'Fake' news sites like Breitbart to be censored

So Breitbart is banned because it's "hyperpartisan"? In other words, not because it's factually incorrect, but guilty of wrongthink?

Some Facebook plugins are auto-censoring this right now.

https://archive.is/QN6Hn

https://archive.is/l375r  archived from http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/16/full-list-of-fake-news-sites-to-avoid-6261851/ 16 Nov 2016 20:21:56 UTC

"‘Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story"

But that's the problem. All the MSM were reporting things like that Trump was losing the election, and Clinton was moving to Victory, Victory, Victory!

Which means we lose faith in them.

Just as we did when the Elliot Rodgers story broke and the MSM blamed men's rights activists and even GamerGate for his actions. They copied and pasted false information, and refused to acknowledge as they drifted - knowingly - into full on propaganda.

I spoke to a journalist called John Birmingham. He knew what the facts were. He just didn't CARE.

Zimdars to decide what
YOU
will be allowed to see.

The MSM no longer prints facts, it prints propaganda, which is why their sales are plummeting and people are turning elsewhere. Would it be nice to have some objective body tell us who is factual?

Certainly.

Is Zimdars someone who can be trusted? No evidence has been provided, we have just been told to trust her; but the fact that Buzzfeed-style webpages are not included makes it clear to me she has an agenda, and she wants only her side to be heard, and others to be silenced.

"Teaching:    Feminist Media Studies "


https://archive.is/8jwcB
archived from http://www.merrimack.edu/live/profiles/586-melissa-mish-zimdars  16 Nov 2016 20:31:51 UTC

And there it is.

She's interested in teaching SocJus, and wants antifeminist websites censored through this back door.

---

Further Reading:

Meet The Leftist Professor Who Wrote The 'Hit List' Of "Fake News" Sites


Why was this fanatical anti-Trump activist given credibility as a neutral arbiter of truth?

NSFW: Emma Watson demands a feminist replacement of pornography

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/emma-watson-calls-for-feminist-alternatives-to-pornography-during-discussion-with-gloria-steinem-a6895146.html

Emma: "It's not porn when I do it."

"... discussed the differences between 'pornography' and 'erotica'"

Feminists think that ISIS will stop Islamic slavery,
done according to the rules of the Koran,
if Western men stop jerking off to porn.

If I like it, it's erotica. If I don't, it's porn and it should be burnt, and if you like it, you piece of filth, WE'LL BURN YOU TOO.

"Emma Watson has called for the creation of "awesome alternatives" to pornography"

Emma: I'm doing this to arouse the audience sexually, because that's totally not porn.

Yeah, good luck with that. The Romans did it everywhere, to the point christians destroyed their artworks in the hope of eradicating it. It didn't work for those moral crusaders - they just ended up making more!


"We should at least have a word for sex that is mutual and pleasurable "

We do. It's called "sex". Jeez that was a hard one.

"We were both worried about the envelopment of the earth in pornographic images"

More totally not porn. She does make rather a lot of it.

Get your mind out of the gutter!
Are you touching yourself?
Filthy!
Emma says you must stop that immediately!

Well, unless someone is very busy with an inkjet, i don't think that's like to happen. For one thing - it's going to sink, leading to some very confused sea-life.

"The right wing ... is suppressing sex education"

Rubbish. Does she realise right wing describes half of the voting population? And that sex education exists in the West? Perhaps she is thinking of Islam? No? Can't criticise Islam, that's sexist... or something.

"We should be creating lots of awesome, great alternatives to pornography.”

We are. Almost all art is non-sexual. No-one is forcing poor Miss Emma to stare at naughty piccies.

GQ magazine is totally not porn or anything! Feminists have ruled it incapable of causing erections!

But that's the thing, isn't it? She doesn't care that she's not being forced to view it - she demands others not be allowed to see it themselves.

How dare they have the freedom to choose?!!

5 Examples Of Feminist Censorship That Will Make You Rethink Online Bullying

Top end this, let's look at Emma totally not porning away...

Feminists ban Milo from Twitter?

http://kukuruyo.com/comic/gamergate-life-83/

"Mostly positive".

4.3/10

on IMDB is "Mostly positive"?

(15 Jul 2016 23:44:21 UTC)

So what do the critics say?


"

Avoid Like The Plague

11 July 2016 | by StoryIsEverything (United Kingdom) – See all my reviews

I went into this movie with an open mind hoping that it would not be as bad as the trailers and TV spots suggest.

It is.

I really wanted this movie to surprise me, to make me laugh to make me care for the characters and have some investment in the story, but it failed to achieve any of that. What I saw was a two hour mess of a movie.

An unfunny, poorly written, poorly edited, contrived cash-in on a beloved classic which has some of the poorest dialogue and worst performances I've seen in a while. The computer generated effects were like something out of a live action Disney picture.

The music, in particular the theme tune was uninspiring and added no impact or energy to the movie.

I honestly can't think of any redeeming qualities that this film has. After waiting so long for a new Ghostbusters film this comes as a major disappointment.

Some things are just best left alone."

Interesting times. The black chick from the Ghostbusters reboot ( Leslie Jones ) was being teased by trolls.

Milo told her that everyone gets that, and not to make a fuss about it, as did myself and quite a few others - "don't feed the trolls" as the saying goes.



 Chanty Binks claims on Twitter that he was guilty of hatecrime. Others accuse him of being an "Uncle Tom", which Leslie supported.

Leslie then tweeted "Black Lives Matters"... because she thinks Milo is a white supremacist or something? As Milo pointed out, not a lot of neo-nazis are fond of fucking black men, so it's a pretty odd accusation!



(Black Lives Matter - unless they are black cops, of course, BLM wants those fuckers shot in the head).




Then Milo's account is closed.

Chanty blocked me after I pointed out that if she had evidence for her claims, she would go to the police.

Feminists do not believe in evidence. They believe in the accusation. That is all they require.

If they accuse a man, he should be destroyed; "Listen and Believe"!

 If Milo was guilty of sending the nasty tweets - the police would investigate. Instead, Feminists like Chanty used the opportunity to silence a critic.



Feminists hate Free Speech, and they will always play upon the natural love of men for women - despite the claim that men hate women.

They will play the hapless, weak, Damsel in Distress - despite claiming to be the equals of men.

 Then they will propose the solution to the "harassment of women" is that Feminists be given the power of censorship - and instead of targeting the actual trolls, they will go after their political opponents.

Every person outside of Social Justice is being given a choice. Bend the knee, obey your masters - or we will silence you.

Why does that sound familiar?


Feminists and Islamists, yet again, prove they are birds of a feather. They exploit loopholes ruthlessly to destroy their critics.

This is soft fascism.

It relies on the tendency of the general public to forget the accumulation of small repressive actions, so that they can turn the world into a giant police state little by little.




We cannot allow them to get away with this.

Jewish refugees being marched away by British police at Croydon airport in March 1939.

They were put on a flight to Warsaw. (source)

#freemilo Because if we don't fight together against this, it will be us next.

So @jack and @twitter are willing to let the racist tweets of #BlackLivesMatter but a gay conservative? #FreeMilo pic.twitter.com/Oe45Xa52B9

— Spike (@Spikey_Buddy) July 20, 2016

[I did have a list of Leslie's tweets about Milo, ShoeOnHead, BLM etc but it looks like Tumblr has censored them. Yes, I was an idiot for not copying them when I had a chance]

Mundane Matt's view on this:

Paul Joseph Watson's view:

"Leslie Jones ADMITS she incites targeted harassment of Twitter users."

Double Standards: Leslie Jones’ Racist Twitter History.

Leslie claims she was hacked but she seems to have a long history of racist behaviour. She also seems happy to do exactly the behaviour that Milo is alleged to have been banned for - inciting a mob to harass the people she doesn't like.

Facebook continues to fall into the SocJus Cesspit.

I try not to be surprised by how corrupt Feminists are, but wow, the ones at Facebook really do impress. Just had my account locked, no reason supplied, after arguing with a feminist who claimed that 80% of all men were violent criminals, and was using the situation

- I kid you not

- to milk donations from other Feminists because her own brother had committed suicide...

I'd point to an archive of the argument or a screenshot - but since FB locked me out, I can't see exactly where it was. However, here is the comment pasted below.

The take-over of FB by Social Justice has a chilling effect on free speech. A social network which had absolutely no ideology beyond the desire to make profits acquired millions of customers - who know have to check whether anything they say might offend the professionally offended.

In the past, the use of obscenities or repeated abuse or threats would get you banned and that was fair. But see if you can find any of that in my comment.

Note that Facebook has had no problem with me being called a "white cunt" - but locked my account before when i replied with the term "goblin" - which even the complainant said was "cute".

Helen Hicks was the feminist involved in this argument.

---

"So maybe a tiny group of feminists said that "

I have repeatedly offered evidence that the people saying such things run your movement. Instead of examining that evidence, you advanced a strawman argument, and then sought to emotionally manipulate your audience - donations pls!

