'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[Parasondox]

Why is this even an issues? Just charge the creep with sexual assault and be done with it.
Christ.

Why is this an issue? Well because those who choose to pay and listen to him, will have the high intention of carrying out the "advice" he is giving out and cause more problems in the long run.

Or are you just one of those commentators who always goes "Why is this an issue" or "Why is this a big deal", without looking into detail of the situation? We shall never know.

 

[Redryhno]

From a purely objective point of view, I think a bunch of people talking on the internet about wanting to beat up one guy is less dangerous than letting that one guy actively get away with sexual assault and the teaching thereof to legions of men who also want to get away with sexual assault. They're both crimes, to be sure, but one of them outweighs the other in sheer awfulness.

So, what you're saying is, it's perfectly ok to talk about his murder to legions of people who want to do the same, because he has a smaller audience that probably will do what he teaches them to do. And you're right, I'd argue that half of the things presented here are much worse than him shoving women's faces into his crotch and choking them. You'd think that if he's as infamous as he is in this thread, any woman that he did it to now would scratch out his eyes or tug very forcefully on his crotch if he tried any of that.

Let the guy talk and spread awareness for women on how to recognize his type of creep. And if need be, how to defend themselves from his advances.

But, it's really silly to think that everyone that watches him is trying to get away with SA. I don't know anything myself, but I have one friend who watched some of his stuff and it helped her go out when she wanted instead of being afraid of leaving her apartment.

You want to know why? Because she said he made it easier to spot the creeps like him, people looking for a date, and the people that just wanted to boink. Before for her it was most of the first, a tiny bit of the second, and none of the last.

So, in a twisted way, I'm grateful to the guy, because he made one of my best friends not be afraid of him by just doing his own crap.

Love how you gloss over the sexual assault and just call it him being an asshole.

Pretty amazing to see where some people's sympathies lie in this thread. People can object to him being banned and not seem overly sympathetic, though probably misinformed. But you can't really gloss over the sexual assault and pretend the hate is just about him being sleazy without making it clear which side you're on.

Okay, let's get it sorted out now then. I think he's one of the lower forms of human. That's the nicest way I can say what I think of the guy without dropping into expletives and apoplexy. I have no sympathies for the guy, so you're very much wrong there. However, he's still human, and he deserves the same rights as any other bean.

Which is why I'm very much opposed to him being banned though. But that's mainly because I believe people care enough about it to actually do something when he's there instead of building up his reputation when he's now been banned from two countries.

I could fully understand Japan not allowing him entry, because he did something very specific there that he hasn't other places. He's talked online and been a douche, there he went about breaking the lines of decency(in the past he merely fervently pushed them to the limits).

 

[Smooth Operator]

But usually it is very misogynistic, in a sense that I really get the feeling they hate women. They think they should be having all this sex, and women are keeping them from it, so they hate women for it.

Well in about the same say a salesman hates you when he is manipulating you into buying his shit, or when a politician is manipulating you into votes or some asinine campaign.
Or if we go the other way, a woman dressing up barely on the side of legality throwing around suggestive comments, compliments, promises, looks, dancing/humping up against people,... falls under the same manipulation for sex. I doubt anyone would call that side an expression of hate.

Basic fact of life is someone will try to play you anywhere you go, so I would honestly suggest everyone reads up on social manipulation to understand when it's going on.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Why is this even an issues? Just charge the creep with sexual assault and be done with it.
Christ.

Yes, but that isn't near as entertaining as letting him spend his money and time trying to get into all these nations to only have them slam the door in his face...
People want to pay him money so they can be banned from every nation on earth? LOL For all of the women who didn't get to charge him with assault and are watching this.. KARMA.. He got what was coming.

 

[Lieju]

But usually it is very misogynistic, in a sense that I really get the feeling they hate women. They think they should be having all this sex, and women are keeping them from it, so they hate women for it.

Well in about the same say a salesman hates you when he is manipulating you into buying his shit, or when a politician is manipulating you into votes or some asinine campaign.
Or if we go the other way, a woman dressing up barely on the side of legality throwing around suggestive comments, compliments, promises, looks, dancing/humping up against people,... falls under the same manipulation for sex. I doubt anyone would call that side an expression of hate.

