MoreFreeSpeech Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
0	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit		MoreFreeSpeech	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 03:59 AM
0	Stop reporting Facebook pages		MoreFreeSpeech	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 03:20 PM

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
-2	Women hits man, plays the gender card and says he's not going to hit her, the man hits her and she tells her friends to call the police. As opposed to 100% condemnation of the acts of both people. Comments about her getting what she deserved are ludicrous. She was walking away, so he shouldn't have hit her. What she deserved was an assault charge. That's it.	/r/MensRights	24/11/13 02:42 AM
-3	Women hits man, plays the gender card and says he's not going to hit her, the man hits her and she tells her friends to call the police. Yeah, and they're both assholes. It's just a shame this sub seems practically joyous over the female asshole getting hit.	/r/MensRights	24/11/13 02:08 AM
-23	Women hits man, plays the gender card and says he's not going to hit her, the man hits her and she tells her friends to call the police. Are you fucking kidding me? She was walking away when the guy went after her for saying "You ain't gonna do shit" to someone else. It's assault, plain and simple. Fuck this subreddit. I expect the anti-science stances on circumcision because that's the MO of the 'intactivist' crowd. I was barely able to tolerate the anti-free speech actions of people reporting Facebook pages like little bitches. But now this sort of shit? You're all giddy over seeing a woman being punched, not because she deserv…	/r/MensRights	24/11/13 12:52 AM
1	A cut too far? Zambia is still 75 per cent short of its target of two million male circumcisions. At the end of the article they basically admit it does not work. And I'm sure you're also sure these groups were never once against circumcision as a policy before being for it when the evidence became overwhelming. How political.	/r/MensRights	23/11/13 12:02 AM
0	A cut too far? Zambia is still 75 per cent short of its target of two million male circumcisions. At the end of the article they basically admit it does not work. You better apply for jobs with WHO, AAP, UNAIDS, and the CDC then. Someone needs to tell them they're all wrong.	/r/MensRights	22/11/13 11:37 PM
0	A cut too far? Zambia is still 75 per cent short of its target of two million male circumcisions. At the end of the article they basically admit it does not work. What anti-science garbage. Circumcision does work. The science is in, so that is the up for debate. The issue is with the black and white thinking that creates these strawmen about circumcision being the only means of fighting HIV.	/r/MensRights	22/11/13 04:40 PM
0	A cut too far? Zambia is still 75 per cent short of its target of two million male circumcisions. At the end of the article they basically admit it does not work. The lack of studies in the past few years is largely due to the fact that the evidence is in. At this point you're going to mostly find review studies (recently done by WHO) and the occasional agenda-driven criticism that never address the body of evidence. Here's a study looking at why circumcision is so effective. That's what you can expect. The science is in. You may as well be denying evolution or global warming. http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/2/e00076-13	/r/MensRights	22/11/13 02:59 PM
-2	A cut too far? Zambia is still 75 per cent short of its target of two million male circumcisions. At the end of the article they basically admit it does not work. Here are 25+ studies, both research and review. Each one is cited in the references section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#Observational_studies The evidence is in: circumcision protects against HIV transmission. That doesn't mean you can't still be against it for ethical reasons (though not where adult men are concerned), but the science of the matter is not on your side.	/r/MensRights	22/11/13 01:28 PM
-8	A cut too far? Zambia is still 75 per cent short of its target of two million male circumcisions. At the end of the article they basically admit it does not work. This is fantastic news. The major hurdle of education still remains - that's likely why men are becoming sexually active too soon after the procedure - but this is a wonderful program which will save lives. Of course, the anti-science spam of this subreddit won't even accept circumcision when it is the choice of adults, so one can't expect a good reception here, but lives are still being saved. Simply wonderful. Science is winning. It always does.	/r/MensRights	22/11/13 12:28 PM
0	Men's reproductive rights I'm saying the only reproductive issues are on the side of women. This thread and stream of thought, however, says otherwise. It says that male reproductive rights have something to do with this. They don't. Moreover, this stream of thought is arguing that because women can abort, men should have other rights to balance things out. That is, the argument is that the rights men should have are equivalent to female reproductive rights. Indeed, sometimes the argument outright says men's rights here …	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 04:52 PM
0	Men's reproductive rights Um. Yes, exactly. The right to abort is an issue of biology that gets recognized in law. Paying child support is an issue only of the law, thus men's reproductive rights aren't at issue here.	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 04:08 PM
-1	Men's reproductive rights I actually don't agree with the arguments here at all - consent to sex means consent to all the possible consequences, including a woman exercising her own bodily autonomy and bringing a child to term. However, that isn't my issue here. The issue here is that none of this has anything to do with the male reproductive system whatsoever. Call it semantics if you like, but I think it's an important distinction. Again, I disagree with the argument, but it does have some merit. Unfortunately, using i…	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 04:06 PM
-2	Men's reproductive rights No, abortion is very much an issue of reproductive rights. I think the issue on the men's side of the matter is one of legality.	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 09:26 AM
-2	Men's reproductive rights Okay, expand the issue to testicles and penises. If the topic isn't the reproductive system, it has nothing to do with reproductive rights. Edit: typo	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 09:10 AM
-6	Men's reproductive rights These aren't reproductive rights for me. They have nothing to do with the biology of the matter on the male end. So unless you're talking about rights dealing directly with semen, "male reproductive rights" isn't a thing.	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 08:33 AM
4	No, child support can’t be a choice I hate the phrase "male reproductive rights". This has nothing to do with the reproductive process. The issue isn't one of biology, but rather legality.	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 12:30 AM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Unless you can find more sources that confirm this consensus you believe exists on the subject, I'm winning this argument at the moment. My goodness, the arrogance. The science is in: FGM has negative health consequences and decreases sexual pleasure. I've given a link on the decrease in sexual pleasure - it reflects what most studies find (and which yours didn't refute). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ I can't believe you're seriously arguing that FGM has any benefits whatso…	/r/MensRights	17/11/13 06:19 PM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins On your first two studies: This is how science works. For virtually any subject you can find contradictory evidence. I could find you dissent on global warming, if you want. That doesn't make it true. Moreover, these studies don't address the same issues as other studies linked here thus far. For instance, the pleasure women feel versus achieving orgasm are not synonymous findings. (As to your claim that your sources are "higher quality", methinks you've been fooled by formatting. When it is stu…	/r/MensRights	17/11/13 03:23 PM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins The first result looks at reproductive morbidity. It concluded that certain types of FGM have significant problems, but more 'properly' performed types do not. That says nothing of sexual function in terms of sensation. The study I gave, on the other hand, directly addresses the issue. Conclusion: Circumcised women can still have kids, but this doesn't speak to the other physical implications. (Using the argument from this study concerning women would be like arguing that circumcision in men is …	/r/MensRights	17/11/13 01:44 PM
