Categories
anti-Semitism evil SJWs homophobia kitties PUA return of kings rhymes with roosh

Who took down Roosh V’s sites this week? Danes, gays, Jews … or Big Toilet Paper?

toiletpapercat

 

So Roosh Valizadeh’s websites — Return of Kings, the Roosh V Forum, and his own blog — have been hit with DDOS attacks this week.

Roosh isn’t sure who’s to blame, but he has a few ideas. In a note on the DDOS attacks he posted to his site, he wrote:

I have so many enemies that it could have been organized by Canadian SJW’s, the American homosexual lobby, the Israeli Defense Force, or the nation of Denmark.

Denmark, huh? I always thought there was something sneaky about that country.

But I can’t imagine that many Danes are actually pissed at Roosh, really. After all, his Don’t Bang Denmark book explicitly suggested that his fans NOT visit the country. And generally speaking, the fewer Roosh fans in your country, the better.

I don’t think it’s Denmark, or any of the other suspects on Roosh’s little list.

There’s a much more obvious possibility: Toilet paper manufacturers.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

134 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Drezden:

Yes, because the supplementary document is not part of the text itself. Once the text is published then the author has no more control over it than anyone else does. This is a basic tenet of modern literary theory.

The reason I’m grappling with this is that I think Jackie is coming from a literary standpoint in which this is not the case; in which case this is an utterly different literary theory and I want to try to understand it rather than just insist that she conform with the Western Intellectual Tradition.

Skye
Skye
5 years ago

I think Jackie and EJ might be talking past each other a little. To use the Harry Potter example, while the books and Pottermore are official canon now, you could make the case that Pottermore was headcanon for Rowling before it was launched. Or Dumbledore is not explicitly described in the books as gay, though many readers got that interpretation. When Rowling stated he was, she turned her headcanon into official canon.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

(I just realised that sounds very insulting. That was really really not the intention here – I’m fascinated and am trying to learn. My apologies.)

Skye
Skye
5 years ago

And with EJ’s last message, I see I was wrong in mine as to the substance of the disagreement. Sorry all, carry on

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

It’s probably worth remembering that ‘canon’ was originally applied in relation to religious texts. The word was used to define which books, epistles etc were ‘official’ parts of church doctrine.

So the argument about what material you can consider when deciding where ‘truth’ lay is as old as the hills.

The first people to apply the term to literature generally were Sherlock Holmes fans. Were only Conan Doyle’s words relevant? Could you rely in the illustrations in The Strand magazine? What about stories by other authors that Doyle’s estate authorised?

[Sometimes ‘canon’ and ‘continuity’ get conflated, but that’s a different debate].

So establishing which sources you look at to glean ‘facts; is one thing, then you’re in to interpretation. How you interpret things may depend on what sources you consider ‘canon’.

Is Dumbledore gay? If you think only the books are canon, then it’s up to you to decide. If you think authors have the last say then the issue isn’t in doubt.

As to ‘death of the author’ Asimov often told of the time he say in a lecture that included an analysis of one of his own stories. Afterwards he approached the lecturer and said that while he found the talk interesting that wasn’t what the book was about. The lecturer replied: “Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it’s about?”

Lodnodzer
5 years ago

Test.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

@EJ Would you still feel the same if we were referring to two works in a series? If Frodo’s hobbitness were not revealed until the second book, would it still be considered fact?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

With regard to Harry Potter. there is an interpretation that everything is a coping mechanism in the imagination of an abused boy.

The books don’t actually end with “and then Harry woke up, and he was still in his cupboard under the stairs” but there is that bit about just because it’s all in his head it doesn’t mean it’s any less real. I think that’s a clue.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Drezden:
If the two books were originally intended as a single text that happens to be divided across multiple volumes, then yes, Frodo is a hobbit. If they were written as separate pieces, then each must be examined as its own text (although obviously there may be a lot of shared stuff between them, much as all works set in the real world share a setting.)

An example of this might be the canon discontinuities and change of literary style between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. You have to examine each as its own work.

Thinking about it, the difference between Jackie’s theory of literature and mine might be that she’s invested in texts which are ongoing and may have parts still coming in the future, whereas I’m invested in texts which are finished and complete, and which can now be examined as a whole.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

@EJ Let us for the sake of maintaining our example consider the Lord of the Rings to be separate pieces. Do I understand your position correctly as:

In The Fellowship, what Frodo is is open for interpretation
In The Two Towers, Frodo is unquestionably a hobbit

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

In the situation where the Fellowship was published as a separate novel, complete unto itself with no trailing-off links and which resolved its own plot and character progression: Yes, I would.

