Paul Elam should take down register-her.com

memymineown · 2013-04-12T14:32:03+00:00

It is becoming more and more clear that that website is a truly terrible idea. Even if you agree with the goals and methods of the website is should be obvious...

[–]jolly_mcfats17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You seem to be arguing two things: that register-her is morally suspect, and that if you disagree, it's still bad strategy. I'll deal with these propositions in reverse order:

"Even if register-her is morally sound, it's bad strategy" I strongly disagree. If register-her is NOT morally suspect, then the shock value it generates is a stark illustration of a dangerous social double standard that is misandrist in nature. How can we address women being offered special protections denied men if we, ourselves, extend those protections? In this case, register-her becomes a catalyst for a much needed discussion. While it's true that some battles are easier to fight, I would say that this one is the soul and center of egalitarianism.

Is register-her morally suspect?

Is this fraud or slander? Every entry in register-her is sourced. I don't believe you can argue that unsupported allegations are committed there. The "bigot" label IS an editorial opinion, but again, sources are provided that would empower the reader to disagree.

Is this vigilante behavior? I don't think so- I think it is closer to journalism. If the information is neither fraud nor slander, then it is accurate information. To be a vigilante you have to undertake law enforcement without legal authority to do so. I don't think publishing a record of deplorable behavior is law enforcement. It definitely DOES exert a social pressure, and that is the point of it, but that's more "social justice" than vigilante behavior.

Is "social justice" acceptable? This is where I become most uncomfortable. Because I think that social justice is usually mob rule, and many users of this sub also endorse /r/sjsucks. However, the social justice involved with register-her is different than a lot of the social justice I hate. If it's not fraud then it isn't like efforts to pressure colleges into punishing people accused of rape without due process. It may be similar to the actions aimed at violentacrez, although the scope is different. This seems to me to be the best argument against register-her, and I'd be interested in hearing other views regarding this. However, I should point out that most critics of register-her are firm advocates of social justice strategy, and that a decision to forego strategies of social justice is a decision to neglect an effective tactic that will be used on the MRM by opponents who are already considerably advantaged.

is this a disproportionate response? Hm, we'd really have to deal with that on an offense by offense basis, but for the sake of brevity, we'll stick to the bigot label that I think was your concern in the post. Honestly, I'm having trouble grappling with this one- because it seems to me the nature of the INTERNET that anything published once sticks around forever. Every kid on youtube that became a meme will have to deal with that for their life. Men accused of rape and then found not guilty have to deal with the google searches for their name renewing the accusation anytime someone searches. For now, I'm going to just say "no more than anything else on the internet" and listen to arguments against that.

This leaves me thinking that register-her operates in the realm of the morally permissable, and that- as such- it is strategically sound. I'd love to hear other subscribers to /r/sjsucks weigh in on the social justice element of this.

[–][deleted]-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think that we can address dangerous social double standards without creating things like register-her.com.

Could you please articulate what it is about "things like register-her.com" that you find so objectionable?

What do you think moderates seeing the site will think

About the same thing they think when we criticize feminism. They will react like people do when any sacred cow is disturbed. Hopefully at that point, someone with some red pill background will initiate a discussion of agency and accountability, and will be prepared to do so because of discussions like this, where we hash it out.

Their initial response will be to ignore that someone like this participated in actions to block attendees from a lecture, publicly and unfairly harassed decent people seeking understanding- all of that uncomfortable video. They'll forgive that, because this poor person now has to deal with those actions being part of the public record. And she shouldn't have to, because she is "just a girl". Hopefully someone will be there to say "what if she was an ugly man with a shaved head trying to block people from listening to amanda marcotte? Would you be speaking against THAT being noted on a website somewhere? Does she need you to be her white knight? Does she deserve you as her white knight?"

[–]memymineown4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That it is a extra judicial list of pretty much random women that does no good and actually hurts the movement.

I tried to address this in my previous comment regarding vigilantiism.

And the majority of that few will be very turned off by this.

And will they be right to be turned off? If so, why? Convince me that this is morally wrong. Hell, I've provided a few breadcrumbs in my own posts that should indicate some good starting points.

Lastly, why on earth are you saying I am trying to white knight for that person?

You know elsewhere on this thread where people accused you of calling Paul Elam a creep? You're making the same mistake. If I didn't attack you in my first post, why would I start now? I apologize if my writing skills weren't up to the task, but the quote you are referring to took place in a hypothetical conversation in which a MRA defended register-her to a theoretical critic. I AM saying that as far as I can tell, most critics of register-her reserve their criticism specifically to defend the women put on register-her, and I suspect that there is a sexist component to this defense. Intervening to save a damsel is usually referred to as white knighting- by feminists and MRAs alike.

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tusse1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What is wrong with you? Just because we disagree on an issue we agree on the larger issue(I hope). And it is incredibly stupid to insult people on your side.

I am not swallowing feminist's false accusations. I am looking at the current situation and concluding that this is a larger negative than positive for the Men's Rights Movement.

Because there are double standards. And you know what? You can't get them to go away just because you want them to. You need to work on getting rid of them and once that is done maybe this would be a not terrible idea.

The Men's Rights Movement should be as squeaky clean as possible because everything we do is going to be scrutinized incredibly closely. Not having that is a luxury the feminists have which we do not and the sooner people understand the quicker the movement will grow.

But I still can't believe you decided to call me an idiot. I really thought that discussion here would be better than that especially since we are on the same freakin' side.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

if the situation was reversed it would be an improvement

Not really, JohnTheOther didn't appreciate being doxxed.

Some months back, I made a post in which I referred to the mysterious JohnTheOther by his real name. I didn’t think this was a big deal, since John — whom regular readers know as the number two man at Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men – had previously used his real name, and linked it to his online pseudonym, in various writings of his and on YouTube. But he asked me to remove his name from Man Boobz because, he said, he was being harassed. So, out of courtesy to him, I did. Manboobz briefly had his real name

I still think any sort of doxxing or naming is a step in the wrong direction. Not only is it bad PR as /u/memymineosn brought up, there's a non-zero chance for error, and someone is going to post the personal information of an innocent person. There was a near miss a few months back when /u/rodvanmechelen (the guy who posts The Backlash! articles) was posting some personal information and requesting more about a statistician whose name had somehow gotten linked (through no fault of her own) to some archived version of the magazine (or something like that). Her info was up for several hours before a mod removed it for posting personal information. Even Anon got a wrong guy on the hook. If we play the numbers game, it will happen one day to Register-Her. The day that happens will be a very, very bad PR day.

As it stands mra's are subject to false accusations, slander and libel.

Slander and libel can be pursued in court. There is no particular benefit to posting personal information about people before they are tried in a court of law. I see posts here all the time saying that people accused of crimes shouldn't get their faces plastered in the news media, and I see doxxing similarly.

Also, I have not yet seen a site that seeks out the information of people online who consider themselves MRAs the way I do see people seeking out the information of (mostly radical) feminists. For example, I doubt anyone is looking for your personal information right now because you are an active contributor to /r/mensrights.

Lastly, if you look at some of the accusations in the Bigots section of Register-Her, they are no worse than some of the comments I've seen here. By and large, it's an exercise in quote-mining, especially of what the user intended as jokes (read: not something to be carried out), something that is also much criticized here when it happens to Elam, Farrell, or Pizzey. The mistake, it would seem, is that these 'bigots' posted from twitter, and someone took the time to trace their names, whereas on /r/mensrights, I would hope that most people have the ethics not to do so. It should be noted that bigotry is not illegal in the US and the right of these people speak freely and advertise their ignorance is protected under free speech.

I want to make it unacceptable and costly in terms of social status to promote hatred and violence. /u/johntheother

Is this not the same form of social censorship that /r/mensrights criticizes when people classify comments here as 'hate speech'? (in quotes because it's not hate speech under the legal definition.)

Edit to add: I'm deliberately not posting this higher up, so as not to derail the first-level comments. I'm not interested in arguing or debating with you (i.e. what's posted above is only intended as a comment), and if you want to reply the way you usually make your reply to comments that question your logic, you may also choose to argue with vacant space. Good day.

