Roosh V fraud? and OT: Game footage illegality

h/t Bob:

I’m not saying it’s true, I’m saying it would make logical sense. He hated London, remember?

Includes this video;

Misconception: You don’t have to explicitly say you’ve had any form of romantic relationship up to sex with a woman for it to be within illegal territory. With all the EU law on top of national law, which Americans don’t understand at all, the mere inference e.g. picture use, mention by name, would be enough in the context of such websites. American “jokes” only fly in America, about Americans. In Europe, they might get you arrested.

I do find it slightly disturbing that he is obsessed with women of my race and totally ignores non-white women (pedestal anyone?).
From a woman’s perspective, women of that level never fall for a pick-up unless they want to aka whores. I can tell they are not whores (women can tell). This top-tier band of women are so used to being hit on, it bounces off. I’ve seen this in person and asked about it, they find the whole concept tiresome and slightly sickening to the stomach. Not to mention dehumanizing. However, lying about a woman’s reputation like this is in fact slander and libel, so I wonder why he would be so stupid as to try that on. Is he one of the people who naively believe the internet doesn’t count? How long before women like this band together with SJW money to sue him? A matter of time if the allegations are in any way true. Reputation is dead serious legal business, a woman’s sexual history is no joking matter and no one could say he didn’t deserve it.
I have encountered many Arab men who’ve done this, the classic trick being photoshop girlfriends. I just wish he’d stick to lying about his own race, since he is a realist. The demographics of the PUA skew heavily toward Arabic men. However, they seem to have an almost predatory focus on European, white women. This is the secret reason SJWs are bothered by them so much, cultures value white women and feminism especially.

Slightly OT.

I have seen Game recordings filmed in London and been horrified. That is illegal and could be used in court as evidence of harassment, so they shouldn’t be doing it in self-interest either. Either they don’t know it’s illegal, or they don’t care and I don’t know which is worse.

Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 restricts these rights where the use of the highway causes an “obstruction” to other users rights of free passage. If you are considered to be causing an obstruction then there is a risk that you will be stopped from filming.

Literally stopping women (something even the police don’t do) would count.

In accordance with Data Protection legislation (Data Protection Act 1998) consent should be obtained from any individual who is the focus of a video recording in order to process his/her personal data fairly.  Where a recording involves individuals other than the main players, then, in some circumstances, the images of other individuals may constitute personal data and the data protection regime may come into play

Where consent has not been obtained, the filmmakers must decide if they can still include the image or whether they will need to take steps to obscure the individual’s face…

…Filmmakers should carefully consider whether there are any defamatory meanings implicit in their footage. If there are then identifiable personal images should not be used without consent….

Filming women for what would legally be considered sexist purposes or to imply she is easy (as the focus of a Game attempt) would be included in this.

Where possible, obtain written consent from anyone shown on camera. If an individual is the focus of a particular shot or video then consent is essential. If you have captured an individual in the background of a shot and they are clearly identifiable, you will also need their consent. Remember that even if someone’s face is obscured, they could still be identifiable in other ways (i.e. through their car number plate).


You should not use images of an individual in a manner that could be defamatory and lower their reputation. Avoid all manipulation of an image that suggests a context or meaning that was not part of the original image and do not associate an individual with a negative or damaging story unless such association is accurate and truthful. Remember that what you might think of as harmless could be very damaging to a different person’s reputation (i.e. the head of a bank wrongly associated with a story about credit card companies charging excessive fees).

…Laws in Europe prohibiting the photography of citizens for public display have delayed the release of Google Street View in some countries.[9]

Literally, Game videos (filmed in the UK at least) shouldn’t exist. Even private use (fap videos) would be dodgy, let alone the retarded quality to “Let’s publish this on Youtube because that must be fine”! The very reasons for filming are the ones the laws expressly forbid (i.e. seeing the woman, hearing the woman).

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[4]

There are also copyright issues, especially if the person you film is much higher in status (which you may be unaware of), because they are contributing to the value of the copyright which you distribute and without a model release or some such, it’s also grounds for a civil suit.

Extreme example;

A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[28][29][30][31][32]

Then there’s the idea of a private conversation in public (including content i.e. one’s personal life). Essentially, these “players” are being total fucking idiots. The burden of proof is civil, 51%.

There are also use of likeness laws and tying them to a product (a man’s Game or Game website/books count) as commercial purposes behind the video, which also go ahead without consent. Even researchers fall afoul of this law but the Universities somewhat protect them. Somewhat.

Personally, I would sue. And I’m generally tolerant of men making fools of themselves in public.

Negatively intelligent or positively intelligent?

I like this idea.
I suppose it’s a tradeoff from optimum functioning to directed specialization.
The genetically well-endowed (good structure) needn’t apply it to anything special. That’s the special in specialization, and as much as I abhor the modern over-reliance on it, there it is right within the word, bold yet demure.
And it is the latter character where the Great Geniuses are to be found, as in their case, there is likely something to overcome (average or below-average structural bequeath). Is this why we respect them more than the high IQ with great, yet unfulfilled potential?

Jacques Barzun on the epistemology of science

If they leave college thinking, as they usually do, that science offers a full, accurate, and literal description of man and Nature; if they think scientific research by itself yields final answers to social problems; if they think scientists are the only honest, patient, and careful workers in the world; if they think that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, and Faraday were unimaginative plodders like their own instructors; if they think theories spring from facts and that scientific authority at any time is infallible; if they think that the ability to write down symbols and read manometers is fair grounds for superiority and pride, and if they think that science steadily and automatically makes for a better world — then they have wasted their time in the science lecture room; they live in an Ivory Laboratory more isolated than the poet’s tower, and they are a plain menace to the society they belong to. They are a menace whether they believe all this by virtue of being engaged in scientific work themselves or of being disqualified from it by felt or fancied incapacity.

SSRIs: A Lengthy Critique

There was never much more evidence for the serotonin hypothesis than that chemicals that increased serotonin tended to treat depression – making the argument that “antidepressants are biochemically justified because they treat the low serotonin that is causing your depression” kind of circular. Saying “Serotonin treats depression, therefore depression is, at root, a serotonin deficiency” is about as scientifically grounded as saying “Playing with puppies makes depressed people feel better, therefore depression is, at root, a puppy deficiency”. begins;

There’s an old philosophers’ saying – trust those who seek the truth, distrust those who say they’ve found it. The psychiatry version of this goes “Trust those who seek biological underpinnings for mental illness, distrust those who say they’ve found them.”

I covered my own filthy casual opinion here.

Video: Re hashtag #ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe

I loved this hashtag. I even contributed toward it. I’m actually disappointed she didn’t do a whole 15 minute video reading those out, all of them were pure gold.

They're so stupid it's a laughriot
I loved this video. Unexpectedly. It popped into my recc. box.

There’s a scarily large amount of “Male Feminists” that are actually misogynists in disguise.

She’s 100% correct. I’m not beyond admitting that. We have that shared experience. They are massive hypocrites. They use the label “Male Feminist” like Captain America uses his shield.

Metaphor reconstruction;

I checked with 4chan for black ops, it isn’t one of theirs. This hashtag is real.

Think about it this way: if you were a misogynist, where is the place you would go to avoid the truthful accusation?


The issue for women being the Catch 22;

  1. Say you’re a feminist. Now they own you.
  2. Say you aren’t. Either they say you are anyway (If female, feminist) or you’re an evil woman.