On the shadow-banning of Paul Elam and Dean Esmay (self.MensRights)

{MensRights}

195 ups - 178 downs = 17 votes

Dear feminists, and by feminists, I mean most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights.

Good afternoon, my name is John, some of you may be familiar with my work. This letter is hopefully clear up a few misperceptions and put to rest the concerns of many members pf this community.

Several days ago, my colleague and friend Paul was shadow banned, not by the moderators of /r/mr, but by the administration of reddit. Similarly, Dean Esmay, with whom I work at AVFM was also shadow banned. Apparently, this was due to their endorsement or public statement of support for discovering the identities and publishing the names of feminist participants and organizers of the U of T Warren Farrell protest.

I have also been told by some members of this community that stooping to the tactics of the enemy is unacceptable. Addressing this claim literally, I agree. I completely agree that censorship, intimidation, threats of death, advocating violence, initiating violence, and cultivating hate against a group based on identity or sex, s totally unacceptable. However, the criticism directed towards me used that rhetoric, but referred to my advocation of publication of identity the woman harassing a man at Warren Farrell's protest. The “you are fucking scum” woman.

And apparently, my genuine intention to attach her public behavior to her name is seen as “stooping to the tactics of feminists”

Are you fucking kidding me?

Why do any of you dolts imagine Paul, Dean, myself and other actual MRAs advocate public exposure of the evangelists of hatred and the initiators of proxy violence? Do you think, in your pea brains we intend harm to come to the cretins we document? A summary pass through any of our collected writing will quickly disabuse you of that stupid assumption.

In fact the concern over the practice of outing the agents of hatred and the initiators of proxy violence is not a moral concern at all. It's fear of offending the powerful. On Reddit, that would be the feminist hegemony who seem able to indulge in any cruelty and hate with impunity – on the misguided notion that if only we in the r/mr reddit were a bit nicer, they'd come right around and embrace the undeniable reality of our concerns.

Stupid and cowardly. Thats what this concern is.

And just in case any of you slow-witted dolts haven't got it yet, while I wont do it on reddit – respecting the rules of the house here, outside of this forum, I will publish the name of anyone – male or female, MRA or Feminist who advocates violence or initiates violence, including by proxy, and I'll do it with satisfied smile on my face, and not even a slight twinge of guilt.

Or do you snivelers think accountability is only for men, and that women, or feminists (including feminist men) have a free licence to commit and cultivate violence and hate?

Do you think women are so fucking helpless and infantile they cannot possibly own any accountability – even in the commission of direct violence? If you /do/ think this, then you are indistinguishable from a gender ideologue, and you will have earned my unlimited contempt. How can you possibly oppose violence without supporting accountability for it's direct and proxy initiation?

Oh, and if anybody, after reading this cares to claim that publicly identifying the initiators of violence is /actually/ a backhanded technique for putting them in harms way, then you're too stupid to be allowed to participate in an adult conversation. Yes, you too David.

Anti-feminism is the revolutionary notion that women are (like men) moral agents.

I expect I'll be getting banned on reddit directly after posting this, which will simply be the wider reddit community making itself even less relevant on the topic of the Men's Rights Movement.

And to the Reddit Admins: Go on, ban me, and tell yourselves the violence cultivated and committed by the feminist community is harmless because it principally targets men.

edit:spelling

277 comments submitted at 03:06:32 on Dec 8, 2012 by johntheother

  • [-]
  • rosencrantzisdead
  • 21 Points
  • 06:34:43, 9 December

I don't know who you are, John, but I dislike you for starting your message with this line:

> Dear feminists, and by feminists, I mean most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights.

First impressions, John. My first impression of you is vitriol.

  • [-]
  • Alleggro
  • 28 Points
  • 03:47:50, 8 December

Please clarify something for me: were Paul and Dean shadow banned for doxxing somebody on reddit, or were they banned because they doxxed somebody outside of reddit, but the admins chose to punish them for actions taken outside of the site?

I mean, if reddit admins are banning people because they disapprove of a member's actions outside of reddit, that's a very slippery slope to censorship simply for going against the current.

  • [-]
  • giegerwasright
  • 14 Points
  • 06:06:10, 8 December

Really important and valid distinction. My initial response is that if we disliked the doxxing of VA, then we shouldn't be for doxxing other redditors. Key phrase; other redditors. She's not a redditor, this wasn't a reddit incident.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 7 Points
  • 14:29:34, 8 December

I was initially against doxxing her. My concern was not how the MRM might appear to others - that's irrelevant - but that she could be exposed to vigilante action. There are crazies in every movement. After thinking it through further, I've decided it doesn't matter. Society routinely accepts that people who act publically - and in positions of authority, no less - face risks that others do not. By her actions, she has exposed herself.

Go ahead, AVFM.

P.S. John, you got your rant, now calm the fuck down. The MRM are a community. Whatever information needs to be disseminated can be passed along to others to be posted here.

  • [-]
  • girlwriteswhat
  • 24 Points
  • 04:57:54, 8 December

Actually, the admins probably used the spamming technicality as a pretext to ban them.

  • [-]
  • jazzdawg
  • 10 Points
  • 10:38:12, 8 December

The reddit admins are justified in banning the AVfM account due to the amount of blogspam it generated. But I agree that it is suspicious that it took place around when the plans to dox that "protester" were annouced.

  • [-]
  • lemonadegame
  • 4 Points
  • 14:11:32, 8 December

Who would be silly enough to say they're going to dox someone on a public forum...

  • [-]
  • DiaboliAdvocatus
  • 1 Points
  • 16:22:45, 8 December

Why not? It isn't illegal in the meaning of merely revealing someones real name.

Even Reddit only bans doxxs which originated on Reddit.

  • [-]
  • OlearysCow
  • 1 Points
  • 16:02:43, 8 December

srs

  • [-]
  • luxury_banana
  • 20 Points
  • 05:27:47, 8 December

They were apparently banned because they expressed intent to "doxx" someone off of reddit, someone who as far as they know does not even post on reddit. Something SRS actually did to several people on reddit but is somehow still around. Seems the rules aren't applied equally because there are reddit admins with a political axe to grind.

  • [-]
  • Hypersapien
  • 2 Points
  • 05:53:26, 9 December

Are the individual members of SRS that did the doxxing still around?

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 0 Points
  • 20:19:59, 8 December

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • luxury_banana
  • 3 Points
  • 21:20:17, 8 December

People downvote manhood101 because you're rent-seekers selling new age junk food pop psychology. You're like the bizarro Dr. Phil.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • 11 Points
  • 03:50:32, 8 December

as far as I know, simply for stating a willingness to do so outside of reddit

  • [-]
  • Alleggro
  • 2 Points
  • 03:53:53, 8 December

Ah, that's disappointing. Hope they don't waver though, I'd love to see something along the lines of Agent Orange part 2.

  • [-]
  • DaNiceguy
  • 10 Points
  • 04:40:07, 8 December

There have been rumours for some time that at least one admin is a member of SRS. If that's true, the shadow bans wouldn't be surprising.

  • [-]
  • ThoughtPorn724
  • 0 Points
  • 21:24:03, 9 December

I've heard that something might be in the works actually.

  • [-]
  • SS2James
  • -1 Points
  • 05:29:14, 8 December

I can't wait...

  • [-]
  • Sasha_
  • -6 Points
  • 14:44:20, 8 December

Banning, in any way whatsoever, men like JtO, Dean Esmay or Paul Elam - who have done more than almost anyone else for men's rights is an absolute obscenity - and if any of the mods on this sub have done so they should IMMEDIATELY provide an explanation. I fully support outing the 'fucking scum' bitch - it's a typical man's reaction to take responsibility for others, particularly women, the whole point of men's rights is to encourage men not to do this and to hold women to the same standards as themselves.

  • [-]
  • nicemod
  • 23 Points
  • 22:54:07, 8 December

Sigh. Please take the time to become informed before throwing around accusations.

None of us moderators have ever banned men like JtO, Dean Esmay or Paul Elam. If we actually did that, you wouldn't be reading this thread right now.

This thread is about shadowbanning - which we, as subreddit moderators, couldn't do even if we wanted to.

We can only ban someone from posting to this particular subreddit. Shadowbanning applies across the whole of reddit, and only reddit admins can do it.

Please don't accuse us of doing something we simply cannot do.

  • [-]
  • Sasha_
  • 1 Points
  • 11:16:17, 10 December

Thanks for clarifying, what's your take on the admins then? Are they inclined against MR or something?

  • [-]
  • nicemod
  • 2 Points
  • 18:18:15, 10 December

As a mod, I have no official opinion about that.

  • [-]
  • matt_512
  • 1 Points
  • 07:18:24, 9 December

Could you perhaps message the admins? They're more likely to reply to a mod.

  • [-]
  • nicemod
  • 3 Points
  • 17:28:53, 9 December

People who have been shadowbanned in error have managed to get the admins to lift the ban before, without the intervention of mods. Frankly, I think the advice of those people would be more helpful than anything I could do.

  • [-]
  • RightsMod
  • 6 Points
  • 21:31:45, 8 December

Those are some mighty tough words! Big man on an internet forum.

Look, the mods had nothing to do with this. They/we have defended the AVFM account for years, despite complaints that it is blog spam, too much of his own content, etc, and despite the advocacy for things that are against the /r/MR rules.

So if you want to act all tough and demand something from the mods, how about you just ask nicely by sending us a message? When you try to act all tough, it is more likely to make us less friendly towards you than to get your way. It is understandable that you would want a response about something, but you aren't going to get anywhere with that if you go around acting like you have much weight behind your words.

  • [-]
  • Sasha_
  • 1 Points
  • 11:23:40, 10 December

I'm not particularly tough at all, but this sub can't really be a legitimate forum for the mens rights movement without A Voice for Men - it's arguably the highest profile mens rights' activist site in the world. It's perfectly clear that it's not spam, and as for 'too much of his own content,' well that's only to be expected.

AVfM's call to identify the violent protesters at the University of Toronto who were threatening and abusing men is one I support, and if but if doing so is a breach of Reddit's rules well then, it's not happening on Reddit is it? It's happening over at AVfM, so not really relevant.

  • [-]
  • RightsMod
  • 1 Points
  • 20:07:05, 10 December

Everything you have said is irrelevant to what I said.

If you are bringing up a different topic, that is fine - I will treat it as such. Just let me know your purpose.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Molsenator
  • 30 Points
  • 12:24:27, 8 December

I think this belongs in r/mensrants. I come here for education, enlightenment, and mature discussion, typically ignoring the rants. If I want to hear people ranting, I can go piss someone off at work, thank ye kindly.

  • [-]
  • ARedditorCalledQuest
  • 0 Points
  • 15:55:45, 8 December

At the very least, it would make a fantastic xpost. Upvotes to you for thinking of us!