1	A local school teacher here was forced to resign after school officials spied on him to catch him having consensual sex with a female teacher at the same school. The female teacher was not reprimanded, her identity is being protected, and she is being treated as a victim. He wasn't "publicly named". He sought redress for benefits through a public channel. If he didn't do that, he would have stayed anonymous. If the woman did do it, we would know her name. Edit: typo	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 03:42 PM
6	A local school teacher here was forced to resign after school officials spied on him to catch him having consensual sex with a female teacher at the same school. The female teacher was not reprimanded, her identity is being protected, and she is being treated as a victim. They didn't say what happened to her.	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 03:40 PM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins So that means you don't get to abuse science and make up facts. If you think the ethical case is there, then make it and don't branch out. It's clear the anti-circumcision crowd can't handle keeping it honest. It's like the global warming denialists that use economic impact to argue against the science. It's a red herring that isn't on topic.	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 06:45 AM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Circumcision is actually second in line when we consider the subject of global health because abstinenceI only education doesn't actually work. The reduction in risk is often between 40 and 60 percent. The CDC cited 44% at one point. The science is in. But you know what the good news is? You can completely maintain your ethical objection even while acknowledging reality. I do have an ethical support for developing nation circumcision. I think saving lives is far more important than cosmetics. Ho…	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 06:01 AM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins You don't really understand global health issues. Strictly speaking, abstinence is the best solution to HIV transmission, but that doesn't work. Condoms are the next best answer, but they cost money every single time a person has sex. This is not a viable solution in much of the world. Moreover, people in wealthy nations don't even always use them. Their effectiveness is irrelevant if they aren't always being worn. Thus circumcision is the very next answer according to the ever increasingly stro…	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 04:32 AM
1	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. ...are you sure you know what it means?	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 04:07 AM
1	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. Wrong. Under his analogy and with the arguments of this subreddit, if the US and a few other nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons, then the fair and equal thing would be for any nation (and even terrorists) to have them.	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 04:06 AM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins First result in Google. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19028385/	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 02:01 AM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Your argument is on the ethics, not the science. We see that when you make up claims about "risking the sexuality" of those who are circumcised. Your claim fails when the procedure is done under proper conditions. You clearly aren't even interested in this issue.	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 02:00 AM
1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins It reduces the risk for women and also lowers STD transmission beyond HIV. Also, I care about this as a policy in developing nations. It's irrelevant in the US, UK, and other such nations, but making it into a big deal causes people who argue against this over and over to not do any actual research. For instance, some people argue against the science of the matter without evening looking at basic sites like the CDC.	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 01:09 AM
0	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins You can mention lots of things. That doesn't mean you have a bit of evidence.	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 12:36 AM
0	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Yes, you've embarrassed yourself. You don't seem to care much about science. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/	/r/MensRights	16/11/13 12:35 AM
1	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Yawn. No, the very idea of it proves proliferation is bad - we don't need to do it to prove it. Like... Oh. So the idea of something bad is enough? You don't have to actually do a bad thing to make your point? ...doesn't need the practical to prove the theory. One wonders why you need to actually try to censor people then. My guess is that you're a child that can't deal with the speech of others. Starting to see your hidden agenda now... No, it's pretty overt. Deal with speech by utilizing more …	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 12:22 PM
1	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Plus you're proving my point - the idea of enslaving whites or arming terrorists with nukes shows how unpalatable slavery is and how nuclear proliferation is bad. "We don't want that so maybe we shouldn't" So then you're in favor of giving nukes to terrorists in the name of curbing nukes in general? Back to censorship though, if x is the rule good enough for the goose then x should be the rule good enough for the gander. That is simple. Which is why, I presume, you wish white people had been ens…	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 10:52 AM
0	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. So wah wah wah. Scale is irrelevant since the point is to isolate a particular argument. You aren't smart enough to get it.	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 10:20 AM
0	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. That open and free speech is the ideal option. Given the rest of what you said, you're lying. And as for the rest of what you've said, you want rules applied equally, thus gasp your argument means you would favor enslaving all races if even one race is enslaved. How egalitarian of you.	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 10:00 AM
0	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! So we should apply rules equally in an effort to achieve justice? It's almost like you've just argued that slavery that included white people would have been better than slavery that only applied to black people and a few others. Who gives a damn that the means to the end is awful? What's important is that you've drawn a vivid picture of inequality. Next up: govt_took_my_baby endorses nuclear weapons for terrorists. If one group can have them, all groups should have them!	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 09:53 AM
0	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Though written in a clunky way, it sounds like you've just repeated my analogy and the point I'm isolating: such-and-such is a bad thing for group X and shouldn't happen, but if it does happen, it should also be applied to group Y because it's better that everyone be unhappy than that only one group is unhappy. This is all another way of stating the seemingly cornerstone belief of mensrights: two wrongs make a right.	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 09:35 AM