I think a better example might be to contrast The Hobbit with Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, Gandalf is merely “a wizard.” In Lord of the Rings, he’s a lesser Valar, a deity from the first breaths of the world, unable to die and charged with the protection of the free peoples of Middle Earth. Likewise, in The Hobbit the Ring is merely a quirky little find from deep in the mountains. In Lord of the Rings, it’s an embodiment of Sauron’s power and malice.

My position here would be that in The Hobbit, the nature of Gandalf and the Ring are open for interpretation; but in Lord of the Rings they’re unquestionably defined.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

@EJ Much better example, yes. Now, what are Gandalf and the ring in Middle Earth?

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Middle Earth isn’t an actual thing, to my knowledge. It’s not a place. It’s a setting which is used for a series of literary works which I love very dearly. Thanks to Tolkien’s skill as a worldbuilder it’s easy to believe that Middle Earth is a real place, separate from the novels; but it isn’t. The Ring and Gandalf are characters within those texts and have no existence separate from them.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

@EJ And that is where we differ. I believe, and from what’s been said I suspect Jackie does as well, that there is some value in meta-analysis of the setting. This is especially true of the issue with Samus as most of the opponents are largely using meta-analysis to dispute her trans status.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

The Hobbit, Gandalf is merely “a wizard.” In Lord of the Rings, he’s a lesser Valar, a deity from the first breaths of the world, unable to die and charged with the protection of the free peoples of Middle Earth.

Where does it say in Lord of the Rings he’s a Valar? I’ve read them twice and don’t remember seeing “Valar” anywhere unless I’ve skipped something?

Tore
Tore
5 years ago

As a Dane I can neither confirm nor deny our involvement.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

I believe it’s in one of the appendices that he’s a Maiar, which are the order of lesser Valar (to which Sauron belongs, as well as the five wizards.) I could be wrong though.

bananananana dakry
bananananana dakry
5 years ago

@Pandapool

Technically, Gandalf wasn’t a Vala, he was a Maia, one of the ‘lesser’ class of Ainur (spirits) of which the Valar were the greater (kind of like angels/ archangels). As for where it says, it’s either in the LoTR appendices or in the Silmarillion. *removes useless trivia geek hat*

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Okay, I’m pretty sure the fact that Gandalf is a spirit was not at all mentioned in any of the books nor the appendices. I would remember reading that because I have read the appendices more than I have read the main series.

I have not read the Silmarillion so it must be in that.

So, why would a whole different book that was finished by his son and publish after his death be considered canon if it isn’t actually stated in the story? By EJ’s logic, the Silmarillion wouldn’t count because none of the information presented was in the main body of work, that is The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Gandalf is just a wizard, not an archangel person thingy inspired by Tolkien’s Catholic upbringing.

So, what is the difference between the Silmarillion or even the appendices tack on to the end of the book than, say, what a creator’s blog states? The fact that one is published and one isn’t?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Archangel is a pretty low rank in angelic hierarchy. It’s only one above entry level, so basically, Lance Corporal.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

Jackie,

Actually, I think EJ’s position is that there is no canon, at least not in an overarching sense as it pertains to the Middle Earth setting. Gandalf is a wizard in the Hobbit, still a wizard but with slightly more importance in the Lord of the Rings, and a Maiar in the Silmarillion.

As I understand it, he is examining each as an independent work. “Facts” established in a work are only relevant within that work. From this view, a statement in the creator’s blog is only relevant in the blog.

(EJ, please correct me if I’m wrong.)

Your analysis seems to be one of looking at a character in the larger context of the mythos. “Facts” established in one work within mythos are established as fact through the entire mythos. From this view, a creator’s blog is simply another piece of supplementary material.

I think EJ has the right of it in wondering if this difference comes from the type material we’re involved in. Living works benefit greatly from analysis that view the works as a collective whole rather than independent works that share a setting.

Luzbelitx
5 years ago

Hi, I’m driven to post again due to a bronchitis break and my LotR fanatism.