  • [-]
  • eggilicious
  • 52 Points
  • 10:05:42, 8 December

I never thought you would stoop to name calling. It cheapens the whole message of this letter and makes it sound childish

  • [-]
  • chavelah
  • 16 Points
  • 14:05:34, 8 December

Name-calling is one of John's rhetorical stand-bys. (Not really criticizing, you either like the style or you don't, I'm just pointing out that this post is in no way out of character.)

  • [-]
  • lemonadegame
  • 31 Points
  • 14:13:17, 8 December

It's a silly rhetoric and its stopping me from viewing his other material. I don't gain anything from reading insults. It wastes my time when all I want is information

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 9 Points
  • 16:27:45, 8 December

I resent it when he invokes imputations of malice upon us.

  • [-]
  • eggilicious
  • 5 Points
  • 22:26:08, 8 December

damn I really hate those imputations of malice. It feels like hes imputing malice upon me by accusing me of imputations of malice. I just cant stand imputations, especially of the malicious kind

  • [-]
  • OThomson
  • 28 Points
  • 02:14:07, 9 December

Wow John, i never imagined you as such a gigantic cunt.

  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • -16 Points
  • 02:16:55, 9 December

youre just saying that to flatter me

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ispq
  • 63 Points
  • 06:23:52, 8 December

You win no friends by insulting your readers. While I agree with many of your premises, get bent.

  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • -28 Points
  • 07:36:15, 8 December

there are over 50,000 subscribers to this sub-reddit. Do you think there are 50,000 MRAs here? or about 10,000 MRAs, and about 40,000 feminists. I identified the recipients of my scorn with the word feminists, if you are not one, then your offence indicates reading comprehension difficulties, if you are in fact an adherent to the populist ideology of gender then please take my previous insults personally, and have bad day knowing I find your emotional reactions funny.

  • [-]
  • ispq
  • 46 Points
  • 08:06:19, 8 December

You phrased your scorn far more broadly than that. Your anger bleeds through your words, and you're directing across a broader spectrum than I think you intend. That said, go take a long walk off a short pier.

  • [-]
  • shoreward
  • 13 Points
  • 09:26:15, 8 December

I really do think the majority of readers are pro mra, or perhaps pre mra . Reddit is a young, unemployed, mostly still in school croud in large part. Your seeds will grow in the fullness of time john, but atm the feminists are allready enjoying fruits of many years work.

  • [-]
  • chavelah
  • 18 Points
  • 14:09:42, 8 December

Here's the thing, though - I am a feminist, and I agree that the shadow-banning was unacceptable and the "doxxing" hysteria about people who appeared at a public protest and have no reasonable expectation of privacy is 100% contrived. You might be angry with me about a slew of other things, but I don't deserve your anger on this particular issue. I support you on this particular issue.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 18 Points
  • 16:33:26, 8 December

You just called yourself a feminist. It's already too late. He hates you, and doesn't want to discuss anything with you. You are his mortal enemy.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 11 Points
  • 16:32:24, 8 December

Keep lobbing grenades, you fuckwad. I'm sure those 40,000 feminists you accuse of being members here are lapping this up as we have our little implosion.

If you're going to keep acting this way when we disagree with you, and lash out at all of us... then thanks for helping us to get the housecleaning started. Perhaps we can actually get some productive work done around here.

Good luck in the future for your website that will no doubt take a traffic hit from your tirade directed at your supporters. Way to go, champ.

  • [-]
  • SCCROW
  • 1 Points
  • 02:42:39, 9 December

I'd guess 500 people (most men), and about 49500 duplicate accounts used for trolling.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ThePigman
  • 113 Points
  • 06:18:09, 8 December

"Dear feminists, and by feminists, I mean most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights."

Dear John,

You are a shit-brained moron if you think i am going to waste my time reading a post which starts with an ad hominem attack on most of this subreddit.

PS

Get stuffed.

  • [-]
  • starkhalo
  • -16 Points
  • 06:46:13, 8 December

Most of this sub is comprised of feminists? You shouldn't feel alluded unless you call yourself a feminist.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Zosimasie
  • -31 Points
  • 08:34:55, 8 December

Not sure what the ad hominem attack is you're referring to. In the part you quoted, I see what can be considered an insult, but no ad homs.

Edit: Wow. That downvote you gave me was such a good argument. Totally changed my perspective about the entire universe.

  • [-]
  • ThePhenix
  • 1 Points
  • 11:15:12, 9 December

I like your wit.

  • [-]
  • DasHuhn
  • 0 Points
  • 13:18:25, 9 December

ad hominem on the internet == insults, didntchaknow?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • AeneaLamia
  • 31 Points
  • 12:46:48, 8 December

>Dear feminists, and by feminists, I mean most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights.

>Why do any of you dolts

>in your pea brains

>Stupid and cowardly

>And just in case any of you slow-witted dolts

Fuck you. Get lost.

> I will publish the name of anyone – male or female, MRA or Feminist who advocates violence or initiates violence, including by proxy, and I'll do it with satisfied smile on my face, and not even a slight twinge of guilt.

Due to the content of the rest of your post, I see this as nothing but a threat at people who disagree with you- and not actually people who advocate violence.

I may agree with some of your other opinions, but you've fallen off your trolley.

  • [-]
  • KKV
  • 5 Points
  • 14:10:14, 9 December

I think the main problem here is jto is some kind of retarded, Stefan Molyneux anarcho-capitalist who views everything as violence against him and believes you can actually have a world without coercion.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 17 Points
  • 16:23:39, 8 December

You know, John... calling us dolts, snivelers, slow-witted, stupid, cowardly isn't fucking helping.

There are a lot of times when you say some pretty amazing things on your podcast and in your articles... but directing your anger at us is completely unproductive.

AS IS publishing the identity of "fucking scum" girl. What does it fucking accomplish?

Jesus... y'know, at times you present yourself as a decent leader of the movement. At others, you appear as a fucking child, screaming at his friends because they don't want to play the same game as you.

Go ahead and publish her identity. See what good it does.

But, if we talk about agency, and free will... RESPECT that we don't always want to go along with your vengeful streak. You get really angry, and it helps. But each time one of us speaks up to tell you you're being unproductive, you become a goddamn bully.

Now you're asking for a ban? Get over yourself! You're not a fucking martyr!

AVfM is our angry arm. But by no means is the wasteful hand-wringing over ONE student going to help a fucking thing.

> Oh, and if anybody, after reading this cares to claim that publicly identifying the initiators of violence is /actually/ a backhanded technique for putting them in harms way, then you're too stupid to be allowed to participate in an adult conversation.

Too stupid to participate in an adult conversation? Fuck you, John. You're the fucking child here. You're the one who is marching us towards outing some girl who has been poisoned by her women's studies profs, and basically opening pandora's email box for her. Again, it serves NO GOOD.

If this is your swan song, so be it. Someone else will emerge that won't act like a fucking baby and cry for attention whenever the masses here disagree with you.

You're our second-wave... step aside.

I was getting tired of hearing the terms "imputations of malice", "idealogues" and "political narrative" anyway.

I agree that what the feminists did was wrong. Horribly wrong. I totally supported your outing of Danielle Sandhu... that makes sense. Judging by the tweets she sent, she was the ring leader. Taking her out makes sense. Taking out some misguided peon doesn't. It makes MRAs look like asses.

And that's the part that pisses me off... somehow your angry site's actions trump the feelings of the group. And when we don't go along with your tirades, we're snivelling cowards to you. Again... give your fucking head a shake.

In the eyes of a good number of us on here, you guys done fucked up by taking on that mission. Go ahead and expose Fucking Scum Girl. See how effective it is.

Do whatever you want, it's your site! But... WE ARE YOUR AUDIENCE YOU FUCKING LOON. Or at least we were.

  • [-]
  • Paul-ish
  • 8 Points
  • 07:12:35, 9 December

>You're our second-wave... step aside.

I don't know why, but that seemed like the strongest insult someone could throw down right now.

  • [-]
  • funnyfaceking
  • 0 Points
  • 16:00:38, 9 December

what's so bad about publishing the name of the "fucking scum" girl?

she was in a public place, she knew she was on video, and it's newsworthy that she's the former chair of the student union

i can understand being a little miffed that it was a violation of reddit's no revealing identity rule, but it is important to know who she is

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 7 Points
  • 16:13:06, 9 December

Again... WHY do we need to know her name? I'm fine with them digging up dirt... if you find out that she's a ring leader, that's a different story entirely.

But as it stands, I see a criminally misinformed follower. When I watch WWII docs, I couldn't care less about the names of each Nazi foist soldier... I just care that they dealt with Hitler, Goehring, Rommell etc.

This is why the outing of Sandhu is different. She tweeted before the protest many times to rally their troops. She also gave an interview to the major news outlets that were there (that eerily did not run the story). She was in essence one of the ring leaders, and exposing the public to her motives is useful.

Outing some lame follower does nothing but create a martyr that the opposition can rally support behind.

  • [-]
  • funnyfaceking
  • 0 Points
  • 17:15:51, 9 December

Sandhu is not the "fucking scum" girl?

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 4 Points
  • 17:22:49, 9 December

Nope. Sandhu is the East Indian lady that gave the interview with the media that delivered the stuff about how MRAs support rape, incest and child abuse.

She also was the one tweeting lies afterwards about how victimized the feminists were at this protest. She's a piece of work.

Fucking Scum Girl is the one who kept yelling "fucking scrum" at the bearded guy who ignored her before being let in the building. She also did the oink oink oink thing at the cops... which I thought would've gotten her arrested, given the numerous times I've seen that act alone being the trigger for police brutality.

  • [-]
  • funnyfaceking
  • 1 Points
  • 17:33:37, 9 December

regardless, everyone should know her name. she committed a crime. crimes. assault and intimidation. she should be prosecuted and that should be a matter of public record. if the police won't do anything, then it should be the media's job, whether that be a newspaper or an amateur blogger. her name should be known.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 3 Points
  • 17:39:32, 9 December

I just read the article and am reconsidering my position.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 3 Points
  • 16:12:46, 9 December

Again... WHY do we need to know her name? I'm fine with them digging up dirt... if you find out that she's a ring leader, that's a different story entirely.

But as it stands, I see a criminally misinformed follower. When I watch WWII docs, I couldn't care less about the names of each Nazi foist soldier... I just care that they dealt with Hitler, Goehring, Rommell etc.

This is why the outing of Sandhu is different. She tweeted before the protest many times to rally their troops. She also gave an interview to the major news outlets that were there (that eerily did not run the story). She was in essence one of the ring leaders, and exposing the public to her motives is useful.

Outing some lame follower does nothing but create a martyr that the opposition can rally support behind.

  • [-]
  • avoiceformen
  • -11 Points
  • 23:15:34, 8 December

I am shadow banned, so no one but you will see this. Feel free to repost and attribute if you like, but YOU and people like you never were our audience.