0	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. What argument do you even think you're imploring here? You can Internet posture all day long, but you should try to at least be honest with yourself. You think two wrongs make a right so long as your end goal is favorable to your interests. It's a hypocrite's argument for sure, but if you're going to make it, at least own it.	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 09:19 AM
0	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. I hope you come back to reddit in 10 years and see that post.	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 08:56 AM
0	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. Oh, well, if you often use analogies then I guess you aren't totally missing what the analogy was about. No, no. You definitely aren't missing the fact that the analogy is about isolating an argument and applying it to a different situation to show how wrong that type of thinking is. You've nailed it. You definitely aren't missing the side of the barn here by focusing on some specific detail that could be changed out with nearly anything else. You people? really? Are you sure you don't love femi…	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 08:54 AM
0	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins 1) No studies show different levels or stress or mental health problems due to circumcision. You made up your claim. 2) No studies show an objective difference in the sexual lives of men based upon circumcision. You also made up that claim. 3) Studies give various results for the efficacy of circumcision in reducing HIV transmission, but 40% to 60% is the common range found. 4) Many of these studies are halted for ethical reasons, but not the ones you have: researchers often find such great resu…	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 07:33 AM
0	Stop posting the Facebook group "I Hate Men" takedown. We got it the first time. Thank you. I said you were being idiotic in your attempt at hyperbole by comparing National nuclear policy to the community standards of Facebook. How is it that this subreddit understands analogies so poorly? He didn't compare nuclear policy to censorship. He substituted your unprincipled eye for an eye, hypocritical argument into a different situation to see if it worked. It doesn't. You people are using a pathetic and reprehensible means to achieve a remedial end. That is, you are censoring for the sake…	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 03:15 AM
1	The only time Facebook has responded with action to a report of a hate speech violation from me. The primary reason I dislike feminism is because the movement is highly pro-censorship. It's the m.o. of feminists to want to shut down open discourse. As for this not being about the First Amendment...well, duh. It's about censorship. I think it's garbage when someone does it. Now, does that also mean your strawman is correct and I don't think people should have the right to censor? Of course not.	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 01:40 AM
1	So, this was just posted on a MRA facebook group. Thoughts? Is this a victory? This is about helping you understand your mistake at this point. Is your sole basis for saying the situation is inappropriate the fact that slavery is an extreme situation? Edit: autocorrect	/r/MensRights	15/11/13 01:36 AM
-2	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! And we're back to the means justifying the end.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 08:37 PM
-1	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! This isn't about rights. It's about censorship, which you seem to favor. There isn't a point to continuing this discussion whereas you're okay with stifled expression.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 08:09 PM
1	So, this was just posted on a MRA facebook group. Thoughts? Is this a victory? You're done here because you aren't able to analyze your point in a way which makes sense. So let's say the TV example is better because it's less extreme. Then what do you think I'm comparing? Changing the channel to reporting a Facebook page? It's amazing how Internet you're being about this. I isolate an argument, apply it to a different situation, then you ignore that because you're embarrassed you got it so wrong. Do you think my point is that reporting pages is bad because it's spiteful li…	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 07:53 PM
-2	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! How do you people not understand the argument you are all using? The reason everyone is being a little bitch about Facebook's policy is that 1) it's censoring people and 2) it's censoring people inconsistently. In other words, it's wrong but you all wish it would be wrong to everyone. That's fucking stupid.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 07:42 PM
0	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! That works if you think Facebook's censorship policy is good. I do not.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 07:35 PM
0	So, this was just posted on a MRA facebook group. Thoughts? Is this a victory? Okay, so what is it you think I'm doing in the TV example?	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 07:34 PM
-3	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Yes, this is the go-to justification. It's merely another way of claiming that the means justifies the end. I have zero care what the goal was or wasn't for all the people who requested that Facebook censor people. The fact is still that this subreddit supported censorship. I mean, just take the principle you're supporting and put into a more extreme circumstance to see if it holds up. That is, the principle here is that it's okay to use a bad method (mean) so long as a particular result is achi…	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 06:04 PM
2	So, this was just posted on a MRA facebook group. Thoughts? Is this a victory? So your stance is that I was comparing Facebook censorship to slavery? If so, can you explain why you agree that I could substitute examples? Do you think my last example was comparing censorship to spiteful TV habits? How would that be relevant to the discussion. C'mon. Let's get real here. You misunderstood the analogy. I isolated an argument - two wrongs make a right - and I applied it to a different situation to highlight it's absurdity. You then misunderstood the point and thought I was say…	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 05:28 PM
1	So, this was just posted on a MRA facebook group. Thoughts? Is this a victory? You aren't understanding. You've taken the analogy to be comparing private censorship to slavery. That is wrong and it is not the analogy. The correct understanding is that Facebook has two things wrong, which I believe to be worse than having just one thing wrong. You and others, on the other hand, believe that it is better if Facebook is wrong twice via censorship of both sides. Again, the analogy is based on the argument that two wrongs make a right. And since it is not about slavery, I could…	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 05:16 PM
1	So, this was just posted on a MRA facebook group. Thoughts? Is this a victory? Goodness. That isn't the analogy. Isolate the argument being used: two wrongs that are internally consistent are better than one right and one wrong that are internally inconsistent. Thus, that argument applied to slavery says it would be better if the institution involved all races versus how it actually happened.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:53 PM
-9	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! That's not the point. The argument was that Facebook should be equally wrong towards both sides of the issue. Using that logic, slavery would have been better if it was applied to everyone regardless of race.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:43 PM
-11	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Those groups aren't interested in open discourse, you're right. But Facebook should be interested in it. It should be interested in allowing people to discuss issues as they please. As to hate speech, who gets to determine that? How are they objective? Most feminists think this subreddit is nothing but hate speech. I disagree and I bet you do too. Where men's rights has a Facebook presence, should it be removed if some admin deems it hate speech?	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:41 PM