I read the LOTR trilogyn and after that the Silmarillion. Regardless of canonity, I’m not messing with that, Gandalf himself claims to have been “Olórin” in “his youth in the West that is forgotten”, that is, pre-middle Earth Valinor, home of the Valar and th “lesser” Maiar.

Olórin is mentioned by the end of the Silmarillion, in the chapter on the Third Age, as a Maiar who would not abandon Elves nor Men, and stayed with them as a guide and to spread wisdom among them, and was more powerful than them so it’s essentially a Wizard.

So I get the objection on the Silmarillion for being something put together after Tolkien’s death, but then again, Olórin is mentioned right there in LOTR, and the allusion to the “West… Forgotten” makes sense in the context of the Silmarillion and does not deny the LOTR interpretation of him being a wizard, IMO.

Again, not touching the what-is-or-isn’t-cannon thing, just sharing my knowledge with the group

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Your analysis seems to be one of looking at a character in the larger context of the mythos. “Facts” established in one work within mythos are established as fact through the entire mythos. From this view, a creator’s blog is simply another piece of supplementary material.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying, thank you.

Although I don’t think “living works” is really all what I’m arguing about here. I mean, the Bilbo’s ring in The Hobbit was Sauron’s ring even if it was just mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. Vampires were created when a spirit possessed the Pharaohs even if this fact was just brought up in The Queen of the Damned. Harry Potter was a Horcrux the entire time even if it was just mentioned in The Deathly Hallows.

You have the main body of work which slowly reveals facts about its setting and canon over time, yes, but you also have supplementary materials out of the main story that fills in things here and there, such as The Silmarillion or Pottermore or whatever the hell Anne Rice does (I don’t keep up with her).

Arawhon, Beast of the Matriacholypse
Arawhon, Beast of the Matriacholypse
5 years ago

As someone who has no training in literary analysis, it appears to me that LA is more concerned with the medium, each book and its self contained story, than with the world contained within the books, the canon. The world itself cannot be divorced from the author unless they give permission or are dead, whereas the interpretation of the story and its ties to the larger culture can aka Death of the Author. There is of course the differences between mediums of videogames and books and how they are interacted with and just how much interpretation you can do to each, with there being far less within videogames.

In light of this, Samus being trans* is a huge boon to the trans* community as it is a representation of a trans* protagonist within an official canon. There may be stories out there that can be interpreted as talking about or representing trans* issues, but that is a different thing from being truly represented by a mainstream work. Its the difference between the subjective interpretation of the themes within a story and the objective facts about a setting.

Speaking of canon, only the author has authority as to what’s canon and not to a setting. This is why the Silmarillion is still canon, all the information was already written down by Tolkien as notes, his son just cobbled it together into a cohesive whole and published it.
Another example is Homestuck, that webcomic about trolls and a thousand thousand other weirder things, in that Hussy, the head creator, has taken things posted to the forums or other creative fanworks and incorporated them into the setting, making them canon. Headcanon is just fan “canon” about a setting with unresolved or missing areas, which may be overturned or made official depending on if the author ever explains that issue. Sometimes headcanon also takes areas of literary analysis into account too, to change the theme of the canon, such as all of the setting being in the dream of a character. It’s all very confusing and intermixed.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

As far as i know, it goes like this:

Canon – what the author puts in their work and approves of as fact in their world and characters (Frodo is a hobbit)

Headcanon – what you personally think would work within a world and characters (Frodo’s favorite color is blue)

Fanon – a largely accepted headcanon that is not actual canon but fandom treats it as such anyway (Frodo is in love with Sam…that’s pretty popular, right?)

Berdache from a previous life
Berdache from a previous life
5 years ago

Forgive me if this is just being ignorant, but why can’t Gandolf be thought of as a wizard in the earlier work and revealed to be much more in a later work? Don’t see why it has to be either/or here. Why can’t it be both?

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@Berdache

This has nothing to do with story structure but rather stepping back and viewing the work as a whole. You know, meta stuff. It’s more like studying history rather than reading a story.

He’s definitely thought of as a wizard throughout the main books from the character’s perspective (except maybe Treebeard who I think knew he’d return), but he wasn’t a wizard but something else entirely the entire time according to the Silmarillion, I’m guessing. Once you, the reader, know he’s NOT a wizard, it’s kinda hard to go back and reread and think of him as that.

