Post: #51

This does not surprise me at all and I wholeheartedly disagree with the move to end anonymity.

As for anyone who supports this in any measure - I can understand why you might think it reasonable - but do not be surprised if this gets passed. And then another law. And then another law.

And the last two laws are blatant in their agenda to take away your freedom.

It's a slippery slope.

Wald

Post: #52

Jezebel Article on Huffington Post: “Men should have their penis’ removed".

HC: Agreed I want mine removed.

Therapsid: But how do we get our penis removed?

Mr XY: Wait wait! We need a place to put it. That needs to be established before everyone’s penis’s get mixed up after removal.

Iknowexactly: I want mine taken off with a revolving door.

Architekt: Hey good idea! We can do three at a time with the revolving door.

Mr XY: Stop it! Where do we put them first?

Dusty: In your mouth BITCH!

Kickboxer: Mines small enough for a sweet gherkins jar! Weeeee!

MOD: The above two comments have been reported to our Socialist Father Obama for immediate reeducation.

Ali-B: I’m worried about germs. Are there safe procedures? Where do they go when they’re cut off?

TheSlayer: I’m afraid my missing penis will get me accused of RAPE! I’m scared.

Fisto: I’m behind this but am afraid of lost penis rape cases. Can anyone clarify?

2Wycked: What if I get hard during removal, is that sexual harassment? Or RAPE!

Fisto: I’m scared!

MrXY: I got it! Penis storage lockers. But one size has to fit all.

Samseau: My penis disgusts me! Make it go away! WAAAAAA!

Wutang: I can even type that word, it was outlawed here. The “p”, “e”, “n”, “I”, and “s” were removed from all keyboards.

Timoteo: Happy Days! Let’s celebrate penis removal day with a candy corn oreo!

Architekt: Yay! I’ll trade my penis in on an oreo any day of the week.

Bog the blog comments down till no one reads them or are shut down. Do it in mass, then when they ban everyone, start a discrimination/speech lawsuit.

Post: #53

People really really miss the point when they talk about ways of getting around a law.

And no one is arguing that private places can't do what they want with their news site or blog or whatever, the argument that LAWS forcing these outlets to stop anonymity should never happen.

How that point was missed is troubling.

Post: #54

Post: #55

We lost all our rights in '08, they just haven't come to take rest away yet.

Post: #56

A law would be bad but news orgs doing this would be awesome, they'd become even more ignored then they are now.

Post: #57

I must say I am a little surprised at the somewhat supportive comments. Yeah, in my other post I talked about getting a fake FB account and how to make it work but I also said everybody wins with this except for the people (us).

Sooner or later, the entire web except for blogs and forums like this will require FB logins. I think plenty of other posters explained it better than I could but what happens when a guy says something innocuous like, "I think feminism is going too far" on some article about how men are taking too much space on public transit and loses his job. How can anyone say it's akin to wearing a tinfoil hat when two Toronto firefighters lost their jobs yesterday for quoting The Office and South Park on twitter.

Post: #58

I agree with Fisto, it seems like people are missing the point.

Some of you guys say private companies should be able to make their own policies regarding comments. Yes, this is true. Unfortunately, their commenting policies (in fact the entirety of their articles) are currently guided by the sociopolitical juggernaut that is the feminist movement. In other words, you're making a moot argument. I don't disagree that companies should be able to make their own policies, but they currently aren't. It's hypocritical in the extreme to claim we have no right to complain because they're private forums while feminists mount relentless campaigns of complaint with total abandon, putting the culture in a full nelson.

They've already taken over Facebook. I mean do you guys not realize we're in the middle of a cultural war?

Post: #59

This just sucks.

It doubly sucks bc you have to use Lifeinvader for most sites I think to friggin post a comment, giving them control over so much now. WTF?

I noticed today even on ESPN, a sports website, you can't leave comments anymore unless being connected to Lifeinvader, just unreal.

This will NEVER end until they can track each and everyone of us 24-7.

