Post: #1

A book advance and establishment backing couldn't stop Angela Nagle from copy/pasting Wikipedia and other sources.

Quote:A review of the book [Kill All Normies] by The Daily Beast—spurred by allegations first published on Libcom, a left-wing website highly critical of Nagle’s arguments—finds that several passages in her 120-page work are lifted verbatim from Wikipedia and another online encyclopedia, RationalWiki. Attribution is haphazard throughout, sometimes creating the impression that others’ research is the author’s own. This also leads the author to repeat others’ mistakes.

In a section on campus culture wars, for example, Nagle writes: “Central to the undermining of the Western canon was the relativism of figures like literary theorist Stanley Fish.” She then quotes the famous professor: “The only way we can hope to interpret a literary work is by knowing the vantage point from which we form the act of interpretation.”

This is not a quote from Stanley Fish, however; these are the words of writer James Atlas, who, covered the debate over the centering of white male authors on college reading lists in a 1988 piece for The New York Times Magazine.

[...]

...Nagle discusses the pro-rape “pick-up artist” who goes by “Roosh V.” She writes that posts on his website, Return of Kings, have “included titles such as ‘Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die’, ‘Don’t Work for a Female Boss’ and ‘5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder.’”

Those are the same three examples, in a different order, that Caitlin Dewey provided in a January 2014 article for The Washington Post. That section of Dewey’s article is quoted in the Wikipedia entry on Roosh.

When Nagle writes that, “Roosh V doesn’t identify with equality-based men’s rights activism or the MGTOW movement, calling them ‘sexual losers’ and ‘bitter virgins,” that too is parroting his Wikipedia entry. That entry states that Roosh “does not consider himself” to be a men’s rights activist, having “called men’s rights activists ‘sexual losers’ and ‘bitter virgins.’”

Another graf reads:

He also saw Trump’s win as a victory for his movement, saying: ‘I’m in a state of exuberance that we now have a President who rates women on a 1–10 scale in the same way that we do and evaluates women by their appearance and feminine attitude,’ adding ‘We may have to institute a new feature called “Would Trump bang?” to signify the importance of feminine beauty ideals that cultivate effort and class above sloth and vulgarity.’

At The Cut, in a Dec. 14, 2016 article entitled, “Men’s Rights Activists Are Finding a New Home With the Alt-Right,” journalist Claire Landsbaum wrote:

When Trump won, RooshV saw it as a victory for the PUA movement. “I’m in a state of exuberance that we now have a President who rates women on a 1-10 scale in the same way that we do and evaluates women by their appearance and feminine attitude,” he wrote. “We may have to institute a new feature called ‘Would Trump bang?’ to signify the importance of feminine beauty ideals that cultivate effort and class above sloth and vulgarity.”

https://archive.li/roEb1

Long ago we described female journalists as "typists". That may be giving them too much credit. They're more like copy/paste ninjas. What a hack.

Post: #2

Trying an obvious copy/paste job in 2018 and NOT expecting people to go back and fact check?

Post: #3

It's like she doesn't realize millennials have the best and most finely tuned bullshit detectors in history. We smell a rat from miles and snipe it right between the eyes.

Post: #4

I actually read her book recently, try to read all sorts of stuff, wasn't impressed at all with her work, and I'm someone big into American internet culture. One thing that hit me immediately was the lack of depth of the book (esp. page limit). Actually, I would find a proper book by a leftist about internet culture a good read, even if I don't agree with their ideological predispositions.

Good news; when I finished the book, I felt cheated.

Post: #5

Woman: "I want to write a hit piece on the manosphere."

Editor: "That's quite an extensive story you'd have to write. What are your qualifications? Are you familiar with the manosphere at all?"

Woman: "I have a vagina."

Editor: "I want a draft on my desk in two weeks."

G

Post: #6

Im bummed. Who buys these books? To gain what?

Post: #7

If the standards are this low for the feminist claptrap that gets published, imagine how much lower they must be for the academic thesis papers that only get read by college "professors."

Post: #8

(05-20-2018 01:49 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  If the standards are this low for the feminist claptrap that gets published, imagine how much lower they must be for the academic thesis papers that only get read by college "professors."

Homophobic.

All those papers are queer reviewed.

Post: #9

It's ironic that this article's writer, Charles Davis of the Daily Beast, is criticizing another writer. Because he's guilty of inaccuracy himself.

One line of his articles reads: "the pro-rape “pick-up artist” who goes by “Roosh V.”

Not quite. Pro-rape means someone who is in favor of actual rape. Roosh has never advocated men going out and sexually assaulting anyone.

What Roosh did was write up a "Modest Proposal"-styled editorial that said if rape were legalized on private property, then women would be more careful about protecting themselves and not making poor decisions.

Even Vox got this right when reporting on Roosh back in 2016 (cache link here).

****

All of which brings up a larger point as to why so many of today's writers are terrible. They fail to understand irony, humor, and nuance. They take most everything literally -- and with po-faced seriousness at that.

There is actually an article (which I won't dignify with a link), where a writer takes John Lennon and Paul McCartney to task for advocating violence against women at the end of the song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)." The writer claimed they lyrics said they burned the woman's house down. They didn't.

