'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[WhiteNachos]

The point is he can teach them from outside of the country too.

And? Just because he can still cause damage from outside the country does not mean they should just let him in.

I've never heard of the guy before, but I've seen the UK has a habit of banning people from entry when they are harmless people with deplorable opinions.

Here [http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/International-Students/Immigration-/Making-a-Tier-4-General-application-in-the-UK/Requirements-and-evidence/General-grounds-for-refusal/#] are the UK's grounds for refusing entry.

...evidence of any adverse

behaviour (using deception including false representation, fraud, forgery, non-disclosure of material facts or failure to cooperate)

character, conduct or associations (criminal history, deportation order, travel ban, exclusion, non-conducive to public good, national security)

immigration history (breaching conditions, using deception in an application).?

Take a guess on why a guy known for sexual assault and teaching men how to commit sexual assault wasn't allowed in. Fact is, no one has a right to enter the UK other than citizens, so the UK is well within its rights to refuse entry to horrible human beings, regardless of the reason.

And he has been charged or convicted with anything? If not, then this seems like barring a rap artist who talked about shooting people in his songs.

There's a difference between singing a song about something and building a career on advocating criminal behavior. There's also a difference between singing a song and committing crimes.

You're missing the point dude, rappers can rap about how they shot someone or beat someone up or whatever, and what would you say if a country barred them citing those songs as evidence they were killers?

An accusation is meaningless.

And you know what some of these rappers you can make a case that they're advocating violence (in a general sense) or glorifying criminal lifestyles.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You're missing the point dude, rappers can rap about how they shot someone or beat someone up or whatever, and what would you say if a country barred them citing those songs as evidence they were killers?

And you're missing the point. There's a difference between singing a song about a crime and holding lectures teaching men how to commit said crime. Unless the song comes with explicit instructions on how to commit the crime from step one, you need to stop pretending there's an equivalence.

An accusation is meaningless.

Only in a court of law, which the immigration office isn't. That said, it becomes a lot less meaningless when it's backed up with his own videos of sexual assaults and advocating sexual assault and abuse.

The immigration isn't a court of law but it's a part of the law so why shouldn't it apply there?

Advocating something and actually doing it are two totally different things.

For instance I advocate that we test the idea that we can stop a train and make it go backwards using hundreds of AK47s as described in that one xkcd scenario.

I haven't done it though.

And I haven't seen the videos they seem to just be internet rumors at this point.

 

[WhiteNachos]

I was going to ask why exactly was so bad about a pickup artist getting into the UK, till I saw this.

]

Spoiler

And so much more.

So yeah, fuck 'im.

Am I the only one who thinks he's joking? This reads like something Anthony Jeselnik would write (if you don't know he is, he's a standard that specializes in offensive jokes and he has an on stage persona who is a terrible person).

 

[WhiteNachos]

The immigration isn't a court of law but it's a part of the law so why shouldn't it apply there?

Because entry into a country is not your right in the same way a fair trial is. They are not bound by the same standards because they are completely different things.

Advocating something and actually doing it are two totally different things.

Sure, but advocating something is doing something. There's no reason a nation should permit someone who's only purpose for visiting is to advocate and advise people to commit crimes.

And I haven't seen the videos they seem to just be internet rumors at this point.

How about you read the thread instead of just going "I haven't seen it, therefore it's just a rumor." But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that he's never ever committed a single instance of sexual assault, that still means nothing because a nation is allowed to refuse entry to more than just criminals.

I have read the thread, I haven't seen anyone link to it. Maybe I missed it though.

I have seen people say he took down the videos so unless anyone has an archived copy, how the hell am I supposed to know they ever existed?

 

[WhiteNachos]

So, disregarding this guys disgusting behaviour, what do you guys think of the idea of a legitimate pick up artist?
Someone who simply teaches us men how to become more attractive to women, in order to have consensual sex.
No con games,harassment, minimum amount of drugs. He just teaches us what is and isn't attractive .

I'd probably be ok with it if he wasn't encouraging sleazy behavior. Fortunatly I have the perfect person in mind.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/1baf054a7ddb9ae490d383df3b1f2a80/tumblr_myyhxnU6Wp1rkpfcgo4_250.gif

http://38.media.tumblr.com/cba9b7d1f5cb4c314990a6bc16a3fb2c/tumblr_myyhxnU6Wp1rkpfcgo3_250.gif

You know for a second I thought you were saying those gifs were bad advice and I was thoroughly confused (you're not right).

