t think they need to define their argument and what it is against?
Your definition is even still bolded from copy/pasting it from google (though you omitted the second half of the google search definition)
If you are incapable of explaining what a topic means to you in your own words, why you are against it, and why you think your argument is important to be heard, I find it extremely unlikely that this is a topic that you actually care about at all.
I mean the rest of your post was just complaining about my previous response and complaining about why I asked for your side of the story. You don’t even understand that the most important part of a discussion of any kind is that all parties understand eachothers point of view. I ask for your point of view as it was not clear to me, and I’m “leading you around by the cock”. Astounding.
You’re just looking for arguments on Tumblr, aren’t you?
Listen that’s what the definition of the fucking word is. I would rather not get stuck on the definition of words and talk about the actual concept. If you think my definition is wrong then you also need to also define what you mean. If you want it in my own words fine. Sexual objectification is the concept that people use other people only for their sexual gratification with no consideration to what the other party wants. Well guess what again will you address the arguments in the 3 post in this thread because I have no interest at all in arguing over the definitions of words. I have an interest in talking about the concept. You could call it Bloop ferdugle and define it as gropwle gorfun er curld ied. It wouldn’t mater cause I’m interested in the concept not the definition.
I’m against this thing because people seem to find the need to demonize others because of this concept. As I’ve stated I think this is a ridiculous idea that people think a huge amount of the population lacks empathy. It just isn’t true. There has to be seriously something wrong in your head to not see another human being as a person.
If you go on one more post talking about the definition of a word and bring not other substance to the table I am calling you an AIDSPIG. Again if you didn’t know what I meant by X you should have started with what do you mean by X instead of making an argument where you knew exactly what I was talking about with X and then telling me to fuck off. This conversation is spiraling into unproductive meaninglessness.
Sexual objectification is the concept that people use other people only for their sexual gratification with no consideration to what the other party wants
Good, so that is the reason you don’t think sexual objectification is a thing. In order for your argument to remain valid, I shouldn’t be able to state an reasonable or believable scenario in which it does happen.
This is a great example of why you need to clearly state what you are trying to defend, because your definition is so vague that I can easily refute your entire argument with a single word.
Rape. (What the victim wants is not taken into consideration)
There, per your grievance against the existence of sexual objectification, using your own definition of what sexual objectification is, I have proven you are mistaken in assuming it is a silly concept. Better luck next time.
You know sexual objectification doesn’t make any sense as a concept. Like it’s not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like that’s not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because that’s what our biology states. So, we don’t turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the ‘user’, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively ‘discarded’ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Don’t we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing we’re trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part I’ll admit I’ve seen some weird stuff but that’s the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isn’t something that human’s will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People don’t see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesn’t take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.
Also I don’t think you understand how sex works. If it’s consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If it’s not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isn’t normal.
If it’s consensual sex and you aren’t getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you aren’t getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didn’t get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say it’s intentional not to get you off you can’t project their intentions onto them. It’s very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They can’t read minds and neither can you.
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
Very constructive argument.
I can’t refute anything that you’re saying! So, I’m just going to tell you to leave so I don’t have to listen to you any more!
Alright.
Let’s be sure we are on the same page before we begin: You claim sexual objectification is a silly concept. How would you define sexual objectification? Please be as detailed as possible, even use examples if you can.
Well it’s a silly concept and so I don’t believe in it. So I don’t need my own definition but let’s use the one I got when I first looked up this concept and the one that most people seem to use when talking about this. Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as an instrument of sexual pleasure.
And for all the reasons I’ve stated above doesn’t really make any sense to describe a normal person with. Normal people don’t treat other people like that.
Now, if you were going to ask me to describe the concept as a physiological disorder it’s a sexual fetish focused on particular inanimate objects. Which is a a serious mental disorder and doesn’t really occur often in humans for obvious reasons.
I’m still put off by you just telling me to leave. If you were really interested in having a conversation it’s counter productive.
I also don’t know why you are asking for my definition. It’s very clear what we’re talking about here and you should be able to refute my claims in the above section without needing to come in and ask for a definition. I really hope you don’t turn into an Anti Intellectual Demagogue Spouting Pseudo Intellectual Gibberish. Now, while I have yet to determine you are an AIDSPIG. You should have lead with what do you mean by X instead of immediately going into an argument and then telling me to fuck off if you were unsure by what I mean by X. At this point I’m wary and wondering if you are going to lead me around by the cock arguing over the definition of a word instead of talking about the actual concept here.
Well it’s a silly concept and so I don’t believe in it. So I don’t need my own definition
You do, actually, if you want to actually have a meaningful discussion on it. Why should I bother sitting here discussing a topic with someone who doesn’t think they need to define their argument and what it is against?
Your definition is even still bolded from copy/pasting it from google (though you omitted the second half of the google search definition)
If you are incapable of explaining what a topic means to you in your own words, why you are against it, and why you think your argument is important to be heard, I find it extremely unlikely that this is a topic that you actually care about at all.
I mean the rest of your post was just complaining about my previous response and complaining about why I asked for your side of the story. You don’t even understand that the most important part of a discussion of any kind is that all parties understand eachothers point of view. I ask for your point of view as it was not clear to me, and I’m “leading you around by the cock”. Astounding.
