[Ziltoid]

As I said it's not entirely comparable, but it's an absolutist statement that could easily be interpreted as whatever form of man vs woman thing you said I've fallen prey to.

But it's also based on undeniably good inductive logic and observations.

[Beyond Borders]

Quote:

I guess you know who to take that one up with, then.

Let me see - so you intentionally baited me into disagreeing with Roosh to somehow one-up me in a conversation I said I was fine with moving past anways? I don't get it.

I've already said Roosh doesn't think for me. I agree there is a problem with false rape accusations. That doesn't mean I believe all public rape allegations are false (though I can imagine the argument for such a statement even without watching).

Listen, I am not prepared to attempt picking apart the man's video on his own forum, nor do I know if I even could or would. But I don't think this conversation has a prerequisite of subscribing to every one of his beliefs either. So I'm not sure what you were trying to do here.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than throwing Roosh videos at me if you're trying to refute my assertion that there may be some group mentality playing into your thought processes here. All you've done is support that idea.

Anyways, this getting loopy and I've burnt enough time on this conversation as is. I'm going to have to peel myself away at this point.

[Ziltoid]

Quote:

Let me see - so you intentionally baited me into disagreeing with Roosh to somehow one-up me in a conversation I said I was fine with moving past anways? I don't get it.

No? This was not an elaborate trap of some sort, I assumed you'd seen the video or his twitter comments repeating it. Nor am I trying to finagle you into disagreeing with Roosh for brownie points, I disagree with Roosh on lots of things.

[Beyond Borders]

^Okay, my bad then.

Anyhow, I think I better call it a night at this point anyways.

EDIT: PMed you

[Aenigmarius]

I stated earlier in this thread that making assumptions about this particular guy and this particular situation was a bad idea because we are only getting part of the story, the part the media has chosen to show us. The TYT video rant is a prime example of what I am talking about. It focuses on a couple of quotes from a couple of posters on a thread that is discussing and debating a news story. This was not a pronouncement by the head of some MRA movement, it was a discussion on a discussion board.

The first post after the OP (post #2 in the thread) assumes the guy was insane (obviously, since he murdered someone) but wonders if the reason the guy was fired was true or trumped up:

(06-13-2015 12:07 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Article didn't mention if he'd actually been sexually harassing women. Given that such terms have faded to a broad and vague concepts, I want to know if he had been pinching butts or asked them each out on a date once. I'm assuming he was a nut, not that he'd been unjustly fired.

The next post (post #3) is the one quoted by TYT from Ziltoid, which responds to Phoenix's speculation about the underlying situation, as happens naturally in a discussion:

(06-13-2015 12:10 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Like rape, does the term sexual harassment prettymuch no longer have any real meaning?
IE it's safe to assume there's no chance this guy actually touched her or said anything overtly lewd?
As somebody who's been job hunting for some time now picturing being fired, in this job market, over some twit finding you "creepy"... Sad to say I'm finding it hard to blame him.

In the next post, rpg notes that these were "Two lives wasted over nothing."

A couple posts later, a more emphatic response to the speculation over whether the harassment was "real" or not:

(06-13-2015 12:35 PM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 12:07 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Article didn't mention if he'd actually been sexually harassing women.

Its hard to give him the benefit of doubt, when he actually murdered someone.

Then the poster quoted (but not named) in the TYT video pops up with his crap:

(06-13-2015 12:42 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  

Given the lack of details regarding the allegations, it is safe to assume he did not touch or proposition these women. Simply put, he was guilty of having no game and/or being creepy.
<snip>
As far as I'm concerned, his being guilty of not giving these bitches the tingles is what caused him to get fired, and in turn, murder this chick.

Please note that "Red_Pillage" has been a member since Mar 2015 and so far has a total of nine (9) posts. How representative of the forum can his opinions be? Would you rely on his opinion if you were trying to reflect how the entire forum feels about any particular situation?

In the very next post, a longtime member with almost 5,000 posts and a high reputation blasts the posters who seem to be making some excuses for the guy being totally insane:

(06-13-2015 02:06 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I love how some people become an avowed socialist out to protect worker's rights when it's man vs woman.

The dude annoyed several women. He works for an outfit that relies on pleasing the public. His mission is to keep customers safe and satisfied and he was apparently failing at that. So his firing is perfectly sound, if he indeed bothered customers. Maybe customers were oversensitive, but that's beside the point.

