Alternet suggests r/MensRights is to blame for rapes going unreported, states that censoring "hate" speech is a good thing.

Ballsdeepinreality · 2013-07-18T05:28:29+00:00

Of course, "hate speech" is only the stuff they disagree with. Misandry is okay. Facebook groups about "kill Zimmerman" and crap are also okay.

Everything_Is_Rape · 2013-07-18T03:47:35+00:00

More like the rapes that are going unreported are because the men of r/mensrights don't rape, therefore there are no rapes to report. So you rape obsessed assholes over at Alternet are barking up the wrong rape tree.

DarthOvious · 2013-07-18T06:23:10+00:00

People who argue against such rules generally portray their opponents as standing on a slippery precipice, tugging at the question “what next?” We can answer that question: Canada, England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all ban hate speech. Yet, none of these countries have slipped into totalitarianism.

I'm from the UK and this guy is wrong. The UK is pretty much a police state now.

ThePigman · 2013-07-18T02:58:56+00:00

"Consider the number of rapes that go unreported. Could this trend possibly be impacted by Reddit threads like /r/rapingwomen or /r/mensrights?"

giegerwasright · 2013-07-18T04:41:51+00:00

Anything on Alternet, Jezebell, Buzzfeed, Newser, Huffington Post, Upworthy, Raw Story, Daily Dot, etc., etc., etc. is completely safe to totally ignore. It's all shit garbage "news" written by 24 year old hacks with degrees in bullshit like semiotics and queer theory. It's not real.

N64Overclocked · 2013-07-18T08:20:05+00:00

Free speech isn’t an absolute right

I beg to differ

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Apellosine · 2013-07-18T07:11:29+00:00

"No country, however, has mandated that anything be excised from the public square merely because it provokes offense"

This is precisely what many countries have done, most recently Russia has banned people actively talking about gay rights or even that gays exist by citizens or visitors. There have been attempts by many countries to introduce anti-blasphemy laws, hell they already exist in several Islamic nations.

KingOfEggsAndBacon · 2013-07-18T05:43:08+00:00

And... who defines what constitutes as hate speech?

Revoran · 2013-07-18T08:58:08+00:00

What Sean McElwee is really saying:

"I support freedom of speech ... for the people I agree with".

ThePigman · 2013-07-18T05:50:25+00:00

Many encouragingly sensible comments from Alternet users in response to this writer's bit of fascist blither. Good to see.

ZimbaZumba · 2013-07-18T11:22:12+00:00

If 'Hate Speech' is to be censored, that blog should be the first on the block.

auto_poena · 2013-07-18T07:19:47+00:00

What a fractured, fallacious, self-linking load of bullshit.

Vandredd · 2013-07-18T11:53:02+00:00

Alternet and Slate are in a contest to see who can be the bigger feminist echo chamber, stop giving them page views.

hermes369 · 2013-07-18T06:17:17+00:00

What utter bullshit.

2013-07-18T13:21:59+00:00

alternet has a huge blind-spot if they think that they couldn't be classed as "hate-speech" with very little effort.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2013-07-18T15:09:15+00:00

Alternet is an intellectual blackhole.

Everything_Is_Rape · 2013-07-18T15:52:29+00:00

MensRights IS rape

TracyMorganFreeman · 2013-07-18T17:36:02+00:00

If we consider it an action, then saying that we should combat hate speech with more positive speech is an absurd proposition; the speech has already done the harm, and no amount of support will defray the victim’s impression that they are not truly secure in this society

For one: if

For two: when did someone's impressions of society actually determine the the state of the society?

More no realz only feelz nonsense.

If we consider it an action, then saying that we should combat hate speech with more positive speech is an absurd proposition; the speech has already done the harm, and no amount of support will defray the victim’s impression that they are not truly secure in this society

What an incredibly oversimplified assessment of that situation.

Coldbeam · 2013-07-18T11:50:40+00:00

Could you put up screenshots for those that don't wish to give the site views?

J0n3 · 2013-07-18T11:53:43+00:00

Took a look on the other articles. And I think we can all agree that, this website is utter crap.

2013-07-18T21:22:25+00:00

Two big problems here: 1) the idiot who wrote this article has no idea what hate speech is; 2) people here are arguing as if he does.

Hate speech laws do exactly what incitement laws do, with the exception that hate speech law is concerned with incitement that targets a group rather than the traditional kind of incitement that targets individuals. The criteria for these sorts of laws are not particularly controversial. Something along the lines of: a crime has been incited, it targets members of the group, it is reasonable to conclude that the author should be aware that people would actually carry out the incited crime (in other words, comedians beeking off don't count).

The problem is that people--like the author of the attached article--have no idea at all what they are talking about. He has some kind of fleeting idea of the word hate and a distant notion of some kind of law and imagines this sort of vague nonsense amounts to something. The people who are the architects of hate law, read articles like this and weep of the profound stupidity that confronts them.

But we don't need to be that stupid. Hate laws do not necessarily (or even usually) conflict with freedom of speech. No more so that incitement laws, or libel, or conspiracy, or any of the other legal restrictions on speech (technically, hate laws don't restrict/censor speech at all; they punish those who speak criminally). Arguing against this mis-definition of hate law grants that the author knows what he's talking about in the first place; which he doesn't.

luxury_banana · 2013-07-18T22:31:08+00:00

Feminists like this have been saying that like 60-90%+ of rapes have been going unreported for decades now without being able to qualify that statement at all, despite the environment for reporting them being more welcoming than ever and a cultural bias that believes a man did it on the mere accusation of it and actual numbers of provable rapes going down down and down. In the US for example, rape has fallen over 80% since the 1970s as shown by prominent psychologist Steven Pinker.

I somehow doubt a 5 year old subreddit on reddit.com can be successfully scapegoated to anyone with a semi-functioning brain.

Darkling5499 · 2013-07-18T23:30:28+00:00

i enjoy the fact that feminazi mongoloids have to grasp at straws so much to try and discredit the MRM. this isn't the first time an article has mentioned /r/mensrights and another random, obviously troll, hate subreddit just to compare them.

edit // the best part is, some people will actually visit the subreddit and realize that alternet is just becoming another jezebel.

ahora · 2013-07-19T04:14:43+00:00

This is bullshit. Free speech must include those things that we would consider "hate speech", as longer as that is not promoted as something good in any way.

The only way to fight hate speech is criticism! Not censorship.

ThePigman · 2013-07-18T04:39:16+00:00

The good news is that John Browning gave us the cure for totalitarianism.

Title	Alternet suggests r/MensRights is to blame for rapes going unreported, states that censoring "hate" speech is a good thing.
Author	ThePigman
Upvotes	207
Comments	165
Date	July 18, 2013 2:58 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ij81b/alternet_suggests_rmensrights_is_to_blame_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/alternet-suggests-rmensrights-is-to-blame-for.1168517 https://theredarchive.com/post/1168517

Comments