If you don't support outing the identities of ideologues promoting hate and violence against men and boys, whoever and wherever they are, then you are just a clown that happened on to a news feed and ended up calling himself an MRA.

Nothing more.

We don't need you for an audience or for anything else. So fuck off you enabling, rescuing piece of shit.

  • [-]
  • jazzdawg
  • 7 Points
  • 06:10:59, 9 December

> you are just a clown that happened on to a news feed and ended up calling himself an MRA.

I predict a splintering of the movement, Paul you don't seem to be able to take criticism well and you are adopting a with us or against us position.

Are you at all concerned about the type of people that are brought into the movement based on overly emotive rhetoric v.s. those that were introduced to the MRM based on a rational and logical view of the statistics and arguments showing men at a disadvantage?

  • [-]
  • avoiceformen
  • -1 Points
  • 15:02:42, 9 December

I think there needs to be a splintering! I think that people who believe things should be done differently than the way I do it should roll up their sleeves and make it work a lot more than they have. Actually, I live for the day that that will happen.

If feminists and mainstream politicians have a choice between a carrot and a stick, and they know they have to choose one of them, I imagine they will choose the carrot.

That's a good thing.

When the numbers of people brought in to the movement from a "rational and logical view of statistics" exceeds the number of people that come in to it because they are angry and hurt and indignant at injustice, then there you go, you will have what you seem to think I am standing in the way of.

But I dare say the history of this movement only points to your being naive. I wish it were not that way. But the evidence has "stick" written all over it until people wake up and listen on a much larger scale.

And I actually take criticism very well, just not so much from people that are not activists. Or who take such liberty with the word as to render it meaningless.

What is really funny is that I don't get much criticism at all from other people who are really active. I know there are some who disagree with my tactics, and some who don't, but those (and they are many) that I know are out there working on projects and dedicating their lives to it treat me congenially and seem to be glad I am at it.

  • [-]
  • nicemod
  • 13 Points
  • 23:23:14, 8 December

Well, actually the mods of the subreddit you post to can still see your comments. And we can approve them for general viewing, as I have done.

You're a great activist, Paul, but your weakness is a tendency to rage at the slightest provocation. If you worked to overcome that, you would be even more effective.

  • [-]
  • Never_cites_sources
  • 5 Points
  • 05:51:24, 9 December

I've been scouring this post for some well-reasoned comment that showed sympathy for Paul's argument while pointing out the flaws of his emotional outrage. Little did I know one of the moderators would step up like a pro.

Thank you for being reasonable. We could all take a page out of Nicemod's book and give ourselves a moment to react before we let our own emotions further sour the conversation.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 3 Points
  • 15:28:20, 9 December

Thank you for opening that up. If there are more comments from said-shadow-banned party, please open them up. As much as I despise AVfM's methods, this is a sub where they shouldn't be censored.

  • [-]
  • nicemod
  • 1 Points
  • 17:30:49, 9 December

If I see any more from AVfM, I'll approve them. Other mods have been doing so as well.

However, first those comments have to appear in the moderation queue, and then one of us has to see them.

  • [-]
  • avoiceformen
  • -3 Points
  • 15:15:08, 9 December

I see. Well, It is interesting. I appreciate your POV, but the fact is that I have managed to collect a very large team of volunteers who pour a lot of work into activism for AVfM.

I don't maintain that by raging at people, and trust me, these are MRAs with spines. They tell me things I don't like all the time. I never rage or treat any of them with the slightest disrespect.

And to tell you the truth, there is not a conversation I have had here that has raised my blood pressure one point. What you see as rage is just creative writing to me.

Changing that would not make me more effective as an activist. It might make me more popular here, but since I agree with JTOs assessment of the general population (sans a few really good MRAs) here, popularity is not a hot item for me.

And you may be right. Aspects of my personality may well be a weakness. Never thought I was perfect. I still maintain that many of the self identified activists that hang out and comment here would do a lot more good for the movement by changing themselves and actually getting involved, than I would do for the movement by being nicer to dissents on r/mr.

Now, are you going to allow that one to go public as well?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • SCCROW
  • 1 Points
  • 02:39:27, 9 December

I see it too...

  • [-]
  • avoiceformen
  • 1 Points
  • 15:03:24, 9 December

Wow, was told I was shadow banned. Go figure. Oh well, lol.

  • [-]
  • RightsMod
  • 1 Points
  • 16:05:55, 9 December

We are approving the things you say, but it may take a little while.

The bizarre thing is that you seem to have a following that is mass downvoting you. My guess is that this is why you are shadowbanned. The only way to get that many mass downvotes/reports would be with bots.

  • [-]
  • avoiceformen
  • 1 Points
  • 17:07:41, 9 December

Thanks for the heads up. I never did understand the ban. I know I got cautioned a few months ago about posting from my own blog. I actually exchanged messages with one of the admins after apologizing for it and all seemed well. I never posted another item from AVfM.

So who knows. I know that I have a lot of people trying get me to shut up (and can't say I blame all of them, lol) but things continue to go well overall.

  • [-]
  • TheGDBatman
  • 1 Points
  • 00:16:14, 9 December

Did something change? I can see this reply no problem, and I'm no mod or admin.

>And we can approve them for general viewing, as I have done.

Oh. Oops.

  • [-]
  • ---
  • -1 Points
  • 02:20:37, 9 December

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14haxi/ontheshadowbanningofpaulelamanddeanesmay/c7deeb4

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 2 Points
  • 15:07:06, 9 December

In another life, you poisoned Erin Pizzey's dog... you angry, sad little man.

What was absolutely lost here is how Warren Farrell gave an awesome speech inside. HE and others of his calibre are the ones who will make the positive strides for us... not your vigilante justice. While you focus your anger and hatred at the misinformed, I'll go ahead and follow the brains, not the braun.

Farrell is helping. His image wins over the public. Not yours. We don't need a lunatic fringe, thanks

  • [-]
  • avoiceformen
  • 0 Points
  • 15:26:46, 9 December

You must be young. I read Myth of Male Power when it was first released. I have been at this ever since.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Farrell, but as much as I admire his work, he has not taken on the role of reaching out to the men of the Western World as a leader that connects to them, to their pain and their deep desire for justice. That is fine. He has chosen a different path.

But understand this, Warren has been off the mark where it concerns the movement. In Myth of Male Power he predicted that Time Magazine would have to eat its dismissive words about the Mythopoetic Movement. He predicted in less than 10 years that the movement would become political.

It never happened. Just the opposite happened.

In my opinion it never happened because because no matter what you or anyone else thinks about the men's movement, including the esteemed Dr. Farrell, this thing is not going to get anywhere without anger and without leadership.

If you can point to any civil rights movement that ever happened without those two elements I will eat my hat.

So go ahead, think me a monster that would poison a dog. Think whatever you want. But the fact remains that you have not a single clue what you are talking about.

AVfM is growing and working and moving ahead because we are fighting back, not because we are looking for a speaking engagement.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • shadowbanned6
  • 13 Points
  • 09:27:28, 8 December

Shadowbanning was meant for spammers. So they would continue spamming even though nobody else would see their posts.

Shadowbanning is being abused for political purposes, to ban people without them ever knowing why, and taking time for them to find out they were banned because all seems normal. Except nobody votes for one's posts.

Did you know that you are officially a reddit spammer if you post more then 25% about one specific site?

There is a general tendency. Human-Stupidity_com was shadowbanned, curious67 was shadowbanned. After 7000 reddit karma, a dozen or more #1 postings mainly on r/mensrights

It is hard to find out when and why. There is no accountability and reddit admin did not reply to requests.

  • [-]
  • r_rships_account
  • 5 Points
  • 12:34:24, 8 December

Yes, the whole idea of shadowbanning is pretty offensive to my sense of justice, except for obvious commercial spammers.

  • [-]
  • ErasmusMRA
  • 2 Points
  • 22:21:12, 8 December

Do admins even use the normal ban any more? Every time i hear of someone getting banned it's a shadowban. They must be getting some sick sense of pleasure from knowing the target of their ban will be wasting time submitting articles and making posts which will not be seen by anyone.

Reddit is run by kids. Reddit CEO acts like a douchebag and you're right, there is no accountability at all. I can't wait for competition to reddit to spring up. There's a market for it.

  • [-]
  • typhonblue
  • 24 Points
  • 04:52:19, 8 December

As I said in previous comment:

>She should be identified for the simple reason that what she did constitutes a crime in Canada. >She was battering that man and engaging in assault. She should be identified so the victim has the opportunity to seek justice.

Also, double standard much? Wasn't Violent Acerz openly doxxed for doing something effectively legal if unpalatable?

  • [-]
  • oneiorosgrip
  • 16 Points
  • 05:20:33, 8 December

> Also, double standard much? Wasn't Violent Acerz openly doxxed for doing something effectively legal if unpalatable?

Yup - and the CEO of reddit actually gave the assertion that reddit couldn't expect to enforce site policy on outside entities as the reason for discouraging subreddit mods from executing a ban on Gawker media's blogs.

They had no problem tolerating the doxxing of a redditor by outside entities... yet they've censured and censored reddit accounts over an outside entity threatening to dox another outside entity, with the most telling difference between the two incidents being which involved party is supported by reddit feminists, and which party they oppose.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 2 Points
  • 15:39:21, 9 December

I saw a lot of yelling in that video... but I saw no battering from Fucking Scum Girl. So... sticks and stones...

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • memymineown
  • 40 Points
  • 04:38:40, 8 December

Yup, that's how you win friends. By insulting them.

I don't really think it should matter what your message is, your message of delivery needs some work.

  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • -14 Points
  • 04:48:42, 8 December

im so sorry, ill try being nicer to the people with the box-cutters, silencing debate, screaming abuse at a young man who wanted to know why his friends killed themselves. I'll also be nicer to the people who give all that a free pass while shutting us down. yes, being very very police will work - it really will, im sure of that. I'll stop doing what Ive been doing, and so will Paul - because being very polite to hate-mongers and their enablers will really work.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 16 Points
  • 16:58:22, 8 December

"If you're not with us, you're with the enemy."

  • George W. Bush... and now John the Other.
  • [-]
  • memymineown
  • 49 Points
  • 05:28:59, 8 December

First of all, formatting and proper grammar. Please.

Second of all, pretty much everyone here who read your post is already on your side. These aren't the people who assaulted you with box cutters, these are people who watched your videos about it with disgust and empathized with you.

Know your audience. Different approaches for different people.

Furthermore you should realize who you are trying to convince in a public forum. The people you are talking about already have their minds made up but we don't care about them. Who you should care about are the people who are on the fence. Ask yourself how they will see your actions and work from there.

I have really no idea why you are being so hostile to people on one of the few places where most of them agree with you. Did something happen?

