The graph is full bullshit. Not even the female peak is correct -- 18 or 20 is believable not 23. The guy just scribbled it out based on nothing and people are treating it like actual information because it looks like a graph. The only concept it gets right is the fact that women tend to be with older men and vice versa, but that's the most obvious thing in the world. There is nothing insightful or informative or even correct about that graph.
What's the beef with Rollo Tomassi?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
Mercenary
Hummingbird
Just noticed this...but it should have triggered alarm bells somewhere at the time.
This is Rollo's idea of a HB 9.8
NSFW thread on RvF
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-3335-post-130597.html#pid130597
Rollo's perfect female is Jaime Eason - a bodybuilding, short haired, woman with muscles who is almost 40 years old.
:whoa:
This is Rollo's idea of a HB 9.8
NSFW thread on RvF
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-3335-post-130597.html#pid130597
Rollo's perfect female is Jaime Eason - a bodybuilding, short haired, woman with muscles who is almost 40 years old.
:whoa:
Mercenary said:
That was a post from 5 years ago, and the photo is probably more like 10 years old. The women that do bodybuilding competitions are generally in great shape, but no, I would not consider that girl a 9.8 even in her prime, maybe a 7.5, would bang, would not kick out of bed.
Lot of damaging stuff in this thread about Rollo that I didn't know! I thought he was being a dick before I saw it. If I were to ignore these things and be as charitable as possible to him, and then sum up the R-R difference, it would be on the question of inclusiveness. In one of the original anti-Roosh articles Rollo rhetorically asked if someone like Jack Donovan would be welcome under the banner of neomasculinity. He seems to want to be able to say that "the Red Pill is for everybody" or at least everybody who is biologically male. But of course there's more to being a man than being male, and when after this whole dustup emerged I browsed over to /trp/ or however you write it, I saw a lot of people there who barely qualify. Roosh's approach is the correct one. [/i]
My verdict on Rollo's work is that he can be insightful but he is tainted by his liberal streak: note in addition to his emphasis on inclusiveness his obsession with money and profit and the notion of Roosh's making a living by his writing and related efforts. I'm sure Rollo thinks that his Feminine Imperative paradigm (or one-string violin, depending on how you look at it) transcends notions of left- vs right-wing—but anyone who thinks he's doing is ultimately left wing.
So in case it isn't clear, I think Rollo's attacks on Roosh are 99% bullshit. I do hope however that Roosh does not make the same mistake (of believing that neomasculinity can/does "transcend" the left-right distinction). Roosh, something I've wondered a long time: how much of Moldbug have you read?
My verdict on Rollo's work is that he can be insightful but he is tainted by his liberal streak: note in addition to his emphasis on inclusiveness his obsession with money and profit and the notion of Roosh's making a living by his writing and related efforts. I'm sure Rollo thinks that his Feminine Imperative paradigm (or one-string violin, depending on how you look at it) transcends notions of left- vs right-wing—but anyone who thinks he's doing is ultimately left wing.
So in case it isn't clear, I think Rollo's attacks on Roosh are 99% bullshit. I do hope however that Roosh does not make the same mistake (of believing that neomasculinity can/does "transcend" the left-right distinction). Roosh, something I've wondered a long time: how much of Moldbug have you read?
Aurini
Ostrich
Read this article about music subcultures; the same thing happened to the Manosphere. And the Libertarian party. And the NRX, and the Alt Right. The masses showed up, dumbed it down into self-serving egoism, and spend all of their time proving what individuals they are by attacking the leaders instead of contributing.
A sad fact about being on the avante garde is that you'll see your ideas corrupted. This is why we move forward.
A sad fact about being on the avante garde is that you'll see your ideas corrupted. This is why we move forward.
I'm glad to see it's not just me that can't read Rollo's writing. I'd heard for a while on other sites "You have to read Rollo!" I subscribed to his RSS feed and bought his book (Kindle; can't throw it out). I guess I got through a little more than 10 posts and started feeling like they were TL;DR. I finally unsubscribed figuring his writing didn't resonate with me. I'd scan the first couple paragraphs of new posts, mumble "Boring!" and move on.
I think what stood out to me about Rollo is, he wasn't growing. When a writer doesn't grow and branch out into new areas, after a while you've read everything he has to say and it's time to move on. That's why I stick with writers like Vox Day, Roosh, Roisy, Aurini, Aaron Cleary, and so on; because they learn and grow. They're always moving into something interesting. I came into the "manosphere" or red pill or whatever we're calling it now through Vox Day. He started writing about game, and I kept hearing about Roisy, so I googled him and found CH. I don't remember how I came across Roosh. I ended up on a landing page for Bang somehow, then found his blog. I guess at one point Roosh could have been considered a PUA, but he's grown into a pretty good contemporary philosopher and leader.
