NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
…yeah, we definitely shouldn’t confuse making someone have sex without in any way verifying that they want to do so with rape! Similarly, we should definitely not confuse setting someone’s house on fire with arson, or taking someone’s wallet out of their pocket while they’re not looking with theft.
(Also, I really love the line just above that where you explicitly acknowledge that PUA is about keeping women from “having their way,” by having sex with them. Because that’s not rapey at all! Ugh.)
enti: What in the everloving fuck is that shit? (This is how you can tell me from Pecunium btw, I swear a lot more)
In print.
Pecunium — what’s the fallacy of accusing me of what he’s doing? IR pulled this recently too.
Tu quoque (Latin for, “You too”).
As for rape by coercion, third sentence off wiki’s rape page — “The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, or is unconcious or incapacitated.” Following the links to the legal dictionary gets us — “In the early 2000s in many states, the prosecution can prove lack of consent by presenting evidence that the victim objected verbally to the sexual penetration or sexual intrusion.” — if you refuse to listen to anything besides a hard “NO!” then you are pushing the boundaries of this definition.
In Sweden there is also the question of consent to each act. That’s the core of the case against Julian Assange. He’s alleged to have sex, a subsequent time, with a woman; and not used a condom. He, it seems, didn’t get permission to not use a condom, so it’s some form of sexual assault (I don’t know Swedish law well enough to know if the “rape” charges being discussed are accurate equivalents to the charge which is being investigated).
So it’s not as if he’s not used to a legal system where force is a required element of the crime of rape.
He’s a dishonest little shit, as well as being a deluded little shit; which is on top of his being a tedious little shit. (who will now say, dishonestly, that this is all ad hominem)
You assume lots of things, thats what happens when theory dictates reality.
Said with no sense of irony.
The truth is I would not use BS-labels at all.
Said with no sense of irony.
you desperately trying to widen the definition is just manipulative – counting on most people not knowing the difference and the reactions for the original definition.
Said with no sense of irony.
Yes the word hater did exist before communists deciding to stop try to argue what is good with communism and instead basing their entire argument on attacking western society.
Said with no sense of irony. (See above, re “BS-labels”)
Akitivarum: Just telling her you are interested does not make HER interested
Again with the use of “make” in a way which implies the woman doesn’t want sex, and you are going to convince her otherwise.
Thats the bs people do in Hollywood movies
I didn’t know I was the star of a Hollywood movie (imagine me, the star of a Hollywood movie Spill the wine, and dig that girl… o/”).
If she says yes to “fooling around”, she already were interested in you
Bingo! By the time I ask she’s interested. See how that works. No making involved.
and you not asking would make her way happier cause women prefer to be taken. Confusing that with rape would be an obvious proof of insecurity.
What? If she want me she would be unhappy if I told her so (and we then went and had sex), than if she didn’t want me and I “took her”.
And my having sex by taking it when she doesn’t want it isn’t rape, but, “what she wants”.
No, it’s rape. That you think it’s not, isn’t insecurity, it’s delusional.
“Funny how I inform you women have free choice while you call things guys do you dont like “
So let’s see how this free choice works.
You want to screw some woman, she doesn’t want to, so you make her want to.
Herrmn… I don’t see much fucking choice.
Let’s try again. She’s interested in you, which means she’ll be less happy if you are also interested. That’s hard to believe, but that’s her choice (could you give a citation on that one? Some nice chewy ctudy with some fucking data?).
Ok. She isn’t all that into you, says no, so you “take her”. Again, I’m not seeing much choice here.
If she doesn’t want sex, you make/take sex. If she does want it, you say no, because sex with a woman who wants it isn’t all that good.
I’m not seeing a whole lot of choice for the woman here. I am also seeing you forcing her to have sex when she doesn’t have any interest… and saying it’s not rape.
Yes. He really, really is. (He’s actually a little less coherent than NWO, but that could be the ESL thing.)
Yep, Aktivarum, it’s all true. As a woman, I want a man to just fuck me without asking. I also want a man to push me off a plane without checking if I want to go sky-diving. And while I’m at it, I want him to take me to some restaurant and force me to eat what he picks out for me, regardless of whether or not I was hungry or liked that kind of food or anything silly like that.