  • [-]
  • friestogo
  • 25 Points
  • 11:53:09, 8 December

Pretty much my thoughts as well. This is one of the few places where the topic of men's rights is discussed and I enjoy reading and commenting here. Probably most of us are familiar with john the other, watch his videos, sympathise with his point of view. And he gives us this:

>most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights

>you slow-witted dolts

>you snivelers

>in your pea brains

>you're too stupid to be allowed to participate in an adult conversation

Way to come across like a total fucking ass hole.

  • [-]
  • CaptainVanderdecken
  • 0 Points
  • 19:37:18, 9 December

I can just see the wagging finger! Community Standard is one thing, having a pickle up your..

  • [-]
  • kencabbit
  • 14 Points
  • 13:50:06, 8 December

You aren't being asked (by this comment or others like it) to be nicer to people with box-cutters. You're being asked to be nicer to the people who are on your side and already agree with you, or at least mostly already agree with you.

Calling people who don't follow your exact approach the enemy, labeling them them members of, or sympathizers for the other side (pro-feminists, feminists, etc), tossing a slew of insults at them to try and shame them into following your approach to the issues... this is the kind of shit that SRS does.

  • [-]
  • CaptainVanderdecken
  • 0 Points
  • 19:44:58, 9 December

Is there a extra jumbo jar of pickles out there? JtO, I applaud your efforts & appreciate your style. Some readers here might want to check out podcasts from "Rationally Speaking". Being an MRA or even modern day Philosopher (at a Phd level) does not require you to act or speak with the persona of a Victorian Spinster. Keep it up John, I buy ya a beer if you ever hit Toronto.

  • [-]
  • kencabbit
  • 3 Points
  • 00:48:13, 10 December

I don't care about vulgar language or shooting from the hip, or acting proper. It's branding people and lumping them in with the worst of the "other side" that I have a bigger issue with. This is SRS tactics. You know how radfems will call anybody who disagrees with them rape apologists or misogynists? JtO is doing the same damn thing here, except it's "feminist" instead of "rape apologist" being tossed around.

  • [-]
  • CaptainVanderdecken
  • -1 Points
  • 02:16:38, 10 December

So you have issue with free speech? I have issue with pareidolia, our human disposition to seeing things that are not there. This coupled with many rational fallacies which fall out of a lack of critical thinking. Because of this we have Patriarchy, Illuminati, Bilderburgs various "one & only real gods" & a lot of incredibly ill formed questions including ideas about equality. If you have read the content of aVfm you will not find any plethora of content calling for gender genocide or control. There is satire & analysis illustrating much of the lunacy spouted by feminism, much illustrates feminist ideologies hatred & a rejection or denial of biology. The stated goals of aVfM & most MRAs is to address real inequalities in society in an egalitarian manor. The feminist material I have read involves trying to socially engineer all of humanity, good luck with that one because there is no reason to think that such a power shift would be better for anyone. Many such artificially imposed neutering experiments with child gender identity manipulation return to "nature's way" when interference stops. Feminism wants to do this globally? It is disturbing that with all the real human suffering, feminism spouts nonsense towards the 3rd world. Societies operating at survival levels will not be stabilized by such a divisive ideological mind set. As much as the inequality of the status quo may not be perfect (Standard Minimum Wages, Equal Opportunity & Access to Education) the alternative of some matriarchal socialist tyrannical regime has few benefits to men, children of either gender, & the majority of women.

  • [-]
  • kencabbit
  • 2 Points
  • 02:31:49, 10 December

>This coupled with many rational fallacies which fall out of a lack of critical thinking.

It's ironic to talk about critical thinking and rational fallacies when I'm making a point about emotional appeals and trying to win people over through insults and shaming instead of actual reasons.

edit:

> If you have read the content of aVfm

Not talking about aVfm, I'm talking about this submission.

... and it's also strange that you rant at me about how bad feminism is when I'm not trying to defend feminism in any way. In fact I'm actually attacking the tactics of radical feminists, and pointing out that this submission is guilty of some of those same offenses.

edit2:

In short, get out of your bubble where everybody who might have a criticism of you is on the other team.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 14 Points
  • 16:57:34, 8 December

We are not the box cutter wielders, you paranoid ass.

  • [-]
  • SCCROW
  • 1 Points
  • 02:47:08, 9 December

Well, sorry for the wise-crack. When surrounded by people with box cutters, it is WISE to be NICE to them.

You might get cut bro.

Although I think you're an asshole, I'd hate to see violence aimed your way.

More Comments - Not Stored
More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • detpoid
  • 13 Points
  • 03:20:12, 8 December

I agree with you. I don't think you would be wrong to reveal the identity of these people.

The concern i'm hearing is that this will be characterized as some act of extreme hate and misogyny by feminists and used to further demonize the MRM, and that you should refrain from such tactics as not to "dirty the image" of the MRM in the public eye.

It likely will be characterized like that. And i'm not sure how badly it will affect the image of MRA. But i'm not opposed to it being done.

  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • 12 Points
  • 03:29:35, 8 December

"the image of the MRA" is an illusion. We are nearly universally despised, and the rhetoric "they're a hate movement" is so common it's almost faded into background noise. However, we are no longer excluded from the public discourse on sexual politics, and we are having a growing influence where we focus our attention. If Im a "bad man" by public consensus - I dont care - I know I dont support hate or violence, and those who oppose us know it too, their lies and antics serve us almost as well as any content we could produce ourselves would.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 3 Points
  • 15:40:11, 9 December

>We are nearly universally despised, and the rhetoric "they're a hate movement" is so common it's almost faded into background noise.

Thanks. You're really helping to change that. /s

  • [-]
  • 0bvious_Atheist
  • 8 Points
  • 08:07:17, 8 December

>the image of the MRA" is an illusion. We are nearly universally despised, and the rhetoric "they're a hate movement" is so common it's almost faded into background noise.

I am so glad you recognize this fact! I have said this time and again, but people still self censor out of fear.

  • [-]
  • DerpaNerb
  • 6 Points
  • 01:22:17, 9 December

Totally ignoring any plans of HOW to reach the status... do you not think it would be beneficial to try and create a good "image of an MRA"?

I completely agree that the mainstream and/or uninformed view is that it's a hateful movement... but why not try and change that?

I mean, I understand what you (or others here) are saying when you think we shouldn't self-censor for fear of being "disliked"... but it's not like you can't portray exactly the same message without being inflammatory.

IT is incredibly stupid to self-censor maybe not post actual facts and/or statistics that paint a picture that people just don't want to see... and example might be pointing out the male suicide rate to all the female-only , female-suicide prevention events or something like that. Or I guess an even better example would be your goal of identifying the protesters at UofT... since many people view that in a negative light. Stuff like this that actually has tangible benefits for the men's right movement should not be "neutered" (poor choice of words maybe) just to gain a positive image in other peoples eyes.

But what about being overly inflammatory in the way that you present these ideas? I mean, you shouldnt (and I'm not saying you do) say something like "we are going to expose Danielle Sandhu because she is a massive fucking cunt". In that case, the goal of exposing her is correct, but the insult at the end doesn't add anything at all and really only serves to give them ammunition.

I guess the overall point I'm trying to make is that, I do think "image" is important, or at the very least, somewhat beneficial. In saying that, I think it could only be a good thing to do what we can to improve our image.... BUT, not at the cost of needlessly weakening the goals that need to be accomplished, or self-censoring the parts of the messages that need to be said.

TLDR: I do think image is important, as long as maintaining it doesn't take a priority over actually "getting shit done".

  • [-]
  • Squashy5107
  • -4 Points
  • 07:57:27, 8 December

Huh, well when you put it that way, that clears any doubts I had about this whole situation. Not like I was against the doxxing in the first place.

  • [-]
  • Duncanthethird
  • 5 Points
  • 14:02:59, 9 December

If you don't have any plans to follow up after the real name and other ID facts are outed, and if you are not encouraging someone else to make followup plans, then why do you care what their real name and location are? What are you going to do with the information?

  • [-]
  • shadowbanned6
  • 7 Points
  • 09:31:20, 8 December

Shadowbanning info:

Note that you are a spammer if you post more then 25% about one site only. That makes PierceHarlan a spammer, for example. Not that anyone at r/mensrights would consider him a spammer. But by the asinine definition of reddit, he is.

They should change this to calling people spammers if they don't get karma for their spam posts ........

========================

http://www.reddit.com/rules/

How to find out if you are shadowbanned:

Log out Visit www.reddit.com/user/(your user name here)

If something comes up then you are good. If an error page comes up then you are cursed with the shadow.

==============================

[–]psYberspRe4DdMicroPorn 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

Way too many posting to my subreddits are shadowbanned. So I propose writing all your posters that are incorrectly banned a short message - I got this saved in my RES macros (right in the commentformation bar you can set one):

Hey there looks like you're shadowbanned. I'm writing you because I moderate /r/Futurology and you posted something legit, doesn't seem to me that you're spamming or alike. Open up your profile page while being logged out: it's not there (that means you got shadowbanned). Moderators can still approve your comments and submissions (like I did) so they'll show up - but most don't do that. Read the rules to make sure you're not getting shadowbanned again (pay attention to the part about spam). If you reply to this message I won't get your message.

For getting unbanned please nicely ask the admins by writing them a message here: http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freddit.com

========== [–]TheRedditPope[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

No thanks, the admins have asked that I not tell a shadowbanned user that they

====================== http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bbc58/silentlybannedfrom_reddit/c0lyabo

v http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bbc58/silentlybannedfrom_reddit/

http://www.dailydot.com/society/reddit-spam-avoid-tips/

  • [-]
  • Bobsutan
  • 1 Points
  • 10:03:43, 8 December

By that logic anyone who posts a bunch of imgur links is an imgur spammer. If only the same AVFM article was what you posted, then I'd agree.

  • [-]
  • SuperNoob1258
  • 19 Points
  • 05:36:14, 8 December

>good afternoon, my name is john...

Is is bad that the first thing I thought of was:

>Hey Faggots, My name is John, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are fat, retarded, no-lifes who spend every second of their day looking at stupid ass pictures. You are everything bad in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten any pussy? I mean, I guess it’s fun making fun of people because of your own insecurities, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than jerking off to pictures on facebook. Don’t be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I’m pretty much perfect. I was captain of the football team, and starter on my basketball team. What sports do you play, other than “jack off to naked drawn Japanese people”? I also get straight A’s, and have a banging hot girlfriend (She just blew me; Shit was SO cash). You are all faggots who should just kill yourselves. Thanks for listening. Pic Related: It’s me and my bitch

Just downvote me. I'll read the whole post now.

  • [-]
  • AderynAssclown
  • -3 Points
  • 05:43:41, 8 December

Stale copypasta is never delicious

  • [-]
  • SuperNoob1258
  • -3 Points
  • 05:47:26, 8 December

Hello /b/rother!

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • -9 Points
  • 05:59:13, 8 December

you translated "good afternoon, my name is John" to "Hey Faggots, My name is John, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are fat, retarded, no-lifes who spend every second of their day looking at stupid ass pictures. ...."

wow.

