TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FeministSpanker Archive

View 0 posts and 17 comments by FeministSpanker on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The bot blocks people on Twitter so that the people who use the bot don't have to talk with them. I've spoken about this at length here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/30q5j0/bbcfeatured_feminist_twitter_block_bot_runs_into/cpxhut5 Essentially, block bots really are just like the National Do Not Call list when you get down to it. That is hardly censorship
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:12 AM
0

Ah, it does appear that I haven't fully addressed it. Okay. The blockbot isn't about ignoring what people say. Really, I don't see how it isn't about that. All blockbots preemptively block people who the user probably doesn't want to hear anything from anyway. People have a right to speak, but people also have a right to close their ears (or I suppose eyes in this case), and not listen at all. It's about putting people you don't like on a list you've convinced people will protect them from haras…
/r/MensRights01/04/15 04:10 AM
0

But how many people on these blocklists are not anonymous? I'm well aware that some on the list aren't anonymous, but certainly not most of them. But for the ones who are not anonymous, I don't believe most people who know them are actually going to find these lists anyway (which was my first point, that you oddly did not debunk). And even if they did, why would they believe some random person on the internet about someone they know in real life. Really, if someone I barely (if at all) even know…
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:09 PM
-1

How am I a "hypocritical commie"? And what in my statement is strictly libertarian? People do have the right to speak, but don't have a right to an audience. This has been well established before and almost everyone agrees with that to some extent
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:36 PM
-3

NB: Since TBBV2 (Removed in mid 2013!) there was a facility to block and report for spam at #level1 when #spam was added. This was reserved for fake accounts spamming, or sock accounts created to threaten and abuse people. It could not be applied to #level2 or #level3. However it has now been removed, while the aim was to suspend these nasty accounts it didn’t work. Blocking a new test account for spam with all the blockbot users had no effect. Also this is likely in theory against Twitters TOS …
/r/MensRights30/03/15 03:29 PM
-5

But that's just silly. If their description is incorrect for a specific person, then it really just boils down to childish insults. Childish insults do not constitute libel.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:35 AM
-2

I should probably point out that I am on the Level 2 list of that Atheism+ blockbot. And I see no reason to care. I don't believe that any employer would know or care about my status on somebody's list of whoever on the internet for two reasons: 1. That employer will likely have little knowledge of the existence of that list and 2. I am an anonymous account, as are several other users on the blocklists
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:24 AM
-4

Some list on the internet that says a bunch of people are harassers and misogynists is entirely different than an employment blacklist. It is also far more different than the persecution and blacklisting of actors (and actresses) due to supposed communist sensibilities. I am sorry, but your comment was completely ridiculous
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:13 AM
-8

People don't have the right to an audience, and the same extends to social media sites. I also hardly see how the blockbots are deliberately filtering out political speech that a person disagrees with. Nor do I see how it "becomes a way of manipulating people."
/r/MensRights30/03/15 03:57 AM
-2

The Symantec Rulespace (from what I've gathered in a short period of time) actually prevented people from viewing AVfM's website Twitter block bots hardly prevent someone from viewing your tweets. They can still choose to view them if they so desire. They do however prevent you from talking to someone, which is hardly censorship. I quite frankly cannot see how the Symantec Rulespace scandal was a much more serious example.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 02:38 AM
-6

Another curiosity: The actions in the sidebar on the right, underneath the "Overview of Mod Policy" heading would constitute censorship under your loose definition, as they are "disallowing expression." And as you've stated before, "Censorship is the last bastion of a position that cannot withstand scrutiny."
/r/MensRights30/03/15 01:53 AM
-3

These block lists are 100% political? Are you saying that no offensive users appear on these lists then? Also, I apologize for the persistence, but what about this is a men's rights issue?
/r/MensRights30/03/15 01:34 AM
-3

Ah, I see. I seem to have misunderstood the definition of censorship. Regardless, my position still stands. Ignoring someone and preventing them from talking to you in such a way that doesn't necessarily prevent them from talking to others would still not constitute censorship. It really comes down to a matter of "You have the right to speak, but not the right to an audience" (or a platform, for that matter).
/r/MensRights30/03/15 01:19 AM
-8

I believe "censorship" would imply a violation of someone's First Amendment Rights. That is my understanding of the term, at least in the United States. Ignoring someone and not letting them talk to you specifically, but still allowing them to talk to whoever else hasn't done the same thing, is not a violation of any rights whatsoever. Essentially, ignoring and refusing to listen does not constitute censorship.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:53 AM
-4

But surely they shouldn't face legal trouble if, at worst, a person on the blocklist is there only because the one who put them there disagrees with them. And there is also nothing about these tools that "silence dissent." It's likely in most cases of blocking that either A. The person who was blocked was genuinely abusive in some way, or B. The person who blocked wasn't going to listen to what the person they blocked had to say anyway, for whatever reason (good or bad). I fail to see how this s…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:40 AM
-15

But ignoring what someone has to say isn't censorship. I don't see how this is difficult for anyone to understand
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:24 AM
-11

I don't understand the problem people have with block bots, or blocking in general. If a person wants to block someone (or a large group of people), then the people being blocked should really quit whining about it. Sometimes people simply don't wish to talk to you, for whatever reason, and you have no business in making them do so.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter