There is an existing Mad Max thread that also talks about the response to ROK's article, but the story seems to be growing now that CNN and Vice has written about it today:

CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/15/entert...index.html

Vice: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/this-guy-...minism-514

I just put up a response on ROK:

http://www.returnofkings.com/63711/our-c...edia-anger

Here's a new Guardian article that also dropped today:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...my-popcorn

There does seem to be a degree of coordination by the media to write essentially identical pieces against us. Traffic to ROK right now is high.

There's a bit of Twitter anger:

https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=...m&src=typd

You think this is some sort of evidence of a JournoPro like collusion again? Every single article also mislabels you guys as MRAs which basic research would show you're not. Only 1 site made a correction to that. It shows they could basically be copy and pasting.

Maybe, on some deep level, the controllers of these mediums criticize the thoughts and ideas shared here, and in the manosphere in general, in order to spread them widely without appearing to have that intention.

Quote: (05-15-2015 11:34 AM)EuphoricWizard Wrote:  

You think this is some sort of evidence of a JournoPro like collusion again?

I have no proof of that, but I wouldn't be surprised if a list did share the article with general directives or talking points on how to approach it.

On the other hand, when you employ identical zombies who believe the same things and all graduated from the same schools, it is expected that they produce identical articles.

The headlines are very similar: http://i.imgur.com/F7cH3P1.png

Aaron Clarey's got a short video response to all the drama.

Quote: (05-15-2015 11:34 AM)EuphoricWizard Wrote:  

You think this is some sort of evidence of a JournoPro like collusion again? Every single article also mislabels you guys as MRAs which basic research would show you're not. Only 1 site made a correction to that. It shows they could basically be copy and pasting.

You're making the assumption that it's not deliberate or that they even care to differentiate. It's like with gamergate, everyone's a right wing woman hating racist kook in the eyes of the AGG.

That's why imbeciles like Jordan Owen and their moderate approach always fail, they operate on the faulty assumption that if you walk on eggshells to differentiate yourself from "fringe" elements that they'll be treated differently(they won't be of course).

As much as it bothers me, who cares what they call us. The more people see stories like these and actually read our stories the more the man behind the curtain is revealed.

I read a great post on Slashdot today about "Sexism in Science". The entire comments section turned into an RoK comment sections. It warmed my heart.

The more people see this bunk being spewed, the more people will begin to look for and seek out alternatives.

God how I love this.

The media chickenshits thought that they could just trot out the usual feminist bullshit and we'd just sit there and take it, like we've been taking their bullshit for decades.

Remember the "warrior woman" Vasquez in "Aliens" (1986)? Remember the pathetic fiction that Demi Moore could actually become a SEAL? The reality is that in a real crisis, the women are the first ones to run for their lives or abandon ship.

They're scared, because now it's about profits. Hit them, hit them, hit them hard.

I think we can press the point on this. Ripples of dissent against the media lies are starting to emanate from the margins. Five years from now, you guys are going to be surprised at the progress we will have made.

We may not overturn the whole rotten, corrupt edifice of lies; but we will definitely be able to stand our ground, carve out our own little masculine "caliphate" (for lack of a better word!) and help steer the cultural debate.

Remember that minorities in history can be a driving force for new ideas. They may not be the ones actually to hold power, but they really do become cultural forces. Look at the history of the following movements: repeal of child labor laws, establishment of minimum wages laws, workers' safety laws, and even (dare I say it) first wave feminism in the early 20th century.

"Nothing", someone once said, "is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

21st century MSM is not journalism. It is a bunch of leftist-statists madly reacting to any and all things that make them angry using almost exclusively ad hominem attacks. What makes them angry? Anything that cuts against the leftist-statist and gynocentric zeitgeist. Basically, anything that deviates from the borg collective. And just like the borg, they will all react with one mind, saying the same things, doing the same things. They can't even criticize, they just generalize because to them, their narrative is self-evident, absolutely 100% correct, full-proof, sacrosanct, axiomatic and uber-true. There is no "Captain Capitalism is wrong because..." analysis whatsoever. Nope. Just "he is wrong because of what he believes".