You’re just looking for arguments on Tumblr, aren’t you?
You know sexual objectification doesn’t make any sense as a concept. Like it’s not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like that’s not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because that’s what our biology states. So, we don’t turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the ‘user’, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively ‘discarded’ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Don’t we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing we’re trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part I’ll admit I’ve seen some weird stuff but that’s the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isn’t something that human’s will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People don’t see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesn’t take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.
Also I don’t think you understand how sex works. If it’s consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If it’s not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isn’t normal.
If it’s consensual sex and you aren’t getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you aren’t getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didn’t get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say it’s intentional not to get you off you can’t project their intentions onto them. It’s very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They can’t read minds and neither can you.
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
Very constructive argument.
I can’t refute anything that you’re saying! So, I’m just going to tell you to leave so I don’t have to listen to you any more!
Alright.
Let’s be sure we are on the same page before we begin: You claim sexual objectification is a silly concept. How would you define sexual objectification? Please be as detailed as possible, even use examples if you can.
You are correct anon. I'm working for a half an hour yet, but I'll amend the response extensively at that time.
You know sexual objectification doesn’t make any sense as a concept. Like it’s not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like that’s not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because that’s what our biology states. So, we don’t turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the ‘user’, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively ‘discarded’ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Don’t we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing we’re trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part I’ll admit I’ve seen some weird stuff but that’s the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isn’t something that human’s will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People don’t see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesn’t take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.
Also I don’t think you understand how sex works. If it’s consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If it’s not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isn’t normal.
If it’s consensual sex and you aren’t getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you aren’t getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didn’t get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say it’s intentional not to get you off you can’t project their intentions onto them. It’s very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They can’t read minds and neither can you.
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
The dynamics of how not-obviously-ironic #killallmen posts on Tumblr work.
It’s interesting because red and green agree with each other that blue is shit, but red thinks green is blue, and green thinks red is orange.
That’s funny, because whenever I see “kill all men!” posts, usually it’s:
1.) Uploaded by someone who’s a feminist
2.) has feminists who’re clearly too stupid for their own good agreeing
3.) anti-fems face palming
4.) “rational” feminists saying “n-not all feminists are like that!”
Can you show me one? I’ve been looking, can’t find one where a bunch of feminists are agreeing with it….
You can’t find a post where feminists are supporting misandry and laughing about kill all men jokes? Blogs with the radfem or misandrist in their bios?You’re full of fucking shit.
Radfem, yes, I’ve seen them supporting it. Blue in the image represents the radfem.
I can’t find a blog where the author is a feminist, following feminist ideals, supporting the killallmen tag.
Again, show me some examples, if they are so easy to find?
sorry but rad fems are still feminists wether you like it ot not so what you said just proves you know feminsts support this shit but ignore it becaue they arent true scotsmen i mean feminists
Similarly to how ISIS doesn’t represent all Muslims, ‘Rad fems’ don’t represent all feminists.
Feminism is an ideology, not a group. Radical feminism is also an ideology, not a group. A feminist is someone who subscribes to the ideology of feminism, a rad fem is someone who subscribes to the ideology of radical feminism.
ISIS doesn’t represent Muslims
The Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t represent Christianity
The anti-feminists who send rape and death threats to feminist bloggers and their families don’t represent anti-feminists
Radfems don’t represent feminism
Every movement/group has its fringe movements. Don’t demand that the main group be held responsible for everything the fringe movements do. They can call them out, declare their opposition and work harder, but there is a limit.
Except radfems are extremely popular and loud mouthed, voicing their opinions over others that share the the feminist title.
In the examples above, radfems are more like ISIS than the WBC. WBC is a tiny minority that is frequently criticized by other Christians, and very few actually agree with them. ISIS is also a minority, but they are not as frequently criticized by their peers and parts of their ideals are actually agreed with by a significant portion of Muslims. Prominent critics are harassed and threatened with the intent to silence them.
If that doesn’t sound like feminism today, I don’t know what does. The entire ideology is based on breaking down and persecuting men. Anyone that speaks out, that tries to speak for men and against the hate, is attacked and attempts are made to silence them. Feminists might as well be crying “infidel” against their critics.
WBC is a tiny minority that is frequently criticized by other Christians....ISIS is also a minority, but they are not as frequently criticized by their peers
You know sexual objectification doesn’t make any sense as a concept. Like it’s not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like that’s not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because that’s what our biology states. So, we don’t turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the ‘user’, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively 'discarded’ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Oh, hey, given the massive amounts of butt hurt, I appear to be the first person to have offended Durkin62 by telling him I was temporarily blocking him to care for my mental health, then doing so. He brags about how that’s impossible in his description, so do I get a trophy or something?
I’ll bring up an old topic:
“Rapists don’t “walk free” most of the time, and false rape accusations are commonplace!”
Question: Is Roosh V a rapist?
Regardless of what you answer, if you believe the statement in bold, you’re contradicting yourself.
Allow me to explain:
If Roosh V is indeed a rapist, then yeah - the claim that they don’t walk free is sort of bogus by default. Roosh is an author of books that have been described as “rape guides”, and, regardless of whether or not it’s actually true, is currently widely seen as a proponent for the legalization of rape. He has apparently actually admitted to raping people before. With all of this, if he is actually a rapist it’s a pretty clear indicator that it turns out it’s pretty hard to get a rapist behind bars.
Now, if he actually isn’t a rapist…well, why hasn’t he been convicted falsely of rape? I mean if it’s so easy to falsely accuse someone of rape and ruin their lives, and modern feminists do it all the time for personal gain, why wouldn’t this man be in prison right now? He is universally regarded as the most ‘vile misogynist’ on the entire internet, and is the source of many homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, hate spewing websites, and he apparently sleeps with a lot of women - so why hasn’t a single one made a false accusation leading to his conviction? Being relatively wealthy and universally hated with his reputation make him seem like he would be prime a target for this, if it was some common occurrence. If regular unknown people are wrongfully convicted all the time, do you really think this man would stand a chance considering his history?
^^^ GRRRREAT point! Now, let me ask you - if tomorrow some feminist accuses Roosh V of rape and successfully puts him in jail for a couple decades,
will you admit that the statement in bold is true or will you come up with another excuse not to?
I know ‘mental gymnastics’ is an overused phrase, but I do think it applies here.
Counteractivist: This is a good example of why the bolded statement is self-contradicting. Iamretrograde: BUT, if we change the situation to a different situation, would you still have the opinion?
You’re taking the example and tossing it out, and instead questioning whether the bolded statement is, in fact, founded on proof. It’s a no-win question–if they say that yes, they still believe the bolded statement is false, then of course their belief isn’t based in logic and they’d spin anything to match their belief. If they say no, they’d need additional evidence to refute the statement, then they basically just agreed with you!
I also think it’s interesting that evidence is an “excuse”. They provided an example of the self-contradictory nature of the statement, then you ignored the example and asked if they would come up with another “excuse”.
So, Iamretrograde–why is the bolded statement true? You clearly believe it’s true, so what’s your evidence?
No, I don’t believe the bold statement is true. Let’s start from the beginning:
Rapists don’t “walk free” most of the time -
Age of consent in Russia (where I am) is universally 16 years. According to the Russian federal law, a 60-year-old man having consensual sex with 16-year-old girl is not statutory rape. It is a filthy thing, but it is not a crime as long as he doesn’t force her. According to American set of moral values and legal rules, he is a rapist “walking free”.
In many jurisdictions, rape of a man by a woman is not called “rape”. Even in those jurisdictions where it is, female rapists of men often don’t get reported, don’t get arrested if/when reported, don’t get accused when arrested and don’t get any significant punishment when proven guilty. In many jurisdictions, female rapists do universally walk free most of the time.
Since the introduction of affirmative consent laws, in jurisdictions where these laws either already a thing or will be in the future, almost everyone is a rapist walking free because I cannot imagine a married couple always following “affirmation every 10 minutes” rule. Also, in jurisdictions where a person too drunk to drive is legally equal to a person too drunk to giving consent, every drunk hookup results in TWO rapists walking free after raping each other.
And finally, yes, sometimes after feminist indoctrination about rape culture, ACTUAL female rape victims after being violated by ACTUAL male rapists decide to make a “this is why I need feminism” blog post and take a shower instead of immediately going to police to provide evidence, description and possible DNA samples, which results in a court case backed by nothing but her statement. Unfortunately, in these cases actual rapists who possess actual threat to society also walk free.
, and false rape accusations are commonplace!”
(Violent) crime is not a commonplace thing - the majority of humans will live all their lives never committing a violent criminal act. Accusation of crime is not a commonplace thing - the majority of humans will live all their lives never being accused of violent crime at least, but many people will not even be accused of economic crimes. Therefore, false accusation of crime is not a commonplace thing. BUT.
Saying that since this isn’t commonplace, falsely accused can go fuck themselves, is equivalent to saying “men are acceptable collateral damage on our way to women’s safety”. It is shitty logic and shitty morality.
Saying “Roosh V, hence Patriarchy, Rape Culture and Fuck Human Rights of Men and Those Who Fight For Them” - is shitty logic and shitty morality.
Building strawmans and calling them “old topics” to lead readers to some unshakeable implied truth such as “Men Bad, Women Weak, Fuck Due Process” -
I think you get the pattern. Unlike the latter bold statement, no-one ever actually believed the original bold statement as religious dogma.
But yeah, maybe I reached too far this time! Anyway, thanks, was a pleasure to get some feedback.
I don’t have a problem with original bold statement being false,
I have a problem with a person who dogmatically believes that society at large trains its youth to believe that it is true because power dynamics or something.
I like how you accuse me of “building strawmans” immediately after those statements though.
“Old topic” as in a topic I personally have discussed on several occasions, though I suppose I didn’t spell that out nice and clearly for you; my bad.
The entire post is prefaced with “if you believe in the statement in bold you are contradicting yourself”. You argue against the entire post with completely illogical and irrelevant counter points, then at the end say you don’t have a problem with the bolded statement being false.