If you've never actually heard the song, the closing lines mention the singer "lit a fire," and *could* mean he burned the house, but could also imply he simply lit a fire in the fireplace and hung out. After all, the singer also mentions that he doesn't have to go to work that day.

They purposely leave it open-ended. This is what made the Beatles brilliant composers -- a lot of their lyrics could be interpreted in a lot of ways.

But not to the current generation of Internet writers. They don't have the intellectual firepower to understand things like dual meanings or jokes that make a larger point.

The sad conclusion here is that language is not necessarily the key to communication. It can only get you so far in life. The person with whom you're communicating needs the capacity to understand. That's what seems to be lacking today among a certain breed of people who -- ironically -- became writers themselves.

Post: #10

(05-20-2018 03:47 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  It's ironic that this article's writer, Charles Davis of the Daily Beast, is criticizing another writer. Because he's guilty of inaccuracy himself.

One line of his articles reads: "the pro-rape “pick-up artist” who goes by “Roosh V.”

Not quite. Pro-rape means someone who is in favor of actual rape. Roosh has never advocated men going out and sexually assaulting anyone.

What Roosh did was write up a "Modest Proposal"-styled editorial that said if rape were legalized on private property, then women would be more careful about protecting themselves and not making poor decisions.

Even Vox got this right when reporting on Roosh back in 2016 (cache link here).

****

All of which brings up a larger point as to why so many of today's writers are terrible. They fail to understand irony, humor, and nuance. They take most everything literally -- and with po-faced seriousness at that.

There is actually an article (which I won't dignify with a link), where a writer takes John Lennon and Paul McCartney to task for advocating violence against women at the end of the song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)."

If you've never actually heard the song, the closing lines mention the singer "lit a fire," but don't actually say he burned house down of the woman who didn't sleep with him. The lines could also imply he simply lit a fire in the fireplace and hung out, since he also mentions that he doesn't have to go to work that day.

They purposely leave it open-ended. This is what made the Beatles brilliant composers -- a lot of their lyrics could be interpreted in a lot of ways.

But not to the current generation of Internet writers. They don't have the intellectual firepower to understand things like dual meanings or jokes that make a larger point.

The sad conclusion here is that language is not necessarily the key to communication. It can only get you so far in life. The person with whom you're communicating needs the capacity to understand. That's what seems to be lacking today among a certain breed of people who -- ironically -- became writers themselves.

I always found this curious too. Do these people intentionally misinterpret these writings? Then blast this skewed take to reach a larger outrage audience? Rile people up about someone who is pro rape, despite the fact that with 10 minutes of honest research you'd be able to determine that's not literally the case?

I also find it ironic that the exact people who love to use the term "literally" in a non-literal sense for impact, simultaneously gloss over the broader concepts of satire and exaggeration. Literally Hitler eh? You mean he didn't die in a bunker, took care of the Parkinsons, and is pushing 130 now? Did he ever make a go of that painting hobby?

It's almost like the entire forum of communication is backwards which ironically is similar to how pickup works. These people come to their conclusion first and on the flimsiest of pretenses which they're often ignorant of, look at any facts available, then backwards rationalize them to fit their preformed conclusion. I don't like him -> he advocates rape -> therefore it must be true and not satire. If you point out that that isn't the case and conclusively demonstrate that it was satire, they counter with a well reasoned "no it's not". These are people not interested in truth and cannot accept it as it would fuck up their entire world view.

Post: #11

(05-20-2018 04:13 PM)Seadog Wrote:  I always found this curious too. Do these people intentionally misinterpret these writings? Then blast this skewed take to reach a larger outrage audience? Rile people up about someone who is pro rape, despite the fact that with 10 minutes of honest research you'd be able to determine that's not literally the case?

Journalism is their secondary function, they're Social Activists.

They've attended educational institutions designed to turn them into Social Activists first, Journalists second. It's obvious this was a deliberate policy of the first Obama term. Culture became toxic circa 2011-2012 as this first wave graduated.

The same techniques made Social Activists of the Black Community, Scientists, IT and Tech Industry, and the Law Field in the first term; and, more-worryingly, in the second term , was starting to be used to make activists out of both Medicine and Engineering students.

I mentioned yesterday how obvious the Seminary Subversion has been.

----

So: yes, these Journalists know they're lying and willingly-do so in the name of righteousness to the cause.

One of the reveals coming out with Q being a Fraud is they had access to the Servers where Journalists all coordinate their stories for the day. 'Journolist' never really died, as we saw in Gamergate. Q was clever enough to base his lies on truth - the 4am talking points - but was using this access to give the appearance of prophetic, insider knowledge and validation of their authenticity.

So, say these Journalists are discussing murmurs that the Pope is about to change the Lord's Prayer. Q can hammer out a vague post a few days before the articles start appearing on the subject, then claim this was 'deep intel'.

What you're seeing in the case of Roosh, is just pure Alinsky: a coordinated attack by journalists to freeze and isolate a political enemy. I've noted before how early 2016 was a simultaneous coordinated across the Five Eyes Intelligence countries - the unspoken sixth being Israel, granted access due to their 'special relationship'*. You can see how easily Progressive Governments can unite to politically-attack their enemies by telling these Journalists exactly what talking points to hammer to do the most damage.

Remember: the Left are Irrational, Emotional and Symbolic thinkers. There is no moral conscience to appeal to. All ends justify the means because this Thought Triad naturally leads to Fascism, whether it be Leftist Socialism or Leftist Nazism. You'd need a long period of psychological deprogramming to change their worst of them.

I still don't see how Trump undoes this just with 'Civic Nationalism'. At some stage, these entire networks need to be removed from society for it to stand any hope of surviving.

----

* It's telling that this is how Kiddy Diddlers often refer to their abuse of their victims.

Post: #12

That applies to the operatives. What about the people on the lower levels? Non-professionals repeating what they have heard in class or in the media?

Is anyone further down the chain of influence brainwashed, misled, or just unconsciously repressing their doubts to fit in with the larger group?

Seems like the discomfort of cognitive dissonance would be able to account for a lot of what everyday people post on the internet.


AB's post reminded me of a book I read by Lewis Lapham in 1993. It was called "The Wish for Kings," and the main point was that journalists, since forever, were always like this, except their marching orders back then were about progress and democracy, but it was still a pose for the little man to cling to and the oligarchs to hide behind.

From a Publisher's Weekly review:

https://www.amazon.com/Wish-Kings-Democr...0802114466

Quote:In this erudite polemic, Harper's editor Lapham charges that the United States is run by a selfish oligarchy, a ruling elite that preaches democracy and a free market but that actually makes the economy dependent on systematic price-fixing, noncompetitive bidding and federal subsidies. In place of democratic dialogue, the oligarchy promotes the "courtier spirit." Courtiers--lawyers, politicians, celebrities, corporate brass--promulgate "welcome lies" and sustain the illusion of progress while helping to maintain the status quo. Lapham ( Money and Class in America ) blasts a "timid and reactionary" news media, which poses as watchdog but acts as lapdog to the ruling and possessing classes. He finds the courtier spirit ascendant in Washington patronage and waste. In a forceful, cautionary book, Lapham characterizes President Clinton as a potential mandarin who could fulfill America's "wish for kings," fostering the illusion of change while relieving the populace of the hard work of democratic participation.

Post: #13

Journalists are the absolute bottom-tier of the professional class. The least intelligent, the least knowledgeable, the least capable of people with "an education." That's saying a lot, considering the state of education.

Idiot woman journalist writes a book about a subject she doesn't know about: Typical. She utterly fails to investigate it properly: Typical. Her finished content is nothing but a slanted narrative with scare quotes and "OMG I can't even" sentiment when she finds something that disagrees with her sensitivities: Typical. She churns out a 125 page book that by word-count and content is little more than a very long blog post: Typical.

Then it turns out she copy and pasted from other typists a significant chunk of it, not even having the mental ability to form sentences and paragraphs of her own.


I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.


This is one of the smaller signs that tells me we shall win in the end. "Know yourself and know your enemy and you shall have no fear of defeat in 100 battles." Well, the (poorly) paid propagandists arrayed against us are dumb as dogshit, lazy, and in their SSRI and soy induced brain fog are too ADHD and TL;DR to truly understand what they're dealing with.

Post: #14

Aside from Ayn Rand. How many female philosophers can one name off the top of their heads...?
Hell, even setting aside Greek & German philosophers, it's easy to name a whole bevy of male philosophers - Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Camus, Hume, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard.

Most chicks just aren't that deep...
Especially the likes of this 'author'. Add in this for a bit of amusement :

Post: #15

(05-21-2018 09:55 AM)Germanicus Wrote:  ...This is one of the smaller signs that tells me we shall win in the end. "Know yourself and know your enemy and you shall have no fear of defeat in 100 battles." Well, the (poorly) paid propagandists arrayed against us are dumb as dogshit, lazy, and in their SSRI and soy induced brain fog are too ADHD and TL;DR to truly understand what they're dealing with.

Three generations of "Useful Idiots" have spawned a generation of useless idiots...

Post: #16

(05-20-2018 11:40 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Woman: "I have a vagina."

G

Zero credibility...I question the veracity of that statement as well

Post: #17

(05-22-2018 12:09 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 11:40 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Woman: "I have a vagina."

G

Zero credibility...I question the veracity of that statement as well

It's 2018, bigot. If it identifies as a duck, gets surgery to have duck parts, then it's a duck.

G

Post: #18

I'm sure all 7 people who bought this book are outraged.

Post: #19

(05-20-2018 03:47 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  All of which brings up a larger point as to why so many of today's writers are terrible. They fail to understand irony, humor, and nuance. They take most everything literally -- and with po-faced seriousness at that.

But not to the current generation of Internet writers. They don't have the intellectual firepower to understand things like dual meanings or jokes that make a larger point.

This lack of a true sense of humor is a prerequisite for the politically correct. They're humorless around real humor, and only laugh at bitchiness.