Seriously, these sheeple have all the individuality of lemmings. I find it more than a bit amusing.

Ignore

Laugh

Win

Frankly it's probably a net positive for ROK. For every crazy feminist or disgruntled mainstream pusher a frustrated man comes upon the shores of ROK to learn something new. The mainstream has to ignore us and not attempt to demonize us.

Even publishing Aaron's excellent response to the Vice article is an error:

Quote:Quote:

I reached out to Clarey—who also runs a blog called Captain Capitalism—via email with some questions about the boycott, Charlize Theron's mechanical arm, and whether or not explosions were gendered. His initial response was, "You want to get rid of the snark/fake questions and then I'll take you seriously?" Which, fine. Asking if a robot arm is gendered is at least light trolling. I then asked him what he made of the response to his post, which had made the rounds from the Huffington Post to the A.V. Club to Wired.

He responded, "Didn't think an obscure blogger would elicit such a reaction, let alone get on HuffPo, the Telegraph, etc. However, the content of the reaction was completely expected and predictable and doesn't surprise me. Anytime one dares to be politically incorrect and speak blunt, indifferent truth, you can expect a near-scripted reaction. In this case, it's the accusations of being 'ist' (sexist, misogynist, etc.), 'I have mother issues, hate women,' etc. Been down this road before many times and there's no surprises."

Many men would realize that what he says is not so extreme, but sounds rational.

Quote:Quote:

As to why he was [b]specifically upset about Mad Max: Fury Road and not movies like Terminator, Tank Girl, and Alien[/b]—action movies featuring strong female leads, Clarey had this to say: "They hired a feminist to consult on [Fury Road]. The main actor (Charlize Theron) claims the movie is feminist. Even VICE.com has an article claiming it is a feminist movie. This unfortunately differentiates Mad Max from [previous] female-action films in that it now is practically guaranteed to have a very 'It's On Us' like sermon or lecture."

Tank Girl was bizarre anyway and not to be taken seriously.
Terminator and Alien had strong women in it, who fit the role. Ripley just survived against an overwhelmingly powerful monster that was much stronger than any human anyway. And Terminator was despite Sarah Connor highly masculine as both Arnold as well as the male leads make perfect sense in a movie where she is practically the only one who knows what's coming. Also her character went through a long transformation and was adequate.

If men cannot see the difference between that and 5'3 female SWAT commanders then there is nothing we can do for you to save your mind.

   

A surprising number of Daily Mail comments are in support of Clarey's thoughts. Though one did raise the point of Ripley in Alien and Sarah Connor in Terminator.

Would the manosphere have been pissed had we seen the trailers for those films? I think some probably would have been - even though they turned out to be great movies. Ripley and Connor were believable in a way that "you go girl" modern 'strong' female characters aren't. But, as QC points out, the Vasquez character was fucking stupid.

Edit - Zelcorpion kind of beat me to it.

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:12 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

God how I love this.

The media chickenshits thought that they could just trot out the usual feminist bullshit and we'd just sit there and take it, like we've been taking their bullshit for decades.

Remember the "warrior woman" Vasquez in "Aliens" (1986)? Remember the pathetic fiction that Demi Moore could actually become a SEAL? The reality is that in a real crisis, the women are the first ones to run for their lives or abandon ship.

They're scared, because now it's about profits. Hit them, hit them, hit them hard.

Quintus, I'm surprised news about the "Ranger School" hasn't been talked about much here.

http://news.yahoo.com/last-chance-women-...18995.html

http://kdhnews.com/fort_hood_herald/mili...ac224.html

Quote:Quote:

For the first time in the Army’s history, female soldiers entered its prestigious Ranger school alongside their male counterparts.

....

As long as the standards for men and women are the same, “there is no reason in the world, a woman can’t go to Ranger school,” Murphey said.

“As long as they don’t change the standards, I’m neutral. I’m not for it or against it. I’m just neutral,” said the incoming commander of Fort Hood’s Dragon Troop, 2nd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Capt. William Soto.

...

