Matt, if you haven't seen it, check out this post: Of Triggering and Triggered, Part 4 (The whole series is good, if long)
Matt Forney Rape Article/ Twitter Insanity
- Thread starter delicioustacos
- Start date
- Status
esperar said:
There is such a thing as diplomacy and knowing when to say something and not say something as well as how to present it so it is not rejected out of hand. You may have stated your opinion but if it causes people to hate you and automatically dismiss your ideas, have you really done any good?
What I do with my guy friends who are in relationships is basically have them push their girlfriends up against a wall and tell them they are sexy. They see the girls reaction to this and it puts a small crack in their worldview, they start to question other things about how they see women and the world. From there you can slowly introduce them to more red pill topics and eventually have them read some of the better mansphere writers(heartiste, etc).
Girls don't have a logically coherent worldview. They are not as concerned about their beliefs being internally consistent and will not care about the dissonance or even acknowledge it. A different approach is required. If you can get them on a healthy, nutrient rich diet, an exercise program that involves heavy compound lifts and a daily meditation routine they will feel very good and the meditation will deprogram their minds from the feminist indoctrination. Also being a strong charismatic man will make them want to have babies and be more traditional and nurturing.
Roosh said:
For his plan to reopen a site that they masturbate to.
They are not white knighting, they just do it for the media attention, they are trying to establish themselves as a "good" organization. And attacking someone who just recently got negative media attention for a rape article is a perfect target for that.
Nothing personal, just business.
I read the original article and don't see how it was any different from some of the skits on the old National Lampoon or Monty Python comedy records ("And now the sound of John Denver being strangled!").
Taboos in society change. Back in the '60s, insulting religion got your records burned. Now you get claps on the back for insulting religion, but rape is apparently the sacred cow. What troubles me is that people don't see all of this as transient and think to stick up for the larger issue of freedom of speech.
I've been insulted by Forney too. And National Lampoon. And lots of comedians. So what? That's kind of the point of the freedom we get in the west, right? I'm more offended by those who squelch freedom of speech. Their efforts would be better spent elsewhere...perhaps helping the ailing soldiers who come back from foreign lands in pieces while supposedly defending our freedoms.
Taboos in society change. Back in the '60s, insulting religion got your records burned. Now you get claps on the back for insulting religion, but rape is apparently the sacred cow. What troubles me is that people don't see all of this as transient and think to stick up for the larger issue of freedom of speech.
I've been insulted by Forney too. And National Lampoon. And lots of comedians. So what? That's kind of the point of the freedom we get in the west, right? I'm more offended by those who squelch freedom of speech. Their efforts would be better spent elsewhere...perhaps helping the ailing soldiers who come back from foreign lands in pieces while supposedly defending our freedoms.
Tuthmosis said:
Matt posted a facetious "How to Rape Girls" guide that had over the top bits like: if you're gonna rape a girl, at least make sure you kill her so she doesn't talk (paraphrased). The type of people who think Jonathan Swift actually wanted to eat Irish babies took it viral and he started getting tons of views, and tweets like "I hope you go to Hell and Satan rapes you with his trident with no lube." The fact that Satan carries a pitchfork, not a trident, and the fact that lube would seem rather inconsequential when being raped by either implement, were ignored. He also got death wishes from women as far off as Gabon.
Members of Anonymous (or at least, people whose twitter avatars are Fawkes masks) took notice and started tweeting their "expect us" threats. A couple people stood up for Matt. Not me, I just made jokes like a pussy. The anons got serious, and dropped the apparently real names of his mother and sister. They also took down his site. The anons demanded a retraction and apology for the piece, and Matt eventually complied.
The piece was extremely dark, and not all the people objecting to it failed to recognize it as satire. Some of them just seemed to think it went too far and could hurt rape victims. But overall the whole thing was fucking nuts, and it's disturbing that this group that everyone's terrified of is out there looking to create a chilling effect.
esperar said:
Easy to say until your dad loses his job because people are harassing his workplace.
Shitty situation to be in and I can't knock the guy for taking it down.
Notice that unlike feminists, he never cried cyberbullying. This is the case even though he was a victim of actual harassment.
Offending women by posting something many dislike is bullying and unacceptable. Hacking sites and stalking a guy's family in real life, however, is a-ok.
Funny world we live in.
babelfish669
Kingfisher
Anonymous isn't a real organization. Anyone can claim to be "anonymous." Makes me miss the old days where hackers had identities and their notoriety was based on merit. Neither a denial of service attack nor digging up someone's personal information qualifies as hacking, two things any one with no technical skill can do.
It's no coincidence that as anonymous has "grown" their targets have shifted away from a very narrow group responsible for stifling Internet freedom to anything not politically correct. I would be as embarassed to be associated with "them" today as I would to have a giant collection of Barbie dolls.