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What about the 'scorched earth' campaign that GWW intended to wage regarding her YouTube videos allegedly being flagged as an attempt to DOX her? She even admitted her proposed war against doxxing was well received and funded by her MRA supporters.

Abuse of Youtube's copyright infringement claim process for doxxing purposes Tuesday, 14 August 2012; I am currently under attack from one or two individuals who are attempting to gain access to my name, address and phone number, through claiming my videos are infringing on their copyright. THIS IS A DISGUSTING ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM, IN ORDER TO DOXX ME. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE THERE WERE ONLY TWO CLAIMANTS. THEY DO NOT WANT TO SHUT DOWN MY ACCOUNT--THEY WANT ME TO COUNTERCLAIM SO I WON'T GET A THIRD STRIKE, SO THEY CAN GET MY PERSONAL INFORMATION AND BEGIN A CAMPAIGN OF REAL LIFE HARASSMENT. I will engage an attorney and file a lawsuit against YT for their irresponsible automated copyright infringement claim process, which exposes individuals like me to the risk of real life harassment.

Here is her second video where she lets 'asshole' doxxers know about the scorched earth campaign she intends to wage against them, and bragging about what a ~~valuable member~~ speshul snowflake she is within the MRM and how she ~~will be funded and supported by~~ dupped all ~~her supporters~~ the white knights.

My response to that flood of support was to ask people in the next video to stop donating based on my situation, at least until I knew whether I was going to pursue an expensive legal action. People should donate to me because they value the content I provide and want me to keep producing it without having to deal with threats to my channel, not because they'd like to see the assholes who abuse YT's copyright violation process punished or because they feel sorry for me.

[–]girlwriteswhat9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) some people commit a felony to obtain my personal info (all of it, not just my name, but phone number, address, etc)

2) I make a public statement that I will not give them my personal info, and will sue them if they continue to engage in criminal behavior to get my personal info.

3) I make a further statement that I'll engage in a "scorched earth policy" regarding my channel--that is, allow my channel to go down before giving them my personal info. Not sure where you're getting the "scorched earth campaign...against them" from. From my threat of legal action? These people were committing a felony in order to intimidate and harass (even if one does not agree they were intending to get my personal info to intimidate/harass me in the future, they were engaging in intimidation and harassment by threatening to bring down my channel). Last I checked, perjury was a crime (filing a fraudulent DMCA claim is perjury), and intimidation and harassment are actionable in civil court.

4) so, according to you, me threatening legal action against parties willing to commit a felony to facilitate a campaign of intimidation and harassment, and refusing to give them my personal info at the potential cost of my channel, is me engaging in a campaign against them?

Gotcha.

[–]vivadisgrazia-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You stated it was a 'scorched earth' campaign that's why I called it that.

Your threatened lawsuit was against YouTube, what crime are you alleging YouTube committed?

You made several accusations, basically stating that this “attack” was designed to “make [you] panic, and rush to save [your] channel” and thus put your dox in the hands of the nefarious attackers so they could "harass and stalk [you] and [your] family". Where did you get this knowledge from?

When the videos were reinstated, you stated there were three possible explanations as to why: 1. They realized their nefarious plot had failed, 2. They succeeded in gaining the dox another way, or 3. They realized that sadly, they did not get behind enough proxies and were thus afraid of possible retribution. Where did you get this knowledge from?

Gotcha

Apparently you didn't 'get me' at all, since my actual position was and still is simply that when you felt someone had attempted to 'dox' you, you didn't like it and considered it harassment and a threat to yourself (and your family) and you received a huge amount of support (especially financial support) from the misters. You very much understood the dangers being doxxed presented and expressly stated that your anonymity was to protect you and your family from "internet crazies who might come after [you] in real life".

I was merely agreeing with memymineown's statement "If the situation was reversed we would be outraged(well, I would at least) that feminists were doing this" and using you as a well known example.

[–]girlwriteswhat8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you even know what a scorched earth policy is? It's where you burn your own land, so the enemy trying to drive you off of it can't benefit from driving you off it. The word "campaign" doesn't appear in connection with the term "scorched earth" in that video.

And no, I suppose I didn't have absolute "knowledge" of what the motives for the attacks were. What's your point? That I wasn't 100% sure before I accused someone who used two pseudonyms and two email accounts (opened on the same date, mind you), to mess with me. I was reasonably sure, and used the situation to send a message to anyone who might do such things in the future.

And apparently you did not get me, either. Because DMCA counterclaims require providing more than just your real name--which is something I'd provided in public prior to the incident, though didn't broadcast all over the place. They require that you provide all the information a claimant would need to serve you with a law suit.

And you don't seem to know much about the law, do you? YouTube need commit no crime for them to be sued, if someone suffers damages due to its policies and that damage was something YouTube arguably should have foreseen. DMCA harassment on YouTube is common. DMCA abuse and harassment can only occur because of YouTube's automated claim system, which makes it extremely easy for harassers to commit crimes. YouTube is well aware of how easy it is for a false claimant to file a felonious claim and obtain the personal information of unsuspecting users. You can bet that, even though what YouTube is doing isn't technically illegal, the first person stalked and seriously harmed or murdered because of fraudulent DMCA claims through YouTube's automated system will almost certainly result in a lawsuit.

[–]vivadisgrazia-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Scorched Earth, adjective : relating to or being a military policy involving deliberate and usually widespread destruction of property and resources (as housing and factories) during retreat so that an invading enemy cannot use them 2 : directed toward victory or supremacy at all costs ; ruthless

I actually do know what it means. It was that knowledge that founded my assumption you were using the term to mean 'victory at all costs' ...you yourself stated the DMCA wasn't an attempt to censor you or have your channel shut down; you vowed in the video not to give in and fight until the end, it strikes me as odd that you would use a term that relates to a act of retreat. Clearly my assumption was incorrect.

However, I'm not exactly certain as to why you felt the need to further discuss the meaning of the term, you asked me why I used the term, I answered that I was using the term because you did, the definition of the term is largely irrelevant seeing as I was merely repeating you. I used the word campaign outside of quotations, I wasn't insinuating you used that word, I chose the word campaign, which means "vigorous concerted effort to accomplish a purpose" because it was a accurate term.

I never stated that I 'got you', I most certainly don't 'get you' I never stated anything about the information required to file a counter claim against a DMCA, So I'm not sure why you felt compelled to go into great depth on that or why you think it somehow relates to me 'not getting you'.

I'm not really interested in playing along in your games of equivocation and ontology of law.

So rather than accuse you of delusions of grandeur and bald faced lies I will just stick with ... My absolute knowledge.

I never claimed your argument regarding your proposed litigation required absolute knowledge, so my position isn't that you don't have absolute knowledge; I inquired about your knowledge because what you've provided so far is at best merely supposition.

This is important because your argued cause of action (which is mandatory for lawful civil litigation in America) against YouTube for breach of duty of care would be largely dependant on the legal veracity and legitimacy of your claims of suffered 'abuse and harassment' caused by the wrongful filing of the DMCA by the third party.

I could go into further detail, explain the laws regarding duty of care, liability, proof of damages ... The how's and why's, but ultimately it's irrelevant, because you absolutely never had a cause of action against YouTube in the first place; owing to the fact that you accepted primary assumption of risk when you agreed to YouTube's terms of service.

Limitation of Liability: IN NO EVENT SHALL YOUTUBE, ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM ANY (I) ERRORS, MISTAKES, OR INACCURACIES OF CONTENT, (II) PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, RESULTING FROM YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF OUR SERVICES, (III) ANY UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR USE OF OUR SECURE SERVERS AND/OR ANY AND ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION AND/OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION STORED THEREIN, (IV) ANY INTERRUPTION OR CESSATION OF TRANSMISSION TO OR FROM OUR SERVICES, (IV) ANY BUGS, VIRUSES, TROJAN HORSES, OR THE LIKE, WHICH MAY BE TRANSMITTED TO OR THROUGH OUR SERVICES BY ANY THIRD PARTY, AND/OR (V) ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ANY CONTENT OR FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF YOUR USE OF ANY CONTENT POSTED, EMAILED, TRANSMITTED, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE VIA THE SERVICES, WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE FOREGOING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW IN THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUTUBE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR CONTENT OR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE, OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY AND THAT THE RISK OF HARM OR DAMAGE FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH YOU. Indemnity; To the extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless YouTube, its parent corporation, officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to attorney's fees) arising from: (i) your use of and access to the Service; (ii) your violation of any term of these Terms of Service; (iii) your violation of any third party right, including without limitation any copyright, property, or privacy right; or (iv) any claim that your Content caused damage to a third party. This defense and indemnification obligation will survive these Terms of Service and your use of the Service.

