Talk:Roosh V/Archive1

Grammar Nazi mode activated
Is it "pick-up" or "pick up"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pick-up" is fine as long when you're using it as a noun. "Pick up" as a verb.  19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Poe's law...
It's ironic that the author/s would snigger at Roosh because of people putting up poe's law stuff on his website to mock him, because Roosh himself said the rape on private property wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2015/08/12/how-canada-turned-a-blogging-casanova-into-a-martyr-menon.html

I'm sure liberals would understand...

https://reason.com/blog/2012/03/06/its-like-totally-different-when-a-libera

Part of the whole point of the piece that roosh wrote is if you have a situation where you don't encourage women to defend themselves (are female self defense courses now an MRA thing?), and you just magically think you can eradicate rape by changing society (nope, nothing stupid about that) and you have situations where women go and have sex and submit to men in private and don't seem to exercise any free will or try to fight back or say no and they're not drunk, if we're going to call that rape (and some people are literally arguing for that) then things are so insane that in a hypothetical we might as well just make rape legal on private property because that would make about as much sense as what's going on now, where women do not give any indication that they don't want to have sex, and we define that as rape. The real problem here is the left redefining rape until the point where it has lost all meaning. For Christ's sake, we were taught in school that rape is rape, it's very unambiguous and if consent isn't given (or if a women resists a man's affections) that's the end of the story. What's ironic is it is the so-called advocates for women who are trying to create a grey area here. I guess I'm supposed to believe that women aren't saying no because of peer pressure (so I guess I can use that to justify my cigarette addiction) or because they're being hypnotized by male privilege. I love all this outrage from people who can't even bring themselves to admit that Michael Jackson ACTUALLY RAPED CHILDREN. To say nothing of the black community's track record on rape, which goes without saying. You poor bastards are thick as molasses. Burkean (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The "make rape legal on private property" essay does appear partially satirical:


