[Wadsworth]

The only reason opposition to feminism has even appeared online is largely because of anonymity. This is the true nature of our increasingly dystopian Orwellian state of male-specific thought crime.

The feminists have been pushing to end online anonymity for a long time for just this reason.

Not only that, do we really want the free exchange of ideas online to be regulated through multi-national internet corporations?

Anyone who thinks this is a good thing isn't thinking clearly.

[Dusty]

(09-18-2013 02:27 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Wow. I'm surprised people on this forum support this.

End cyber-bullying? Think about ludicrous of a concept that is - you can turn off the monitor or flip to another page on your iPhone.

This is all about silencing dissent so narcissistic egos can continue to inflate. My usual analysis would be killed off as being hurtful, hateful and not helping out people's self-esteem.

Check out my most recent thread in the books forum for more about this.

Make no mistake, this is about the "Cathedral" cracking down on non-PC speech. Look at college campuses today - toxic places with censorship and speech codes. These are the people we are talking about. For them, it's their way or the highway.

To give up anonymity of the Internet gives these people a tool to fuck up your life if you say things they don't like.

How many fat angry Genders Studies graduates will be working in HR departments stalking the internet and trying to ruin the livelihood of any man who doesn't grovel to the "womyns rights" agenda? What they did to Pax Dickinson is what they want to do for people who are anonymous now but express non-PC views.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-18-2013 02:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

You SHOULD be able to say what you want behind closed doors.

Right. But commenting on public websites isn't being behind a closed door. You can say what you want privately (i.e. private and anonymous forums such as this one), but the Huff Post, NYT, Twitter and all these other platforms that are dominated by corporate interests have their own set of rules. If you're going to voice your opinion in those arenas, whatever it may be, you better know how to do it without being inflammatory. Common sense 101. If you don't have the gall to voice the same sentiments in a public setting in real life then you probably shouldn't do it on a public website.

Death to the armchair Christopher Hitchens. This should be welcomed.

[Wadsworth]

^^That's how public discussions become hugboxes.

[2Wycked]

(09-18-2013 02:44 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 02:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

You SHOULD be able to say what you want behind closed doors.

Right. But commenting on public websites isn't being behind a closed door. You can say what you want privately (i.e. private and anonymous forums such as this one), but the Huff Post, NYT, Twitter and all these other platforms that are dominated by corporate interests have their own set of rules. If you're going to voice your opinion in those arenas, whatever it may be, you better know how to do it without being inflammatory. Common sense 101. If you don't have the gall to voice the same sentiments in a public setting in real life then you probably shouldn't do it on a public website.

Death to the armchair Christopher Hitchens. This should be welcomed.

Big difference between a public website - where your comment exists into perpetuity - and voicing opinions in public.

I voice my analysis in real life but shy away from it online - present trolling notwithstanding (check Everything Else). I voice red-pill opinions all the time - you just have to be savvy and read your audience.

The Internet is tough because tailoring your commentary to an audience is next to impossible without castrating your points. I can tailor an argument to liberals, Christians, gays or mixed company once I get the vibe right. Online? Do you even know who's reading?

Anonymous commenting is coming under attack because it undermines the status-quo and big media is 100% on maintaining that fragile peace.

[Therapsid]

(09-18-2013 02:44 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 02:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

You SHOULD be able to say what you want behind closed doors.

Right. But commenting on public websites isn't being behind a closed door. You can say what you want privately (i.e. private and anonymous forums such as this one), but the Huff Post, NYT, Twitter and all these other platforms that are dominated by corporate interests have their own set of rules. If you're going to voice your opinion in those arenas, whatever it may be, you better know how to do it without being inflammatory. Common sense 101. If you don't have the gall to voice the same sentiments in a public setting in real life then you probably shouldn't do it on a public website.

Death to the armchair Christopher Hitchens. This should be welcomed.

I disagree.

I know not everyone here is American, but nevertheless - anonymous pamphleteering goes back to the Founding Fathers.

Common Sense was published anonymously. Thomas Paine wasn't forced to login with a verified Facebook account to publish it.

Even after independence, when there was no longer the threat of British oppression, American politicians and common citizens alike would publish anonymous letters, essays, and polemics to try to persuade people to their point of view. They would often use names taken from ancient Rome.

The most famous example is the Federalist Papers. As far as the public was concerned, "Publius" wrote the papers, which were intended to get the states behind the proposed Constitution. But of course, Publius was just a pseudonym for three men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

Here's a quote from a guide to the Federalist Papers:

"As Justice Clarence Thomas has observed, in all of the major essays published in favor of or against the Constitution, only George Mason and Luther Martin signed their true names, and they had a special reason for doing so. All of the other commonly cited authors wrote anonymously."

Writing anonymously is as American as apple pie. Now it's being snatched away from us, like so many of our other liberties.

[MrXY]

(09-18-2013 02:44 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 02:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

You SHOULD be able to say what you want behind closed doors.

