Return Of Kings celebrate 'making The Force Awakens lose $4.2 mil'

[Lightknight]

Also can someone explain to me what the balls PUA or MGTOW means?

Pick Up Artist, and Men Going Their Own Way.

The former espouse a 'game' that they claim guarantees any man can sleep with any woman they want. Generally involves, at the lowest level, 'negging', and goes all the way up to sexual assault, harassment, mental abuse, coercion and rape.

The latter have sworn off women, but also decided they must at every opportunity remind everyone that women are the source of evil, and the world at large would be better place if they didn't have any rights.

Regarding the MGTOW, seems like your definition is (may be) way out there in bias land. The general point of MGTOW from what I've seen is that they believe marriage laws vastly benefit women despite the fact that we are now in a society where women can and do earn their own way in the world. So the idea is that unless marriage laws are made fair in light of this reflection that they don't want any part of marriage.

What an outlandish characteristic. Though, I'm not a member or adherent of that group so perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten me if I'm incorrect?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Regarding the MGTOW, seems like your definition is (may be) way out there in bias land.

Everyone has a bias.

In fact, MGTOW or whatever they're called would be the single MOST biased party in terms of describing their own characteristics, as they have a higher stake than anyone in promoting their own reputation.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I want to buy the concept of hyper masculinity a beer now for some odd reason and ask him to help me tile my roof.
that would necessitate that toxic is equal to hyper only until their regards to the feminine is there.
now the repression of one's own anima in such a way makes me raise my admittedly unscientific Jungian eyebrow.

The in lies the rub, toxic gender expression requires not only gendering everything, but keeping expression of gender to a narrow set of check boxes based on sex. This is a societal mechanic and it's enforced by peer pressure. No guy wants to be called "gay", or "pussy" for expressing the wrong gendered traits.

Therein lies the mechanistic explanation but what I have been been mulling over is the ultimate causation of such an effect psychologically.

Again the mechanism that enforces such things is peer pressure, it's also used to reinforce social privilege, in this case male social privilege. That makes women different and often the lesser, I mean there is a lot of way's it's expressed and the easiest way to identify this privilege is how women tend to be treated when alone. A single woman without escort gets tons of casual sexual harassment thrown at her, because a woman without a man is seen as an uncontrolled woman, thus a target for sexual advances. That's an expression of male privilege that makes public spaces essentially men's spaces, spaces that women are allowed to pass through, but at the cost of enduring cat calls.

I will have to disagreeing unless you wish to indicate this is an unconscious acknowledgement of dislike for the trans community, which is a whole new load of shit.
Now, why i disagree is, i got family from rural parts of the world and they don't comprehend the former but target the latter. Simply they become aware of a transperson they would go, and spew homophobia because they understand the transperson as a homosexual deviant. not the other way around, probably followed up with assertions of mental illness if true to define it outside of that.
More importantly, you see the folks in Isis, now it's well known they cast homosexuals off roofs and stone them to death for being that but they target them as homosexuals not as trans folk intellectually speaking

It is in part an unconscious expression of disdain, fear, and loathing for trans folk, mostly it's rooted in ignorance, but it's also heavily rooted in gender biases. This is why trans women tend to get far more harassment, where as most people are unaware that trans men even exist. As such all trans folk constantly have our identities questioned when people know we're trans, this is just a small point, but it's a big one because the bias is that we're seen as "pretending" to be something we're not.

Intellectually speaking you're pointing at the symptom instead of the cause. Most people know homosexual people exist, they also know a lot of the tropes associated with homosexuality, like drag for example. That's what causes homophobia to be used against trans folk, because they're not aware basically what being trans means, but they are aware what being gay means, so they take the information they have and use it to persecute. This is the linkage between transphobia and homophobia. From the purely intellectual point of view the targeting of homosexuals is based on gendering. This is why you can have transphobia without homophobia, but not the opposite, it's also why trans folk get targeted under the assumption of homosexuality. Homophobia in this way can't exist without a deeper transphobic sentiment, because falling in love with and sleeping with members of the same sex is the ultimate expression of breaking gender rules. All the examples you used are predicated on the idea of strict gender roles and rules that go with that. More people understand homosexuality on some level than they understand transgenderism on any level, so they default to hating trans people using homophobia. Still that homophobia requires a certain and extreme discomfort with idea of breaking of gender rules.

The reason transphobia can be separate from homophobia is because there are people who are gay and lesbian who are transphobic, but obviously not homophobic. The opposite though is that homophobia can't be separate from transphobia, because homophobia works on the reasoning that homosexuals are breaking the biggest gender rule: Having romantic relationships and sexual contact with members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex.

 

[Bat Vader]

Also can someone explain to me what the balls PUA or MGTOW means?

Pick Up Artist, and Men Going Their Own Way.