  • [-]
  • friestogo
  • 8 Points
  • 11:39:33, 8 December

Nah, he's just referring to a copypasta used on 4chan.

I refer you to this:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sht-was-so-cash-copypasta

  • [-]
  • SuperNoob1258
  • 2 Points
  • 06:12:36, 8 December

No, but the phrase "my name is John" jogged the memory, which I was stupid enough to post here.

It's finals, I'm sorry.

  • [-]
  • KleurenPrinter
  • 1 Points
  • 11:25:14, 9 December

Thatsthejoke.jpg

Google "my name is john copypasta"

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ignatiusloyola
  • 7 Points
  • 13:09:40, 8 December

If it is said outside of an internet context, then I believe in real life accountability. But I also believe that people say things on the internet that they would not say in real life, that they do not actually believe in real life, because there is no accountability on the internet (or a perception of that). As a result, the things people say on the internet do not truly reflect their personality and instead reflect their desire to invoke a response out of others.

Holding them accountable for being provocative is not the same thing as holding them accountable for actually advocating something.

While I agree with some things you have said, especially with regards to treating men/women/MRAs/feminists the same if they advocate violence, I don't agree with your stance on posting the real life names of people who say things on the internet.

  • [-]
  • RightsMod
  • 0 Points
  • 21:33:25, 8 December

Things have changed slightly since the last time you wrote the rules. Check out the new mod policy regarding doxxing. Quite frankly, the admins changed their stance and so we changed our stance to match. But, as with this situation, they seem to be very hypocritical about enforcing it.

  • [-]
  • pauldustllah
  • 6 Points
  • 19:51:17, 8 December

You know I did have respect for you John. I really enjoyed reading what AVFM had to say but, after reading this little rant I see that you are really no better than the radical feminists that I have such a problem with. Getting angry and calling us a bunch of dolts because not everybody agrees with your methods really isn't a good leadership trait. Frankly you may not care how men's rights advances it's cause but to me how we become victorious IS just as if not more important than the victory itself. IF you can't live with that then that's fine I don't need to support this movement.

  • [-]
  • themountaingoat
  • 9 Points
  • 09:46:48, 8 December

I really think you need to chill out. I agree with most of what you said, and think the banning was stupid, but some of what you are saying. There is no point insulting the people on this subreddit, and acting like we are all secret feminist sympathizers.

Most of the people on this subreddit are here because they have some sort of concern or interest in men's rights. Not everyone has fully realized the magnitude of feminist lies, and to what extent feminism harms men, but that is part of the purpose of this subreddit in my opinion. It takes time to debunk the many many lies that most people today are brought up with.

  • [-]
  • Paul-ish
  • 1 Points
  • 06:37:06, 9 December

http://i.imgur.com/3yxHc.gif

  • [-]
  • CaptainVanderdecken
  • 2 Points
  • 19:16:55, 9 December

Being banned or shadow banned from this forum does not carry much weight (in my opinion).

After a few weeks or more you should realize the nature of the debates here.. Basic rants, attacking grammar, attacking protocol, manipulating vaporous terms of use.

Opinion, critiques on fictional works (film & print) applying that to real world "rights". False data, temporal, cultural, societal distortion creating some homogenous statements, poor statistics, very bad science.

Then there is the realization of age & experience. I suspect many here are not dating, have never been married, do not have children, have never lived alone & worked in the real world. Sure have an opinion, but for some here MRA is more than an academic debate for entertainment. I liken this to realizing you are interacting with 15 year old girls when posting in "Yahoo Answers: Marriage & Divorce".

aVfm & JtO likes to use satire to demonstrate the absurdity & hypocrisy in feminism. This is beyond cranial capacity for some. But the doxxing, absolutely. Internet anonymity is not a pass to promote hate speech, hate speech is illegal in Canada, these women are promoting that agenda in real life positions of power. Shine the light.

I have already noticed the regurgitation of old posts here. I have noticed a lot of "emotional" & "hypothetical" questions here too. I guess the 15 year old girls posting in YA a few years back need a new outlet.

Being banned from here has little meaning other than being too loud or frightening for the children. This place is not about or for activism, this place is fluff for (17 year old?) kids.

How about reading the entire DSM-IV (Diagnostic Statistical Manual), Read all posts & comments at ashrinkformen.com (real world case studies) then come back here for some light trite entertainment.

Just my observation & opinion, yours may differ.

  • [-]
  • muttmonster
  • 2 Points
  • 04:25:52, 10 December

>you sorry cretins

>any of you dolts

>Do you think, in your pea brains

>And just in case any of you slow-witted dolts haven't got it yet,

>Or do you snivelers think

>you will have earned my unlimited contempt.

>then you're too stupid

So much hate. Come back when you want to contribute positively to the world. You could have made your case on the "being accountable for one's own actions" argument, but instead you're basing it off of "You're all dumb, and I'm really smart" argument.

Edit: formatting

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 7 Points
  • 13:59:21, 8 December

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • Arby01
  • -2 Points
  • 19:37:01, 8 December

No, I don't think so. I think your "you need to tone it down" is exactly what JtO was saying about not offending the powers that be. If you agree with the goal, then what about the rhetoric needs to be toned down? If you don't have a specific argument, then you are saying "We don't want to offend them". Well, yes, actually, I think the point is to "offend them".

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 2 Points
  • 23:45:00, 8 December

Then go be radical somewhere else!

  • [-]
  • Arby01
  • 1 Points
  • 20:44:16, 9 December

was that to me or to DepressedLonelyGuy ?

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 5 Points
  • 22:52:56, 9 December

The point is not to offend them. I don't give a fuck about "them".

I care about the opinion of the general public. They are the ones we should be focussed on. Win them, and they will ignore the radfems too and take away their power

  • [-]
  • ErasmusMRA
  • 12 Points
  • 04:27:11, 8 December

Thanks for showing us what this subreddit is really like. Every day I see posts saying something like "you shouldn't do x because it's making us look bad", "you're making the MRM look bad", "this is bad for our image", and so on. I was content with dismissing them as isolated incidents, as concern trolls, but now I see that was not the case. Rather than being the exception, they're the norm. And this is why the feminists are so terrified of AVFM. You won't kowtow or apologize to them. Their tactics do not work against you and that frustrates them to no end.

  • [-]
  • oneiorosgrip
  • 20 Points
  • 05:22:35, 8 December

I was afraid I was the only one noticing the pattern of those posts... this problem has been going on for quite some time.

  • [-]
  • DashFerLev
  • 0 Points
  • 03:25:02, 9 December

A) 54,000 subscribers. Seriously, you expect zero troll activity?

B) The only option to "fix" the problem is to censor and ban and that's /r/feminisms talk.

C) You took this post seriously? I lost my shit when he called us cretins

  • [-]
  • oneiorosgrip
  • 1 Points
  • 02:44:10, 10 December

A) Straw man number 1 - response to statement of expectation where no statement of expectation exists.

B) Straw man number 2 - response to request to end the problem, where no request exists.

C) Tough shit. If you can't handle being called out on falling for troll "concern," that's your problem, not anyone else's.

  • [-]
  • DashFerLev
  • 0 Points
  • 04:49:43, 10 December

And I'd say you concern yourself with the opinion of a celebrity a little too closely. I really don't feel called out for anything.

Did you take Katy Perry's opinion into account when voting last month?

You take the good with the bad, listen to everyone (even those you disagree with) and up/down-vote accordingly. That's why those arrows are there.

John is wrong for one reason: He should be supplying the identities of the violent (and their inciting ilk) to the authorities. It's really no one else's.

After that it's up to the victims to press charges. And it's an open and shut case with the video as evidence.

Though you can join the mob with your pitchfork if that's what you enjoy. It really makes no difference to me.

  • [-]
  • oneiorosgrip
  • 2 Points
  • 05:51:33, 10 December

> And I'd say you concern yourself with the opinion of a celebrity a little too closely.

You're a celebrity? I've really never heard of you before. O.o
/s

Seriously, though... my opinion on this existed prior to John's post. I have been noticing the phenomenon he describes for quite some time - there has been a concerted effort by some to weaken the discussion on this sub in under the thin and transparent guise of concern for its public image. Your dislike of an individual who disagrees with me isn't going to cause me to change my mind on an opinion I formed and articulated prior to this situation.

> I really don't feel called out for anything.

Then you weren't called a cretin, either. Unless you identify with those John has castigated, that being individuals worried that discussing the identity of publicly known individuals who have made news will detract from this sub's reputation among those who already don't like us, you have no reason to consider yourself to be among those the post you're commenting on was written to lecture.

> Did you take Katy Perry's opinion into account when voting last month?

This is hyperbole, and a dumb question.

> You take the good with the bad, listen to everyone (even those you disagree with) and up/down-vote accordingly. That's why those arrows are there.

This leads me to believe you and I didn't both read the same post - this post seems to be a response to calls for banning individuals over unpopular speech - yet you're defending the critics (who are apparently calling for banning over unpopular speech) by stating that unpopular speech should be handled with the upvote/downvote button. Do you really not see the flaw in your argument?

Regardless, it's a bullshit argument. Disagreement is handled by stating disagreement, not with downvotes.

> John is wrong for one reason: He should be supplying the identities of the violent (and their inciting ilk) to the authorities. It's really no one else's.

Your opinion - but not fact. The individuals involved in that protest put themselves in the limelight, in public, on camera, and in people's faces. They knowingly and willfully (and violently) made themselves news. You choose either celebrity or privacy - there is no anonymous celebrity. Publishing their names is no different than publishing the names of both senators from Montana.

> Though you can join the mob with your pitchfork

That's right, Dash - in comparison to individuals who lined up for a violent protest, ready to spew vitriol, to target people for vicious, screaming tirades, to attack speech rights and slander those involved, to make every effort to provoke, even taunting police along with spectates... those of us sitting in our living rooms quietly speculating on their actions and the right of the public to know who was behind those actions are the angry mob.

> It really makes no difference to me.

If that were true you wouldn't be here attempting to sway opinion.

  • [-]
  • DashFerLev
  • 1 Points
  • 06:35:04, 10 December

> Your dislike of an individual who disagrees with me isn't going to cause me to change my mind on an opinion I formed and articulated prior to this situation.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything but skepticism and independent thought. I neither dislike John nor do I hold him in any particular regard. He's just another MRA in my eyes. If he can provide suitable contrary evidence (and I try my best not to continually accuse sources of being unreliable while not taking information at face value) I'll change my mind. That's what being openminded means- you continually listen to both sides and modify your opinions along the way.

> Then you weren't called a cretin, either.

I was merely associating the word cretin with the line from the movie. Don't read any further than that into it. After all, he didn't say it (so he couldn't pronounce it) he merely wrote it.

> This is hyperbole, and a dumb question.

