Discussions of censorship on /r/MensRights

[–]Fadroh 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]baserace 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]beesouplit -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How can you discuss censorship on a forum that censors the very discussion? LOL! Oh the irony :)

We all know MRAs are cowardly pieces of shit that censor all criticism of their views. Funny how scared little bitches like Pigman are too stupid to grasp the fact that when the mods remove dissenting views, that's called 'censorship'. LOL What a dumbass!

Just like feminists, the MRAtards remove anything that hurts their fee fees and then make up some bullshit rule (just like feminists) to justify the censorship. Ironic that they have the nerve to complain about being censored by feminists while engaging in the exact same behavior.

Only Manh00d Academy has been honest enough to host live UNCENSORED debates with their critics. MA is confident enough in their views that they are willing to let the PUBLIC decide on their merits instead of letting scared little cowards hiding in mommy's basement dictate what we're allowed to see. MRAs don't have the balls or the brains to face the same criticism as MA.

When are the MRAs going to debate MA? The longer they refuse the more we realize MRAs are LYING TO THE PUBLIC.

[–]baserace 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feififo 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

How can you discuss censorship on a forum that censors the very discussion? LOL! Oh the irony :)

We all know MRAs are cowardly pieces of shit that censor all criticism of their views. Funny how scared little bitches like Pigman are too stupid to grasp the fact that when the mods remove dissenting views, that's called 'censorship'. LOL What a dumbass!

Just like feminists, the MRAtards remove anything that hurts their fee fees and then make up some bullshit rule (just like feminists) to justify the censorship. Ironic that they have the nerve to complain about being censored by feminists while engaging in the exact same behavior.

Only Manh00d Academy has been honest enough to host live UNCENSORED debates with their critics. MA is confident enough in their views that they are willing to let the PUBLIC decide on their merits instead of letting scared little cowards hiding in mommy's basement dictate what we're allowed to see. MRAs don't have the balls or the brains to face the same criticism as MA.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dubanglee -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How can you discuss censorship on a forum that censors the very discussion? LOL! Oh the irony :)

We all know MRAs are cowardly pieces of shit that censor all criticism of their views. Funny how scared little bitches like Pigman are too stupid to grasp the fact that when the mods remove dissenting views, that's called 'censorship'. LOL What a dumbass!

Just like feminists, the MRAtards remove anything that hurts their fee fees and then make up some bullshit rule (just like feminists) to justify the censorship. Ironic that they have the nerve to complain about being censored by feminists while engaging in the exact same behavior.

Only Manh00d Academy has been honest enough to host live UNCENSORED debates with their critics. MA is confident enough in their views that they are willing to let the PUBLIC decide on their merits instead of letting scared little cowards hiding in mommy's basement dictate what we're allowed to see. MRAs don't have the balls or the brains to face the same criticism as MA.

When are the MRAs going to debate MA? The longer they refuse the more we realize MRAs are LYING TO THE PUBLIC.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I've seen posts deleted, but not censorship.

By definition, deleting posts is censorship. Definition of censorship:

the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

Not all censorship is wrong necessarily, but all deleting of posts is censorship.

Crap from the kids at The Academy That Shall Not Be Named, spam from jerks, and so on, is what i see being deleted.

Yeah, so they are being censored. You say you haven't seen censorship and then you explain the censorship you have seen.

And if occasionally something worthy gets thrown out with the bathwater, that is to be expected given that no nanny is perfect.

If only spammers and obvious trolls were getting deleted then there would be almost nothing getting wrongfully deleted. Instead, things consistently get wrongfully deleted by they are overreaching into a lot of grey areas and sometimes even areas I consider not to be grey. For instance, they deleted my post about black men facing police brutality because apparently breaking men up into sub-categories is off-topic, just like everything they want gone is off-topic.

Posts being deleted because they are not in line with the consensus, i honestly don't recall this happening.

You wouldn't know most of them because you wouldn't see most of them as they are being deleted.

[–]Mens-Advocate 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for this post. I appreciate it.

The issue at hand is not actually about censorship because everyone else here won't use the term censorship to apply to something like removing a post about chocolate. Censorship isn't just removing things, it is removing things for a specific purpose.

The issue at hand, as you have addressed is what is a legitimate removal, and therefore what is "on topic". That has always been the issue at hand in this debate. The moderators here have determined criteria for what is "on topic" for this subreddit, and we have some users who disagree and want to expand the available topics they can post on.

Specifically, these topics include:

a) From atheist4thecause, the topics of "this feminist did something stupid unrelated to feminism and therefore it is an example of their character and thus relates back to feminism"

b) From Demonspawn, the topics of tradcon politics and economics unrelated to gender because apparently all things relate to gender in his eyes.

But you are trying to play with words here and use the term censorship to apply where it shouldn't because you know it will create a moral panic. You want to influence people to get outraged at something by calling it censorship when it isn't.

The people acting like feminists here include you - feminists use this tactic all the time when they use the term "rape" to apply to things that isn't actually rape. They leverage the emotional influence of the term to try to manipulate the conversation towards their point of view.

So congrats. You are the men's rights version of a feminist.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, what in the hell are you talking about? I'm trying to create a moral panic? Again, you're just making stuff up.

The people acting like feminists here include you

Lol. So instead of actually discussing the issues this is the game you are going to try to play? Do you think that saying I'm acting like a Feminist somehow puts you in the right or something? Are you going to get serious in your responses or just keep posting this kind of crap?

feminists use this tactic all the time when they use the term "rape" to apply to things that isn't actually rape.

I'll give you the definition I was operating off of once again:

the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

This is the first definition I came across when I googled "censorship definition". There's no manipulation going on here, and frankly, quit acting like everybody here is a child. They are smart enough to understand the issue and not just instantly get emotionally overtaken by the word censorship like you are trying to argue. Your argument is quite demeaning to the population here.

So congrats. You are the men's rights version of a feminist.

Wow. You worked hard for that one.

The moderators here have determined criteria for what is "on topic" for this subreddit

No they haven't and I can prove it by showing how you haven't determined a criteria by showing your definition of "off-topic":

Off-Topic: Conversations are constantly changing things, and so it is impossible to say what is "off topic".

You can literally declare anything off-topic. Are you ever going to discuss this issue in good faith rather than these bad faith responses you've been giving me lately?

[–]Neolions 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you subscribe to Hobbs or something?

Who is Hobbs?

I trust the mods

Maybe that's part of the reason you don't see the problem. Try objectively looking at not only their actions, but their reasons. Look at their definitions. Look at how they keep calling things "off-topic" and then when you look at the definition of off-topic they define it as something that can't be defined and is always changing.

I have never seen any discussions taken down unless it was by OP that stated it or was frustrated.

So you haven't seen the Emma Watson/Panama Papers issue taken down? I find that hard to believe. You didn't see when I tried to do research for a CNN interview and it was immediately removed because I mentioned race in it, even though I was talking about men and the connected very easily to the MRM (such as police brutality issues among Blacks)? I have made a number of posts that have been deleted, and I know of others that have as well, and you'll never see most of them because they are deleted.

Worse yet, they wrongfully ban newcomers if those newcomers dissent too much. I know from experience as I was originally permabanned when I came here even though I was using an account that was a year old. I barely got un-permabanned, and then more recently I was almost permabanned again after discussing why one of my posts was deleted as many of them had forgotten who I was. Luckily, one mod remembered me (or did some research to find out) and because of that I wasn't permabanned. Had I been here less time I would've been permabanned. That's the problem. Frankly, I think it's kind of silly to say you haven't seen posts taken down because most of that stuff you won't "see" when it happens. The mods have a habit of calling a lot of people they permabanned trolls, and honestly, I'm worried that some of those people aren't actually trolls. After all, they called me a troll.

[–]beesouplit -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How can you discuss censorship on a forum that censors the very discussion? LOL! Oh the irony :)

We all know MRAs are cowardly pieces of shit that censor all criticism of their views. Funny how scared little bitches like Pigman are too stupid to grasp the fact that when the mods remove dissenting views, that's called 'censorship'. LOL What a dumbass!

Just like feminists, the MRAtards remove anything that hurts their fee fees and then make up some bullshit rule (just like feminists) to justify the censorship. Ironic that they have the nerve to complain about being censored by feminists while engaging in the exact same behavior.