About three weeks into the 62-day course, less than half of the 19 women who began the school were still in the running to earn a Ranger tab. On Friday, the eight remaining women, along with 101 men, failed to advance to the school’s mountain phase. They are not out of the school yet. They have the option of retrying phase 1, or what the Army calls “recycling.”

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:47 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

A surprising number of Daily Mail comments are in support of Clarey's thoughts. Though one did raise the point of Ripley in Alien and Sarah Connor in Terminator.

Would the manosphere have been pissed had we seen the trailers for those films? I think some probably would have been - even though they turned out to be great movies. Ripley and Connor were believable in a way that "you go girl" modern 'strong' female characters aren't. But, as QC points out, the Vasquez character was fucking stupid.

Edit - Zelcorpion kind of beat me to it.

What were their objectives?

I've never seen the first Alien movie, so I can't comment on that. But Connor was fighting for humanity, and specifically, her son's future. She still even managed to look relatively feminine while doing so, yet with a believable amount of ability. She also had help in the form of a fucking Terminator, but she wasn't that skilled or you go grrrl in the first movie. This would be a better discussion for the movie thread so if you'd like to respond I'd suggest doing so there.

As for the MSM giving RoK more exposure: good. More clicks means more men reading things they need to see.

Not only will people seek out new ideas but these supposedly morally superior intellectuals in their self-righteous zeal cause people to seek out these forbidden ideas. Look at all the traffic RoK has gotten, I have no doubt te same holds true of Clarey's blog as well. The vast majority of people who have come as a result of this furor are mindless lemmings obeying their masters to response with all the Sturm und drang they can muster.

However, If even 1/2 of 1% take a look around & see that RoK & the manosphere is for them then the media shrikes will have lost. The message has gotten out, Roosh & his sites have tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds, of free publicity & invariably new members to our ranks. Our opponents aren't that bright are they? I mean haven't they ever heard of the Streisand effect?

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:57 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:47 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

A surprising number of Daily Mail comments are in support of Clarey's thoughts. Though one did raise the point of Ripley in Alien and Sarah Connor in Terminator.

Would the manosphere have been pissed had we seen the trailers for those films? I think some probably would have been - even though they turned out to be great movies. Ripley and Connor were believable in a way that "you go girl" modern 'strong' female characters aren't. But, as QC points out, the Vasquez character was fucking stupid.

Edit - Zelcorpion kind of beat me to it.

What were their objectives?

I've never seen the first Alien movie, so I can't comment on that. But Connor was fighting for humanity, and specifically, her son's future. She still even managed to look relatively feminine while doing so, yet with a believable amount of ability. She also had help in the form of a fucking Terminator, but she wasn't that skilled or you go grrrl in the first movie. This would be a better discussion for the movie thread so if you'd like to respond I'd suggest doing so there.

As for the MSM giving RoK more exposure: good. More clicks means more men reading things they need to see.

Ripley in the original Alien was just a survivor lucky to make it out alive. She was portrayed as just another space trucker amongst the nostromo crew, whom could've died just as they did.

This is good publicity for ROK, and Mad Max

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:54 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:12 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

God how I love this.

The media chickenshits thought that they could just trot out the usual feminist bullshit and we'd just sit there and take it, like we've been taking their bullshit for decades.

Remember the "warrior woman" Vasquez in "Aliens" (1986)? Remember the pathetic fiction that Demi Moore could actually become a SEAL? The reality is that in a real crisis, the women are the first ones to run for their lives or abandon ship.

They're scared, because now it's about profits. Hit them, hit them, hit them hard.

Quintus, I'm surprised news about the "Ranger School" hasn't been talked about much here.

http://news.yahoo.com/last-chance-women-...18995.html

http://kdhnews.com/fort_hood_herald/mili...ac224.html

Quote:Quote:

For the first time in the Army’s history, female soldiers entered its prestigious Ranger school alongside their male counterparts.

....

As long as the standards for men and women are the same, “there is no reason in the world, a woman can’t go to Ranger school,” Murphey said.

“As long as they don’t change the standards, I’m neutral. I’m not for it or against it. I’m just neutral,” said the incoming commander of Fort Hood’s Dragon Troop, 2nd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Capt. William Soto.

