Roosh V. Branded Rapist by Social Justice Feminists

[MagnumPI]

I don't get why they aren't going for already virtuous women instead? There is a captian-save-a-hoe mentality behind his strategy. It's not the job of virtuous men to fix broken women. What kind of message would this send to women who take care of themselves? It would be an even more disincentive for women to behave morally, when they see that virtuous men rather spend time fixing promiscuous women instead of seeking a relationship with them. 

Wait, women who don't introspect and blame society/patriarchy/everybody-but-themselves for their misery are going to look at other people's relationships and reflect on them to improve their own lives?

Besides, non-virtuous women don't want virtuous men to begin with.

 

I find it somehow predictable and convenient that the best way to woo a woman is the method which requires the least amount of work, trust, risk and cost.

[Archimedes]

No, what I meant is when women who take care of themselves can't find virtuous men, because those men have taken the advice of Roosh and spend their time trying to fix non-virtuous women,then actual virtuous women will probably conclude that virtuous women are not in demand. Kind of like how men realized that being a respectful and hard working provider is no longer rewarded.

[MagnumPI]

No, what I meant is when women who take care of themselve can't find virtuous men, because those men have taken the advice of Roosh and spend their time trying to fix non-virtuous women,then actual virtuous women will probably conclude that virtuous women are not in demand. Kind of like how men realized that being a respectful and hard working provider is no longer rewarded.

What virtuous women? Most people who read this have never met one, and if they have, she was married, not interested due to lifestyle differences or way outside of dateable age range. A couple have married them? Everyone else has to take what they can actually find. Besides, if they decide not to be virtuous because the sluts are getting more action and not because it's a preferable way to live, they're not virtuous already, and will still need just as much work. Only, now they're double the princess mentality.

 

Hard working, respectful, providing men not in short supply. They're still, everywhere. They're just realizing the reward comes from being those qualities themselves, not in the form of free pussy.

You can try the Stef approach, and hope the woman of your dreams falls into your lap by chance at a volleyball game. Wouldn't bet the farm.

 

And if the end results is successful marriage + virtuous people, it makes no difference if they were already that way going in or matured into that.

 

I mean, this is not a game of RISK. It's not a matter of planning, getting everything sorted out then stepping out into the light and Voila! Perfect woman. You still have to put the work in, even with a flawless philosophy game to back it up. Strategy is only as good as the means to execute it.

[Archimedes]

I totally get where you are coming from. Virtuous women are rare and tend to get snatched up pretty quickly. However, I don't think the solution is to go after non-virtuous women in hopes of turning them virtuous. I think this is a high risk strategy, because a high number of non-marital sex partners is correlated with a high risk of divorce in women. I agree that Stefs advice is also risky, because you could never meet a virtuous women and end up alone. But so what? You said it yourself being virtuous is rewarding in itself. I tend to agree with that. That's why I don't see the point associating myself with non-virtuous people in order to find a life-partner. I would like to have a relationship with a virtuous women, but I'm not desperate for any kind of relationship. I have standards and if women in my environment can't meet them, then I stay single. It's not my job to convert them to virtue.

 

Besides, there are opportunity costs invovled with Roosh V's strategy. The more time you spend with non-virtuous women, the less time you are with virtuous women. And any virtuous woman who sees you with non-virtuous women will usually not want to get to know you. So if your goal is a relationship with a virtuoes woman, the advice of Roosh seems contraproductive.

 

And let's say you find a non-virtuous woman who responds to you. How do you know that she's really becoming virtuous and not just fooling you, because she wants a provider? Non-virtuous women are known for applying manipulative tactics and the alpha fucks/beta bucks sexual strategy. 

[fractional slacker]

Roosh and the MRM, in general, is a rebuttal to feminism. That is my premise. Please correct me if I am in error. 
MRMs  and feminism are both camps based on the politics of identity or tribalism, as it has been referred to in this thread.

Would anyone care anything about politics of identity in a free society?
Roosh and atheists/secularists are good at pointing out hypocrisy (falsehood) of their respective adversaries, but without those adversaries what do they have to offer in the realm of philosophy?
In other words does Roosh acknowledge feminism as existing primarily as an effect of and advocate of the state? Does Roosh acknowledge the state as a greater threat to men (and women for that mater), than feminism?
 

