This Subreddit is developing an Authoritarian censorship, especially from Sillymod, which threatens the long-term health of the MRM

Alkomb · 2016-05-12T00:05:20+00:00

Feminists always try to "Censor" what they disagree with.

TheDude41 · 2016-05-12T01:00:57+00:00

Panama Papers and Emma Watson should be free discussion.

Particularly, the predictable damseling shithead response that came from her side after the story broke.

Basically, any time a feminist makes a claim of being afraid for some ridiculous reason or another, a first reaction should always be to simply discount it.

If you can vet it, whatever. But first reaction is to discount it.

I don't find her particularly attractive or intelligent anyway, so I fail to see why others give her any credence. Not that I would have any special thoughts for her if she was attractive.

Captaincastle · 2016-05-11T21:47:00+00:00

This just feels so speculative. You're making a lot of claims but not really demonstrating them to be true.

The blackout wasn't about child porn at all, unless that was super hush hush, because I followed that shit closely. As for requiring senority, it's because we get massive amounts of throw away trolls.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this feels like run of the mill fear mongering and victim complex. When a white male gets pulled over by an asshole cop, that cop is an asshole. When it's a PoC or other minority, that cop is sexist/racist/etc.

Captaincastle · 2016-05-11T22:01:28+00:00

[permanently deleted]

rg57 · 2016-05-12T00:20:53+00:00

Make your own subreddit or voat thingy. Or make a blog.

We can all benefit from having more fora in which to discuss MRM.

I think I like this place, but there's no reason to become attached to it, and EVERY reason to (if I may) man-spread out.

FFXIV_Machinist · 2016-05-11T22:43:09+00:00

Just because a link comes from a specific domain, does it give it a free pass.

Revealed: Emma Watson named in latest Panama Papers leak Posted on May 11, 2016 by Mike Buchanan Our thanks to David for pointing us to this piece in The Spectator. David writes: No tax advantages – “personal safety” is the reason for the offshore account (translation – if you question it, you are a misogynist). Hopefully we will hear less in future from this particular Special Snowflake.

This was the ENTIRE body of the article you linked.

NOTHING to do with mens rights, merely saying 'well shit now that shes stepped in some poop shell back off'.

Templemansa · 2016-05-11T23:05:39+00:00

This room now has a feminist leaning. Allowing publicity for a female led site doxxing males and then banning a male led initiative for the same thing. No wonder the mods in this room have everyone gunning for them!

Asher-D · 2016-05-11T23:07:42+00:00

/r/mensrights censoring? That seems incredibly far fetched, if anything they're probably cracking down on people breaking the rules of this subreddit, they've been very relaxed with the rules since I came here, they might be trying to clean it up.

Imnotmrabut · 2016-05-11T22:49:37+00:00

TL;DR seems a tad too ranty and preachy to be sincere - and I'm in a bad mood with low blood sugar. On the other hand, I see that some quality does exist - so is it rough diamond and time to polish?

Can You explain what this post has to do with Men's Rights and not just your view on men's Rights?

I'm also intrigued and not at all impressed with this:

I few months back, I had an interview with CNN. I was posting questions about the impact of race on sex issues. It got deleted as "off-topic". I had to cut out all of the information on gender and make it a purely racial interview because I could not do proper research.

Being a well known pedant and a card carrying member of The Global Fraternity of the Anally Retentive Librarians, It's the first I've heard of anyone being prevented from doing their homework here on mensrights.

I do tend to look our for those doing homework and requesting sources and contrasting views - materials - research and am only too happy to lend a hand. Does wonders for me Librarian Ego!

Can you tell me which information you were requesting/researching and which YOU chose to remove from YOUR interview?

It seems that you are blaming others for your lack of knowledge - smarts - willingness to do homework - make sure you are Equipped to when you are doing interviews. If on the other hand you have been treated shodily and can show this I will don me Conan The Librarian Garb and club all mods into submission with a Dewey decimal enhanced book case holding the Encyclopaedia Galactica.

I'm intrigued as you claim to be Drew Domalick the author of "Female suicides: A deadly fabrication? February 8, 2015 , A Voice For Men" one of the best pieces of Woozle Hunting I have seen - let alone within an MRA Context.

As a woozle hunter and slaughterer I recognise the art and sympathise with the frustrations of doing quality work that others often can't and don't grasp.

It's a premium piece of work - it is laid out well - it is referenced and shows rational processes - the only criticism I have is that you relied on phone calls to get the CDC to admit ignorance.... and you have not ether update matters since January 2005 or made it clear that you are still awaiting answers since January 2005.

Can the CDC explain the sources attributed to them, or is there another Mega Woozle of the feminist pantheon ready to be cut down and used to build coffins for people scarified on the alters of Feminist Dogma and Duplicity?

I do note that you have only ever been published at AVfM once and I do now the arcana of getting anything published there - along with the less than useful/helpful attitudes of the back room. So many have divorced themselves from two sites due to controlfreakery and draconian narcissisms - that's "The Good Men (Rape) Project" and "A Voice For Men(Elam)".

You say :

The only message part of it that my ban was based on wasn't because I said or did anything against the MRM, but because my arguments weren't the already commonly accepted narrative. You see, on this Subreddit, because of the way they moderate, you don't get to introduce new arguments until you gain some sort of seniority.

I do grasp the sentiments but without detail it's impossible to asses your claims. However, there is a well known pattern of bias which fits EXACTLY what you articulate - and best still it comes from one of my most favourite sources -

The “Sacred Science"

The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute “scientiﬁc” precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also “unscientiﬁc.” In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science.

Robert Jay Lifton (1989). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "brainwashing" in China. UNC Press Books. pp. 427–8. ISBN 978-0-8078-4253-9.

It may well be that some mods need to be reminded that they are only mods and not guardians of that which they demand as Sacred Science with them exercising Milieu Control. Power does corrupt after all .... and even angels can become satanic.

I wouldn't bother too much with anyone removing links to J4mb site as it is a dog pile of crap that Mike Buchanan has created. He believes that just because it's on his illogical and unnavigable mind map it must have value. He's not good at playing with others and isn't willing to be helped and any link to his blogette is invariably a stepping stone to the issue he is too busy and rude to bother articulating. Thankfully he will be of little strategic concern one the ICMI 2015 event is over and a more mainstream set of vices are linked to the MRA subjects.

I get your passion and mind set - but it seems that you are raising the right concerns about the wrong issues, wrong people and also doing one thing that really will piss people off.

"Feminists do make a habit of advancing the claim, explicitly or implicitly, to represent all women."

No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism. Neil Lyndon, Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992, page 11.

Watch to make sure you aint making a habit of speaking for all people concerned about Men's Human Rights... P¬))

sillymod · 2016-05-12T00:33:42+00:00

This is a meta topic and belongs in /r/MensRightsMeta.

Comments