[WestCoast]

Here is the big joke.

Feminism is essentially a business model built on the rationalization hamster and snowflake principle.

Now that you got the majority of men in the world supporting feminism it's running full speed.

This comment makes me feel bad = goodbye to your job

This man makes me feel uncomfortable = goodbye to your job

This picture makes me feel bad = goodbye to your job

You're basically walking around these days avoiding landmines left right and center. Sucks.

Only way to fix it is to get enough capital working for you that you can speak your mind. Until then I seriously don't know how you stop changes such as that from a private point of view.

Again I don't think it would be a good thing.

If this was going to be a "law" we're all fucked. Fortunately women have just as many (more) secrets in the closet so I doubt that will happen.

From a private perspective dunno how you stop it.

[Duke Castile]

(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.

I believe the evidence is riddled throughout the history of the human race when dissenters are identified and then quelled.

Are you claiming to be ignorant of the pseudonyms used by many famous writers to spread appeals to freedom, ending certain movements or beginning others out of fear of persecution?

HC - Why are you so hung up on "civil discourse"?

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-20-2013 03:19 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(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.

HC - Why are you so hung up on "civil discourse"?

I'm not. I said in my last post that I've deferred to WC's point on this topic. He's right. I think it's fundamentally about business. I also think it's important to look into business motives when understanding decisions like this and what happened to Pax. Looking at issues solely through the prism of identity politics too often misses the point.

[Giovonny]

(09-19-2013 05:26 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

It really is about business at the end of the day.

Of course it is. It always is.

Didn't Warren Buffet or somebody like that say that Feminism is basically about getting women into the work force?

This is America. It's always about the $$$.

(09-19-2013 05:26 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

No one gives a fuck about what Joe Schmo thinks about the story of the day.

Of course not. They only care about getting every dollar that they can out of Joe Schmo and the rest of us.

[Timoteo]

(09-19-2013 10:55 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(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 ........

If you're raising the level of the run-of-the-mill internet troll to that of the men listed, then this discussion is over. Those men obviously had intelligent viewpoints to put forward, but the average internet troll does nothing to raise discourse and they contribute nothing but disruption for the sake of their own entertainment. Don't cherry-pick a word or two out of a post and launch attacks. The story I linked to was merely an example of how even when your name isn't attached to comments, they can be traced back. Read the whole thread and get an idea of the context of particular posts. Please.

[GameTheory]

(09-20-2013 01:23 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 10:55 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(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 ........

If you're raising the level of the run-of-the-mill internet troll to that of the men listed, then this discussion is over. Those men obviously had intelligent viewpoints to put forward, but the average internet troll does nothing to raise discourse and they contribute nothing but disruption for the sake of their own entertainment.[...]

[The Lizard of Oz]

Here is a useful piece of framing by the founder of 4chan, as part of an NYT online discussion about whether "social media are making us narcissistic":

Quote:

There is an alternative though. Anonymous or pseudonymous posting can relieve us of the burdens of social media, and the resulting narcissistic behavior.

Many of us have become so concerned with maintaining our carefully crafted online presence that expressing our true feelings and ideas often takes a back seat. Anonymous posting enables honest expression, unencumbered by identity. Narcissism comes about when we hunger for the attention and applause of others. Try taking away your identity and expressing yourself online as a stranger, and what you'll find is a unique sense of community and an outlet that embraces and encourages freedom of thought. This is why I founded and have maintained 4chan for the past decade, because its completely raw and unfiltered discourse is unlike any you can find on the Web.

I wouldn't say narcissists don't exist there, they're certainly as welcome as anyone else. But they'll have to leave their identities -- and the associated baggage -- on their Facebook pages.

Good job fighting fire with fire here. We need to use the contemporary cant idea of "narcissism" which these people take very seriously and turn it around to argue for continued anonymity on the internet.

Because there is nothing -- nothing -- the feminists and their allies want more than the end of online anonymity, so that they can shame others into acquiescence with their evil ideology and destroy the livelihoods and reputations of the non-conforming. We need to fight this with every rhetorical device at our disposal and this is a good one. And we need to cultivate our own allies wherever we can find them.