[AncapFTW]

If I commit fraud to get some to give me something, it's theft, as getting it was strictly because of the fraud and contingent on the fraud not being fraud. If I commit fraud to get them to sign a contract, the contract isn't valid, as their agreement to it was made on the basis of a fraudulent claim.

Having sex with someone withoit their consent is rape.

He commits fraud to get women to consent to sex and teaches others to do the same.

 

So, regrettably I must agree with the feminists. Yes, he's a rapist.

[neeeel]

If I commit fraud to get some to give me something, it's theft, as getting it was strictly because of the fraud and contingent on the fraud not being fraud. If I commit fraud to get them to sign a contract, the contract isn't valid, as their agreement to it was made on the basis of a fraudulent claim.

Having sex with someone withoit their consent is rape.

He commits fraud to get women to consent to sex and teaches others to do the same.

 

So, regrettably I must agree with the feminists. Yes, he's a rapist.

 

Im not sure how this works.

 

Consent is consent. If I gather all the information, and make a decision based on that information, and then give consent, then consent is given , whether or not all the information was correct, and whether or not all my reasoning was correct.

 

Otherwise, consent is meaningless. If we can retroactively apply knowledge, then any contract, decision, or agreement can be nullified. I cant claim "oh, well, if only I had known what I know now, I wouldnt have consented, therefore, I didnt consent". It doesnt work like that. 

 

If I borrow my friends fancy car, hire a good suit, spend a bit of money on a hair cut and some skin treatment, and pass myself off to women as a rich person, in order to have sex with them, are you saying that they didnt consent to have sex with me? Who did they consent to have sex with? Did I force them to have sex with me? Did they only consent on the expectation of resources from me? There was no contract to say such a thing. Ok, you could claim that I am playing on their wants and needs, perhaps a shitty thing to do, but I dont see how you can claim that they didnt consent.

 

otherwise, you are just going down the "no means no, but yes sometimes means no" road.

[J. D. Stembal]

`

[AncapFTW]

Im not sure how this works.

 

Consent is consent. If I gather all the information, and make a decision based on that information, and then give consent, then consent is given , whether or not all the information was correct, and whether or not all my reasoning was correct.

 

Otherwise, consent is meaningless. If we can retroactively apply knowledge, then any contract, decision, or agreement can be nullified. I cant claim "oh, well, if only I had known what I know now, I wouldnt have consented, therefore, I didnt consent". It doesnt work like that. 

 

If I borrow my friends fancy car, hire a good suit, spend a bit of money on a hair cut and some skin treatment, and pass myself off to women as a rich person, in order to have sex with them, are you saying that they didnt consent to have sex with me? Who did they consent to have sex with? Did I force them to have sex with me? Did they only consent on the expectation of resources from me? There was no contract to say such a thing. Ok, you could claim that I am playing on their wants and needs, perhaps a shitty thing to do, but I dont see how you can claim that they didnt consent.

 

otherwise, you are just going down the "no means no, but yes sometimes means no" road.

This isn't a case of "I didn't know X at the time, therefore retroactively consent can be removed."  This is a case of "they purposly misrepresented the truth to trick me into agreeing to their terms, therefore the agreement never was valid."

 

It's no different then, after sex, saying "Oh, yeah, I know you asked if I was disease free, and I said yes, by I actually have herpagonesyphilaids.  And you know how you told me to use a condom?  I didn't."  Is there any chance she'd have consented, knowing what you were lieing about?  No, so no, the consent wasn't valid.

 

A rich man, who would actually be able to give them child support.  Yes, they most likely consent only because they wanted money, though it's likely the money was only an option should things turn out badly for them.

 

No, but offering little kids candy to get them into your house, and more candy to get them naked and let you do stuff to them  isn't force either, so their's nothing wrong with that either, right?

 

"Yes" already sometimes isn't valid, otherwise rape and statutory rape wouldn't exist.

[PatrickC]

Besides, there are opportunity costs invovled with Roosh V's strategy. The more time you spend with non-virtuous women, the less time you are with virtuous women. And any virtuous woman who sees you with non-virtuous women will usually not want to get to know you. So if your goal is a relationship with a virtuoes woman, the advice of Roosh seems contraproductive.

 

Gotta say that I was certainly intrigued by Rooshes recent ideas. The man is at least attempting to hold women (and men) to a standard in a sea of white knightery and feminist buffoonery.

 

But I have to agree with you Archimedes, that I have wasted more than enough time on flaky and entitled women. I would much rather go without than try to attempt to convert some woman to reason and evidence. At least not doing so whilst simultaneously having a romantic relationship with her and potentially missing much better elsewhere.

As an interesting aside to this discussion, what do people think about Roosh being potentially K selected?

 

Seems kind of bonkers for a supposed pick up artist, but I'm beginning to wonder. What do people think?

As an interesting aside to this discussion, what do people think about Roosh being potentially K selected?

 

Seems kind of bonkers for a supposed pick up artist, but I'm beginning to wonder. What do people think?

[neeeel]

This is a case of "they purposly misrepresented the truth to trick me into agreeing to their terms, therefore the agreement never was valid."

 

 

Then you take this into account when making your decision. How well do you know this person? Do they tell the truth? And then you reason to a decision. If you dont trust them, or you dont know them, you dont give consent. 

 

If a random stranger comes up to me, and says he is in need of £100, and he looks fairly well off, and he promises to pay me back next week, and I give him the money, then nothing that happens afterwards, no information that comes to me after the event, can negate that consent. Its ridiculous to claim later that my consent is invalid. How can he trick me into agreeing to terms? Its up to me to validate what he is saying. To say "he tricked me" is to lay agency for my decision at his door. 

 

In my example of the guy dressing himself up as a rich person, there is no contract , written or verbal, The woman may hope, or think, that there is an implied contract, or a possibility of a contract later on , but that is irrelevant. No contract is broken. 

 

A rich man, who would actually be able to give them child support.  Yes, they most likely consent only because they wanted money, though it's likely the money was only an option should things turn out badly for them.

 

 

Its still consent. 

 

 

No, but offering little kids candy to get them into your house, and more candy to get them naked and let you do stuff to them  isn't force either, so their's nothing wrong with that either, right?

 

"Yes" already sometimes isn't valid, otherwise rape and statutory rape wouldn't exist.

 

 

Oh, I thought we were talking about adults. 

[J. D. Stembal]

`
 

[J. D. Stembal]

AncapFTW, how are men deliberately misrepresenting the truth? Would you please explain?

To everyone else: Why do we have so many closet feminists in this community? Could someone please enlighten me?

I'm only at negative 12 reputation in this thread. I am very disappointed, gents.

 

I summon the feminist rep cartel!

[MagnumPI]

Heard it here first, folks. Alan Jackson is a rapist every time he has sex. We've all heard him offer to buy the tall, tall trees and all the water in the seas. Sex FRAUD. Lying to all those poor women.

[neeeel]

the claim is, as I understand it

 

I did not have full information when I consented, therefore, my consent is invalid.

if I did not consent to something, then I was forced.

Being forced is a violation of the NAP

 

 

But this can be applied to ALL instances of consent, since you will never have full information in any decision, making consent irrelevant and useless.

[MagnumPI]

I totally get where you are coming from. Virtuous women are rare and tend to get snatched up pretty quickly. However, I don't think the solution is to go after non-virtuous women in hopes of turning them virtuous. I think this is a high risk strategy, because a high number of non-marital sex partners is correlated with a high risk of divorce in women. I agree that Stefs advice is also risky, because you could never meet a virtuous women and end up alone. But so what? You said it yourself being virtuous is rewarding in itself. I tend to agree with that. That's why I don't see the point associating myself with non-virtuous people in order to find a life-partner. I would like to have a relationship with a virtuous women, but I'm not desperate for any kind of relationship. I have standards and if women in my environment can't meet them, then I stay single. It's not my job to convert them to virtue.

 

Besides, there are opportunity costs invovled with Roosh V's strategy. The more time you spend with non-virtuous women, the less time you are with virtuous women. And any virtuous woman who sees you with non-virtuous women will usually not want to get to know you. So if your goal is a relationship with a virtuoes woman, the advice of Roosh seems contraproductive.

 

And let's say you find a non-virtuous woman who responds to you. How do you know that she's really becoming virtuous and not just fooling you, because she wants a provider? Non-virtuous women are known for applying manipulative tactics and the alpha fucks/beta bucks sexual strategy.

 

Well, according to the shit I just read that makes her a rapist, fraud. Sue her ass. Fair enough, if you want to be single vs not instead of putting the effort forth thats your prerogative. I just hope you're closer to 19 than 30+. Honestly, if you're young just be alert. The chances will come. Be ready. I blew mine being fucked up, and then doubled down on bachelorhood.

