Discussion Trivia / TheRedPill

a quick google for "the red pill controversy viewership" brings up The Red Pill documentary continues to soar in sales, thanks to Feminists trying to censor it, to start

And, though this is more pertinent to the edits reverted on the YMMV page, it also brings up stuff like this which outright mention the controversy of the film's release being significant vs just the subject matter being discussed.

And are we going to accept "Age of Shitlords" as a verifiable source?

Again, that blog does not seem to be a reputable source.

^^ I will grant that I did not look at the website name until now. Though, they do cite better sources (online petitions to remove from theaters dates coinciding with increased viewership figures at those theaters; becoming the 4th highest viewed documentary on Amazon after the theaters did boycott it)

^ That blog actually got the director, Cassie Jaye, to issue the writer a cease & desist, so... (of course, though, it's about other tropes, so moving on)

I'd also suggest that merely the MRA, men's rights [other], and feminists believing the Streisand Effect is in play counts, especially looking at the "proof" level that is being used for many other examples of the trope.

Age of shitlords doesn't actually "cite" anything, though. It makes claims that protests against the film increased its sales/viewership/popularity or whatever, but no actual figures which directly show causation.

As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it's irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn't mean it doesn't have massive problems.

For example:

The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a "neutral" view of the film, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a "moderate" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note "patriarchy" in scare-quotes, for example.)

EDIT:

"I'd also suggest that merely the MRA, men's rights [other], and feminists believing the Streisand Effect is in play counts, especially looking at the "proof" level that is being used for many other examples of the trope."

We can say that MR As claim the Effect is occurring, but that isn't how you currently wrote the example. My point is that, as it's currently written, it takes sources which are obviously pro-MRA at face value.

Oh, yeh, Age of shitlords is definitely not coming across very friendly (see the last line), and the blog isn't much better. I'll look into more actual figures, at a better time. My main reason for changing the text to previous entry was the fact that what it was rewritten into was just not an example of the trope ("film's content is it's main publicity"), as well as being part of a string of odd edits. So, I guess, whatever.

EDIT: Shall it be, at present, rewritten then? (And, I guess I didn't write the example; I just reverted it)

I think so, but we might want to wait for other opinions first.

^ [tup] Should one of us link this discussion page in the main one, to get more views?

I prefer my original writing. It acknowledged that a lot of the film's publicity comes from people complaining about it, without trying to credit a shadowy conspiracy of "radical feminists" trying to censor or protest it.

Part of the reason I'm so cavalier about going through these pages with a meat-axe is that they were created and written largely by a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants when it came to his extreme right-wing politics, to the point that he ended up having to be permanently banned over them, and my tussles with him on other pages showed he had not only a persecution complex but a rather creative relationship with facts.

The original text that made a blanket statement about feminism, even though you yourself have written entries about the diversity in feminists' reception? And I'm pretty sure "feminist-sympathizing" is not a thing. Did you write the original entry? Radical feminism (or "feminazis") is also not a shadow conspiracy but the term used to describe the groups who claim to be feminists but are anti-men's rights.

In any case, the current text is about two words different from the original text, and perhaps it should be rewritten to basically say "there are substantial claims from men's rights movements that feminists complaining got the film more publicity, describing correlation with protests and the film becoming more searched", to be even more plain.

The pages were pretty much entirely rewritten after said troper was banned, though there may be some residual edits left from that sock of his.

Just to interject: radical feminism is not what you claim it is.

"Radical feminism" is defined as feminism which believes that society needs major changes from the ground up to address gender equality. "Feminazi" is a perjorative term with no real meaning, much like "SJW" or "bleeding heart". Both of these terms are used as insults on anyone and everyone a select group of people doesn't like, but "radical feminist" doesn't mean "extreme feminist" and "feminazi" is just a childish insult to begin with.

^ thank you — propose to change it to extreme feminism/whatever fits best, in light of that.