Right. But commenting on public websites isn't being behind a closed door. You can say what you want privately (i.e. private and anonymous forums such as this one), but the Huff Post, NYT, Twitter and all these other platforms that are dominated by corporate interests have their own set of rules. If you're going to voice your opinion in those arenas, whatever it may be, you better know how to do it without being inflammatory. Common sense 101. If you don't have the gall to voice the same sentiments in a public setting in real life then you probably shouldn't do it on a public website.

Death to the armchair Christopher Hitchens. This should be welcomed.

So you want to shut anyone up who doesn't agree with Establishment opinions on sensitive topics

[Duke Castile]

HC you always throw out "common sense 101" but "common sense" changes as laws get passed. Now it's "common sense" not to say something that might upset someone and someone else can frame as bullying.

Can you not see those goal posts are moving all the time?

And now in your opinion not having "common sense" is a reason to be punished? You think you don't have moments of indiscretion?

This is a public forum, you want all the things you've talked about going to everyone you know?

Can you not see the progression? I think you're imagining morons on youtube posting comments or something, I'm talking about dissenting opinions that someone in power doesn't happen to approve of.

One of your reasons for more laws being passed was that it cuts down on trolling. Really man? Trolling??

People could get arrested, have to go to court, potentially get put in jail or some other fine/penalty and all that money spent by government agents skimming COMMENTS and then prosecuting people posting things for TROLLING.

Damn bro.

Those are newspapers you are talking about NEWS PAPERS, which was one of the original reasons/venues for FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Now opinions on Newspapers that someone doesn't happen to like could result in arrests or whatever else.

Common sense 101 seems to not give people that kind of power over your life IMO.

[Hencredible Casanova]

You can still publish anonymously and operate your own website to express your own views. Roosh and countless others have been doing this for years.

Again, when commenting on corporate-owned publications, the rules of etiquette are different (just like this forum has its own guidelines).

Btw, you can still express contrarian and adversarial opinions through mainstream outlets. I read them all the time.

One of the best ways to advance your cause is to engage with those who disagree and convince them with cogent, not emotional, arguments.

[Wadsworth]

(09-18-2013 03:26 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

You can still publish anonymously and operate your own website to express your own views. Roosh and countless others have been doing this for years.

Again, when commenting on corporate-owned publications, the rules of etiquette are different (just like this forum has its own guidelines).

Btw, you can still express contrarian and adversarial opinions through mainstream outlets. I read them all the time.

One of the best ways to advance your cause is to engage with those who disagree and convince them with cogent, not emotional, arguments.

By this reasoning, the feminists shouldn't be able to force them to adopt their standards.

[Timoteo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/jud...=eta1&_r=0

In this instance, a conviction of corrupt New Orleans police officers was overturned because of what I'm sure they believed were anonymous comments made on public sites. The commenters were prosecutors, who had the comments traced back to them. Anonymity is as anonymous as we'd like to believe.

I agree with Hencredible's comments in sentiment. Flamers and agitators ruin public discourse, though they do have the right to do so. At the same time, even those advancing cogent arguments face consequences if their opinion runs counter to either too many, or a powerful minority.

Actually, many DO post inflammatory comments under their own names, only to cancel their accounts when the heat gets too much to take (yes...remember "The Hunger Games" comments, etc.). However, it doesn't take long for your comments to get screen-grabbed, and anything you write, even if you THINK you deleted it, lives on forever somewhere. It's never really gone. The lesson that the loss, or lessening of anonymity should teach is to think really hard before you hit send (with Twitter being the venue with the greatest educational value in this regard...hahaha!).

[Samseau]

There really needs to be a Supreme Court ruling in defense of free speech on the internet soon. Where is the ACLU?

[Dusty]

^^^

The constitution only forbids the government from regulating speech. Corporations are free to do what they want when it comes to speech.

[eradicator]

Guys, there is a really easy work around: make a fake facebook account and then use that to log into the place where you want to leave a comment. Voila.

if you need an email address to make a new facebook account, you can use hushmail.com and make all of the email addresses you want.

[Samseau]

(09-18-2013 04:10 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

^^^

The constitution only forbids the government from regulating speech. Corporations are free to do what they want when it comes to speech.

Yes, but how many of these big media corporations receive government subsidies, grants, and other funds, in order to run and expand their empire?

[Timoteo]

(09-18-2013 04:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There really needs to be a Supreme Court ruling in defense of free speech on the internet soon. Where is the ACLU?

It isn't a Supreme Court ruling, but it's a start:

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/facebo...4B11187480

Facebook 'like' deserves free speech protection: US court

Jonathan Stempel, Reuters

(Reuters) - Facebook users who employ the website's "like" feature to show support for a political candidate engage in legally protected speech, a U.S. appeals court said, reviving a lawsuit examining the limits of what people may constitutionally do online.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a former deputy sheriff in Hampton, Virginia, who claimed he lost his job in retaliation for his "liking" the Facebook page of a candidate running against his boss for city sheriff...

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-18-2013 03:40 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I agree with Hencredible's comments in sentiment. Flamers and agitators ruin public discourse, though they do have the right to do so. At the same time, even those advancing cogent arguments face consequences if their opinion runs counter to either too many, or a powerful minority.