Only Manh00d Academy has been honest enough to host live UNCENSORED debates with their critics. MA is confident enough in their views that they are willing to let the PUBLIC decide on their merits instead of letting scared little cowards hiding in mommy's basement dictate what we're allowed to see. MRAs don't have the balls or the brains to face the same criticism as MA.

When are the MRAs going to debate MA? The longer they refuse the more we realize MRAs are LYING TO THE PUBLIC.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist[M] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]dukbcaaj 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dukbcaaj 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dukbcaaj -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dukbcaaj 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rudelyinterrupts 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]kiy8090 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

So far I've seen very little in the way of actual censorship.

The whole point of censorship is that you DON'T SEE IT. The MRAtards always have trouble grasping that they're TOO DUMB to notice and TOO DISHONEST to even acknowledge the censorship going on under their own noses.

Manho0d Academy has called out the MRAs to debate (LIVE AND UNCENSORED) their bullshit censorship policies but they refuse because they know they will be called out and exposed for lying to the public. All the excuses they make are designed to draw attention away from that fact.

edit: amazing how the desperate little bitch down below references a CENSORED conversation to prove his point! lol! try making your same childish claims during a debate and watch you get embarrassed and humiliated! MRAs are sooooo brave hiding behind mommy's keyboard, but not when it comes to actually answering the critics. poor little baby!

[–]HotDealsInTexas 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neolions 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wagnersh 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that there seems to be, especially of late, a more heavy handed moderation policy form the mods.

Why cannot the community decide what they want to see and upvote and downvote accordingly? If its popular then the community will promote it with votes and comments and traffic and if its not popular then the community will cause it to disappear. Obviously vote rigging and manipulation can be dealt with by moderators but it should rarely require outright removal of topics or comments.

I personally was once censored despite making a relevant and highly popular thread. After hours of discussion and making the front page with a high positive vote count some mod just came along and said 'nope, you're wrong,' and deleted it.

Is this sub owned by the mods, or is it owned by the community? That is the pertinent question.

[–]dukbcaaj 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

the intent of the self post is for you to explain HOW your topic relates to the MRM, because if we flag it as OFF TOPIC, that means the link is NOT CLEAR or APPARENT.

That's a crap policy IMO. It effectively gives you the power to delete anything. You can claim anything is off-topic because it's defined what is and isn't off-topic, off-topic is also always changing, you expect people to follow these rules but we can't possibly know what is included in off-topic at any given moment, and to make matters worse you can simply claim your own ignorance to even more easily fit something into the off-topic category.

Off-topic is off-topic. Something that is off-topic shouldn't suddenly become on-topic just because the connection that was already there is now explicitly stated, and something that is on-topic shouldn't be considered off-topic just because that connection isn't explicitly stated for the ignorant.

Do you understand that we are giving even posts that we call off topic, the chance to be heard so long as their poster is able to put forth a viable case?

I love you create a leading question of "Do you understand..." Lets reframe that. You aren't giving the chance for off-topic discussion to be heard by putting it in a self post, you are wrongfully deleting on-topic posts in the first place.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's a crap policy IMO. It effectively gives you the power to delete anything. You can claim anything is off-topic because it's defined what is and isn't off-topic, off-topic is also always changing, you expect people to follow these rules but we can't possibly know what is included in off-topic at any given moment, and to make matters worse you can simply claim your own ignorance to even more easily fit something into the off-topic category.

i dont think you understand what is meant by "what is off topic is constantly changing". off topic, is anything that is not a RELEVANT CURRENT mens rights issue. Is emma watson hiding her money over seas infringing on mens rights, or performing an injustice to us? No. no it is not- therefore it is not a mens rights issue.

Off-topic is off-topic. Something that is off-topic shouldn't suddenly become on-topic just because the connection that was already there is now explicitly stated, and something that is on-topic shouldn't be considered off-topic just because that connection isn't explicitly stated for the ignorant.

um actually YES it does. if its a close call, and you can present the information in a way that isnt presented in the article, that can totally tip the scale from off topic to on topic.

I love you create a leading question of "Do you understand..." Lets reframe that. You aren't giving the chance for off-topic discussion to be heard by putting it in a self post, you are wrongfully deleting on-topic posts in the first place.

yeah... well.. you know... thats just like uh... opinion man. seriously tho - why is that an issue for you to make a self post? just curious is all. see normally nobody has a problem with this- because it makes logical sense - if five guys couldnt figure out how it was valid, who frequently have dissenting opinions, Then its likely not valid- but on the off chance that it is- we give the users the assurance that they can be heard if they state their case, And of course this is still subject to the ontopic rule- it just magically doesnt become ontopic because someone gets pissed and goes selfposting all over the sub about how the mods are censoring him.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i dont think you understand what is meant by "what is off topic is constantly changing". off topic, is anything that is not a RELEVANT CURRENT mens rights issue. Is emma watson hiding her money over seas infringing on mens rights, or performing an injustice to us? No. no it is not- therefore it is not a mens rights issue.

It's amazing. After all of this you still can't correctly describe my position. How can you still be misrepresenting my position?

um actually YES it does. if its a close call, and you can present the information in a way that isnt presented in the article, that can totally tip the scale from off topic to on topic.

You seem to think topic relationships change because of how much description is given to those relationships, but those relationships are there regardless of whether they are explained or not.

seriously tho - why is that an issue for you to make a self post?

Because I don't want to have to go in and explain every relationship on ever single post I make. Sometimes I just want to take 2 seconds to post a link. And sometimes when I make long posts I don't want to have to make them even longer by having to explain all of these relationships because that can discourage people from reading my posts. And frankly, I shouldn't have to do this. I don't see why it's so important to you that I do it. I also don't want good information being removed by other people, especially new users. I think that scares away new subscribers and it limits how much information I get to see on the Subreddit. And frankly, if I post something and you want more of a connection drawn and delete it, it can be quite discouraging, annoying, and take a lot of effort to remake the post. So there are many reasons.

[–]Neolions 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (109 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (108 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I am such a blight on the community that it has grown continually, year after year, and continues to flourish.

That this sub continues to grow and shine despite your continued poor moderation and censorship is a testament to the Men's Rights community, not you. That you actually proceeded to declare MensRights success entirely to you is a testament to your ego.

The SRS accusation is so ridiculous as to be absurd.

Amazing. You use a contrived SRS-tier talking point effectively word for word and it's "absurd" and "character assassination". Perhaps if you don't want your own words used against you, don't act like a SJW mod? Hmm?

Though I see you refused to actually address at any point in that post that you fallaciously dismissed the previous user expressing their opinion on this subject in the thread that is FOR discussing this subject with that tired old SRS talking point.

Can you come up with a better deflection than you just tried or will you just start banning users who disagree with you?

[–]Mens-Advocate 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

nope, we invite those people to hash it out in mod mail. since there are four complaintants right now (all of which complaining for unusually the same issue), instead of silencing you and just banning you, we collected your complaints and created a meta discussion to give the rest of the user base the opportunitiy to substantiate or debase your claims in a public forum. we litterally have four complaintants- all of which i outline as to who precisely and why within the thread. you are litterally the only four who have voiced any concerns with mod decsions in the last six months. if you count our alt spamming troll it certianly looks like more, however its one person running a bot and a VPN according to the admins.

four out of the 100k subs.

We value the opinions of our user base so much that when such a small group as 0.004% of the user base tells us there is an issue, despite how we feel, we listen to it, and when we cant come to a resolution, we call the rest of the sub in to weigh in, and we dont do this in secret- we do it with a gigantic billboard with neon flashing lights, and place it in a spot where everyone is FORCED to see it the second they click on their MR Shortcut.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

nope,

Exactly.

since there are four complaintants right now (all of which complaining for unusually the same issue)

This should tell you something.

We value the opinions of our user base so much that when such a small group as 0.004%

Then you better stop over-moderating because I've gotten a lot of private messages about people upset with you guys and some looking into what you're doing. Some people didn't realize what was going on and their eyes are being opened. If you continue like this you will kill the popularity of this Subreddit.

despite how we feel, we listen to it,

In my experiences with you guys you all always support each other and never actually change anything. You don't actually listen to the objections, you simply try to tear them down to make the complainant feel like they are wrong. Even the times you are most clearly in the wrong you cling to your initial thoughts very dogmatically.

and we dont do this in secret

Transparency has been my main compliment to you guys, and I've been open about that, but at the same time, it's easy to be transparent when nobody can take any real action against you or your actions.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

This should tell you something.

uh yea it does. usually when a group of people speaks up at the same time and about the same thing, and with a known subterfuge prone redditor, then it tells me that some like minded people are probably colluding.

