In May last year, this blog and its readers broke the story of men's human rights sites been censored and smeared by major mobile phone companies in the UK. It has now emerged that Norton is also smearing most of our movement as hateful, with its DNS service blocking access to many of the most popular sites, this blog included.This is outrageous. My blog is not even a mens rights blog. I mostly post in favor of parental rights, and support shared custody by moms and dads.
It's unsurprising that people would try to censor us in this way and it's particularly disappointing that someone out there is stupid enough to regard this blog as hateful when it's abundantly clear we have no tolerance here for sexism towards anyone, and the whole point of this site is to campaign against sexism and gender hatred.
I've done significant research to find out the true scale the censorship of mens' human rights material and can exclusively reveal the most complete and accurate list of sites currently being blocked. I can also reveal that both O2 and Norton appear to be using the same list for their disgusting censorship. Previous lists of banned sites totalled 21 URLs, my research more than doubles that total to at least 48 sites and 54 urls.
I got this email from John Kimble:
Major update on this issue now, I finally managed to get a response out of Symantec, albeit via O2. They are refusing to reclassify almost all the sites in question, only backing down in 2 cases out of 47. This means the censorship of your site is no accident, nor is that "hate site" classification. Please see my latest blog post for full details.He says that there are workarounds for accessing this blog, but not for many other blogs.
44 comments:
Well, why are you so surprised ? So many of your readers were appreciative of you discussing the family court system and the problems involved with it and had explained how repulsive your anti gay, anti Jew, anti women, etc. comments were.
Based on the other blogs on the censor list, it appears that they are trying to block any discussion of legal issues from a man's point of view.
54It may apper that way to you. Have you looked at any of the other blogs ? They appear to also, be filled with hate speech.
Did you really think that repeatedly citing people like Kevin MacDonald was some discussion of legal issues from a man's point of view ?
Kevin MacDonald is a legitimate scholar, and not someone who should be censored from the web. I have also quoted Marxists and others who are far more hateful than MacDonald.
"a legitimate scholar" ? according to skinheads and hate groups, right ?
I don't think he should be censored, but what do you think he has to do with family law and the courts ?
If I quoted him saying something that was wrong, I would be happy to let you post a link to a rebuttal.
Yet webites like "killwhitey" that openly promote the murder of all white newborns still exists untouched for years. Selective censorship is tyranny, period. I just wish the stupid immature leftist would realize these are they same tactics the Soviets and the Chinese used to get their sheep on board. One day they will wake up with no rights and live in fear and ask how it happened. They think these are victories, they don't realize they are voluntarily giving away their freedoms.
You never quoted him as saying anything that was right. Besides, why should anything he says be believed anyway ?
MacDonald has particularly been accused by other academics of academic fraud, saying that he has promoted anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of what he says is a legitimate and academic search for truth.[26] He has also been accused of misrepresenting the sources he uses in that regard. Fenris State University professor Dr. Barry Mehler cited
"a legitimate scholar" ? according to skinheads and hate groups, right ?
What do you think he has to do with family law and the courts ?
Do you want to answer ?
Sad. You had made a lot of good points about the family court system. Too bad you're so overcome with your hate speech.
"who are far more hateful than MacDonald"
So just how hateful is MacDonald ?
Yet webites like "killwhitey" that openly promote the murder of all white newborns still exists untouched for years.
You know that someone is a genius when they have to resort to calling others, "stupid".
Anyone able to find this website this guy is referring to ?
Yes, MacDonald has been accused of misrepresenting his sources. No I am not going to blackball someone just because someone on the net accuses him of misrepresenting his sources. I often cite Pres. Barack Obama, and he misrepresents things all the time.
Symantec is irrelevant.
Anonymous commenters are cowards.
Free speech is the only justification you need for this blog.
It isn't for everyone.
Or for anyone who can't discern for themselves which of your ideas are worth taking on board and which are just getting stuff off your chest (which is your right as a blogger).
Moving on....
That's right. I don't expect anyone to agree with everything I say. Sometimes I leap to faulty conclusions. I try to give sources for what I say, so you can decide for yourselves.
"who are far more hateful than MacDonald"
So just how hateful is MacDonald ?
I guess I have an anonymous commenter who hates MacDonald. Yes, there are other people who hate him also, and want to censor him. I say that if he is wrong about something, then prove him wrong.
I guess you can't prove MacDonald right and ignore the commenter that said he doesn't think that he should be censored. An other dodge. So, just how hateful is MacDonald ?
What do you think he has to do with family law and the courts ?
Do you want to answer ?
I am not trying to prove MacDonald right or wrong. He has written scholarly papers and books that are out of my expertise. I have offered you the opportunity to post a link to a refutation, if you can find one.
For the relevance, he is just one of dozens of psychologists that I have quoted. Just read the blog.
"who are far more hateful than MacDonald"
So just how hateful is MacDonald ?
For the relevance, he is just one of dozens of psychologists that I have quoted. Just read the blog.
I've read your blog. He's out of your expertise ? and you're citing him ? Your blog says that you're not familiar wityh his politics, just his scientific data, right ? You also admit in later blogs that you DO know his politics, right ?
A bunch of wishy washy, backpeddling, dodges.
"I know very little about his political views."
Now,
"And indeed, MacDonald is not a Republican."
You lie. You blog is filled with hate speech, and you can't even keep track of what you've said. Read your blog. Maybe you'll understand why it's being shut down.
If there is any hate speech, it is from the anonymous commenters like yourself. You obviously hate MacDonald, but you are unable to give any example of him being wrong about anything.