However, just for the record, and because 'I don't know anything about law. Do I'? Threatening legal action when no legal cause of action exists against another party can absolutely be a cause of action for that party to proceed with litigation against you.

But, of course I don't need to be telling you any of this because the lawyer you actually retained and legitimately received legal counsel from totally told you all this already. It's absolutely not odd that despite seeking and retaining said legal counsel you still purport that somehow you didn't proceed with your totally legally legit lawsuit against YouTube not because you couldn't, but because ostensibly you didn't want to.

I noticed you did a lot of posturing and lecturing, but somehow didn't bother to actually refute the main point of my post. And with that I rest my case.

[–]girlwriteswhat10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But, of course I don't need to be telling you any of this because the lawyer you actually retained and legitimately received legal counsel from totally told you all this already. It's absolutely not odd that despite seeking and retaining said legal counsel you still purport that somehow you didn't proceed with your totally legally legit lawsuit against YouTube not because you couldn't, but because ostensibly you didn't want to.

You're right, my legal counsel said it would be a tough sell--not impossible, but difficult. However, what he did suggest was that I could quite easily subpoena Youtube and Yahoo, find the person/people who filed the false DMCA claim, and either sue them, or press charges.

Regardless, why would I want to go through a costly legal action when all the claims were withdrawn within hours of my first video being uploaded?

Your post had a main point? Perhaps you could be so kind as to remove some of the unnecessary bullshit so that this alleged point can be seen?

[–]vivadisgrazia-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're right, my legal counsel said it would be a tough sell--not impossible, but difficult.

NO CAUSE OF ACTION. Your claim would have been summarily dismissed. End of discussion.

However, what he did suggest was that I could quite easily subpoena Youtube and Yahoo, find the person/people who filed the false DMCA claim, and either sue them, or press charges.

Seriously, on what grounds? Even, if you actually could, why would you issue a subpoena to either Yahoo or YouTube?

Your argument relies on your allegations that the information already provided to you by YouTube was entirely fictitious.

Also, once again what cause of action for civil litigation do you think you have against the person/people who filed the DMCA infringement notice.

What criminal complaint could YOU even file as a victim?

[–]girlwriteswhat6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh for fuck sake, now you're just being obtuse. It's incredibly easy for someone to continue to file false DMCA claims. In fact, some YouTubers deal with this shit almost constantly. Why wouldn't I continue to threaten legal action, knowing that DMCA harassment could be a pattern with the individual(s) involved?

So here's the sequence of events:

1) false claims filed 2) I threaten legal action 3) false claims retracted, making legal action unnecessary and (from that moment groundless, in that instance) 4) I threaten future legal action depending on my legal options and whether false DMCA harassment resumes 5) no further false DMCA claims made

Yes, judging by the outcome (no more DMCA harassment), by threatening current and possible future legal action, I certainly did the wrong thing.

Idiot.

[–]vivadisgrazia-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoseFetish-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The world of difference is that gww was jumping on the doxx bandwagon and was a ploy for sympathy. She is a public figure of the MRA, her name can be easily googled. It's on AVFM, along with a bunch of other contributors full names, like Paul Elam. I've seen news clips on youtube where they feature her and her full name. Seriously, there was one of a MRA meeting that no one attended. If she is a public figure and her name is out there, there can be no doxxing. How can you destroy her life by doxxing her, if her name and other information was made publicly available, because she is a public figure of the MRA? I don't wish on anyone to have their life ruined, and if there was a legitimate threat to her life I hope the police took care of it, but that isn't doxxing.

The girls at the protests are not public figures of feminism, but a figure for you to attack and to vent your frustrations on. For you to incite more hatred on by your fellow MRAs. Scapegoats, essentially. Registerher/AVFM is the one who victimizes innocent people and probably one of the contributing factors why AVFM is flagged as spam on reddit. If your mens right advocacy is bullying young women for being offensive to you, you aren't doing enough.

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

GWW has done nothing wrong

Before her identity was public, there was what looked like there was an attempt to doxx her.

When feminists doxx mra's they try to destroy their lives when they have done nothing wrong.

Contrast that with register her writing factual, news reports on feminists that are acting criminally, just like any news outlet or feminist outlet reports on people acting criminally.

If your mens right advocacy is bullying young women for being offensive to you,

Dont make false accusations, these people are not being bullied. The feminists profiled on register her were admitted criminals and at least one is an abusive bully, all are false accusers that were trying to suppress free speech. They had factual news reports written about them.

They are simply being held to a similar standard men are, this is whats shocking to them. They have always acted under the protection of patriarchy and never experienced equality before. Thats what you find so offensive.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Um, yeah. I actually thought I should be the one to decide when to reveal my real name. My decision to come out with my real name in a broad sense (rather than just in one local TV news interview--which did not connect my name and my username, either) is fairly recent. Well after the doxxing incident.

Regardless, DMCA counterclaims require that you provide your address and phone number, as well as your name. DMCA claims and counterclaims are court documents--lying on them is actually perjury. I'd been advised by several people to just fill the counterclaim in with false info, but I'm not that interested in lying on a court document.

Register-her doesn't provide the women's contact info, does it? As in, their addresses and phone numbers, or anything like that? You know, as in what I would have had to give the people who filed those fraudulent DMCA claims?

ETA: I'm aware that fraudulent DMCA claims are commonly used by individuals to remove videos that are particularly annoying or embarrassing to them. For instance, when Justin Vacula singled out Amy Roth in a video, she filed a false DMCA claim against that specific video. While still criminal, and dickish, this particular motive for DMCA abuse is entirely different from the claims filed against me.

The claims were filed against three videos on my channel--within five minutes of each other, no less, and by two separate named claimants using two email addresses. Nothing in these videos could have been construed as being embarrassing or annoying on a personal level to anyone. There was no third party content, and no unflattering mention of any individual at all. The claims were either a) an attempt to bring down my channel (given that three claims were filed, but they only resulted in two strikes because there were only two claimants), or b) an attempt to panic me into handing them my name, address and telephone number. The claims were retracted within a few hours of me uploading a video wherein I stated that the only way they would get my personal info from me was if and when they were served with a law suit.

[–]NoseFetish-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Funny that you mention agency when it works in your favor. I agree, it should be entirely up to you to release information about yourself. It wouldn't then be a leap in logic to say that the girls involved in the Toronto protests should be allowed to decide when to reveal their names. While it's reasonable for you to say that your local TV news interview didn't connect you with your username, the girls names and likeness shouldn't be connected with the protest. You don't see any of the feminists trying to figure out who the MRAs they were arguing with in the video are.

Your decision to come out with your real name, in a broad sense, happened at least sometime in 2011 and maybe even before, according to google and AVFM, well before the doxxing incident.

You're probably right and you shouldn't lie, when you have no reason to. The way you took it as an attack was so overboard, so mimicking of all the other doxxing and DMCA counterclaims happening at the time, that I don't blame you for taking advantage of it and getting donations. One, you spend a lot of time doing stuff for the MRA and they should compensate you for it. As much as I disagree with it, you're probably the most worthy thing they have right now if we're being real with each other. Two, it was a smart way to make everyone here mad at those feminists trying to hurt you. You're tying emotions to an idea and yourself, you're giving the audience a clear antagonist and protagonist. An enemy to fight back against. Those with sympathy will give you money, those with anger will fight for your cause. It was a great ruse, perfect propaganda.