[Timoteo]

Unprecedented ‘eraser button’ law in California gives teens new Internet life
California measure, first of its kind, allows teenagers to erase embarrassing Internet posts. Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the law keeps digital past from haunting youngsters.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...z2fvcIn4MS

This is an interesting development, but at the same time, why only teens? While it's nice to be able to erase something that may hinder your future prospects, what about those that are affected RIGHT NOW? And should the law only cover written posts? What about video or audio of someone that is posted without their knowledge, for the sole purpose of doing them harm? Like vindictive bitches sending things to your employer or a media site? The flip of this is it gives some a license to troll, because they know it can get wiped clean. It removes personal responsibility and consequences from an individuals actions...

[Samseau]

(09-25-2013 12:59 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Unprecedented ‘eraser button’ law in California gives teens new Internet life
California measure, first of its kind, allows teenagers to erase embarrassing Internet posts. Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the law keeps digital past from haunting youngsters.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...z2fvcIn4MS

This is an interesting development, but at the same time, why only teens? While it's nice to be able to erase something that may hinder your future prospects, what about those that are affected RIGHT NOW? And should the law only cover written posts? What about video or audio of someone that is posted without their knowledge, for the sole purpose of doing them harm? Like vindictive bitches sending things to your employer or a media site? The flip of this is it gives some a license to troll, because they know it can get wiped clean. It removes personal responsibility and consequences from an individuals actions...

Hey, why not. Every other generation of people prior to this one didn't have a giant internet machine stalking their every move.

[la_mode]

If this ever does become a law (where everything must be public including your address or most recent address), you'll have vandalized homes all over America because of what someone said about an opposing team in almost any sports rivalry.

People on forums/blogs of all types (I've noticed "city" forums can get as intense as political forums) will start blogs to single out certain posters they disagree with, expose the personal information for that person, and smear campaigns will become the norm. That way, the second that person is googled, everyone will see that.

Privacy should be an constitutional right, but it's not. Brandishing guns is if someone simply looks at you wrong.

[Therapsid]

Some of you may have noticed that Youtube has just changed their comments section.

Now to comment on a video you have to open up a Google+ account.

Until recently they were only demanding that people who upload videos need to be on Google +. Now, to do anything on the site you need to create a profile.

They're doing it under the pretense that they're improving the comments section.

Meanwhile, they keep sending messages every week or every other week asking you if you want to switch to your real name.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on Youtube now. I'm not going to be brow-beaten into using their social network or into disclosing my real name.

Google is turning into another Microsoft.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Yep. I'm actually surprised it took them this long. Youtube was for a long time one of the freest and most untamed places on the web -- far too much so to be tolerated for much longer.

Google is mangina central. They are worse than Microsoft where these matters are concerned -- you could and to some extent still can get quite a bit more privacy with hotmail than you ever could with gmail. Using gmail is tantamount to giving all your personal correspondence to Google, it's a crazy thing to do.

All these companies are hungry to comply with the feminist party line and I don't think we can win with them, though it's always worth trying. The real battle will be to keep websites like this one up and running when they try to tar us with the "hate speech" brush.

[Teedub]

I fucking hate the new comments section on Youtube. It's pretty much ruined it. I don't want to be on google+ just to post comments etc.

[greensteelhead]

Funny that you fine "fellows" that think annonomity isn't a big deal, yet you keep posting under user names on this thread, which is hosted on a site classified as a "hate speech site."

That old song that if you aren't doing anything wrong then there is nothing to fear is garbage too. There are so many rules and regulations out there, we are probably guilty of something for logging on in the morning. Again, we are discussing this on a "hate speech" site, so we are already guilty.

Go ahead....post as yourself and watch the worm turn. Be my guest. I, however, refuse. I will disappear before I post with my real identity. That is my choice and my
Course of action.

[Kingsley Davis]

[iknowexactly]

(09-18-2013 11:45 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

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.

Then, just the fact you ever posted on a forum like this will be grounds for losing your credibility.