That he went on to murder someone over it shows he was profoundly sick if not outright evil.

"As somebody who's been job hunting for some time now picturing being fired, in this job market, over some twit finding you "creepy"... Sad to say I'm finding it hard to blame him."

Please don't ever leave your house.

Ziltoid and Basil argue the point, focusing on whether the harassment was or was not likely "real" or not.

Then Roosh pops in to calm this shit down:

(06-13-2015 02:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

No need to jump to conclusions. We don't know if the allegations are true or not, but it was enough to spur him to murder. A failure to ask why, on the part of society, will lead to more events like this.

And who is the first person to respond to Roosh? None other than Mr. "giving these bitches the tingles" himself with another one of his nine total posts on the forum:

(06-13-2015 02:48 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  

It's kind of a chicken / egg thing, isn't it?
Society is churning out weak men with no masculine guidance by the truckload. Add to that the social ramifications of unrestrained and optimized hypergamy, what you get is men with nowhere to turn. That masculine energy will express itself in destructive ways if it is not channeled properly.
There's gonna be a lot more Elliot Rodger's coming down the pike. Now in this case the guy apparently wasn't an incel, but I would be willing to bet that his murderous rage came from (at least in part) sexual frustration coupled with losing his job.

Then the discussion continues, with people agreeing that questions should be asked about the situation, but lots of comments making it clear that this guy was a sick fuck and that nothing justified him murdering someone:

(06-13-2015 03:40 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

<snip>
...I don't think there's much at fault with the situation except the man himself.
<snip>
If I had to guess, it would be that this man had serious pre-existing mental/drug problems.

(06-13-2015 03:50 PM)Suits Wrote:  

<snip>
… I'm sure that we can all agree that killing a person is (in this case, certainly) the wrong thing to do.
<snip>

(06-13-2015 04:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

<snip>
....I do not think this man was justified to murder. He must be imprisoned.
<snip>

There is then a discussion going back and forth among different posters of what level of mental illness was affecting him, whether he just snapped or whether he was really and truly crazy on all levels:

(06-13-2015 05:49 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

<snip>His murdering someone over a firing is prima facie evidence of mental illness. That he had no priors, that we, a bunch of internet nobodies, know of, doesn't mean much. What exactly he had, I don't know. We've all experienced tribulations like he did. In the face of them what did we do? We laughed, we cried, we got angry, we worried. And that was about it. This dude up and murdered someone. <snip>

Many forum members, including those engaged in this discussion, approved of the following post by another veteran:

(06-13-2015 07:51 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  

I am amazed at the intellectual and mental gymnastics some posters here are going to to defend this murderer.

The discussion really veers off onto a tangent after that.

I think any normal, rational person who read the entirety of the thread would see that, while some posters did wonder about whether the sexual harassment allegations were "real" or not, generally (with the exception of certain comments by a possible 9-post troll) the overall attitude of the posters in the thread was that this guy was a murderer who was "profoundly sick if not outright evil."

A commentator who wanted to reflect the prevailing opinion of the posters in the thread would have made this point. And if TYT was more about telling the truth then shrieking sensationalism, then the video would have made this clear.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

If we can remove sexual harassment from the equation for a second, one topic I'd like to address is the way women complain at work.

Women, in my experience, tend to play "tattle tale," like they did in grade school. Instead of complaining to the person they have a problem with (i.e. "You really pissed me off") they take it directly to the boss.

If anything sets guys in a rage, it's this. And this is a big reason that if you're a man who is employed, you'd better make sure you have a good relationship with your superiors. My guess is that this guy didn't, or else he would have been "transitioned" to another mall, not fired.

When I was a community paper reporter this happened to me. I once wrote an article where I got the date of an event mixed-up. A woman I knew from high school read my article, went to the event, and found the date was wrong.

So what did she do? She took the time to go through the newspaper's directory and looked up my boss and called him. She'd known me since I was 14. But instead of coming to me, she immediately tried to get me in trouble, if not fired.

Luckily for me, I was tight with my boss, who forwarded the voice mail to me and dismissed the complaint saying "I don't know what this is -- you deal with it."

That was around 15 years ago, and I'm getting angry just typing this. While I didn't fly into a rage like the guy in this story, I can see how having someone go directly to your "superiors" can be maddening.

I'll be taking suggestions in my inbox as to how to get back at that high school b*tch, which is something I still want to do. Calling her job and complaining seems too easy. There has to be other, more creative ways.