1	[Update] Facebook has revised its decision, the group "I Hate Men" has been removed for containing hate speech based on gender. Not at all. I think their policy is terrible. I'd rather see them censor everyone on one side of an issue before I saw them censor both sides. I don't stop supporting open discourse because I may be denied it.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:37 PM
-5	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Well, you can consider censorship to be what you please, but that doesn't make it so. Censorship is simply a restriction on open discourse. Does anyone expect to have open discourse with most feminists? They're an insular group. They aren't our target audience.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:35 PM
-1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins This is known as moral hazard. I've seen no studies which demonstrate that this is the case with circumcision. Indeed, the fact that the science has only become especially strong on the issue in the past decade (and many major groups have only come around to the facts in the past few years), I would be surprised to find much (if any) science showing greater promiscuity amongst circumcised males.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:32 PM
0	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins wat	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:27 PM
1	So, this was just posted on a MRA facebook group. Thoughts? Is this a victory? Enslavement of black people was awful and the ideal would be no slavery, but it would have been slightly better if there were at least white slaves. Two wrongs don't make a right. Edit: typo	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:26 PM
2	Workplace equality done right How is this done right? It objectifies the women and discriminates against qualified men. It's sexist in both directions at once.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:24 PM
0	Revenge Porn Is Bad. Criminalizing It Is Worse This criminalizes thought since the pictures are owned by whoever received them. Unlike with hate crime laws, the sole item being made illegal here is intention. Posting porn is still legal. Posting porn to be mean would be illegal? It's thought crime.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:21 PM
2	Reported them months ago but finally I woke up to wonderful news this morning Yes, quite wonderful. Now rather than dealing with another group's speech like an adult, you can be smugly satisfied that you were complicit in its censorship.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:17 PM
1	The only time Facebook has responded with action to a report of a hate speech violation from me. Congrats on being complicit in Facebook's censorship. You are officially as douchey as the feminists.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:15 PM
1	[Update] Facebook has revised its decision, the group "I Hate Men" has been removed for containing hate speech based on gender. Yeah! Censorship! Fuck open discourse! Feminist tactics rock.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:14 PM
-8	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! So does censorship only occur in a legal context?	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:13 PM
-16	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Ya know, slavery was wrong, but if we had have at least made white people slaves, it wouldn't have been so bad. Sure, the Podunk police department entering homes of those critical of the police is bad, but it would be so much better if they equally violated our rights. Bobby is a real jerk to the new kid. I just wish he would at least be equally mean to everyone. I think two wrongs make a right because I'm a fucking mook.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:11 PM
-16	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Your first point is irrelevant. Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter if it's private or not. It's still censorship and half the people here are complicit in it. For shame. Your second point appears to be in the form of a sentence, but I'm not sure.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 04:08 PM
-20	Back in September I reported anti-male Facebook groups, and every single page request was ignored. After several emails, they're finally revising the decisions! Congratulations on being just as much of a pro-censorship douche as so many feminists. Too much of a whiny baby to deal with someone else's speech? Upset because you were wrongly censored but someone else wasn't? Worry not! Abuse that report button and all your woes about open discourse will be fixed!	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 03:55 PM
-3	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Go to the study links on the Wikipedia page. You'll find a whole host of studies carried out in a whole host of ways. (I found the summaries of the studies on one of the wiki pages to be accurate to the original studies, so you can just read those, but the source work is available too.)	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 02:52 PM
2	Freaking out over a rape allegation. Please help Zero contact with her or anyone else. Don't discuss any details of your affair with anyone. If the police question you, say nothing and demand a lawyer. Finally, delete your posts on the matter.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 02:45 PM
-1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Condoms are a major part of the answer, but you're simply wrong about the benefits of circumcision. There are two important facts to note here. One is that my advocacy applies to developing nations, not places like the US. I don't care about a pro-circumcision policy here. It's a non issue. Second, you can maintain your ethical stance without abusing the science of the matter.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 02:34 PM
0	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Since when does correlation equal causation?	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 02:32 PM
-1	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins The ones in the 70's look at STD transmission in general. The ones concerning just HIV went back to '87.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 02:30 PM
-4	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins After visiting Haiti for a graduate course, I researched the issue of HIV transmission. The evidence continues to mount in favor of circumcision lowering the transmission rate during heterosexual intercourse. The studies date back to the 70's and look at multiple groups in multiple nations. Time and again, transmission rate is lowered.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 11:06 AM
-11	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins I want to protect the people in sub-Saharan nations and other developing nations; the evidence points to circumcision lowering HIV transmission. It saves lives. So to whine and whine about a very minor ethical issue that changes nothing significant about someone's life undermines efforts to save lives in poorer countries.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 10:22 AM
-7	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins You aren't going to find any studies that support a difference in the sex lives between circumcised and uncircumcised men. It just isn't there.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 10:20 AM
-9	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins Under proper medical conditions, the argument against mgm is purely ethical. Under the same conditions (which are rare), the argument against fgm is both physical and ethical. They aren't the same thing at all. But feel free to scream at me and downvote if you think a circumcised man and a circumcised woman lead the same type of sexual lives.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 08:16 AM
-4	"By all means campaign all you want against male circumcision. But do so separately, don't distract from and derail the campaign against FGM." - Richard Dawkins How dare you be reasonable and understanding of the issues at hand.	/r/MensRights	14/11/13 08:12 AM