I can see it now..."hi Bill, morning, saw that comment on Facebook you posted last night and FYI the director would like to have a chat about why you're not on board with promoting women in the workplace here at the Verizon Wireless family" etc.

The US mainstream media and corporations along with the government would do 1950's Soviet Russian and Pravda proud. It's becoming the same thing rapidly in the West, with PC feminism/multiculturalism/support the troops-ism or whatever ism in place of Communism or The Party

Post: #60

Quote:Silicon Valley doesn't want you to be able to voice unpopular opinions and anything politically incorrect without being immediately identified.

Fixed below.

Quote:Silicon Valley doesn't want you to be able to voice anything without being able to sell you products based on your opinions.

Capitalism is directly tied to feminism, which is why warren buffet would love nothing more than to see more women in the workplace.

While it would suck if it happened, the end goal isn't to "stop the manosphere", the end goal is to find ways to take money out of your pocket.

Turning us into PC dweebs is just a secondary side benefit. The main issue no one is addressing is that the product on Facebook and twitter etc is YOU. Yet the vast majority of you have accounts. Don't create accounts unless they make you money.

Not sure what the point is of this thread though. Twitter and Facebook will likely clamp down more. HC has hinted at the issue. Why is it okay for us to ban women and not okay for them to ban manosphere writers? They can do what they want it is about the money and not about men's rights and there is way more money in selling to emotional women versus a hard as nails man who doesn't need more than a few bucks to survive.

Do you see the conclusion there? We're out numbered from a cash flow perspective. When companies get big enough they will side with the money.

Sucks. Not sure what the solution is.

Post: #61

(09-18-2013 03:40 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/jud...-officers-

Flamers and agitators ruin public discourse,

Your point is nonsensical and dare I say myopic if not outright stupid.

So one case of malfeasance due to anonymous posting means it should be fore on the millions of people who use it just for commentary ?????

According to that logic, because some people shoot people we should make guns illegal for the 99.99999999% who use them properly.


Flamers and agitator DO NOT ruin public discourse. They are the ones who CREATE it in the first place.

-Thomas Paine
-Frederic Douglas
-Williams Jennings Bryan
-Mark Twain
-Horace Greeley
-Adam Smith
-Alexander Hamilton
-Thomas Jefferson
-Malcom X

etc etc etc ........

Post: #62

I don't correlate the end of anonymous comments with the limiting of contrarian views. I simply think it serves to enhance civilized discourse.

A guy who is as clever a writer as Scorpion, for instance, would def see his comments well-received on just about any controversial issue. It's all about knowing your audience (and knowing you have support somewhere in the first place) and how well you present your thoughts to them. Every great writer and orator knows/knew this. Even Hitler.

We need more reasonable writers like Scorpion and less of the idiots like the anonymous trolls who only further isolate our message. Anyone who seeks to jump through loopholes via IP address hacks, etc just to make a dissenting anonymous comment - when they can easily voice their opinions through their own or alternative outlets - is by definition a troll.

If your argument can't be constructed in a way that's palatable to an article designed for a mainstream audience, then don't comment publicly on it (unless you're willing to take the heat for it). Work on your writing skills instead.

As WC pointed out, women are a prized demographic for many businesses. They spend more money than men without a doubt. That's why the establishment seeks to empower as much as possible. They put more money into (rich) men's pockets.

One of the wisest comments on this thread came from Ali. He's absolutely right that the best way to deal with the cultural onslaught is by passive-aggressive resistance. Even the author who wrote the End of Men - Hanna Rosin - conceded that it's the feminists who are self-sabotaging while she has rarely encountered resistance at her book events from the opposite sex. As you can imagine, her observation has ignited a firestorm among feminists.

Post: #63

(09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I don't correlate the end of anonymous comments with the limiting of contrarian views. I simply think it serves to enhance civilized discourse.

I disagree with this completely. The end of anonymous comments exactly means the limiting of contrarian or dissenting views. Ending anonymity online means people will be less likely to say what they really feel about feminism, gay marriage, or any number of articles which are politically correct.

