'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Gone for a while to handle personal matters. Back now. Hooray for me.

It's easy to miss, but the guy was doing a "by your logic", so yeah, past crimes are irrelevant when we're talking about my logic and my opinion.

And not the UK's, Canada's, Australia's, Singapore's, South Korea's, or Brazil's, though you do have Germany and Denmark.

Also, no conviction = not guilty.

Is that fair? Not always, but we can't start acting outside the law, even if others do it, to justify whatever we think of whatever person is in question. It's basic justice.
In this case I see an official that bent over backwards to please an outraged group, most of which probably had no incentive to sign that petition other than to say that they did it.
It's a common symptom of low self worth and compensating for not having achieved much in life, as well as not having had any serious problems throughout life, so for these people any minor injustice seems like an atomic bomb.

Complete lack of perspective.

I'd say it's great perspective. The guy boasted about how he conducts and condones sexual assault. He wasn't banned based on conviction, he was banned based on unacceptable conduct (which does include the breaking of the law) which is in the immigration laws of many countries. That in addition to every country's right to say no even if they're just in a bad mood.

As intended per your perspective. Heavily abused by mine.

This goes back to what I stated earlier; Feels vs. Facts.

I'm glad we agree and that you finally understand. As a human being, you are of course capable of critical thinking and seeing past any prejudice you have of me, which you've clearly demonstrated.

You make me proud, son.

I hope you do understand my mocking tone doesn't come from a belief that I know you. I don't. I only have these posts to go on.

My mocking tone comes from your insistence that you are somehow any less partial than anyone else's and therefore more valid. The government is the one who made the final decision and it is within their rights and laws to do so.

This is a serious thing to do to a person and affects them in severe ways ranging from job opportunities to personal choices.
It has been justified with "this is a terrible person" and sad as some may think it is, that's not exactly a valid excuse as much as it's a pesonal issue with someone.

Yeah I've seen those videos and all I can say that it's shitty behaviour, but it's far from violence or DUI convictions which have not stopped many people from getting a visa.

It's not just a personal issue. He is outright conducting and condoning the violation of the law. Proof of him doing so was volunteered by him as the banner of his advertising campaign. It was his best foot forward that got him denied entry. Frankly, if he doesn't want to pay consequences, he shouldn't be doing what he is doing. It isn't simple "pick-up artistry" as the title downplays it to.

There's no angle, it's just easier for you to believe that so you can pin your moral superiority on me and boost your ego.

The thing is that all crimes against women are blown out of proportion to the point where the "sympathy" hurts them more than it helps them. Women are infantilized and encouraged to behave as victims, removing agency from them and a chance at being recognized and respect as adult human beings.
Funny how women who point this out have "internalized misogyny" and men aren't allowed to speak on the subject without being berated for it.

White Knights are very real and it's no surprise considering the way school has evolved as well as the media making a business out of showing women off as victims.

All joking aside (yes I am aware this post lacks humour, too tired to try), it is not wise to deny that your post was targeting white knights and then proceed to rant about how this case is heavily influenced by white knights.

Even if you don't see any truth in that, you still have to know that this is overblown. This man has little to no effect on the status of the world, much less a country.

I don't see it as overblown. If his denial of entry will prevent his conduct from becoming more widespread than it is, that is a good thing. Vulnerable people having one less person targeting them is a good thing.

If we want to protect people by banning entry, it would be more conducive to ban capitalists that invest across continents.

Bit of a messy one as I don't quite understand international banking, but I more than share the resentment. In the spirit of your statement, it is not a good argument for letting him in. It's a good argument to strengthen the laws.