I don't think anyone has a "right" to advance their agenda vis-a-vis the comments section of an article.

Roosh outright bans women and homosexuals from commenting on ROK articles. ROK is his website, so he makes the rules. Other websites can do what they want.

As for facing consequences for opinions made publicly, I think it depends on who and what you're talking about. A person with more to lose generally is expected to behave with more tact.

But there are influential and powerful people who advocate agendas that run contrary to popular PC culture. Rush Limbaugh is a prime example.

[Christian McQueen]

I think D.C. Is getting to Hencredible...

[iknowexactly]

(09-18-2013 02:44 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 02:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

You SHOULD be able to say what you want behind closed doors.

...

You can say what you want privately (i.e. private and anonymous forums such as this one), but the Huff Post, NYT, Twitter and all these other platforms that are dominated by corporate interests have their own set of rules....

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree. I have outlined elsewhere how extremely easy it is for someone with government access to track your ISP's logins and accounts without your knowledge, and then track that to your logins and posts here.


I worked on networks and can formulate a tracking process and am not even really an a expert on networks.

credit card payment to ISP->ISP ACCOUNT->ISP web page access tracking logs ( linking you to here) -> time matching of posts to your logins here.

Voila. You're done without any sophisticated technology at all, except the power to sift through everything which is now almost essentially free.
The growing aggressive feminist backlash also probably has or will soon have white knight techies to dig for them

I predict many users on forums like these will be outed by "accidents" where some female government bureaucrat will "charm" some guy to "take a peek" at some logs. She can then broadcast a "discovery" of supposed "misogynist cult" members or "r4pe plotters" or some other smear labelled list.

Although this might only be a 1% possibility over a time window of 10 years, there's no way free thought and speech will be allowed indefinitely by the Matrix. It seems so naive to think that tools of oppression will not be used as they become easier and easier to access by lower-level bureacrats that aren't smart enough to be real spies but simply have dimwitted, high school grudges.

DISCLAIMER: All my posts are for entertainment purposes only , and are part of a fiction novel which I am writing.

[Aliblahba]

Well, look on the bright side. People will be forced to get off the internet and actually go out and protest the bullshit. 10K pissed off people demonstrating with guns is infinitely more effective than 100M bitching on the internet.

[Wadsworth]

^^lol, but true.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -J.F.K.

[Timoteo]

Quote:

...As for facing consequences for opinions made publicly, I think it depends on who and what you're talking about. A person with more to lose generally is expected to behave with more tact.

Yeah...but you see more and more, those with much to lose continuously get in trouble because of the more instant nature of communication with the general public. Before, they had to seek out a microphone or a journalist to get their opinions out, so they actually had time to think and measure what they were going to say. Now, they can simply log in to twitter from their phone or tablet, bang out 140 emotional characters, and hit send. Then, depending on the reaction, they end up on backpedal.

Kenneth Cole got in trouble for using the events in Cairo to promote his website/brand, and also used what was happening in Syria to do the same thing via twitter. Then he had to go back on twitter to apologize, claiming he never intended to make light of what was happening in Cairo. He's always used very current events to promote his brand, basically employing instant ads. Instead of an ad team sitting in a conference room brainstorming something catchy, he spits out something in the moment and puts it out. In a competitive business, the consumer is looking for a reason NOT to buy a brand as often as they're looking for a reason TO buy a brand (though price will pretty much override other considerations). Unfortunately, the media and public want it both ways - they criticize prominent people for sharing their opinions, and criticize prominent people for NOT speaking out on the issues of the day. In the end, it's probably better to keep your mouth shut/fingers off the keyboard...

[MikeCF]

[I believe in property rights and news organizations should be able to do what they want. Had to put that disclaimer out there for the libertards who can't understand that arguing against someone doesn't mean I think the government should be involved.]

Now let's look at the real world impact of this trend.

How many anti-male articles have you read lately? There are so many hateful pieces that no one can keep count.

You think, "Wow, this sucks. We really are under attack." Then you scroll down and see that the entire comments eviscerated the article.

"Oh, I guess not. People are waking up. This is cool. Let's keep up the fight."

Since a man can't write pro-man views and keep a decent job, men will stop commenting on these articles.

Teenage boys will see hateful articles and not see any refutation of the articles. Boys will feel ostracized and alone.

"Purple pill" men with the potential to wake up won't wake up because there won't be any comments refuting the articles.

This new policy will allow liberals and man haters to dominate the conversation and continue attacking and demoralizing men.

It's a way to send people with controversial views into the ghettos of anonymous Internet blogs.

It's yet another "shot against the bow" direct against us.

[Aliblahba]

^^^ Then just leave agree and amplify comments. No different than how to shut down women in real life. Passive aggressive at its finest, and break no laws.

[AnonymousBosch]

(09-18-2013 08:38 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

^^^ Then just leave agree and amplify comments. No different than how to shut down women in real life. Passive aggressive at its finest, and break no laws.

There will literally be no men left women will find attractive.