Basic fact of life is someone will try to play you anywhere you go, so I would honestly suggest everyone reads up on social manipulation to understand when it's going on.

There is a difference in a salesman who is manipulating you into buying his shit, and a salesman who thinks your money already belongs to them and hates you for it and thinks using coercion and lies is acceptable because you are not worthy of respect.

Once this sort of thing crosses into a territory where you don't respect the right of the woman (or other person) right to refuse, and where you start dehumanizing them, then I'm starting to see hate there.
Not to mention I have gotten personal hate from one the guys who bought into this kind of philosophy. He believed every woman could somehow be 'hacked', and it was pretty obvious he did not consider women equals. He especially hated lesbians because I guess we cheat his hacking system or something? Uh, he was a nasty piece of work.

Trying to be appealing and charming to get sex is quite different from the kind I'm talking about. The kind where it's not about sex, but control and manipulation of the other person.

 

[DementedSheep]

Love how you gloss over the sexual assault and just call it him being an asshole.

Pretty amazing to see where some people's sympathies lie in this thread. People can object to him being banned and not seem overly sympathetic, though probably misinformed. But you can't really gloss over the sexual assault and pretend the hate is just about him being sleazy without making it clear which side you're on.

Okay, let's get it sorted out now then. I think he's one of the lower forms of human. That's the nicest way I can say what I think of the guy without dropping into expletives and apoplexy. I have no sympathies for the guy, so you're very much wrong there. However, he's still human, and he deserves the same rights as any other bean.

Which is why I'm very much opposed to him being banned though. But that's mainly because I believe people care enough about it to actually do something when he's there instead of building up his reputation when he's now been banned from two countries.

I could fully understand Japan not allowing him entry, because he did something very specific there that he hasn't other places. He's talked online and been a douche, there he went about breaking the lines of decency(in the past he merely fervently pushed them to the limits).

He dose have the same rights as everyone else. They are not making a special exception for him. They have control over their own border and do not have to let you into the country. It's in law that they can turn people away and they do so all the time. So he isn't having any rights taken away, they just aren't giving him something. If I run a house where I'm letting people stay I'm not breaching someone's rights if I say to them "no, you have reputation of being a douche and I don't want you here". The only country that has to put up with your shit and can't bar you entry is the one you were born in.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Love how you gloss over the sexual assault and just call it him being an asshole.

Pretty amazing to see where some people's sympathies lie in this thread. People can object to him being banned and not seem overly sympathetic, though probably misinformed. But you can't really gloss over the sexual assault and pretend the hate is just about him being sleazy without making it clear which side you're on.

Okay, let's get it sorted out now then. I think he's one of the lower forms of human. That's the nicest way I can say what I think of the guy without dropping into expletives and apoplexy. I have no sympathies for the guy, so you're very much wrong there. However, he's still human, and he deserves the same rights as any other bean.

Which is why I'm very much opposed to him being banned though. But that's mainly because I believe people care enough about it to actually do something when he's there instead of building up his reputation when he's now been banned from two countries.

I could fully understand Japan not allowing him entry, because he did something very specific there that he hasn't other places. He's talked online and been a douche, there he went about breaking the lines of decency(in the past he merely fervently pushed them to the limits).

He dose have the same rights as everyone else. They are not making a special exceptions for him. They have control over their own border and do not have to let you into the country. It's in law that they can turn people away and they do so all the time. He isn't having any rights taken away, they just aren't giving him something. If I run a house where I'm letting people stay I'm not breaching someone's rights if I say to them "no, you have reputation of being a douche and I don't want you here". The only country that has to put up with your shit and can't bar you entry is the one you were born in.

I guess they have to put up with you unless they exile you. Darn.. I don't think the US can exile this guy.

 

[Kieran Chakravorty]

Happy to see this guy banned from entry in to the country, however it doesn't say this kind of attitude isn't tolerated. Plenty of Brits have these kinds of attitudes and get away with it merely because they are local to this country. Personally I believe we have to have the same standards applied to all, no matter what country they live or originate in because this world is only getting smaller and one day we will have to unite, although I accept that is getting a bit above and beyond the point. Still, baby steps people, baby steps.