The former espouse a 'game' that they claim guarantees any man can sleep with any woman they want. Generally involves, at the lowest level, 'negging', and goes all the way up to sexual assault, harassment, mental abuse, coercion and rape.

The latter have sworn off women, but also decided they must at every opportunity remind everyone that women are the source of evil, and the world at large would be better place if they didn't have any rights.

I got into a fight with a PUA once. It was pretty funny.

 

[Bobic]

For a topic everyone seems to disagree with the author's statement, it sure has sparked discussion.

Anyway, MRA or not, if the statement is debated on it's own- seperate from the identity of the author, it may help show if it has any credence or not.
- If the author has an axe to grind, there is a chance he has lied, or he has lied and accidentally hit upon a truth.
- If the author is attempting to state what he believes to be a fact, he is either correct in that belief (sometimes despite the reasoning behind it being wrong), or incorrect as he does not have all information.

In other words, you can discuss the topic without the identity of the author, and get a much clearer picturer- as whatever the author's attitude it still boils down to: Is that statement true or false?

Well, to ignore the general gender politics debate surrounding the topic (which is often a wise thing to ignore on the internet), the guy's method is woefully unscientific, and treating his number with any kind of respect for truth is just wrong.

It's already been pointed out, but for people that don't feel like searching through 6 pages for the post, the guy asked on twitter something along the lines of

"Has our article about the Force Awakens affected your decision to see the film?"

To which 550ish people responded, with 55% saying yes (rough numbers, as I can't be bothered to give the guy another hit and double check).

Now, already, this is a problem, as 'affected your decision' doesn't definitively mean they changed from a 'was definitely going to see it' to a 'definitely not going to see it' i.e. a lost ticket sale. Many of them might have ignored the film anyway, or said yes and seen it, etc.

However, that's not the real problem with the guy's method. The guy takes that important percentage of 55% and applies it to 'Return of Kings' entire readership.

Basically, the 4.2 million = 55% (0.55) multiplied by the total number of people that visited Return of Kings in a month (900,000) multiplied by ticket price (whatever that number was).

This is ludicrous, the idea that the twitter poll is an absolute representative of their entire readership is just incorrect. The most glaring fault being that they are a site that thrives on controversy, so the percentage of their 'viewership' that agrees with their interpretations is probably massively offset by the people that see this nonsense trending (like, say, everyone in this thread that went to the current article) and go on to check and have a good venting session. But even ignoring that, 550 polled (with a vague question) compared to 900,000 viewers is just too small a sample to claim perfect representation and '$4.2 million lost by disney'.

That said ChaoGuy, I like the fact that you think statement's should be debated on their own, separate from the author. It's a good attitude to have, like the anti-godwin. Hitler's Germany was one of the earlier nations to institute a public smoking ban, the idea isn't automatically bad just because it was had by a genocidal dictator, and the merits should be debated outside of ad hominems.

And to completely discuss the idea, outside of faulty maths, I bet there was some percentage of people that didn't see the film due to black and female costars, and their potential on screen romance. Fun Hollywood fact: A white woman was initially cast as the love interest in 'Hitch'. However, once Will Smith was cast as the male lead, the woman was replaced with the ethnic Eva Mendes, so as to not drive audiences into racist frenzy. So studios aren't above such pandering. But, Disney didn't, and while they may have lost some of the racist audience, I guarantee they approached the decision cynically, and figured the extra money gained from the 'urban' demographic (as studio execs like to call it, to avoid seeming racist) would more than make up for it. And the same decision probably went into the misogynist v. female audience with concerns to Rey.

So, you could say that offending the ROK crowd did result in some lost money for Disney, but the inclusive nature of the film broadened the audience so that they more than made up for it.

 

[Lightknight]

It's...part of it. Marriage laws do play a large part, which in all honestly still do favor women because, even to this day, women are still seen as the weaker sex and require more 'help' than men. which is wrong, and why marriage laws and custody things need to be changed.

But even a cursory glance at their site (url isnt working, but its www.mgtow.com) reveals something akin to a more hostile victimization they have going on.

Marriage laws don't favor women because they were seen as the weaker sex for the last thousand or so years, it's because women want to control men and everything they do!

alimony doesnt exist because up until recently women got shafted on pay, alimony exists to take advantage of good hard working men!

etc etc

Thank you for looking it up. I didn't feel comfortable looking at that site from work. I will point out that we see all special interest groups using extreme victimization rhetoric like this. Heck, some feminist groups have gone so far as to attempt to redefine sexism as something that can only be committed against women by both ignoring institutional power women now hold and sexism against men perpetrated by other men. This robs male victims of sexism of their victim-hood and trivializes the impact it may have had on their lives which may have been significant.