[kbell]

You could forget about it or become at peace with it. Its not too healthy to hold a grudge for a long time. Nothing good will come of it. Most people I've had long grudges at, completely forget what they did to me. Why bring up the past if they don't? Or simply avoid them as well. Their past self, which most likely has changed (well maybe not for a women) is living rent free in your head.

[Atlanta Man]

(06-17-2015 12:23 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

If we can remove sexual harassment from the equation for a second, one topic I'd like to address is the way women complain at work.

Women, in my experience, tend to play "tattle tale," like they did in grade school. Instead of complaining to the person they have a problem with (i.e. "You really pissed me off") they take it directly to the boss.

If anything sets guys in a rage, it's this. And this is a big reason that if you're a man who is employed, you'd better make sure you have a good relationship with your superiors. My guess is that this guy didn't, or else he would have been "transitioned" to another mall, not fired.

When I was a community paper reporter this happened to me. I once wrote an article where I got the date of an event mixed-up. A woman I knew from high school read my article, went to the event, and found the date was wrong.

So what did she do? She took the time to go through the newspaper's directory and looked up my boss and called him. She'd known me since I was 14. But instead of coming to me, she immediately tried to get me in trouble, if not fired.

Luckily for me, I was tight with my boss, who forwarded the voice mail to me and dismissed the complaint saying "I don't know what this is -- you deal with it."

That was around 15 years ago, and I'm getting angry just typing this. While I didn't fly into a rage like the guy in this story, I can see how having someone go directly to your "superiors" can be maddening.

I'll be taking suggestions in my inbox as to how to get back at that high school b*tch, which is something I still want to do. Calling her job and complaining seems too easy. There has to be other, more creative ways.

This shit right here is why men fucking hate working with women. I have worked all kinds of jobs in law but when I was not handling any real cases and needed money I did document review (gutter work, bottom of the barrel, just here for a check no career advancement possible, just to make ends meet). When you do document review you meet attorneys in different stages of their career, new graduates waiting for bar results, people who failed the bar and are waiting to take it again, disbarred attorneys who have no options, retired attorneys in their 60's and 70's who just want to get out of the house, and a shit ton of women who no one wants to hire. The women who no one wants to hire represent 90 percent of the workers- these women are insufferable, most were fired from federal job or state jobs(which is hard to do, seriously it takes fucking effort) and they are all a bunch of tattle tale, Adria Richards type, smile in your face stab you in the back, bitches who constantly try your patience. Document review sucks bad enough as it is with the inconsistent work, long hours staring at a screen, with soul crushing fluorescent lights just draining your life away and on top of it you have some backstabbing chick with her fake smile just waiting for you to say something wrong (when you are not even talking to or about her) during some banter with another coworker( to kill the drudgery) so she can go tell a supervisor and watch as you get called in for a "conference" about "Anonymous reports of problematic behavior".

That is why I went into patent law, women hate science and it is a requirement to be a patent attorney. The last firm I worked at had only one woman working there, the fucking secretary-We got so much work done, no talking behind each others backs, no bullshit conferences, no "anonymous" reports. Just show up , do your job, get paid go home. Since it was all men we used to talk about cars, guns and women freely out in the open with no worries.

[Samseau]

(06-17-2015 08:45 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 05:46 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The idea we need to censor ourselves in fear of what other people think of us is weak and pathetic. I for one salute Ziltoid for having the balls to express extreme thoughts. I don't think he was acting out of line, even if he was mistaken.

Beyond Borders Wrote:

The woman was annoying, but I agree with them on the basic premise that those comments were ridiculous and unfounded. I wish they would have pointed out that it's not just that all "MRAs" agree but that not even everyone in this forum or thread agreed.

I also don't believe the woman would be so vehement if feminists said this - feminists say this shit all the time.

That being said, it has become clear that many people involved in this "movement," or whatever you want to call it, have zero qualms with making a lot of the same mistakes extreme feminists make. That's a tragedy but unfortunately the case any time you're dealing with people associating in groups around a cause or idea.

For the most part, groups of people cannot be trusted to keep a level head.

This sort of holier than thou posturing is toxic for the forum. It silences original thoughts and makes people conform to the mainstream.