Then you better stop over-moderating because I've gotten a lot of private messages about people upset with you guys and some looking into what you're doing. Some people didn't realize what was going on and their eyes are being opened. If you continue like this you will kill the popularity of this Subreddit.

Thats adorable that you think we are over moderating. Apart from enforcing our young account tolerance rule, and repeatedly banning our resident alt troll, we have removed a total of ten posts this week ten out of . seven of them were from the four people in question. the other three were all ok with their post removal, and took it to self post..

Here is me putting this in perspective for you - our daily traffic stats for two weeks. (5/12 is obviously not over, which is why its so much lower).

date	New posts and comments	pageviews	New subscriptions
5/12/16	5,832	24,490	40
5/11/16	11,716	48,865	86
5/10/16	8,924	40,398	65
5/9/16	8,811	41,722	58
5/8/16	9,571	42,046	65
5/7/16	8,343	36,709	53
5/6/16	8,804	40,555	49
5/5/16	8,448	41,830	51
5/4/16	9,976	42,134	54
5/3/16	10,536	44,369	73
5/2/16	10,355	45,255	67
5/1/16	11,378	50,951	75

TEN POSTS out of nearly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND, that is 0.001% of our post submissions. You got your shit removed because it was off topic and you are pitching a fit. nothing more.

EDIT: To be completely fair- when i was reading mod log, i only accounted for myself and aly. when i pullin SM and EP, our numbers are SLIGHTLY higher percentage wise. we jump up to a .005

In my experiences with you guys you all always support each other and never actually change anything. You don't actually listen to the objections, you simply try to tear them down to make the complainant feel like they are wrong. Even the times you are most clearly in the wrong you cling to your initial thoughts very dogmatically.

because your objections havent had any substance. you blatantly disregard the rules regarding off topic posts, and then rage out because we tell you to follow the rules and twist your logic any which way, versus following the SIMPLEST OF RULES: If we kill your post (likely upvote farm or clickbait) as off topic, you can SELF POST it starting a discussion as to WHY your link is on the topic of mens rights, and it will be allowed to persist, provided you provide a substantial link to the MRM.

Instead of following this rule, you and demonspawn go on an anti-moderator crusade instead of abiding by not only a fair, but a reasonable rule.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

uh yea it does. usually when a group of people speaks up at the same time and about the same thing, and with a known subterfuge prone redditor, then it tells me that some like minded people are probably colluding.

Seriously? You think I'm colluding with these other people in my complaint? I didn't even know other people had posted about the subject. Nice tinfoil hat you have there.

Thats adorable that you think we are over moderating.

This is what I mean by you don't actually listen, you only "listen". Calling me adorable for raising what I see to be a very serious concern is simply being dismissive. And not only I feel this way but many others. Then again, you think we're all colluding, right?

the other three were all ok with their post removal, and took it to self post..

So you bullied them into a self post. Congratulations. How stupid is it to say we can't post the link directly because that's off-topic, but we can create a self post about the topic...

TEN POSTS out of nearly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND, that is 0.001% of our post submissions. You got your shit removed because it was off topic and you are pitching a fit. nothing more.

I have no evidence of what you did and didn't delete, and frankly, whether you deleted only .001% of the posts or not has no bearing on whether you are overreaching here. I know I've had a few posts deleted out of my last few attempted, granted not both of those fall at the beginning of this month.

because your objections havent had any substance.

Now you are lying...literally lying. I posted a very in-depth account of how Emma Watson/Panama Papers connects to the MRM. I've gone through argument-by-argument and showed how where you guys accuse me of ad hominem attack it's actually your own strawman that is the ad hominem, not my argument. I've given many other reasons. So to say I've given "no substance" is an outright lie. I've also raised concerns about the system how you guys basically have ultimate power and there is no real recourse people who feel they have been wronged can take.

If we kill your post (likely upvote farm or clickbait) as off topic

So now you are arguing that I'm upvote farming? Seriously? Just wow. It's really hard to discuss with mods who literally jump to all kinds of conclusions and just make stuff up as much as you guys do. It's starting to show through. This was never about being off-topic which is the reason I was given; this is about you guys thinking I'm upvote farming with my post (and apparently the 3 others that posted similar to me...you know the ones I'm all apparently colluding together with).

can SELF POST it starting a discussion as to WHY your link is on the topic of mens rights, and it will be allowed to persist, provided you provide a substantial link to the MRM.

No other links have to follow this rule. When someone talks about DV, for instance, they don't have to explain the connection to the MRM. Under your rules, they should have to. I also don't know where in the rules it states that the link to the MRM has to be explicitly stated. This seems to be something you just made up randomly.

What really bothers me even more through these conversations is how you make stuff up and are frankly demeaning to people who complain about your actions. You are saying I'm colluding with others (I'm not), for instance.

And seriously, look at the rules. I've complained that you abuse the "off-topic" rule. That's no surprise because look at your definition of it:

Off-Topic: Conversations are constantly changing things, and so it is impossible to say what is "off topic".

Somehow you consider it off-topic when I post a link about Emma Watson and the Panama Papers but if I post a self post about it then it's not off-topic. That makes no sense. Then again, you don't consider arguments like this to be of substance, right?

And look at this:

Self Posts: Due to the possibility of eliciting sympathy and then changing the text of a self post, we now have a bot set up to keep a record of the initial submission of a self post. Users shouldn't feel the need to have to do this any longer. If you see content copied that really must be removed (for example: child porn links, personal information) then please message the /r/MensRights moderators so we can also remove it from the copy post also.

It's just so demeaning. There's no trust at all. Again, you come into the conversation with such bad faith.

[–]Wagnersh 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And look at this:

Self Posts: Due to the possibility of eliciting sympathy and then changing the text of a self post, we now have a bot set up to keep a record of the initial submission of a self post. Users shouldn't feel the need to have to do this any longer. If you see content copied that really must be removed (for example: child porn links, personal information) then please message the /r/MensRights moderators so we can also remove it from the copy post also.

It's just so demeaning. There's no trust at all. Again, you come into the conversation with such bad faith.

That I am afraid is necessary and I believe was put in place by the community because feminists and AMR came here and made submissions and collected upvotes and then changed the content of their submissions to something offensive and then used this as evidence against male rights.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wagnersh 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wagnersh 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WaitingToBeBanned -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I_did_naaaht 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (49 children) | Copy Link

im sorry what does being conservative have to do with mens rights? are you stating that your viewpoint of "the old way is the best way" is better than the millions of other viewpoints expressed here in this sub reddit? in what way does conservatism act as the MR Benefactor of choice to the MRM so much more than any other viewpoint?

Tradconning is a double edged sword, something we are not eager to throw ourselves on without good reason. Part of the Tradcon sword is that on one side you've got this lovely Pro hyper-masculine mentality, which IMO is perfectly fine, but on the other side of that is the male superiority/female inferiority mentality that leads to people continuing to brand us as a hate group. We have found a happy middle ground by carving away all but the necessities of MR Issues.

What would preaching female inferiority achieve for us as a mens rights group? do you think we would hearken back to the days of women living in the kitchen and being told they are less than men, not able to vote (crazy how some people think that way still isnt /u/demonspawn)? Not a damn chance. we opened up the proverbial pandora's box on that one, and it will never close, There is no more putting Jill back in the box. so instead you would have us fight a fruitless battle to remain obstinately conservative vs simply adapting to the new climate of the world, and working to ensure that the MRM Survives the Nuclear fallout of third wave feminisim?

i think my friend said it best when he found out i was a tradcon when it came to gender dynamics and roles. He told me that: "Your kind is dying off faster than my kind is being born. in twenty years you will have lost this fight, simply because you will be the only one left fighting it thats still alive". Think of it as cutting off your arm to save your body. We arent accepting of these changes, but we arent fighting them either (save for feminisim, because they actively seek to destroy us), because its a fruitless battle that cant be won. the only way we ever go back to the "glory days" is if we experience a massive global scale societal collapse- and that isnt happening any time soon.