6	Why 'feminism' poisons EVERYTHING Whereas third wave feminism is anti-egalitarian, I would say OP is very egalitarian.	/r/MensRights	11/11/13 07:05 AM
1	Stephen Colbert reacts to men and women paying the same prices under the ACA (Obamacare) I raised this issue on Facebook. The best response was that medical insurance is a necessity most of us will need to use. No one dies because Geico won't fix their Camry, after all.	/r/MensRights	06/11/13 08:25 AM
-1	Not only do they conflate “people who are mean on the internet” with “members of the men’s movement,” but, when they quote something from A Voice for Men, they lie about it. (Reporting standards at 20/20) It was a classic ad hominen. The author attempted to undermine the reporting by undermining the journalists themselves. That he didn't use insults is irrelevant.	/r/MensRights	18/10/13 02:38 AM
-2	Not only do they conflate “people who are mean on the internet” with “members of the men’s movement,” but, when they quote something from A Voice for Men, they lie about it. (Reporting standards at 20/20) I stopped reading when the article launched into ad hominen attacks on the journalists. If the piece is bad, there should be no need to say anything about the journalists themselves.	/r/MensRights	18/10/13 01:07 AM
2	ABC will air a 20/20 program about Manosphere and Mens Rights groups harassing women online. Anita Sarkeesian has a starring role and will talk about the "abuse" she received from men online. I wonder if ABC will mention MRAs being attacked and abused by feminists in Toronto twice this year. Yeah, the means to an end is always justified. "I didn't murder him out of hate, officer! He was holding up traffic, so I was only intending on speeding up everyone's commute by getting him off the road."	/r/MensRights	17/10/13 04:06 PM
4	ABC will air a 20/20 program about Manosphere and Mens Rights groups harassing women online. Anita Sarkeesian has a starring role and will talk about the "abuse" she received from men online. I wonder if ABC will mention MRAs being attacked and abused by feminists in Toronto twice this year. That's awful. I really dislike censorship. I'm glad people on this subreddit don't regularly try to get Facebook pages censored and other such nonsense.	/r/MensRights	17/10/13 08:30 AM
14	ABC will air a 20/20 program about Manosphere and Mens Rights groups harassing women online. Anita Sarkeesian has a starring role and will talk about the "abuse" she received from men online. I wonder if ABC will mention MRAs being attacked and abused by feminists in Toronto twice this year. Sarkeesian campaigned to have Facebook posts and pages censored? What kind of cowardly group would support such an affront, for any reason, to free and unfettered speech?	/r/MensRights	17/10/13 05:49 AM
1	R/MensRights, what does free speech mean to you? Hate speech: It was the KKK for the Lumbee, it was MLK for much of the south, it was women in the late 19th/early 20th century, it's liberals for some today, it's conservatives for others, it's Muslims for many Americans, it's Christians for many Nigerians, it's atheists for so many around the globe... So, again, who should get to objectively define hate speech? Do you have all the right answers? Are you sure some of the things you say won't be considered hate speech in the future? This is the p…	/r/MensRights	15/10/13 03:14 AM
1	R/MensRights, what does free speech mean to you? Then I guess you support the KKK's right to that rally, and you must disapprove of the violence of the Lumbee Indians. After all, the KKK's speech was protected. Oh. And no. The government does not define hate speech. There is no such thing. It defines hate crimes, something the SCOTUS has upheld because the purpose of such laws has nothing to do with speech.	/r/MensRights	15/10/13 02:56 AM
2	R/MensRights, what does free speech mean to you? There's a difference between free speech and hate speech. No, there isn't. And who gets to objectively define 'hate speech'? I support a discussion that is uncensored No, you don't.	/r/MensRights	14/10/13 11:13 PM
1	R/MensRights, what does free speech mean to you? It means not being a whiner and reporting Facebook pages. At least that's what it means to me. That's definitely not what it means to a lot of the pro-censorship people in this sub.	/r/MensRights	13/10/13 02:14 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly I used your 'logic'.	/r/MensRights	12/10/13 12:37 AM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly "The fact that it was removed shows that the content was against their terms."	/r/MensRights	11/10/13 03:40 PM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly You argued that two wrongs make a right. The onus is on you to show why that makes any sense whatsoever.	/r/MensRights	11/10/13 12:34 AM
-5	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly No, I'm just smarter than you are. You argued that Facebook's removal of the page is evidence that it was sexist. Under that logic, Facebook NOT removing a page reported for sexism is evidence that it wasn't sexist. If you don't like bad logic, don't use it.	/r/MensRights	11/10/13 12:33 AM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly When someone attacks you, defense is warranted. How is you censoring someone else like defending yourself? Does it prevent their censorship of you?	/r/MensRights	11/10/13 12:30 AM
-6	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Oh. Then I guess when they don't remove the pages all the whinners here report, the whinners must be wrong. I guess Facebook doesn't have double standards, huh?	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 11:37 PM
-2	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly A page that offends you isn't censoring you. Your analogy doesn't work.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 11:35 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Someone who doesn't understand or appreciate philosophy? Maybe feminism is for you.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:52 PM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Try dictionary.com.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:49 PM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly "We're not acting like them by doing the exact same things they do. These same things are totally different because I don't mind when we do it."	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:47 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Censorship is not a concept that only exists in legal terms.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:44 PM
5	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly facepalm Censorship doesn't just happen in the context of the First Amendment.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:43 PM
-10	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Who gives a shit? That doesn't tell you the content of the page.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:31 PM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly You're wrong and you have no respectable ethical backing for your position. This is entirely about whiny, bitchy, toddler emotions. Entirely.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:26 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly You people need to stop explaining that this is about double standards. I do not give a shit. The means to the end is garbage. Absolute garbage.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:24 PM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Getting rid of page doesn't expose it. It, as you may have concluded, gets rid of the page.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:22 PM
2	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly You're a hypocrite that thinks two wrongs make a right. Oh. And you're an armchair psychologist.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:21 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Oh, I get it. If I only criticize the group I care about, then I must not mean it.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 10:20 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly It already is the norm. The MRM is becoming as pro-censorship as feminism. And the justification every time? "We need to expose hypocrisy!" as if two wrongs make a right.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:53 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly You shouldn't mind that Facebook ignored your plea for censorship.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:52 PM