Another guy that didn't seem to grow was Athol Kay. I bought his "Married Man Sex Life 2011" and read his blog for a while, but his blog got old and I stopped reading.
It's too bad so called "Conservatives" like to arrange firing squads in a circle and eat their own. Vox Day and John Red Eagle showed this pretty well in "Cuckservative", and Murray Rothbard's "Betrayal of the American Right" is a good first hand account of how the right continuously turned on itself.
I think what stood out to me about Rollo is, he wasn't growing. When a writer doesn't grow and branch out into new areas, after a while you've read everything he has to say and it's time to move on. That's why I stick with writers like Vox Day, Roosh, Roisy, Aurini, Aaron Cleary, and so on; because they learn and grow. They're always moving into something interesting. I came into the "manosphere" or red pill or whatever we're calling it now through Vox Day. He started writing about game, and I kept hearing about Roisy, so I googled him and found CH. I don't remember how I came across Roosh. I ended up on a landing page for Bang somehow, then found his blog. I guess at one point Roosh could have been considered a PUA, but he's grown into a pretty good contemporary philosopher and leader.
Another guy that didn't seem to grow was Athol Kay. I bought his "Married Man Sex Life 2011" and read his blog for a while, but his blog got old and I stopped reading.
It's too bad so called "Conservatives" like to arrange firing squads in a circle and eat their own. Vox Day and John Red Eagle showed this pretty well in "Cuckservative", and Murray Rothbard's "Betrayal of the American Right" is a good first hand account of how the right continuously turned on itself.
Aurini
Ostrich
Mercenary said:
This makes me curious; how do you find my writing? My automated SEO warns me that I'm using too many big words (Grade 12 reading levels drive away audiences), and Lord know I employ a diverse lexicon, but I've got the feelings you won't find it so obtuse.
^^Aurini, your writing appeals to the audience you deserve. I've never had a problem with it, but I'm at or above a 12th grade reading level. I doubt you'd want the audience a 6th grade reading level would bring.
I enjoyed reading his blog during my initial phase, right after I'd been exposed to Roissy. But at that point I was reading through everything on Roissy's blogroll (which is how I found Roosh). I won't claim retroactively that I never thought much of Rational Male, it used to be regular reading, but I definitely had stopped reading long before he started taking shots at Roosh.
I think Athol discovered that selling sanitized manosphere-inspired sex advice to married schlumps with sensitive egos was a highly lucrative endeavor and he has focused on milking that cow dry rather than trying to compete with any of the edgier writers. In fact Athol has actually walled up some of his older posts and makes you buy them.
Isaac Jordan said:
Excellent post by Isaac Jordan. You are bang on in that Rollo is one of the early pioneers in this "red pill" movement, but he still a man of words - not action.
Let us look back a little further regarding some other analysis on "men of words" from Eric Hoffer. I am quoting (again) his 1951 book "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" - page 132 and 133.
...The men of words are of diverse types. They can be priests, scribes, prophets, writers, artists, professors, students, and intellectuals in general. Where, as in China, reading and writing is a difficult art, mere literacy can give one the status of a man of words. A similar situation prevailed in ancient Egypt, where the art of picture writing was the monopoly of a minority.
Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to the prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity. "Vanity," said Napoleon, "made the Revolution; liberty was only a pretext." There is apparently an irremediable insecurity at the core of every intellectual, be he non creative or creative. Even the most gifted and prolific seem to live a life of eternal self-doubting and have to prove their worth anew each day. What de Remusat said of Theirs is perhaps true of most men of words: "he has much more vanity than ambition; and he prefers consideration to obedience, and the appearance of power to power itself. Consult him constantly, and then do just as you please. He will take more notice of your deference to him than of your actions."
End quote
We can give credit where it is due to Rollo (for his early contributions to game theory)... but now his actions show how is striving to maintain relevance in a movement that is leaving him behind. He is lashing out at other leaders within this broad movement, trying to maintain any semblance of relevance. This is a clear "look at me! look at me!" act of betrayal. Such is the nature of men of words when they see men of action take the reins of power.
History is on the move. Those who cannot keep up, will be left behind.
Aurini-
I've never found your writing particularly hard to read. It's got a very strong apocalyptic feeling to it, and I can see that driving some readers away, but the way you use the language itself? You're fine.