[greensteelhead]

And if you think some of us who don't trust the government or that people wouldn't use your name are crazy, just go here and run your name through it:

http://www.Intellius.com

Even on a free search, you will be amazed at what stuff is available. Names, ages, family, location, past locations.....on the free search. Imagine what you can buy for a $10, or $50, subscription....I just looked at a sample report, and it is STUNNING.

Think putting your real name out there won't come back to hurt you? I have a stable full of unicorns, hope and change for you to buy for a reasonable price. No, nothing good can come of the loss of anonymity.

[Lucario]

(11-09-2013 02:04 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

I fucking hate the new comments section on Youtube. It's pretty much ruined it. I don't want to be on google+ just to post comments etc.

worst part is that they have my mobile number on G-mail which mean they can actually track me down from my youtube account. I argue with PC losers all the time . Might have to change mobile number.

Out of curiosity, how easily can a bitter female/feminist track me from my IP address ?

[greensteelhead]

There was a "hurrah, fat girl strikes back at bullies" story on Yahoo News recently. Some gal was getting shit over her poor Tomb Raider costume choice (which she posted of social media), and she and a photographer went after the bullies (found homes and took photos).

Some other guys here can probably tell you how fast someone can trace your IP. I know as an Administrator at a forum, it was pretty quick to zero in on troublemakers and track them down. Your IP was recorded when you registered. Not sure on blogs....

[lskdfjldsf]

It's all about saving face, not getting further control. If some fat girl kills herself over a YouTube comment, news sources kick down the doors saying YouTube supports and promotes hate speech.

Regulations won't protect anonymity & free speech, thicker skin and common sense in the general public will.

[soup]

I don't think anonymity will be around for much longer: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03...-thoughts/

[runsonmagic]

The real issue is that our society has reached a point where certain points of view - many of which were the norm less than a hundred years ago - will get you blacklisted from major employers and public discourse.

This is why it's important to have male only creator-owned places to speak.

Return of Kings, the forum, owning your own blog... they can't ban you if you're the article, not the comments.

What we need is a male-centric social networks, and forums where alternative viewpoints are encouraged.

The other way to avoid this is to be self employed. The can't fire you if you own the company.

[DetlefMourning]

First off, fuck Mark Zuckerberg's sister. Her opinion does not count or matter at all. I'm not the biggest fan of facebook or social media, but the guy was in the right place at the right time and had the brains and skills to grow that into the largest and most successful social media network. His sister, as far as I know, is the epitome of some trust-fund bitch.

Second, why not just create burner social media accounts?

[The Lizard of Oz]

(03-08-2014 12:51 PM)soup Wrote:  

I don't think anonymity will be around for much longer: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03...-thoughts/

This is actually an interesting case. What happened was that an anonymous commenter on the philly.com website posted a comment in which he called one John Dougherty, a well known and pretty obviously corrupt union boss in Philly (nicknamed "Doc") a "pedophile". Dougherty filed a defamation suit against the anonymous commenter, and as part of the pre-discovery process for the defamation suit requested that the identity information of the commenter be turned over to his lawyers. The (female) Common Pleas judge ruled in his favor and ordered philly.com to turn over whatever information they had (presumably the IP address from which the comment originated).

Now this defamation suit is obviously frivolous and will be thrown out. But I suspect the real goal in filing it was for Dougherty to try to get the identity of the poster so that he can harass him or her in some way (the guy has a lot of power in Philly). It looks like he will succeed.

This ruling seems so obviously corrupt that I have my doubts it will set a precedent which will stand. I haven't seen any good discussion online, but would be interested to hear what some of the lawyers here have to say. The US has a very high ceiling for defamation suits and I think this one has no chance, but it would be crazy if filing a frivolous defamation suit could be used as a backdoor to getting someone's identity revealed. Yet this is what seems to have happened here.

[Sp5]

Is it really that frivolous a suit? I don't think so. Calling someone a pedophile is about as defamatory as it gets. In the comments section of a major newspaper, there might be thousands of readers. Some people might wonder if the comment is true. If John Dougherty is a public figure and "actual malice" is required under Sullivan v. NYT to sustain a defamation lawsuit, the identity of the commenter is needed.

I don't see this as threatening anonymity very much. Unless you're publishing hit-and-run defamatory comments about real people, it's nothing to worry about.