TL/DR: Being conservative is fine, we have conservative mods, despite your claims that we do not. Like the good mods we are- we dont allow our personal preferences good or bad to influence our moderation decisions - hence why a persons standing is inconsequential.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The mods shouldn't be moderating out certain political viewpoints. It's important to have a variety of viewpoints within the moderator collective. These different political viewpoints create different paths/perspectives within the MRM. Some will be more correct than others, but that's why we should have debate about it, not have it moderated out.

Also, I find your argument to be strange. For instance, pushing gender roles which tradcons believe in does not mean that women's gender roles are lesser, or that women are inferior. There are biological differences, though, which tradcons are pretty open about those biological differences. For instance, women (in general) have physically inferior strength. There's a reason men dominate sports and the women's national soccer teams literally lose (in dominant fashion) to men's high school teams. The Right is more likely to recognize these differences than the Left, where the Left tends to say that the Right is simply calling women inferior. They aren't if you actually look at their entire worldview, but since there seem to be no conservative mods, the mods don't really seem to understand this perspective all that well. I'm sure /u/Demonspawn would agree with much of what I said, but like I said, I'm not a tradcon (or even on the Right) so maybe I got something wrong.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am not aware of nearly any of his positions to be honest. But so what? Why try to moderate them out when we can have a discussion about them and why they are wrong? Maybe he'll change his mind. Maybe we'll change our mind. Maybe neutral people will agree with those who make the best case for their point. That's the beauty of discussion.

When you start moderating positions out, that is very tyrannical. Eventually the positions accepted starts creeping to less and less extreme views, and that's a big problem because the moderators have such power. If a moderator wrongfully bans topics there is very little that can be done. And so what starts happening is an echo chamber starts forming. Why do you think Feminism has gone down the path it went? Honestly, the more this conversation goes on and I see your mindset the more worried I am for the future of this Subreddit. I frankly don't care about you mods personally one way or the other, but I do care about the Subreddit.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats the thing - We dont moderate them out. the only exception to this is when its clearly TRP material. thats when we step in and say "hey, while nifty, go post this over at TRP as its not a mens rights issue". if you notice, we only killed his post over emma watson. we havent removed a single thing you or he has said outside of that issue. we dont stifle oppinions - we curate fact and topicality- which is what is required of us as moderators.

We dont moderate positions out - we keep the topics focused SPECIFICALLY on mens rights issues. As much as you insist that Emma watsons shady dealings with her money are indicitive of a mens rights issue, IT IS NOT A MENS RIGHTS ISSUE. she isnt guilty of tax evasion, she isnt breaking any laws, in fact shes done nothing wrong by any standard that the 90% MALE panama papers people identified in the database didnt also do; Can you see why we cant use an ad homenim like this do debase her stance? that would be like feminists calling for this to be proof that the patriarchy isnt just a figment of their imaginations. you are trying to effectively conflate her misdoings with her position as a feminist, and it is completely illogicial, and done for no reason other than a begrudgement against her person. its why we delete "stupid women" posts like this. they are not content relevant to the MRM. its why we delete posts about mothers murdering babies, its why we delete all of the shit that flows in here from people who think the MRM is supposed to be this forum for bashing on women, PC, or SJWS. we are here for the sole purpose of mens rights issues. We have an anti feminist tone out of necessity - not out of wrath or avarice.

[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

oh were you not aware that demonspawn is openly against women voting and holding jobs? those were the reasons i put that out there.

This is grounds for censorship? If true, this sounds to me more like grounds for downvoting, if you think it's really not contributing to a conversation. I personally think women in modern societies not voting is ridiculous, but would still not downvote such a discussion, because it is obviously a conversation that needs to take place. Deleting it, so that Gawker will not see it is a childish SJW impulse. IMO, what an ideal moderator in an anonymous forum should be doing is to get people concentrated on actual facts instead of their "feeeelings."

I have not found Demonspawn to be disruptive or abusive, therefore there is absolutely zero reason to censor this kind of thing, IMO. If this kind of thing cannot be discussed on an anonymous internet form, then where?

Stop worrying about what social justice warriors are saying about /r/MensRights. Stop worrying about what a rational discussion of "Jews are taking over the world," "women shouldn't vote," and "women can't do science" will bring. When you censor this shit, all you are telling people is that the people here are children and are not capable of having rational discussions, and that there is no difference between politics and religion.

When you censor this shit, you are also saying that you think that /r/MensRights is a political echo chamber where actual facts must pass a political litmus test. This makes us no different than /r/Feminism.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wagnersh 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm against women voting because men built this civilization so only men should control it. If women want power rather than forcibly taking over male institutions with help from manginas they need to build their own institutions own clubs own civilization. An example of this is how women are trying to destroy the male only study groups in college right now.

As for them holding jobs Im not sure what you mean by that exactly as there are several different positions within that and you could be misrepresenting what demonspawn really says. I wont take your word for it.

Personally I don't believe we should ban them from holding jobs but we should eliminate all forms of selective assistance to women and all forms of quotas. Further employers should be allowed to discriminate against women in their businesses that they built and own and women cannot use the law as a weapon against men to force their way in where they are not wanted where they didn't do any of the work.

If women want recognition power business so on, they should go build their own.

[–]girlwriteswhat 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

im sorry what does being conservative have to do with mens rights? are you stating that your viewpoint of "the old way is the best way" is better than the millions of other viewpoints expressed here in this sub reddit? in what way does conservatism act as the MR Benefactor of choice to the MRM so much more than any other viewpoint?

I'm sure /u/Demonspawn feels conservatism is the better way. Clearly you do not agree.

I'll admit, I consider myself a friend of his, and I'm awfully fond of him, but he doesn't need me to defend him. I say this because I want you to understand that what I am about to say is not about sticking up for him or his ideas.

When did a viewpoint have to be considered the best, by consensus, in order to be heard in this subreddit? Whatever happened to the idea that intellectual and political diversity is the only kind that really matters? Whatever happened to the idea that the popularity, or lack thereof, of an idea or way of thinking has any bearing on its validity? When did the mods of this subreddit decide that ideological purity in terms of any political system was a good thing?

The truth is, you SHOULD have some conservatives on the mod team. 100%, it should not be /u/Demonspawn. In fact, I doubt he wants the job, or would accept it even if you shoved it into his hands and ran away.

Tradconning is a double edged sword, something we are not eager to throw ourselves on without good reason.

Yes it is, as is any other system. Whether you want to look at it or not, it's entirely plausible that tradconning is the best deal men will ever get. If that's true, avoiding thinking about it is not going to make it less true.

but on the other side of that is the male superiority/female inferiority mentality that leads to people continuing to brand us as a hate group.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that there is any way to not be branded as a hate group. What's absolutely hilarious to me about this is that there are anti-feminists who avoid the men's rights label, because they don't want to be branded as hate-mongers. Literally, calling yourself something that is, in the mainstream, synonymous with being "anti-woman" is considered less toxic than calling yourself "pro-men".

How tiny and pathetic and ineffectual a corner are you guys prepared to paint yourselves into, just to not be called names you're going to be called anyway?

And goddamnit, do you not have a tenth of a clue as to maintaining frame? Giving ground never makes you look strong. It makes you look afraid. And looking afraid doesn't make ANYONE feel sorry for you if you're a man. It makes them either look away, or grab their popcorn.

What would preaching female inferiority achieve for us as a mens rights group?

Why is it that I can have extensive conversations with someone like Demonspawn without ever getting the impression that he considers women inferior to men?

"Your kind is dying off faster than my kind is being born. in twenty years you will have lost this fight, simply because you will be the only one left fighting it thats still alive".

In twenty years, we will have ALL lost this fight.

There were no "glory days". There were no days where women lived in the kitchen chained to stoves. There have only ever been days of focussing as much of society's gynocentric impulses on women as it could afford, and treating men as even more disposable than we treat them today.

As far as cutting off your arm to save your body? That might be an argument if the gangrene was localized to your arm.

I am the last person who would criticize anyone for opposing feminism. But I refuse to lie about it. I refuse to say feminism was once a noble movement only interested in equality. I refuse to say that society has ever oppressed women. I refuse to go along with the idea that it's just third wave feminism that's the problem, or second wave feminism, or progressive feminism.