/sarcasm
And you, Aktivarum/Swedish NWO, are the most pathetic troll we’ve seen this week.
The definition isn’t going to change to make you happy. Go away, aren’t you tired of this asskicking?
Pecunium — “‘This is how you can tell me from Pecunium btw, I swear a lot more’
In print.”
Lol, but he’s reading us in print! Thanks for the answer on tu quoque, and that part about Assange, I try to just pretend he doesn’t exist, but you’re right, he’s relevant here.
“He’s a dishonest little shit, as well as being a deluded little shit; which is on top of his being a tedious little shit. (who will now say, dishonestly, that this is all ad hominem)”
Of course he will, ignoring that it’d only be an ad hominem if that were why his arguments are full of crap, rather than all that and his arguments are full of carp. (That is not a typo, that’s an intentional fish reference for the peddler of fish)
“I’m not seeing a whole lot of choice for the woman here. I am also seeing you forcing her to have sex when she doesn’t have any interest… and saying it’s not rape.”
Yeah digging his heels in here in all the wrong ways. I’ve read that bit about “take her” about 6 times now, and I cannot make it say anything besides “women want to be raped” — the people who believe that shit need warning labels for the rest of us. (I’ve told you about Mr. “all women want sex and it’s not rape if she wants it” right? proto-rapist in-fucking-deed)
Aktivarum — “could you give a citation on that one? Some nice chewy ctudy with some fucking data?” — we’re looking for data that says what you claim it says btw, I continue to be happy to tear apart shitty studies (there are just so many of them!)…and anything from pop culture is an auto-fail, they never get science right.
Amnesia — 5:1 odds he’ll claim women really do want aggressive men who order for them. Wonder if he can make the skydiving example into “what women really want” though.
Pecunium:
“In Sweden there is also the question of consent to each act.”
No, Sweden do not have any consent-law. We have a lack-of-consent law. A consent law is under investigation and the idea criticized in this news article. The idea is not met with resistance cause people like rape, its attacked on 2 points
* Impossible to prove in court
* Most sex among young people happens without either part asking formally for permission
“That’s the core of the case against Julian Assange. He’s alleged to have sex, a subsequent time, with a woman; and not used a condom. He, it seems, didn’t get permission to not use a condom, so it’s some form of sexual assault”
No, the core of the case against Julian Assange is him having sex with one woman SW unprotected and another woman AA (feminist politician) with a “ripped” condom. Thus the case being about what kind of degree of assualt it is to not wear a condom as promised earlier. However this causes problems, one obvious being a woman having sex and falsely claiming to be on the pill would be subject to the same law. The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.
If women lies about being on the pill, would that be considered raping the man?
Also the woman SW is terribly afraid for STD:s and this was the real reason for her being so distraught over the sexual encounter – this and him ignoring her in favor of looking at his computer. Not the sex itself. There are also lots of other problems with the case. One female prosecutor already had thrown out the case after looking at the evidence. The case now being run by a carreer feminist prosecutor.
“(I don’t know Swedish law well enough to know if the “rape” charges being discussed are accurate equivalents to the charge which is being investigated).”
You dont know the case well enough.
CassanderaSays:
“The shirt can say “Women Who Don’t Want To Be Taken Are Just Insecure”. It’ll clear a room faster than bad gas.”
Actually I said men who have to talk about it and ask for permission are insecure and thats a clear difference. Also I am not talking about sex itself since clearly you dont go from “her interested” directly to sex. Since some people hare pretend that to be the case I´ll just describe how sex happens most of the time:
You go from her seeming interested to physical contact initiated mostly by him (several steps), to intimate physical contact initiated mostly by him (several steps), to make out “initiated mostly by guess who” to leaving the party/bar for someplace private (your place or mine?) where the sex happens and most of the time her not needing or wanting to hear him say the “sexy” line “is it ok if I stick my c_ck in you now honey?” (regardless semantics)
Maybe for a feminist obsessed with power-relations between genders that is a sexy thing to hear as it shows he defers to her worldview but for most girls it simply isnt. Most girls prefer the magic of the moment.