Furthermore, why do I have to let myself known on the internet? Why should companies/people/government know exactly who I am and what I think, especially when those views are not going to fit within their narrative.

(09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  A guy who is as clever a writer as Scorpion, for instance, would def see his comments well-received on just about any controversial issue. It's all about knowing your audience (and knowing you have support somewhere in the first place) and how well you present your thoughts to them. Every great writer and orator knows/knew this. Even Hitler.

Again, disagree with this. It doesn’t matter how clever of a writer you are, when it comes to politically correctness, no matter how well Scorpion words his comments he is going to be ridiculed regardless.

Have you considered the other angle to this? Let’s say Scorpion (real name “John Smith”) posts a very well thought-out argument on a feminist article. He is extremely articulate, doesn’t resort to name calling and gets attacked by other people and still holds his cool. Now a feminazi or one of those Gawker/Jezebel/the intern who got two firefighters fired yesterday looks at his comments. She sees John Smith’s comments and gets enraged. She must do a piece on it. She must expose him. She must let others know what a sexist, racist, misogynistic pig John Smith is. She tries to find him on Facebook and he is smart enough to make his profile private. Tough luck. She tries to find his Twitter, again tough luck. She googles his name, and OH, his linkedin profile comes up. Now she starts tweeting at his place of work and even though he did not troll, the company fires him because it draws negative attention towards them.

That sounds too far-fetched? Okay, this will not. Let’s say you post under your real name and you are lucky enough to avoid a feminist crusader who will do everything to expose you. BUT, you apply for a job and the HR girl googles you. All of the comments you left, which mind you were very civil and “clever” as you said have just been seen by this HR girl. You are the best candidate but she cannot allow her company to hire somebody like you who is a misogynist and doesn’t believe in equality.

(09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  We need more reasonable writers like Scorpion and less of the idiots like the anonymous trolls who only further isolate our message. Anyone who seeks to jump through loopholes via IP address hacks, etc just to make a dissenting anonymous comment - when they can easily voice their opinions through their own or alternative outlets - is by definition a troll.
If your argument can't be constructed in a way that's palatable to an article designed for a mainstream audience, then don't comment publicly on it (unless you're willing to take the heat for it). Work on your writing skills instead.

We do need more reasonable writers like Scorpion but you are thinking of it from the only the point of view that some of us views which are not palatable for the mainstream audience. I am against this not just because I want us to be able to say whatever we want online but also because this is a bigger issues which signals a complete loss of privacy online. I know, I know, companies still have your IP address when you visit them, government can trace you easily but having to use your real name destroys all privacy online.

I don’t understand your argument here, HC.

I was with you on the Business Insider Pax guy. He shouldn’t have tweeted those almost trollish tweets using his real name. Now you want everybody to use their real name so none of us can say what he said (albeit a lot more smoothly and without quoting Mel Gibson).

Just because I don’t want to use my real name online, it doesn’t make me a troll. I also don’t want to give all companies my basic Facebook profile information (Age, DOB, Sex, Location) which they get once I use FB to post a comment.

(09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  As WC pointed out, women are a prized demographic for many businesses. They spend more money than men without a doubt. That's why the establishment seeks to empower as much as possible. They put more money into (rich) men's pockets.
One of the wisest comments on this thread came from Ali. He's absolutely right that the best way to deal with the cultural onslaught is by passive-aggressive resistance. Even the author who wrote the End of Men - Hanna Rosin - conceded that it's the feminists who are self-sabotaging while she has rarely encountered resistance at her book events from the opposite sex. As you can imagine, her observation has ignited a firestorm among feminists.

I was with you and WC on the Pax issue but you guys have completely lost me here. Women are a prized demographic but this is about ending anonymity online which you can bet your ass will eliminate dissenting views online. Moreover, when it comes to newspapers (even if they are left-leaning), there needs to be a provision for an open discussion without fear of reprisals and loss of privacy. (Please don’t tell me I am wearing a tinfoil hat. Afterall, two firefighters in Toronto got fired for quoting the motherfucking Office and South Park).