You seem to want that global collapse, because it's exactly what you're asking for by not addressing the problem head on. The problem is not "feminism". It's not an ideology. It's the interaction of human nature and the environment. It's women doing what women do, and men doing what men do, and all of them doing it in an environment that has never existed, ever, at any time, during the entire history of our species. The fall of Byzantium was NOTHING compared to what we're about to face.

And collapse this time is permanent. There is no coming back from it at this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AoDTlbRRkw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duHFPKL337s

And it will happen sooner than you think. I might not live to see it, but I expect my sons and daughter will. And that is NOT what I wanted for them when I brought them into this world.

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]denshi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

When did a viewpoint have to be considered the best, by consensus, in order to be heard in this subreddit?hatever happened to the idea that intellectual and political diversity is the only kind that really matters? Whatever happened to the idea that the popularity, or lack thereof, of an idea or way of thinking has any bearing on its validity? When did the mods of this subreddit decide that ideological purity in terms of any political system was a good thing?

This coment was made to point out the foolishness behind alluding to us being incompetent as moderators due to us lacking a conservative view point. it had nothing to do with saying one viewpoint is better than the other, and existed merely to mock the idea that in order to be a good moderation team that our personal viewpoints should even be a factor. To the fact of the matter - prior to today, nobody knew anybodies personal views or affiliations within the mod ranks. we maintained an objective viewpoint, and remained impersonal in decisions.

I dont mean to offend here, so take this for what it is worth: i think you are coming into this with an incomplete view on the situation at hand. Despite the title, this isnt about censoring, and it never has been. it was to open the forum for anyone who felt they had been censored to come forth and express their dissatisfaction. at the end of this merely four users in particular have voiced concerns that we are censoring them unjustly due to a handful of removed content, Seven posts to be specific - three of emma watsons misdoings, a TRP piece about the incompetencies of women, One anti SJW post, and Two posts about mod censorship (later linked to this thread's main post) all of which were deemed not on topic. Instead of censoring their opinions that we are bad moderators, we endured their callous remarks without reprisal, and bought this out into open discussion so that both the community and the moderators can openly discuss the how and why. we have always remained open and transparent on these kinds of things- even before i started moderating.

On the reason why their content was removed- We explicitly ask that two things happen when posting content.

That the content be relevant to Mens rights.
That if the link is not clear and evident, that the user Post their content as a self post, and explain the issue from their viewpoint.

The first rule keeps the room from being what it was years ago, and flooded with videos of retribution towards women, serving no higher a purpose to the MRM. its why we have a tag in the archives from back when it was a thing called "WBB" - Women behaving badly; or even worse flooded with things not even remotely pertaining to the MRM. This is a sub for organizing, aggregating, and disseminating information pertaining to the inequalities, social injustices, and persecution that men face; it is not a board for people to come and gloat over the misfortunes or wrong doings of women, or whatever their hearts desire. there are better places for that in reddit. on WBB posts that stil occur: the posts that we do allow pertaining to women behaving badly, generally fit one or more criteria:

A male in the same situation was punished in lieu of the woman
Her actions were directed at a male
actively worked to harm men in some form.

These are left to the moderators discretion becuse, as i am sure you know, their link to an MRM issue is tenuous at best.

The truth is, you SHOULD have some conservatives on the mod team. 100%, it should not be /u/Demonspawn [-2]. In fact, I doubt he wants the job, or would accept it even if you shoved it into his hands and ran away.

That one i would be dubious of at best. he seems to have an axe to grind with one mod in particular, and would likely be delighted to plant that axe right in his back if given half the chance. Personally i dont know him from adam, and dont care to given how poorly he approached this. But discussions about another user aside- we havent censored him in the slightest, and dispite personal begrudgements we dont care about his views when it comes to moderation.

The fact of it is- a persons personal viewpoints cant be taken into consideration when moderating a post, and if they are, they need to be called on it. That however is not what happened here today. While emma watson may be the head of #HeForShe, her personal financial actions are not a mens rights issue. if the topic was about the implications of #HeForShe, and not simply an attempt at clickbaiting an article that was two whole sentences long, that said absolutely nothing about a relevant mens rights issue (was literally along the lines of "TAKE THAT EMMA WATSON YOU BITCHY FEMINIST" (forgive me for the Hyperbole, i dont care to go re-source that paragraph but will if you were curious), then it would have been allowed. Had they taken the ALTERNATE route of self posting, and starting discourse on the topic, it would have been allowed.

Yes it is, as is any other system. Whether you want to look at it or not, it's entirely plausible that tradconning is the best deal men will ever get. If that's true, avoiding thinking about it is not going to make it less true.

I'm not saying we dont allow tradcon views. im saying that we wont adopt a tradcon mentality, or any mentality for that matter, when it comes to moderation, because we remain neutral.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

get some conservatives on the moderation team.

im sorry what does being conservative have to do with mens rights? are you stating that your viewpoint of "the old way is the best way" is better than the millions of other viewpoints expressed here in this sub reddit?

This coment was made to point out the foolishness behind alluding to us being incompetent as moderators due to us lacking a conservative view point. it had nothing to do with saying one viewpoint is better than the other

No, it wasn't. If it was, you'd have said as much, rather than portraying conservative men's advocates as wanting a say because "the old way is the best way".

To the fact of the matter - prior to today, nobody knew anybodies personal views or affiliations within the mod ranks. we maintained an objective viewpoint, and remained impersonal in decisions.

Hard to tell, when posts that are deleted aren't seen. Hard to judge what we are not shown, no? I do know that there have been relevant posts in the past that have been deleted as "off topic" that were very much on topic, as far as I was concerned. I seem to recall a post a year or two ago that explored how the war on poverty disenfranchised fathers, particularly black fathers, written by a reputable black economist, that was deleted as "off topic".

I dont mean to offend here, so take this for what it is worth: i think you are coming into this with an incomplete view on the situation at hand.

You'll have to forgive me for having an incomplete view, considering I am just a user of this forum, and not a mod, and therefore "not in the know." Why, it's almost as if I am only seeing what a select group of individuals wants me to see. Isn't that interesting?

Women behaving badly; or even worse flooded with things not even remotely pertaining to the MRM.

Well, we wouldn't know, because we can't see them, can we?

These are left to the moderators discretion becuse, as i am sure you know, their link to an MRM issue is tenuous at best.

This is why the MRM will fail.

That one i would be dubious of at best. he seems to have an axe to grind with one mod in particular, and would likely be delighted to plant that axe right in his back if given half the chance.

A man behaving like a man. Might as well decry the wind for blowing, or water for being wet.

That said, I trust him ten times farther than I could throw you.

That however is not what happened here today. While emma watson may be the head of #HeForShe, her personal financial actions are not a mens rights issue.

And Hillary Clinton's history of malfeasance has nothing to do with her fitness to be president. Gotcha.

if the topic was about the implications of #HeForShe, and not simply an attempt at clickbaiting an article that was two whole sentences long, that said absolutely nothing about a relevant mens rights issue (was literally along the lines of "TAKE THAT EMMA WATSON YOU BITCHY FEMINIST" (forgive me for the Hyperbole, i dont care to go re-source that paragraph but will if you were curious), then it would have been allowed. Had they taken the ALTERNATE route of self posting, and starting discourse on the topic, it would have been allowed.

How kind of you. If discourse had been started, we would have allowed discourse to start. I'm not sure if you realize, but I think Manhood Academy should be able to post here.

Seriously, there are tons of posts in this subreddit that go nowhere because no one is interested, or the interest flares and then wanes within a few hours.

I'm not saying we dont allow tradcon views. im saying that we wont adopt a tradcon mentality, or any mentality for that matter, when it comes to moderation, because we remain neutral.

No you don't. You pick and choose what posts appear. That is, by definition, a non-neutral stance. You literally said that you delete posts that you think will make this subreddit look bad or give people ammunition to call us a hate group. That's not neutral.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

No, it wasn't. If it was, you'd have said as much, rather than portraying conservative men's advocates as wanting a say because "the old way is the best way".

even how you have posted this quote string is painfully obvious that it was my intent. my initial question still stands, why should we? The question was are you so arrogant as to think that your view specifically deserves a place over other views? our mod policy is Impartial for a reason - allowing a mod purely based on the fact of their conservative view completely undermines that.