As every initiation by him is responded by her she has lots and lots of chances to show whether she likes him or not. They do not need to talk about it. The only people in the world who believe this needs to change are feminist academics. The reason not being normal people ask for a change but most likely feminist theory wanting to use our sexual relations as a tool for changing power balance.
hellkell:
“Pete can’t tell the difference between man-bashing and mocking misogyny. Here’s a hint, Pete: they are two different things.”
He knows that and pointed out which one of the two he sees here. Here is a hint: Misogyny is negative view on women in general, Misandry is negative view on men in general. Criticizing feminism is not the same as attacking women. Mocking common male behavior is the same as attacking men.
*does some googling on Assange*
Aktivarum — you’re either even dafter than you seem, or intentionally misrepresenting the charges.
Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?
The Sydney Morning Herald appears to be saying that consent to sex is not a factor in the unsafe sex charge. And hmm, “unsafe sex” that sounds like the condom question is about STDs, not birth control, you almost managed to not peddle fish too! So close, and yet, nice red herring with the birth control question (did you think no one would google?)
Maybe you’d prefer the charges from a Swedish source? The Swedish Wire lists the charges as —
Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?
Shorter version — “The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.” — you lie, the lack of consent was regarding the risk of disease from unprotected sex. Also, I’m finding absolutely nothing on your claim about him looking at his computer after sex, plenty of conspiracy and funny, but not that one. Nor am I finding anything about the charges being dropped for more than a week. Perhaps things work differently in Sweden, but it isn’t uncommon in the US for a prosecutor to hand off a case; it’s certainly not weird for one prosecutor to shelf something and have another pick it up a week later.
“You dont know the case well enough.” — either you don’t either, or you’re intentionally trying to mislead us on the dual assumptions that we don’t know the case and are too stupid, or lazy, to check. We can google just as easily as we can scroll up btw.
As for your reply to Cassandra — what’s the “script” for anal? Do you just go for the ass and hope she doesn’t complain? How about BDSM? Just get out the flogger and hope she knows what you want her to do with it? Do you just start flogging her? Inquiring minds want to know!
I see ArkTroll prefers the “strong silent rapist” approach, and that all sex is initiated by men at parties or bars.
Talk about tunnel/rapist vision!
Actually I said men who have to talk about it and ask for permission are insecure and thats a clear difference.
Hunh?
I don’t say a person (not the non-gendered pronoun) who fails to get consent (what you are calling permission) is “insecure”, I say they are rapits.
It’s not a “semantic” distinction. It’s the core difference between willing sex, and rape. I don’t require that it be, “may I kiss your neck”, “now may I kiss your mouth”. but I do require that it not be against the will of the person. And I happen to think it is sexy when my partner asks me to do things. Not least because I know that’s the thing they want, and they aren’t going to be lose interest because they want more kissing and nibbling and I rushed to the slipping and sliding.
I have to say yout sort of attitude is (from the reports of women I know) the fast track to not getting repeat engagements in the bedroom. And I fully expect you to chime in that “all kinds of women beg you to fuck them some more”. That’s a sample size of one. Maybe you are the bees knees at picking women who like “to be taken”. Even if so (and I don’t believe it), that’s not a rule for all women.
I´ll just describe how sex happens most of the time:
Most of the time? Really? You got a study size with a sample of larger than one? I’ll be glad to read it.
As every initiation by him is responded by her she has lots and lots of chances to show whether she likes him or not.
Likes him? No, likes the idea of sex. There is (as you keep saying) a big difference between liking the person, and wanting to fuck them.
And if he is your “she really wants it, and has to pretend she doesn’t” we can be sure those chances to show “whether she ‘likes him’ or not,” are going to given careful attention.
Or not. If not, then she gets raped and you say, “she really wanted it”. Just as you misrepresent the case against Assange.
Time for Spot That Fallacy!!
“The idea is not met with resistance cause people like rape, its attacked on 2 points…”
The resistance is either rape apologia, or these 2 points.
These 2 points are true.
Therefore it isn’t rape apologia.
Ding ding ding! We have a formal fallacy! “Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.[8]” (ironically, my email just dinged at me XD )
“[bullshit about the case] However this causes problems, one obvious being a woman having sex and falsely claiming to be on the pill would be subject to the same law. The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.
If women lies about being on the pill, would that be considered raping the man?”
Not using a condom can’t be rape because then lying about being on the pill would be, because the problem is about the risk of producing children.
1) Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality. — False pretense as it is actually about the risk of STDs, a risk on which the pill has no bearing.
2) Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side — Fear of false rape accusations that is.
Those are both types of red herrings btw. As is “Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous” as seen here —
“Also the woman SW is terribly afraid for STD:s and this was the real reason for her being so distraught over the sexual encounter – this and him ignoring her in favor of looking at his computer. Not the sex itself.”
Also, an ad hominem!!
“The case now being run by a carreer feminist prosecutor.”
“The only people in the world who believe this needs to change are feminist academics. The reason not being normal people ask for a change but most likely feminist theory wanting to use our sexual relations as a tool for changing power balance.”
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says[44]
Feminist is apparently a slur now?
As for his whole theory about how sex works, perhaps in heteronormative non-kinky land? Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, trans* people, kinky people, queers of other assorted stripes…well we’ve all been doing sexytimes without a script for years now. And trust me when I say you’re going to need clear signs of consent for anal (“should I get the lube?” “yes” = clear consent). This lovely bit of failboating, saying that this is how sex should be?
Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy[58], naturalistic fallacy[59]) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
Even if that’s how sex always is for you, that says fuck all about how sex should be, and you get ad hominem points for trying to paint that as some strange feminist idea.
Oh and no one is mocking “common male behavior”, we’re mocking your statements. Some of which are ev-psych BS that anyone with remote knowledge of psychology would mock, I got my degree in it. So yeah, it isn’t men, it’s you.
“I don’t require that it be, “may I kiss your neck”, “now may I kiss your mouth”.”
Lol, that can be a fun game…at the very least, he must be having fairly boring sex.
Argenti:
“Aktivarum — you’re either even dafter than you seem, or intentionally misrepresenting the charges.”
Or you are again interpreting things according feminist theory. However the Assange Case is an interesting subject. Since you are clearly the angel I can be the devils advocate.
Which Assange disputes being the important part. But hey! Who listens to a “rapist”, never mind no rape proven yet. Treat his words as unimportant and her as undeniable.
She “went along” with it and “allowed” him to…. but she “wanted” not to. I guess she failed saying what she wanted and he failed mind-reading – On the condition we believe the story which the second prosecutor probably didnt cause of AA:s behavior afterwards having a shrimp-party to Assanges honor and writing SMS messages about how great things are being around the coolest smartest people. Also the part of AA at this party telling her friends Assange wasnt good in bed and offered him to her friend (police record). He is supposed to have raped her, yet she said he was bad in bed and offered him to her friend (risking her friend to be raped) How sisterhood of her! And very realistic.
This not proven and also ripping a condom even if proven would not be rape. It would be more like lying about being on the pill. Should women lying about the pill be put in jail?
He tried raping her? Failed, and then although he tried raping her she went into the same bed. Also this is the second woman SW and they had consensual sex “at least” once. Meaning several times later during the night.
According to testimony from a friend SW was half-asleep when he started having sex with her. This is on police record her friend telling police what SW said. Thus she would not have been unconcious and the issue is him being unprotected. Also SW never went to police to press charges, and never wanted to. By all accounts she was tricked by AA who actually is close friend with one of the police officers at that station both being part of the LGBT-communitya and in pictures together.
Second woman “letting” him. We start to see a pattern here. Women first have a strong opinion, then they are not acting on it in the moment and later they regret their actions. Both women had the opportunity to say no and choose not to (both presenting reasons for not doing it)
“Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?”
AA: Accused of pinning, not proven – I will wait to see on that one as I have repeactedly told people her violence is rape! Assange is not a big guy and AA is not a little girl, clearly we should discuss if he even can “pin” her. Its not like physical power is his strong side. SW: According to testimony she was only half asleep. Thats the exact words from her friend, also nothing from her suggest she had a problem with the sexual act. Him not wearing condom was the issue and when he wasnt she – this time did not bother – although clearly she had the right to. She just could not bother doing it again.
