fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3317 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3317 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[D.Gray-man - Miranda Lotto]

__________________________________________________

06.

[The Thick of It]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Golden Kamui]

__________________________________________________

08.

(The Lost Boys)

__________________________________________________

09.

[Marble Hornets/troyhasacamera]

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

[@midnight with Chris Hardwick]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 037 secrets from Secret Submission Post #474.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

SA If you're not aware of who Roosh is, he's the founder/owner of Return of Kings and also the guy who said that rape on private property should be legal to show women they should be more careful. When people were rightfully outraged, he claimed it was satire. He apparently doesn't know that the point of satire isn't just to post your own deeply-held views.

I actually wanted to mention that, because I read the piece in question, and even under the most charitable, satirical reading, it's almost impossible for me not to see it as a defense of rape.

Like, even if you set aside the specific proposal for legalizing rape, what's the point of the piece? Presumably, as a criticism of the idea of 'rape culture' as a concept. But, like... his specific objection to the concept seems to be that it's women's responsibility not to get raped, and that rape is easily prevented in the majority of cases. Which is more or less the same point that he was driving at when he proposed making rape legal. So... even if you take him as being satirical about the thing about making it legal, he still holds all the beliefs that lead up to that argument? Which are just as objectionable?

And it's just so confusing to me because, like, this is literally what the piece textually says! Explicitly! Saying that it's fine because it's satirical is just a mind-boggling amount of evil, lunatic nonsense to me. It is just so blatantly untrue.

[ SECRET POST #3317 ]

Re: Is this for Real

Re: Is this for Real