Quote: (02-11-2016 06:44 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Worldwide traveler, you're using a familiar argument that has a categorical error: equating tactics with ideology.

But tactics are not the same thing as ideology. Hitler's army used tanks, bombs, soldiers, and rifles to spread Nazi ideology. Allied forces used tanks, bombs, soldiers, and rifles to repel the Nazis.

When the Allies did this, they didn't become Nazis. And they never lost the moral high ground.

Nor will we when using doxxing and employment termination on SJWs.

I disagree. Either you live by your code of ethics or you are a hypocrite.

I also don't agree with your example.

A better example would be the Allies mass murdering German citizens because they did the same to the Jews.

Or using chemical weapons on countries that were also using chemical weapons.

You can't say chemical weapons are bad if you are also using them.

This site was partly about becoming a better man. I don't think tossing your ethics out the door when things get tough is part of being a better man.

Masses are ruled by their emotions and this is the best way to fight fire with fire. It's not stooping to their level we're just using a tactic to push a higher moral ground.

Not doing what Mike is doing is like an army saying we can't attack at night when the other army is doing it with disgusting efficiency.

This is a good step in the right direction to influence the mentality of the masses. When the SJWs don't have the moral high ground(or more correctly believe they don't) they'll lose everything.

Worldwide traveler, what ethics did I "throw out the door" in my post to you?

Quote: (02-11-2016 06:47 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Continue pushing the truth. You can do that without lowering yourself. Reason without emotion.

Arguing with people on social media won't help the cause anymore than showing the truth.

I have been watching this whole thing on twitter. Twitter looks to be a bunch of endless trolling, arguing and threats. I don't see how anything will get "solved" working in that type of environment.

Especially when participating.

I'm not understand where you're picking up that I'm involving emotion in my reasoning here. I don't ever bother arguing with anyone about subjects like this, and I don't even have a twitter account, which looks like a cesspool as it is.

Quote:Quote:

You honestly don't think this fight will be over in a year, 5 years or 10 years do you?

This isn't a marathon. This isn't a win and it's all over thing. It will take time but I do see some things changing. Look at Twitter's stock. Look at the trouble Reddit had when it was taken over by SJW.

I would also bet that the more false rapes that happen to men in universities will result in lower admissions.

Women complain about equality. No problem. There are more women working in management positions than before. If they do get married, which many won't be able to find a husband on their level, that means the divorce laws will be used against them like it has been for men for a long time.

Sometimes you give them what they say they want. Many will find out they really didn't want it to begin with.

I'm guessing you mean this isn't a sprint but a marathon. But what do you do when your voice isn't heard, when your name is smeared through the mud, yet noone wants to hear your opinion on the subject ?

Yes the pendulum will swing the other way, but you do indeed need to hit hard, because you just might get hit back harder, even when preaching truths.

Quote:Quote:

Calling someone out on some bullshit isn't an SJW tactic at all.

Right, but doing so with reason and without emotion or trying to exact revenge.

Make them own their words and show why they are wrong. Continue to do so every chance you have.

Calling someone out isn't about revenge, it's showing how stupid someone truly is.

Owning their words and showing how they are wrong, sounds an awful like shaming someone doesn't it ? OR is it just really calling someone out and coming correct.

Quote: (02-11-2016 06:54 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Quote: (02-11-2016 06:44 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Worldwide traveler, you're using a familiar argument that has a categorical error: equating tactics with ideology.

But tactics are not the same thing as ideology. Hitler's army used tanks, bombs, soldiers, and rifles to spread Nazi ideology. Allied forces used tanks, bombs, soldiers, and rifles to repel the Nazis.

When the Allies did this, they didn't become Nazis. And they never lost the moral high ground.

Nor will we when using doxxing and employment termination on SJWs.

I disagree. Either you live by your code of ethics or you are a hypocrite.

I also don't agree with your example.

A better example would be the Allies mass murdering German citizens because they did the same to the Jews.

Or using chemical weapons on countries that were also using chemical weapons.

You can't say chemical weapons are bad if you are also using them.

This site was partly about being a becoming a better man. I don't think tossing your ethics out the door when things get tough is part of being a better man.

False analogy we're appealing to emotions not murdering people in the streets. This is the good fight and now we can fight the enemy on their turf. That's proof a cause is just and gaining traction.

We're gaining people and they are losing. It's that plain and simple.

Quote: (02-11-2016 06:55 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

It's not stooping to their level we're just using a tactic to push a higher moral ground.

In other words... The end justifies the means.

So would you all say this is an example of the "end justifying the means" or "fighting fire with fire?" Both? Neither? I'm still on the fence, to be honest.

Quote: (02-11-2016 06:58 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

So would you all say this is an example of the "end justifying the means" or "fighting fire with fire?" Both? Neither? I'm still on the fence, to be honest.