Here's a paragraph I picked at random off your front page:
"Rape is not misogyny. It is bestial and psychopathic, the behaviour of a brute. A misogynist desires the love of a woman in his own sick way; the rapist pursues nought but hedonism."
A lot of words here are long, sure, like, "misogyny", "bestial", "psychopathic". But the sentences themselves are very straightforward. "Rape is not (a thing). It is (these three other things). A misogynist (does these things), and a rapist (does these other things)."
This clarity in your writing makes it easy for you to get your views across to your reader. The reader's focus is where it should be: on the ideas themselves, not the sentence structure. You also have a nice alliteration going with "bestial", "behavior", and "brute", broken up by the word "psychopathic" to keep it from getting too obvious. This is the ideal style for the kind of writing you're doing.
Rollo, on the other hand, is a god-awful writer. Most people don't realize it, because most people don't really analyze writing style when they read something. They just notice that it was hard to follow, or that maybe they didn't understand very well. Given Rollo's pseudo-academic posturing, a lot of people probably just assume they don't know about his "field of study" to fully comprehend it. Some probably just think that there's a lot of long words, jargon, and complex sentences, and so that must mean the author is really smart.
Here's a randomly chosen Rational Male paragraph: the opening to his hit piece on Roosh.
"Well I finally had a chance to watch Roosh vs. the bloggers – there are no journalists left in the world – debate (it was anything but a press conference) and it was about what I expected. Every opportunity these bloggers had was to call him on his beliefs and his position on the state of the world with the intent to dismiss, marginalize or ridicule him."
This is terrible, terrible writing. You could spend an hour talking about all the things he's done wrong here in just two sentences.
I'll skip the obvious ones, like the fact that there needs to be a comma after the word "Well". It's a blog post, and all blog posts have grammatical errors. It's a fact of life.
But even if you ignore the grammar errors, look how clumsy it is. There's not one, but two parenthetical asides in the first sentence. Overuse of parenthetical asides is a crutch for writers who can't organize their thoughts. It pulls the reader away from the main idea of the sentence.
Worse, the content of the asides is stupid. In the first sentence, he redefines two terms here: "journalist" becomes "blogger", and "press conference" becomes "debate". But both of these redefinitions are wrong! If you work for Martha Stewart Living, and they send you out to cover a press conference, you are a journalist. That's what the word means. And Roosh didn't hold a debate, he gave a press conference. He gave a short statement to the press, followed by a question and answer period. That's what a press conference is.
Rollo goes on to use the word "blogger" instead of "reporter" for the rest of his piece. It's weird and distracting. Occasionally, people at RoK will call particularly bad female journalists "typists", but that works because "typist" is an obvious word of contempt. Rollo himself is a blogger, so why is he using it as an insult?
If Rollo wanted to say that the reporters were unprofessional, and they were so argumentative that what should've been a press conference turned into a debate, he could've easily done that without inventing his own dictionary. Now whenever the reader sees the word "blogger" for the rest of the piece, he has to remind himself that, "Oh, they aren't really bloggers. Rollo just doesn't like them."
The second sentence is even worse.
"Every opportunity these bloggers had was to call him on his beliefs and his position on the state of the world with the intent to dismiss, marginalize or ridicule him."
This is a run-on non-sentence. "Every opportunity... was to call him on his beliefs"? Huh? What? But even if you were to fix that to something more reasonable, say, "These bloggers took every opportunity to call him on his beliefs..." It would still be a terrible sentence. It takes him 30 words to say, "The reporters were consistently dismissive."
Aurini, your writing is complex ideas, backed up by simple sentences. "There's a distinction between rape and misogyny. Here's how they differ." Rollo is simple ideas obscured by complex sentences. "I saw the Roosh press conference. Man, those reporters were a bunch of dicks."
I shouldn't have to say which one of these is better.
I didn't really realize how terrible a writer Rollo was until I actually went and looked. I remember reading his stuff in the very early days of the manosphere and thinking it was good, if a little academic. When I went back and actually looked I was stunned. It's not "academic", it's "pseudo-academic". It lacks precision and clarity of thought. It's squid ink intended to obscure, and make Rollo look far smarter than he really is.
I've never found your writing particularly hard to read. It's got a very strong apocalyptic feeling to it, and I can see that driving some readers away, but the way you use the language itself? You're fine.
Here's a paragraph I picked at random off your front page:
"Rape is not misogyny. It is bestial and psychopathic, the behaviour of a brute. A misogynist desires the love of a woman in his own sick way; the rapist pursues nought but hedonism."