-11	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly How is it valuable for a few thousand people who already know there are double standards to see that there are double standards? Nothing useful has been done here. The ONLY thing that has been accomplished is the censorship of a page some little whiner didn't like.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:51 PM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Oh, no no no. This isn't pointless. You see, OP is proving to everyone here that there are double standards. Because, ya know, no one here thinks that already. So there is obviously a point: OP is shutting down speech he doesn't like, not because he's a little bitch, but because he NEEDS to prove to everyone here something they already all know.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:49 PM
-1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly The fact that you got down votes for asking this question is indicative of the feminist tendencies of many of the people here.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:47 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly It makes the movement look like feminism.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:46 PM
0	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Someone recently told me this subreddit is one of the most open and anti-censorship subs on here. That is clearly false. Grow up and fight speech with more speech. Stop imitating feminists by trying to shut people up.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:45 PM
1	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly "Facebook was wrong once so they need to be wrong twice."	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:43 PM
-4	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly I'd rather see Facebook be wrong once than see it be wrong twice.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:42 PM
5	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly Censorship isn't positive.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:41 PM
-2	I reported an abusive page yesterday, I was glad to see Facebook act so quickly How does this address his point. He said issue X is whiny. You 'countered' by saying issue Y is also whiny. So what? Issue X is still whiny.	/r/MensRights	10/10/13 04:40 PM
4	Those pesky boys ruining it for the girls yet again... A man sticking a bottle up his ass like that is not porn. A very few select people in this world actually find that arousing. This researcher clearly has a poor working definition of what pornography is.	/r/MensRights	07/10/13 04:39 PM
1	Facebook has a policy of not allowing hate speech and hateful content? Not so much.... It's simple. The best way to fight speech one dislikes is the with more speech. It's the basis of my username. Always fight speech with more speech, not strong arm tactics or legal bullshit. I recommend reading Popehat.com to get a better idea of just how vital free speech is to a happy life and society.	/r/MensRights	05/10/13 06:08 AM
0	[Australia] Man raped and had penis bitten...yet he is convicted for fighting back I wasn't saying anything about whether or not she got off on it. I just don't think that an attack on sensitive organs is also an attack of a particular nature with associate with those organs. It could be, but it isn't inherit.	/r/MensRights	05/10/13 06:04 AM
1	[Australia] Man raped and had penis bitten...yet he is convicted for fighting back Was he bit directly or through clothing? And was he bit in a way meant to dominate him sexually or was he bit in an area that was simply sensitive? There are some legitimate questions here.	/r/MensRights	05/10/13 06:01 AM
-1	[Australia] Man raped and had penis bitten...yet he is convicted for fighting back Biting a penis is no more inherently sexual assault than punching a woman in the chest is sexual assault. From the evidence available, I don't think her crime was sexual in nature. It was brutal, but it wasn't sexual.	/r/MensRights	04/10/13 11:51 PM
-1	[Australia] Man raped and had penis bitten...yet he is convicted for fighting back Her crime was not sexual in nature merely by it involving sexual organs. That would be like saying the Statue of David is pornography because he's nude. There's a Venn diagram to be had here, but that's about it.	/r/MensRights	04/10/13 11:49 PM
0	Facebook has a policy of not allowing hate speech and hateful content? Not so much.... Edit. Wrong thread.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 09:42 PM
0	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit I'm on mobile, so it's a pain to find a lot, but here's one link. Most of these anti-free speech shenanigans date to a week ago. http://i.imgur.com/xTZwYo3.jpg	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 08:23 PM
0	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit So? Blog about it. Tweet it. Email Facebook. Write an old fashioned letter and mail it. Don't be so butt-hurt you have to censor. The problem isn't unfair application of the rule. The problem is the rule itself.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 06:02 PM
-1	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit It isn't "pointing out". It's stifled speech because a few people are butt-hurt.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 05:57 PM
0	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit Facebook has removed pages for so-called "hate speech" because of this sub.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 05:55 PM
2	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit I understand what people are doing. It's still censorship and still harmful, just as reporting women in your hypothetical would be harmful since some women would be unfairly fined. This sub seems to believe it's okay to sacrifice the speech of others in order to make some remedial point. That isn't okay and there is zero ethical justification for it. Zero.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 04:30 PM
0	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit And for those who keep down voting the thread, that isn't a disagree button. Many of you clearly feel this was worth a response, what with having responded to it.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 04:27 PM
1	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit No, I think you just don't understand what I said. You're using a very, very negative means (censorship) to justify a remedial end (proving to this sub that people have sexist double standards). It's childish, pointless, and downright harmful. Grow up and deal with speech you dislike like an adult: Use more speech.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 04:26 PM
-3	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit You know how feminists talk about so-called "rape culture"? And you know how referring to that myth and using terms like that actually hurts rape victims and undermines the horror that is rape? Yeah. You comparing a reddit post to suicide threats and abusive relationships is on the same level. Also, it isn't my job to be convinced by someone else's argument. See, this level of logic is why so many people here seem to think the means justifies the end when it comes to using censorship to make a p…	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 04:23 PM
-2	Facebook has a policy of not allowing hate speech and hateful content? Not so much.... Yes, it is sexist. So what? They should censor even more? Do you also believe that because men are murdered more than women that we should have more female murder victims? It's the exact same 'logic'.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 04:20 PM
1	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit They're using censorship to prove some point everyone here already know. That's simply childish - and it's still censorship.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 04:18 PM
1	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit This is dumb logic. Censoring others because censorship is wrong makes no sense. What next? If you believe male circumcision is wrong, you're going to advocate for female circumcision?	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 06:54 AM