On a bigger note I believe people like this have to be reformed in the same way criminals are, but I haven't the foggiest on how to do that.

 

[Redryhno]

He dose have the same rights as everyone else. They are not making a special exceptions for him. They have control over their own border and do not have to let you into the country. It's in law that they can turn people away and they do so all the time. He isn't having any rights taken away, they just aren't giving him something. If I run a house where I'm letting people stay I'm not breaching someone's rights if I say to them "no, you have reputation of being a douche and I don't want you here". The only country that has to put up with your shit and can't bar you entry is the one you were born in.

But that's exactly the point. They are denying him the right/privilege/etc. to enter the country when I'm sure they've let all manner of other nasty individuals through. It's a very flimsy excuse that means they're playing favorites, and it's crap like that that only heightens his profile and makes his style of thinking thought of as a legitimate lifestyle by the 4edgy5u crowds.

 

[DementedSheep]

He dose have the same rights as everyone else. They are not making a special exceptions for him. They have control over their own border and do not have to let you into the country. It's in law that they can turn people away and they do so all the time. He isn't having any rights taken away, they just aren't giving him something. If I run a house where I'm letting people stay I'm not breaching someone's rights if I say to them "no, you have reputation of being a douche and I don't want you here". The only country that has to put up with your shit and can't bar you entry is the one you were born in.

But that's exactly the point. They are denying him the right/privilege/etc. to enter the country when I'm sure they've let all manner of other nasty individuals through. It's a very flimsy excuse that means they're playing favorites, and it's crap like that that only heightens his profile and makes his style of thinking thought of as a legitimate lifestyle by the 4edgy5u crowds.

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot of his defence seems to come from the assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country and denied visa's all the time. Yes some people get in with worse but that's because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because even with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell, if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexually assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

Edit: fixed some shit

 

[DementedSheep]

Love how you gloss over the sexual assault and just call it him being an asshole.

Pretty amazing to see where some people's sympathies lie in this thread. People can object to him being banned and not seem overly sympathetic, though probably misinformed. But you can't really gloss over the sexual assault and pretend the hate is just about him being sleazy without making it clear which side you're on.

Okay, let's get it sorted out now then. I think he's one of the lower forms of human. That's the nicest way I can say what I think of the guy without dropping into expletives and apoplexy. I have no sympathies for the guy, so you're very much wrong there. However, he's still human, and he deserves the same rights as any other bean.

Which is why I'm very much opposed to him being banned though. But that's mainly because I believe people care enough about it to actually do something when he's there instead of building up his reputation when he's now been banned from two countries.

I could fully understand Japan not allowing him entry, because he did something very specific there that he hasn't other places. He's talked online and been a douche, there he went about breaking the lines of decency(in the past he merely fervently pushed them to the limits).

He dose have the same rights as everyone else. They are not making a special exceptions for him. They have control over their own border and do not have to let you into the country. It's in law that they can turn people away and they do so all the time. He isn't having any rights taken away, they just aren't giving him something. If I run a house where I'm letting people stay I'm not breaching someone's rights if I say to them "no, you have reputation of being a douche and I don't want you here". The only country that has to put up with your shit and can't bar you entry is the one you were born in.

I guess they have to put up with you unless they exile you. Darn.. I don't think the US can exile this guy.

Sadly no, you can't exile people now days but hey maybe if he can't run to another country when things get heated so easily he'll actually stay put long enough for charges to go through.

 

[Redryhno]

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot his defence seem to come assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country all the time. Yes some people get in with worse because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because eve with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexual assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

My argument was not "others have done worse, let him in", it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?". As for high-profile, why is this guy high-profile? The only difference I can see between him and others like him is that he "got caught" and used it. And I told you exactly the type of person that would make this thinking more legitimate.