A lot of words here are long, sure, like, "misogyny", "bestial", "psychopathic". But the sentences themselves are very straightforward. "Rape is not (a thing). It is (these three other things). A misogynist (does these things), and a rapist (does these other things)."
This clarity in your writing makes it easy for you to get your views across to your reader. The reader's focus is where it should be: on the ideas themselves, not the sentence structure. You also have a nice alliteration going with "bestial", "behavior", and "brute", broken up by the word "psychopathic" to keep it from getting too obvious. This is the ideal style for the kind of writing you're doing.
Rollo, on the other hand, is a god-awful writer. Most people don't realize it, because most people don't really analyze writing style when they read something. They just notice that it was hard to follow, or that maybe they didn't understand very well. Given Rollo's pseudo-academic posturing, a lot of people probably just assume they don't know about his "field of study" to fully comprehend it. Some probably just think that there's a lot of long words, jargon, and complex sentences, and so that must mean the author is really smart.
Here's a randomly chosen Rational Male paragraph: the opening to his hit piece on Roosh.
"Well I finally had a chance to watch Roosh vs. the bloggers – there are no journalists left in the world – debate (it was anything but a press conference) and it was about what I expected. Every opportunity these bloggers had was to call him on his beliefs and his position on the state of the world with the intent to dismiss, marginalize or ridicule him."
This is terrible, terrible writing. You could spend an hour talking about all the things he's done wrong here in just two sentences.
I'll skip the obvious ones, like the fact that there needs to be a comma after the word "Well". It's a blog post, and all blog posts have grammatical errors. It's a fact of life.
But even if you ignore the grammar errors, look how clumsy it is. There's not one, but two parenthetical asides in the first sentence. Overuse of parenthetical asides is a crutch for writers who can't organize their thoughts. It pulls the reader away from the main idea of the sentence.
Worse, the content of the asides is stupid. In the first sentence, he redefines two terms here: "journalist" becomes "blogger", and "press conference" becomes "debate". But both of these redefinitions are wrong! If you work for Martha Stewart Living, and they send you out to cover a press conference, you are a journalist. That's what the word means. And Roosh didn't hold a debate, he gave a press conference. He gave a short statement to the press, followed by a question and answer period. That's what a press conference is.
Rollo goes on to use the word "blogger" instead of "reporter" for the rest of his piece. It's weird and distracting. Occasionally, people at RoK will call particularly bad female journalists "typists", but that works because "typist" is an obvious word of contempt. Rollo himself is a blogger, so why is he using it as an insult?
If Rollo wanted to say that the reporters were unprofessional, and they were so argumentative that what should've been a press conference turned into a debate, he could've easily done that without inventing his own dictionary. Now whenever the reader sees the word "blogger" for the rest of the piece, he has to remind himself that, "Oh, they aren't really bloggers. Rollo just doesn't like them."
The second sentence is even worse.
"Every opportunity these bloggers had was to call him on his beliefs and his position on the state of the world with the intent to dismiss, marginalize or ridicule him."
This is a run-on non-sentence. "Every opportunity... was to call him on his beliefs"? Huh? What? But even if you were to fix that to something more reasonable, say, "These bloggers took every opportunity to call him on his beliefs..." It would still be a terrible sentence. It takes him 30 words to say, "The reporters were consistently dismissive."
Aurini, your writing is complex ideas, backed up by simple sentences. "There's a distinction between rape and misogyny. Here's how they differ." Rollo is simple ideas obscured by complex sentences. "I saw the Roosh press conference. Man, those reporters were a bunch of dicks."
I shouldn't have to say which one of these is better.
I didn't really realize how terrible a writer Rollo was until I actually went and looked. I remember reading his stuff in the very early days of the manosphere and thinking it was good, if a little academic. When I went back and actually looked I was stunned. It's not "academic", it's "pseudo-academic". It lacks precision and clarity of thought. It's squid ink intended to obscure, and make Rollo look far smarter than he really is.
hshit:
Cattle Rustler said:
There's no need to. The Scotian and Kona meetup stories more than speak for themselves. Those stories are easily some of the best material on here.
Heh. I'll just leave this here... :
:
LeeEnfield303
Pelican
I think we need to quit fighting ourselves over minor matters. The Apostle Paul had a good word about this, by the way.
I started reading a Rollo article once, I don't remember which one or what it said because three minutes later I ate a PB&J and went to sleep, because that shit was dry as fuck.
2/10 WNR (Would Not Read)
2/10 WNR (Would Not Read)