[neeeel]

I think you're confusing fraud and rape. If you gave incomplete information in the formation of a contract, that is fraud. But it is not rape, and it is not theft. People make and consent to stupid decisions all the time. Doesn't mean there was any force involved,

 

possibly, I am just trying to understand someone elses claim.

 

But, if you dont give consent, then isnt that force?

[AncapFTW]

I think you're confusing fraud and rape. If you gave incomplete information in the formation of a contract, that is fraud. But it is not rape, and it is not theft. People make and consent to stupid decisions all the time. Doesn't mean there was any force involved,

So, say you agree to by a car from me.  I offer you a 2 year old BMW in good condition for 12k and send you pictures and even a video of it.  You give me the money.  I send you a fifteen year old Ford Taurus with 200k miles on it.  I didn't steal from you, right?

 

Only sex is reciprocal, so more accurately:

I have cancer, so I find a surgeon who also has cancer and tell him I too am a surgeon.  I even pay my buddies a few hundred dollars to give me glowing reviews.   I offer to operate on his cancer if he operates on mine.  He agrees, and performs the surgery.  After recovering, I operate on him, but because I'm not a surgeon or even a doctor, he dies.  I didn't commit murder, right?

[AncapFTW]

I think you're confusing fraud and rape. If you gave incomplete information in the formation of a contract, that is fraud. But it is not rape, and it is not theft. People make and consent to stupid decisions all the time. Doesn't mean there was any force involved,

Also, force isn't required for it to be rape.  No force is required if someone convinces a 10 year old to have sex with them.  Very little force is involved if you roofie them, as, at most, you are drugging them without them even knowing it.  You don't need force if they are unconscious, either.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdgfnHaryb0

 

This also isn't a scene of two rapists, with one about to rape a woman.  After all, the rules specifically forbid him from hurting her physically, she can't get pregnant, and she isn't even aware of it.  So, no violence means it wasn't a rape, right?

[AncapFTW]

the claim is, as I understand it

 

I did not have full information when I consented, therefore, my consent is invalid.

if I did not consent to something, then I was forced.

Being forced is a violation of the NAP

 

 

But this can be applied to ALL instances of consent, since you will never have full information in any decision, making consent irrelevant and useless.

More like:

I was lied to about the truth, and therefore made a decision based on that lie which benefits the one that lied to me.

Because I never would have made that decision if I was told the truth, their lie was effectively violence against me, as it put me in a situation against my will due to another's actions.

That force is a violation of NAP.

 

The thing which makes it invalid is the other person's use of fraud to trick you into making a decision in their favor.  You never have all of the information, but when someone purposely gives you wrong information to manipulate you into a position they want you in, they are essentially committing violence against you.

[green banana]

No, man, I'm saying that it would behoove men (at least, it behooves me!) to learn game to be able to differentiate between the phonies and the real deal. 

 

I ask questions "What is your favourite book? Which movies do you like?". As the discussion goes on, I get a fairly good picture of any person. 

 

Philosophy isn't a very useful tool with women, in case you haven't noticed yet.

 

I have had different experiences. Sorry if you had different experiences.

[Archimedes]

Well, according to the shit I just read that makes her a rapist, fraud. Sue her ass. Fair enough, if you want to be single vs not instead of putting the effort forth thats your prerogative. I just hope you're closer to 19 than 30+. Honestly, if you're young just be alert. The chances will come. Be ready. I blew mine being fucked up, and then doubled down on bachelorhood.

 

First of all, I wasn't talking about rape. If you have a problem about what other people have to say about rape, than talk to them directly. Don't direct your emotional outburst at me. 

 

As for the other part, I think you are projecting your own regret of wasting your time instead of seeking a relationship with a virtuous women on to me. I don't think that being a bachelor is a regretable fate for people who don't find a life partner. In my view, natural occuring relationships between virtuous people are great, but that doesn't mean single people lack the philosphical rigourness or are somewhat incomplete for not being in such a relationship. The virtue of a person depends on their principles and values and not on their relationship status. 

[MysterionMuffles]

AncapFTW, how are men deliberately misrepresenting the truth? Would you please explain?

 

To everyone else: Why do we have so many closet feminists in this community? Could someone please enlighten me?