...

About three weeks into the 62-day course, less than half of the 19 women who began the school were still in the running to earn a Ranger tab. On Friday, the eight remaining women, along with 101 men, failed to advance to the school’s mountain phase. They are not out of the school yet. They have the option of retrying phase 1, or what the Army calls “recycling.”

58 day Ranger!

Quote: (05-15-2015 01:30 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

Ripley in the original Alien was just a survivor lucky to make it out alive. She was portrayed as just another space trucker amongst the nostromo crew, whom could've died just as they did.

Sort of - apart from the bit at the end! I don't want to ruin it for Wastelander.

Excellent work on more publicity. Its also funny that out of all of the articles on ROK...the one that talks about a movie...a fictional story...is getting the most press. You would think that knowing that the nefarious leader of the international fat shaming movement is still on the loose, lurking in the shadows of the internet, would be more troubling than what is essentially a negative movie review.

Its like how 'deflate gate' is all over the news. Thats not news, its a game.

delete

The Hivemind gets mad over anything these days.

People are comparing Sarah Connor and Ripley to this Mad Max "feminist utopia" shit?

There are serious, chasm-like differences between the Sci-fi legends of Terminator and Aliens.

- Ripley

She was a survivor throughout and in Aliens her motherly instincts to save Newt was not some sort of feminist or middle finger to the audience. It was good story telling.

She had a child and any mother would connect with a child who suffered a nightmare of real monsters.

Vasquez was a hard ass latino, a typecast which persists to this day but she wasn't in your face or perceived to be stronger than any of the other marines. In two segments she is overpowered by a man and Vasquez is horrified when her gun partner is killed.

Feminists have no such empathy towards men or children.

And lets not forget Ripley does not do it alone. In all of the films she has male backup and guns. But remember it is fiction and in real life a creature such as a Xenomorph would win.


- Sarah Connor

The first film is a woman so out of her depth that she comes close to death many times. Again with it being fiction she is allowed to live but several women are murdered with little mercy and no resistance possible.

Reese saves the day and shows her how to be strong and learn how to fight but it doesn't mean she is immune to a Terminator. Again they used a man to help in the form of Arnolds T800.


Neither character was in search of some utopia. They were escaping certain death itself and that legacy followed them.

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:54 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

Quote: (05-15-2015 12:12 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

God how I love this.

The media chickenshits thought that they could just trot out the usual feminist bullshit and we'd just sit there and take it, like we've been taking their bullshit for decades.

Remember the "warrior woman" Vasquez in "Aliens" (1986)? Remember the pathetic fiction that Demi Moore could actually become a SEAL? The reality is that in a real crisis, the women are the first ones to run for their lives or abandon ship.

They're scared, because now it's about profits. Hit them, hit them, hit them hard.

Quintus, I'm surprised news about the "Ranger School" hasn't been talked about much here.

http://news.yahoo.com/last-chance-women-...18995.html

http://kdhnews.com/fort_hood_herald/mili...ac224.html

Quote:Quote:

For the first time in the Army’s history, female soldiers entered its prestigious Ranger school alongside their male counterparts.

....

As long as the standards for men and women are the same, “there is no reason in the world, a woman can’t go to Ranger school,” Murphey said.

“As long as they don’t change the standards, I’m neutral. I’m not for it or against it. I’m just neutral,” said the incoming commander of Fort Hood’s Dragon Troop, 2nd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Capt. William Soto.

...

About three weeks into the 62-day course, less than half of the 19 women who began the school were still in the running to earn a Ranger tab. On Friday, the eight remaining women, along with 101 men, failed to advance to the school’s mountain phase. They are not out of the school yet. They have the option of retrying phase 1, or what the Army calls “recycling.”

The thing is, going to Ranger School is not the same as becoming a "Ranger". You simply get a Ranger Tab and go back to your normal unit.

I don't think women should be in the actual Ranger Regiment, nor should they lower the standards for the tab, but I don't really have a problem with them sucking shit in a swamp for 2 months if that makes them happy.