when really you just consider anyone who doubts your sincerity a douchebag

This is not accurate. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on various things and who may "doubt my sincerity" but whom I nevertheless don't consider douchebags.

An editorial from the LA Times says it's vital for other cities nearby to increase their minimum wage, too, else businesses will gradually migrate to cheaper locations.

Even if the surrounding cities don't raise their minimum wage levels, businesses in those cities will have to start paying their hourly employees more because of increased hourly wages in nearby Los Angeles. Why would I work at McDonald's for $8/hr in a suburb when I could drive an extra 10 minutes and make $15/hr at a McDonald's in L.A.? Answer: I wouldn't. Ergo the McDonald's in the burbs will have to offer a wage that at least approaches the current L.A. wage or it will struggle to hire staff.

Seriously? You're going to claim that RoK explicitly confirming the diametric opposition of the MRM and PUA ideologies is somehow proof that RoK is part of the MRM instead of opposed to it?

First off, RoK doesn't explicitly reject PUA. It rejects MRM, but in rejecting the MRM it seems to define the movement differently than how those in that movement would define it. So RoK is distancing itself from something, perhaps certain segments of the MRM, but not the MRM as a whole.

What about the reverse? Would most guys in the MRM be shocked and horrified if they read a random sampling of articles from RoK?

Not exactly. I still think the term is used exclusively pejoratively by active participants in the "man-o-sphere". However, I'm not willing to say 100% of them rise to the level of douchebag. The vast majority do.

Is RoK solely a PUA blog? Doesn't seem to be. The wikipedia page on the "Men's Rights Movement" lists RoK as a "site dedicated to men's rights issues". And no I didn't just edit it. So we've got:

1. RoK founded by a guy (RooshV) who is closely tied to the PUA community.
2. Wikipedia calling RoK a "site dedicated to men's rights issues".
3. RoK making no mention of PUA in its rather lengthy "About" section.
4. RoK explicitly disassociating itself from the MRM, but only by redefining the MRM in a way that's not entirely accurate.

To the extent it makes sense to draw a line between the MRM and RoK, though, I'll modify my claim: "There is significant overlap between those who share the stated goals of RoK, which have nothing to do with PUA, and the PUA community."

Doesn't seem to explain the full biblical account. The voices he heard, for one, but also the claim that the "scales fell off his eyes" immediately after he was prayed for by Annanias. Of course you could argue those bits are fictional. The fact remains, though, that Saul was already "religious" prior to his experience on the road to Damascus.

Buddy also thinks that SJW is the same level of pejorative

Not true. I do, however, think most people who use it are douchebags. Hence my suggestions for acronyms to describe them.

Consider that RoK is owned by RooshV and that it regularly has posts like: How to Talk to Girls on Tinder.

I'm thick. How is Clarey distancing himself from the Men's Rights' movement proof of there being no significant overlap between the Men's Rights' and Seduction communities? To be fair, I may have mis-used the terms "Men's Rights'" when referring to folks like Clarey and, by extension, blogs like Return of Kings, since they (and it) explicitly reject that label. So I'll amend my position to be, "There is significant overlap between {men who strongly identify with the point of view of blogs like Return of Kings} and the pick-up artist community." That is, I would expect the average PUA community member to be highly sympathetic to the views expressed on Return of Kings.

Not my experience during interactions with those two communities.

It doesn't make any sense to complain the term is pejorative. Any term those of us who find Social Justice Warriors repugnant uses to describe them will be pejorative, just as "liberal" is to a conservative or vice-versa.

I'm not complaining about the fact that it's pejorative. I was responding in disagreement to another poster who claimed it is not pejorative. "Liberal" isn't per se pejorative because it is frequently used in a non-pejorative sense. Liberals call themselves "liberals", for instance. "SJW", on the other hand, is almost exclusively used by folks who mean to evoke a connotation of contempt and/or disapproval. Which is pretty much exactly the definition of "pejorative".

Which is probably why there's substantial overlap between the MRA and "pickup artist" communities.

I agree Saul/Paul wasn't "spooked into religion" by a meteorite. I just wanted to hear his reasons for thinking that's the case.

Re: the road to Damascus, it's worth noting that Saul/Paul was already highly "religious" prior to that experience.

There is no single metric, true. But there are guidelines. We can look at Harvard's student body and objectively derive a profile based on numerically quantifiable traits (SAT scores + class rank). For instance, if 95% of Harvard undergrads scored above X on the SAT and 95% of Harvard undergrads had a class rank higher than Y then X and Y together define the type of student who has a reasonable chance of being admitted to Harvard.

I suspect Asians' share graduating high school seniors fitting the "Harvard profile" is higher than Asians' share of the general population. It's not their share of the general population that matters when trying to estimate whether they're "over" or "under" represented at Harvard, but their share of the set of the population with a reasonable chance at being admitted to Harvard.

Did those who passed the Imperial Examination necessarily have greater access to concubines than the set that didn't pass? If they in fact did reproduce at a higher rate, were there enough of them (exam passers) to significantly affect the genetic stock of all Chinese as a whole?