Hard to tell, when posts that are deleted aren't seen. Hard to judge what we are not shown, no? I do know that there have been relevant posts in the past that have been deleted as "off topic" that were very much on topic, as far as I was concerned. I seem to recall a post a year or two ago that explored how the war on poverty disenfranchised fathers, particularly black fathers, written by a reputable black economist, that was deleted as "off topic".

So the earliest happenstance you can recall is a year or two ago? did anyone ever message the moderators about it- it could have been an automod removal for linking to a banned site? do you remember who removed it? i only ask because i will gladly trudge through the moderation log to find it to validate or condemn it publicly. if nothing else we are transparent in everything we do.

You'll have to forgive me for having an incomplete view, considering I am just a user of this forum, and not a mod, and therefore "not in the know." Why, it's almost as if I am only seeing what a select group of individuals wants me to see. Isn't that interesting?

Oh i was simply pointing out that you failed to read or consider the pertinent comments within this very thread and have cherry picked specific points without considering the rest of what went along with it.

Well, we wouldn't know, because we can't see them, can we?

You do realize that your arugment is on the level of "well we cant see air so it probably doesnt exist" right? i recognize the validity of your concern regardless, and like i previously said i AM currently working on a database of removed posts (not the mod that removed them for obvious harassment reasons). We are still unsure of how to present this data, and on what scale, and whether or not reddit will allow me to tie directly to the data source for the MR sub or if i have to set up a page scrape for the modlog remains to be seen.

This is why the MRM will fail.

because the moderators exercise their own discretion on posts that are questionable? For example- yesterday i removed a post about a mother who left her child in the car for the day. There are no rights of men being damaged here - nothing more than a negligent parent. had she done this and somehow the father was punished, then yes that would be a MRM issue. the argument of "well she didnt get punished" does not make it a valid issue.

A man behaving like a man. Might as well decry the wind for blowing, or water for being wet. That said, I trust him ten times farther than I could throw you.

i was merely pointing out that there is a connection, and therefore a motivation. As to the lack of trust, i dont know why in particular you would find me distrustful. i host all of my removal decisions in my post history, and never in PM. i am about as open and transparent as they come.

And Hillary Clinton's history of malfeasance has nothing to do with her fitness to be president. Gotcha.

Hillary clintions illegal wrongdoings and her fitness as president, are distinctly seperate from emma watsons leadership in the feminist community and the location of a portion of her money in the following ways

Hillary broke federal laws - while her guilt is evident, her penalty is pending, therefore she is unfit for president
Emma watson kept money in an over seas account, and has been charged with nothing (the predominantly male population in the panamapapers havent lead to much of anyone being punished yet). Using this fact to smear her is no better than feminists trying to use this to validate the existence of the patriarchy.

How kind of you. If discourse had been started, we would have allowed discourse to start. I'm not sure if you realize, but I think Manhood Academy should be able to post here.

i dont know where this came from, but ok. manhood academey isnt on our blocked sites list as far as i can tell, however we do have some filters up for you VS the Manhood academey video but thats about it. it could have been something from before my time that i wasnt aware of, so you will have to forgive my ignorance on the topic.

No you don't. You pick and choose what posts appear. That is, by definition, a non-neutral stance. You literally said that you delete posts that you think will make this subreddit look bad or give people ammunition to call us a hate group. That's not neutral.

forgive me for stating the obvious here, but Neutrality isn't the same as inaction. you can be neutral while taking action. personally i love hearing rants about antisjw, or seeing retributive justice, but that doesnt give content a free pass simply because i enjoy seeing it, The same the same goes for how i hate seeing topics about FGM vs MGM , but abstain from taking any action on them because they are topically relevant. i specifically said that these posts come from users outside of the sub. typically they've never posted here before or are a brand new account.

Frankly i think that we have reached a point where you are more focused trying to hunt for gaps in my stance, versus trying to have a topical discussion. i've remained fairly cordial with you, and i thank you for keeping it mutual for the most part. if you have anything of substance to reply with, then i will gladly continue. As I said before, I hold you in high regard both as a person and a MRA, but at this juncture we are continuing to just trade rebuttal with no real progress being made, and if we continue on this tract of pin the blame on the mod then nothing is going come of this.

Edit - Made a quick edit to my first part. i realized i forgot a word.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that there is any way to not be branded as a hate group.

Lets say hypothetically that i'm black male and the stereotype of my race is that i'll leave my childen fatherless. Does that mean that i should just throw up my arms and go "cya kids". i realize that this is a strawman on my part, but i cant help but point out the fatuous natureof your remark. Just because the world brands us as a hate sub, does not give us license to be one.

What's absolutely hilarious to me about this is that there are anti-feminists who avoid the men's rights label, because they don't want to be branded as hate-mongers. Literally, calling yourself something that is, in the mainstream, synonymous with being "anti-woman" is considered less toxic than calling yourself "pro-men".

no i completely agree with you here. i wear the MRA badge with pride, and i think any male that considers themselves pro-feminisim has lost his last dregs of sanity. Make no misconceptions - The goal of the MR sub is not to placate the world, but it certianly isnt our goal to set fire to everything else along the way.

How tiny and pathetic and ineffectual a corner are you guys prepared to paint yourselves into, just to not be called names you're going to be called anyway?

Thats the thing, we aren't, were not taking down posts that make us look bad but are factually relevant, were not censoring viewpoints, we are simply keeping the sub topical. We arent fools, and know we are always going to be labeled a hatesub, and beyond some fight we had with a band of SJWs who were intentionally posting things like "man i'd rape the fuck out of her" trying to fish for some SRS Fodder- practically nothing gets purged. i just got done putting together a nice fat chunk of meta data, because the mods and myself were curious on the rate of moderated posts after this came up (i'll be posting the final data later on this weekend once im done double checking and creating an open database) but we have probably the smallest mod interaction of any sub of our size - less than half a percent of posts get moderated - and almost universally as off topic.

And goddamnit, do you not have a tenth of a clue as to maintaining frame? Giving ground never makes you look strong. It makes you look afraid. And looking afraid doesn't make ANYONE feel sorry for you if you're a man. It makes them either look away, or grab their popcorn

If we have given ANY ground - invite you to call it out. Purging the WBB Posts, and troll bait is not giving ground in the slightest. There is a difference between giving ground and adapting.

Why is it that I can have extensive conversations with someone like Demonspawn without ever getting the impression that he considers women inferior to men?

Thats the impression i got with talking to him for less than a day... unless i hallucinated those posts about women not being allowed to vote or have jobs.

n twenty years, we will have ALL lost this fight. There were no "glory days". There were no days where women lived in the kitchen chained to stoves. There have only ever been days of focussing as much of society's gynocentric impulses on women as it could afford, and treating men as even more disposable than we treat them today. As far as cutting off your arm to save your body? That might be an argument if the gangrene was localized to your arm.

i'm an optimist, as well as a futurist- i like to think that we have three potential paradgim shifts that could occur- Utopia, Dystpoia, or Full on societal collapse.

we reach a truly abundant world in which nobody needs anything because nothing has value and everybody can have everything they want thanks to our machine overlords
we reach a truly abundant world, however those in charge dont abscond, and we revert to a feudalistic state in the future.
Full blown societal collapse - likely triggered when event 1 or 2 doesnt occurr, and our global economy fails creating a full on out world wide depression, which leads to war, which leads to complete collapse every man for themselves, and with that will come the resurgance of the traditional gender roles.

I am the last person who would criticize anyone for opposing feminism. But I refuse to lie about it. I refuse to say feminism was once a noble movement only interested in equality. I refuse to say that society has ever oppressed women. I refuse to go along with the idea that it's just third wave feminism that's the problem, or second wave feminism, or progressive feminism.

dont get me wrong- i agree, but that isnt to say that the happenings and changes that came of of first and second wave feminisim were uniformly bad.

You seem to want that global collapse, because it's exactly what you're asking for by not addressing the problem head on. The problem is not "feminism". It's not an ideology. It's the interaction of human nature and the environment. It's women doing what women do, and men doing what men do, and all of them doing it in an environment that has never existed, ever, at any time, during the entire history of our species. The fall of Byzantium was NOTHING compared to what we're about to face.

