Altright.com domain seized by Go Daddy

flulrich

Chicken
Ice Man said:
To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.

This article says "Marsh v. Alabama". You can't restrict speech as a private company if you open up your company property to the public.

https://medium.com/@sevvie/medium-m...ng-cernovich-loomer-and-posobiec-aac70bdeea28

I am no legal scholar, but that article provides at least some clues that "muh private company", the favorite argument on the left, is actually NOT automatically valid.

The left thinks they can get away with the shite they pull because they see themselves as their private little empire that no one should dare intrude upon, but actually they get away with it because no one has really had the gall (and money) to sue them.
 

heavy

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I'm just glad America has proven to have the Balls for these fights over censorship. Trump was a sign of this. Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are signs of this. Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin.

We've had censorship for 60 years. We had 3 big companies spewing left wing bull shit since, I don't know, the 60s. Now everyone thinks there's a problem with two different sides to every story and I say, it's damn better than having just one side of every story like we had in the 90s. There's a reason Rush was a phoenix rising as the king of radio, tv, and media when I was a kid.

I think the average person gets anxiety at the thought of censorship (Joe Rogan offers these sentiments of "interesting times"). As a Rush-baby, I became a young adult thinking I was part of a fragmented, rag tag group of libertarian-ish individuals taking on the army of PC brainwashed media. Nowadays I'm heartened. Sure, they'll still have their slanted view of Charlottesville, but at least I'm hearing conversations from the other side.

Keep fighting the good fight. It will never end.
 

Days of Broken Arrows

Crow
Gold Member
flulrich said:
Ice Man said:
To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.

This article says "Marsh v. Alabama". You can't restrict speech as a private company if you open up your company property to the public.

https://medium.com/@sevvie/medium-m...ng-cernovich-loomer-and-posobiec-aac70bdeea28

I am no legal scholar, but that article provides at least some clues that "muh private company", the favorite argument on the left, is actually NOT automatically valid.

The left thinks they can get away with the shite they pull because they see themselves as their private little empire that no one should dare intrude upon, but actually they get away with it because no one has really had the gall (and money) to sue them.

Great find! It's also worth repeating (although it's a cliche) that "muh private company" also goes out the window when these idiots complain about Chick-Fil-A, bakeries who won't bake gay cakes, and any business who wants to keep out slobs and sluts dressed inappropriately.
 

Sherman

Ostrich
I personally hate censorship and the "hate speech" bs, but I don't care if racists are being kicked off the Internet. As long as it is not being done by the government, but by private companies, it is fair game.

Since this is a men's forum, I think the most critical issue facing all of us is the war against men and the fact that many of us have concluded we can't have wives and a family because of the bias that has been put into the law. This is something we should all be interested in and these other agendas are a diversion from our real concerns.
 
Ice Man said:
When people say "why isn't Trump doing something about this?", can they articulate what they think the president himself can do?

When people say this is a "violation of the First Amendment" can they please articulate exactly what laws are being broken by GoDaddy in order for them to be prosecuted or face a civil suit?

It is very easy just to throw these statements out there but almost no one can say which laws are being broken. Just saying "violating 1A" isn't enough, not least because well it isn't a 1A violation, 1A has nothing to do with this. It would be great if it did (maybe?), but it doesn't.

To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.

You are aware that Trump is the President of the United States, and as the de-facto leader of the party currently in power has the ability to drive the legislative agenda, no? Further, you are aware that one of the principal advantages of holding the presidency is using it as the so called "bully pulpit" to influence the direction of public discourse, right?

I guess either you are not aware of these basic concepts, or your attempt to absolve Trump of any fault from not doing a thing to defend free speech for the Right is the most naked form of shilling. There's a shit ton of stuff Trump could be doing to protect free speech, but he's not doing any of them. Maybe it's just as well, given that the one action the Trump admin has done in relation to internet freedom has been the deleterious abolition of net neutrality by the corporate stooge IRT Ajit Pai.
 
Sherman said:
I personally hate censorship and the "hate speech" bs, but I don't care if racists are being kicked off the Internet. As long as it is not being done by the government, but by private companies, it is fair game.

Since this is a men's forum, I think the most critical issue facing all of us is the war against men and the fact that many of us have concluded we can't have wives and a family because of the bias that has been put into the law. This is something we should all be interested in and these other agendas are a diversion from our real concerns.

Yeah - your definition of racist is a Pepe meme and someone saying that Islam is not a Religion of Peace. The term racism is a slippery slope doctrine - ultimately it can be used to ban everyone since the term was actually even created by the communists for this specific task.

iG9MP.jpg
 
Suits said:
Because my statement is still easily accessible on page one of this thread in simple, easy to understand English.

I've got a different impression.

One, I didn't misrepresent your words, nor misunderstand your statement at all.

Two, you're part of a group of people who believe that the races are equal.

Three, the past two years have been really crappy for you, given that the Alt-right and many others who believe in Race Racism have made unobstructed headway in getting their ideas across.

Four, theoretically speaking, you could stop the Alt-right by directly debating them and pointing out their lies. But, practically speaking, you don't have the courage nor knowledge to do this.