Tread lightly or you could end up with real hackers trying to pry open MyBB and a list of users names + email addresses could be public.
It's no coincidence that as anonymous has "grown" their targets have shifted away from a very narrow group responsible for stifling Internet freedom to anything not politically correct. I would be as embarassed to be associated with "them" today as I would to have a giant collection of Barbie dolls.
Tread lightly or you could end up with real hackers trying to pry open MyBB and a list of users names + email addresses could be public.
Anonymous is more or less on the way down. I thought it was strange that they considered me an important enough target to attack, until I did some research on their activities in the past year. I knew about how they had to call off their attack on the Zetas because the Mexican cartel threatened to hunt them down and murder them, but I didn't know about their failed attacks on the New York Stock Exchange, Amazon or Sony. And their war on Israel was a hilarious joke... all they managed to do was deface the Israeli president's website for a few hours (Israel's presidency being a ceremonial position with little real power).
LulzSec was the only part of Anonymous capable of attacking actual targets of importance (like PayPal in the wake of Julian Assange's arrest, or the CIA), and all their members are now serving out long prison sentences.
Basically, Anonymous is going after individual bloggers like Hunter Moore and myself in part because we're the only targets they're strong enough to fight anymore. They've become a nerdier version of the SPLC because most of their remaining members are too cowardly/incompetent to take on the Powers That Be.
Going after one or two members with a lawyer wouldn't do much, especially considering that as Roosh mentioned, it was the British wing of Anonymous that was going after me (one of their spokeswomen who was harassing me was from Mexico, I think). Mao Zedong said that guerillas are like fish, and the population is the water that they swim in. The way to kill a lot of fish isn't to hunt them individually, it's to drain the pond.
Anonymous is basically an online guerrilla group. So far, the Zetas are the only entity capable/willing to "drain the pond": hunting down Anonymous members and their families, dismembering them with machetes, and hanging their mutilated bodies from bridges. I suppose Western governments could mass indict Anon members all at once, but since Anonymous is no longer capable or willing to attack government/high-value targets, there's not much of an incentive for them to bother.
Tl;dr: Anonymous will fall, as is the fate of all human organizations, but we don't have a choice but to tread carefully around the basement-dwelling script kiddies for now.
LulzSec was the only part of Anonymous capable of attacking actual targets of importance (like PayPal in the wake of Julian Assange's arrest, or the CIA), and all their members are now serving out long prison sentences.
Basically, Anonymous is going after individual bloggers like Hunter Moore and myself in part because we're the only targets they're strong enough to fight anymore. They've become a nerdier version of the SPLC because most of their remaining members are too cowardly/incompetent to take on the Powers That Be.
Going after one or two members with a lawyer wouldn't do much, especially considering that as Roosh mentioned, it was the British wing of Anonymous that was going after me (one of their spokeswomen who was harassing me was from Mexico, I think). Mao Zedong said that guerillas are like fish, and the population is the water that they swim in. The way to kill a lot of fish isn't to hunt them individually, it's to drain the pond.
Anonymous is basically an online guerrilla group. So far, the Zetas are the only entity capable/willing to "drain the pond": hunting down Anonymous members and their families, dismembering them with machetes, and hanging their mutilated bodies from bridges. I suppose Western governments could mass indict Anon members all at once, but since Anonymous is no longer capable or willing to attack government/high-value targets, there's not much of an incentive for them to bother.
Tl;dr: Anonymous will fall, as is the fate of all human organizations, but we don't have a choice but to tread carefully around the basement-dwelling script kiddies for now.
But the problem is Anonymous can target any of us. They could easily expose any online identity.
I think Anonymous needs to be challenged with the white knighting. Specifically them attacking manosphere members simply for their words. What happened to freedom of speech? They're just a bunch of crazy leftists.
I think Anonymous needs to be challenged with the white knighting. Specifically them attacking manosphere members simply for their words. What happened to freedom of speech? They're just a bunch of crazy leftists.
esperar said:
Like everything, opinions find their value contextually.
In some contexts there is disadvantage in blurting out unpopular views.
It's a tactical error to want to stand on principles. Principles aren't what's important. What's important is manipulating people to your benefit.
A guy with the twitter handle MANdatory asked Anonymous to pay the same kind of attention to false rape claims as they did to Forney's piece. One of the Anons who was hassling Forney just doxed a woman who apparently advised her friend to make a false rape claim:
"Assist in making false rape accusations and you are an enemy of Anonymous. dox on Nancy Copeland --->"
http://pastebin.com/pNLdY9nb
"Assist in making false rape accusations and you are an enemy of Anonymous. dox on Nancy Copeland --->"
http://pastebin.com/pNLdY9nb
- Status