“two were of a specific Swedish crime called ”ofredande”, or misconduct (misleadingly translated as molestation), one being that the defendant ”pushed his erect penis against the complainant’s back, thus violating her sexual integrity”
Yes, this not rape in any way and the penalty for this (in case he is convicted) being a fine. Also the reason they live is such a close proximity is her being his press agent promising him her small apartment for the stay in sweden and then changing her mind, coming back too early ending up with them both living in the tiny apartment.
“the other for unsafe sex ”against the complainant’s explicitly stated wish”. There is one charge of sexual assault, which alleges that Assange had sex with Wilen while she was asleep, and the most serious charge is that he held Ardin down with his body weight, forced her legs open, and had sex with her.”
The one “asleep” according to her friend being half alsleep her having woken before him and bought breakfast she now back in bed. The one pinning very unlikely considering how she behaved later offering him to her friend and talking about cool and smart people. Also she tried to delete these “cool & smart people” messages when the case was underway.
“The last accusation would qualify as a reasonable rape charge anywhere”
Yes, it it was true. It would seem the second prosecutor did not find evidence supported this story at all.
“the ”morning glory” almost nowhere”
Not unless she was unconcious or was not allowed to end it when no longer wanting it. Then it would be rape.
“the other two depend on the detailed nature of the accusation, none of which has seen the light of day – the unsafe sex charge for example, does not allege non-consent, simply an earlier expression of opposition to the practice. Even with later consent, this can still count as a crime in Sweden.”
The other two may be crimes if proven, none of them qualify as rape. I have never said Assange was a great guy doing nothing wrong. The case is about defining rape in ways that can be proven. Which actually helps real rape victims cause police do not have infinite resources and most cases doesnt even reach the courts.
“The Sydney Morning Herald appears to be saying that consent to sex is not a factor in the unsafe sex charge. And hmm, “unsafe sex” that sounds like the condom question is about STDs, not birth control”,
Actually, in the police inquiry page 10 she talked worringly about getting pregnant and Assange joked about Sweden was a good country to have a child in, her replying if she was pregnant she would have to pay her student loands. Assange also koked about naming the kid Afghanistan . Here is a link to the entire enquiry, I cant do anything about it being in swedish I cant just tell you what it says and on what page.
“So close, and yet, nice red herring with the birth control question”
The birth control question is evident in the police inquiry, Assange joked about having little “Assanges” around in the world. This is very interesting as tricking people into parenthood mostly is done by women lying about being on the pill.
“Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?”
Neither, I am informing you on the difference between “she says” and we believe. The second female prosecutor did not believe this after reviewing the evidence. The new third prosecutor “Marianne Ny” is known for feminist bias. She is specially appointed to change rape interpretation at “prosecution service development center in Gothenburg” – thus she effectively sits on two chairs in this case. One following the legal practise, while her job is changing the legal practise.
“Shorter version — “The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.” — you lie, the lack of consent was regarding the risk of disease from unprotected sex.”
They talk a lot about her not wanting to be pregnant and he not having a problem with it in the police records. However maybe not all of them have been translated to english yet. That was one of Assanges complaints in England. The entire case was not presented in english.
“Also, I’m finding absolutely nothing on your claim about him looking at his computer after sex”
No not after sex, between make out and sex. First they make out (at cinema and in the park), then they take the train to Enköping, at the train Assange gives more attention to his computer then of her, when they arrive at her place she has lost interest it doesnt feel warm between them anylonger (Page 9-10)
“Nor am I finding anything about the charges being dropped for more than a week. Perhaps things work differently in Sweden, but it isn’t uncommon in the US for a prosecutor to hand off a case; it’s certainly not weird for one prosecutor to shelf something and have another pick it up a week later.”
Neither here but thats not what happened. At first a female prosecutor was called by police and immidiately by phone declared Assange a wanted man (This is when media got hold of the news) then a day later a female chief prosecutor (Second prosecutor) got the case sent to her summmer house by mail. After reviewing the case the chief prosecutor throws the case out and cancels the Assange Wanted order. Now he is no longer wanted at all and police will question him for molestation/misconduct.