 * Through the essay, Roosh implies that there are better ways to prevent rape (make both partners get to know each other better, etc.) which, even if they're ridiculously ineffective and sexist, aren't actually advocating for legal rape. I might be wrong, but it feels like an PUA A Modest Proposal. 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many ideas which most contemporary and especially liberal leaning women (and progressive pro feminist men) find sexist when they truly are sexist. However, having an idea about sexuality that runs counter to this narrative is not by definition sexist. It's a never ending shitfest of an argument, as the definition of what is and isn't sexist is constantly changing and I really don't want to go into that minefield. I sympathize and agree with Roosh on most points and have found his advice helpful both for one night stands and long term meaningful relationships. You can ask the women I've dated and the one to whom I'm currently engaged if they feel my patriarchal rape culture oriented views have left them feeling trapped in a cruel misogynistic prison of a relationship. Roosh's stuff is like out of a Disney film when compared to anything in 'The Prisoner of Sex' by Mailer and isn't he supposed to be some sort of liberal icon? So again, the left/right double standard when it comes to who can say what about sex pervades. One would then have to concede that most of the great comedians of all time would have to be considered sexist, along with scores of other forms of entertainment and culture. One will never be able to live sexism free, at least with the way sexism is defined now unless one wished to be a miserable troll who lives in a cave and doesn't think anyone but Sam Seder and Janeane Garofalo are funny. I say no dice. It is not worth giving up on so much of what is enjoyable in life, to say nothing of our sense of humor, because of what is defined as sexist. The progressives of today almost sound like Justice Stewart. They can't define sexism, but by god, they know it when they see it! Burkean (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ... what in fuck's sake are you talking about 16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. The view/s that generally fall in line with progressive views on gender and sexuality (rape culture, all the rest of it) are not necessarily correct and regardless of whether or not we disagree on that, progressive views on gender and sexuality certainly aren't the only views. Burkean (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one knows what he is talking about with his bizarre straw army of positions, made up ideals of those he disagrees with, and fake outrage at nothing anyone said. There's a very in-depth fantasy world in there that we only see glimpses of.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You again pees sitting down? No, not really. It's just that a little evidence reveals that Roosh was not doing what was implied and so I pointed that out. Clearly English is a second language for you. And yes, progressives are constantly redefining what does and doesn't constitute sexism. I think in our last encounter you implied that Milo was endorsing rape and again failed to provide evidence. You're basically trolling me now so I look forward to harassing you as well. It would be lovely to know what ideals I made up. I think you're last claim was that people were trying to rape slutwalkers who dressed like characters from heavy metal or perhaps mad max. Burkean (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have found a better example than what you just typed :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, still can't establish why you were right and I wasn't. Still can't prove a point. Still don't have any proof. Burkean (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Says the PUA who's arguing against the whole of the social sciences. You realize people aren't here to educate you, right? You could pick up a sociology book and, you know, read it instead of relying on some c-list dipshit who writes books about how to date rape women to form your worldview. All of this has been done to death. You people are just too intellectually lazy and too intellectually dishonest to even try. Why bother with you? It's like arguing with a creationist. It's better just to openly mock you like the rest of the world does. 72.181.110.248 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of social science out there that says men are biologically prone to rape and most anthropologists agree that if you go back far enough, basically a lot more sex is rape because it was the biological imperative. Case in point, female animals don't usually look to happy about what's going on. But because we can think for ourselves and don't have be controlled by our evolution and because we have self knowledge no other animal has, we have learned more about female sexuality and the female orgasm and sex can and should be pleasurable for a woman too. And that a man can and should control his sexuality in order to respect the rights of women. And a legal framework designed to protect people's rights exist so force should not be permitted. And, as was revealed in my discussion with potato, the roosh rape on private property thing was satirical since there were so many out there who basically don't encourage women to be safe, or if you do, it's sexist (by the way safe doesn't mean you can only dress a certain way or someone has the right to rape you). So, Roosh was saying by that logic you might as well have legal rape on private property, if you think it is folly to alert women to dangers. Heck, I remember the debate used to be that the feminists wanted women to protect themselves and others wee concerned that it would take all the fun out of society. How times have changed. In any case, I'm sure you're well versed in all the sociologists who agree with you. Burkean (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of social science out there that says men are biologically prone to rape and most anthropologists agree that if you go back far enough, basically a lot more sex is rape because it was the biological imperative. Case in point, female animals don't usually look to happy about what's going on. But because we can think for ourselves and don't have be controlled by our evolution and because we have self knowledge no other animal has, we have learned more about female sexuality and the female orgasm and sex can and should be pleasurable for a woman too. And that a man can and should control his sexuality in order to respect the rights of women. And a legal framework designed to protect people's rights exist so force should not be permitted. And, as was revealed in my discussion with potato, the roosh rape on private property thing was satirical since there were so many out there who basically don't encourage women to be safe, or if you do, it's sexist (by the way safe doesn't mean you can only dress a certain way or someone has the right to rape you). So, Roosh was saying by that logic you might as well have legal rape on private property, if you think it is folly to alert women to dangers. Heck, I remember the debate used to be that the feminists wanted women to protect themselves and others wee concerned that it would take all the fun out of society. How times have changed. In any case, I'm sure you're well versed in all the sociologists who agree with you. Burkean (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he initially was serious about wanting to legalize rape on private property, he has basically repudiated that position now, so I don't see what reason there is for the media to continue calling him a "pro-rape blogger". Actually, even if he did want to legalize rape, that wouldn't make him pro-rape, any more than advocating pot legalization makes someone an advocate of pot use. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Um... the closest he's come to repudiating it is trying to pretend it was satire, although, of course, he can't actually articulate what it was supposed to be satirising. Realising after the fact that it was a dumb move and trying to downplay it is a far cry from repudiating it. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the name of the essay is "How To Stop Rape" so even if it is supporting legalization of rape, it's for a good cause (i.e. stopping rape). It shows his heart is in the right place. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article was titled "how to stop rape" and then detailed the Holocaust, I wouldn't call it a well-placed heart. 03:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling Dr. Godwin! Burkean (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. Point stands. Especially b/c Hitler isn't exactly the kind of person to oppose rape of the wrong people. 02:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do elaborate on your sociological theory about a guy who didn't rape anybody but who you feel comes close to rape and how it's connected to national socialist ideology. Hitler's okay with killing. A disturbed young man killed someone. Therefore, he is perpetuating a Hitler mentality. Here's a nice thought. You know who I think should be compared to Hitler? HITLER! Burkean (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we just call the article "Roosh V"?
Nobody knows who "Daryush" is. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Feel free to change it, but make sure to fix all the redirects. 17:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no problem. Roosh V appears as a suggestion in the search box as soon as I have typed in "roo". Further kvetching is unwarranted. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A sysop will need to delete the Roosh V page to make way for the page move. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

He lifted his act from Tucker Max (who in turn stole it from Neil Strauss).
Should the casual reader be expected to know who those people are and how they are at all relevant to the story? 'Cause I sure as hell don't. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, removed that. If anyone adds back, please also add some sources or context. 20:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Irrational
[https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/443dqs/group_behind_make_rape_legal_message_cancels/cznmque it's funny how your so-called "Rational" wiki attempts to whitewash the fact that at the Montreal event, what is being portrayed as "He also had a drink thrown in his face by a woman who recognized him at a local bar" is a blatant act of assault. Looks like the Social Justice Whiners at RW don't give a shit about gendered violence when it's a woman doing it to a man, eh? It also conveniently leaves out all of the vandalism they enacted against the property he was staying at (I guess as a way to 'punish' the heretics for taking his money?). Some objectivity...]