This isn't hyperbole, because some people give a damn what celebrities say. Celebrities (along with Palin) won Obama the first election. And what it boils down to is they don't really have a more valid opinion than anyone else. Does John have degrees in Gender studies? (I genuinely don't know) If he does then his opinion becomes more valid.

> Unpopular speech

I know it's a weak-ass argument, but we've all seen it before (depending how seasoned you are on Reddit): The slippery slope. Until recently, you could disagree and debate users on /r/feminism and they earned a lot of respect from me for that, no matter how biased or crazy or hiveminded they were, you were allowed to say what you wanted. That's changed, so my respect for them diminished. There's a correlation between how heavily moderated a sub is and how valid their opinions are.

Trolls or not, the best course is to not only tell dissenters that they are wrong (which is what banning does) but tell them why they are wrong.

> You choose either celebrity or privacy - there is no anonymous celebrity. Publishing their names is no different than publishing the names of both senators from Montana.

I see where you're coming from, but I have one question: What positive ends come from publishing these people's names? Look what happened when SRS dox'ed those people with their Project Panda- one guy's life was literally ruined, and another got jumped in the street and hospitalized. Mob justice is an oxymoron. Give these people's names to the cops, supply them with the video and let actual justice be done.

> are the angry mob.

Aren't you the armchair version of one? Tell me what anyone on the internet would do with that information that isn't terrible and I'll agree with you that they deserve to have the light shined on them. We're a community of 50k+ people and while there are many, many normal people, there are some dangerous folks too. It's naive to think there are zero people on this subreddit that actually hate women and are just looking for an excuse to feel justified in violence.

> If that were true you wouldn't be here attempting to sway opinion.

I mean in the big picture. You and I will eventually get up from our computers and live our lives. That's all I meant. We're having a disagreement on the internet and it should be treated accordingly. We haven't deteriorated to vulgar namecalling so, to me, you're just someone to talk to and hear a differing opinion. That's what I meant when I said it makes no difference to me.

  • [-]
  • oneiorosgrip
  • 0 Points
  • 23:49:01, 10 December

> I'm not trying to convince you of anything but skepticism and independent thought.

Skepticism and independent thought are the reason why, the second or third time I saw one of those similarly worded, overly friendly, wimpy-assed "Guys, we shouldn't say that kind of thing!" posts, I suspected trolling... and after it happened a lot in a variety of ways for a long time, I wrote about it.

> He's just another MRA in my eyes.

Why did you call him a celebrity then?

> you continually listen to both sides and modify your opinions along the way.

Only when changing it is merited. So far, no one has given me a logical reason to alter my initial conclusion on concern trolling.

> Does John have degrees in Gender studies? (I genuinely don't know) If he does then his opinion becomes more valid.

Oh, hell no. Gender "studies" is not academic. Having a degree in gender studies is like having a degree in the rules of a cult. Those courses are not unbiased - they're intended for indoctrination. To me that degree is a reverse-credential. The minute someone tries using that as a reason why I should listen, I know I'm dealing with a fanatic, and the conversation is over.

> This isn't hyperbole, because some people give a damn what celebrities say.

It is hyperbole because you're equating star power of a singer with the effects of experienced long-term activity in a movement... taking a well-known individual who is involved in the topic, and inflating that subject into a world-famous individual who is not - removing context and making the thing you're talking about bigger.

> I know it's a weak-ass argument, but we've all seen it before (depending how seasoned you are on Reddit): The slippery slope. Until recently, you could disagree and debate users on /r/feminism and they earned a lot of respect from me for that, no matter how biased or crazy or hiveminded they were, you were allowed to say what you wanted. That's changed, so my respect for them diminished. There's a correlation between how heavily moderated a sub is and how valid their opinions are.

The problem with this argument is that no one has suggested censoring concern trolls - simply stated their existence, argued with them, alerted others, and cautioned against buying their bullshit. This is reasonable action in the face of a repeating pattern of similar trolling. Regardless, I still stand by my statement that one of the reasons we started seeing control troll posts (as in, "don't talk like that - people won't like us") was to cause conflict in the sub. Not that there was ever a time without conflict, but those posts created conflict that was not previously present.

> What positive ends come from publishing these people's names? Look what happened when SRS dox'ed those people with their Project Panda- one guy's life was literally ruined, and another got jumped in the street and hospitalized.

Go far enough back in my comment history, and you'll find that I'm against mob justice. I was one of the more vehement critics of the admins' response to gawker's actions against violentacrez, and if the situation were the same - anonymous individuals speaking among themselves without plans to do anything to anybody else, I'd stick with that. It's not. Here, we're talking about public behavior, public attacks, and a public nuisance. None of those things were present in the Gawker story. Gawker stirred up SRS and deliberately turned violentacrez into "news" to garner page views.

These violent, screaming protesters are news. They're not sitting at home posting photos and talking about them. They're attacking people in public places. There is no shield law for that, nor should there be.

Further, SRS and Gawker doxxed people who were not doing anyone any harm. They were not attacking anyone. They had not made themselves combatants in a battle of wills... that action was allegedly over unapproved speech that didn't even involve those who doxxed. Though if you read my post, you'll see how fake that claim was, even if it were valid, it still wouldn't have been a parallel to this situation.

AVFM's action stems from an ideological attack against the right to discuss men's issues in a public forum, and a physical attack against MRAs. The response you're seeing now didn't happen in a vacuum. They've been facing this kind of rabid, radical activism for a long time. Now, feminist protesters are getting violent. It is only a matter of time before they cause someone physical harm. The site used the video from that incident to demonstrate that the behavior exists - so the group responsible for that behavior tried to have that video eliminated - to hide their actions and lie about what took place that night. AVFM has the right to fight back, and how they do that is their choice.

> Aren't you the armchair version of one?

That's rich - a mob of one. Shall I trample folks under my chair?

First, what people will or won't do with that information is irrelevant to this sub - because it's not coming from this sub. It's on an independent, outside website, one that no matter what you think or I think, is not under the congrol of /r/mensrights. It's not subject to our opinions.

Second, I've been letting you strawman my "desire" to dox these girls long enough. If I wanted them doxxed, I'd find out who they were myself. I have not stated approval of the choice, merely defended the right and the circumstances. It's not something I think would be necessary under the circumstances I see around me. However, AVFM and their members are fighting a battle I don't have to fight. I'm American - they're Canadian. Canada has it a great deal worse than the U.S. and honestly, I don't want to see my country end up like that.

Further, as I said, this is AVFM's battle. That group has to deal with this kind of rabid behavior regularly, and with their opponents stepping up their game, AVFM has the right to step up theirs, as well. As far as I'm concerned, these campus feminists picked a fight, threw some punches, and now have a bunch of strangers whining on their behalf that it's not okay for anyone to hit them back. I've dealt with people like that numerous times... as soon as you back off or back down, turn your back, and start to walk away, they attack again. I think AVFM has the right to decide to not fall for that, and telling them how to fight - or not fight - their battles is no different than trying to hold them down for the next hit.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 4 Points
  • 08:08:51, 8 December

Exactly my thoughts.

I can't open the comments of a single post without coming across atleast 2 or 3 people saying something along the lines of

>You're making us look bad, you need to act this way or you'll never improve our image

I don't get whats so hard about

>The Men's Rights subreddit is a place for those who wish to discuss men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon.

Not to make visiting feminists and women feel comfortable.

If anything if we're doing it right feminists coming here should be revolted.

Edit: a recent little example

>Who cares? The biggest obstacles MRAs have is not looking like misogynists, so why feed that stereotype? Even if it is "accurate"

Yea...I don't need to explain whats wrong with that.

  • [-]
  • oneiorosgrip
  • 5 Points
  • 12:43:18, 8 December

"Concern" for the image of this group predates concern for the image of this group. I really think that had a big influence on users who were not involved in learning about and acting on men's issues until recently. And I'm going to suggest again, not so quietly this time, that perhaps the initial "concern" and its later permutations was intended for something other than an effort to help or defend the movement. Manipulation isn't exactly a new tactic for feminists.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 5 Points
  • 16:41:21, 8 December

Yeah, you gotta love how the term "concern troll" is used to derail and dismiss, instead of dealing with each item on an issue by issue basis.

Some of us were fine with outing Sandhu (because she was the leader), but as soon as we feel that doxxing scum girl is unnecessary we're a bunch of pussies.

Why just scum girl? What about the guy who gave the sig heil? What about the girl with the orange toque that is so angry she's literally frothing at the mouth when screaming "this is what men's rights looks like!" What about the bearded dude who looks like a bike courier, with the scraggly hair who stares down the guy with the two friends who committed suicide?

Because going after those people publicly doesn't help!

Going after Sandhu helps. Going after the groups that rallied up 100 people to block the doors... helps. Going after the representative of the CUPE who stood in support of the protest (despite the fact that our tax dollars pay all CUPE salaries)... helps!

But, going after the one girl. Yeah, if we oppose that, we're snivelling cowards. John can get bent.

(This sucks... because I typically like the rants, I typically like the topics on the podcast... but now I won't hear that voice the same. Now I'll just think of the angry man who told us all off. I'll just go ahead and keep checking in on GWW videos... but that's it for my connection with AVfM...)

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • DerpaNerb
  • 2 Points
  • 22:40:15, 8 December

>If anything if we're doing it right feminists coming here should be revolted.

Key word: feminists.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 2 Points
  • 14:45:19, 8 December

I've been thinking the same thing lately but I wasn't sure if this was just coming from all of the new users getting used to /MR.

The fact that this discussion is full of people telling JTO to fuck off for being rightfully angry concerns me.

A lot of people here are either missing the point of /MR or this sub is full of people working against us.

I honestly don't think it's just concern trolls or new people not getting it anymore.

  • [-]
  • rodvanmechelen
  • 6 Points
  • 08:23:34, 8 December

Reads to me like John's teed off with the shadow banning, and writing from a place of anger. The anger is justified. Not being a feminist I didn't take anything he wrote personally, and I would encourage everybody else who is not a feminist to read his rant sympathetically, as I did.

I have never hidden behind the anonymity conveniently offered by the web. I don't judge others who do, but I feel (as opposed to think) that it bespeaks a lack of integrity. "Yea but, the cost to my career if..." Yes, I unfortunately know all too much about that. The personal cost of publicly owning your honest opinions can be painfully high, and is why in my own life I am squeezing every penny possible out of my budget to invest. (I'm not a financial adviser, but I have leads on several dozen companies that are prospective investments--far more than I could possibly invest in myself--and I think I'm going to start maintaining a "Rod's Watch List" page on my site. What's been the hold up? Honestly, I don't want any feminists or socialists profiting from my work. No way to prevent it, I know, but...there's no rule says I have to be totally rational about everything...not that I am, I mean after all I continue to put up with the abuses of the feminists who on November 3rd stood before an audience that included my elderly parents and spewed a torrent of lies about me that handed my bully of a father an excuse to cut off all communication with me.)