So, five, you're rationalizing the elimination of a political website you disagree with because "private company" and "not government". (Nevermind that Kristen Clarke is a government employee who pressured the private company, because Reasons.)
 
Sherman said:
I personally hate censorship and the "hate speech" bs, but I don't care if racists are being kicked off the Internet. As long as it is not being done by the government, but by private companies, it is fair game.

Surely, you read the celebratory tweet of @KristenClarkeJD the individual most responsible for shutting down Richard Spencer's site. And surely you noticed her occupation?
 
Higgs Bosun said:
You are aware that Trump is the President of the United States, and as the de-facto leader of the party currently in power has the ability to drive the legislative agenda, no? Further, you are aware that one of the principal advantages of holding the presidency is using it as the so called "bully pulpit" to influence the direction of public discourse, right?

Agreed. Trump is a lame duck. Of issues that are important to men like us, I don't think his presidency will have achieved much, if anything at all. First the Cosby thing, now this. The anti-male agenda continues ahead full steam. Let Trump tweet all day and distract us with his "investigations", the dude's a fucking joke.
 
Maybe it would be a good idea to start a thread highlighting what RVF has given to members?

What I mean is, this forum is MUCH wider than just some threads and comments that may offend.

Many threads start off with 'This forum has given me so much, I wanted to give something back...' or similar.

It seems kinda inevitable that somewhere this forum will get picked up, and they're gonna hone in on what offends.

Of course they'll still most probably do so, but anyway, at least they'll be doing so unconscionably.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
sterlingarcher said:
Of course they'll still most probably do so, but anyway, at least they'll be doing so unconscionably.

Except, there's no conscious. When I've spoken about the Degenerate Triad, I've said one component of their thinking is Symbolic. The Objective Reality of what we are isn't important to them, it's their Subjective Reality of what we represent.

As such, they believe they are morally-righteous, of course, without a moral core based in Truth, it always breaks down.

I was reading the Catechism recently, and this jumped out at me:

"It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself, since the end does not justify the means."

Note 'justify' in this context doesn't mean rationalizing the behaviour to oneself: it's the Catholic understanding of it meaning, co-operating with the Will of God via one's free will.

Back to me previously-saying dysfunctional acts produce dysfunctional results: No matter what action Social Justice Warriors take believing they are morally-righteous, they are only following the Law of Self. As such, the end result will always be dysfunctional: ever decreasing-spirals of persecution, excommunication and - in the worst cases - murder of disbelievers, and the dark reality of the security of being a true believer being able to be revoked at any moment as these circles decrease.

Since I take this as both dictated and observable truth, if the Right also starts believing the ends justify the means, similar dysfunction is bound to follow, though I struggled with this point for a couple of years. Note my professed discomfort with seeing people in power stepping down due to what appears to be blackmail from Trump's people. What dysfunction will result?
 

demolition

Woodpecker
MrLemon said:
Suits said:
The 1st amendment was written into law to prevent the government from restricting speech.

Here's the actual text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for.

This doesn't mean much.

Just like any of the amendments, the 1st amendment has thousands of pages of judicial interpretation and precedence. 200+ years worth. ALL of that applies to the question. That's how constitutional law works.

I believe that in practice, if a company that controls the means of expression (writing or posting) refuses to provide their services to someone *because they disagree with the content being expressed* then they are damned close to a lawsuit. If you're the only printer in town and you refuse to print somebody's book on the catholic faith because you are a protestant, you can and will be sued and probably lose. You are actively surpassing their right to be heard. Your property rights are secondary in this case.

Godaddy is hard to sue because, it has a ton of competition. Google and Facebook on the other hand are heading for a Federal lawsuit at lightning speed. I will personally laugh and cavort in front of their headquarters if they get broken up. I hate the arrogant fucks.

But I digress.

There's 2 things here:

1. Bake the Cake. I think everyone can agree that forcing businesses to provide services they don't want to is a violation of a natural right freedom to tell anyone to get stuffed if you don't like them, for any reason. (Part of the problem with many of the social engineering efforts of the Left is stepping on this natural right, that's protected by the 1A.)

2. There's enough laws on the books to punish anyone for doing anything. And in the interest of having a modern civil society it's in the best interest of the future of the country to come down extremely hard on tech companies that are engaging in censorship practices. The internet is a new thing, and current legal climate around technology is hot garbage in many ways. Many of the fundamental technological assumptions about the web need to be challenged, and new law needs to be made. Until that can happen, sue the bastards, pin whatever you can on them until they stop and sort principles out later.
 
> The narrative of "it's a free business decision for them to deny service" is unfortunately faulty.



Why?

Because companies like Paypal, Facebook, Google (and the algorythm which the alternative often use), Twitter, Youtube - those are NATURAL MONOPOLIES. Essentially they are comparable to one local supermarket in your remote village that by sheer luck has been created first or was just marginally better than the other competitors. The village does not support 2 local supermarkets just as 2 Twitters and 2 Youtubes of identical power do not exist. Google even tried to create their own Youtube, but it did not reach any level even remotely similar to Youtube despite all their strength. Why is that?

