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.
Wow, it’s like David is debating a MRA Dalek.
“DEFINE! DEFINE! NOT CREDIBLE! NOT CREDIBLE!”
Wait, what? I think this impenetrable mystery of a tweet is a put down of some sort, but who knows.
Even ASKING for a definition of consent in the first place is moot. Roosh hasn’t just violated it in newer “she couldn’t meaningfully consent” or “it wasn’t affirmative and enthusiastic” senses–he’s openly admitted to rape in the oldest, most classic sense, that is, against a struggling woman screaming no at him, and other cases where he fully admits she doesn’t want it, but she WILL get the dick.
If you’ve read his passages like that, it’s pretty damning to have to ask the definition of consent. If you’re arguer INSISTS they’ve read Roosh’s books, I wouldn’t feel safe running into them in real life…
I used to debate with creationists and am painfully familiar with this tactic. It always signals that the other party realizes they have to either admit they were wrong or exit the discussion and unwilling to do either.
And as others have said, if David did define consent the cycle would have just repeated endlessly. Define “sex”. Define “human”. Define “species”. Define “matter”.
Did Mina ever define “context”?
They think they are, and they claim that they are, because they avoid using swears or overtly calling their opponent a cotton-headed ninny muggins. But the very definition of what they do is incredibly rude. They will (politely) tell you that you are wrong and furthermore ignorant, and (politely) tell you that you have used any number of Latin-word logical fallacies, even if you haven’t, and will (politely) sealionsplain to you that this is simply being truthful and pursuing intellectual honesty. YOU’RE the rude one for insinuating that they are rude.
You know, I read these from a healthy distance of male privilege. Sure, on an intellectual level I know they are creepy, but I don’t usually have the visceral, stomach-turning, skin-crawling reactions that I know a lot of women must have reading this. But something about B.J. Worthy as a name made me stop and want to take a scalding hot shower.
@brooked:
I think it’s supposed to mean that because OMG DAVID IS FAT LOL, he will never have personal experience of sex or fatherhood and therefore should not have an opinion on it.
This is nonsense twice over.
A) David’s weight gives him poise, gravitas and dignity; as well as meaning that he’ll look good in a waistcoat. This hardly makes him unattractive.
B) Even if David were a lifelong celibate, he would still be permitted an opinion on sex. After all, the Pope does.
Best New Word, 2015.
And I’ve never smoked weed. Not even a little. And certainly not enough of it to knock over the entirety of Burning Man.
The twitter exchange you had is an example of literally every exchange I have ever had with an MRAntifeminist since I first ran into them. Engaging them is like playing chess with pigeons. They climb on the board, knock over the pieces, shit all over the place and then strut about like they won.
@ Brooked
Hey, the Time Lords started it!
#notalldaleks
In related news, we’ve just had what I believe is the UK’s first “swatting” incident:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/19/armed-police-mumsnet-justine-roberts-swatting-attack-hoax-call
Great, we give you subsidised tea; you give us this.
Luckily British armed police have shot fewer people in the last 150 years than US police have shot in the last week or so, so the matter was resolved without anyone getting hurt; but still.
Sealions will also tacitly defend a troll who is saying awful things by tone policing those who reply to him. There was a troll who was willfully ignorant about what rape culture is. He was claiming the mean old feminists of calling all men rapists while making up statistics to look like rape is only a problem in Muslim countries. I schooled him and was actually fairly civil but I told him that he should Google a concept before he tries to discuss it so he won’t make such an ass of himself in the future. For the next 24 hours I had a sealion lecturing me about how I was mean and should just politely educate people. He never posted any rape apologia himself, but he sure wasted a lot of time defending someone who was spewing rape apologia.
tl;dr sealioning can be a tactic to defend rape apologia, racism, etc. without having to say horrible things and get called out themselves.
@Alan:
I read that on Auntie! Apparently it was carried out by DadSecurity, whatever that is. The BBC story did not go into what beef, if any, existed which led to this.
Do we have a Mumsnet reader in the house who can shed some light on why they may have been targeted?
Which is what HTBS was doing by obsessing about our failure to clutch pearls over beer throwing while ignoring that Roosh is an admitted rapist. He never defended Roosh’s ideas, just lectured us about how we reacted to them.