This has nothing to do with women and business.
In the end, this may be a lost cause but I am going to resist as much as I can and use fake FB accounts if need be.

To me, ending anonymity online destroys one of the purpose of internet which is discussing, debating, and arguing over issues without any fear. Trolls do exist and will continue to exist but trolling is the price of anonymity which we pay and should pay.

Post: #64

^ I don't think you understand my point.

There is no way to "stop" companies from implementing new policies because there is more money by implementing such policy. That's the crux of the issue, how many dumb people do you know and how many smart people do you know. Dumb people will drink the kool aid.

No where am I saying this is good or right. It sucks and it's likely going to happen to places like twitter and Facebook.

If Google implements this, we're pretty much all screwed and have to keep our mouths shut 24/7/365.

I think you guys are mistaken as it being an attack against "men's right movement", it's purely a "make me more money" move.

How do you solve that? I have no fucking clue and agree the best thing is to have fake IP's, emails, logmein accounts run through bullshit servers in the bahamas etc, if implemented.

A place that is completely transparent on the Internet is bad for men, bad for women and bad for everyone who does not own a business that benefits from it.

It's a product sales move, all you affiliate marketers should know that damn well. Even if you're killing it at $10K a month on affiliate ads, be certain google is killing it much more.

So I am with all the guys saying it's a bad thing, wtf is the solution though? Sounds like most people prefer slavery so we're fucked until average man wakes up.

Post: #65

^^I don't disagree with anything you said. I was mostly disagreeing with HC who said ending anonymity online promotes a "civilized discourse" and ends trolling. I completely understand the angle you are presenting but I disagree with HC's points.

I even said in my post, it's not just about the manosphere but it's a complete loss of privacy for everyone and that's bad because then companies know exactly who you are, so me and you agree on this but I disagree with HC's points about it being good for the reasons he presented.

This isn't about the manosphere for me. When ESPN changed their comments to facebook, I hated that move. All they want is your personal information so they can sell you more shit.

Post: #66

(09-19-2013 02:33 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  ^^I don't disagree with anything you said. I was mostly disagreeing with HC who said ending anonymity online promotes a "civilized discourse" and ends trolling. I completely understand the angle you are presenting but I disagree with HC's points.

I even said in my post, it's not just about the manosphere but it's a complete loss of privacy for everyone and that's bad because then companies know exactly who you are, so me and you agree on this but I disagree with HC's points about it being good for the reasons he presented.

This isn't about the manosphere for me. When ESPN changed their comments to facebook, I hated that move. All they want is your personal information so they can sell you more shit.

Google and Facebook have been running ads for a long time based upon keywords and topics they've seen in my e-mails and posts. I just ignore them. I have never made a purchase that was directly influenced by an ad that I saw through those channels. But I have made many purchases based on the recommendations of RVF members here.

Get in where you fit in. Simple as that.

Post: #67

(09-19-2013 02:26 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  [...]
How do you solve that? I have no fucking clue and agree the best thing is to have fake IP's, emails, logmein accounts run through bullshit servers in the bahamas etc, if implemented.

the IRT does this RIGHT NOW almost on a daily basis

Post: #68

(09-19-2013 02:26 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  [...]
the best thing is to have fake IP's, emails, logmein accounts run through bullshit servers in the bahamas etc, if implemented.

the IRT does this RIGHT NOW almost on a daily basis

Post: #69

(09-19-2013 02:03 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I don't correlate the end of anonymous comments with the limiting of contrarian views. I simply think it serves to enhance civilized discourse.

The end of anonymous comments exactly means the limiting of contrarian or dissenting views.

Do you have any empirical evidence for this claim? If not, then your opinion is merely conjecture.

I've noticed this pattern throughout your post (and from other members as well). You seem adamant that you - and perhaps only you - know what dissatisfying developments may lead to, but cite no empirical evidence for support.

Post: #70

(09-19-2013 03:19 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 02:03 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I don't correlate the end of anonymous comments with the limiting of contrarian views. I simply think it serves to enhance civilized discourse.

The end of anonymous comments exactly means the limiting of contrarian or dissenting views.

Do you have any empirical evidence for this claim? If not, then your opinion is merely conjecture.

I've noticed this pattern throughout your post (and from other members as well). You seem adamant that you - and perhaps only you - know what dissatisfying developments may lead to, but cite no empirical evidence for support.

No, I don't have any empirical evidence. I am not adamant that only I know what dissatisfying development will come from ending anonymity but I am applying what we have seen happen in the last few years to this situation. You don't think there will be a situation again when a commenter with their real name makes a joke from the Office or says something that is not PC he will lose his job (and not even in a trollish manner like the Business Insider guy)?

What WC said about money and the fact that he understood that it was not a good move for the public resonated with me. But I disagree with your points that it is good for ending trolling and promoting civil conversation. That's all.

Post: #71

I believe you guys are arguing about two different topics. Law and privatization.

Example:

I doubt HC would be thrilled if it was legal to reveal the names of every member on this board.

That is a dead giveaway for all of us getting fucked.

The second issue is more complex and money oriented.

Is it okay for a company to say "you can only post here if you reveal your name".

The answer unfortunately is yes. They can do this because it is economically beneficial for them.

Is this good? Is this bad?

This is bad for the growth of men's rights and this is good for corporate profits. Any company that can force you to reveal your identity is so valuable it can enforce such policy on you.

Example: if google implemented this, would you guys stop using google? Probably not. If Roosh implemented this would you stop posting here? 99.9% of you would quit.

The irony in the example is that it means all of us are trapped in the system still. A steep hill to climb.

Basically, the complaints are admission of defeat on a private scale, you're saying that Facebook and twitter have more power than you do. Currently? It's true, as seen in the example.

Post: #72

(09-19-2013 03:19 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 02:03 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I don't correlate the end of anonymous comments with the limiting of contrarian views. I simply think it serves to enhance civilized discourse.

The end of anonymous comments exactly means the limiting of contrarian or dissenting views.

Do you have any empirical evidence for this claim? If not, then your opinion is merely conjecture.

I've noticed this pattern throughout your post (and from other members as well). You seem adamant that you - and perhaps only you - know what dissatisfying developments may lead to, but cite no empirical evidence for support.

All it takes is basic common sense to realize that if people have to make web postings under their real names that the chilling effect on speech will be enormous

Everyone will know that their employer, potential employers, co-workers, neighbors, personal enemies, opposing activists, clients, potential clients, government bureaucrats, banks, private investigators,insurance companies and anyone else who may want information they can use against them can simply google their name

Are you seriously claiming people won't live in fear of expressing even slightly controversial opinions and therefore will stay silent?

Since you're so adamant in arguing against what is so obvious to everyone else, I can only conclude that you actually want to shut people up on certain topics

Post: #73

Anonymity On The Internet is an oxymoron right?

We don't have any anonymity. Everything is recorded and if the powers that be what to search your internet history, they can.

As long as you don't break the law who cares?

If you break the law and leave evidence online, you are dumb.

Post: #74

(09-19-2013 04:51 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  Anonymity On The Internet is an oxymoron right?

We don't have any anonymity. Everything is recorded and if the powers that be what to search your internet history, they can.

As long as you don't break the law who cares?

If you break the law and leave evidence online, you are dumb.

If they really want to find you, they will. Hackers. Alpahbet Soup Angencies. The works.

But the average libtard, a la Anal Dash can't attack you, send hate threats to your family, or otherwise affect your life.

Wald

Post: #75

WC is talking some sense into this thread. It really is about business at the end of the day. Corporations love metadata and publications need revenue. Publish articles with sensational headlines, know who's commenting, and get paid while the corporations target ads towards those individuals. Bingo.

I was getting caught up in the minutiae along with others about the opinions in the comments sections. No one gives a fuck about what Joe Schmo thinks about the story of the day. In fact, anonymous comments that others deem useless/offensive have long been filtered by moderators or simply by being ignored. The comments that rise to the top on most articles are those that receive the most upvotes, etc.