Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Roosh V, Pro-Rape Pick Up Artist, Announces Worldwide 'Tribal Meetings'

Theres being an idiot out on the pull.
But roosh takes that up to 11 and decides its a movement .

Although the incel involuntarily celibate manage to be even worse than the pick up artists they saw that nutbar in california as their hero :facepalm:
 
Well, women are carrying on the important conversation elsewhere without having to deal with blokes trying to out-do one another - as fucking usual. So carry on, it makes no difference.
I think maybe you're talking about real life but.. if there's a women's version of U75 that you could recommend I'd be very interested, for moments like these.
 
Let's have some more cute kitties

dd70a0eb55e3dd489b3a9f57d8d05ab6.jpg
 
Well, women are carrying on the important conversation elsewhere without having to deal with blokes trying to out-do one another - as fucking usual. So carry on, it makes no difference.

Actually, blokes out-doing each other is probably one reason why Roosh and his ilk will remain a hopefully isolated and increasingly marginalised bunch of sad-sacks.

Any time I've looked at discussions/sites of this "Mens Movement"/MRA/PUA/Incel stuff, instead of any cohesion, they usually rapidly descend into a shitstorm with the participants laying-into/calling-out each other for being all shades of needy, desperate, pussy-whipped shit (and a lot worse!) but mainly for not being alpha/masculine enough to engage with each other or any kind of "real men" (think Clint Eastwood and till recently George Clooney but they hate him now) - usually ending-up with them nursing massive grudges against each other as well as women.

the thought of this lot getting an agenda together long enough to become dangerous on anything other than an individual level is pretty laughable.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, you've both fucked up this thread. So I started your own for you; knock yourselves out there, instead of here.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/hes-a-dick-no-hes-a-dick.342126/
yes. it is as simple as i call dwyer a dick and he returns the favour, or vice versa :rolleyes:

unless you actually read what i have said on this thread, which falls under three heads:

1) dwyer sets the terms of the debates. in two main ways: i) the 'we can agree on' ploy; ii) the either/or.

2) almost everything dwyer claims turns out to be a lie.

3) dwyer's claims often show him exhibiting the very behaviour he affects to despise. for example, although this thread is about extreme displays of sexism and misogyny, and its something you highlighted, he claims on the one hand that the presence of male role models creates misogyny and the absence of male role models creates misogyny. but he did so in such a way that i and several others, i believe, felt he was being sexist.

but have it your way, it's two sad old men calling each other dicks rather than one man trying to tell people the parameters of the debate and another taking issue with this.
 
yes. it is as simple as i call dwyer a dick and he returns the favour, or vice versa :rolleyes:

unless you actually read what i have said on this thread, which falls under three heads:

1) dwyer sets the terms of the debates. in two main ways: i) the 'we can agree on' ploy; ii) the either/or.

2) almost everything dwyer claims turns out to be a lie.

3) dwyer's claims often show him exhibiting the very behaviour he affects to despise. for example, although this thread is about extreme displays of sexism and misogyny, and its something you highlighted, he claims on the one hand that the presence of male role models creates misogyny and the absence of male role models creates misogyny. but he did so in such a way that i and several others, i believe, felt he was being sexist.

but have it your way, it's two sad old men calling each other dicks rather than one man trying to tell people the parameters of the debate and another taking issue with this.

And all that Crowly bullshit? And the pointless digs? Be honest, much of what's gone between you on this thread has been petty dick waving, of no interest to anyone but yourselves/each other. Rather than getting defensive about it, you'd be better off saying sorry, and trying not to rise/descend to it in the future.
 
Last edited:
Should everyone let Dwyer get on with his bizarre experiments in "Let's see whether I can get posters to agree with this shit?"
Yes, cos it's very entertaining.
I have an image in my mind now of Phil's research facility, where he gets his data from, that I'm unwilling to give up lightly. It's like a sort of madmen-era market research secretarial pool, where he has unfettered access to the mysteries that have stumped other men through the ages.
 
Yes, cos it's very entertaining.
I have an image in my mind now of Phil's research facility, where he gets his data from, that I'm unwilling to give up lightly. It's like a sort of madmen-era market research secretarial pool, where he has unfettered access to the mysteries that have stumped other men through the ages.

He's just got a ring binder with 'THE TRUTH' tippexed on the front. He writes inside using green pen.
 
This all sounds to me like so much minor bullshit to get worked up about. The little prick sounds like he leads a miserable life, to be honest.

To me personally, it's scary. Almost everything there is about negating a woman's autonomy and right to be an individual. Healthy relationships (even just casual ones) are based on liking the other person for their unique qualities.
To sum up this list it's:

Don't have opinions
Don't think I'd be interested in things you like or what you have to say
Don't try to get pleasure out of sex or make it a mutual experience
Don't have things you need to attend to that take your attention away from me
and so on*


I think it's interesting that he brings up the movie scene where the woman is being described as a "keeper." I was thinking about how this makes those old-fashioned sexist ideas of what makes a woman marriage material or a keeper (being able to cook, being a good hostess, being kind etc) pale in comparison. At least most of those old-fashioned ideas were about something a person could do as an autonomous being and showed some degree of appreciation for something other than just shutting up and being a cum receptacle.



*I agree that it's rude to take calls or text during a date / dinner / other occasions, and also that people shouldn't touch each other's laptops/phones etc without permission, but the rest of the list and the explanations for are pretty horrible
 
I guess it's easy to not get worked up about this kind of thing if you're never likely to be on the receiving end of the wrath of one of his followers or others like them. Their specific number may be relatively small, but they are just one extreme of an entire system that affects women in myriad ways.
 
I was thinking about how this makes those old-fashioned sexist ideas of what makes a woman marriage material or a keeper (being able to cook, being a good hostess, being kind etc) pale in comparison. At least most of those old-fashioned ideas were about something a person could do as an autonomous being and showed some degree of appreciation for something other than just shutting up and being a cum receptacle.

I wonder if that's what dwyer was getting at...
 
The whole cook, clean, hostess thing isn't an autonomous thing though is it. It's about how useful that woman is to the man who might marry her. Not about whether she has a fulfilling life in her own right. The difference is that rooshcanoe openly centres sex, whereas previously that was an implied given (see also: how rape within marriage wasn't until recently considered legally possible).
 
And all that Crowly bullshit? And the pointless digs? Be honest, much of what's gone between you on this thread has been petty dick waving, of no interest to anyone but yourselves/each other. Rather than getting defensive about it, you'd be better off saying sorry, and trying not to rise/descend to it in the future.
this would be the crowley bullshit where i pulled dwyer up on other lies he was telling? or the crowley bullshit i introduced to the thread? the latter doesn't exist btw. i'm not defensive about any of this and i don't see why i should be when much of what i've said seems to have the sympathy or support of a number of other posters. i'll see what i can do to make you one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom