Basement Dweller

[Dr. Crawver]

Great. So when are you going to create a comic about radical feminists?

"I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor"

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin"

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men. Sharon Stone"

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future ? If There Is One ? Is Female"

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience. Catherine Comins"

And I will await the inevitable "Those aren't real feminists" and the "Those are just taken out of context" or "Those are just jokes", because only women get to decide who is for what when it suits them.

Oh, no. They are real feminists.

And they are wrong.

Just like this guy is wrong.

There is a difference between the Followers of a Movement and the Fringes of a movement.

On the Base, Feminists want equal rights.

Then you go to the different levels of Feminists. Some think that the Patriarchy needs to be subverted for the Matriarchy. Some think all men are rapists waiting to happen. Some want equal pay for equal work (the fiends!). The message STARTED as Equal rights between Genders. And certain fractions took the idea and amped it up or dialed it down. With every movement.

I'll be very, very honest... I'm not really sure what the movement this Roosh guy is a subsect of. But I'm sure there are people more militant than he is. And I'm sure there are people in the same movement who thinks he is extreme.

So, my point is thus; Picking people who are inherently wrong to compare to another person who is inherently wrong doesn't disprove or prove anything. It just deadlocks the issue. To say all of a movement is encapsulated by those we vehemently abhor ignores the truth about humanity that there is no black or white, but every perceivable type of grey imaginable.

Brush off the loud haters, talk moderately with those who will listen, move on with life.

None of those people he listed were on the fringe of Feminism. None of those quotes were outliers. This is the core of Feminist doctrine.

Well...there's a real jumping the shark moment. I honestly doubted I would find anyone on any side of the discussion at least admit that these are the radicals, and not the core of feminism.

Seriously, stop and think perspective for a second. Has there ever been a single movement in history that has been as long lasting, and gained as much traction as it has, that has ever advocated anything as batshit insane as that?

I mean...if you honestly think that's the core of feminism, and that all feminists think that...you're kind of a lost cause in the discussion.

 

[JimB]

So the comic is about making fun of a guy who advocates for a man's right to rape women, but the discussion thread is increasingly about what a threat feminism is?

Yeah, sounds about right.

Anyway, not a bad comic. A bit on the nose, in that I don't think there's anything a person can say about Roosh that can count as satire since he's already so horrible it's nearly impossible to go far enough to be satirical (like, if you did a strip about him telling guys they should get jobs in maternity wards because babies are the easiest fucks of all, I'd about 30% believe that's an actual thing he said), but nice reveal on the mom.

 

[mic1402]

The topic of the comic is a bit obscure, and im not sure what this has to do with video games/geek culture.

 

[Silverspetz]

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

Diversity in feminism is irrelevant, if only one branch of thought consistently manages to make an effect upon government policy. In much the same fashion as religion I am far less interested in the inner workings of feminism itself then I am with the intersection between government and feminism. In such situations those who identify as sex positive feminists that helped these politicians into power to enact their sex negative agenda are reduced to textbook examples of useful idiots [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot].

Then you are not part of the discussion. You want to talk about how radfems are becoming more influential in politics, go right ahead. But this was about how people like Cecilo keep thinking that decades old feminist writers are in any way representative of feminism as a whole, which is false. You are just derailing the discussion again.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

Diversity in feminism is irrelevant, if only one branch of thought consistently manages to make an effect upon government policy. In much the same fashion as religion I am far less interested in the inner workings of feminism itself then I am with the intersection between government and feminism. In such situations those who identify as sex positive feminists that helped these politicians into power to enact their sex negative agenda are reduced to textbook examples of useful idiots [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot].

Then you are not part of the discussion. You want to talk about how radfems are becoming more influential in politics, go right ahead. But this was about how people like Cecilo keep thinking that decades old feminist writers are in any way representative of feminism as a whole, which is false. You are just derailing the discussion again.

Au contraire.

People like Cecilo will likely continue to think such things, until such time as more liberal-minded feminists call their more radical-minded cousins to account for the laws and governmental policies they implement in the name of feminism. So I would contest that dealing with the rise of sex negative second wave feminists and their radical cohorts within political circles is incredibly relevant to seeking your desired outcome. Whether you like it or not people outside of your movement will judge the general character of your political philosophy by the actions of those with the ability to wield the most power.

 

[Silverspetz]

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

Diversity in feminism is irrelevant, if only one branch of thought consistently manages to make an effect upon government policy. In much the same fashion as religion I am far less interested in the inner workings of feminism itself then I am with the intersection between government and feminism. In such situations those who identify as sex positive feminists that helped these politicians into power to enact their sex negative agenda are reduced to textbook examples of useful idiots [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot].

Then you are not part of the discussion. You want to talk about how radfems are becoming more influential in politics, go right ahead. But this was about how people like Cecilo keep thinking that decades old feminist writers are in any way representative of feminism as a whole, which is false. You are just derailing the discussion again.

Au contraire.

People like Cecilo will likely continue to think such things, until such time as more liberal-minded feminists call their more radical-minded cousins to account for the laws and governmental policies they implement in the name of feminism.

They already are. Like I said earlier even a cursory glance at google will tell you as much. The problem here isn't that "feminism" does this or that. The problem is that you are too damn ignorant on the topic to tell what "feminism" as a whole is ACTUALLY doing, and so you hold feminism as a whole responsible for every suggestion made by the parts of it you don't like.

So I would contest that dealing with the rise of sex negative second wave feminists and their radical cohorts within political circles is incredibly relevant to seeking your desired outcome. Whether you like it or not people outside of your movement will judge the general character of your political philosophy by the actions of those with the ability to wield the most power.

What you "contest" is irrelevant. People will always judge a group, no matter how diverse, by the minority they find least sympathetic. That has always been true, and it has always been true that the people who do this do so out of ignorance and stupidity, not reason. THEY are the problem, not the group they judge. The only thing necessary for my "desired outcome" (which is for people to stop acting as if the likes of Andrea Dvorkin are representative of feminism as a whole) is for people to get off their ass and actually RESEARCH the subject for 5 minutes. Feminists are not responsible for educating you. Demanding that every progressive group "cleans up" every single undesirable aspect of their diverse movement before you will even accept that the core of what they are saying is worth considering is yet another derailing tactic used by bigots and cowards.

 

[DracoSuave]

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

Diversity in feminism is irrelevant, if only one branch of thought consistently manages to make an effect upon government policy. In much the same fashion as religion I am far less interested in the inner workings of feminism itself then I am with the intersection between government and feminism. In such situations those who identify as sex positive feminists that helped these politicians into power to enact their sex negative agenda are reduced to textbook examples of useful idiots [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot].

This is like saying Islam is a whole is responsible for cleaning up extremists and because they "don't denounce terrorists" the religion as a whole is a terrorist religion.

This is like saying Christians as a while are responsible for cleaning up the Westboro Baptist Church and because "they don't denounce the WBC" they must all be responsible for their vile poison.

This is like saying that you, as a gamer, are responsible for all gamers who give rape threats and doxxing of women like Felicia Day for speaking out publicly about being harassed.

Because those groups DO have many members who call out extremists on their opinions. Just as radical feminists ARE called out by their moderate peers.

Your inability to find these criticisms does you no credit to being a credible hat in this discussion. Like this is something that was settled decades ago. Like your not even presenting the philosophy from this century dude.

Moreover the type of feminism that is entering politics and gaining influence is third wave feminism. Emma Watson does work for the UN. Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister of Canada with a 50% female cabinet "because it's 2015." The radicals aren't the ones getting traction and getting change done.

But who needs facts when you have bluster and rhetoric. Are you certain you are not a Useful Idiot for some agenda?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Cute cat pick on the wall.

If Xenomorphs keep cats (and not as snacks), wouldn't that mean that cats are more perfect than xenomorphs as a species?

I mean, cats already think so...

 

[sageoftruth]

I don't get it. Is it some kind of political fart?

