The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! Please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!
On his forum today, Roosh V posted this rather chilling assessment of his fans:
With so many mass shootings in the States these days, it’s just a matter of time until one of them happens to follow me on Twitter, read ROK, or like a handful of my Youtube videos.
What!?
There have been, according to one informal survey, 247 mass shootings in the United States so far this year (that is, shootings with more tha four victims, including the shooter). That’s a lot, but there are 245 million people over the age of 18 in the US. So we’re talking about one mass shooting per year per million people.
According to TwitterAudit, Roosh has about 13,000 real Twitter followers, and about 16,000 YouTube subscribers, many of them presumably the same people. His websites draw tens of thousands of unique visitors a day (including a number of his Twitter and Youtube followers) . But only about 30% of them are from the US, at least according to Alexa. So let’s say that he’s got maybe ten thousand real fans in the US, only a portion of whom could be tied to Roosh with a comment on his site or a “like” on one of his videos.
If Roosh thinks it’s “statistically likely” that one of these people literally goes out and shoots a bunch of people, either he can’t do math or he thinks his followers are much more violent and unstable and angry than your average Joe.
I mean, I think that a significant portion of his followers are ticking time bombs, but it’s strange to see that Roosh agrees with me on this.
So what does Roosh intend to do? Will he try to rachet down the hateful rhetoric? Will he ask his regular commenters to be on the lookout for anyone who shows up in the Return of Kings comments or on the Roosh V Forum who seems like he might be another Elliot Rodger in the making?
Nope. He’s not really interested in trying to stop a shooting. He’s more worried that a shooting will make him look bad.
Existing reporters who hate me in the media will take this casual association and try to say that I must have caused the murderer to go violent, even though my work does not promote violence. They will do this to incite a mob to come down upon us, hoping I will shut down my “hate speech” sites in the same way PUAHate shut down after Elliot Rodgers [sic] went on his killing spree.
His solution? An emergency “protocol” to try to make him look better. He tells his followers that he expects them to:
1. Strongly denounce the violent act. There will be no public sympathy or empathy for a man who decides to take the road of violence. Denounce the murderer and his crime on the relevant forum thread. I will also make a public statement condemning the violence.
2. No jokes or sarcasm, especially towards the victim. Absolutely do not make jokes about the victim or try to justify their harm, even if the victim turned out to have wronged the murderer (e.g. false rape accusation, bad divorce). Anyone who does this will be immediately banned without warning. Also tone down your use of animated gifs during this time. Consider that the world will be watching us during the media accusation and we have to be direct and sincere with our communication.
That’s right: “tone down your use of animated gifs.”
3. Comment on media articles distancing our community from the killer. Leave comments that condemn the violence and distance our teachings of game and masculinity to the criminal act. You can also do this on Twitter. Call out the trolls that say “I’m a Roosh follower and I support this act” as liars and provocateurs.
And that’s it.
So not only does he expect one of his followers to be a future murderer; he also expects that some of his followers would — unless specifically forbidden — react to a killing by one of their own by offering the killer support, or posting crass, jokey animated gifs.
I think he’s probably right about this as well; it’s just odd to see him admit in public what utter shits his commenters are.
One Roosh V Forum regular who calls himself Basil Ransom wonders if there’s some “hypocrisy” in Roosh’s emergency protocol. Because, after all, a lot of the guys on the forum do actually sympathize with mass killers.
Whenever a man goes and commits violence against women in the name of being oppressed or vilified as a man, or being sexually worthless, there have been posters here who publicly sympathize with him, often along the lines of “bitches/feminists had it coming for being bitches/feminists.” …
The distinction here is merely a tactical one – show no support for violence when the media limelight is on the forum. But what about when it isn’t? If it’s the right thing to do, condemning violence, shouldn’t you do it when no one is looking? If condemning violence isn’t the right thing to do, wouldn’t it be a lie to suddenly condemn it in the face of media attention?
Roosh responds:
Unlike you, Basil, some of us here care about the long-term longevity of the forum, and understand emergency situations that require us to modify our behavior when the world is examining our every word.
No one here embraces or encourages violence during peace time, though sometimes we try to empathize with frustrated males who believe they have nothing to lose. During emergencies, you can share any empathy with such killers through private message.
In other words, in Roosh’s mind, it’s fine to feel sympathy with someone who goes out and shoots a bunch of women for some perceived wrong they’ve done to him. Just not publicly, in his forum, when the media is watching.
Apparently Roosh learned his ethics from GamerGate.
It’s pretty ironic
The thing about this link is, there’s plenty of healthy polyamory relationships. Some of them include feminists.
My problem with this link is Janet’s trying to encourage women to let their husbands/boyfriends/significant male others sleep with whoever, and that’s supposed to make them “a better woman”, and it’s supposed to “not shame and demonize male sexuality”.
She’s trying way too damn hard to be that special snowflake “I’m not like other girls! I let my husband sleep with other women!” type of woman, just to stick it to feminists, completely ignoring the fact that polyamory is actually an acceptable relationship style, as long as it’s done properly, as she and her husband are doing (communicating, letting each other know who they’re going out with, keeping in contact in case something happens, telling each other how it goes, etc.).
It isn’t about monogamy somehow “controlling” and “demonizing” male sexuality, it’s about couples sitting down and communicating, thus making good relationship choices for the both of them, not just one or the other.
If Janet’s husband is fine with seeing other women, and she’s fine with him seeing other women, it’s not a problem. If she’s not okay with seeing other men, but is still okay with her husband going out with other women, then that’s fine too.
Honestly, I’m more concerned about the short-term longevity.
No I agree paradoxial intentions
“No one here embraces or encourages violence during peace time, though sometimes we try to empathize with frustrated males who believe they have nothing to lose.”
Blame my exposure to Pokémon: The First Movie, GoldenEye, Batman Begins and the first X-Men film on why I don’t sympathize with such a view.
Reading that, it doesn’t actually seem like she’s fine with it. It seems like she’s playing the “chill” game, putting on an act about how chill she is to convince herself that she is, in fact, chill about it, when in reality she’s fighting with jealousy and anxiety.
Roosh is a goddamned monster, and this proves it…again…
>Reading that, it doesn’t actually seem like she’s fine with it. It seems like she’s playing the “chill” game, putting on an act about how chill she is to convince herself that she is, in fact, chill about it, when in reality she’s fighting with jealousy and anxiety.
Yeah that’s how it struck me. Though honestly her whole blog strikes me as that (a woman desperately wanting to be ”one of the (mra) guys” for whatever reason
Hence the “if”. : /
It does read like she’s somehow managed to convince herself that this is what’s best for her husband, and that she’s fighting “female urges” to keep her husband at home, and that’s awful because “feeemale urges” like that “demonize and control male sexuality” or whatever nonsense she’s believing now.
The Basal Ransom comment and Roosh’s backlash also hints at some sort of schism in the forum. Basal has 100+ rep points whatever that means, which seems on the high end of the spectrum relatively.
The JudgyB essay is a not autobiographical, it’s a, uh, “thought exercise”; she’s took an online NY Magazine essay and reversed the genders to teach us all a life lesson.
When you have to make strategies and plans for when one of your “fans” does something horrible, that might be rock bottom and you might have to ask yourself whether you’re the bad guy at that point.
But I suppose if you’ve already blown past the “rape is okay and even good sometimes” sign you might just be cruising at rock bottom for a while now.
Sure, though my point that she seems desperate to be ”one of the good ones” still stands :/
I’m not often comfortable with doxxing folks, but after what “Mrs. Bloomfield” has done it’s hard to feel too sorry for her.
*admits to raping a man and laughs about it with other female rapists
*advocates taking children away from single mothers and not caring about what kids have to say in the matter
*calls male journalists who call her out of her bad behavior with other Mras “wh*res”
*doesnt do a dang thing about raising awareness for male victims, etc but instead use them against feminists/women and girls to get money and attention.
*cries along with other female Mras about people being mean to them to get money from men.
JB: “I’m a good men’s rights activist” Me: “yeah, you keep telling yourself that”
Though I did feel my heart sink when I read that article she should talk to her husband about that and if they’re both ok with it then I don’t see the problem.
And there’s a difference between sharing info about a certain person so people can stay away from them and not give them attention and doxxing, nobody should be doxxed.
It’s statistically likely that one of your followers would commit a mass killing sooner or later. I wouldn’t be surprised if vester Lee was a follower of yours.
“rv”
Like…VR but opposite. Hmm…
Well, yeah, that’s highly fucking abusive, and that would be abusive if the genders were reversed and it was a woman bullying her husband.
Again, JB misses the point in favor of assuming that we’re all hypocrites instead of asking what people would think about it.
Although, in her article, she actually portrayed a healthy polyamory relationship as far as I saw, so I’m kind of confused. : /
Is she like anti-polyamory, or what?
Except that even if that were so, we don’t advocate for violence against anyone, so we wouldn’t be a culprit in pushing that person to murder others. In fact, if someone came to us saying they were thinking about murdering people, I’m sure we’d all tell them to go get some help, or contact the FBI for their safety and the safety of others.
And of course you would use a recent tragedy to try to “score points” against people. Fuck you for using the deaths of others like that. Those people didn’t die for your stupid games.
Would it be ableist to point out that he pushes that aggrieved male rage bullshit and makes money by telling men how evil women are and how they need to be punished?
I can’t think of his audience as a random sampling of america but as the most angry and bitter people you could ever have the misfortune to find so it pretty much has to be higher.
I know that this is sensitive territory and I don’t want to be an armchair psychologist. If it came across as that then could you tell me a better way of getting my point across?
RV,
How is it statistically likely? Show your work. Wow us with your superior man logic.
This reminds of when the Santa Barbara shooter went crazy, Roosh used to for his own gain with his “game saves lives” garbage. No sense letting a tragedy go to waste when you can sell a rape guide or two.
Anon,
I don’t see how that would be ableist. Examining someone’s motives isn’t the same as internet diagnosing someone or calling them crazy.
That said.
CK,
Someone else has already alerted you to how your use of the label crazy is a violation of the comment policy and provided you a link. Please cut that shit out.
Huh, I didn’t even know Roosh was capable of self-awareness.
I get your point. I will carefully review the policy. FYI “went crazy” is a figure of speech and I was referring to a guy who went on a shooting spree, okay? No insensitivity to mental illness was intended. Now, off to review the policies. Thank you.