adios 717 Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 Cheers, but in spite of the joke I don't think I'd have the stomach to read it. I think I've enough info from people whose opinions I trust that Roman is a bad, bad man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 31250 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 3 hours ago, adios said: Cheers, but in spite of the joke I don't think I'd have the stomach to read it. I think I've enough info from people whose opinions I trust that Roman is a bad, bad man. Aye, it's not exactly a pleasant read from memory but I had a look to draw my own conclusions especially given he has so many people who've publicly defended him. I know the victim doesn't want any legal proceedings to continue but that's totally understandable from her point of view anyway. There'd presumably be no physical evidence, he'd deny everything, he'd have a shit hot legal team, etc. and she'd have to go through something she probably spends a lot of her life trying to forget. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 13 minutes ago, Alex said: I know the victim doesn't want any legal proceedings to continue but that's totally understandable from her point of view anyway. There'd presumably be no physical evidence, he'd deny everything, he'd have a shit hot legal team, etc. and she'd have to go through something she probably spends a lot of her life trying to forget. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Totally agree with this. Even the defences I've seen of him essentially amount to the drunk and roofied thirteen-year-old child "asking for it" however the fuck that's supposed to work. So I don't think people are even pretending it didn't happen. But hey, he's good at movies and ting so it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20261 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 5 hours ago, Rayvin said: Is Tarantino a friend of his or something? Bizarre thing to get caught up in otherwise. I'd be amazed if anywhere in Europe has an age of consent of 13 as well...? If there’s grass on the wicket, let’s play cricket. Isn’t that pretty much enshrined into European law? Creepy as fuck, QT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 31250 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 32 minutes ago, adios said: Totally agree with this. Even the defences I've seen of him essentially amount to the drunk and roofied thirteen-year-old child "asking for it" however the fuck that's supposed to work. So I don't think people are even pretending it didn't happen. But hey, he's good at movies and ting so it's all good. He's 'an auteur'. He's made some great films but, like you say, so fucking what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Alex said: Aye, it's not exactly a pleasant read from memory but I had a look to draw my own conclusions especially given he has so many people who've publicly defended him. I know the victim doesn't want any legal proceedings to continue but that's totally understandable from her point of view anyway. There'd presumably be no physical evidence, he'd deny everything, he'd have a shit hot legal team, etc. and she'd have to go through something she probably spends a lot of her life trying to forget. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Hasn't she actually gone further than saying she doesn't want proceedings to continue? I'm sure I read somewhere that she basically defended him and said it's done her no harm in her life at all. Of course there's many reasons why she might have this view be it that she's been paid off or some form Stockholm Syndrome. Also wasn't the age of consent about 14 then as well? I'm in no way saying any of the above (if I haven't just imagined it) let's him off the hook for being a horrible predatory twat. Albeit one who made one of my favourite films of all time. Edited February 6, 2018 by David Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 Didn't realise he did the new Thor movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14226 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, adios said: Didn't realise he did the new Thor movie. I said one of my favourite's not Fish's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27237 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, David Kelly said: Also wasn't the age of consent about 14 then as well? 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 DK evidently thinks this happened in the 1700s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Haha I've just reread the article I read on it when we discussed this a while back. He was charged with lewd behaviour on a child of under 14. I assumed that meant that was the age of consent at the time in California. Happily it looks like I was wrong on that score. Apparently it was 14 in Hawaii until 2001 which is more than a little alarming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinRobin 9705 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Apparently, the age of consent can still be 14 in the Vatican, as long as the girl is married and sex is with her husband! https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/vatican-city Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4340 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Petersons really getting the guardian worried. They've even had a music writer do a shoddy hit piece on him and labelled it psychology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4984 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 He's a threat to the ideological position ultimately. The thing that pisses me off about all of this though is that the stuff he says is actually helpful (or has been for me) from a psychological standpoint. Leave behind the culture wars, feminism, SJWs and all of that bollocks, he actually says some profoundly helpful things. But no one cares because he's now a political actor in the battle between the SJWs and the Alt Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13921 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I think he's great It's so sad they're going after him, it just goes to show where men stand when it comes to having an opinion on gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 31250 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Nee idea who he is. What's the crack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4984 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) He's a psychology professor who happens to take a dim view of the prevailing narratives on gender studies and their real world implications. He became famous when he refused to comply with a law which could have been interpreted as forcing him to use gender non-binary (i know) pronouns. His position was that if asked by an individual student he would refer to them as they wanted, but would not be mandated to by the state (Canada). So then that caused a storm with the SJWs which they must now regret as it catapulted him into the public eye. He started releasing youtube content related to the issue and became popular with people disillusioned with SJW leftism (me) and also unavoidably, the alt right. So then he becomes an alt right weapon against the SJWs, who in turn perceive him as a nazi. The guardian considers him to be a misogynist because lots of men listen to him and he opposes the SJWs, etc etc, culture wars. Aside from all of this, he has loads of videos on YouTube with really good advice for young men about how to find meaning and be useful members of society - but the SJWs and Alt right cant politicise that so no one cares. Thats what he is really about though. EDIT - he was also the intellectual source of the Google controversy with James D'Amore, which is what ultimately had me branded as a misogynist and a nazi. Edited February 7, 2018 by Rayvin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14226 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 54 minutes ago, Rayvin said: He's a psychology professor who happens to take a dim view of the prevailing narratives on gender studies and their real world implications. He became famous when he refused to comply with a law which could have been interpreted as forcing him to use gender non-binary (i know) pronouns. His position was that if asked by an individual student he would refer to them as they wanted, but would not be mandated to by the state (Canada). So then that caused a storm with the SJWs which they must now regret as it catapulted him into the public eye. He started releasing youtube content related to the issue and became popular with people disillusioned with SJW leftism (me) and also unavoidably, the alt right. So then he becomes an alt right weapon against the SJWs, who in turn perceive him as a nazi. The guardian considers him to be a misogynist because lots of men listen to him and he opposes the SJWs, etc etc, culture wars. Aside from all of this, he has loads of videos on YouTube with really good advice for young men about how to find meaning and be useful members of society - but the SJWs and Alt right cant politicise that so no one cares. Thats what he is really about though. EDIT - he was also the intellectual source of the Google controversy with James D'Amore, which is what ultimately had me branded as a misogynist and a nazi. I still think he deserves criticism for not clearly calling out certain types that follow him. It's just disingenuous, potentially dangerous and likely all about his Patreon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4984 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 He has called out the Alt Right plenty of times as far as I can see... Maybe depends what you mean by 'call out'? There was a controversy a couple of weeks ago because Google took down a video he posted explaining his position on it. He is "for" the individual, and "against" the identitarians. So naturally he would criticise both the far left and the far right (since they both see identity as superceding the individual) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 He seems to have a lot of #redpill misogynist nerds in his corner who need to be told to get lives. He doesn't really come out strongly against them but I understand it's delicate because it's the disenfranchised young men he's trying to help too. He's in a position of great power and he should call out any group who's abusing any other group, from any position (but particularly people he's influencing). This would also make the likes of the Guardian look even dumber for rallying against him. The problem he sees is not just being driven by the far Left/Right, it's been driven by the softer "alts" and on the right, those look a lot like his base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4984 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 On MRAs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 Well, apologies if I'm wrong but I think he needs to shout it louder and more often because I'm reasonably familiar with him (more than most) and it's the first time I've heard him go after them. This is the problem that rational men that I've talked to seem to have with him too. His appearance on C4 would have been an ideal platform to set the record straight on this. I did have to look up MGTOWs too (I assumed he was nerdshaming some card game), are they a more extreme sect of MRAs or just like the rest? That is to say, has he called out MRAs as a whole or just these guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4984 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 MGTOWs have just given up on women altogether from what I understand, but I'm not hugely familiar with it. And why does he need to shout them down? The left already does that. Forcefully. In platforms like the Guardian. That's not his agenda - and if his goal is to help 'men' then surely going in and poisoning the well against some of the most disaffected men going, as a psychologist, isn't really a starting point. It's also not his fault that you haven't seen the material he's talking about them on... I mean remember he's just a professor. Until a year ago, no one knew who the fuck he was. As for Channel 4, he had no ability to set the agenda there at all. Here's another video of him doing it btw: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now