He possibly has gotten away with SA, but again, I'm very much of the mind that if he's as much a threat as people are making him out to be in this thread, the people of the country will deal with him and his students. Hopefully by not burning down the building they're in. Hopefully by actually spreading awareness of him and his methods and teaching people to say no and hit back when he pushes.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot his defence seem to come assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country all the time. Yes some people get in with worse because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because eve with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexual assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

My argument was not "others have done worse, let him in", it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?". As for high-profile, why is this guy high-profile? The only difference I can see between him and others like him is that he "got caught" and used it. And I told you exactly the type of person that would make this thinking more legitimate.

He possibly has gotten away with SA, but again, I'm very much of the mind that if he's as much a threat as people are making him out to be in this thread, the people of the country will deal with him and his students. Hopefully by not burning down the building they're in. Hopefully by actually spreading awareness of him and his methods and teaching people to say no and hit back when he pushes.

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

 

[DementedSheep]

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot his defence seem to come assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country all the time. Yes some people get in with worse because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because eve with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexual assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

My argument was not "others have done worse, let him in", it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?". As for high-profile, why is this guy high-profile? The only difference I can see between him and others like him is that he "got caught" and used it. And I told you exactly the type of person that would make this thinking more legitimate.

He possibly has gotten away with SA, but again, I'm very much of the mind that if he's as much a threat as people are making him out to be in this thread, the people of the country will deal with him and his students. Hopefully by not burning down the building they're in. Hopefully by actually spreading awareness of him and his methods and teaching people to say no and hit back when he pushes.

Your argument is "others have done worse, let him in" because you are advocating letting him in based on that. If it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?" you would want them to bar this guy and then want them continue baring guys like him.

High profile as in actually known about and now in the public eye. Someone else who just spouts some shit on a twitter account nobody reads and none knows who they are is more likely to slip through the cracks. Of course lots of people don't slip through the cracks, it's just most cases don't get picked up by the media.

Edit: he also didn't "possibly" get away with sexual assault. He films himself doing it but they still can't charge him unless someone he did it to actually prosecutes.

 

[Redryhno]

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

I never said I wanted them to have to deal with him. But yes,if you take it to the barest meaning with no context whatsoever, that's what I said.

Physical/financial/mental harm directly caused after he uses his...whatever they are, skills, knowledge, etc. by the person he used them on normally gets it into people's heads that they shouldn't be doing it. I apparently have too much faith in people saying no and not letting these types push them, because apparently you need to sign a petition and get the government to not admit the guy so you don't have to actually deal with him. Then go back home and call it a victory when there's a million(gross exaggeration on my part) more citizens that think exactly like him and do nothing about them.

Your argument is "others have done worse, let him in" because you are advocating letting him in based on that. If it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?" you would want them to bar this guy and then want them continue baring guys like him.

High profile as in actually known about and now in the public eye. Someone else who just spouts some shit on a twitter account nobody reads and none knows who they are is more likely to slip through the cracks. Of course lots of people don't slip through the cracks, it's just most cases don't get picked up by the media.

Edit: he also didn't "possibly" get away with sexual assault. He films himself doing it but they still can't charge him unless someone he did it to actually prosecutes.

But I do want them to bar everyone like that. Too bad it's really too much trouble to actually look into every person that comes into the office so they'll just scoot by with publicizing the ever-living hell out of this one incident. Or you know, raising awareness of how to spot this type of creep and reinforce it into people that saying no means not changing your mind in that kind of situation.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

I never said I wanted them to have to deal with him. But yes,if you take it to the barest meaning with no context whatsoever, that's what I said.

Do tell what context changes the bit where you want people to hit back when he pushes? Or did you just not recognize he has to push first? You certainly don't seem to deny he will push at some point.

Physical/financial/mental harm directly caused after he uses his...whatever they are, skills, knowledge, etc. by the person he used them on normally gets it into people's heads that they shouldn't be doing it. I apparently have too much faith in people saying no and not letting these types push them, because apparently you need to sign a petition and get the government to not admit the guy so you don't have to actually deal with him. Then go back home and call it a victory when there's a million(gross exaggeration on my part) more citizens that think exactly like him and do nothing about them.