By the way - the idea that Ziltoid's comments were ridiculous and unfounded is beside the point. The VAST majority of posters in this thread disagreed with Ziltoid, myself included. The idea that we have one outlier in a pool of opinions somehow makes us like feminists or whatever is a bunch of bullshit, and you guys are being sucked into the Young Turk's frame without even putting up a fight.

First off, slipping in the "weak and pathetic" before you quoted me to hide the fact that you're actually talking about me is what is weak and pathetic. Do me a favor if you're going to insult me and and cut the passive agression. I'm right here, and you're not even within reaching distance.

You shouldn't feel insulted unless you think we need to censor ourselves so we don't have "group think," whatever that is.

Quote:

...

So to pretend I'm cowing to "public opinion" because I happen to agree with some of the assertions of some cheesy wannabe news program (I don't even know who the hell these people are except that some of members post videos of them sometimes), you are sadly mistaken, buddy. Also, don't forget I'm one of the only posters on this forum who has zero qualms showing his face to the world. Or maybe you didn't realize that, but there it is.

You're showing your face to a world while you live in another half of the world - the repercussions of revealing yourself are minimal. I don't think it matters much if you show your face on here. I haven't seen your face by the way, but I do think if you want to return to the USA safely at some point I would advise not showing your face too much.

Quote:

What is weak and pathetic to me is when someone disagrees with a group they are part of and refuses to speak up. Or when they refuse to entertain non-group notions at all. I've stood against that my whole life, even in the real world, even when in physical danger for doing so, even literally putting my life at risk to stand up for what only I knew and believed. Something not many men in the modern world have the spine for anymore.

And that's not everybody's idea of what makes a man, but it's mine.

People stand up to each other all the time on here.

Quote:

So, there are a lot of things you could accuse me of, but being a "mainstream" thinker is not one of them.

Really? Then how come you didn't start posting in here until the Young Turks made a video about it?

Quote:

Hell, I live out my life in Cambodia, of all places, hiding from "my own" most of the time and making a fully independent income on my computer to maintain my freedom to say or do what I want...Spending years hiding from the norm or allowing myself to fully integrate into any groups. And now I'm mainstream? Ha!

Probably because you've been sheltered from PC culture for so long you haven't really felt the need to challenge your PC dogmas. You can carry them with you to other cultures and no one is going to challenge you there because they don't come from a PC background.

Quote:

Let me make something perfectly clear. Note what I said about the way people struggle to keep a level head when they associate in groups.

See, a mainstream thinker is not a mainstream thinker because they necessarily believe in mainstream ideas. A mainstream thinker is someone who goes with the ideas of his group without question, whether the group he identifies with is the world at large, his group of buddies, the manosphere, or feminists. Mainstream thinking doesn't have anything to do with the mainstream at all - it's a mindset and emotional response, often rationalized with logic, of fully embracing the thoughts of the group you identify with most (not always a bad thing but often carries the potential for bad things).

So to me, YOU can be a mainstream thinker just like someone who believes everything he sees on FOX News can be a mainstream thinker just like a feminist can be a mainstream thinker.

Mainstream to me is just popular opinion of the country at large. It has nothing to do with the group he associates with.

Quote:

The characteristics followers share is transferable from belief system to belief system. Being mainstream has zero to do with the ideas embraced and everything to do with the style of thought, character, and behavior. And those that go to extremes are often just those who overinvest in the group, for whatever reason.

It's irrelevant if the ideas are extreme or not. All the matters if the ideas are true or false. If everyone believes 2 + 2 = 4, it may be mainstream but it's still true.

Quote:

In fact, this basic flaw in human character is at the root of both the tyrranny of the majority AND they tyranny of minority so feared by the Fathers of the Constitution - unrelated issue, but it's an example of just how entrenched this shit is in the human psyche and human history.

The Founding Fathers weren't against truth.

Quote:

...

Me saying men like you have resorted to a lot of the same extremist fallacies as extreme feminists has NOTHING to do with Young Turks or anyone else in this world. Nor is it any kind of shaming tactic (shamers have a group to shame you back into - I do not). It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that some of the logical jumps I see in the manosphere are the same logical jumps I see extreme feminists (or other extremists) make. Period.

If people justify their opinions, then there really isn't anything to be concerned about. No one is yelling or shouting their views and unwilling to consider that they may be wrong. Virtually everyone on this board is amenable to reason, and that's why your claims about this forum are bogus.