 

[Parasondox]

A government banning someone from entering their country because they disagree with their opinions?

Yeah how could this possibly abused.

Anyway can people in the UK please stop pretending they have free speech.

I also think it's kind of pointless from a practical perspective. Keeping him out of the UK is not going to stop his message from spreading. He could easily just video tape himself saying whatever he was going to say and put it on youtube or make his own website. Hell he could even have a live stream and answer questions from the crowd in the chat.

So what exactly have they accomplished in doing this?

Cause what he is doing is not free speech and just his opinion. He is actually teaching men how to manipulate, abuse and physically and psychologically assault women. So it's not just his opinion but his actions too. As I am aware, any country has the authority to refuse anyone they wish if they aren't already a citizen. Also as many has stated before, no one has the "right" to enter any country they choose.

 

[Phasmal]

A government banning someone from entering their country because they disagree with their opinions?

Yeah how could this possibly abused.

Anyway can people in the UK please stop pretending they have free speech.

Yah we're just so jealous of all of your freedoms.

We didn't stop this guy from speaking, there are just consequences for what he said. That's not against free speech.
You can yell fire in a movie theatre if you want to, they'll still arrest you for it, though.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom from all consequences of speech.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

This seems totally dumb, I am fairly certain the only people who are giving this guy publicity are the people denouncing him. Reminds me of the "fake geek girl" issue, nobody actually believes it but the idea is propagated by people who feel they need to voice their denouncement of it.

As for the politics, I am pretty sure this is just shoved onto the forefront as a hot button issue to distract people from more boring but MUCH more important issues. Same as Putin did with the anti homosexual posturing, nobody pays attention to the real bullshit hes doing if he fakes doing some more interesting bullshit.

I mean come on, are we going to have lists of men who belong to frats, alongside possible terrorism suspects to be checked out at the airport? Hes just an asshole, that's it.

However, i am ever so slightly interested in how often he gets laid using tactics like this, do women really fall for/are manipulated by this kind of behavior? If not, then what threat does he pose? And if so..... ugh.

 

[WhiteNachos]

A government banning someone from entering their country because they disagree with their opinions?

Yeah how could this possibly abused.

Anyway can people in the UK please stop pretending they have free speech.

Yah we're just so jealous of all of your freedoms.

We didn't stop this guy from speaking, there are just consequences for what he said. That's not against free speech.

I hate it when people simplify free speech that way.

If the government threw you in jail for an anti-government poem you could also defend that with "well free speech doesn't mean there's no consequences for your speech". Edit: Meant to say that free speech is specifically about consequences/punishment from the government for certain speech.

You can yell fire in a movie theatre if you want to, they'll still arrest you for it, though.

In the US that's precedent that has been overturned a while ago. Right now I believe the current standard is promoting imminent lawless action (the difference between "assault isn't a bad thing" and "let's beat this guy up right now").

 

[WhiteNachos]

This seems totally dumb, I am fairly certain the only people who are giving this guy publicity are the people denouncing him. Reminds me of the "fake geek girl" issue, nobody actually believes it but the idea is propagated by people who feel they need to voice their denouncement of it.

I was going to dismiss this idea but then I thought that if he knew he was probably going to be banned anyway then this would be a great publicity stunt.

Also I know it's nitpicky but I doubt no one believes that stuff, maybe a tiny few, but a million people want to denounce/mock those people so it seems like there's more of them than there really are (I'm talking both fake geek girl and this particular brand of dating advice).