Throwback to an old Critical Miss strip where the facehugger is giving a lesson in a Dating Seminar.

Spoiler

EDIT: And then there was the cancellation of the 'Return of Kings' rallies in the news.

Ah! Thanks. I spent so long trying to make the connection between this dialogue and Ridley Scott.

 

[Karadalis]

Well...there's a real jumping the shark moment. I honestly doubted I would find anyone on any side of the discussion at least admit that these are the radicals, and not the core of feminism.

Seriously, stop and think perspective for a second. Has there ever been a single movement in history that has been as long lasting, and gained as much traction as it has, that has ever advocated anything as batshit insane as that?

I mean...if you honestly think that's the core of feminism, and that all feminists think that...you're kind of a lost cause in the discussion.

As soon as this kind of feminism stops influencing actual politics and is publically called out for the extremism and mysandry that it is i will aknowledge that they are indeed outliers of feminism and not the core.

But aslong as these nutjobs actually get to influence laws and legeslation i will see them as the core of feminism and the moderates or "decent" feminists as the fringe movement. Because this is the feminism that actually influences peoples lives!

You see its not the moderate or as i like to call them "feminists with common sense" that influence the big picture. Its women like the shown examples who have real power and real sway who move things along, who people actually listen to for whatever reason.

Who cares about moderate feminists who honestly just want to do the right thing when they dont affect jack shit and let these man hating monsters speak for them instead of taking a stand against these authoriarian regressives?

Heck making buying sex illegal (wich was pushed by such "fringe" feminsits) ACTUALLY made things more dangerous for sex workers in ireland because now clients of sex workers no longer are willing to share personal information, making it harder for the sex workers to do background checks on possible clients wich is a must!

And youre here sticking your head in the sand and claim "Oh you silly person... these are just extremists.. they dont hold real power... they arent the face of feminism... they arent the core... silly notion..."

Feminism was once about equal RIGHTS for both genders. Nowadays its a circus clown show that attempts to make every possible problem and culture about itselfe. Atheism? Feminist issue! Video games? Feminist issue! Tech sector? Feminist issue! Company hiring culture? Feminist issue! Diversity? Feminist issue! Racism? Feminist issue! LGBT? Feminist issue! Heavy metal? Feminist issue! Comic books? Feminist issue!

All in a desperate attempt to stay relevant even thought there is allready equality in front of the law.. most often even scewered in FAVOR of women.

Feminism is an outdated concept that no longer really holds relevance in the western world, yet desperatly attaches itselfe to anything it can get its claws into to justify these virtue signal boosting degenerates feelings of superiority and to give them a reason to mess with other peoples lives.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Snip

There's a major flaw in your logic though. Having sway over others, particularly in politics does not make your beliefs the core beliefs of the movement which spawned them.

There are plenty of nutjob evangelicals who have huge sway on politics in america. No-one pretends what they believe is the core of Christianity.

There are plenty of nutjob Zionists as well. Again, no-one thinks they're the core of Judaism.

Hell, look at all the civil rights movements, where you have people like Al Sharpton pervert the cause to his own gain, but even then people see that what he does is no the core of the civil rights movement.

I would even say the same that Jihadist muslims are in the same boat, but unfortunately too many people seem to think that what they believe actually is the core of islam.

The fact that these women did/do have political sway is indeed unfortunate. But that does not make their beliefs the core of their movement. Because on the same coin there are plenty of other feminists, who have been pointed out in this very thread, who have very counter beliefs who also have political sway.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

As for the Satire, it's basically an over exaggerated solution to the problem of false rape accusations being more of a thing, and yet nothing is really being done to curb the issue. (And before you say anything against the idea, let me just say Mattress Girl and the guy who made Cards Against Humanity. You want more, I can find em, those are just off the top of my head.) So he proposes a ridiculous idea to solve the problem much like in the vein of Cannibalizing low class Irish children to solve the famine in Ireland.