Going a little off topic on my part here: I'm not even going to disagree - i think there is hope that we can avoid that collapse, but honestly with all of the other factors bubbling in the background beyond gender politics, gender politics is just a blip in comparison to all of the other factors, were at like a 25% chance of it happening which is FAR too high. there are two things in this world right now that can eliminate that massive chance, and that is the birth of fusion technology, still a good fifty years off at best for commercial application, and the birth of High level AI (not Artificial sentience), likely in the next ten to twenty years for us to perfect the recipie. if we can clear Those hurdles, humanity will have virtually nothing stoping it from persisting as a species, no matter how bad the gender politics get.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Lets say hypothetically that i'm black male and the stereotype of my race is that i'll leave my childen fatherless. Does that mean that i should just throw up my arms and go "cya kids". i realize that this is a strawman on my part, but i cant help but point out the fatuous natureof your remark. Just because the world brands us as a hate sub, does not give us license to be one.

And drawing attention to Emma Watson's documented financial indiscretions = hate mob?

Pointing out women who behave badly = hate mob?

Equal scrutiny and treatment of powerful women = hate mob?

we are simply keeping the sub topical.

Again, I've seen topical posts deleted in the past because they were deemed "off topic".

and beyond some fight we had with a band of SJWs who were intentionally posting things like "man i'd rape the fuck out of her" trying to fish for some SRS Fodder- practically nothing gets purged.

You should let those posts stand. Let the community expose them for what they are.

If we have given ANY ground - invite you to call it out. Purging the WBB Posts, and troll bait is not giving ground in the slightest. There is a difference between giving ground and adapting.

The mere fact that you're even concerned about being viewed as a hate group means you're giving ground.

Thats the impression i got with talking to him for less than a day... unless i hallucinated those posts about women not being allowed to vote or have jobs.

And that's why you're stupid. You don't put a leash on a lapdog, you put a leash on a doberman. /u/Demonspawn suggests women's legal rights must be curtailed because they are in the superior position, not the inferior one.

Full blown societal collapse - likely triggered when event 1 or 2 doesnt occurr, and our global economy fails creating a full on out world wide depression, which leads to war, which leads to complete collapse every man for themselves, and with that will come the resurgance of the traditional gender roles.

Collapse is forever. I fully believe this. Event 1 or 2 will not occur within a feminist or gynocentric paradigm. /u/Demonspawn is right. You are wrong, however, in your judgement that he blames this eventuality on women's inferiority. It is as much because men are incapable of finding common cause against the stated interests of women that will be to blame.

but that isnt to say that the happenings and changes that came of of first and second wave feminisim were uniformly bad.

That remains to be seen.

gender politics is just a blip in comparison to all of the other factors,

And that's why you're stupid.

if we can clear Those hurdles, humanity will have virtually nothing stoping it from persisting as a species, no matter how bad the gender politics get.

Humanity has nothing stopping it from persisting as a species, no matter what. There are so many of us at this point that an extinction level event will not wipe us out.

You'll have to forgive me for wanting more for my kids than fighting with wild dogs for bones to gnaw. Fusion gives us a chance. AI does not, at least not in the long term. But yeah, our genes will live on.

[–]sillymod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As always, GWW, if something isn't immediately understandable as to how it relates to the MRM, then we allow people to post self posts describing the relationship.

The majority of users on this subreddit are new to the MRM, which means that they aren't steeped in the history like you and many others are. When they see character attack posts like the Emma Watson ones, they view it as petty attacks. It doesn't draw people in, it pushes them away. By requiring people to put these posts into context, we are offering them more than they would get elsewhere.

It is possible that posts get removed that could/should stay. Moderation isn't easy, especially considering that every moderator is busy and doesn't have time to read every single post thoroughly. If the first few paragraphs aren't clearly relevant to the MRM, it may get removed. If a user posts something that gets removed (generally we notify them of that, sometimes it slips through, or if it is very clearly spam we don't bother - very clearly meaning things like advertisements for men's watches) they are free to send a message to the moderators explaining its relevance or describing what we may have missed. We have often reinstated posts once the part that we missed became clear, we have had different mods disagree and overrule the mod who removed the post, etc.

Demonspawn and Atheist4thecause would paint this as a harsh place where dissenting and alternative views are removed. The evidence is to the contrary. The fact that Demonspawn has never been banned is evidence of that, and the fact that these kinds of discussions take place is evidence of that. They are effective at spinning a moral panic story, but that is it.

Moderators sit in a very precarious position. You and a number of others want a more hands-off approach. Fine, I get that. It would be much easier for us to implement that. But we get vastly more feedback from other users wanting a more hands-on approach. People want significantly more interference from the moderators in removing things that they don't like, and they make up much more of the viewership than you guys do. So we spend a lot of our time arguing with these people why we aren't going to be more heavy handed, why we aren't going to remove X-person's post because they called a woman a "cunt", etc. Especially when it comes to comments, we let the vast, vast majority of things go.

What it comes down to is this, and I said it elsewhere also: Is this subreddit a community subreddit, or is it a topical subreddit? If it is a community subreddit, then anything of interest to the community would be relevant. This is what Demonspawn, Atheist4thecause and yourself appear to want. If it is a topical subreddit, then only things on topic are relevant. This is the current approach of the moderation. Within the greater reddit system, I don't think a community approach will last, as the admins would eventually remove the subreddit if we had too laissez-faire of an approach considering some of the material that gets posted here (the admins already step in and remove things from time-to-time). Instead, I would rather this subreddit be a welcome to the movement, and then external communities can welcome people and support discussions that don't occur here.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

And drawing attention to Emma Watson's documented financial indiscretions = hate mob? Pointing out women who behave badly = hate mob? Equal scrutiny and treatment of powerful women = hate mob?

i dont know how you got back to us making these choices out of fear of becoming a hate mob. we made these choices because frankly NONE of them on their own are a mens rights issue.

Again, I've seen topical posts deleted in the past because they were deemed "off topic".

And if they were then they should not have been. that being said anyone can say they saw santaclaus tapdancing down mainstreet smoking a cigar- Did it happen? possibly, but probably not.

You should let those posts stand. Let the community expose them for what they are.

we dont let them stand simply because of one of the basic rules of reddit: No advocating or inciting violence. to let them stand does absolutely nothing.

And that's why you're stupid. You don't put a leash on a lapdog, you put a leash on a doberman. /u/Demonspawn [-2] suggests women's legal rights must be curtailed because they are in the superior position, not the inferior one.

Glad to know your opinion of my intellect, however this statement has absolutely nothing to do with what was said. Generally anyone with a modicum of intellect themselves can establish the that the curtailment of existing rights is not the same as removal of civil liberties, or the creation of an effectual gender based apartheid state, which is what he is suggesting. you are an intelligent woman whom i've held in fairly high regard, and to see you make such a base remark is far beneath your station.

Collapse is forever. I fully believe this. Event 1 or 2 will not occur within a feminist or gynocentric paradigm. /u/Demonspawn [-2] is right. You are wrong, however, in your judgement that he blames this eventuality on women's inferiority. It is as much because men are incapable of finding common cause against the stated interests of women that will be to blame.

those are your words- not mine. my statement was:

the only way we ever go back to the "glory days" is if we experience a massive global scale societal collapse- and that isnt happening any time soon.

he had never even advanced that mentality, and i wasnt arguing for or against it.

And that's why you're stupid.

what purpose if any does this serve? were you yourself personally affronted by my stance on the retention of topicality and the need to keep us from being mired dreck and diatribe? there is absolutely no need for insults, and quite frankly the fact that you are using them to combat my points is baffling.

Humanity has nothing stopping it from persisting as a species, no matter what. There are so many of us at this point that an extinction level event will not wipe us out.

i think that you are a little unversed on the topic at hand. the mere fact that we havent been smacked with an ELE since the dinosaurs is a statistical miracle given the chaotic nature of our universe. There is a reason there is a massive push for space travel - and that is to ensure that humanity can survive a ELE. one supermeteor would end all life as we know it. One supervolcano would end all life as we know it. a CME directed at the planet on the class of an exaflare can wipe us out. a GRB From a nearby supernova could oblitterate us. we are on a stastical timer that is counting down fast concerning ELEs. Several people far more intelligent than us both combined have realized this fact, and is why we are on such a massive push to have us space fairing within the next thousand years.

