[Oz.]

I'm sure he knows a lot about toxic masculinity... please quickly stare at this gif to retain your sanity

[eljeffster]

First they came for chest hair to infantilize men,
then they copied beards because it was "ironic".
Now they have made beards gay.

Fuck them. . . (not in the butt)

[Surreyman]

Has anyone thought of messaging him a link to this thread?

[Teedub]

Serious question - where were these people before the internet? Has the internet played a part in creating them, by giving everyone a voice and their own potential echo-chamber?

[DannyAlberta]

(05-20-2015 01:57 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 11:24 AM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

Roosh, where do you find these people (or are they blowing up your twitter with their ad hominem assaults)?

This person follows the SJW formula of criticism precisely (which is to say that there is in reality no valid criticism at all):

1. Spends the first 30 seconds trumpeting the right to everyone of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, but spends the next 6 minutes decrying ROK and implicitly suggesting that no one should hold the views espoused on the site and also implicitly suggesting that someone should do something about ROK - hypocrisy, check.

That's not hypocrisy whatsoever. He stated clearly that he supports RoK's right to publish what it thinks freely, he's just stating his own opinion. I didn't hear a call for censorship.

He never called for censorship explicitly, I concur. While I may have misread the subtext, but the outrage and over-the-top reactions to the headlines of ROK, and then his call for people to justify their support for ROK views, seemed to me at least to be an implicit call for ROK to be removed right off the interwebz.

[TheWastelander]

(05-20-2015 01:57 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 11:24 AM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

Roosh, where do you find these people (or are they blowing up your twitter with their ad hominem assaults)?

This person follows the SJW formula of criticism precisely (which is to say that there is in reality no valid criticism at all):

1. Spends the first 30 seconds trumpeting the right to everyone of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, but spends the next 6 minutes decrying ROK and implicitly suggesting that no one should hold the views espoused on the site and also implicitly suggesting that someone should do something about ROK - hypocrisy, check.

That's not hypocrisy whatsoever. He stated clearly that he supports RoK's right to publish what it thinks freely, he's just stating his own opinion. I didn't hear a call for censorship.

(05-20-2015 01:51 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 01:43 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 01:21 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 01:17 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

If you dropped this guy off in 1930s New York City he'd get his fat ass kicked by Irish cops and dragged away by mental hospital orderlies.

Exactly. As it should be.



More people would benefit from this treatment than you would believe.

There needs to be physical consequences for patterns of behaving in socially harmful ways.

I'll let you use your imagination...

He isn't behaving in a socially harmful way.

He has every right to have a blue beard and express his opinion. He isn't being violent or even attacking anyone. Supporting "physical consequences" against those you disapprove of is socially harmful.

This is where libertarianism goes off the rails and why it sucks at addressing anything but purely economic concerns. It ignores the aggregate damage done to society by freaks like this who challenge widely accepted cultural standards and yardsticks of behavior. It prohibits enforcement of any morality and opens the door for libertinism and licentiousness, which then allows for shit like cultural marxism to flourish.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/11_1_7_0.pdf

Quote:

As a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, "Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?" If so, it is justified to use (legal) force to stop it or punish the act; if not, this is improper.

...

What is the view of libertarianism toward these activities, which I shall
label "perverse"? Apart from advocating their legalization, the libertarian, qua libertarian, has absolutely no view of them at all. To the extent that he takes a position on them, he does so as a non-libertarian.

...

In like manner, the libertarian view takes absolutely no moral or valuative position on the perverse actions under discussion. The only concern is whether the actions constitute uninvited initiatory aggression. If they do, the libertarian position advocates the use of force to stop them; not because of their depravity, but because they have violated the one and only libertarian axiom: non-agression against non-aggressors. If they do not involve coercive force, the libertarian philosophy denies the claim that violence may properly be used to oppose them, no matter how weird, exotic, or despicable they may be.

Once the cultural marxists get power, they then turn it into a crime to criticize the freaks they used to destabilize the previous order. The libertarians cannot stop this because they are not organized, powerful, or numerous enough. Decline follows and the libertarians either don't see a problem or don't care until it's too late.