Oh man I saw a really similar conversation happen on Twitter about this very same subject. The thread is here, though I think some of the pertinent tweets have disappeared (and also CW for GamerGate types being horrible in the ways they tend to be horrible):
https://twitter.com/srhbutts/status/633067606451195904
Actually, I’ll just cut and paste the part I was thinking of:
——–
@SRHbutts: #gamergate is rallying behind a confessed rapist & encouraging a doxxing site to go after those who review his books [[posts screencaps]]
— @mteppatti15: wow making up false stories with circumstational if no evidence at all. I think your addicted to this
S: [[links to WHTM]] he is a rapist
— M: get a real news source why don’t you
S: it sources his own words.
— M: that website isn’t very credible also unless he is covicted in a court of law nobody can.say he is a rapist
S: he is a rapist. he is not a convicted rapist, but he is a rapist.
— M: stop making stories from other people’s words he could get you on defamation of character so I’d watch yourself
S: he admitted to having sex with a woman that couldn’t consent. by definition, that is rape. he can’t sue me for saying that.
— M: you hate gg and falsely connect everything to them so it stands to reason the stuff you say about gg is made up
— M: you can’t prove it and you are more than likely taking his words out of context. You people love inventing stories
—- @Luisit0Manu3l: wont you happen to have a link to him confessing he is a rapist, do you? #GamerGate
—— @_sinisterBen: No one has that link. Same ole SocJus listen, believe, and assault we saw at #APJAirplay this weekend. #GamerGate
S: [[links to WHTM]] it’s right here
——– @715d1: whtm yes very believable great source
Slightly off topic, I was on change.org earlier looking up a petition, and noticed the petition to get Amazon to stop selling Rapist’s books is trending and has over 50,000 signatures.
On topic, some people wouldn’t know a debate if it kicked them in the arse. Mina is one if those people.
Start a petition to get his Polish tourist visa revoked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Poland
Remember: Whenever manospherians get into this talk about ‘if you weren’t convicted in a court of law, then you didn’t actually commit the crime’ – they always end up saying that even if you are found guilty of a crime against women, they still wouldn’t believe you committed the crime. So this whole point is moot in the first place.
Reading the exchange reminds me of talking to a toddler after they’ve learned the word “why”.
@dhag85
I’m fundamentally sympathetic to the idea of “Innocent until proven guilty.” But these guys will take a self-admitted statement that’s a brazen admission of guilt, and look right past it, and argue semantics.
That’s not someone who’s respecting due process. It’s someone who actually doesn’t care about principles at all.
This strikes me as particularly hilarious.
Back in the first month I spent trying to have a conversation with GrimbleGrombers (before #GG, back when it was just #Quinnspiracy), I was spending at least half of my time telling the future-GGers that they should really calm down and stop leaping at every MS Paint red-lined screenshot that they see shoved up on Imgur, because they were so adamantly convinced that this one indie developer barely anyone had heard of somehow had control over literally the entire video game and video game journalism industries.
Making the term even more apt: I’m pretty sure I once watched one sea lion eat another sea lion’s poo.
Also… Wasn’t it proven that the Airplay threat was from another #GamerGater?
The problem really is that atheism is not a belief system. It is in an anti-position, meaning simply that an atheist does not accept the claim that there is a god or gods. On its own, it does not take a position on anything, so someone arguing “as an atheist” is not making any claims but explaining why they reject a claim. (Well, if the person is doing so rationally; being an atheist does not make you a rational person!)
Theists make a claim: there is a god/gods. They have a burden of proof. Note, though, that theism is not a system of beliefs. Christianity in all its denominations is a system of belief within theism. In atheism, people are often secular humanists, which is a belief system.
I don’t know what discussions you’ve witnessed or participated in, but I see a difference between misogynists who make all kinds of claims about the way the world works, about gender, about rape, etc., and atheists who actually don’t make claims about anything.
I think atheists go around demolishing arguments because, at least in the US, there are so many outspoken religious fundies telling us how we should live our life, structure our laws, and so on, based on their understanding of their holy book.