"you can't just generalise every woman or feminist for that"

Why the hell are you now attempting to conflate feminists and women? Criticising your bloody ideology is not the same as attacking women except in your delusions.

"I was beaten up by a man on the street after taking out money at a cash point, i could easily blame all men but i didn't"

HOW GENEROUS.

Also, irrelevant. As I have said before - which you would know if you could bother reading my arguments - dogs have four legs - some dogs have three legs.

Feminists either actively or passively enable the bad behaviour of their representatives. You make excuses constantly.

"I have never said Male Tears"

Yet you stand under the umbrella of those who do, you march with them, and sing their tune. You are responsible for policing your movement - and still you make excuses.

" why are you putting words into my mouth?"

I dunno, could it be that it was in the context of replying to a strawman argument? Is that possible?

"I could say that YOUr [sic] group advocates rape"

You can make any claim you like, sweetums. But there's this little thing we like to call EVIDENCE that you have not any capacity to present.

" (most men commit these crimes" [brings up a long list of crimes such as incest, rape and murder]

And we're done. You - without the slightest bit of evidence - slandered a goodly chunk of humanity, having milked your own brother's death for donations.

Wow. You are a nasty piece of work, aincha?

But here's the thing.

An honest person, who really believed that 80% of the members of another group that surrounded them were dangerous criminals, raping their children and murdering willy-nilly - would either pick up arms and start killing - or flee.

You do neither.

You rest comfortably, safely surrounded by men who protect you, while you spit on them, you blood libel them,

you vile monstrosity,

you cur,

you....

Feminist.

---

I concede, calling someone a Feminist is very strong language, but I think you can agree it was justified in this circumstance.

A Reaction to: "Teach the SJW Controversy!"

About 34:00 in (talking about how Feminists get away with inciting violence against men) - the way Feminists got around it in Australia is that it's illegal to discriminate against a protected group.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is run, thanks to a Feminist PM, by and for Feminists, and the protected groups are:

1) Women.

That's it.

You can do anything you like to men and not violate their human rights, because they legally have none. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/men-are-not-regarded-as-human-thanks-to.html

1:00:07

I think the problem is that post modernists hacked the university system. It's discussed in "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman"  and it's not something new.

However, the fact that it has now corrupted even Astronomy is chilling.

What will happen when these SocJus indoctrinated people try and deal with the real world? They certainly cannot produce real science.

And that means, unless we cut this off at the universities and other tax  funded institutions, the countries of the West will be crippled, whereas China etc will be just fine.

The West will fall.

Other countries will carve us up, while Feminists urge men to die in their name and spit on the body bags of the men as they come back.

Then they'll bury the Feminists and impose their cultural values on us, and use Feminism as the reason they had to put us out of our misery.


Look at the willingness of Feminists to embrace Islamism. They are actively working to destroy democracy. There won't be a concept of Free Speech once they are done.

So this is it. We stop the rot, or it's the end. I think we can do this. It'll take time - but the 45,773 supporters of the petition prove that it's not too late.

Conclusion:

Very lively debate but it tended to solidify my agreement with Sargon's plan. The people who felt it was wrong seemed unable to identify how it would violate human rights to have a review.

After all, Nietsche's ideas are not taught as facts yet students can and often do disagree or agree with them, and succeed regardless of the personal opinion of the lecturer. I have seen lecturers play the Devil's Advocate very well for points of view, to inspire clarity in their students - why do you believe what you believe?

I think that that skepticism is the core of why I loved Philosophy. "Doubt everything, including this".

Whereas Feminism teaches "Listen and Believe", it teaches that students who disagree are betraying their 'family' (wow, that is purest cult-speak). Feminism teaches students they must proselytise. I have to wonder how long until it teaches them that they must spread the word at the barrel of a gun?

Do you remember when JJJ was cool?

I grew up listening to JJJ. They had some pretty good rock and a lot of us young aussie blokes could hear bands like Midnight Oil on it. It wasn't a political station, it was about the music.


Well, recently, they did a program on suicide which said it was a problem that mostly affected women.

I disputed that. They censored my remark and blocked me.

My remark was below. Can you see any reason to censor that other than it wasn't PC?

The irony is - the ABC - the organisation that runs JJJ - also prints stories saying that male suicide is far more significant.

You have to love their doublethink!

Imagine if another radio channel presented suicide as something that only affected straight, white people. You'd see that as bigoted.

