So a horse-loving, feminist-hating Roosh V fan popped into my Twitter mentions today, defending Roosh against accusations of rape by noting that he’s never actually been charged or convicted of rape. Which is true, though not actually proof of his innocence any more than OJ’s acquittal in criminal court is proof that he didn’t murder his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend.
When Phil pointed out that his belief that Roosh is a rapist seems to be supported by Roosh’s own words, Ms. Smith declared that Roosh’s own words didn’t count, because they appeared in a post of mine. And that’s when, for better or worse, I entered into the discussion myself.
And then I asked the questions I ask everyone who accuses me of taking quotes out of context: Have you read the original quotes in context, and if so, could you tell me how I misrepresented them?
I don’t think anyone I have ever asked these questions to has given me a satisfactory answer. Most slink off at this point, their bluff called.
But others continue to bluff and bluster onward, doing their best to avoid answering the questions — either because they have read the quotes in their original context, and know full well that I didn’t misrepresent them, or because they haven’t read the quotes in the original and don’t want to admit it.
Still, I don’t think I’ve ever run across a bluffer quite as brazen or as persistent as Ms. Smith, who somehow managed, over the course of several hours of on-and-off “debate,” to avoid saying whether or not she actually read any of the books she claimed I was misrepresenting. Or even the post of mine she was ostensibly critiquing.
As the hours went by, her attempts to wriggle out of answering these rather basic yes or no questions took on a kind of Dadaesque grandeur. Read on, if you have the patience for it.
Seeing the name “Mina” so often in my mentions made me think of the Bollywood classic “Eena Meena Deeka,” which is certainly more entertaining than Mina Smith’s “arguments” above.
Ye Gods. I was getting a ‘Who’s on First’ vibe by the end of that. You kept going long after I would have pulled the plug.
God, I hate it when people that you’re debating won’t answer the question that you asked and instead persist on trying to derail the debate by trying to get you to answer a different question in hopes that they can get into a different discussion with you.
Wow, I’m pretty sure she was the sealioner, not you.
A perfect example of arguing in bad faith. If you had given an explicit definition of consent, Smith would have demanded you define one of the words in your definition. And again, and again. This reductivist game can be played literally endlessly, until you are debating even the ability of language to accurately represent concepts. It’s meant to anti-elucidate the subject, period. What’s clear to any sane person is that Roosh’s writings are indistinguishable from diary entries that the prosecution would submit as evidence IN a rape trial – and there are a catalog of logistical reasons that Roosh hasn’t been convicted of rape that have nothing to do with any supposed innocence. Again, this is crystal clear to any remotely honest person.
Dear Mina:
Define: Define.
In bingo, so far, I have:
Tu Quoque: Answering criticism with criticism
Ad Homninem: Attacking the opponent’s character.
Special Pleading: Moving the Goalposts
Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with Mina, not David, in this case.
Any others I missed? You need five in a row…
http://38.media.tumblr.com/9177b1fd2cf9314f976b11f0a847c31d/tumblr_nh889taiai1tetc4ho1_r1_500.gif
If zie really doesn’t know the definitions of rape and consent zirself, that doesn’t say good things about zir. So zie is either truly stupid (Quoth my literature teacher, “Ignorance + laziness = stupidity”), or simply arguing in bad faith.
On a side note, thanks for showing me Eena Meena Deeka, David!
First of all, why does David have to define consent when there is already both a dictionary and legal definitions of the word out there. It was up to Mina to show that he was using a definition of consent that is different than any standard definitions.
Secondly, in what context is admitting to rape ever acceptable? I can’t think of any. Unless he was an actor discussing the time he played a rapist and somebody removed references to acting.
Aw man, I hate when I read articles with no credibility.
Loved @steampunked’s comment.
But WWTH, Roosh never called it rape, and no evil lawyers have slapped the label on him in court and made it stick. Ergo, it wasn’t rape. Ergo, he has not admitted to rape.
Words mean things! I think! See, things aren’t a thing unless they’re officially called a thing by the person who thinged or by someone with the authority to say he thinged, and if the thinger says it wasn’t thinging then even that doesn’t count, because only the person thinging gets to define what sort of thing he thinged, because things in the world aren’t real things but only words that may mean things but don’t necessarily represent the same thing you think, and only words like “thing” are good or bad, not actions themselves, so if a thing isn’t called a thing it isn’t thing and the thinging person isn’t a thinger. So actually, words don’t mean things, because words aren’t things themselves.
Thing?
Mina is right about one thing: I won’t be remembering her at all.
If Roosh has never raped because “he’s never been charged or convicted,” then I’ve never driven above the speed limit.
NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT.
How do you define “above” anyway??
@Tara’s response wins. I would love to have seen where that would’ve taken the conversation.
The Mathinazis define “above” to suit their mathinist agenda. That’s why they don’t want to have the conversation!!
Rabid Rabbit,
Thing?
This is way off topic, but I hate it when forced birthers use the Dr Seuss quote “a person’s a person, no matter how small.” Dr. Seuss was a huge leftist! I really doubt he’d be too pleased with reactionaries misusing his work. I mean, Seuss’ work is part of what influenced me to become an “SJW”
Hahaha oh god that’s so infuriating. I don’t know how you stuck with it as long as you did.
This is why I can’t use twitter. I would grind my teeth down to little stumps in fits of impotent rage.
Jesus, it’s like she’s prompting a bot. “Define: consent. Define: consent. DAMMIT DICTIONARY BOT WHAT IS CONSENT???”
I’m with BritterSweet: if you can’t define it yourself, somethin’ wrong with you. Like you’re a garbage person who thinks that being coerced into sex counts as consent. Fuck. Off.
But David, what does consent meaaaaaan?
http://orig10.deviantart.net/9dce/f/2012/288/5/c/brick__d_by_topachi-d5hvol2.gif
I found Mina’s source code:
10 PRINT “DEFINE: CONSENT”
20 GOTO 10
Ah, Mina, you’re a veritable SealionESS. Now, if only you could balance a ball on your nose, clap your flippers, and go “Oork Oork Oork!”
Define: English language. Define: Dictionary. Define: Wikipedia. Can’t brain… hurty… urgh…
Seriously, why couldn’t she (*snerk*, because I believe “Mina” is more likely “Mark”) just look at the definitions in Wikipedia, instead of demanding elementary lessons on things which adult humans should be able to Google, for themselves? Anyone who looked could tell that what Rapist Roosh described violated consent, under the law. Your definition of consent is no different from that of the law.
Actually, Dr. Seuss’ wife has threatened to sue “pro-life” organizations for co-opting the phrase, and he and his wife were both supporters of Planned Parenthood.
Especially since Horton Hears a Who! was an apology for his previous racism towards the Japanese, NOT some kind of “pro-life” message.
Because “Mina” can’t “debate” their way out of a wet paper sack.
And it’s obvious they didn’t read the article or Roosh’s books, or else they’d have owned up to it and provided the fucking quotes they felt were “taken out of context”, and would have provided context.
But, of course, everything needs to be a “game” with these fuckers. Can’t just come out and talk, no, they have to make sure we’re not “shit-testing” them.
Quoth the Rooshite: “Context! Define: rape!”
Why is nobody mentioning that David repeatedly told Mina where he wrote the definition of consent?
Why do i feel like Mina isn’t actually a person and just a harassment bot someone programmed. Something about their responses just don’t really seem all that meaningful or even human. The same thing repeated endlessly, and many of the responses could conceivably be for anything Dave tweeted back to them considering how vague they were.