Register-her doesn't provide contact info, but that's a very small step away from their full names, their state/province and city, and their picture. It's very easy to find people with just a little bit of information. You can't have it both ways, with the doxxing, with protection of information. You are either for it or against it, being for it when it's convenient for you and not for others isn't fair. You making a big deal about the same people who played into others sympathy and anger for being doxxed or DMCA noticed is hypocritical then, if you want sympathy for the same thing. You shouldn't have to get donations to your site with gimmicks like this when you could just say give me money for making you guys videos.

I've always wanted to ask you, why is it your group doesn't advocate more for MRAers to volunteer in homeless shelters? It's always a pet argument for this place, how homelessness affects men, but in all my days interacting with the keyboard warriors from here I've never seen any of you prominent MRAs advocate for people to volunteer. Another big one is suicide, I hear that used often in arguments. Never once have I seen some prominent MRA advocate to volunteer at a crisis hotline. Just seems sad that many of you use them in arguments, and I probably do more volunteering once a month at these places than all advocacy combined in the past month in this subreddit.

We're never going to agree with each other. I was raised a feminist. We're like oil and water. Would make for an interesting movie, but that's about it. But hey, you have 67,000 potential viewers here, and maybe more on youtube and other MRA websites, why not try to promote some more real life advocacy and volunteering? If these issues are so important and dear to everyone here, lets do something about them because arguing on the internet, be it for mens rights or feminism, is nothing compared to what real world advocacy can do. You're supposed to be a social justice movement for men, act like one.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree, it should be entirely up to you to release information about yourself. It wouldn't then be a leap in logic to say that the girls involved in the Toronto protests should be allowed to decide when to reveal their names.

Here we come to where things get murky.

1) I chose to be anonymous in my activities on the internet--as many people do. People are welcome to watch my videos, read my blog posts and comments, or ignore them. There is nothing criminal about my activities online (or offline, for that matter).

2) I used my name in "real life" interactions, such as the Montana seminar, and the resulting TV news interview. I took some steps to keep my real name and my online username separate for the first while, but you might have noticed I didn't flip my nut when David Futrelle posted that news story on his blog, or ask him to take it down.

3) DMCA counterclaims require that you provide the claimant with not just your real name, but your contact information--address, phone number. Providing false information on such a document is a felony--perjury.

The Warren Farrell protesters were engaging in "real life" interactions. In front of cameras, and the police. If there was any political will to properly deal with violent protests like this, their names would have been matters of public record--on arrest and court documents. Regardless, these same people were, if I remember, tweeting and facebooking about their real life illegal activities under their real names. All register-her did was put the names to the real life acts--acts that these same people were publicly bragging about under their real names.

I've always wanted to ask you, why is it your group doesn't advocate more for MRAers to volunteer in homeless shelters? It's always a pet argument for this place, how homelessness affects men, but in all my days interacting with the keyboard warriors from here I've never seen any of you prominent MRAs advocate for people to volunteer. Another big one is suicide, I hear that used often in arguments. Never once have I seen some prominent MRA advocate to volunteer at a crisis hotline.

What makes you think that there aren't MRAs doing those very things? Regardless of the many, many on-the-ground advocates I'm acquainted with, who do all kinds of volunteering and support local organizations, establish support groups, etc, the women's movement had a huge advantage when it comes to these types of things. Women have always been traditionally more active in volunteering for community outreach, support and charitable activities. Ever wonder why that is? Perhaps the same reason women are usually much more able to devote time to the PTA, or organizing fundraising for schools?

Ever wonder why it might be that more MRAs do not, or cannot, devote that kind of time to volunteering? It's a little much to ask a man who works full time or more to pay his own bills, child support and often alimony to give up his weekends--you know, the time he gets with his children--to volunteer at a homeless shelter, don't you think? The MRM is comprised of many, perhaps mostly, such men. You'll forgive them if they don't have the same financial and time options many feminist women do.

[–]NoseFetish-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Murky is right, that's downright confusing. You can't be anonymous and tie your name to your accounts and be a public figure without taking on the responsibility of being a public figure. David Futrelle had nothing to do with me finding that video, just googling your user name. If you wanted to remain anonymous, you are doing a poor job at separating being a public figure and an anonymous person online.

So, why is it then you should be allowed to be a public figure, make videos, attend seminars, be in the news and retain some measure of anonymity, but not the Toronto protesters? I'm glad that you've gone through all this work to justify it to yourself, but it doesn't cut it for me.

Men's rights isn't a police force against women being bad. Leave legal matters to the police. By adding their pictures to the site it makes you look immature. I'm happy as hell that they want to portray themselves that way. The protester calling people scum at the WF protest didn't make any facebook or twitter posts. You are suppressing someones speech and using intimidation tactics to try and scare people from attending these protests. The tactics being used are just as bad, if not worse, than all the feminists many of you complain about use.

Want to know how I know there aren't MRAs doing these things? Because you don't talk about it. Not one bit. I hear lots of talk about someones latest argument with a feminist online, or here is my argument with my friend. I see a lot of women being bad posts. But I never see any of you top names advocate for it. I never see it being typed in the comments, why? How can you volunteer when you're on the computer all the time.

I'm not saying you don't know some passionate people, or that you don't do something. I'm saying none of you big namers here never use your power to influence these ideas. You don't mention it in your videos. It isn't on AVFM. It isn't talked about in the comments at all. At least then you could throw that in peoples faces. LOOK, here! We are a real social justice movement for men, our combined man hours for volunteering is 1000 hours! We do some good!

But you don't. Maybe women are more involved with volunteering and supporting local groups because they fit into the gender role of being nurturing and empathetic, not because they're stay at home moms. I'm also not exactly sure where you got those numbers from, because at many places I volunteer at the gender is roughly evenly split. More men act as heads of NPOs, and at my local distress center there are more men on the phones than women.

I don't need to wonder why more MRAs don't volunteer, I know why. It's because they're on the computers, being MRAs. I work a full time job, pay my own bills and live alone, and still find time to volunteer to many different places. My brother in law works 50 hours a week, has 2 kids that he helps a lot to take care of, owns his house and he finds time to volunteer. You're dealing with a worst case scenario and a poster boy for mens rights. I would wager a guess most of your users are unmarried, don't have children, and if they gave up a little time on reddit, would be fully able to volunteer. What about on weekends where he doesn't see his kid? I have a friend who is a single father who has a healthy relationship with his ex wife, he comes out with me every other weekend. It's really no excuse to not give up a few hours of time, especially when you use the statistics of these people suffering online, without doing anything about it.

I'm all dude, lady. Why I said we'd make a good movie and that's about it. You seem to be mothering them too much, I'm sure they're able to think for themselves. Why not just ask them if they'd be interested in volunteering? It can't hurt. I know you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, wanting people to stay online to further the ideology and all, but be real. There is real life suffering that many of your users could do something about, and you have the platform to influence them to do so, or remain online to complain and get mad.

You will never become a force for good for the rights of men as long as you relegate yourselves to this image and the internet. Arguing ideology on the internet does absolutely nothing but change a few minds. The comparison of value found in an hour of volunteering as opposed to trying to convince someone who might not even care to hear your message, is blatantly clear. Real world problems require real world solutions. Your users have nothing but time, make the best of it.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

David Futrelle had nothing to do with me finding that video, just googling your user name.

Well, duh. Googling my username NOW connects me with my real name. Prior to my attaching my real name to my username (maybe three or four months ago), the only place anyone with a special interest in this debate might reasonably have discovered my real name was on Futrelle's blog, where he made a post about the February 2012 Montana symposium shortly after it occurred.

I don't even recall if he posted my username and that video in the same blog post, but anyone who's seen a video of mine would have connected me (girlwriteswhat) with the person in that news story Futrelle linked. The reason I don't even recall that is that it wasn't really a big deal. I chose to do something in front of someone else's camera and my real name was attached to it by me. See how that works? The protesters chose to do something in front of other people's cameras, and talked about it online under their real names.

What I did not do (and what Futrelle also did not do) was publish my phone number and address. What register-her did not do was publish the protesters' phone numbers or addresses.

What the DMCA claimants were trying to get out of me was my real name, phone number and address (and any other pieces of personal info relevant to filing a law suit). See the difference?

