Post: #1

Check out this sinister Daily Dot article by a feminist cunt named Whitney Phillips, a "media and Internet studies scholar".

It sums up very well what "feminists" want to do: silence, control and criminalize any dissent from the current party line on almost every conceivable subject.

The new twist is that they're seriously trying to sideline the obvious First Amendment protections that are still enjoyed by American men by moving toward characterizing any expressions of opinions they don't like as "hate speech".

It's bad news and it's serious. They'll be coming after places like this forum with threats of "legal action" very soon.

Quote:A similarly important question is the extent to which platforms are responsible for the content their commenters post. This is particularly salient when considering racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic comments, as well as comments designed to threaten and intimidate other users. Is it the platform’s job to intervene when conversations veer into hateful territory?

Quote:The kind of speech most likely to be defended by this line of reasoning is speech that is bigoted and antagonistic, largely toward women and other historically underrepresented groups (note the infrequency with which women and people of color use the “...but but FREE SPEECH” defense in a debate, whether online or off-). Free speech in the colloquial Internet sense, particularly as it’s used in the context of comment moderation, almost always justifies or outright apologizes for a typically male, typically white aggressor. It is a concept that frames freedom in terms of being free to harass others, not freedom from being harassed, or simply from being exposed to harassment (which often amounts to the same thing).

Quote:if the goal is to encourage actual discourse within a diverse community, platforms would be wise to think beyond “free speech,” and take some measures to privilege those who are there to have a conversation, not a fire fight.

Feminist hatred of free-speech has never been more intense or dangerous, especially since white-knight companies like Google are completely controlled by feminazis when it comes to these matters.

Indeed, as is gleefully described in this very article, Google has just basically destroyed the Youtube comment platform.

"Hate speech laws" are coming to destroy places like the RVF and must be fought tooth and nail.

The next shaming week should be:

#WebCensorshipShamingWeek

and should target feminists and their mangina enablers in business and government.

Post: #2

But then what will we do with all the feminist death threats on twitter?



Wald

Post: #3

Yes, Wald, feminist hypocrisy knows no bounds -- but this is no laughing matter for men like ourselves who hold supposedly "hateful" opinions.

This criminalization of male speech and behavior ("bullying") is a very serious threat to all men.

Post: #4

You see, they want to make a post like this one illegal, they want to criminalize it just as they've largely succeeded in criminalizing boyhood with outrageous "bullying" laws:

(10-13-2013 02:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 07:19 AM)Architekt Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 07:05 AM)Sailor Wrote:  Less than we need for a better world

Why do people think this is a joke..?

Besides, they're only fatties, anyway

If some fatties offed themselves because of #fatshamingweek, then apparently RoK has helped reduced the healthcare burden of this great nation.

Post: #5

Daily Dot is Jezebel but with a layout that makes it seem like a professional newspaper.

Post: #6

This is pathetic, and shows the extent to which they'll go to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Post: #7

I think this is very serious. This cunt is well credentialed and well connected.

Quote: Whitney Phillips is a media and Internet studies scholar who received her Ph.D. from the University of Oregon in 2012. Her work has appeared in journals such as Television and New Media and First Monday, and she has been interviewed or featured in the Atlantic, Fast Company, and NBC News. She is currently revising her dissertation—which focuses on subcultural trolling—for publication.

There is a confidence and feeling of power in her nasty legalese. When she says that platforms would be "wise" to "think beyond free speech", this is a threat and it's not an idle threat.

These are the kinds of academic memes that lay down the groundwork for laws and legal actions that are coming soon.

Post: #8

Her thesis makes her an "expert" on trolling. She's rent seeking. If comments sections make the publication liable they have to hire her to consult. She's got a worthless degree (internet and media studies) and is looking to create a job for herself.

Start calling this rent seeking behavior out.

Post: #9

So if I write "Fat and feminist shits are the scum of society and should be shamed as much as possible" I could go to jail? Oh shi-.

Post: #10

Good point JNF, they are rent seeking among other things and should be called out accordingly.

But it's important right now not to underestimate the enemy.

We know that her degree is worthless, but to the wider world, this is far from being the case. As far as they are concerned, she has a cutting edge Ph.D. from a reputable university. Her voice and others like it will be treated very seriously in government, business and legal circles.

