Marijan Š Šiklić Article

[CatParty]

Umm, yeah, because a "consent" of some skank who pussy is public good can be comparable to this.

no that is wrong. you cannot disregard others consent while adhering to the belief that people must ask for yours. it is either one or the other. and from your own words, you do not believe in consent

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

Fuck him write anything you want. Does anyone really care about the feelings of an animal who says shit like this?

Umm, was this ever about my feelings? It was about the truth.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

no that is wrong. you cannot disregard others consent while adhering to the belief that people must ask for yours.

skanks give their pussies to everybody. they don't need consent.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

You want the truth fine. You are a waste of DNA, you will never have a significant other. You will die alone and the world will be better off without you contributing to the gene pool.

Enough truth for you?

That is your opinion about the future you are entitled to. Claims like that young mental patient makes, like that I'm entitled, aren't just opinions but SJW whining.

 

[4Macie]

skanks give their pussies to everybody. they don't need consent.

People who give out their 'ideals' like candy to a fat kid on the internet also do not need consent for people to take those publicly posted ideals and collect them into one easy to read article.

which shouldn't be the goal of any site that isn't basically illegal.

Holden, you have to realize, you are but a small fish in the sea that is the Kiwi/Cwcki. Freedom of Speech laws let us post here anything we want about a person, as long as it's not slanderous or libel. What the Kiwi is doing is neither slanderous or libel because 1) it's not spoke (slander) and 2) it's not a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.

You've straight up claimed that anyone who read what has been written about you would not even know it was you "because it's so wrong". And, as you've said, we don't even have your name right. So, again, nothing illegal here. Just good use of the ol' Freedom of Speech.

Null has said like three times that you should write your own article. Then write it. Stop complaining about the one already made and do it.

 

[Null]

This is not the holden thread. This is about his article. If you want to yell unobjectively at Holden, go to the Lolcow board.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

People who give out their 'ideals' like candy to a fat kid on the internet also do not need consent for people to take those publicly posted ideals and collect them into one easy to read article.

as long as it's not slanderous or libel.

1. You are not doing that
2. What you're doing is slanderous and libel. Starting with publishing anything but the first name and location and I gave on my blog. Everything else is just that, be it me or not. And that's just that part. You also make up lies.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

Everything on the wiki is taken from quotes either from here or from you're blog

if that were true there wouldn't be so much nonsense it it. things like claims that i'm lying, claims that i fucked my friend many times without consent, and jumbled info that includes picture of some house - where are they found ? and that's a tiny piece

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

but here our first amendment

first amendment doesn't allow slander and defamation

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

In order for it to be slander you would have to prove in court

hilarious post. i'd be trivial to prove that, but since i am not from US also impossible. aka you're saying nonsensical crap.

 

[HG 400]

You can take international slanderers to court. You can even sue them in the nation of your choosing, not necessarily yours or theirs. A lot of law firms like to use Australian courts for this, as Australian laws are stricter on matters of libel and slander.

How does this slander affect your finances, Holden?

 

[Null]

The next person to reply and who does not have anything to say about the fucking wiki article will be banned from this subforum. Shut the fuck up.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

You can take international slanderers to court.

yes, but it would be immensely complicated since at least two people are editing and aren't even using my real name in any of the content. so what can i do? direct those whose info they are using to that? Which would just get me in trouble? Just too much complication.

Still, it is defamatory and illegal. You can't just put anybody's name there.

So then why should we cave to your demands when you admit your blustering has no legal basis?

I said it's illegal under all laws but look what I told Dynastia above.

 

[Cephalometrist]

I have absolutely no attention of appealing to him

Maybe you should. If you're able to prove me wrong, then I have to delete or revise my claim. For instance, I corrected my statement that the schizophrenic woman lived with her mother. As you have correctly pointed out, you said she lives with her father.

since 1. he is immensely stupid and can't understand arguments

you seem like an intelligent person

Funny how time flies...

2. is a SJW whose attacks have no citations and

I'll add citations to my "attacks" soon enough, don't you worry.

use words like "entitled"

The use and abuse of the words 'entitlement', '(to) entitle' and variations of them by tumblrinas doesn't devalue these words, doesn't make these words "dirty" and unusable and doesn't make a person who uses them a SJW.

entitlement
noun en·ti·tle·ment \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\
: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)
: a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

1. Your past agenda, GovernmentsGetGirlfriends, was an attempt to create a state-run dating agency for love-shys incels. You expected the Croatian state to take action because of your own shortcomings. You expected Croatian tax-payers to help create this thing, to pay public servants to plan and maintain the whole bureaucratic apparatus it would have required, to pay the web designers and code monkeys to create the website and to run the databanks. You expected them to pay for the girls who were supposed to have dates with their love-shy incel clientele.
   
   You expected others to take action because of your own ineptitude. That's entitlement.
   