I wouldn't say we're fighting fire with fire. The issues come when the masses take matters into their own hands and start lynching. We need to stop that the second it happens(and boy will it happen).

Call them out, provide moral arguments, and just sit back. Just don't actively target them unless they are actively committing violence and performing scorched earth which they will also do.

So let discuss this:

Roosh and RVF Company has collected intel on activists, journalists, websites, infiltrators, etc.

thread-53509.html

There's lists of people's information who threated ROK/RVF meetup members, that was created into this thread:

thread-53487.html

Were they thinking on emotion ? Were they doing this as insurance just in case something happened ?

Was this just ? Was this morally wrong ? Did we lose out on our ethics ?

Kaotic, I am not saying you're emotional. I am saying that using the same tactics, that you disagree with, to get revenge, is done out of emotion. It's vengence.

I already said calling someone out isn't a problem. Making someone own their own words isn't shaming. It's holding them accountable.

Either you understand what I am saying or you don't. I can't think of another way to express this.

Quote: (02-11-2016 07:01 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Kaotic, I am not saying you're emotional. I am saying that using the same tactics, that you disagree with, to get revenge, is done out of emotion. It's pure revenge.

I already said calling someone out isn't a problem. Making someone own their own words isn't not shaming. It's holding them accountable.

Either you understand what I am saying or you don't. I can think of no other way to express this.

So what's wrong? Where do we draw the line?

Quote: (02-11-2016 07:01 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Kaotic, I am not saying you're emotional. I am saying that using the same tactics, that you disagree with, to get revenge, is done out of emotion. It's vengence.

I already said calling someone out isn't a problem. Making someone own their own words isn't shaming. It's holding them accountable.

Either you understand what I am saying or you don't. I can't think of another way to express this.

I get what you're saying WWT, I absolute see your POV, we should differentiate ourselves from SJW's.

I don't implore revenge, but I don't mind putting the spotlight on a liar and showing what the truth is (aka accountability).

Guys, I have to say, I'm glad we can have rational conversations and dialogue with each other without throwing punches. This is why places like this must exist.

Quote: (02-11-2016 06:56 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Worldwide traveler, what ethics did I "throw out the door" in my post to you?

I don't follow the question. Only you can answer that. I used "your" in a general way to depict people who are using tactics they find unethical.

Quote: (02-11-2016 07:06 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Guys, I have to say, I'm glad we can have rational conversations and dialogue with each other without throwing punches. This is why places like this must exist.

We use logic and rationalization when we discuss things, we're men of a different breed dude.

This was a simple discussion about how we should be addressing and responding to SJW tactics.

It's always good to be open and see the other side of a discussion.

Quote: (02-11-2016 01:48 AM)Barbarian_Brad Wrote:  

WW (Would Wife)

Yeah, I said it.

WI (Would Impregnate)

Quote: (02-11-2016 07:02 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

So what's wrong? Where do we draw the line?

That is where your moral compass comes in.

I am not saying your morals don't change over time. They do when you become more experienced in life.

The line is something you have to draw.

Are you willing to doxx someone when you don't believe in doxxing? Are you willing to go after employers of people that disagree with you?

This stuff isn't black and white. People can make themselves believe all types of crazy stuff.

Look at how people acted towards Roosh. You could easily lose your faith in humanity reading all the stuff directed towards him.

I would bet your left nut that they wouldn't want the same thing to happen to them or to their friends and especially their families.

Yet they can make themselves believe they are righteous because of a rape article and guys getting together to talk about how to rape women. It's crazy that anyone could believe it yet those people really do believe it.

You can lose yourself in the fight. I have done it myself and it's better to take a step back and realize why you are doing something and if it makes you any better than the person you disagree with.

Let's dial this back to reality. The issue at hand is a couple of 18 year olds in New York threatening to smash laptops and throw hot drinks in faces. Not on the level of world war II or anal rape.

To answer the question, how do we defend ourselves? There is no need to defend myself. An 18 year old manchild posted something immature on twitter, not even directed at me.

How do we fight back against the SJW? There is no SJW. An 18 year old manchild with an irrelevant reference to BLM on his profile posted something immature on twitter. My 70 year old uncle has references to BLM on his profile, I can assure you he's no SJW.

This young nobody on twitter warrants no response. Certainly doesn't warrant any of us adopting the hysteria of mental patients who are half our age.

Trolls going to troll bitches going to attention whore

Quote: (02-11-2016 07:21 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Quote: (02-11-2016 07:02 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

So what's wrong? Where do we draw the line?

That is where your moral compass comes in.

I am not saying your morals don't change over time. They do when you become more experienced in life.

The line is something you have to draw.

Are you willing to doxx someone when you don't believe in doxxing? Are you willing to go after employers of people that disagree with you?

This stuff isn't black and white. People can make themselves believe all types of crazy stuff.

Look at how people acted towards Roosh. You could easily lose your faith in humanity reading all the stuff directed towards him.

I would bet your left nut that they wouldn't want the same thing to happen to them or to their friends and especially their families.

Yet they can make themselves believe they are righteous because of a rape article and guys getting together to talk about how to rape women. It's crazy that anyone could believe it yet those people really do believe it.

You can lose yourself in the fight. I have done it myself and it's better to take a step back and realize why you are doing something and if it makes you any better than the person you disagree with.

So we're good. I don't think our camp would step so low as to compromise their morality. We're just fighting on their turf.

Why do people like going holier than thou in dirty anti-SJW battles? Do you expect to slap someone with a glove and meet in 1 week at dawn with your arguments and cited sources drawn?

Fight dirty man, leave proper rules and etiquette for adversaries who actually also give you the courtesy of following proper rules.

And anyway, why do some people feel the need to autistically state "I WILL ALWAYS BEHAVE LIKE X". Just decide on a case-to-case basis what behavior is appropriate. In this case, I'm fine with a maybe entitled bitch (but at least a Trump supporter) pouring some lukewarm coffee on an affirmitive action ghetto-dindu who wanted to smash her computer because he got triggered by a Trump sticker. Dude should learn how to behave in civilized society first

What this is, is the realisation conflict us ugly and brings out the worst in us.

One of the untold stories if the pacific war was the USN submarines causing havoc in the Japanese. The Japanese has a bushido code who thought conflict was draw the two competing forces to battle, then letting them fight. They resisted submarines as they thought it was dishonourable.

Nimitz would have had a hell of a harder time with his SLOC under submarine threat.

The subs became the rules of war. It is no point being a noble bushido when the rule if war will ensure your demise.

Mike didn't write the rules of this war, the SJWs did. Mike's ethic only become a problem if he persists in this when stepping away from SJWs

Quote: (02-11-2016 06:47 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

You honestly don't think this fight will be over in a year, 5 years or 10 years do you?

This isn't a marathon. This isn't a win and it's all over thing. It will take time but I do see some things changing. Look at Twitter's stock. Look at the trouble Reddit had when it was taken over by SJW.

I would also bet that the more false rapes that happen to men in universities will result in lower admissions.

Women complain about equality. No problem. There are more women working in management positions than before. If they do get married, which many won't be able to find a husband on their level, that means the divorce laws will be used against them like it has been for men for a long time.

Sometimes you give them what they say they want. Many will find out they really didn't want it to begin with.

All of the "wins" for our side were pushed and publicized by the people you claim have no morals.

Do you think those things happened by magic?

It's funny that you have a problem with Mike using the rules of Twitter and a university to get this guy suspended, but you specifically bring up a man using divorce laws to potentially take tens of thousands of dollars and children from a woman.

The latter is much more serious and damaging.

By the way, can you link us all to your Twitter? I'd love to see what you're doing to help men. Surely you're not just criticizing other people's methods without doing anything at all yourself.

Quote: (02-11-2016 08:16 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

What this is, is the realisation conflict us ugly and brings out the worst in us.

One of the untold stories if the pacific war was the USN submarines causing havoc in the Japanese. The Japanese has a bushido code who thought conflict was draw the two competing forces to battle, then letting them fight. They resisted submarines as they thought it was dishonourable.

Nimitz would have had a hell of a harder time with his SLOC under submarine threat.

The subs became the rules of war. It is no point being a noble bushido when the rule if war will ensure your demise.

Mike didn't write the rules of this war, the SJWs did. Mike's ethic only become a problem if he persists in this when stepping away from SJWs

Hell, go back further than that.

Before the Revolutionary War, fighting meant marching your soldiers into a battle in a straight line and exchanging volleys.

It was only the American general's willingness to adapt the tactics of the "savage" Indians, using ambushes and guerilla tactics to combat units with superior size and training, that allowed them to break the British occupation in the Southern colonies.

Without these "dishonorable" methods, our country would not even exist.

Quote: (02-11-2016 08:46 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

All of the "wins" for our side were pushed and publicized by the people you claim have no morals.

What wins would that be?

Quote:Quote:

It's funny that you have a problem with Mike using the rules of Twitter and a university to get this guy suspended, but you specifically bring up a man using divorce laws to potentially take tens of thousands of dollars and children from a woman.

I didn't post anything about Mike. Is he doing stuff he is morally against?

What does that have to do with divorce laws?

Quote:Quote:

By the way, can you link us all to your Twitter? I'd love to see what you're doing to help men. Surely you're not just criticizing other people's methods without doing anything at all yourself.

I better hurry up and join Twitter since it seems to be the only place to win wars.

The little time I spent there leaves me to believe it is mainly trolling, doxxing and threatening other anon people.

Hopefully Mike and Roosh are making sales off of Twitter to compensate for their time.

How about you post what you have been up to.