See, considering canon while reading is sort of meta work. It’s, like, in the Matrix when it’s established that Neo and such can only have these cool mystical powers because he’s in a computer program, right? But then later on he also has these powers outside of the computer program? That goes against established canon, it goes against the laws that the story set down before where the ONLY reason Neo has these powers is because he can manipulate the computer program. That shouldn’t work when you’re out of the Matrix.

Likewise to Gandalf, Neo is The One. He always was The One, even when people were in doubt. Gandalf was always a spirit thingy (or he turned into one) even if it was revealed in a later book. Ya dig?

TheFedoraPill
TheFedoraPill
5 years ago

Sweeeet.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

Some stories leave the ending a mystery. The reader gets to decide whether the couple reunite or he comes back from war or she realizes her dream of becoming a doctor.

So why shouldn’t the reader get to decide everything? If the couple in a story don’t reunite and you want them to, that’s your version of the story.

And you might want to write that story down for others to read and interpret however they wish.

Or it might stay your own private story.

PS: This works for real life too. A woman who was bullied in high school can be the homecoming queen or win the science prize or play the lead in the school play in her imaginative memory.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Jackie:
The more I think about it, the more I conclude that it’s a difference of approach to literature that forms our different views.

To you (and please correct me if I’m wrong) a world exists and a text is set in that world. Facts about that world exist which may be in the text or may be outside of it (in the metatext, if you will) but the world is primary. The characters may crop up in other texts and because they exist independently, truths about them carry across from one work to another.

To me, a text exists and the world exists within the text. Facts about the world can be gleaned from the text but nothing outside of the text can influence what’s inside it (that is, there is no metatext) because the text is primary. Characters may crop up in other works but because the character serves the needs of the story, truths about them cannot carry across.

Your view is vastly more useful than mine for analysing ongoing, living works which may be added to later by the creator or by other creators. This is probably because your view comes from the celebration and enjoyment of existing works as they’re coming out.

My view is, I believe, more useful than yours for analysing completed works which are no longer being built on by the creator. This is probably because my view comes from the analysis of works within their cultural context.

This is probably also because lit-fic doesn’t usually have sequels, while genre fiction consists mostly of long series of books with shared worlds and continuities. As such it’s easy to view my sort of works as finished, while much harder to do the same with yours.

Would you say that’s fair?

This is fascinating. I’m really enjoying this. It feels like a cross cultural exchange.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@EJ

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Although I don’t really like the term “living work”. I’ve read (and reread) series that are completed and still analyzed them the same way, I mean, you just did what I do with Gandalf. Nothing in any of the books mentions that he’s a spirit thing unless you look to the Silmarillion, which is meta in relation to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. The Silmarillion is no different than looking up information about Harry Potter on Pottermore.

I also think it’s because we analyze things in different ways. I usually go for more allegorical works, stuff that has actual real-world parallels. For instance, Harry Potter: racism, classism, Nazism – disgust of muggleborns and squibs, Malfoys versus Weasleys, Death Eaters.

You don’t really have that in Lord of the Rings. You don’t find allegorical stuff. It’s straight up non-allegorical. Anything you find is all up for interpretation.

You can’t really interrupt a group of individuals who want to take over the government and enact eugenics and shit as a metaphor for the struggling working class. Those shits are Nazis and Klan members. Ain’t no tip-toeing around that.

A group of trees in a meeting they call a “moot” which can take decades to complete? That can be anything. Parliament, bureaucracies, old people talking politics – or it can be just a group of trees, which are practically immortal, not having the same scale of time as the rest of us. It’s likely the later, considering it’s Tolkien, but media isn’t made in a vacuum and all that jazz.

I’m also all for world-building which is something you can’t do in just one book so, naturally, anything I read will likely have supplementary materials like maps and histories that likely aren’t part of the main body of work but still are considered canon. Since you seem to not read series, you don’t get world building. You don’t have to remember another world’s rules to understand something, you just apply our own and maybe the few they establish, like dragons and magic existing and shit. Often authors do have an internal consistency when writing one-shot, non-interconnecting works although it’s unneeded. For series, you need to keep the rules consistence or else you can break your own canon and continuity.