Is there any truth to this? 01:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Extremely doubtful. Didn't he or one of his supporters release a mobile phone video that more or less proved the version that painted him in a bad light? The claim of vandalism certainly doesn't pass the laugh test, either. If there was any truth to it, I would have expected them to have been waving police reports and photos all over the place, given how even very silly 'proof' gets paraded around in those circles. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This waste of oxygen
Lives in his mother's basement.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The way he's spinning it is that his opponents made threats against his mother and he went to stay at her home to protect her. Or it was a family visit that his opponents cut short. Or something. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Rapist
Somebody calls him a rapist in the opening paragraph. For prevention of an edit war, I'm not reverting, but this is a false statement. And don't give me that "It's just a joke" excuse, that argument is not a carte blanche for calling people anything one wants to --93.223.52.220 (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He describes committing a rape in more than one of his books. So, if we take his words at face value, he is a rapist. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to share page numbers or quotes of him describing rape? --93.223.52.220 (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes, albeit without page numbers, can be seen here: . Queexchthonic murmurings 12:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're giving a website that basically has it in for the guy. And the website seems to claim that pressuring amounts to rape. How so? If a man bugs you about having sex can't you just use pepper spray? Or call the cops? That's not rape. And if after sex is initiated, a woman can stop and say no, that seems like limitless power. A woman could start sex, then say no, then say she was raped. You don't think that has potential for abuse? It's ironic how ambiguous some on the left are about what constitutes rape when they themselves say it's something they take very seriously. And if that's your idea of proof that Roosh raped somebody (aka somebody who doesn't like him said it sounds like rape to them) it's no wonder this wiki is in the shape that it is. Burkean (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see, why we would believe anything he says without any kind of outside proof. If even a fraction of the shit he writes in his books were anything close to the truth, he'd be sitting behind gray bars. --Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he's a fantasist, it's certainly not the case that someone behaving that way would find swift and certain prosecution, sadly. Under-reporting, negligent police, etc. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He sold multiple books with descriptions of crimes he supposedly committed for the whole world to read.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't mean squat if the police can't be bothered. Even if they could be bothered, it's a tough hill to climb to put a case together. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It just sounds so weird for someone to publicly talk about numerous crimes for years and not get arrested for it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, because no one has ever bragged about crimes they may or may not have committed in popular media without being arrested. I think you have a little too much faith the the criminal justice system. Petey Plane (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) It's not exactly uncommon. Bill Cosby's activities were not a secret, for example. Dubya famously went AWOL and while that was public knowledge long after the fact, there was never any indication that it would be pursued legally. If your position is influential relative to your victim(s), you can get away with a whole lot. Take Stubenville: were it not for the wider outcry, nothing would ever have been done there. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Lolwat
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-53471.html

"The Forum Is In A State Of Emergency: Extra rules apply during the worldwide attack against our international meetup day."

??? 17:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Smells of persecution complex.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Reason (magazine) whines that people hate Roosh
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/08/neo-nonsense 17:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, they're argument appears to be "Sure he's a jerk, but he's just exercising his free speech, which is good. But it's bad when others exercise their free speech in condemning his free speech." Petey Plane (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given a cursory reading, Reason ain't pro-Roosh V and considers this just some noise on the net, a tempest in a teacup.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For a magazine that makes a living on criticisms of current events, culture, economics, politics, controversial people, and etc the decision that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize people Reason likes like is astonishing and baffling. Also for a magazine that often goes after hypocrites fairly aggressively this is saddening.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How far to bronze?
Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Should he be given the satisfaction? --Scherben (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What race would Roosh be considered to be?
Would he be considered white? (I'm just thinking of terminology used by government forms, where they don't usually list "middle eastern" as an option) L&#39;s Ideology (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Homo Sapiens Sapiens. That's the only 'race' I know of :) --Scherben (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)