They open the door to the deviant, refuse to let good people and the state fight them, let deviancy spread, then throw their hands in the air and say "well as long as it's not hurting anybody!"

Having a purple beard, eyebrows, nose ring, being obese, being an SJW, etc. combined are symptoms of severe mental illness and personality defects. They reflect the diseased mind of the individual. This lard ass fruit cake, in isolation, is probably not much of a physical threat to anyone but himself and the poor people he might accidentally sit on. But when there are a growing number of people like him that are part of a political movement that openly expresses its desire to take the reins of the state and indoctrinate or force everyone else to comply and accept their deviancy, it becomes a major problem.

You already see this with freaks forcing businesses to associate with them and make things for them despite the owners' objections. All the little libertarians can do is whine about it while the political classes do whatever the fuck they want regardless. Libertarians are the unwitting dupes of dangerous political movements inside democracies.

Moralistic libertarians of course could oppose this sort of freakish libertinism, speak out against it, and organize boycotts to reduce the incidence of this deviant behavior but they don't and even if they tried they are completely powerless in the face of the organized SJW movement backed by powerful political forces, the media and allied moneyed interests.

Meanwhile people become accustomed to whatever the new normal is and society as a whole slouches toward anarchism and tyranny.

Mises is a good example of a moralistic, culturally conservative libertarian but he fails to realize the shortcomings of his views. His libertarianism is only possible and sustainable in a moral and just homogeneous society in the same way true communism is possible and sustainable only if you destroy man's greed and his innate desire to improve his situation. He acknowledges the reality that societies have often disappeared because of rampant deviancy and libertinism, yet believes that he and like-minded folks can prevent it without ever using force to do so. I call bullshit on that. It clearly hasn't worked.

[Wadsworth]

(05-20-2015 03:02 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 01:57 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 11:24 AM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

Roosh, where do you find these people (or are they blowing up your twitter with their ad hominem assaults)?

This person follows the SJW formula of criticism precisely (which is to say that there is in reality no valid criticism at all):

1. Spends the first 30 seconds trumpeting the right to everyone of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, but spends the next 6 minutes decrying ROK and implicitly suggesting that no one should hold the views espoused on the site and also implicitly suggesting that someone should do something about ROK - hypocrisy, check.

That's not hypocrisy whatsoever. He stated clearly that he supports RoK's right to publish what it thinks freely, he's just stating his own opinion. I didn't hear a call for censorship.

(05-20-2015 01:51 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 01:43 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 01:21 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Exactly. As it should be.



More people would benefit from this treatment than you would believe.

There needs to be physical consequences for patterns of behaving in socially harmful ways.

I'll let you use your imagination...

He isn't behaving in a socially harmful way.

He has every right to have a blue beard and express his opinion. He isn't being violent or even attacking anyone. Supporting "physical consequences" against those you disapprove of is socially harmful.

This is where libertarianism goes off the rails and why it sucks at addressing anything but purely economic concerns. It ignores the aggregate damage done to society by freaks like this who challenge widely accepted cultural standards and yardsticks of behavior. It prohibits enforcement of any morality and opens the door for libertinism and licentiousness, which then allows for shit like cultural marxism to flourish.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/11_1_7_0.pdf

Quote:

As a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, "Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?" If so, it is justified to use (legal) force to stop it or punish the act; if not, this is improper.

...

What is the view of libertarianism toward these activities, which I shall
label "perverse"? Apart from advocating their legalization, the libertarian, qua libertarian, has absolutely no view of them at all. To the extent that he takes a position on them, he does so as a non-libertarian.

...

In like manner, the libertarian view takes absolutely no moral or valuative position on the perverse actions under discussion. The only concern is whether the actions constitute uninvited initiatory aggression. If they do, the libertarian position advocates the use of force to stop them; not because of their depravity, but because they have violated the one and only libertarian axiom: non-agression against non-aggressors. If they do not involve coercive force, the libertarian philosophy denies the claim that violence may properly be used to oppose them, no matter how weird, exotic, or despicable they may be.

Once the cultural marxists get power, they then turn it into a crime to criticize the freaks they used to destabilize the previous order. The libertarians cannot stop this because they are not organized, powerful, or numerous enough. Decline follows and the libertarians either don't see a problem or don't care until it's too late.