Quote:

In fact, I've been stating this opinion that some people in this space (manosphere not just the forum) have lost themselves for quite some time, so this isn't sparked by this video by any means. I've noticed lately others have come around to recognize the same thing over the past year, and I'm thankful for that. In case there is any doubt, I still see a lot of value in the men and ideas here too, or I wouldn't still be here. And I don't fear men losing themselves in extremes because I give a shit what people think - I care because I would rather see them find themselves.

Instead of making some abstract point about group-think, why don't you just state what you believe is true or false and then provide reasons for it? No one here believes consensus is more important than reason.

Quote:

Bottom line is this - you lose me completely when you insinuate I have a "holier than thou" attitude for daring to suggest a poster has gone overboard when he says he can't blame a guy for shooting a woman in the back with zero basis for making that suggestion.

Not to rag on Ziltoid any more than is necessary but rather to defend my assertion against yours - this is an emotional, illogical jump no matter how you paint it. And even if you think it should be given room to breathe, it's most certainly not "holier than thou" to say I agree with the ridiculous video that it is ridiculous.

Again, all of your posts came after the video was released, and you said on page 3:

Quote:

That being said, it has become clear that many people involved in this "movement," or whatever you want to call it, have zero qualms with making a lot of the same mistakes extreme feminists make. That's a tragedy but unfortunately the case any time you're dealing with people associating in groups around a cause or idea.

For the most part, groups of people cannot be trusted to keep a level head.

The idea that we're succumbing to group-think is nonsense, and the fact that you, along with many others, were piling on because of some "media" released is weak. Note, you didn't state you merely disagreed with Ziltoid, you instead create some massive claim about the manosphere or this forum based on one dude. Makes no sense.

Quote:

And by the way, this insinuation from a guy who has been trying to bully and goad other posters to more fully embrace manosphere ideas for ages? You really crack me up.

I'm all for pure independent thought. I live and breathe it. What I am not for is having an illogical, emotional gut reaction to something and immediately trying to cram it into your worldview because it fits your rationalized narrative to do so. To me, that is the polar opposite of independent thought - and I don't care what color of pills you're swallowing.

Independent thought is meaningless if it's false. Independence isn't what is important, it's the truth value that matters. Giving opinions with supporting reasoning is what leads men to truth. And if we happen to agree on this truth until we can discover contrary reasons, that doesn't mean we've succumbed to group-think.

The idea that you place so much emphasis on your identity as an "independent" thinker is a bad way to live, man. You sound like a relativist - relativism is bullshit. Relativism is what says Bruce Jenner can be a woman but Rachel Dolezal cannot be Black.

It doesn't matter how many agree or disagree. All that matters is if a statement is true or false.

[Barron]

(06-17-2015 09:55 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

You stated your regret, and I took it at face value. I have no intention to keep harping on you about it or refusing to let it go.

lol.

[teh_skeeze]

(06-17-2015 07:58 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

WB Ana while she's raging.





She is developing a roughness about her look, though. I think it's all that anger.

Make sure you wear shades. Those tan lines she's got going are going to blind you.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-17-2015 04:02 PM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 09:55 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

You stated your regret, and I took it at face value. I have no intention to keep harping on you about it or refusing to let it go.

lol.

Something on your mind?

Or just practicing your typing skills?

[Beyond Borders]

(06-17-2015 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You're showing your face to a world while you live in another half of the world - the repercussions of revealing yourself are minimal. I don't think it matters much if you show your face on here. I haven't seen your face by the way, but I do think if you want to return to the USA safely at some point I would advise not showing your face too much.

I'll be there next month. Feel free to elaborate.

Do tell - what dangers lurk, Sensei Samseau?

Quote:

Really? Then how come you didn't start posting in here until the Young Turks made a video about it?

Correction. I didn't start posting here when the Young turks made a video - I started posting in here when someone posted a video that the young turks made.

There's a huge difference there.

But again, I've taken this stance many times on the forum. Just because I pointed out that a video made some good points does not put me in league with the makers of this video. And the insinuation is very weasely.

You're right, though, what matters is truth. So if a video speaks some truth that I happen to agree with (even if I don't agree with everything in the video), labeling me as a mainstream thinker for saying so is nothing short of very obvious manipulation. I can think for myself; therefore, it is okay for me to agree with people I'm not in bed with if they say something that is correct or partly correct. There is no monopoly on my opinions.

But now I've got PC dogmas? Your shaming tactics really know no shame, do they?