And again, I ask you, what makes you think a lot of these guys don't volunteer? My bf has volunteered on a crisis line and in a co-op for street youth. At least 16 MRAs I personally know (in other words, most of them) in my city volunteer in some capacity or other.

Arguing ideology on the internet does absolutely nothing but change a few minds.

A lot of minds, actually. What you want is for us to engage in "silent" activism. You know, the kind that may help a given individual, but changes no minds, is that it?

Say, for instance, we want domestic violence shelters for men. How do we do it? Do we do ONLY what Earl Silverman in Calgary did? You know, open a shelter, without any public funding, and have to shut it down within three years because without public awareness of both the need and the government's refusal to fund, no public funding and not enough private funding was provided? Silverman's been operating a men's DV hotline for 20 years, and has been denied access to publicly allotted money for DV services since 2006. He's been denied a Human Rights hearing, on several grounds, not least of which was that because there is no government body in charge of allotting money to male DV services, there is no one for him to charge with discrimination. Meanwhile, every single report or piece of legislation up for review must be vetted by the SOW (Status of Women) ministry to ensure it does not damage women's interests--so any report from the minister of health regarding male DV victims cannot reach the desk of the minister of justice unless it is approved by the minister for the SOW. That's quite the racket.

But hey, a few hours a week at a soup kitchen to maintain the status quo is an excellent use of MY time. Because hey, all I'm doing online is "changing a few minds". Right.

[–]chiropter4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I already explained the worlds of difference. The feminists behaviour, attempting to doxx gww to destroy her life and the behaviour at the protests is criminal and victimizes innocent people. Register Her just reported some news on some criminals that were openly being criminals.

And

GWW has done nothing wrong. Before her identity was public, there was what looked like there was an attempt to doxx her. When feminists doxx mra's they try to destroy their lives when they have done nothing wrong. Contrast that with register her writing factual, news reports on feminists that are acting criminally. Given you cant tell the difference here, I'm going to assume you are a sociopath.

Are you saying the protesters who were never arrested or found guilty of, let alone even charged with, any criminal offence are somehow criminals?

Are you suggesting that the Bigotry section of RegisterHer has anything to do with criminality?

Katherine Heigl is on RegisterHer under the bigot section what crime did she commit in her comedy sketch exactly ?

The SPLC called out RegisterHer stating:

Threats and Abuse; One kind of abuse that is undeniable is the vilification of individual women on certain men’s group websites. The best example of that may be Register-Her, a registry of women who “have caused significant harm to innocent individuals either by the direct action of crimes like rape, assault, child molestation and murder, or by the false accusation of crimes against others.” The site was set up by Paul Elam, the blogger behind A Voice for Men, less than two weeks after Ball’s suicide. “If Mary Jane Rottencrotch decides to falsely accuse her husband of domestic violence in order to get the upper hand in a divorce,” Elam boasted on his Internet radio show, “we can publish all her personal information on the website, including her name, address, phone number … even her routes to and from work.” Under a headline reading, “Why are these women not in prison?” the site features photos and information about some 250 alleged malefactors, including notorious women like Lorena Bobbitt and Tonya Harding, many of those listed received prison sentences for various crimes, but large numbers were acquitted in court, while others were never accused of any lawbreaking. A well-known feminist, for example, is listed for “anti-male bigotry,” which is compared to racism. Elam’s site can be frightening to its targets. In one case, he offered a cash reward to the first reader to ferret out a pseudonymous feminist blogger’s real name. In another, Elam singled out a part-time blogger at ChicagoNow who describes herself as a “vegetarian park activist with two baby girls.” The woman’s mistake was to write about her discomfort with male adults helping female toddlers in the bathroom at her daughter’s preschool. The blogger conceded that she was being sexist, but wrote that “I’d rather be wrong than find out if I’m right.” After the woman was listed, she was widely attacked on men’s movement sites. “I don’t always use the word ‘cunt’ to describe a woman,” one poster raged, “but when I do it’s because of reasons like these.” Shocked, the “Mommy blogger” took down her original post and apologized for her “demonization of men.” It wasn’t enough. “You targeted fathers, and just fathers,” Elam rebuked her. “It strikes me that you have never really been held to account for any of your actions in life. It is quite likely that the concept of complete, selfless accountability is just completely foreign to you.” Over at the Reddit Mens Rights forum, another poster fumed: “This entire episode should be a warning to all those male hating feminists out there who believe that they are safe screaming their hate messages on the web. Finally, they are held accountable for their hate messages and finally the rest of the world will find out exactly what type of depraved people they really are.”

Are they all 'sociopaths' as well?

Also, did Paul Elam himself not state he was using RegisterHer as a tool to stifle 'free speech' and anonymity with harassment ?

"I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection... Your email and attempt to undermine my work with Wikipedia has already backfired on you. I am using it, to point to the enemy (that would be you) and serve it up to my many readers who find you as disgusting as I do... That is the deal here, you fucking moron. Your only real hope is to keep your mouth shut and pretend AVfM and register-her.com does not exist for as long as you can. Because, as you can see right now, anything you say or do will be thrown back in your face like holy water on a vampire.We are coming for you, and we are coming for all the liars out there that have been ruining people’s lives with impunity. So write Wikipedia. Write your congressman. Write Jesus Horatio Christ if you want to. It won’t do you any good. I will only benefit from it. You are SO fucked."

Surely, you aren't suggesting that being a feminist is a criminal offence. Are you?

Karen Straughan, who uses the pseudonym GirlWritesWhat, is a supposed public leader within the MRA movement, how does she retrain anonymity when she actively seeks out and engages in mainstream publicity? Are you suggesting that the News doxxed her when she willing did this interview about why the MRA rally was literally attended by no one?

[–]girlwriteswhat6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also, did Paul Elam himself not state he was using RegisterHer as a tool to stifle 'free speech' and anonymity with harassment ?

How is he stifling free speech? He's actually doing the opposite--he's drawing attention to the things these people have (proudly) publicly said, under their real names, and providing them a larger audience. If one were to be technical, he's assisting them in their exercise of free expression. And while I think the SPLC is full of shit (they recently criticized a YouTuber for making fun of the KKK), I don't question their right to say whatever the fuck they want, as long as it's accurate.

Surely, you aren't suggesting that being a feminist is a criminal offence.

Participating in an illegal protest is a criminal offence. Assaulting and intimidating people is a criminal offence. Pulling a fire alarm is a criminal offence.

Being a feminist is just stupid, and last I checked, being stupid was not a criminal offence.

Karen Straughan, who uses the pseudonym GirlWritesWhat, is a supposed public leader within the MRA movement, how does she retrain anonymity when she actively seeks out and engages in mainstream publicity? Are you suggesting that the News doxxed her when she willing did this interview about why the MRA rally was literally attended by no one?

Karen Straughan, Karen Straughan, Karen Straughan, Karen Straughan. My, you ARE very interested in putting my real name out there, aren't you? Several times in this thread alone.

Here, let me say it again, so you don't have to. Karen Straughan. Shall I provide my parents' and kids' names, too? How about my dog? Her name is George, btw. George Straughan.

You seem to be getting some kind of thrill out of repeating the name Karen Straughan. It's almost as if you think I'll be bothered by you revealing my name is Karen Straughan. Let's say it one more time: Karen Straughan.

A day late and a dollar short, since I've been openly using my real name for months now, thanks.

I didn't make a peep when my real name was published in that news story--that would be stupid, since I gave the reporter my real name. I didn't make a peep when David Futrelle embedded the video of that news story on his blog--that would be stupid, since I'd given the reporter my real name.

Please, oh, please, direct me to anywhere where I've protested my real name being used in that news story, or where I objected to that news piece being linked to even on blogs owned by people I oppose, and people who actively seek to discredit and vilify me. Please, oh please, tell me where I have ever protested my opponents' right to say whatever the fuck they want about me, as long as it was information I've made publicly available. Show me, please, anywhere I have ever objected to these things.

On the contrary, what you'll find is me firmly stating TWICE in videos my objection to other people's videos--videos that amounted to personal attacks against me by Cehbeach and CasesAndMaterials--having been flagged down on grounds of bullying or harassment. Funny that--someone defending the right of others to make personal attacks on them.