   
2. You agreed that girls who dare to brake up with love-shys they have a relationship with deserve to be doxed and that every love-shy should film their first sexual act with a girl, so they can have something to exert pressure or humiliate the girl if she chooses to leave them "in a brutal way", implying some bullshit love-shy right to "defend" themselves against evil girls .
   According to your ideology, you believe that men and women are substantially different beings. And no, it's not just "Western women", it's all women. You agree with fschmidt's bullshit that women "have no real desire to organize themselves based on shared morality" and would use their power to subjugate men and should therefore not be able to be in positions of power or decide anything (By the way: I love this post because it shows so many things: Marjan's canine devotion to Fschmidt's bullshit theories, his incapability to recognise Hume's law when it hits him in the face, his hilarious assumptions about what all women want, just to name a few). Apart from the fact that by declaring this inequality and demanding incredibly drastic privileges for men in your never-never land, you show this attitude in your everyday behaviour.
   I couldn't have provided a better example than your display of contempt when it comes to "consent" in this very thread. You are completely fine with denying a person fundamental rights if they don't conform to your fucked-up code of morality. Your will is supreme, you don't give a shit about what those girls feel or what they want want, both in theory and in practice.
   
   You thought and still think it was and is your (moral and natural) right to score and to have a girlfriend/wife. And you think that men alone should have substantial privileges and that women should be dramatically disenfranchised. That's entitlement.
   
   
3. You classify yourself as "CoAlpha" according to Fschmidt's laughable theory of everything. When one applies your own classifications of people according to Greek letters to you (I've done this in the first thread that was designated for you) one can easily reach the conclusion that you are an Omega type. But your explanation was that you disrespect your fellow men because they are omegas and that you respect your fellow CoAlphas. And you added that being a smart CoAlpha is a hindrance in this society since "these men won’t be foolish enough to support a used up slut in her 30s and her child so no women will want them at all". It's all such a nice addition to your delusions of grandeur. You keep telling yourself so vehemently that you are one of the "few good, decent, intelligent men"and that the rest of society just needs to see this. I really don't remember if you have ever been somewhat non-condescending here, even to the people who actually wanted to discuss with you. You always had a shitty, smug attitude.
   By the way: The fact that the infertile "master race" is supposed to be smarter than all omegas and betas, but incapable of any change is quite funny to be honest.
   Back to the point, your political aim is to fundamentally change society, just so you and your ilk can possess a girlfriend/hostage/wife or go into one of the easily available brothels around the corner.
   And of course, as a CoAlpha, you will automatically rise from some unemployed fuck to a member of the higher classes of society. And all that just because you are a "CoAlpha" and therefore a "better" man than any of us here.
   
   The thing is: It doesn't matter if you want a special snowflake treatment because of your imaginary foxgender or if you want a special snowflake treatment because you are part of some imaginary CoAlpha category of men.
   You demand non-existent privileges in both cases. That's entitlement.

Yes, the passage you are referring to is by far the weakest part of the article in terms of neutrality and needs some revision.
No, you are entitled as fuck and this is why I will continue using this word in the article.

Your third point is irrelevant, because every statement will be backed by one thing or another. And I think if I had fucked up as royally as you claim, I wouldn't be able to edit anything on that wiki any longer.
You still have the option to criticise concrete claims I make in your article and then, if I can provide nothing to back them, they'll have to disappear. Do you understand?

edit: semantics fixed.
edit2: useless link/bb code tag deleted.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

my agenda wasn't to create a state agency for love-shys. it was for all incels. here, you like there right away.

i saw a bit about ineptitude. that's insane. this "ineptitude" had nothing to do with anything i've done and deprived me of the most important factor for happiness. only a hard randian objectivist or somebody against all forms of empathy could argue something that dumb.

i won't respond to more. null, you do see the problem and the enormity of his obsession? he is scary as fuck. it's amazing you can't see that. ceph, i admit - i am scared of you. most honestly.

 

[Null]

My concern with pointed wordchoice in an article is that it doesn't reflect reality sometimes.

In ED articles will often say "is a rapist" with zero evidence and not indication of what it refers to. Often times it will link to an article that says the exact opposite, like "I like rapeplay but only with consent" and then it just infers from that that the person is a rapist. Both of these instances are far less interesting than something like Dobson's page where it calls him an inflationist (not really a bad thing when compared to an actual rapist) but it's funny because there's actual evidence and art to back it up.

I'd rather have articles be like Kengle's where there's not much going on with him but that are still interesting because everything about it is verifiable and objectively true, whereas I keep seeing "HOLDEN IS SO BAD" and "HOLDEN WANTS TO RAPE AND MURDER ERVERYONE" and "HOLDEN DID ALL THESE CRIMES" and I'm looking around for evidence so I can laugh but there's not shit other than what's inferred from random posts.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

I keep seeing "HOLDEN IS SO BAD" and "HOLDEN WANTS TO RAPE AND MURDER ERVERYONE" and "HOLDEN DID ALL THESE CRIMES" and I'm looking around for evidence so I can laugh but there's not shit other than what's inferred from random posts.

Did you see his huge post? One the first sentences and the one I accidentally encountered were now described as one lie and other batshit. Do you see the size of his posts? It's just sick. Those are sick people you are harboring.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

*you lie

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

null, the problem with his false claims is that there's so many of them. so debunking all of them would take too much time unless i am sure this could be done. the best way would be to delete all he said. after his claims were debunked little to nothing would have left.

let's take that "nice guy" bs he said he wouldn't remove but you did - is somebody a nice guy simply because they're a provider? of course not. they could be extremely rude and shitty people as well who just don't use seduction.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

for example, he still hasn't removed his feb 2015 comment about the shoes post, which he claims lacks citations. which is insane, since i obviously couldn't even post the news report even if i had one thanks to his insane tactics.