[germanico]

...While firmly stating that Roosh is a rapist and Forney a "girlfriend-abusing douchebag", because he read that in a website that "tracks and mocks misogyny"

His arguments are so weak, and his research so inexistant (because, hey, to write about one subject you obviously have to listen only to its counterpart, right, right?) that the article reads like comedy. Sadly, not of the ha-ha funny kind.

Ill copy past some of the highlight so as not to give them any clicks.

Quote:

A beginner's guide to the Redpill Right
The gnostic paradox of young, tech-savvy traditionalists, who see through everything except their own conspiracy theories
BY JAY ALLEN

Heres the clowns twitter, where he identifies as a "cultural guerrilla writer" and complains he didnt made it on the gamergate hitlist.

https://twitter.com/a_man_in_black

Quote:

They want you to lift the veil pulled over your eyes by the progressives who secretly control society. Like Neo escaping the Matrix, your choice is to wake up and see how the world really is, discarding religion, subjectivity, and feminist indoctrination. Conspiracy theorists, Men’s Rights Activists, Pick-Up Artists, GamerGate, even the Neoreaction: all of these communities share a common creed, tech-fluent and superficially self-aware. To outsiders, it's distinctly conservative. But they don’t see themselves as conservatives at all.

Welcome to the Red Pill worldview, where the entire world is a game and the people who are winning are the best players.

They've yet to assume a formal name, remaining a loose confederation of overlapping reactionary movements resistant to (though exploited by) their would-be leaders. Most identify as libertarian, many as atheists, and they are overwhelmingly white and male. They’re comfortable with progressive terminology and how technology has changed society, which puts them sharply at odds with most conservatives, who see both as a threat to traditional values. Many "Redpillers" perceive conservatism as censorious and unscientific, and instead identify with the “freethought” and “skeptic” internet communities.

Because, obviously, if you are a freethinker or skeptic, therese something wrong with you. You should instead identify as a cisgendered polyamorous demiplatonic tortoise, you rapist.

Quote:

One of the core dogmatic beliefs is in a just world, or at least one the cultural Marxists weren’t mucking up. A focus of unwavering belief is meritocracy: if you’re successful, then you deserve it because you’re superior. If you’re superior—and Redpillers are prone to deem themselves so—then you deserve to be successful. The presence of one without the other, such as success without merit or merit without success (especially in regards to oneself), is evidence of some kind of social-justice trickery.

This leads, of course, to pervasive bigotry.

If you dont worship Kim Kardashians fat ass, you are a bigot.

Plus, if you actually want to earn what you get, you are also a bigot.

Quote:

This takes active forms, such as the conclusion any woman or person of color who outperforms a Redpiller must have cheated to do so, either with sexual favors or affirmative action.

Quote:

These imagined cultural Marxist plots, to foist progressive beliefs on everyone, aren’t only opposed because they are perceived to be unfair, but also because they obscure the truth. While the scientific method only concerns itself with what can be observed and measured, a uniting thread of Redpillers is scientism, which goes a step beyond that to reject the authority or value of anything that can’t be handled by empirical observation.

Indeed, anything that is studied subjectively, like philosophy, religion and theology, or art, is considered a lesser subject because it cannot provide the objective truths of “hard” science. Formally, they assert that objective methods are applicable to every imaginable field. Informally, however, Redpillers tend to simply reject other people’s opinions as subjective while prizing their own as objective. This “realz before feelz” approach characterizes GamerGate: their nebulous ideas of ethics in video game journalism often come down to “objective” reviews of video games which never espouse any opinion they might find disagreeable.

Yes. Asking for facts makes you a conspiracy theorist.

And no. Gamergate is not about "realz vs feelz", is about whoring yourself out to get some positive reviews on your shitty games. But dont dare to talk about it you raping conspiranoiac. If you say anything negative about a woman, you are abusing all women.

Quote:

This approach comes along with a narcissistic idea that their superior understanding of “real” science can propel Redpillers beyond the fools who prize subjective or emotive qualities.

Yes, he actually wrote that.

Quote:

One peculiar result is the Redpiller love of get-rich-quick schemes that rely on this superior understanding. Gambling and investment schemes of all sorts appear in Redpill communities; lately, Redpillers have frequently fallen victim to ones surrounding digital currencies such as Bitcoin. Despite nearly every Bitcoin exchange failing under shady circumstances, Bitcoin buyers flocked to ponzi scheme after ponzi scheme, convinced that their superior understanding of economics would protect them.

What the fuck.

Quote:

The get-rich-quick psychology doesn’t just apply to money: so-called “pick-up artists” such as Barack “Roosh V” Obama or Matt Forney offer how-to schemes to win the “game” of sexual conquest, although that advice often amounts to emotional abuse or coercion. In the most extreme case, this pseudologic even carries into legal thinking, with “Freemen on the Land” and their schemes to somehow escape taxes or other legal obligations [PDF link].

Rejecting subjects that cannot be studied in a controlled setting allows Redpillers to reconcile their conspiratorial scientism with the just world hypothesis—say goodbye to even credibly scientific approaches. Redpill communities' intellectual pretentions make them fertile ground for pseudoscience on all these fields, from Praexology economics to neurolinguistic programming.

Yet, not two paragraphs ago he was stating that redpillers believe in truth and facts over "feelz"...

Quote:

Redpillers also often subscribe to biological essentialism, a viewpoint that is far from uniquely conservative in its appeal. For example, it's also the province of trans-exclusionary feminist writer Cathy Brennan, who describes herself as a “gender atheist”, equating modern psychological ideas of gender identity with religion. [EDITOR'S NOTE: See Cathy Brennan's response to this at the bottom of this article] (Contrast with the co-writer/director of The Matrix, Lana Wachowski, who came out as a trans woman in 2012.)

Yet, hes the one calling him a "trans-woman". So if gender is a choice thats up to the individuals mood, why call her "trans" and not just "woman", as the dude clearly believes he is?

As they even took the trouble to edit after the following comment:

Quote:

- bugbrennan:
Hi, Cathy Brennan here. The writer, who I have never heard of, misrepresents my views. I don't subscribe to "biological essentialism." Indeed, I have no idea what that means. This is shameful "reporting."

- Hi, Cathy. Essentialism is the notion that our biological or genetic nature determines attributes essential to our identity; in this context, assumed or attributed biological characteristics as the basis of male and female gender.

I won't speak for Jay, but as you've written many things like "transgender woman are in fact men" and "transwomen are men, what are you gonna do about it?" it seems reasonable for him to use a term--biological essentialism--in wide use to describe that notion, even if you would prefer a different one.

Heres the link for those who care to read this crap.

Boing boing is a website I usually enjoy. They once where one of the most read blogs in the world. But lately they have been publishing a lot of this social justice bullshit to get back some of the views baitclick sites like Gawker or Buzzfed stole from them.

[WestIndianArchie]

click bait hate read.
- designed to attract the red pill crazies
- designed to attract the eternally outraged
- page views get a blip for an hour or so
- justify increased ad prices, because of cost per impression

It's funny that Ryan Halliday(sp?) wrote his book in 2012, and little if anything has changed. I guess human psychology magnified by the web stays the same.

I'm not falling for it in 2015.

WIA

[germanico]

Just found out Roosh twitted about this earlier. Might be a dupe.