Around a week later carreer feminists (third current prosecutor) got hold of the case and again changed to rape/assault. Between these two events, Assange was not wanted at all.
Ithilana:
“prefers the “strong silent rapist” approach, and that all sex is initiated by men at parties or bars.”
Since when is “mostly” and “all sex” even remotely compatible statements? I do not care about all sex, I talk about what is generally true. You talk about something like having two groups. One with 90 people, one with 10 and whenever we discuss the world nothing is allowed that those 10 do not agree on. The other 90 people completely and utterly unimportant.
Argenti, Aktivarum has a whole blog rife with conspiracy theories regarding the Assange case. (I’m reasonably certain they’re the same person) It’s largely the same thing he’s been posting here, but huge amounts of it.
The rabbit hole. You just jumped head-long down it.
Hahahhahhhhhaaaahahaha… no.
Oh learn to read Swedish NWO, I said —
“Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?”
“Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?”
So you can spin conspiracies and ad hominems about feminists all you like, they’re just extra large red herrings for that fish stew of yours. You had said “No, the core of the case against Julian Assange is him having sex with one woman SW unprotected and another woman AA (feminist politician) with a “ripped” condom.” — to which I provided multiple sources saying tht that’s a sack of shit, the actual issues are rape accusations. One even involving force, meaning, if they are true, he’s a rapist even by your defenition.
Since neither of us is on the jury, it’s entirely fucking moot our opinions on whether the charges true, what’s relevant is you misrepresented them assuming no one would check.
Some of that is just disgusting levels of victim blaming — “Assange is not a big guy and AA is not a little girl, clearly we should discuss if he even can “pin” her.” — No, no we shouldn’t. Pecunium’s the expert in such matters, but I’m sure he’ll be happy to explain to you how sheer mass is not, by far, the most important factor in fighting someone off.
As for “they had sex at other times” there’s a damned reason that’s inadmissible in court here, it isn’t remotely relevant to the act(s) in question. If you give someone money for a cab today, does that mean they can just take your wallet to pay for a cab tomorrow? Clearly not. If they take money to pay for a cab and you, for whatever reason, give them money again in the future, does that mean you must’ve given them the money the time they took your wallet? So what makes sex so special?
And that entire computer bit is nothing but a red herring, of course, this entire topic is nothing but red herrings. You made claims about the charges, proven wrong you, yet again, fall back to red herrings and shotgun argumentation. This would appear to be a pet project of yours, but guess what? No one here cares, he was charged with, among other things, rape, and is therefore an accused rapist, until the verdict is in that’s all we really know.
Oh and also? You’re trolling, and massively derailing, the glossary.
Howard:
“Argenti, Aktivarum has a whole blog rife with conspiracy theories regarding the Assange case. (I’m reasonably certain they’re the same person) It’s largely the same thing he’s been posting here, but huge amounts of it.”
So now its conspiracy theorist? Another bullshit label saying no more than “hater” while designating you as the moral and/or reasonable choice while not being clear on what the heck your side represent. Good attempt! Problem is, as I told above. I use the police original document from Klara police station in Stockholm.
“Hater.”
Awesome! Suddenly you understand words have connontations!
And you’re a liar.
“This is very interesting as tricking people into parenthood mostly is done by women lying about being on the pill.”
Citation needed. No, really, really, needed, because here’s mine. “Twenty-five percent of the more than 3,000 women who participated in the nationwide survey conducted in 2010 by the National Domestic Violence Hotline reported that they experienced reproductive coercion”
“19% reported experiencing pregnancy coercion and 15% reported birth control sabotage.”
So first you need to show that men experience domestic violence at remotely the rates women do, and then you need numbers on the percent experiencing reproductive coercion. Also acceptable would be a study of men at planned parenthood, or a similar organization, something remotely related to pregnancy care or family planning. Internet polls remain a laughable source of information.
The entire idea that feminists control the courts? Yep, conspiracy theory. Here, have a definition —
conspiracy theory, noun
1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.