And you'll find me twice condemning a cowardly attack on my channel which, if I'd complied with YouTube's DMCA procedures, would have put my home address and phone number in some criminal's hands, and if I had not complied could have led to the deletion of my channel. How horrible of me. I had no idea threatening felons with legal consequences was hypocritical.

You might also want to ask yourself WHY the symposium was attended by very few (not no one). Could it possibly be because of bullying and intimidation tactics similar to those employed by the feminists at the UofT? Posters vandalized, defaced and torn down?

It might interest you to know that prior to that symposium, there was no men's issues awareness group on that campus, but one has since formed, which means that future events will have healthier attendance. Why? Because feminists can't rip down email notifications the way they like to rip down posters.

Also, just in case anyone was wondering, Karen Straughan. And once more, Karen Straughan. Are you getting sick of it yet? Because Karen Straughan.

[–]vivadisgrazia0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How is he stifling free speech?

Your only real hope is to keep your mouth shut and pretend AVfM and register-her.com does not exist for as long as you can.

Participating in an illegal protest is a criminal offence

I admit to not being an expert in Canadian law, however, I do know while it's a indictable offence to engage in a riot, it's only a summary conviction to participate in an unlawful assembly. Unlawful assembly in Canada applies to any group of three or more people who provoke fears or have intentions of disturbing the peace “tumultuously.” The term “riot” ignores intent, and only applies to unlawful assemblies that are in full tumult, according to the Criminal Code. source

Given the laws governing unlawful assembly the handful of MRA members who engaged the 'feminist' protesters are equally guilty of the same 'criminal offence'.

My, you ARE very interested in putting my real name out there, aren't you? Several times in this thread alone. You seem to be getting some kind of thrill out of repeating the name Karen Straughan. It's almost as if you think I'll be bothered by you revealing my name is Karen Straughan. Let's say it one more time: Karen Straughan.

I cited your name once. ONCE. O.N.C.E. I cited you exactly as you are cited on the very webpage you are a contributing editor at "Contributing Editor: Karen Straughan; A Voice For Men Radio Contributing Editor Karen Straughan, aka Girl Writes What, has had the most popular YouTube video on feminism for the last year."

So let me ask you what exactly is your tantrum about?

The only person seemingly getting any thrill from the repetition of your name, is you.

A day late and a dollar short, since I've been openly using my real name for months now, thanks.

Do you think this is news to anyone let alone me?

Please, oh, please, direct me to anywhere where I've protested my real name being used in that news story, or where I objected to that news piece being linked to even on blogs owned by people I oppose, and people who actively seek to discredit and vilify me. Please, oh please, tell me where I have ever protested my opponents' right to say whatever the fuck they want about me, as long as it was information I've made publicly available. Show me, please, anywhere I have ever objected to these things.

First of all, to be honest your factitious diatribe of conspiracy theories concerning my singular use of your self-admittedly well known name, which I did in reference to that very news video on this very thread, is arguably very antagonistic. Of course I obviously don't possess your infamous abilities in knowledge™ so I won't presume to somehow definitively know your motivations or intentions.

Having some familiarity with your online 'contributions', I understand your modus operandi is organically composed reactionary prevarication replete with contrariety and furious self-righteous indignation, always used to advance the rights of men and boys everywhere, of course... However, please explain why anything in your tirade is actually relevant to my position.

No one has alleged you protested anything in the video. Indeed,

the point being made is that you are a willingly public member of the MRAs, and you still didn't want to be doxxed.

So your prolonged diatribe while actually supportive of my position, really is wholly unnecessary.

Honestly, I'm truly not interested in whatever YouTube drama you've recently inserted yourself into. As I've previously stated, publicly to you and to others,

I was merely agreeing with memymineown's statement "If the situation was reversed we would be outraged(well, I would at least) that feminists were doing this" and using you as a well known example.

And you'll find me twice condemning a cowardly attack on my channel which,

Are we back to your games of semantic evolution already? What you did was threatened a ~~lawsuit~~ lolsuit, for which you had no cause of action, based merely on supposition and conspiracism.

Which while apparently you wanted to use the situation to send a message to anyone who might do such things in the future. You only succeeded in publicly demonstrating that you suffer from USI and that you have no understanding of law ... Mysteriously, even after you really for reals received legitimate legal counsel ...

if I'd complied with YouTube's DMCA procedures,

Oh indeed, if.... I see those abilities in knowledge ™ for which you are so notorious also include prophecy.

would have put my home address and phone number in some criminal's hands, and if I had not complied could have led to the deletion of my channel. How horrible of me.

Conspiratorial hyperbole. A single copyright claim against your account would absolutely not have led to the deletion of your YouTube channel, being that you are such a prolific YouTube user, I would expect you to better know their policies.

publishing all her personal information on the website, including her name, address, phone number … even her routes to and from work - Paul Elam on the purpose of Register-Her

I had no idea threatening felons with legal consequences was hypocritical.

Felons? Explain.

Once again, your legal threats were against YouTube, whom have not, as you yourself have already publicly agreed, broken any laws.

You might also want to ask yourself WHY the symposium was attended by very few (not no one).

[emphasis mine]

No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendence

"He was very interested in it, but didn't want anyone to know that he was interested in men's rights, men's issues. So, that kind of shows why no one turned out," says President of the MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men Chris Thompson.

Blogger <real name redacted; she who shall not be named because, omgeee a feminist said my very well known real name let me invent hyperbolic conspiracies and throw a tantrum about it>, traveled all the way from < location redacted; because imagine the conspiracy she who shall not be named would invent and organically conniption fit over if a feminist dared to quote a published news article with the actual location listed> to speak at the event and says an empty house has a lot to do with society's views about what is acceptable for men.

Could it possibly be because of bullying and intimidation tactics similar to those employed by the feminists at the UofT? Posters vandalized, defaced and torn down?

It COULD be any myriad of reasons. However, given that you and your cabal have to my knowledge never once not manufactured a frenzied campaign of propaganda at even the slightest hint of provocation or impropriety by anyone in opposition to you yet, you didn't mention any of this when specifically asked by reporter about the reasons for the complete lack of attendance, I seriously doubt the legitimacy of your 'possibility'.

I think the SPLC is full of shit

Oddly, this is a view you didn't express until after the SPLC released a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement, calling out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.

Ironically, it is also a view you share with Jeff Berry former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

in case anyone was wondering, <redacted she who shall not be named because omg tantrums because it's obviously a feminist conspiracy>

Trust me, absolutely no one was wondering.

[–]oneiorosgrip5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you serious? Do you not understand the difference between the overtly criminal acts of perjury, malicious prosecution, public violence and harassment perpetrated by those highlighted on Register Her, and the acts of -gasp- rational debate 'committed' by GWW? Do you really equate talking into a webcam with everything from rape and murder to harassment, and using physical intimation tactics to attempt to stifle others' speech?

I'm also amazed that you seem to think GWW responding to the information she had as it came to her was a bad thing - or do you think she should have ignored the withdrawal of the false DMCA complaints against her and continued to prepare to deal with them as if they were still there, because a change of circumstance makes the response to the original circumstance as it existed at the time of the response false or wrong?

Did it not also occur to you that those making the false complaints withdrew them because they feared getting caught and prosecuted for the criminal act of filing a false DMCA complaint? A legitimate complainant would have had nothing to fear. Had there been a genuine violation of copyright, the complaints would not have been withdrawn, and her words would likely have offended the copyright holder, instead. That the complainant's response was to cut and run says volumes.

GWW was fully justified in her response to the DMCA attack on her channel. AVFM is equally justified in reporting on the criminal actions of violent and predatory women, especially since in many cases, the site is largely alone in doing so.

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Celda4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The basis of their claims was copyright violation of named works they supposedly created but which were hosted elsewhere on the internet. There was no third party content (other than one brief fair use quote from an entirely different work) in any of the three videos, and the three named works turned up no hits on google.