Yes, I looked up his political views. He has posted many political essays, and he is not a Republican. If you are really curious about his politics, just read his essays. I was citing him for his academic expertise, not his politics.
Most of the people I quote have political views with which I disagree. If you don't like it, then don't read the blog.
His political views include him admitting that he has a strong negative prejudice against Jews, regardless of any of his "scientific"
research. He's a hater. I don't know if you find that hating people is "wrong" or not. I doubt it though.
Why did you blog that you didn't know his political views when you actually did ?
You said..
"who are far more hateful than MacDonald"
So just how hateful is MacDonald
Much of the world hates the Jews. Even Jews themselves are sometimes called "self-hating Jews". I have not seen where MacDonald has admitted that he has a strong negative prejudice against Jews. If you have a link to such a quote, please post it. But I really do not see the relevance of the issue. He could be right or wrong in what he says, regardless of his personal prejudices.
That's what Macdonald says, that it doesn't matter that he doesn't like Jews. How objective is that of some "legitimate scholar" ?
A lot of people don't like Catholics and others too, it doesn't make them right or something, does it ?
What's so difficult for you about answering the question ? We agree he's hateful, right ?
You said..
"who are far more hateful than MacDonald"
So just how hateful is MacDonald
12:10 PM
Here's what MacDonald said...
"In the end, does it really matter if my motivation at this point is less than pristine? Isn't the only question whether I am right"
YES,IT MATTERS. HIS MOTIVATION MATTERS. HE'S NOT A SCIENTIST. HE'S A HATER.
No, I do not agree that MacDonald is hateful, and I am in no position to psychoanalyze his hatefulness. I have not seen those quotes where you claim he said hateful things. I have given you the chance to back up what you say, and you have failed.
In my experiments, almost anything a non-Jew says about Jews can trigger an accusation of anti-semitism. This happens even with positive comments about Jews, such as saying that they are smart and successful. In most cases, the person crying anti-semitism is the hater.
I see your MacDonald quote is from his web page defending against name-calling by the SPLC. He was arguing that his work should be judged on the merits, and I agree with him.
I don't consider you telling me that I failed any sort of failure at all. You gave up on your kids, is that a failure ?
So how did you go about doing your experiments about Jews ? Making generalizations about people will trigger many to call you a hater whether you call them smart, successful, etc. or whatever.
So, when you claim that MacDonald is far less hateful than others, aren't you saying that he's hateful, and just comparing his level of hatefulness to others you consider hateful ?
You said..
"who are far more hateful than MacDonald"
btw... What does he mean by his motivation being less than pristine ?
Anonymous commenter, you misunderstand simple grammar and logic. If I say that A is greater than B, it does not imply that B is greater than zero. If a man says that "if A then B", it does not imply that A is true. You have leaped to a series of hateful conclusions based entirely on misreading straightforward statements.
OK, I don't agree. What you're arguing may apply to math but, I won't argue it further. If you're intent was not to imply that MacDonald was hateful at all, I'll accept that.
Most scholars who read MacDonald's statements conclude that he is hateful.
So how did you go about doing your experiments about Jews ?
What does he mean by his motivation being less than pristine ?
I do not speak for MacDonald. He has many essays freely online, if you are really interested.
I doubt what you say about most scholars. You have no evidence for it. But even if you are right, keep in mind that you can make enemies by telling the truth.
You can find what most scholars say about MacDonald.
So how did you go about doing your experiments about Jews ?
What does he mean by his motivation being less than pristine ?
In 2008, both the Jewish Studies Program and the History Department issued statements specifically distancing themselves from MacDonald's hateful work.
You are quoting the SPLC. The SPLC is a racist hate organization.
So, you don't believe that many dept.s where he teaches has referred to his work as hateful ?
So how did you go about doing your experiments about Jews ?
What does he mean by his motivation being less than pristine ?
The History department at CSULB has criticized MacDonald, and he has responded here. It appears to me that he is correct on the substantive points, and the History dept. is wrong. But go ahead and read it and decide for yourself.
I do not do any experiments about Jews, and I don't know what you are asking about. Again, I do not speak for MacDonald. If you cannot understand what he says, ask him. Not me.
You wrote the following...
In my experiments, almost anything a non-Jew says about Jews can trigger an accusation of anti-semitism. This happens even with positive comments about Jews, such as saying that they are smart and successful. In most cases, the person crying anti-semitism is the hater.
Were these your words, or were you just quoting someone else ?
My typo. I meant to say, "in my experience".
Macdonald says, "Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States."
George says, "In my "experiences", almost anything a non-Jew says about Jews can trigger an accusation of anti-semitism. This happens even with positive comments about Jews, such as saying that they are smart and successful. In most cases, the person crying anti-semitism is the hater."
Go figure why Jews might be suspicous about your positive comments as you quote MacDonald ?
You aren't familiar with his politics, right ?
I don't know what your point is, but if you want antagonistic opinions about Jews, just read essays about Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip.
I think you understand my point. If I want antagonistic opinions about Jews, I can always just read your blog, too.
Yes, I got your point. You hate MacDonald because he tells the truth. I have given you many chances to elaborate, but your messages are off-topic, and I have heard enough for this thread.
You, didn't get my point. Then, I add nothing to my point and you get my point ? You don't know his politics, then you do know is politics ?
I never said that I hate him, and I don't hate him.
"He has written scholarly papers and books that are out of my expertise."
How would you know if he's truthful or not ?
Post a Comment