I'm only at negative 12 reputation in this thread. I am very disappointed, gents.

 

I summon the feminist rep cartel!

 

Ok so you've made a personal attack on everyone's integrity here, do you really expect to have a rational conversation from this point on?

[MagnumPI]

Is this a one sided deal?  Am I suppose to come to the table with everything to satisfy you?  What about trying to satisfy me and maybe trying to understand what I am saying instead of just obfuscating with quite frankly an angle I am having a very hard time understanding.  Empathy, not a one way street, brother.

You've steadfastly refused to elaborate on anything and you have a common tactic of not responding to what people put forth and making shit suit your narrative. In the road thread you actually claim road engineering is a free market but gave nothing to back it up but' I know some guys who listen'. It's the same thing here.

Thats tribalism!

... And?

What? I don't get why I have to explain anything i say or explain why I'm posting or why anything I've said is relevant. And I can't be bothered to check on the topic being discussed. My opinions made up, so just concede to me.

[green banana]

Oh, we all need help sometimes, green banana.

 

You can complain online about evil feminists or help a brother in need. I choose the latter. 

[shirgall]

Why do we have so many closet feminists in this community?

 

[WasatchMan]

You've steadfastly refused to elaborate on anything and you have a common tactic of not responding to what people put forth and making shit suit your narrative. In the road thread you actually claim road engineering is a free market but gave nothing to back it up but' I know some guys who listen'. It's the same thing here.

Thats tribalism!

... And?

What? I don't get why I have to explain anything i say or explain why I'm posting or why anything I've said is relevant. And I can't be bothered to check on the topic being discussed. My opinions made up, so just concede to me.

 

I think I made it clear that I mean that just supporting someone because they are being attacked is not objective.  Its like saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a philosophical statement.

 

 Why do you feel the need to be so forceful in the way you conduct yourself?  Are you trying to intimidate me or make others think you are dominating me and therefore right?

[MagnumPI]

First of all, I wasn't talking about rape. If you have a problem about what other people have to say about rape, than talk to them directly. Don't direct your emotional outburst at me. 

 

As for the other part, I think you are projecting your own regret of wasting your time instead of seeking a relationship with a virtuous women on to me. I don't think that being a bachelor is a regretable fate for people who don't find a life partner. In my view, natural occuring relationships between virtuous people are great, but that doesn't mean single people lack the philosphical rigourness or are somewhat incomplete for not being in such a relationship. The virtue of a person depends on their principles and values and not on their relationship status. 

Wow, I was trying to concede and say OK. You got a different idea on the shit, go for it and good luck. Just don't drag your feet too long.

 

That's cool, though, amateur psychologist. I mean, I don't know how it's projection when I came right out and admit my situation and then differentiated it from yours, specifically.

I think I made it clear that I mean that just supporting someone you don't like because they are being attacked is not objective.  Its like saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a philosphical statement.

 

 Why do you feel the need to be so forceful in the way you conduct yourself?  Are you trying to intimidate me or make others think you are dominating me and therefore right?

Define forceful?

 

Right about what? You axed a question, I answered it based on what I saw. (I actually quoted the wrong post somehow, but I think it makes enough sense)

 

You came in to say, subjectively, that you see JD's actions as tribalism(undefined as yet) and subjectively dislike it. Then dismiss the properly appointed charge of an argument by adjective by claiming you were being argued against... Before you even said anything. And I don't even think it was an argument? It was a statement of action.

 

Solidarity:

             unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group.

 

So, before the argument can start you would have to begin with how that is invalid in this instance. "Tribalism" is not an argument.

 

I don't necessarily agree that anyone should buy his stuff in a show of solidarity, but my argument isn't he's bad, tribalism and do you really wanna be associated. My argument would be Austrian, economically. Purchase services and goods which you wish to consume, only.

 

However, JD has spent most of the thread putting forth the case that Roosh's material supports the cause of anti-feminism or mens rights, and if the case is made would encourage one to support Roosh on those grounds anyway.

[WasatchMan]

Define forceful?

 

Right about what? You axed a question, I answered it based on what I saw. (I actually quoted the wrong post somehow, but I think it makes enough sense)

 

You came in to say, subjectively, that you see JD's actions as tribalism(undefined as yet) and subjectively dislike it. Then dismiss the properly appointed charge of an argument by adjective by claiming you were being argued against... Before you even said anything. And I don't even think it was an argument? It was a statement of action.