 

[Silverspetz]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

As for the Satire, it's basically an over exaggerated solution to the problem of false rape accusations being more of a thing, and yet nothing is really being done to curb the issue. (And before you say anything against the idea, let me just say Mattress Girl and the guy who made Cards Against Humanity. You want more, I can find em, those are just off the top of my head.) So he proposes a ridiculous idea to solve the problem much like in the vein of Cannibalizing low class Irish children to solve the famine in Ireland.

I believe erttheking already explained why comparing this to "a modest proposal" is fucking ridiculous, but here are some more reasons.

1) "Let's make rape legal" is nowhere near "Let's eat babies" in terms of how likely it is to actually happen. It doesn't work as satire because it sounds more like an actual (if bigoted) suggestion. There are plenty of people out there that actually think this would be viable, Roosh himself included.

2) The extreme poverty and inhuman conditions that people faced in Swift's time was an ACTUAL widespread problem that needed to be tackled. Innocent men being falsely accused of rape? Not so much.

3) The sources of these two texts couldn't be more different. Jonathan Swift was actually a smart man who proved many times that he cared about the Irish and had their best interests in mind. "A modest proposal" therefore reads as satire because not only is it so abhorrently extreme that no one can take it seriously, but it also goes directly against what he has said before so people knew he wasn't being serious. "Make rape legal" is only a small step up in vileness from all the other misogynist shit that Roosh spouts on a regular basis. No one is willing to give that waste of skin the benefit of the doubt.

In summary. You clearly don't know anything about satire if you think that every bigoted suggestion can be made "ok" if you just claim you were joking all along. No one is buying that pathetic excuse.

 

[Michael Dunkerton]

RE: "It was only satire!" as a unilateral defense--
Proverbs 26:18-19: "Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who deceives his neighbor, and says, ?Was I not joking??

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

As for the Satire, it's basically an over exaggerated solution to the problem of false rape accusations being more of a thing, and yet nothing is really being done to curb the issue. (And before you say anything against the idea, let me just say Mattress Girl and the guy who made Cards Against Humanity. You want more, I can find em, those are just off the top of my head.) So he proposes a ridiculous idea to solve the problem much like in the vein of Cannibalizing low class Irish children to solve the famine in Ireland.

I believe erttheking already explained why comparing this to "a modest proposal" is fucking ridiculous, but here are some more reasons.

1) "Let's make rape legal" is nowhere near "Let's eat babies" in terms of how likely it is to actually happen. It doesn't work as satire because it sounds more like an actual (if bigoted) suggestion. There are plenty of people out there that actually think this would be viable, Roosh himself included.

2) The extreme poverty and inhuman conditions that people faced in Swift's time was an ACTUAL widespread problem that needed to be tackled. Innocent men being falsely accused of rape? Not so much.

3) The sources of these two texts couldn't be more different. Jonathan Swift was actually a smart man who proved many times that he cared about the Irish and had their best interests in mind. "A modest proposal" therefore reads as satire because not only is it so abhorrently extreme that no one can take it seriously, but it also goes directly against what he has said before so people knew he wasn't being serious. "Make rape legal" is only a small step up in vileness from all the other misogynist shit that Roosh spouts on a regular basis. No one is willing to give that waste of skin the benefit of the doubt.

In summary. You clearly don't know anything about satire if you think that every bigoted suggestion can be made "ok" if you just claim you were joking all along. No one is buying that pathetic excuse.

Issue the first: If you don't think the chances of rape being legalized these days have about the same chances as baby eating being legalized, well that just says a lot about you I'd say. (Again, unless you're talking about the Middle East.)

Issue the second: While it is true that false rape accusations are not a wide spread problem (I would also add a YET at the end of that sentence), it still doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen, with the added bonus in that the acussor suffers nothing for doing so and the person they claimed raped them STILL becomes a social pariah even if they're found to be innocent. (The kids of the Cards Against Humanity guy faced no end of crap from their classmates for example.)

Third: Are you basing that on what Roosh has actually said, or what people on here have been saying? I'll admit I don't really keep up with ROK, but with things like this happening https://archive.is/xVt1K I can't bring myself to discount everything people like them say anymore.