They open the door to the deviant, refuse to let good people and the state fight them, let deviancy spread, then throw their hands in the air and say "well as long as it's not hurting anybody!"

Having a purple beard, eyebrows, nose ring, being obese, being an SJW, etc. combined are symptoms of severe mental illness and personality defects. They reflect the diseased mind of the individual. This lard ass fruit cake, in isolation, is probably not much of a physical threat to anyone but himself and the poor people he might accidentally sit on. But when there are a growing number of people like him that are part of a political movement that openly expresses its desire to take the reins of the state and indoctrinate or force everyone else to comply and accept their deviancy, it becomes a major problem.

You already see this with freaks forcing businesses to associate with them and make things for them despite the owners' objections. All the little libertarians can do is whine about it while the political classes do whatever the fuck they want regardless. Libertarians are the unwitting dupes of dangerous political movements inside democracies.

Moralistic libertarians of course could oppose this sort of freakish libertinism, speak out against it, and organize boycotts to reduce the incidence of this deviant behavior but they don't and even if they tried they are completely powerless in the face of the organized SJW movement backed by powerful political forces, the media and allied moneyed interests.

Meanwhile people become accustomed to whatever the new normal is and society as a whole slouches toward anarchism and tyranny.

Mises is a good example of a moralistic, culturally conservative libertarian but he fails to realize the shortcomings of his views. His libertarianism is only possible and sustainable in a moral and just homogeneous society in the same way true communism is possible and sustainable only if you destroy man's greed and his innate desire to improve his situation. He acknowledges the reality that societies have often disappeared because of rampant deviancy and libertinism, yet believes that he and like-minded folks can prevent it without ever using force to do so. I call bullshit on that. It clearly hasn't worked.

There's an awful lot here simply for saying "supporting "physical consequences" against those you disapprove of is socially harmful," and I'm not really sure how to respond. I thought that was a pretty uncontentious sentiment.

So it is appropriate for police to beat this person or for him to be detained for being in public?

What if feminists are able to find out who you are and bring "physical consequences" against you, is that OK? Is there really a difference?

[TheWastelander]

I support reasonable levels of corrective force applied against obese neon-haired, Dilbert-glasses wearing, nose-ring having deviant commies frolicking about in public and polluting my air as a last resort. When they stop trying to fuck up and undermine society and the culture then we won't have a problem.

Do you find what's happening to the foreign-sponsored feminists in the video above objectionable?

[Only One Man]

Ha the vast majority of gay guys most likely would want nothing to do with fucking this guy and gay guys are the horniest mother fuckers on the planet. It seems like these wack job SJW types have one thing in common whether they are male, female, gay or straight. Nobody who they want to fuck wants to fuck them.

[CodyB]

Sorry I shan't be lectured about masculinity from a man who is wearing Iron shadow and obviously dips his beard in purple bean curd.

[Quintus Curtius]

I don't know. Maybe I'm just not making myself clear.

Let me be crystal clear.

This person in the video is the bearer of a degenerate ideology that is part of what is keeping us down, and has ruined the cultural environment in the Anglosphere and many Western countries. He may not be a bad person in himself, but he has embraced an ideology that infects the body politic like a plague bacillus.

These people have proven to be immune to gentle methods of persuasion. They grew up with no disclipline, no rules, and no guidance. Society has been pampering them, mollycoddling them, and celebrating them.

And I say, no. You're not special, you're not unique. I don't buy into your lifestyle. I don't think it's just a choice.

And yes, you are harming others. Your very presence is an affront to all that is virtuous, good, and decent.

And you need to change your behavior. In a healthy society, such people would be made to feel such social sanction, that they would not dare to parade such depravities before the rest of us.

I'm tired of the rationalizations, the justifications, and the excuses. That's why we're we where we are now.

.

[amity]

(05-20-2015 01:07 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I read that Singapore used to enforce vigorously its "personal appearance" codes. If you were dressed like a deviant freak, you could get your hair cut, be forced to change clothes, or even deported.