They should not have to say no to sexual assault. Before said assault occurs they may have zero chance to say no to it. Is it really so hard to see the problem with that?

Your faith in it is ignorant. What I want to stop isn't something they just say no to. It is something he can do without asking first.

This is as stupid as me having to argue that people should not have to say no to getting punched and we should disallow someone who punches people abd then I get a response of "They should be strong and tell him no!" By the time you say no the crime can already have occurred. Tell me the fucking use of saying no in preventing something that can happen before you can say no

 

[DementedSheep]

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

I never said I wanted them to have to deal with him. But yes,if you take it to the barest meaning with no context whatsoever, that's what I said.

Physical/financial/mental harm directly caused after he uses his...whatever they are, skills, knowledge, etc. by the person he used them on normally gets it into people's heads that they shouldn't be doing it. I apparently have too much faith in people saying no and not letting these types push them, because apparently you need to sign a petition and get the government to not admit the guy so you don't have to actually deal with him. Then go back home and call it a victory when there's a million(gross exaggeration on my part) more citizens that think exactly like him and do nothing about them.

Your argument is "others have done worse, let him in" because you are advocating letting him in based on that. If it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?" you would want them to bar this guy and then want them continue baring guys like him.

High profile as in actually known about and now in the public eye. Someone else who just spouts some shit on a twitter account nobody reads and none knows who they are is more likely to slip through the cracks. Of course lots of people don't slip through the cracks, it's just most cases don't get picked up by the media.

Edit: he also didn't "possibly" get away with sexual assault. He films himself doing it but they still can't charge him unless someone he did it to actually prosecutes.

But I do want them to bar everyone like that. Too bad it's really too much trouble to actually look into every person that comes into the office so they'll just scoot by with publicizing the ever-living hell out of this one incident. Or you know, raising awareness of how to spot this type of creep and reinforce it into people that saying no means not changing your mind in that kind of situation.

You want them to bar everyone like that...but you're arguing for letting him in the country?

As for raising awareness, that's not really border controls area but other people can do that. This getting public probably is doing that. Teaching people to deal with assholes like him is all well and good but there is no reason to let him in and wait for him to harass people before doing anything about him. It's not like it's one or the other.

 

[Kathinka]

snip

My question though: Where does the abuse begin and normal flirting tactics end?
I mean, physically touching or forcing, that's past the line, no question. But any of the other stuff? Just talking, while potentially assholish (and make no mistake, that douchenozzle there is an asshole of the first degree) isn't really any form of "rape" or "assault", unless he goes into threatening someone or something like this, anything purely verbal goes.
We all employ manipulation tactics when flirting or looking for mates. Some just do it more systematic than others.

 

[Kajin]

From a purely objective point of view, I think a bunch of people talking on the internet about wanting to beat up one guy is less dangerous than letting that one guy actively get away with sexual assault and the teaching thereof to legions of men who also want to get away with sexual assault. They're both crimes, to be sure, but one of them outweighs the other in sheer awfulness.

So, what you're saying is, it's perfectly ok to talk about his murder to legions of people who want to do the same, because he has a smaller audience that probably will do what he teaches them to do. And you're right, I'd argue that half of the things presented here are much worse than him shoving women's faces into his crotch and choking them. You'd think that if he's as infamous as he is in this thread, any woman that he did it to now would scratch out his eyes or tug very forcefully on his crotch if he tried any of that.

I didn't say it was okay so much as I said it was the lesser of two evils. My standpoint is purely logical. What would you rather have happen, a thousand people going out and seriously hurting one guy, or that one guy seriously hurting a thousand other people? Obviously I'd rather that neither option should happen, but if one of them had to happen, I'd rather it be the former over the latter. And that's completely ignoring the fact that all of the former is just internet tough guy talk anyway, and not a single person advocating this guy's harm will ever actually go out and do it. I'd just take it for what it is: a bunch of people seeing something that's making them angry and harmlessly venting that anger out onto a forum on the internet so it doesn't build up behind their eyes and give them a migraine.

I am glad that your friend came out better for it, though. At least SOME good came out of this whole mess. Good on her.