[–]ABC_Florida -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And it will happen sooner than you think. I might not live to see it, but I expect my sons and daughter will. And that is NOT what I wanted for them when I brought them into this world.

I don't see it this darkly, as you seem to see it. I agree on the fact that feminism is perfect to tear down a society by raising the individual above the public. If the individual happens to be one from the so called protected (read privileged) group. But I think feminism is a luxury. A luxury of first world countries. Countries where there is wealth and goods to distribute. But in countries where it is clear that they lag behind such progressive countries, feminism is nowhere on the level of the US, Canada, UK or Australia. Not simply because it serves society, as a whole better, but because it may serve the individual woman better. I have to say, that feminism is not the one holding the real power. I would say, that the illusion of the power is given to them. And feminism is the perfect weapon in countries like Canada for example. Because you have an industrialized country with high standard of living. You want to keep up this standard, as the one in power. But people (like other animals) get used to the standard of living, and become lazy. How do you get rid of those people? You can't, but you can make sure, they won't make too much copies of themselves.

So you deploy feminism, which can not be beaten in regards of alienating the sexes. Since, as you discussed before, opposing it means you belong to a hate group. So even if you defeat feminism, there will be always people claiming equality is not equality. So if you decrease the number of those people not motivated enough, say a 2+ generation Canadian immigrant only parents 0.8 children, you can get people who are happy to have this kinda shit instead of what they have right now. And you still keep up the population. Say a Nigerian couple immigrates to Quebec. They wiped their asses with leaves, feared Ebola, lost family members to malaria, had no fridge, no tap water. They won't give a damn about some crazy ideologies. They will have a better life for themselves for sure. The wife may stay at home with the future kids, maybe will have no intention to go back to work. May divorce him and get half of hiss assets. And their kids may grow up parenting only 0.8 children too. But there are other people in Nigeria too, wanting to immigrate.

So why would they stop this process, if they can communicate to the voters, that they're progressive and cool?

[–]BookOfGQuan -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

im sorry what does being conservative have to do with mens rights?

Basically, everything. Liberal (defined as big government) and MRA are antithesis of each other. There will be a point where a Liberal "MRA" has to choose between their beliefs in big government vs their beliefs of supporting men. And the reason I put "MRA" in quotes is because I have not yet seen a Liberal "MRA" who chose supporting men over big government.

in what way does conservatism act as the MR Benefactor of choice to the MRM so much more than any other viewpoint?

Because Bureaugamy is the #1 MRM issue. Conservatives seek to limit government (and thereby limit Bureaugamy) while Liberals seek to increase government (which inherently increases Bureaugamy because women hold a majority of the vote while paying a minority of the taxes).

but on the other side of that is the male superiority/female inferiority mentality

Nope. Only if you believe in tabula rasa (which is bunk) can you conclude that. Men and women ARE DIFFERENT. And as such, they contribute to society in different (but both very important) ways. The reason our society is crumbling is because women are aping men and no longer contributing to society in the feminine way.

We have found a happy middle ground by carving away all but the necessities of MR Issues.

No, you've found a conflicted meaningless cesspit that can do nothing other than agree "men have it bad" and can't work on any solutions because the solutions proposed by each camp are contradictory. This is the issue I raised 4 years ago. This is why I keep bringing it up:

he said he was tired of the right-vs-left debate.

Then end it by demonstrating that liberals actually have an answer which can provide equality rather than re-instituting a new system of female superiority. Because until that answer is demonstrated, the liberal vs conservative debate within the MRA is probably the most important debate to have.

See, you may think that this post is divisive, but it's actually constructive. Either we find out that there is possibly a equality answer and then conservative and liberal MRAs can move towards that answer, or we find out there isn't and liberals have to accept that their proposed solution will make things worse for men and can move over to the conservative side. This whole idea of "let's not talk about it" is the truly divisive solution because it prevents resolution of the differing viewpoints which have no compromise position between them.

Yes, that post was 4 years ago and we still haven't resolved it and the moderators STILL keep unfairly censoring Conservative posts.

What would preaching female inferiority achieve for us as a mens rights group?

Begging the question that conservatism = female inferiority.

i think my friend said it best when he found out i was a tradcon

I don't believe a word of you claiming that you are a tradcon after what you said above.

There is no more putting Jill back in the box.

Yes there is. We can Revolt, Expat, or Turtle. I'd love to discuss alternative solutions, but guess what? With all you people refusing to have the discussion we keep getting rabbit holed by useful idiots who still think that equality is the solution rather than the problem!

the only way we ever go back to the "glory days" is if we experience a massive global scale societal collapse- and that isnt happening any time soon.

The big government bubble will pop within your lifetime. The path we are on will lead to collapse because this unnatural "equality" cannot be sustained.

we have conservative mods

Like you, who just claimed that conservatism was seeing women as inferior? Again, I doubt your claims.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

thank you for proving just why the MRM is perfectly fine where it is.

I don't believe a word of you claiming that you are a tradcon after what you said above.

yea thats because im not so ignorant as to not realize that i can pick and choose the best parts of things i align with. i can have both liberal and conservative views, progressive and traditionalist- holy shit i know right? a grey middle ground exists- who would have thought.

Yes there is. We can Revolt, Expat, or Turtle. I'd love to discuss alternative solutions, but guess what? With all you people refusing to have the discussion we keep getting rabbit holed by useful idiots who still think that equality is the solution rather than the problem!

we are not a group that advocates social regression but social PROGRESSION. the very notion that you think women should be regressed to their previous social statuses is why you are in the wrong sub. thank you for your time, but you should take a trist over to TRP or any number of anti-women subs because this is not the sub for that content. the progression of mens rights does not go hand in hand with the suppression of womens rights.

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

yea thats because im not so ignorant as to not realize that i can pick and choose the best parts of things i align with.

You literally just defined tradcon as thinking women are inferior and then claimed you are a tradcon and then followed that up with saying that thinking women are inferior is wrong.

Simply put: you lied.

we are not a group that advocates social regression but social PROGRESSION.

Heading towards self-destruction is not progression.

the very notion that you think women should be regressed to their previous social statuses is why you are in the wrong sub.

But you're a 'tradcon'... doesn't that mean you are modding the wrong sub?

You mods are a pack of fucking liars.

the progression of mens rights does not go hand in hand with the suppression of womens rights.

Then you understand nothing. The MRM is dead in the water and the status of men will keep declining as long as women have suffrage and government buys women's votes by taking from men to give to women.

You're just another Liberal "MRA".

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Tradconning is a double edged sword, something we are not eager to throw ourselves on without good reason. Part of the Tradcon sword is that on one side you've got this lovely Pro hyper-masculine mentality, which IMO is perfectly fine, but on the other side of that is the male superiority/female inferiority mentality that leads to people continuing to brand us as a hate group. We have found a happy middle ground by carving away all but the necessities of MR Issues.

so, lets see... when i say tradcon comes as a double edged sword..... and point out that on one side we have masculinity and the traditional male gender role, which is something i agree with, but on the other side, female inferiority, something i disagree with.... GASP i can like masculinity and the traditional male gender role, but dislike the concept of female inferiority/male superiority. Holy shit - free thought outside of the hivemind, who would have imagined.

You're just another Liberal "MRA".

And you are the kind of person who thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold jobs. you can see why i wouldn't hold your opinions in high regard right?

[–]sillymod[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]libbylibertarian 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We are open to change. You just haven't made a convincing argument.

Yeah, yeah. Of course, everyone is open to change it's just that nobody ever hears a convincing argument. Whatever you say.

You have disagreed with something we have done, and then accused us of censorship to try to get your way. That isn't an argument, that is an accusation.

The way you and I use the term "censorship" is very different, and you have to recognize that difference. I don't see censorship as inherently negative, but I do think that in general it should be used less often rather than more often. You used the term in an inherently negative way. So if you want to swap out "censorship" for "deleting" then fine, but my points still stand. You delete too much. I think even by your definition of censorship that you do censor as well, but we've been over this so there's no point in stating it again.

[–]sillymod[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xbef 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Discussions of censorship on /r/MensRights
Author	sillymod
Upvotes	43
Comments	142
Date	May 12, 2016 12:38 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4iy3nm/discussions_of_censorship_on_rmensrights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/discussions-of-censorship-on-rmensrights.949767 https://theredarchive.com/post/949767

Comments