Color me crazy, but when I write a work that is entirely of my own creation, and some person(s) claims I'm violating the copyright of three different named works that do not exist, within five minutes of each other, using two names linked to two email accounts that were created on the same date (yes I confirmed that), that tells me (and anyone with a brain) they were lying on the DMCA claim.

A DMCA claim is a court document. Lying to a court of law is perjury. Perjury is a felony. (Incidentally, this is why I didn't do as suggested by several people, and fill in a counterclaim with false information--because that would also be perjury.)

Have they been found guilty in a court of law? Nope. But if it went to court, I'm reasonably certain it would be a slam dunk. Regardless, I would hardly call it libel or slander for me to say that Fake Name A and Fake Name B are felons--number one, they're almost certainly pseudonyms, and number two, they lied in a court document. They weren't only lying to YouTube (arguably, they weren't lying to YouTube at all), but to a US court.

That is why they're felons. Because they committed a felony. I'm almost certain they didn't realize they were doing that--most people who abuse the DMCA system don't. But they probably do now.

[–]vivadisgrazia0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you not understand the difference between the overtly criminal acts of perjury, malicious prosecution, public violence and harassment perpetrated by those highlighted on Register Her

As a matter of fact, I do...So let me ask you What criminal act, act of public violence or harassment specifically is Katherine Heigl guilty of?

What criminal act, act of public violence or harassment is Jessica Valenti guilty of?

What criminal act, act of public violence or harassment is the blogger at ChicagoNow who expressed discomfort with male adults helping female toddlers in the bathroom at her daughter’s preschool guilty of?

Why are women who were acquitted of crimes featured?

Why are women who a merely labeled as bigots by Paul Elam a large percentage of the 'offenders'?

All your further accusatory questions are completely irrelevant.

since my actual position was and still is simply that when gww felt someone had attempted to 'dox' her, she didn't like it and considered it harassment and a threat to herself (and her family) and she received a huge amount of support (especially financial support) from the misters. She very much understood the dangers being doxxed presented and expressly stated that her anonymity was to protect her and her family from "internet crazies who might come after [her] in real life".

I was merely agreeing with memymineown's statement "If the situation was reversed we would be outraged(well, I would at least) that feminists were doing this" using GWW as a well known example.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Moving the goalposts - now you're bringing up individuals who are listed, but not doxxed. Katherine Heigl's public service announcement makes it rather difficult for you to claim that she was an unknown. Jessica Valenti works publicly under her own name, so referring to discussing her as "doxxing" isn't exactly an honest statement on your part, either. Jenna Myers Karvunidis's name is also public... again, not doxxing.

You'll have to be more specific regarding women acquitted of crimes. However, if you're talking about women who committed crimes for which they were acquitted using Battered Women's syndrome as an excuse for the crime, don't bother. You already know I'm going to be easily able to answer that.

Looking at the site, "offenders" appears to be a heading for behaviors which don't fit under any other heading. I should think that would be obvious to someone as apparently familiar with the content as you.

My questions aren't irrelevant - you simply are unable to answer them. That's okay - I'm aware that feminists aren't accustomed to being held to the same standard of honesty and effort as everybody else.

It is at this point, I will mention, the dangers of being doxxed differ depending on which group you consider to be your opponents. Out of all of the names listed on Register Her, not one has ever had an incident in which an MRA has retaliated. These women's names and faces are known (most of them whether AVFM mentions them or not,) yet no one has ever attacked any of them.

On the other hand, when an individual is doxxed at the behest of or for the benefit of feminist advocates, there are personal repercussions. We've seen that in the past, with former mods to this sub. We've seen it with neutral parties, who were doxxed simply because feminist groups didn't like their behavior. The result has ranged from threats to one's livelihood (job loss) to vigilante violence. Regardless of your personal views, MRAs are aware of a history of such behavior from individuals and groups who oppose the movement. While the length of time during which Register Her has existed without a single incident of harassment of the subjects of any of the compilation stories, we've seen members of our movement stalked, harassed, beaten, and their employers harassed into firing them. That makes it pretty obvious what happens when an MRA gets doxxed as opposed to when a feminist's identity is known.

You haven't demonstrated that GWW's situation is a reverse of Register Her. What you've proved is that you have a personal objection to Register Her, and you have a personal objection to GWW receiving money. Your personal objections don't define either the site or the vlogger. They simply demonstrate your attitude toward the two.

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vivadisgrazia-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not aware of any 'standards of evidence' being employed on RegisterHer. What are these standards?

I've never used and don't know much about Hollaback, but what I found was;

iHollaback allows victims the chance to upload words and pictures, and to literally indicate on a map, where they experienced harassment in public spaces. Victims can also discuss specific instances on online forums and share experiences. iHollaback then presents collected and mapped data in areas experiencing high incidences to elected officials and policymakers to affect change.

This seems very different from the

publishing all her personal information on the website, including her name, address, phone number … even her routes to and from work policies at registerher.

Also, as stated by Paul Elam the registerher website (which he controls) listed one of the feminist protesters even though all she was 'guilty of' was being a feminist and protesting in opposition to MRA views at UofT, is this representative of the 'standards' you mentioned?

the editorial position of AVFM, which is simply that the woman in question is hateful, abusive and a violent ideologue... For that reason, we bring her to public attention here at AVfM.Additionally, over the next two days, she will be listed on register-her.com as a known bigot, and her image and name will find a place on our display of featured offenders. She is also the focus of ongoing inquiry, whose identity will be discovered and put on public display. Her conduct will follow her wherever she goes for the foreseeable future. AVfM’s mandate includes identifying and exposing agents of hate, violence and bigotry, and all who threaten the peaceful and legally protected exchange of ideas. We are beginning with the activist bullying and piling hatred and lies on a student for attempting to hear Dr. Farrell’s talk. We have her image and know her general location. We will identify her and profile her activity and name for public view. You are not the arbiters of who deserves human rights, or who does not. We will no longer tolerate the activities of organizations and individuals who undermine these basic truths.

It seems as if Hollaback is working with government officials to end street harassment while RegisterHer is FTSUing any person or organization that publicly disagrees with them.

[–]truthjusticeca3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tusse0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why do you rephrase this as an issue of "polite activism"

I was searching for a term that I thought contrasted against aggressive activism, and took into account the golden rule. The reason I am having this conversation with you is so that I can ascertain what you are advocating for (and this latest post clarifies a lot of that).

And we should note that <X> action isn't what is being decided, it is naming and shaming. Each group will insert their own <X>, and it is the naming and shaming that should be determined.

This relates to what I was trying to examine in my other post when I was considering "social justice".

I think there is room for deciding what <x> deserves naming and shaming. It's not useless nuance to define what lines can't be crossed. I'd really welcome a statement from AVFM setting the ground rules for what will and will not be tolerated before being put on register-her.com, and even argue that such a thing should be made.

I would hope that- if a group calling itself MRAs tried to shut down an Amanda Marcotte presentation by blocking the doors and insulting the attendees, that we WOULDN'T be too critical of opponents doing identifying them and . I recognize that this may be a dream, because the internet will always produce disappointment, but the MRM I personally dream about would have that kind of maturity.

[–]ignatiusloyola1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But it isn't about aggressiveness vs politeness. You may characterize it as aggressive activism, but it doesn't define aggressive activism, and therefore it can't be used interchangeably.

There is a lot of shit going on on both sides, and everyone justifies their actions to themselves, to their supporters and to the public in attempts to make those actions legitimate. But we should be the bigger people - we need to look beyond petty justifications and see whether we want to incorporate acceptance of such behaviour in our message.

Throughout all of this, I am not specifically arguing against the Register-Her site. Instead, I am arguing for a position that we should take in order to determine whether we want to support Register-Her.

I am saying that IF we support the concept of Register-Her, then we would be hypocritical to oppose things like "deadbeat dad registries" and "sex offender registries", etc. All of these kinds of public registries CAN be used for good purposed, but can also be misused/cause unintended grief.

[–]jolly_mcfats1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is a lot of shit going on on both sides, and everyone justifies their actions to themselves, to their supporters and to the public in attempts to make those actions legitimate.