It's an old debate tactic that is ridiculous when used in the real world. If you can make a topic out to be as bad as Hitler or equivalent to baby killing then you can win the debate. It's one of the main reasons Godwin's law is breached so frequently in debates. I don't know if you've ever seen debates or been in a debate club but things can go ridiculous fast and still end up in winning territory for it. These same people then go out into the real world and think such tactics convince regular sane people who view arguments on their own merits rather than what kind of analogies you (royal you) can squeeze out of them.

I think their valid point is that even when pay is equal, women still seem to far much better in divorce settlements. Why is that the case?

And, forgive me for an out of context quote, but this was too good to pass up, "After all, it?s still legal in this country for a 'woman to allow herself to get pregnant without a man?s consent." (this was on their FAQ, followed by a page long rant discussing how MGTOW still do enjoy sex without marriage, they just knock women up and then leave them.)

Actually, this is a bit of inequality that I think should be at least acknowledged. While a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy and has an equal choice in contraceptive choices (if not more), a man has absolutely no say either way on pregnancy termination or continuation and yet can be held responsible for the decision made by someone else for 18 years as though he had committed a crime.

While I understand that the alternatives are all things that harm the child, this still should be seen as a wildly disproportionate distribution of power over reproductive rights in relation to the ramifications of choice.

One could argue, as distasteful as it sounds, that a man should have a right to be notified of a pregnancy in a timely fashion and to have the ability to "legally abort" his parental role in the pregnancy within the same time period that the mother could legally abort the fetus. I would assume such a situation would involve the man stating intent to not support by legal form and putting up the money for the procedure that the woman could then use as she wishes. I would also advocate that the man should also be liable for half of abortion fees should both he and the woman desire an abortion rather than the cost fall to only the female.

But again, this isn't a conversation we want to have as a society. We think of the children before we think of the man and our society's largely conservative/puritanical side loves to see people held responsible in negative ways for having sex outside of marriage or without the goal of reproduction. I personally hold the view that a fetus is both a living biological organism (metabolizes, grows, organic, etc) and fully genetically human (ergo human life's earliest form albeit catatonic) so I'd prefer all members be held responsible for their reproductive choices regarding the sanctity of human life rather than wanton destruction of it. But at least I can see and admit inequality where it lies.

That's not to say the group isn't bigoted. Just to say that this one particular area has merit as a point of inequality. Same as custody hearing outcome trends and such.

Regarding the MGTOW, seems like your definition is (may be) way out there in bias land.

Everyone has a bias.

In fact, MGTOW or whatever they're called would be the single MOST biased party in terms of describing their own characteristics, as they have a higher stake than anyone in promoting their own reputation.

When you (royal you) are defining a group by their beliefs, you should use the group's own definition. Otherwise you are stereotyping and misleading others. Every attempt should be made to do this in honest discourse. Even if you adamantly disagree with any group you should define them how they want to be defined and then supply your own anecdotal experiences that conflict with their public definition. A main reason for this is that many members could have joined the group in name due to the statement of beliefs they present without harboring the stereotypical feelings that women are somehow evil and collectively bargaining to keep men down in some areas. Such is the nature of any large group that states one thing but has members who believe other things.

 

[JamesStone]

I've checked out their site.


Are we 100% sure this isn't some kind of advanced satire? You know, like that "Tumblr raids 4chan" thingy we had in 2014 where it was actually /pol/ baiting Tumblr into a raid? Because, and disregarding Poe's law, these guys seem too ridiculous to actually be real.


Look at one of their articles: "How to stop your girlfriend from cheating on you": You don't, women naturally cheat and you have to make them not cheat by making them jealous.

Their advice is, edit free: "Flirt with other girls in front of her", "Never say "I'm sorry"... EVER" and "Be unabashadly selfish". This doesn't seem like the type of thing ANYONE would say without laughing a bit. It just reeks parody all over.

 

[Gengisgame]

I want to buy the concept of hyper masculinity a beer now for some odd reason and ask him to help me tile my roof.
that would necessitate that toxic is equal to hyper only until their regards to the feminine is there.
now the repression of one's own anima in such a way makes me raise my admittedly unscientific Jungian eyebrow.

The in lies the rub, toxic gender expression requires not only gendering everything, but keeping expression of gender to a narrow set of check boxes based on sex. This is a societal mechanic and it's enforced by peer pressure. No guy wants to be called "gay", or "pussy" for expressing the wrong gendered traits.

Therein lies the mechanistic explanation but what I have been been mulling over is the ultimate causation of such an effect psychologically.