And I'll also admit to not knowing much about satire. See, when I was in college I didn't get an English degree. I went for something more useful.

Edit: Actually, there is ONE thing I do know about satire. In a world where people will apply all kinds of meaning and metaphor to the color of a character's curtains, pretty much the only way anything can be known to be satirical anymore is if the author themselves states it to be so.

So if you want anyone to blame for ROKs satire defense, blame the people who constantly tried to apply deeper meaning to any Dr. Seuss book that WASN'T Butter Battle.

 

[Silverspetz]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

As for the Satire, it's basically an over exaggerated solution to the problem of false rape accusations being more of a thing, and yet nothing is really being done to curb the issue. (And before you say anything against the idea, let me just say Mattress Girl and the guy who made Cards Against Humanity. You want more, I can find em, those are just off the top of my head.) So he proposes a ridiculous idea to solve the problem much like in the vein of Cannibalizing low class Irish children to solve the famine in Ireland.

I believe erttheking already explained why comparing this to "a modest proposal" is fucking ridiculous, but here are some more reasons.

1) "Let's make rape legal" is nowhere near "Let's eat babies" in terms of how likely it is to actually happen. It doesn't work as satire because it sounds more like an actual (if bigoted) suggestion. There are plenty of people out there that actually think this would be viable, Roosh himself included.

2) The extreme poverty and inhuman conditions that people faced in Swift's time was an ACTUAL widespread problem that needed to be tackled. Innocent men being falsely accused of rape? Not so much.

3) The sources of these two texts couldn't be more different. Jonathan Swift was actually a smart man who proved many times that he cared about the Irish and had their best interests in mind. "A modest proposal" therefore reads as satire because not only is it so abhorrently extreme that no one can take it seriously, but it also goes directly against what he has said before so people knew he wasn't being serious. "Make rape legal" is only a small step up in vileness from all the other misogynist shit that Roosh spouts on a regular basis. No one is willing to give that waste of skin the benefit of the doubt.

In summary. You clearly don't know anything about satire if you think that every bigoted suggestion can be made "ok" if you just claim you were joking all along. No one is buying that pathetic excuse.

Issue the first: If you don't think the chances of rape being legalized these days have about the same chances as baby eating being legalized, well that just says a lot about you I'd say. (Again, unless you're talking about the Middle East.)

Issue the second: While it is true that false rape accusations are not a wide spread problem (I would also add a YET at the end of that sentence), it still doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen, with the added bonus in that the acussor suffers nothing for doing so and the person they claimed raped them STILL becomes a social pariah even if they're found to be innocent. (The kids of the Cards Against Humanity guy faced no end of crap from their classmates for example.)

Third: Are you basing that on what Roosh has actually said, or what people on here have been saying? I'll admit I don't really keep up with ROK, but with things like this happening https://archive.is/xVt1K I can't bring myself to discount everything people like them say anymore.

And I'll also admit to not knowing much about satire. See, when I was in college I didn't get an English degree. I went for something more useful.

1) Nice deflection tactic there kiddo. Obviously I am the problem for thinking that a culture that rushes to blame the victim every time a woman is raped MIGHT be more inclined to make rape legal than eat babies. Bonus points for blatant racism BTW.

2) Oh no, some kids got shit from their classmates. Clearly THIS could become a widespread problem, but lessening rape-laws? Nah. Solid priorities there.

3) Did you just link me to a fucking BREITBART article? Unironicly? Well, thanks for saving us all some time and outing yourself as a complete waste of space I suppose.

Bit of advice, if you are ignorant about a subject, and too fucking lazy to spend 30 seconds on Google to find some basics out for yourself, you probably shouldn't open your mouth on said subject.

If you don't know much about satire, maybe you shouldn't pretend to know what is or isn't satire? Especially not if all you are going to do is smugly use a reference to Jonathan Swift (which is apparently "useless" knowledge in your eyes) to defend a self-admitted rapist.