Back to the subject at hand. Doxxing (in my day we called it outing or exposing) somebody who publicly incites people to riot and commit acts of mayhem was simply called "the news." Even for those who demonstrated peaceably. Consider the peaceful demonstrations led by one of my heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He and the people who marched with him did not try to hide their identities. To the contrary, they were proud of their stand against injustice. The personal costs may have been high, but what they did was historic.

Not so the thugs who protested Warren Farrell. They hide their identities because they are not part of history but, like Klan members skulking home after a lynching, they are hate mongers, and they know it.

Earlier this evening as I was gathering links to update the Women and Men section of my site, and I saw Paul's "Yanking off the hood" and "To The University of Toronto Student’s Union" pieces, I was proud of him.

It may not be the wisest thing to do if your goal is to survive and thrive. The powers that be want and support the feminist hate movement as a way to undermine and virtually enslave the people, and take steps to oppress any who rise too high in efforts to impede that. Nonetheless, what he is doing is the right thing to do.

And isn't that a part of what being a "real man" is about?

  • [-]
  • ibm2431
  • 7 Points
  • 20:57:41, 8 December

> Oh, and if anybody, after reading this cares to claim that publicly identifying the initiators of violence is /actually/ a backhanded technique for putting them in harms way, then you're too stupid to be allowed to participate in an adult conversation.

Okay. How is it not? How is it not a backhanded technique of putting them in harms way?

If anyone claiming so is "too stupid", it should be a relatively simple matter to explain how it isn't.

What is the purpose of 'exposing' them? What's the goal? And I don't mean something as base as, "We want everyone to know this person is disgusting." Why do you want everyone to know that some stupid student is a misandrist? What do you want to happen because of it?

Surely you can easily explain how 'doxxing' them isn't a backhanded technique to expose them to harm. It's not enough to just call people stupid and hope that doing so absolves you of the responsibility of explaining why.

  • [-]
  • Son-of-Man
  • 10 Points
  • 04:02:23, 8 December

The feminists and emasculated white knights on this website are a cancer. Good for you all for having some spine.

  • [-]
  • Sigil1
  • 3 Points
  • 13:19:10, 8 December

This is an area where new people come, they shouldn't really be punished for newbie mistakes imo. Perhaps yourself and some of the other articulate and widely known mras should take this issue on in videos and articles, without castigating these newbies, and then others can direct them to them when they do get all concerned.

  • [-]
  • C0CKPUNCHER
  • 3 Points
  • 06:54:40, 8 December

I think being pro-feminism is not common here, but the mods are more pro-feminism than the normal members. But I don't know maybe you consider me pro-feminist, I don't think I am though.

  • [-]
  • r_rships_account
  • -2 Points
  • 09:26:53, 8 December

>the mods are more pro-feminism than the normal members.

Funny you mention that.

I messaged the mods today to express my interest in being a mod on the off-chance they were short of help, and I got this reply:

>Thank you for inquiring. We don't accept requests. If/when we require more moderators, we choose amongst ourselves. Thanks for being involved with and supporting the movement.

Why, unlike other subreddits I've participated in since 2006, do they not "accept requests"? Whom do they mean by "ourselves"?

*It was u/handsomemod

  • [-]
  • TheRealPariah
  • 0 Points
  • 12:46:18, 8 December

The mods are primarily a group of friends who protect each other even at the expense of content, accountability, or the MR community. It's the reason why they created mensrightsmeta and the reason why they created anonymous mod accounts. The "doxxing" threat was a convenient reason to get the admins to take the subReddit from Kloo and cement the ownership of the subReddit in ignatiousloyala hands.

It's so strange that both of these things occurred when individual moderators were receiving heavy flak from the community for their distasteful actions, censorship of certain content, and harassment of certain users. If mod decisions were discussed in this subReddit and mods were actually identified, the userbase might actually be involved and moderators might actually be accountable. Think of the horror!

  • [-]
  • r_rships_account
  • 0 Points
  • 07:38:45, 9 December

That's a lot of downvotes. Is there something to hide here?

  • [-]
  • TheRealPariah
  • -1 Points
  • 07:46:49, 9 December

It's easier to downvote and ignore instead of actually answering any question about this topic; it's why the mods refused to answer those criticisms and allegations when they proposed doing either of those things previously. Ignatious was receiving a lot of flak for essentially pumping the mod core with mostly feminist flavored and sympathetic "men's rights activists." There were threads every couple of days detailing his poor behavior, biased moderating, and censorship of people he disagreed with. His response was the add more mods who were his friends and then use his group of friends to justify his actions.

It's a sad turn of events given how this place was when Kloo2yoo was active; he made a grave error leaving the subReddit in the hands of IgnatiousLoyola and the movement has suffered ever since. I fear it will be co-opted and turned impotent by people who want it to be a male-flavored feminist movement.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Chamoflage
  • 2 Points
  • 21:31:20, 8 December

Is the stuff John's ranting about actually a thing that happened? I didn't really see any mention of it until now. Granted I don't typically read through more than the first few comments.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 00:54:59, 9 December

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • -1 Points
  • 02:48:24, 9 December

"But let's see if you hold yourself to the same standards that you hold your would-be enemies"

I do. I absolutely reject violence and hatred. I do nothing and say nothing which doesn't conform to moral principal. I maintain a pseudo anonymity because I know my opponents do not have any such compunction, and would not only wage a scorched earth campaign on my like, they'd murder me if they could.

  • [-]
  • yesisaidyesiwillYes
  • 1 Points
  • 21:08:42, 9 December

Regardless of your stated intentions, there are people who have made very explicit threats to the woman in the video. Look at the comments of the video she's in. It'll take you about five seconds to spot a rape threat.

Let's just cut the bullshit. It's obvious to everyone, feminists and MRA's alike, that your and Elam's moral crusade against this woman is a facade. It's obvious to everyone but you apparently that harassment would be inevitable. And that seems to be your motivation, because honestly, why else publish her name? She's a nobody, without a modicum of influence, why not just leave her alone?

The reason the MRM is considered a hate movement by virtually everyone but MRA's is because of shit like this. If you and Elam are successful in publishing her name, and it comes to light that she ended up being harassed, would you rethink your position on doxxing? Would you apologize? Would you admit that you were wrong, and that perhaps MRA's are equally capable of harassment?

And seriously, calm down your diction. You and Elam have taken bombast to ridiculous levels.

  • [-]
  • Never_cites_sources
  • 2 Points
  • 05:44:57, 9 December

You know, talking down to us won't change anything. Who has the ability to ban again? Most redditors? Or is it someone with more power? Like a moderator, perhaps?

  • [-]
  • SuicideBanana
  • 1 Points
  • 03:09:32, 8 December

>Dear feminists, and by feminists, I mean most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights.

Always knew you were stupid. You decided it wasn't enough to shoot yourself in the foot so you went ahead and shot off your foot.

  • [-]
  • levelate
  • 4 Points
  • 03:21:04, 8 December

i believe he is talking to you, and your ilk, with that sentence.

edit: thanks for the downvote, or, as you call it, argument.

  • [-]
  • DeanOnFire
  • -1 Points
  • 05:42:25, 8 December

I'm gunna need some context for this

  • [-]
  • starkhalo
  • 0 Points
  • 06:48:10, 8 December

SuicideBanana is a SRS feminist (redundant) troll (redundant, again)

  • [-]
  • DeanOnFire
  • 7 Points
  • 06:50:41, 8 December

Strange. Why do I remember seeing SB's posts moderately high on this board?...

  • [-]
  • altmehere
  • 1 Points
  • 06:16:26, 9 December

Because they seem to have acquired a habit of deleting the troll posts recently, leaving only the reasonable ones.

For example, this now deleted and clearly trolling post archived by our helpful bot:

>I'm at the beach a lot these days. The other day I was relaxing and getting a tan. Then suddenly some teen girl came to annoy me innapropriately. I immediately looked around and proceeded to march straight to the mother. I told her to keep her little slut the fuck away and teach her some damn manners too. Instead of takibg the advice to heart she became furious and I just had to leave because of the spectacle she was causing.

As another example, there's an AMR thread titled "SuicideBanana provides of evidence of AVFM's paul elam asking for votes on reddit via twitter. No sign from Misters about getting elam, jto, gww shadowbanned." that I'm not going to link to because of the ban on SRS links.

Here's another post (not on /r/MR) saying that Paul Elam and Manboobz (Futrelle) are the same person. While it says the author is [deleted], you can see they are referred to as "SB."

And here's a comment thread that got hit by againstmensrights, but you can clearly see that SuicideBanana has deleted all their comments.

  • [-]
  • phukka
  • 2 Points
  • 14:03:25, 8 December

It's a deep troll account, one that started out very pro MR with odd feminist tendencies and has slowly been leaning further and further away from MR. The idea is to infiltrate and slowly encourage people to move towards feminism without realizing it.

Consider if GWW slowly started embracing feminism. She would win a lot of support here because her opinions are so widely respected. Merely the fact that she is the one saying it would give credence, even if it was against men.

  • [-]
  • SuicideBanana
  • 0 Points
  • 14:41:29, 8 December

Interesting claims, do you have any evidence of these wild claims?

  • [-]
  • phukka
  • -1 Points
  • 14:54:06, 8 December

Just anecdotal opinion based on wildly differing opinions that you've shared in the past.

I could be wrong, but with SRS lurking around, being anxious to exploit other for their own gain, its better to be suspicious sometimes.

  • [-]
  • altmehere
  • 0 Points
  • 06:17:20, 9 December

>do you have any evidence of these wild claims?

Quite convenient that you've deleted most of those posts, isn't it?

At any rate, see my post above.

Edit: why do I get the feeling you don't like that?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • andreipmbcn
  • 2 Points
  • 16:02:57, 8 December

> Anti-feminism is the revolutionary notion that women are (like men) moral agents.

Thank you. This really goes to the heart of the issue.

  • [-]
  • SCCROW
  • 3 Points
  • 02:50:36, 9 December

John the Other - you are weird.

  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • -5 Points
  • 02:50:57, 9 December

flutters eyelids

  • [-]
  • SCCROW
  • 1 Points
  • 21:03:12, 9 December

I think people are just downvoting you for the sake of downvoting you.

No offense here.

One thing I learned - you cannot take this subreddit seriously.

It will lead to madness and insanity if you do.

Take it with a grain of salt - poke fun at it - look at my comments...

I do not take it seriously - except once in a blue moon...

  • [-]
  • Nepene
  • 3 Points
  • 07:08:22, 8 December

Regardless of your intentions, people are worried that by doxxing feminists you will lead people to be violent against them and intimidate them. They are not stupid to believe so, or dolts, it's a reasonable belief. It's not stupid and cowardly. It's an understandable concern for other people's health, despite them spilling bile from their mouths. Feminists poison people's minds against men and children, but we still care about their health.

I personally don't have any issue with you finding their identity and publishing it. Society at large is quite willing to protect women from violence, MRAs are uncommon and rarely violent. It is quite understandable why others would though.