Again the mechanism that enforces such things is peer pressure, it's also used to reinforce social privilege, in this case male social privilege. That makes women different and often the lesser, I mean there is a lot of way's it's expressed and the easiest way to identify this privilege is how women tend to be treated when alone. A single woman without escort gets tons of casual sexual harassment thrown at her, because a woman without a man is seen as an uncontrolled woman, thus a target for sexual advances. That's an expression of male privilege that makes public spaces essentially men's spaces, spaces that women are allowed to pass through, but at the cost of enduring cat calls.

I will have to disagreeing unless you wish to indicate this is an unconscious acknowledgement of dislike for the trans community, which is a whole new load of shit.
Now, why i disagree is, i got family from rural parts of the world and they don't comprehend the former but target the latter. Simply they become aware of a transperson they would go, and spew homophobia because they understand the transperson as a homosexual deviant. not the other way around, probably followed up with assertions of mental illness if true to define it outside of that.
More importantly, you see the folks in Isis, now it's well known they cast homosexuals off roofs and stone them to death for being that but they target them as homosexuals not as trans folk intellectually speaking

It is in part an unconscious expression of disdain, fear, and loathing for trans folk, mostly it's rooted in ignorance, but it's also heavily rooted in gender biases. This is why trans women tend to get far more harassment, where as most people are unaware that trans men even exist. As such all trans folk constantly have our identities questioned when people know we're trans, this is just a small point, but it's a big one because the bias is that we're seen as "pretending" to be something we're not.

Intellectually speaking you're pointing at the symptom instead of the cause. Most people know homosexual people exist, they also know a lot of the tropes associated with homosexuality, like drag for example. That's what causes homophobia to be used against trans folk, because they're not aware basically what being trans means, but they are aware what being gay means, so they take the information they have and use it to persecute. This is the linkage between transphobia and homophobia. From the purely intellectual point of view the targeting of homosexuals is based on gendering. This is why you can have transphobia without homophobia, but not the opposite, it's also why trans folk get targeted under the assumption of homosexuality. Homophobia in this way can't exist without a deeper transphobic sentiment, because falling in love with and sleeping with members of the same sex is the ultimate expression of breaking gender rules. All the examples you used are predicated on the idea of strict gender roles and rules that go with that. More people understand homosexuality on some level than they understand transgenderism on any level, so they default to hating trans people using homophobia. Still that homophobia requires a certain and extreme discomfort with idea of breaking of gender rules.

The reason transphobia can be separate from homophobia is because there are people who are gay and lesbian who are transphobic, but obviously not homophobic. The opposite though is that homophobia can't be separate from transphobia, because homophobia works on the reasoning that homosexuals are breaking the biggest gender rule: Having romantic relationships and sexual contact with members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex.

Being serious here but you are the same as them but coming from the other direction.

 

[Angelblaze]

I've checked out their site.


Are we 100% sure this isn't some kind of advanced satire? You know, like that "Tumblr raids 4chan" thingy we had in 2014 where it was actually /pol/ baiting Tumblr into a raid? Because, and disregarding Poe's law, these guys seem too ridiculous to actually be real.


Look at one of their articles: "How to stop your girlfriend from cheating on you": You don't, women naturally cheat and you have to make them not cheat by making them jealous.

Their advice is, edit free: "Flirt with other girls in front of her", "Never say "I'm sorry"... EVER" and "Be unabashadly selfish". This doesn't seem like the type of thing ANYONE would say without laughing a bit. It just reeks parody all over.

I can sit here and guarantee you of this fact: Go look up a little place called 'The Red Pill'. They have a subreddit and everything. It's maddening how far the Don Juan complex will go to justify itself with a clear castration complex they enforce on everyone else, when its reinforced by a deep desire to be seen as worthy by other men.

 

[omega 616]

Firstly I was going to react like everybody else, then I was going to use an insult I am not fond of (even though I didn't mean it as an insult, more of an assumption ... virgins rejected too many times) but at the moment I am thinking "isn't it funny how a percentage of people resort to extreme views".

No matter what the subject is, people will go to the most absurd extreme and make it their opinion and aggressively defend it by any means!

I know people are going to agree on subjects, pro life or right to choose, gun control, social rights etc but I think a lot of us can see what the other person is saying ... how many of us that would admit it is dangerously low but whatever.

Like I am all for Gun controls, I live in the UK and I love we don't have guns! LOVE IT! When I am talking about gun controls in America I can at least see what pro gun people are saying, don't always agree with them but I can relate.

I can't relate to these people! I think there are some injustices to men, especially when it comes to child issues and what I've heard about alimony in America just seems wrong! Other than that I just can't get my head around these things! Maybe 'cos I'd never even thought men could be so militant against women, I know some guys are misogynistic (I think it's they're scared that the women will take over and they will have the shit end of the stick) but to actively hate and swear off all women? I just can't get my head around hating whole swathes of people.

Thought to be honest, I don't understand how people can look at female characters in games and think "oh come on, this is disgusting".