I know that guys have seen feminists whining about trolls and "offensive speech" for a long time and maybe there is a little bit of complacency, like it all feels the same.

But a lot of things about this article made my antennae prick way the fuck up. I feel that it's getting deadly serious right now. A big move is afoot to quash speech on the internet that they don't like, and this means they're aiming straight at us. The academic and legal justifications are being lined up and field tested.

We need to be paying attention and figuring out ways to fight fire with fire.

Post: #11

(10-13-2013 02:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Yes, Wald, feminist hypocrisy knows no bounds -- but this is no laughing matter for men like ourselves who hold supposedly "hateful" opinions.

This criminalization of male speech and behavior ("bullying") is a very serious threat to all men.

I'm not laughing.

Wald

Post: #12

(10-13-2013 05:27 PM)mental Wrote:  So if I write "Fat and feminist shits are the scum of society and should be shamed as much as possible" I could go to jail? Oh shi-.

All jokes aside, no, they probably won't try to go after individual posters in this way, that's not an efficient way to achieve their objective.

They're going to go after online platforms. Meaning, places like this.

They will first try to get online platforms to voluntarily censor "hate speech". That will be successful with a lot of mainstream sites, like major newspapers, sites owned by white knight companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and so on (think of how much ground that covers). Comments like the above and much milder than the above will simply not be allowed to appear on any site that these companies own. A lot of these sites are already moving in that direction and are hungry to go all the way.

Then they'll go after holdouts using legal actions, lawsuits against "platforms that protect hate speech", and legislation against the same. They don't have to win every lawsuit to make websites impossible to operate. They will go after ISP providers that allow traffic to sites that they will define as "hate speech sites" and argue that it's their responsibility as well that these sites accept "common internet hate speech standards" or be shut off from web traffic.

They are marshaling the "studies" and legal arguments to start making these moves in earnest. This bitch is an academically credentialed "expert" on "trolling and hate speech" and she is one of the shock troops. She will testify in hearings and be cited as a source of "studies" that show the terrible harm that comes from an online "hate culture". They will cite suicides from "online bullying" and gin up public outrage.

The big moves are going to be made soon.

Post: #13

Lol... A ban on hate speech?

What are they even going to do with their lives? The only thing they'll have left is to feed their cats and stuff their own fat faces..

Maybe this will be beneficial in that all the feminists will get so obese that they just die and leave only thin feminine women

Post: #14

Not too long ago the outgoing ombudsman of the NY Times I believe expressed sadness at the rise of trolling and hate speech in the comments sections of articles. I think we already see it on individual articles on certain sites. When they know that a particular article is going to invite heated posts in the comments, they disable the comments section of the article. Sometimes they never enable it, other times they disable after seeing where the discussion is headed. We'll start seeing more of that.

Post: #15

Yep, comment sections of major newspapers are ground zero for "hate speech" censorship and that's been happening for a while already. They will all fall in line swiftly and eagerly. Same for anything owned by Google, Facebook, Yahoo etc etc.

The big fight will be for online platforms like this forum. They will go after us hard but this is a fight we may be able to win. We have to hammer hammer hammer the idea of First Amendment protections and free speech, and shame the would-be censors everywhere we can. That's why I suggested #WebCensorshipShamingWeek as something worth doing.

There are segments of public opinion on both the right and the left that are receptive to the idea of the sanctity of free speech and it has to be emphasized relentlessly. If you read the article, this cunt knows full well that the constitutional guarantee of free speech, if taken seriously, is the only thing that is standing in the way of what she wants to achieve.

Post: #16

In the future, we might have to have physical representation of the forum- a big bulletin board.

Contributors will have to send their posts via carrier pigeon.

Post: #17

(10-13-2013 11:32 PM)soup Wrote:  In the future, we might have to have physical representation of the forum- a big bulletin board.

Contributors will have to send their posts via carrier pigeon.

Fuck that I'm using a hawk. Alpha as fuck

Post: #18

(10-13-2013 04:03 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  I think this is very serious. This cunt is well credentialed and well connected.

Quote: Whitney Phillips is a media and Internet studies scholar who received her Ph.D. from the University of Oregon in 2012. Her work has appeared in journals such as Television and New Media and First Monday, and she has been interviewed or featured in the Atlantic, Fast Company, and NBC News. She is currently revising her dissertation—which focuses on subcultural trolling—for publication.

There is a confidence and feeling of power in her nasty legalese. When she says that platforms would be "wise" to "think beyond free speech", this is a threat and it's not an idle threat.

These are the kinds of academic memes that lay down the groundwork for laws and legal actions that are coming soon.

"When she says that platforms would be "wise" to "think beyond free speech", this is a threat and it's not an idle threat."

I work in media. Media outlets live or die by Web hit counts. Comments cause MASSIVE hit counts, because people repost on FB with links. I've been asked to make my copy sexier to cause this. Most sane media outlets WANT comments, the crazier the better, because it sends the hit count through the roof and they can attract more ads and make more money.

Remove the comments, and you cause the hit counts to die. What happens? Advertisers see this and refuse to buy ads with you and buy instead with another company. Only the NYT can afford to do this, but they can only "afford" it because of their rep. They can't really afford it financially.

So... if she succeeds in killing off comments, she will essentially kill off newspapers because comments are what keep people going to those sites, as opposed to going to blogs. People will just go to the blogs that copy stories and allow comments.

And they can't shut every blog down. If they try, bloggers will go to offshore hosts. AND take to talk radio. And if it gets to that point, think about what the image of feminists and this woman will be. They'll be the people that ended free speech on the Internet. They'll be exposed. They'll be despised by any sane person.

Post: #19

(10-13-2013 10:41 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  Not too long ago the outgoing ombudsman of the NY Times I believe expressed sadness at the rise of trolling and hate speech in the comments sections of articles. I think we already see it on individual articles on certain sites. When they know that a particular article is going to invite heated posts in the comments, they disable the comments section of the article. Sometimes they never enable it, other times they disable after seeing where the discussion is headed. We'll start seeing more of that.

As much as I'm for free speech, I approve of what the NYT does.

There are articles whose comments turn into a left/right, religion/nonbeliever, etc fuck fest. And to begin with, the article is about something else like art or business that was nothing to do with "barry soteoro" or "dubya".

To put it short, a good discussion turns into a YouTube comment war and it ruins the fun.

Post: #20

Related:

"Get ready for the government to determine what bullying online is (and therefore, what free speech isn't)"

http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/12/a-...acebookgov

Quote:Earlier this month Facebook launched a pilot program to give Maryland school officials their own complaint channel to flag content for takedown, with the stated aim of protecting teens from “cyber-bullying” whether in or out of school, a topic on which Maryland recently passed a new law. As Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler seems to envision things (listen here), the channel will empower Maryland officials to seek takedown of speech that they deem to constitute bullying even if it violates no law...

Quote:

Quote: “The state is not actors in the actual decision-making process of what stays on and what’s taken down,” Alan Brody, a spokesman for the Maryland attorney general, told Law Blog.

Do you find this reassuring? I don’t. Yes, Mr. Brody may ask us to believe that the state’s implicit lifted eyebrow as a repeat player with its own back channel will have absolutely no influence on Facebook’s willingness to do takedowns, but members of the public (and those whose speech gets taken down) will have no particular way to peer into the process to see whether that’s the case.

Post: #21

All this rage will simply find a new outlet. It always has and always will until our society realizes how fucked in the head it is.

All this hand-wringing is pathetic. Deep down, they know society is creating these people with a serious need to burn off rage. All the talk of society progressing past racism or whatever is laughable. People are just learning who and what they can or cannot target.

They aren't solving anything. Just redirecting the rage and anger towards new outlets.

Post: #22

People need to go outside and do something with themselves.

They have nothing to do other than find new outlets to direct their anger towards.

Go outside. Play a sport. Do things outside the realm of technology.

These days, even people that are out are constantly on their phone. Pathetic.

Post: #23

would it be hateful if chicks like this just woke up with their throats cut?

Post: #24

(10-14-2013 08:00 PM)King Solomon Wrote:  would it be hateful if chicks like this just woke up with their throats cut?

No need for any excessive, inflammatory rhetoric. These censorious feminists don't need to die -- they need to respect the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Post: #25

So much for equality and free speech.