 

[thewatergamer]

I'll be completely honest reading the title I was like "Oh great another fucking thread about how evil men are"

Glad to see that I have read up on the topic though since this guy is CLEARLY crossing many many lines as far as I am concerned, verbal abuse isn't nice but free speech and all that, but once you start getting physical with someone with NO consent or anything of the sort that is a major line crossed. I do think that some women are very manipulative of men and we should talk and help male victims of such things, but this is not a case of some poor sap accidentally running into some woman on at the bus stop and she sues him because "he touched my shoulder"

This is a case of some freakish asshole running around the streets of several places touching, feeling, and kissing any random woman he can get his hands on, fuck this guy, not sure if it's right to ban him outright but honestly how has he not been arrested yet? There is obvious evidence of what this guy has done, this isn't a poor sap getting falsely accused, there is video evidence of him walking the streets of Japan forcing random girl's faces into his crotch and then him bragging about it

*sigh* This type of behavior is unacceptable and crosses so many lines, and the fact that the women he as blatantly physically abused being too afraid of him to speak up absolutely disgusts me

PS: For those I have seen defend him I understand your reaction initially, I had the same reaction but read up on this freak that calls himself human and you'll find that Britian had very reasonable grounds for their actions

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

Until we get a conviction, he has a clean record, and there's no legal grounds to ban him on.

Now if people are prosecuting him, and the UK is simply not letting him in on those grounds, then basic sanctions between the US and UK should land him square in a court room of the united states, where he can be convicted, and then go to jail, and have a criminal record to legitimately bar him from stuff if/when he gets out.

The UK is under no obligation in any conceivable form to let anybody in. They do so of their own free will and that can just as easily be revoked. The default status as far as any government is concerned is no and they have to grant you entry. Even if you fit their already fairly strict allowances, if they don't like you because you promote rape, murder, hatred or sending in your immigration application on Friday an hour before closing, tough shit for you.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

My point was I don't agree with that position. Don't understand the relevance of your statement about ACLU being liberal.

 

[Parasondox]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

Wait wait wait. Allow me to test the waters here. So if someone in the US said to an audience in a serious manner,

"If I see another black person I will kill them and and if I see any young underage girl and she's all alone, I will have my way with her and no one can do anything about it",

that would be free speech?

 

[WhiteNachos]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

Wait wait wait. Allow me to test the waters here. So if someone in the US said to an audience in a serious manner,

"If I see another black person I will kill them and and if I see any young underage girl and she's all alone, I will have my way with her and no one can do anything about it",

that would be free speech?

I honestly have no clue. I'm not a lawyer

What would be free speech is if he said underage girls/black people/whatever are evil, scummy, subhuman or whatever.

 

[Parasondox]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

Wait wait wait. Allow me to test the waters here. So if someone in the US said to an audience in a serious manner,

"If I see another black person I will kill them and and if I see any young underage girl and she's all alone, I will have my way with her and no one can do anything about it",

that would be free speech?

I honestly have no clue. I'm not a lawyer

What would be free speech is if he said underage girls/black people/whatever are evil, scummy, subhuman or whatever.

But I was talking about that direct example. Or better yet, let me link it to the person we are discussing. How about if someone said in a lecture or group or wherever

"Hey, if you listen to what I have to say, by the end of it, I will teach you how to groom underage kids and no one will ever know about it. I will also teach you how to ruin another persons life through torment and psychological harm that will make them kill themselves at the end of it."

Is that under "free speech" in the US? I am generally curious here cause I do not know where the actually line is in terms of Free Speech anymore.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

Wait wait wait. Allow me to test the waters here. So if someone in the US said to an audience in a serious manner,

"If I see another black person I will kill them and and if I see any young underage girl and she's all alone, I will have my way with her and no one can do anything about it",

that would be free speech?

I honestly have no clue. I'm not a lawyer

What would be free speech is if he said underage girls/black people/whatever are evil, scummy, subhuman or whatever.

But I was talking about that direct example. Or better yet, let me link it to the person we are discussing. How about if someone said in a lecture or group or wherever

"Hey, if you listen to what I have to say, by the end of it, I will teach you how to groom underage kids and no one will ever know about it. I will also teach you how to ruin another persons life through torment and psychological harm that will make them kill themselves at the end of it."

Is that under "free speech" in the US? I am generally curious here cause I do not know where the actually line is in terms of Free Speech anymore.

I don't know but there's a chance it might be.

There's a guy who wrote survivalist books for the extreme survivalist crowd (the 'I need to prepare in case all of society collapses' crowd).

In those books he teaches you how to make explosives, hunt people and how to make a man trap. And from what I hear the books themselves are covered by the first amendment even though the things he teaches you how to do are not.

Again I am not a lawyer so I'm not 100% certain on this.