Quote:

Independent thought is meaningless if it's false. Independence isn't what is important, it's the truth value that matters. Giving opinions with supporting reasoning is what leads men to truth. And if we happen to agree on this truth until we can discover contrary reasons, that doesn't mean we've succumbed to group-think.

Yes, if only you had some supporting reason for this "truth" you saw based on such limited details regarding this story....

Quote:

The idea that you place so much emphasis on your identity as an "independent" thinker is a bad way to live, man. You sound like a relativist - relativism is bullshit. Relativism is what says Bruce Jenner can be a woman but Rachel Dolezal cannot be Black.

There you go again.

This line of dialouge would be hilarious if it weren't so potentially dangerous. Fortunately, most guys here seem to see right through it, and at least in that I can assure myself my concerns may be overblown.

Quote:

It doesn't matter how many agree or disagree. All that matters is if a statement is true or false.

I agree. Unfortunately, where it goes wrong is when guys get worked up and try spouting "truth" when they're making logical leaps based on nothing but the momentum of the greater conversation.

[Samseau]

(06-18-2015 12:59 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You're showing your face to a world while you live in another half of the world - the repercussions of revealing yourself are minimal. I don't think it matters much if you show your face on here. I haven't seen your face by the way, but I do think if you want to return to the USA safely at some point I would advise not showing your face too much.

I'll be there next month. Feel free to elaborate.

Do tell - what dangers lurk, Sensei Samseau?

Other than the femnazi's and white knights?

Quote:

Quote:

Really? Then how come you didn't start posting in here until the Young Turks made a video about it?

Correction. I didn't start posting here when the Young turks made a video - I started posting in here when someone posted a video that the young turks made.

There's a huge difference there.

But again, I've taken this stance many times on the forum. Just because I pointed out that a video made some good points does not put me in league with the makers of this video. And the insinuation is very weasely.

You're right, though, what matters is truth. So if a video speaks some truth that I happen to agree with (even if I don't agree with everything in the video), labeling me as a mainstream thinker for saying so is nothing short of very obvious manipulation. I can think for myself; therefore, it is okay for me to agree with people I'm not in bed with if they say something that is correct or partly correct. There is no monopoly on my opinions.

But now I've got PC dogmas? Your shaming tactics really know no shame, do they?

But that's not what you said. Here, I'll quote you again:

Quote:

In fact, I've been stating this opinion that some people in this space (manosphere not just the forum) have lost themselves for quite some time, so this isn't sparked by this video by any means. I've noticed lately others have come around to recognize the same thing over the past year, and I'm thankful for that. In case there is any doubt, I still see a lot of value in the men and ideas here too, or I wouldn't still be here. And I don't fear men losing themselves in extremes because I give a shit what people think - I care because I would rather see them find themselves.

And you're accusing me of using shaming tactics?

Quote:

Quote:

Independent thought is meaningless if it's false. Independence isn't what is important, it's the truth value that matters. Giving opinions with supporting reasoning is what leads men to truth. And if we happen to agree on this truth until we can discover contrary reasons, that doesn't mean we've succumbed to group-think.

Yes, if only you had some supporting reason for this "truth" you saw based on such limited details regarding this story....

I did, and I wrote my thoughts on it. Basil disagreed, and we discussed it calmly like men without crazy accusations of "group think."

Quote:

Quote:

The idea that you place so much emphasis on your identity as an "independent" thinker is a bad way to live, man. You sound like a relativist - relativism is bullshit. Relativism is what says Bruce Jenner can be a woman but Rachel Dolezal cannot be Black.

There you go again.

This line of dialouge would be hilarious if it weren't so potentially dangerous. Fortunately, most guys here seem to see right through it, and at least in that I can assure myself my concerns may be overblown.

As long as you admit that group think shouldn't be a pressing concern, then there's nothing dangerous to be worried about.

Quote:

Quote:

It doesn't matter how many agree or disagree. All that matters is if a statement is true or false.

I agree. Unfortunately, where it goes wrong is when guys get worked up and try spouting "truth" when they're making logical leaps based on nothing but the momentum of the greater conversation.

Again, everyone here knew they were speculating. That's part of the fun of trying to solve a murder mystery.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-18-2015 09:10 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 12:59 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You're showing your face to a world while you live in another half of the world - the repercussions of revealing yourself are minimal. I don't think it matters much if you show your face on here. I haven't seen your face by the way, but I do think if you want to return to the USA safely at some point I would advise not showing your face too much.