  • [-]
  • AManAlone
  • 1 Points
  • 04:03:00, 8 December

I wouldn't say what you are proposing is likened to doxxing, unless your effort includes the intent to ruin her life by calling her work, and her home, and generally making another human being's life miserable because of her views. I agree with you that people need to be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their gender. But submitting other people to the same hate that we, or people we empathize with receive is not something I personally would find acceptable. Which doesn't really matter, since I have no way to affect your actions; nor would I physically if I were able.

I mean, were you to doxx this girl; no physical harm may come to her, but plenty non-physical would come her way.

On a side note; thank you for calling me, or even the majority of the people here that which we purport to hate.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • BlueLinchpin
  • 1 Points
  • 21:21:47, 9 December

>Anti-feminism is the revolutionary notion that women are (like men) moral agents.

Strange, I'm a feminist and I believe this is true.

I know not every MRA is anti-women's rights, so I'm not gonna let posts like this kill my view of MRA as a whole. And I'm sorry to hear about this guy getting harassed. I don't know the situation and there isn't a link around, but still sorry to hear it.

Just wanted to pipe in and offer my condolences / obligatory "not all of us are like that" post.

  • [-]
  • johntheother
  • 1 Points
  • 21:50:06, 11 December

A feminist and you believe in the accountability of women for their own conduct? You conform to the public definition of feminism, just not with the vast majority of activist feminists. Havent you heard that all women are eternal victims, and that any wrongdoing they engage in is somebody else's fault? Off to the re-education camps with you!!!

  • [-]
  • BlueLinchpin
  • 1 Points
  • 05:06:51, 12 December

Cute, but "the vast majority of activist feminists" as you see it just hasn't been my experience.

  • [-]
  • LucasTrask
  • 0 Points
  • 13:10:32, 8 December

It's not "doxxing" to identify the woman from the video. I don't care if she's a redditor or not. Public hate speech isn't protected by some magical reddit anonymity.

  • [-]
  • 0bvious_Atheist
  • -4 Points
  • 08:06:16, 8 December

>I mean most of you sorry cretins who inhabit r/mensrights.

Right on John. Nobody wants to hear the truth around here.

  • [-]
  • r_rships_account
  • -3 Points
  • 09:20:13, 8 December

Could you be more explicit?

  • [-]
  • 0bvious_Atheist
  • 7 Points
  • 09:26:35, 8 December

Just look at my recent post history. Anything that isn't a sob story or a rant is getting down voted. Anything that is even remotely political (especially Libertarian) gets down voted to hell.

We need to be politically active. Half the men in this subreddit hate the word "activist" because "it sounds douchey."

They've been so completely emasculated and intellectually hobbled by our culture that they can't even begin to dig themselves out of the hole that their legal and cultural systems have forced them into.

TL;DR Solutions get downvoted. Complaining and whining gets upvoted.

  • [-]
  • AeneaLamia
  • 9 Points
  • 13:01:54, 8 December

To be fair... What I've seen from some of your recent material has been extremely lacking.

  • [-]
  • Donitee
  • 7 Points
  • 14:42:57, 8 December

Because I'm sick of having men's rights tied to political agendas and doctrines. That's why I downvote people who rant about the evil feminist socialist conspirators in the government.

Men's rights are not about economic policy so why the conservative and libertarian connection? Did Gary Johnson ever even mention men's rights? What about the huge traditionalist right wing? The reason men are paying child support for unwanted children and alimony to their ex-wives is because of traditionalist views of gender roles. You really think they would advance true gender equality?

Maybe I'm not searching hard enough but I don't see any solutions on this subreddit, libertarian or otherwise. I think the best thing we can do now is raising awareness publicy and privately, getting the movement to grow. Because right now we are in no place to demand men's rights legislation and no party is catering to us.

  • [-]
  • hardcoremissy
  • 1 Points
  • 21:58:12, 9 December

hear, hear!

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 1 Points
  • 23:23:07, 9 December

You're not searching hard enough. Less government means less infringements on your freedoms. Feminists use the power of government to impose their will. Less government means less taxes, and more personal financial freedom. As it is now, men pay a significantly higher amount into the tax pool than what they get out. This is why limited government is pushed by some of us. But, I agree that it's better served elsewhere...

I'd rather convince libertarians to be MRAs, than convince MRAs to be libertarians.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Eryemil
  • 4 Points
  • 12:40:50, 8 December

Or maybe we're just filthy statists and happy that way? Has it ever occurred to you that people can be content without being Libertarians?

  • [-]
  • shadowbanned6
  • -4 Points
  • 09:54:00, 8 December

amen

  • [-]
  • thekadar81
  • 1 Points
  • 15:20:48, 8 December

In politics, looking right is more important than being right. Make no mistake, gender rights is a political game. Feminists know this and that is why they continually try to smear our name. It doesn't matter that it is lies and the facts are on our side. People wont listen to the truth if they think it comes from an unreliable source.

That being said, I support your actions . I dont think Reddit has any business shadowbanning people for actions that take place off of the website.

  • [-]
  • vicedets
  • 2 Points
  • 16:52:11, 9 December

You attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Clearly being this venomous isn't even working with people who agree with you.

  • [-]
  • GringoBingoKingo
  • 2 Points
  • 16:28:27, 8 December

I'm against the bans of Paul and Dean. I'm even against the ban of JtO (despite his pleas for one).

But, jesus this is the weakest moment I've seen from this group that considers itself our leaders.

  • [-]
  • AgentmrmOrangemra
  • 1 Points
  • 18:02:39, 8 December

twirls mustache, adjusts monocle, and rubs hands together gleefully

  • [-]
  • rightsbot
  • 1 Points
  • 03:08:19, 8 December

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

  • [-]
  • Vachette
  • -5 Points
  • 17:28:29, 8 December

Lol. Babby is mad.

  • [-]
  • ghebert001
  • 0 Points
  • 17:19:17, 8 December

The feminists are clearly shaking in their pants. I see no issue with exposing someone who put themselves out in the public eye and behaved with hatred and malice towards another human being who meant her no harm and did no harm.

  • [-]
  • Vachette
  • 2 Points
  • 17:41:40, 8 December

But the hatred and malice that Paul and his goons espouse is A-OK with you right?

  • [-]
  • ghebert001
  • -1 Points
  • 19:07:30, 8 December

Examples of hate and malice? (hurting someone's feelings, criticizing women/feminism and disagreeing with women/feminism don't count).

  • [-]
  • phukka
  • -5 Points
  • 14:00:03, 8 December

How strange, JTO makes a thread loosely calling out the infestation of trolls and feminists that lurk here and make up a portion of our subscriber base, and only those who insult him and wish violence or pain on him are upvoted, while people who have a legitimate history in /mr as advocates are downvoted.

Was this post linked to SRS or are they merely trying to takeover the subreddit anonymously?

Are this many subscribers really so thin-skinned and dense to not comprehend JTO's message whatsoever? Of course not, and those of you who took obvious offense are not contributors, nor sympathizers, nor allies. You are tools, you are trolls and your presence is not welcome.

  • [-]
  • altmehere
  • 6 Points
  • 14:52:38, 8 December

>and only those who insult him and wish violence or pain on him are upvoted, while people who have a legitimate history in /mr as advocates are downvoted.

Do you have any proof of this?

>Are this many subscribers really so thin-skinned and dense to not comprehend JTO's message whatsoever? Of course not, and those of you who took obvious offense are not contributors, nor sympathizers, nor allies. You are tools, you are trolls and your presence is not welcome.

This kind of attitude is exactly why the message is ridiculous; the entire "if you don't agree with what I'm doing you're not an MRA and you're not welcome" implication is just absurd and should seem absurd no matter where you stand on this issue.

MRAs are not one monolith that agrees with each and every issue; this doesn't change the fact that we are MRAs.

  • [-]
  • phukka
  • -1 Points
  • 15:09:20, 8 December

>Do you have any proof of this?

Massive upvoting of people telling JtO to go fuck himself, walk off a bridge, play in traffic, et al, while many posts of JtO are downvoted to invisibility, Obvious_Athiest being downvoted for agreeing with JtO. It's obvious.

>This kind of attitude is exactly why the message is ridiculous; the entire "if you don't agree with what I'm doing you're not an MRA and you're not welcome" implication is just absurd and should seem absurd no matter where you stand on this issue.

That was not my meaning nor intention with my comment. Anyone that was offended is either incapable of reading or of comprehending what they are reading. Either they're morons or they're infiltrators trying to induce a paradigm shift. Oddly, they're almost unanimously from people that I've never seen in /mr in the two years I've been a subscriber.

I do not expect everyone to agree on matters relevant to this subreddit. Hell, I don't expect most actual MRA's to agree on matters relevant to men's rights. However, most MRA's would understand exactly where JtO was coming from with this post and wouldn't have paid the use of some harsh language any mind. They're detracting from his point based on JtO's (rightful) assumption that a large portion of our subscriber base are not MRA's and are likely anti-male.

  • [-]
  • altmehere
  • 3 Points
  • 15:41:06, 8 December

>walk off a bridge, play in traffic, et al

The only example I've seen of this was the walk of a short pier example. With that said, both of these are idioms that are clearly (as in dictionary definition clearly) equivalent to "GTFO" or something similar rather than wishes of violence and pain.

>Anyone that was offended is either incapable of reading or of comprehending what they are reading. Either they're morons or they're infiltrators trying to induce a paradigm shift.

This right here. The fact that those who disagree are being lambasted as "morons" or "infiltrators" because they disagree with (some of) the points being made here.

I mean, there are plenty of things one could reasonably disagree on. For example: "Do you think, in your pea brains we intend harm to come to the cretins we document?" Legal and moral obligations are, for the most part, not based only on intent to harm. If you drink and drive you are still liable for the harm you cause even if you didn't intend to cause it. Intent is not a moral free pass. So opinions on this issue may vary.

>Oddly, they're almost unanimously from people that I've never seen in /mr in the two years I've been a subscriber.

Such as ThePigman?

  • [-]
  • BlueLinchpin
  • 1 Points
  • 21:29:33, 9 December

Strange, they never replied with examples after making that wild claim about people threatening OP and having it upvoted...

  • [-]
  • r_rships_account
  • -5 Points
  • 09:12:52, 8 December

I like this epistle of John better than the other.

  • [-]
  • Wordshark
  • -6 Points
  • 15:01:54, 8 December

Fuck the concern trolls. We tried the polite approach for decades, and it was ignored. Thanks to Paul Elam, JTO, etc., we finally have a Men's Rights Movement. We are approaching the day where we can all speak with each other civilly, but until then, we need men and ladies willing to start conversations that the feminists can't afford to ignore.

JTO: I'm behind you.

P.S. to use italics on reddit, add an asterisk immediately before and after what you want to italicize. Double them (two before, two after) to bold.

More Comments - Not Stored