Because the internet works in a way of creating natural monopolies just as utilities like power, water and train communication create natural monopolies that only make sense to be offered by one company - best a public one even in this case.

Twitter and Youtube are comparable to the local supermarket in your remote Alaskan village who suddenly decides to NOT SELL YOU ANYTHING, TO BAN YOU FROM THEIR STORE because it does not like you anymore due to your conservative views. You have not done anything illegal, you do not steal from them or stink - they just arbitrarily decide to not like you. That is 95% of all Twitter and Youtube bans.

Paypal deplatforming Roosh was such a supermarket decision. The globalists of course know that the internet has created natural monopolies and that is why some politicians correctly said that they should be re-defined as utilities - aka you force them to be politically un-biased and that throwing out the alt-right is tantamount to McDonald's implementing "a-no-black-customer-served" policy while all the other major restaurant chains do exactly the same. These are all private businesses, right? So they should be able to do it? No - that is discrimination - real one in this case and not the new Orwellian definition of it.

You already see how Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are banning or demonetizing content creators for a multitude of reasons - because they are anti-feminist, they are anti-Hillary, they are supposedly racist (even when all you do is spout peer-reviewed studies on races) - does not matter - you get banned.

So no - those big internet businesses are natural monopolies and must be treated differently. Go-daddy is another matter, but what happens when they refuse to give you any platform? They can ban anyone off the internet permanently similar to Andrew Anglin. You may not disagree with him and that is fine, but so long as not actually calling out for violence, then what is the problem? Islam spawns countless groups, sites and videos who all call for the annihilation of the Jews and conquest of all unbelievers. By that definition you should ban Islam off the internet completely, but that won't happen until after WWIII, so it's good for now.
 
I would advise getting a .onion site on the dark web... Just in case... Precedent has already been set.

Also, I would collect some free manosphere writings, ROK stuff, and put it on flashdrives in geocaches or alternatively dead drops: https://deaddrops.com/ .

It's a good way to get the stuff out to people.
 

glugger

Woodpecker
AnonymousBosch said:
.......
As such, they believe they are morally-righteous, of course, without a moral core based in Truth, it always breaks down.
This reminds me of a point my mother made against one of the arguments for gay marriage - "It's two consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it."
She'd then ask them about their views on polygamy, then incestuous relationships, then bestiality. Most people would become uncomfortable and object to one of the questions, and draw their own line in the sand.

She'd then repeat back their original argument - "It's just consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it." And logically there wasn't, but that didn't make them any less uncomfortable. Everyone drew their own line in the sand, each shifting as they saw fit.

She'd then explain how her position was based on the bible, and it being the truth, would never shift.

AnonymousBosch said:
I was reading the Catechism recently, and this jumped out at me:

"It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself, since the end does not justify the means."

Note 'justify' in this context doesn't mean rationalizing the behaviour to oneself: it's the Catholic understanding of it meaning, co-operating with the Will of God via one's free will.

Back to me previously-saying dysfunctional acts produce dysfunctional results: No matter what action Social Justice Warriors take believing they are morally-righteous, they are only following the Law of Self. As such, the end result will always be dysfunctional: ever decreasing-spirals of persecution, excommunication and - in the worst cases - murder of disbelievers, and the dark reality of the security of being a true believer being able to be revoked at any moment as these circles decrease.

Since I take this as both dictated and observable truth, if the Right also starts believing the ends justify the means, similar dysfunction is bound to follow, though I struggled with this point for a couple of years. Note my professed discomfort with seeing people in power stepping down due to what appears to be blackmail from Trump's people. What dysfunction will result?

Essentially fruit of the poisonous tree, just from a moral perspective.

Many would view the actions that the right are now taking as a 'trolley problem:'

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the most ethical choice?

I've always argued that you should do nothing, as 'An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself.'

But that doesn't stop people from pulling the lever.
 
< Dark web are not solutions.

I think that Roosh got warning shots with the meetup outrage and the Paypal deplatforming. That was the warning shot to never speak about the Jewish Question or anything related to it and next to never attempt to create a real-life group of like-minded men.

And better to stay away from irony and too great satire - the MRAs already published satirical beat-a-woman articles similar to feminist ones and the media and feminists all twisted it terribly.
 

kamoz

Kingfisher
Gold Member
On a related note, we also see non-monopolies making bold moves, like all those companies recently 'opposing the NRA' or even stores like Dicks or companies like Yeti making blatant moves in direct opposition to their customer base. A lot of people have wondered how and why these companies would make such seemingly suicidal business moves.

Here's my theory: it all has to do with the 'investors.' Back when I worked for a big company, we always had these quarterly calls to update the 'investors' about the business. Why do I put 'investors' in quotes? Because for the most part, they're just a vague obtuse blob. Nobody really knows who the hell they are. Maybe some lower level ones but that's it. My theory is that the investors are for the most part THEM; those that wield the trillions of dollars and are the money masters. They have far more money than any potential customer base, and therefore cut some behind the scenes deal to make companies do what they do because....they have the real money. We have peanuts.
 
Top