I think the essence of our disagreement. I agree that rationalization is something we have to look out for. But I don't think that it is impossible to have internally consistent standards that define what lines can and cannot be crossed- I think you can do that without hypocrisy.

The benefits of accepting this behavior within such constraints might be the ability to actually have an audience reach the speaker. To actually having an environment in which both the protestors and protestees are allowed to speak. A discussion of whether a person should be accountable for harassment.

Since AVFM put those protestors on register.her, the lectures have been a LOT more civil. The outrage of people defending "those poor helpless girls" has started a lot of discussion about whether they were delicate princesses, or hateful bigots with complete agency.

Register-her.com is a registry of x. deadbeatdads.com is a registry of y. sexoffenders.com is a registry of z. They are all registries, but registries of different things. Is it hypocritical to think that the things they catalog is an important distinction? Is it possible that saying "well a registry of y is bad, therefore a registry of x and z is also bad" might be so reductionist as to lose utility?

[–]ClaudeKenni8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Legolas-the-elf4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seego791 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seego791 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seego791 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmnzz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't like commenting on other conversations. And I don't comment on reddit in general that much any more.

But.

Anyway, can you really say that register-her.com is accomplishing anything besides giving the Men's Rights Movement a bad name?

Register-her is a statement.

The bigotry part of the registry is what gets the most flack and when people who are turned off by it ask why it is necessary you can ask them where else feminist bigotry and anti-male bigotry is put on display.

Not on the SPLC, the supposed "watchdog" for "hate groups"

Definitely not on any feminist websites for obvious reasons.

There's a war on women if you didn't know, and of course you do know because the media will blast anything anyone anywhere might think is anti-woman over every airwave and in doing so, feminists get there "this is why we're still needed" booster shot for the public.

You aren't going to find anti-male bigotry and those who practice it put on display anywhere else except for a once in a blue moon news article about something that can't be swept under the rug, like the protests.

AVfM exposes feminist bigotry. People don't have to like us in order to be given a dose of reality. And they don't have to like us to appreciate that dose of reality either.

When they hear about register-her and decide to check out the supposed "bullies" who are "harassing" the so called "innocent" practitioners of anti-male bigotry and actually see for themselves what's really going on, AVfM and the men's rights movement in general gets more members. Or at least gets a chance to educate people on the actual state of gender politics.

That is what register-her is helping to accomplish.

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmnzz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmnzz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmnzz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually a lot of my non MRA friends have already seen the site and don't take any major issues with it. No one has said it should be shut down because a lot of them know that false rape accusations aren't taken seriously in any society and there is definitely no registry for false rape accusers.

False rape can destroy lives and even worse, cost people their lives. There is a registry for sex offenders but no registry for false accusers; because the primary false accusers in all societies are women.

How about you go and ask all of the non MRA friends you have that have apparently been so appalled by the site where else they can find a registry that lists people who are willing to destroy and end lives with lies.

I think men would want to know if the woman they are with is a false accuser. His life may be at stake.

But no. Let's take it down because it's "bad PR."

It's arguably one of the best pieces of PR AVfM has.

Again, your point has no legs to stand on.

[–]truthjusticeca1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you don't care what the arbiters of gender think and you are trying to massively change the way gender is thought of in society then you have your priorities in the wrong order.

Yes yes, we know you want us to appease Feminists. You say it every damn week.

And this week, just like the last, and the one before that, you make baseless assertions, proclaim your approach 'better' (without a SHRED of anything resembling evidence), and top off your brilliant argument with a 'what will the neighbors think?'.

If you asshats had ANYTHING to offer this movement, you would have done it. But all you do...EVER it seems, is bitch and complain that MRAs aren't 'doing it right'.

Your ego is fucking massive, apparently.

RegisterHer is a vital ARCHIVE of already-published news stories, and examples of Feminist bigotry, originally started to provide the examples of Feminist hate that Feminists used to demand.

And of course, I am sure that if you ever succeed in taking down RegisterHer, you will go right back to your 'prove it' bullshit.

You are as opaque as a window.

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know hwo you are, and I know you continually call for a 'rational' tone. That approach is wrong.

Rule #1 of Activism....

Be Interesting.

People are not interested in rational argument. It's like watching the nature channel, or Golf...it puts you to sleep.

The key is to skirt the edge of 'Holy Fuck I can't Believe He Said That On TV!', while still having a defensible position. Marc Rudov does an OK job of this, although his defenses of his position let him down more often than not.

But, you are applying this to every single comment made, on Reddit. You DO realize this amounts to policing every word every MRA says to another, right? Or has it not occurred to you yet that almost every word uttered between MRAs, and between MRAs and the outside spheres, is archived on a Google server somewhere right?

What you are asking for, is a level of Totalitarian Speech Policing that is unattainable, because it amounts to total control of every word.

Think, for God's sake.

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is obvious I'm not a troll or a feminist.

No, it's obvious you ARE a troll, actually. You are a one trick pony, always making the same 'arguments' and never, not once, showing ANY evidence your claims are anything but bullshit.

And you do this every time someone disagrees with you:

If you are a real MRA then you should be ashamed.

Oh really? What exactly should I be ashamed about? Because I disagree with you? Because I not only know what works, that the 'antagonistic' approach is highly effective...I fucking PUSHED for the strategy to be adopted back in the '90's.

Ashamed? Fuck you.

Just because we disagree on something gives you no reason to call me a troll or a feminist.

If it looks like dogshit, smells like dogshit, and tastes like dogshit...well, it must be dogshit.

I have been having many discussions with people who agree with you and have gotten this quite a bit and it is really disgusting.

Tough shit, you pussy.

You should stop it.

Yeah, I'll get right on it, poindexter.

[–]4man2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Register-Her.com is a powerful method of confronting the feminist dialogue that man=bad, woman=good by presenting some women=bad. That breaks the virtuous victimhood status some feminists claim. Breaking this current paradigm is key to getting men recognised as humans of value and not as disposable, perpetrators-in-waiting.

PR should only concern those we can reasonably expect to affect with our arguments, die-hard feminists are not going to be counted in that number. Naturally the die-hards are going to try to describe the site as something it isn't to divert attention away from the site's actual content.

There was a site called Register-him.com which was started some time ago to try to counter register-her I think it had Paul Elam on it and one other MRA, pretty shoddy setup as I recall. I note it now redirects to register-her too with an AVfM tag...well played.

edit: clarity

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree with OP. Register-her is a bad idea, executed with poor form, and only capable of bringing negative repercussions. There's no need for it. It's Sith methodology and we should be better than that.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have some sort of wiki that collates prominant and publishing feminists.

We expect the "other side" in this battle to be willing to play a more honorable game. We expect them to concede a lot. We expect them to co-operate at all. We expect them to give up things. We expect them to be self reflective enough to recognize when their tactics are not beneficial. We should be willing to do the same. I think that register her is a bad idea. It makes us look bad. It brings us no benefit that we can't get without it and it brings us no benefit that outweighs it's cost.

[–]literallyschmiteraly1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective823 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghebert0010 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dolandoes0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook-13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]memymineown6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Paul Elam should take down register-her.com

Comments

I was merely agreeing with memymineown's statement "If the situation was reversed we would be outraged(well, I would at least) that feminists were doing this" and using you as a well known example.

hoc ergo propter hoc ?

Your only real hope is to keep your mouth shut and pretend AVfM and register-her.com does not exist for as long as you can.

Given the laws governing unlawful assembly the handful of MRA members who engaged the 'feminist' protesters are equally guilty of the same 'criminal offence'.

the point being made is that you are a willingly public member of the MRAs, and you still didn't want to be doxxed.

I was merely agreeing with memymineown's statement "If the situation was reversed we would be outraged(well, I would at least) that feminists were doing this" and using you as a well known example.

Felons? Explain.

I'm not aware of any 'standards of evidence' being employed on RegisterHer. What are these standards?

Title	Paul Elam should take down register-her.com
Author	memymineown
Upvotes	10
Comments	177
Date	April 12, 2013 2:32 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1c7h5r/paul-elam-should-take-down-register-hercom/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/paul-elam-should-take-down-register-hercom.1610385 https://theredarchive.com/post/1610385