I'll be there next month. Feel free to elaborate.

Do tell - what dangers lurk, Sensei Samseau?

Other than the femnazi's and white knights?

Forgive me if I'm not frightened.

Quote:

Quote:

In fact, I've been stating this opinion that some people in this space (manosphere not just the forum) have lost themselves for quite some time, so this isn't sparked by this video by any means. I've noticed lately others have come around to recognize the same thing over the past year, and I'm thankful for that. In case there is any doubt, I still see a lot of value in the men and ideas here too, or I wouldn't still be here. And I don't fear men losing themselves in extremes because I give a shit what people think - I care because I would rather see them find themselves.

And you're accusing me of using shaming tactics?

Yes, I am. And you do it often. Masking it with metaphors and wordplay doesn't make it any less obvious.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how me saying "some people in this space (manosphere not just the forum) have lost themselves for quite some time" (a response to you asserting I was being sucked into this TV show's frame) somehow overshadows you saying I have "PC dogmas", "holier than thou posturing" or "You sound like a relativist - relativism is bullshit. Relativism is what says Bruce Jenner can be a woman but Rachel Dolezal cannot be Black."

That's very interesting idea of logic. If you're going to cherrypick, at least put a little effort into it. What you are doing there very clearly and obviously attempts to label me as an "outsider" for daring to say those comments were ridiculous and unfounded or representative of a growing extremist issue.

That's what shaming is.

Then this logical leap that living in one of the rawest, most un-PC places on Earth somehow frees me from ever having my so-called PC dogmas challenged.

So not only do you shame but you go to cartoonish lengths to do it.

I mean, do you come up with this stuff completely on your own? It's damn creative.

Quote:

As long as you admit that group think shouldn't be a pressing concern, then there's nothing dangerous to be worried about.

No, I do not admit that.

And if you can't see that it at least exists enough to be a concern worth discussion in the manosphere, than perhaps you need to ask yourself why that is.

Quote:

Again, everyone here knew they were speculating. That's part of the fun of trying to solve a murder mystery.

We both know how you would have responded to such unsubstantiated speculation about a man from a feminist...

Anyhow, as much fun as this has been, I don't think a conversation between you and I is ever going to get us anywhere else than this back and forth. Just in case you missed the pointless pattern in this thread.

[Barron]

(06-18-2015 12:37 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 04:02 PM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 09:55 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

You stated your regret, and I took it at face value. I have no intention to keep harping on you about it or refusing to let it go.

lol.

Something on your mind?

Or just practicing your typing skills?

Your presumption of authority on the matter is whats amusing.
"You stated your regret, and I took it at face value."
I'm sure Zilt slept better at night knowing you accepted whatever form of capitulation he offered up and that you have no intention to "harp on him" must be a great relief as well.

[Suits]

[Beyond Borders]

(06-18-2015 11:53 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 12:37 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 04:02 PM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 09:55 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

You stated your regret, and I took it at face value. I have no intention to keep harping on you about it or refusing to let it go.

lol.

Something on your mind?

Or just practicing your typing skills?

Your presumption of authority on the matter is whats amusing.
"You stated your regret, and I took it at face value."
I'm sure Zilt slept better at night knowing you accepted whatever form of capitulation he offered up and that you have no intention to "harp on him" must be a great relief as well.

If that's what you read in my exchange with Ziltoid, you're either reading it wrong or trolling. Notice that he himself wasn't confused at all about what I said to him.

It took him a matter of minutes to respond with a"yes, bb, I didn't think that's what you were attempting to do."

In fact, isn't it interesting how the opinion of me that you already had in your mind painted your reading of my words? Very relevant to the things we've been talking about...

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Holy shit. If you want to see the internet version of Riddick Bowe/ Evander Holyfield, check out Samseau and Beyond Borders.

If nothing else, you both give a solid platform for the new guys like me on how to handle point/counterpoint. I hope you are, or will be in the future, friends/wingmen in the real world. You'd dominate.

[iknowexactly]

(06-16-2015 11:47 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 11:41 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

The woman was annoying, but I agree with them on the basic premise that those comments were ridiculous and unfounded. I wish they would have pointed out that it's not just that all "MRAs" agree but that not even everyone in this forum or thread agreed.

I also don't believe the woman would be so vehement if feminists said this - feminists say this shit all the time.

That being said, it has become clear that many people involved in this "movement," or whatever you want to call it, have zero qualms with making a lot of the same mistakes extreme feminists make. That's a tragedy but unfortunately the case any time you're dealing with people associating in groups around a cause or idea.

For the most part, groups of people cannot be trusted to keep a level head.

I've googled it but have not found, a documented psychological effect by where when you isolate people who think alike, the discourse becomes progressively more radical....

Psychoanalytic writers were arguing this around the time of WW2 due to the obvious "slippery slope" of horrors that occurred which we are forced to see very ordinary humans are capable of, here's an excerpt.

I remember reading an interview with a concentration camp guard, he said something like "What was I supposed to do, shoot my sergeant? He had kids."

[2Wycked]

Althought I don't think the outcome is in doubt, the trial is set to start next month for Alexander Kozak:

Quote:

Lawyers on Friday worked out final details in the murder trial of Alexander Kozak, charged with the fatal shooting of Andrea Farrington in Coral Ridge Mall last summer.

Kozak made an appearance at the Linn County Courthouse for the pretrial hearing. The trial, set to begin April 12, is expected to take about two weeks, and could potentially finish on April 25 if it goes according to schedule, said Sixth Judicial District Judge Christopher Bruns.

At Friday's pretrial conference, Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness agreed with Kozak's lawyer, Alfredo Parrish, that the family of 20-year-old Farrington will be allowed to be in the courtroom for the entirety of the trial.

"I do appreciate very much, and the family does as well, that they would be able to sit in on the whole trial and not be sequestered," Lyness said, adding that she may call one family member as a witness to provide short testimony.

Kozak, 22, is charged in the death of Farrington, who was shot three times in the back on June 12 while she was working at an Iowa Children's Museum information kiosk in the mall.

Parrish raised the concern that potential jurors will find information online about Kozak before the trial, or after being selected for the jury. The trial will be held in Story County in part because the defense has argued that extensive media coverage of the shooting last summer would make it difficult for Kozak to receive a fair trial in Johnson County.

Bruns said he takes seriously concerns that members of the jury may be swayed by media coverage and said they would be informed not to research the case ahead of or during the trial.

"If I see a cellphone out during any point in the courtroom, nobody gets a cellphone," he said.

Also under discussion was surveillance video of the shooting that could be introduced as evidence. Bruns said he wanted to make sure jurors would be able to view the footage with minimal instructions and that they would not be able to accidentally access any material not entered into evidence.

Bruns also suggested both sides provide their complete witness lists to the court by March 29, which Lyness and Parrish said they believe they can do.

Lyness said she expects to have her witnesses available to testify beginning on the morning of April 15, lasting through April 19 or 20. Parrish would then present the defense's witnesses, including a psychiatrist, to make the case for a diminished responsibility defense, claiming Kozak had a mental defect at the time of the crime. The state's rebuttal is likely to fall on April 21 or 22, Bruns said.

On Thursday, Lyness and Assistant Johnson County Attorney Naeda Elliott filed a motion to exclude some of the evidence that is part of Kozak's defense.

In that motion, Lyness argued that a psychiatrist chosen by the defense to examine Kozak had not been able to diagnose any mental illness. According to the motion, the psychiatrist, William Logan, said, "At present Mr. Kozak does not fit clearly into either of the mentioned diagnostic categories who share in common an aggressive overreaction to a stressor."

The motion also argued that testimony from another defense witness, Andrew High, who is described as a communication studies professor, is irrelevant because he cannot speak to Kozak's mental condition.

Mention of Kozak's physical medical condition and any mental health treatment prior to the date of the shooting should also be excluded, the motion argues.

Farrington's parents have filed a lawsuit against Coral Ridge Mall and its security provider claiming they acted negligently by failing to protect Farrington from harassment and threats by Kozak before she was shot. Lyness' motion also argues mention of that lawsuit should be excluded from the trial.

Bruns indicated that he wanted Lyness to provide more information about the motion before the trial begins.

[Sean]

(06-13-2015 12:27 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

The guy was probably making a bit over minimum wage.

The man who you would expect to resort to desperate violence is one who is on the lower end of the economic scale, since he has nothing to fall back on. An upper middle class worker who got trivially fired would be able to bounce back easily, both mentally and professionally.

Beware the man with nothing to lose.