 

Solidarity:

             unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group.

 

So, before the argument can start you would have to begin with how that is invalid in this instance. "Tribalism" is not an argument.

 

I don't necessarily agree that anyone should buy his stuff in a show of solidarity, but my argument isn't he's bad, tribalism and do you really wanna be associated. My argument would be Austrian, economically. Purchase services and goods which you wish to consume, only.

 

However, JD has spent most of the thread putting forth the case that Roosh's material supports the cause of anti-feminism or mens rights, and if the case is made would encourage one to support Roosh on those grounds anyway.

OK, so you are smuggling a lot of stuff into this that I didn't bring to the table. My statement was that supporting someone just because they are being attacked by feminism is tribalism. That that is not a valid argument. That is the statement - try not to read into it based on your own bias.  I don't know where you get the rest of your argument, especially since you agree with me we shouldn't buy his books in a show of solidarity isn't necessarily a valid argument.

 

Also, "tribalism" is not an adjective - it is a noun... so... yeah...

 

If you are unsure of the definition I suggest the use of a Google search

 

I will provide it to you this time:

 

trib·al·ism

ˈtrībəˌlizəm/

noun

noun: tribalism

the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.

[King David]

If I commit fraud to get some to give me something, it's theft, as getting it was strictly because of the fraud and contingent on the fraud not being fraud. If I commit fraud to get them to sign a contract, the contract isn't valid, as their agreement to it was made on the basis of a fraudulent claim.

Having sex with someone withoit their consent is rape.

He commits fraud to get women to consent to sex and teaches others to do the same.

 

So, regrettably I must agree with the feminists. Yes, he's a rapist.

 

By this logic it is safe to assume all sex ever was all acts of rape being that men convince women of stupid shit all the time to get them to acknowledge consent to sex.  I don't think women even understand the same words as me most the time everything spoken to women by me is fraud in that sense.

[MagnumPI]

Oh, and before I forget again. It's come up a few times in a few threads how to spot a liar. Practice. But if you don't date then... You can't do that. Pretty simple. And if you can't spot a fake, you probably shouldn't be trying to date seriously, anyway.

[Archimedes]

Wow, I was trying to concede and say OK. You got a different idea on the shit, go for it and good luck. Just don't drag your feet too long.

 

That's cool, though, amateur psychologist. I mean, I don't know how it's projection when I came right out and admit my situation and then differentiated it from yours, specifically.

 

That's not a concession. You were venting your frustration about the rape discussion at me. Then you created a false dichotomy between being single and putting in the work for a relationship, implying that single people are not putting in effort in their life. Those are two instances of passive aggression.

[MagnumPI]

That's not a concession. You were venting your frustration about the rape discussion at me. Then you created a false dichotomy between being single and putting in the work for a relationship, implying that single people are not putting in effort in their life. Those are two instances of passive aggression.

Frustration...? No, I've just got a sense of humor.

 

You said yourself you didn't want to put the work in to convert non virtuous women. Whatever... Argue with yourself, ignore.

[Archimedes]

Frustration...? No, I've just got a sense of humor.

 

You said yourself you didn't want to put the work in to convert non virtuous women. Whatever... Argue with yourself, ignore.

 

I said that it's not the job of men to turn non virtuous women to virtue. I never made any claims about single people putting less effort into their lives. 

 

But you are right, this discussion is not productive anymore. So it's best to stop pursuing it. Bye. 

[MagnumPI]

 

OK, so you are smuggling a lot of stuff into this that I didn't bring to the table. My statement was that supporting someone just because they are being attacked by feminism is tribalism. That that is not a valid argument. That is the statement - try not to read into it based on your own bias.  I don't know where you get the rest of your argument, especially since you agree with me we shouldn't buy his books in a show of solidarity isn't necessarily a valid argument.

 

Also, "tribalism" is not an adjective - it is a noun... so... yeah...

 

If you are unsure of the definition I suggest the use of a Google search

 

I will provide it to you this time:

 

trib·al·ism

ˈtrībəˌlizəm/

noun

noun: tribalism

the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.

 

 

Wait... So, you've now admit that buying this guy's books would be a sign of solidarity? Fuck... It took all that? Alright. Back to the original post. Only took 3 pages to, start?