I’m also not an academic so I’m not doing this…”professionally” or whatever. Anything I analyze or whatever is for my own pleasure and maybe the pleasure of others if I want to publish what I figure out. I’ve never been to college for this shit so those essays about the Chantry in Dragon Age I read and all the theological lingo I had to look up was for my own shits and giggles. And the essays I’m planning on analyzing dwarven culture in the DA universe, whenever I get around to that? Shits and giggles. The theory I wrote about spirits and demons being sentient magic that everyone is possessed by? Shit and giggles.

I mean, yeah, people in academia get paid for this shit, but I do it for the shits and giggles.

I hope I’m not repeating stuff you’ve already said here. It’s 3:30am right now and I should get to bed.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Jackie (for when you wake up):

You raise some very interesting points. I’m not a professional academic either, although I read serious literary criticism in order to up my game. Shits & giggles is an excellent reason to do anything like this, and I fully endorse it.

I see where you’re coming from when you distinguish between allegorical and interpretative works. However, I think you give too little credit to the sorts of works you enjoy. To say that Harry Potter’s Death Eaters are an open-and-shut allegory for the Nazis or KKK is to say that the Harry Potter books cannot be as understood by people who live in places and times where those groups are unfamiliar. For example, a Korean young adult reader might not know who the KKK were, but will understand the Juche racial-supremacy ideology and so can adapt the text to their own culture. Equally, a reader living three centuries from now may know who the Nazis were from history books, but will be more concerned with the giant robotic space wasps which are invading their civilisation. As such, the more rigidly you tie your work to a specific allegorical meaning, the more you prevent other readers from appreciating it on a personal level.

On the other hand, I feel that the Death Eaters are more open for interpretation as a reactionary splinter of a rigid ruling culture which is terrified of losing power to a more democratic groundswell. This is something that every person understands, because this is part of every culture. I might read Harry Potter and think, “Aha, this is a metaphor for #GG, with Malfoy representing the ‘gamer culture’ and Weasley representing the influx of casuals.” Someone in China might read it and see it as a metaphor for the crumbling Communist party cliques and their desperation to hold onto power. One can probably make atheist interpretations, communist interpretations and so on. The people three hundred years in the future will make interpretations of it in their own cultural milieu.

If we chain the text to Joanna Rowling’s interpretation of it, then when she’s dead and we’re all dead and the specific issues she thinks it’s about have been forgotten, then the text is meaningless. If, on the other hand, we make the text open to interpretation, then it belongs to everyone and can never die.

That said, it’s not for me to tell you what to enjoy and what not to enjoy. If you like works with a narrow applicability then your tastes are your own.

On the subject of series: I do enjoy some series, but tend to see them as a single joint work rather than several individual ones. For example, Lord of the Rings is one work despite being in three volumes. Battlestar Galactica is one work despite being in three and a half seasons (the latter half of the last season never happened.)

Thinking about it, there’s no reason not to combine the metatext in with the text when doing this: one can see Pottermore and the whole Harry Potter series, together, as a single text which can then be analysed. The moment Rowling agrees to leave it along and stop tinkering with it, that is.

On the subject of worldbuilding: Dune did some amazing worldbuilding in a single volume. So did The Years of Rice and Salt. So did Consider Phlebas. So did The Goblin Emperor. So did The Hunger Games (the first book, which stands alone as a novel very well.)

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Aha, this is a metaphor for #GG, with Malfoy representing the ‘gamer culture’ and Weasley representing the influx of casuals.

Uh, so #GGers are bragging with how much money their family has, proud of their ignorance of muggle culture, and obsessed their pureblood status and making sure their children don’t marry muggles and mudbloods?

Wait, you know, forget that. They are.

And, yeah, someone with a different look at history or different culture would likely interpret it differently. That was my Western bias talking.

On the subject of series: I do enjoy some series, but tend to see them as a single joint work rather than several individual ones. For example, Lord of the Rings is one work despite being in three volumes…

Thinking about it, there’s no reason not to combine the metatext in with the text when doing this.

Exactly, that’s exactly what I do.

On the subject of worldbuilding: Dune–

I’m sorry but I never finished Dune. I don’t even think I got that far in. All it was was political squabbles and war rhetoric. If I wanted that, I’d pick up…a Tom Clancy book, I guess?

Although The Goblin Emperor sounds interesting. I like goblins. o3o

Dal
Dal
5 years ago

As a Swedish-American, I must say that those Danes are treacherous little bastards.