1	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit Oh, well, if ThePigmanAgain says I'm a troll.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 06:52 AM
0	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit Right, this is about historical perspective.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 06:50 AM
3	Why I'm considering leaving this subreddit It's just far too common for my liking. People seem to want everything under the Sun labeled "hate speech". And to make things worse, they think so-called hate speech should be censored in the first place. It shouldn't.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 04:05 AM
-3	Facebook has a policy of not allowing hate speech and hateful content? Not so much.... So what? Facebook is wrong when it censors. It shouldn't make an adult happy just because other people's speech offends you.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 03:50 AM
-3	Facebook has a policy of not allowing hate speech and hateful content? Not so much.... It's free speech. Quit being a baby and fight speech you don't like with more speech.	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 03:49 AM
-4	Facebook has a policy of not allowing hate speech and hateful content? Not so much.... Are you 5?	/r/MensRights	03/10/13 03:48 AM
-28	Facebook has a policy of not allowing hate speech and hateful content? Not so much.... It's hyperbole. Stop trying to stifle free speech.	/r/MensRights	02/10/13 05:42 PM
8	Feminism and cover charges His problem isn't with paying. His problem is that feminists don't seem to have an issue with getting preferential treatment.	/r/MensRights	28/09/13 07:30 PM
1	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. It can't do that in the US since that would be a First Amendment violation, but what's your point? Laws can be considered censorship? Even if that's true, how does that mean Facebook isn't censoring views?	/r/MensRights	27/09/13 05:46 AM
1	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. Then the only way someone can censor, by this logic, is if they do so illegally. Which contradicts that first paragraph above.	/r/MensRights	26/09/13 10:07 PM
1	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. What's your definition of coercion? Facebook is stopping people from expressing their views. Right or wrong, that's censorship.	/r/MensRights	26/09/13 09:45 PM
1	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. You said censorship has nothing to do with the law, but then you said Facebook isn't censoring because of its legal status as a private company.	/r/MensRights	26/09/13 05:25 PM
1	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. Your first paragraph doesn't even match your second paragraph.	/r/MensRights	26/09/13 03:25 AM
2	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. Well, people can censor on their own property. What they can't do, if they want to remain friends with logic, is shut people up and then claim not to be censoring douche bags.	/r/MensRights	26/09/13 01:30 AM
3	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. I don't think people understand what censorship even is. It isn't something that can only happen in legal terms. That's just an asinine argument. Censorship happens every time you prevent someone from expressing themselves unfettered. This may be justified in some cases, but it's still censorship. The cowards who can't deal with alternative points of view, causing them to report all these FB pages, are not justified.	/r/MensRights	26/09/13 12:07 AM
4	Christopher Hitchens on censorship, since apparently I'm not gifted enough linguistically to explain why reporting hate speech on facebook is damaging to our cause. Of course you would be censoring. Your act doesn't change because it happens to be perfectly legal. I'm curious what you would even call it to throw a person out of your house because you don't like what they've said.	/r/MensRights	26/09/13 12:02 AM
1	Stop reporting Facebook pages And that's why quashing opposition with censorship is a bad thing.	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 11:04 PM
1	Stop reporting Facebook pages Fighting back with speech is still fighting.	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 06:42 PM
1	Stop reporting Facebook pages This is correct only on the most pedantic of levels. People are still trying to bury the speech of others by means other than more speech.	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 03:26 PM
1	Taking a leaf out of the book of a fellow MRA, I reported three anti-men Facebook pages for gender-based hate speech today. Only one was removed. This is a disastrous trend. If we can't fight speech with speech, then we're just cowards. Let these pages stand on their own merits. If your ideas are better, you'll win.	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 03:03 PM
1	Because only male massage therapists can be unethical... I have my doubts that she would go to jail.	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 04:29 AM
2	Ok that's great... wait what!?!? I'm glad someone said it. My biggest problem with feminism is that it is so pro-censorship. I'll gladly part ways with any movement that is on such shaky ground that it can only defend itself by censoring the opposition.	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 12:38 AM
4	Ok that's great... wait what!?!? Don't stoop to the level of the pro-censorship feminists. Always fight speech with more speech.	/r/MensRights	25/09/13 12:31 AM
2	TIL That all Feminists are like that Bravery, stupidity, fine lines. You know, all that jazz.	/r/MensRights	24/09/13 01:33 AM
13	This just appeared in /r/creepypms. Yet another piece of evidence that society is being taught all men are rapists/ paedophiles/ creepers. - link to comments in comments. What am I missing here? The guy was being creepy, especially when he kept sending messages after she tried to end the interaction. Society assuming the worse in men is a problem, but I don't think this is a good example of that.	/r/MensRights	20/09/13 07:31 AM
8	Mom and former mayor outraged to learn she's banned from her daughter's graduation after being convicted of groping a 14 year-old boy. Bonus: She shifts the blame to the boy So she says she isn't on probation. Did the 'journalist' even bother to confirm that?	/r/MensRights	15/09/13 06:27 PM
0	A brief history of women in video games Can someone explain the line about cake? I've never understood the reference.	/r/MensRights	14/09/13 02:40 PM
1	Feminist claims that reverse racism doesn't exist, because whites cant be harmed by blacks, and they are 100 times more powerful. 1) This post is semantics. 2) I guess when I was flipped off in Port au Prince for being white, that wasn't racism on the part of the few Haitians that did it. Could have fooled me.	/r/MensRights	06/09/13 09:12 PM
3	The bathrooms at my office. The women's door has a keypad lock that does in fact lock. The men's door does not even lock from the inside. (sorry about quality) Could this be a timing issue? That is, was the women's bathroom renovated more recently than the men's? This doesn't change anything about how you should proceed, but I'm curious. If it's a matter of chance construction, then this isn't a gender biased matter. If not, then we have a problem here.	/r/MensRights	06/09/13 08:35 PM
2	Feminists block doors to Men's Rights lecture It's a little unclear to me if that's what you think men's rights is about or if you're just describing the mindset of those in the video.	/r/MensRights	06/09/13 03:12 AM
3	Feminists block doors to Men's Rights lecture There's a little bit of talk here about these people not representing true feminism. Perhaps many feminists wouldn't like their actions, but it cannot be denied the feminism is highly in favor of censorship. This is just what we see when feminists can't get the powers that be to censor for them.	/r/MensRights	06/09/13 03:10 AM
6	Part of my Workplace Harassment Awareness Training for my new job. I was pleased to see this. I wish more people knew that men's rights if often about stuff like this. Instead we see caricatures of the movement that turn people off to it, causing simple issues like fairness in training to get ignored.	/r/MensRights	05/09/13 09:46 PM