So why paint suicide as a problem for women only - when the great bulk of suicides are men? Doesn't this just help starve them of support, and drive them down?

Please tell me that that isn't what you want?

Don't you have husbands, sons, fathers; can you imagine the pain of them taking their lives because they couldn't get help because of you?

Feminism and Social Media Censorship

Wow. Facebook censored a post.

Partial archive - taken after censorship - here. https://archive.is/PDDjG

The context is Victoria Clark had accused someone of being a rapist. I kept pointing out she had no evidence to back her, she certainly wouldn't talk to the police - but she kept up the slander.

Then she decided he was guilty of perpetuating "rape culture", which was somehow the same thing, and I called her out for it and other lies.

And she reported it and FB closed it down - despite nothing here being broken.

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards

The only thing I did was hurt her feelings, or at least so the claim goes, but



Oh yes, she was clearly devastated by my words. So she played the Damsel in Distress to Facebook, cried her crocodile tears, then afterwards boasts of not being affected at all.

It's a typical Feminist attack to claim to be so easily wounded the Princess of the pea story would go "girl, you gotta grow a thicker skin"!

So why was the complaint successful?

Facebook, and social media generally, had pressure on it by Feminist groups to have watchdogs placed on it for harassment.

Who did they appoint as our moral guardians?

Feminists.


Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen-house.



Of course, Feminists are a bunch of book-burning bastards, and they do love censorship and doublethink, and the idea of fairly treating such disputes according to the written rules is anathema.

So I wouldn't be surprised if my account is closed - despite never having broken any rule - by someone who clearly is breaking not just the rules but the laws.

Will Facebook become something where the unwritten rule is to placate Feminists? I can't see it lasting after that.

"Our Watch": An Aussie government funded, anti-free-speech, anti-male propaganda site

"The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human."

from "The Olive Tree", by Aldous Huxley (1936).

"Our Watch"

https://archive.is/o7zL5

What do you notice about this?

It is paid for by government funds.

It claims to be "working to change community attitudes & encourage Australians to reject violence."

Now, straight away, we are told this will reject violence, and the presumption is that means violence against people.

Not plants, not even animals, but people - ALL people - not just people who are white, or black, gay or straight.

Now guess which group are NOT regarded as people?

"Our Watch has been established to drive nation-wide change in the culture, behaviours and attitudes that underpin and create violence against women and children."

Yup. Men. If violence is happening to you, well, you are in the same category as a plant or a possum. It's not their problem!

Because they are working from the Duluth Model, which holds that all violence is the fault of men, and all women are pure and innocent.

And if a woman slaughters her seven kids and her niece, why, some man must have made her - she can't be held responsible!

Men are always, always the enemy. It's #Feminism 101.

Recently, they changed the TOS of the page to silence any criticism.

https://archive.is/dbkjn

Please note that your comment will be deleted and you may be blocked from our page if you:
• Disrespect another person on this page
• Deliberately attempt to derail the conversation
• You make another person on this page feel unsafe
• You diminish or minimise women’s experience of violence.

Disrespect another person on this page?

Why on Earth should I respect these people? Did they respect me? Of course not!

Way past time to get rid of the 'poor menz' brigade

Does that sound like respect to you?

Negativity can trigger stress in some survivors!

Uninformed opinion stated as fact. And of course, they don't want to have that challenged; facts are triggering, and reason is Patriarchy.

Sometimes the only way to reduce the power of misinformation is to censure [sic] it

Which is the claim of every authoritarian regime since the dawn of time.

Countries with free speech know that disinformation is demolished in the "marketplace of ideas", and it can only thrive if dissenting views are silenced - like this government organisation is doing.

You make another person on this page feel unsafe

Why the Hell is this here? Note: this has nothing to do with what sane people consider safety. If you make a reasonable threat, you can be pretty confident the boys in blue will be knocking on your door.

So this is about unreasonable threats. This is about the threat a bigot feels from the object of their loathing. A racist feels from a black man or woman, a homophobe feels from a gay or lesbian, or a sexist feels from a man, or a woman.

And this site is government funded sexism.

It discriminates against men actively, despite taking funds from everyone and claiming to serve the people... which is everyone, black and white, straight or gay, male and female..

You diminish or minimise women’s experience of violence

Woman: "OMG! That man looked at me! That's stare-rape!"

Man: "Looking at someone isn't rape."

Woman: "OMG! You minimised my experience of violence! Banned!"

 • ‘You are restricting freedom of speech’. Everyone is free to share their opinions if they are communicated in a respectful, productive way.