We like to laugh at the "religious police" in Saudi Arabia and Iran who make sure people don't walk around looking like despicable monstrosities.

Now I'm not so sure. Once you throw social standards out the window (like we have here in the West) then it's just a free-for-all. No rules. Anything goes. And look at what that's gotten us. Complete social breakdown.

I concur. When you stop holding people to some kind of standard, then you gradually start to see societal disintegration.
But most people don't 'get' this.
I came from a religious background and even though I'm not religious anymore, it's only now, decades later, that I'm starting to develop a quiet admiration and respect for the traditions, discipline and self restraint practised and preached by our brethren.

[Wadsworth]

(05-20-2015 04:26 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I support reasonable levels of corrective force applied against obese neon-haired, Dilbert-glasses wearing, nose-ring having deviant commies frolicking about in public and polluting my air as a last resort. When they stop trying to fuck up and undermine society and the culture then we won't have a problem.

Do you find what's happening to the foreign-sponsored feminists in the video above objectionable?

Well, yeah kinda, I don't like anything that empowers a police state, but if they're being disruptive cunts then at least I can understand it.

Somebody expressing themselves peacefully and non-disruptively is different though, isn't it? I don't find blue-haired masculine women attractive, but let them do it if they want to. I have no interest in defending any "culture" that blue hair is capable of toppling.

What might topple our society is a corrupt government colluding with a corrupt media working to undermine free speech.

[KorbenDallas]

There is far less outcry in the Western media over the use of force the state uses to force men to pay child support for children that aren't their's than there is over Russia's law that forbids teaching children about anything related to homosexuality or pedophilia.


Western governments use force and the threat of force all the time. From the selective service, to the jailing of businesses who fail to pay their sky high taxes.

The left never cares about this though. It's almost as if the left doesn't really see the truth as meaningful in anyway except as a rhetorical device.

The West isn't a free for all though. It's only a free for all for women. Men, if they get involved with building a family in the US, can be punished with force by the feminist police state.

It sounds ridiculous because we were taught in school that the people with the most privileged are men, but in actuality, it's the reverse.

I haven't been affected by the system, but there are a lot of guys who see women living like there are no consequences so they do the same, and then they find out they just became indentured servants when one of their one night stands pops out a baby.

It's def something to be aware of. Older women who are in shape have become more favorable to me not because I find them more attractive, but their less fertile. The only thing that could fuck up my life right now is an unwanted baby.

[Gustavus Adolphus]

There is a difference between living an alternate lifestyle and a degenerate. I think calls for physical violence against someone who puts up a video like this example, is a trap that is not worth falling into. There were a lot of people in high school and college in the punk rock scene that definitely had that SLC Punk look, but most of them were just posers, and not a threat on society at all. Most of them grow out of it and become productive members of society when they have to get a real job.

I would hate to see a society that constricts people's ability to do their own thing when they are not breaking any laws. This guy should get a roll of the eyes worth of indifference, at best.

If it weren't for the internet, this guy would be in a basement talking to himself. I wish there was a youtube video of that clip from Sebastian Mansiscalco where he talks about these monsters finding the internet (and some funny shit about yelp reviews).

[alphaspiraton]

(05-20-2015 05:07 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I don't know. Maybe I'm just not making myself clear.

Let me be crystal clear.

This person in the video is the bearer of a degenerate ideology that is part of what is keeping us down, and has ruined the cultural environment in the Anglosphere and many Western countries. He may not be a bad person in himself, but he has embraced an ideology that infects the body politic like a plague bacillus.

These people have proven to be immune to gentle methods of persuasion. They grew up with no disclipline, no rules, and no guidance. Society has been pampering them, mollycoddling them, and celebrating them.

And I say, no. You're not special, you're not unique. I don't buy into your lifestyle. I don't think it's just a choice.

And yes, you are harming others. Your very presence is an affront to all that is virtuous, good, and decent.

And you need to change your behavior. In a healthy society, such people would be made to feel such social sanction, that they would not dare to parade such depravities before the rest of us.

I'm tired of the rationalizations, the justifications, and the excuses. That's why we're we where we are now.

.

Unbelievably well said. QC you says things that we are thinking but don't have the words or focus to materialize into coherent text. +1 from me.

[Guitarman]

"As a musician who sometimes records his own music I (Kih-Zoom) Gay igtheist (and pantheist) with a ring in my nose, I talk about a variety of subjects, often taboo subjects, sometimes it's personal, sometimes it's condensed and scripted, other times it's unscripted and ranty. I also make music"

I would just like to add that I immediately clocked the high quality condensor vocal Mike mounted on a mic stand with pop shield and noted what looks like recording studio sound treatment on the wall behind. Good sound quality, poor message.

[bacon]

I live in Bangkok so I see a fair amount of ladyboys and weird sex tourist freaks. But Thailand is still not even close to the USA in terms of the quantity and quality of the freaks.

"When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat." -George Carlin

[Phoenix]

(05-20-2015 03:02 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Mises is a good example of a moralistic, culturally conservative libertarian but he fails to realize the shortcomings of his views. His libertarianism is only possible and sustainable in a moral and just homogeneous society in the same way true communism is possible and sustainable only if you destroy man's greed and his innate desire to improve his situation. He acknowledges the reality that societies have often disappeared because of rampant deviancy and libertinism, yet believes that he and like-minded folks can prevent it without ever using force to do so. I call bullshit on that. It clearly hasn't worked.

So what do you submit is the solution? Morality police like in Iran and Saudi Arabia? Lynch mobs?

The natural response to wierdos is already well known. When people see a wierdo in the street, they increase their distance. They do not reduce their distance to attack - that would be wierd. If the wierdo reduces the distance to within personal space, then they attack. Only in the case where the wierdo has become a problem (e.g. constantly disrupting people's lives in the community), do they form groups with other like minded citizens and go beat him up to repel him. This is social law.

These freaks have always existed, the difference being that social ostracism has become more limited. Under normal conditions, people like this directly suffer for their weirdness. They are denied work or lose their jobs. Their businesses fail as customers leave them. They are denied service at other businesses. They are denied tenancy. They are slowly pushed to the outskirts of society. No one attacks them - but doors close all around them.

Under modern conditions, if no one will employ him or give him business - he is given welfare. He is given free accommodation. If his boss fires him because he's a freak, he can sue for 'discrimination'. If his landlord kicks him out for the same - he can sue for unfair eviction. Hell, if they won't bake him a cake they can be successfully sued for thousands of dollars. And if people say he's a freak, they are attacked as immoral. Why? Because of government advertising, public education, and by 'equality campaigns' funded by governments and their ideological arms.

The problem is unrestrained democracy and the constitution. In the US this is manifested by power draining from the States towards the Federal government, and by vagueness in the Constitution giving excess political power to the Federal judges. More than half the states, for instance, banned same-sex marriage, and yet they are still forced have it anyway by the Federal judiciary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...ns_by_type

[VincentVinturi]

[GoldHawkStar]

(05-20-2015 12:07 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  

I think Roosh once said, "Nothing intelligent has ever been said by someone with neon-colored hair." Looks like it's time to extend that philosophy to neon-colored beards and eyebrows as well. What a society we live in!

Also, is there any real reason this guy had to be shirtless in his video?

He just wants to show us what a beautiful butterfly he is.

[TigerMandingo]

(05-21-2015 12:22 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

Ok, this gif has me in stitches. Please add to the forum.

[TheWastelander]

(05-21-2015 11:00 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 03:02 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Mises is a good example of a moralistic, culturally conservative libertarian but he fails to realize the shortcomings of his views. His libertarianism is only possible and sustainable in a moral and just homogeneous society in the same way true communism is possible and sustainable only if you destroy man's greed and his innate desire to improve his situation. He acknowledges the reality that societies have often disappeared because of rampant deviancy and libertinism, yet believes that he and like-minded folks can prevent it without ever using force to do so. I call bullshit on that. It clearly hasn't worked.

So what do you submit is the solution? Morality police like in Iran and Saudi Arabia? Lynch mobs?

The natural response to wierdos is already well known. When people see a wierdo in the street, they increase their distance. They do not reduce their distance to attack - that would be wierd. If the wierdo reduces the distance to within personal space, then they attack. Only in the case where the wierdo has become a problem (e.g. constantly disrupting people's lives in the community), do they form groups with other like minded citizens and go beat him up to repel him. This is social law.