69	Intimate partner violence predictors according to United Nations Few things here outrage me. This is one of those things.	/r/MensRights	04/09/13 06:28 PM
42	This was part of our inclusiveness training to be an orientation leader It floors me how many people think that sexism (and racism) is a one way street that is somehow defined by a power asymmetry. It's discrimination on the basis of sex. That's it.	/r/MensRights	31/08/13 09:08 PM
1	One small victory against misandry. I don't care what source you use to push censorship. I'm against doing it.	/r/MensRights	30/08/13 08:43 PM
3	My boss told me a female coworker said I was being sexist after offering her advice. It was mentioned in front of him. He then acted as a nice guy and offered a helpful tip because he knew something she didn't. It wasn't sexist and it wasn't inappropriate. He was being a god damned human being.	/r/MensRights	30/08/13 06:39 PM
1	One small victory against misandry. This deserves just as many upvotes as I got when I said to fight speech with speech. Censorship is for people with bad ideas.	/r/MensRights	30/08/13 02:40 PM
0	One small victory against misandry. That is simply fascist.	/r/MensRights	30/08/13 02:38 PM
3	My boss told me a female coworker said I was being sexist after offering her advice. She clearly made mention of her inability to find the code. If she didn't want someone else to offer her simple advice, she shouldn't have complained about not knowing her job well enough. She opened the door.	/r/MensRights	30/08/13 01:48 PM
10	Outraged Montanans move to oust judge who jailed rapist for 30 days As I understand it, this guy was given a sentence for rape. He was then given jail time, not for rape, but for violating his probation as it pertained to his rape conviction. The media and everyone else seems to be ignoring that tidbit.	/r/MensRights	30/08/13 01:33 PM
0	One small victory against misandry. Would you support a law that made feminist speech illegal?	/r/MensRights	30/08/13 02:59 AM
-2	One small victory against misandry. It sounds like you don't like that feminism is a very pro-censor movement. I don't either. So why support their tactics?	/r/MensRights	29/08/13 11:06 PM
16	One small victory against misandry. Don't stoop to their level. Always fight speech with speech.	/r/MensRights	29/08/13 05:03 PM
1	Doctor is called sexist for say women should pay more for health insurance. There isn't a single argument against any of the doctor's points in that article. I'm not surprised. It would be like arguing that it's wrong when overweight people have to pay more for their clothes because they require more fabric. You require more, you pay more.	/r/MensRights	29/08/13 06:29 AM
1	Only a Sith… a discussion of how Paul Myers “You’re with me or you’re against me” politics is destroying the atheist movement I think "unfounded" was the key word in his post.	/r/MensRights	29/08/13 12:57 AM
1	My University is making all incoming Freshman take a sexual assault education course. This is a screenshot from it. Seems that /r/MensRights is making progress. Excellent post. Thank you.	/r/MensRights	20/08/13 01:09 PM
0	My University is making all incoming Freshman take a sexual assault education course. This is a screenshot from it. Seems that /r/MensRights is making progress. Mm. That is a problem, but progress is progress at the absolute least, isn't it?	/r/MensRights	20/08/13 12:29 PM
1	My University is making all incoming Freshman take a sexual assault education course. This is a screenshot from it. Seems that /r/MensRights is making progress. My goodness, yes. I am often accused of somehow hating women because I think things like this are an issue. The reality, though, is that I just want simple things like education courses to mention these facts IN ADDITION to all the other sexual assault facts.	/r/MensRights	20/08/13 02:15 AM
1	My University is making all incoming Freshman take a sexual assault education course. This is a screenshot from it. Seems that /r/MensRights is making progress. My goodness, yes. I am often accused of somehow hating women because I think things like this are an issue. The reality, though, is that I just want simple things like education courses to mention these facts IN ADDITION to all the other sexual assault facts.	/r/MensRights	20/08/13 02:15 AM
5	Thunderf00t: PZ Myers accuses Shermer of rape Actually...a "PZ raped me" campaign would be ideal.	/r/MensRights	18/08/13 11:01 PM
1	Ohio Judge tells defendant to "shut up" when he demands a jury trial and right to testify, no evidence and a lying cop results in the guy's life destroyed, loses place at Harvard. It seems fair to me to ask these questions and seek the evidence for/against them. Not only is that simply logical, but it's what helps to separate us from many of the conclusion jumping feminists out there (see PZ Myers and co's current evidence-less accusations against Michael Shermer).	/r/MensRights	16/08/13 04:25 PM
20	Heightism is part of patriarchy and 'sexism' against men is really just sexism against women. She can't get away with saying feminism seeks to eradicate child custody biases when it's feminist groups that protest laws that seek to remedy the problem.	/r/MensRights	14/08/13 02:57 PM
1	PZ Myers retracts rape allegation post (and this post). Tries to have one more final dig at Michael Shermer's character. I've done a lot of research into libel, what with having been nearly sued for it myself. It's my understanding that malice in a legal sense specifically refers to efforts to cause harm to a person. That is, it's about intent. I agree that PZ was being callous and irresponsible and stupid and whatever other lay term we want to put to him, but I don't see any evidence that he wasn't being genuine in his post. There are a couple of ways I could be wrong, though. First, there could be emails where h…	/r/MensRights	13/08/13 08:08 PM
1	PZ Myers retracts rape allegation post (and this post). Tries to have one more final dig at Michael Shermer's character. Just to avoid any confusion, are you using "you" in the plural/general sense? Or do you mean me? If the latter, I need a little clarification. There are a few fundamental questions when it comes to libel. One is whether or not anything said is false. I don't need where PZ said something that was untrue. He simply quoted something. We don't know if it's true, but I suspect PZ genuinely believes it is (which addresses the next issue in libel, which is malicousness). The lawyer who has offered pro …	/r/MensRights	13/08/13 07:47 PM
1	PZ Myers retracts rape allegation post (and this post). Tries to have one more final dig at Michael Shermer's character. True enough, but not insofar as a reporter sticks to simple reporting. I think that's what PZ was doing here, albeit irresponsibly. (As a note, a quack doctor who sent PZ a cease and desist letter tried tolot later sue me for libel. Ken from Popehat helped me put the quack in his place.)	/r/MensRights	13/08/13 02:57 PM
2	PZ Myers retracts rape allegation post (and this post). Tries to have one more final dig at Michael Shermer's character. PZ was clearly being irresponsible, but I'm not convinced Shermer has a case. The original post was intentionally written in a reporter like style (so and so told me this, but I have not or can not confirm its veracity). That would seem to me to be protected speech, even if PZ isn't actually a reporter of any sort.	/r/MensRights	13/08/13 10:33 AM
158	The president of the University of Toronto's student union has moved to ban Mens Rights groups from Canadian universities at the upcoming annual meeting for the Canadian Federation of Students. She was the leader of both University of Toronto protests and hid her face with a ski mask. Those who choose to fight speech with strong-arm tactics are usually cowardly, stubborn, and not interested in open discussions.	/r/MensRights	10/08/13 08:58 PM
2	Atheism+, Skepchick, FtB feminists going all out in attempt to destroy the skeptic movement: Ben Radford and physicist Lawrence Krauss accused of sex assault, Bill Nye accused of harassment, DJ Grothe accused of misogyny, Michael Shermer ACCUSED OF RAPE by PZ Myers. This is beyond fucking insane. Actually, he hedged his post well. He only stated facts ("so and so told me something, but I don't know if it's true) or opinion. He's a d-bag, but he's a d-bag with protected speech.	/r/MensRights	10/08/13 08:48 PM