In other words, everyone is entitled to say anything that Feminists already agree with.

Barbara David

Fabulous! I was very disappointed when, early in the conversation Our Watch formally posted that speaking about violence against women, didn't mean that men weren't victims too.

No, I wasn't disappointed, I was livid. It sounded like an apology to the "men too" brigade, as if you had been persuaded by the trolls who were already telling us about their superior understanding of violence and manipulating with charm, false statistics, pleas for sympathy, manly assertiveness and an overwhelming insistence on "winning" the argument they had initiated ("domestic violence is NOT a gendered issue").

But I was wrong. Hallelujah! You really are a safe place, a refuge. Thank you for standing strong.

Szczepan Hołyszewski

"Men too" is not a "brigade". It is a fact. Here, let me assert it: men too.

Barbara David OurWatch, please note that the above comment is in breach of your new guidelines.

Barbara David
You get it Kris! I believe that the new OurWatch guidelines are there to ensure we only get to interact with people like you and don't have to constantly pay attention to people who diminish the experience of women by insisting we pay attention to men as victims of abuse.

Feminist says "men are never victims", man says "well, they are", feminist minimises his experience of violence and calls for his removal.

WHAT PART OF FREE SPEECH REMAINS VIABLE UNDER FEMINISM?

Paizo Plows on!

Continued from http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/paizo-will-decide-what-you-may-play.html



“it's not 'censorship', the government isn't forcing people not to produce the game”

The idea that censorship only counts if it’s from the State is one often used by authoritarians to justify their actions. If a group burns your books, the books are burnt, regardless of whether the State sanctions it. That might be a Torah, a Bible, a copy of '1984'...

It’s all about silencing voices you don’t like - directly, by removing the offending texts; indirectly, by intimidating authors.

If the mob in Russia tells a journalist not to print an article, do you really think what a government sanctioned censor says matters a damn?

"..and even if they did it could very well still be legal”

If it was illegal, it would be acted on - so i have to wonder why you would even think, for a microsecond, that I was arguing it was illegal?


“ given that hate-speech and the like isn't protected under any law”

Hatespeech. How Orwellian that concept is. Certain words must be banned from being spoken. Certain thoughts may not be expressed.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

   The Universal Declaration of Human Rights          

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and  inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation  of freedom, justice and peace in the world, 

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in  barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,

and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech   and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the   highest aspiration of the common people, 



Nothing there saying “it totally doesn’t count when non-State actors take away those rights”.



jessicalprice
https://archive.is/oMRPx

no other snapshots from this url

23 Sep 2015 17:09:58 UTC

But Crystal, there’s no way women and/or queer people could get jobs in games if there weren’t some sort of communist affirmative action thing going on. *eye roll*

Gary Gygax himself said that women’s brains aren’t suited to gaming, and as we all know, he was an expert on neurology.

“Gary Gygax himself said that women’s brains aren’t suited to gaming”

No reference, of course.

Gary's daughters, Heidi & Elise Gygax.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/27021778@N07/4453962120

 I guess he drove them so far away from gaming, they ended up in the middle of it... somehow...

".. as we all know, he was an expert on neurology”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently
“stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains”

http://www.livescience.com/3808-men-women-differently.html
“men have nearly 6.5 times the amount of gray  matter related to general intelligence compared with women, whereas women have  nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence compared  to men ... men and women excel at different  types of tasks”

You realise neurologists say men and women are differently wired? Claiming that women weren’t best suited for his games might have been perfectly correct?

I mean, look at what SocJus focusses on. Cool monsters? Dungeons? Mazes?

Nope!

http://funnyjunk.com/Gg+comic/funny-pictures/5561032/

Whether or not A has Y between their loins, or would they prefer X or perhaps Z?

SocJus is obsessed with gender to the point it cannot stop talking about it in a genre where the south wind can serenade the sea, a wall give birth, a sun spin slow thoughts.



SocJus.. is... small.

And Gygax wasn’t. I don’t care if he thought women didn’t like D&D - it was based on wargaming, and women traditionally always rubbished that, too.

But he never stopped women from entering into it. He never banned a game because women liked it and he didn’t. He never thought his personal morality had to be imposed on everyone else, his tastes had to be forced on everyone else.

Not like you do.

Not like Paizo does.

By definition, being a SJW means your Moral Compass is completely broken: http://t.co/vY7iQ8eaLu#GamerGate pic.twitter.com/zuWyALir9x

— Christi Junior (@ChristiJunior) October 4, 2015