These freaks have always existed, the difference being that social ostracism has become more limited. Under normal conditions, people like this directly suffer for their weirdness. They are denied work or lose their jobs. Their businesses fail as customers leave them. They are denied service at other businesses. They are denied tenancy. They are slowly pushed to the outskirts of society. No one attacks them - but doors close all around them.

Under modern conditions, if no one will employ him or give him business - he is given welfare. He is given free accommodation. If his boss fires him because he's a freak, he can sue for 'discrimination'. If his landlord kicks him out for the same - he can sue for unfair eviction. Hell, if they won't bake him a cake they can be successfully sued for thousands of dollars. And if people say he's a freak, they are attacked as immoral. Why? Because of government advertising, public education, and by 'equality campaigns' funded by governments and their ideological arms.

The problem is unrestrained democracy and the constitution. In the US this is manifested by power draining from the States towards the Federal government, and by vagueness in the Constitution giving excess political power to the Federal judges. More than half the states, for instance, banned same-sex marriage, and yet they are still forced have it anyway by the Federal judiciary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...ns_by_type

No, I don't support killing anyone for being weird. However, I do support them being run out of town on a rail for their deviancy and getting a good drubbing if they're being disruptive. There was a time when cops could drive a bizarre person to the edge of town and tell them not to come back until they got their act together and conformed to community standards of behavior. This wasn't necessarily because they themselves wanted to be rid of them (although I'm sure they did), but because the community didn't want them around either.

Have you ever heard of the broken windows theory in criminology? If I were more eloquent I'd come up with a "broken people" theory as well. The more deviancy a community tolerates, the more they suffer and deteriorate because of it. Take a look at San Francisco. It wasn't always that way.

You bring up many good points but I did glancingly address some of these in part. The laws, "unrestrained democracy and the constitution" are exploited and abused by these weirdos and their sympathizers. They gravitate towards position of petty power that have decent amounts of influence. Education, academia, media, etc. Others become activist lawyers and then activist judges.

I think you and I agree more than we disagree, since you seem to be advocating for smaller government and more local control. I'm for that as well. Unfortunately, it's nearly politically impossible at this point for all sorts of reasons.

[Dark Knowledge]

WOW. Love the purple beard. So progressive. What a non-conformist. Love the eye-brows. What a beauty. Such individual. Love the moobs. So empower.

I wonder how this fat disgusting pig would define "positive masculinity". You just know a guy like this is probably also a child molester

I agree that beating him up for his views is lame. But I do hope the he kills himself live on his channel. In a similar way to the Bjork stalker from some years ago

[Phoenix]

(05-21-2015 01:38 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

The laws, "unrestrained democracy and the constitution" are exploited and abused by these weirdos and their sympathizers. They gravitate towards positions of petty power that have decent amounts of influence. Education, academia, media, etc. Others become activist lawyers and then activist judges.

Of course, but it is ultimately this constitutional aberration which is giving them the fuel. If you want to put out a gas fire you turn off the gas rather than trying to hose it.

Alas, yes, this is extremely difficult, and short of revolution (which would probably go the other way), the only likely constitutional self-correct would be an Article 5 convention called ostensibly for some other reason (such as reining in government spending and debt). It is rare though that a constitutional amendment has drawn power away from the Federal government (maybe just the 21st), as the 14th, 16th and 17th (esp. the 17th) went the opposite way, and bizarrely the 17th was promoted by the States.

I think the manosphere's collective disagreement with the current social state of affairs is only for personal catharsis. Especially when we so frequently attack tiny individual periphery effects like this freak and his video, rather than the core source (the Left), and the societal weaknesses it feeds off (primarily aberrations in the constitution). The social affect of the free-thinking Right is simply too small compared to the self-sustaining government-funded ideology machine in a 'one man one vote' constitution. It is yelling into a hurricane.

Every American who disagrees with the current social malaise should be campaigning for the States to call an Article 5 convention for the purpose of drawing power away from the Federal government, since that is the only way to ultimately arrest it.