Leftist censorship

Nobody should be surprised that the dictatorial ruler of North Korea would want to censor a film that offended him, or even that he would feel entitled to break the law by threatening reprisals against the offenders. His actions emulate those of hard-left feminists, radical Muslims, university administrators, and others who seek to prevent the publication or distribution of material they deem offensive.

I recall an incident several years ago when radical feminists fired bullets through the windows of a Harvard Square bookstore to protest its sale of Playboy Magazine. I also recall being physically threatened by a group called “Dykes on Bikes” – a feminist motorcycle gang – for providing legal representation of alleged pornographers.

Then there is radical Islamic censorship that has become far more deadly. When some radical Muslims were offended by Theo Van Gogh’s film “Submission,” which exposed Islam’s demeaning views toward women, Van Gogh was murdered in cold blood and his co-producer’s life threatened by a Fatwa. Salman Rushdie had to go into hiding when a Fatwa was issued against him and his book, “The Satanic Verses.” The Yale University Press, fearful of threats of violence, censored the actual cartoons depicting Mohammed from a book about that subject, following violent reaction to the publication of the cartoons in Scandinavia.

More recently, radical anti-Israel students tried to get SodaStream products banned from Harvard dining halls, because they were offended by the "micro-aggression" represented by the location of the company's factory beyond Israel’s Green Line. So instead of simply not drinking the product themselves, they tried to prevent everyone else from drinking it or even seeing its name!

Hard-left students, and even some on the soft left, have tried to ban sexist jokes and offensive classroom discussion on university campuses. Speech codes on many campuses are designed to prevent students from being offended by the comments of others.

The National Office of Amnesty International recently rescinded an invitation I had received from the Columbia University branch of the organization because they were offended by some of my views. And several universities, including Brandeis, rescinded offers of honorary degrees from proposed recipients because some students regarded their views as offensive. Other deserving candidates have been passed over for fear of offending some.

We live in an age in which censoring material that is deemed offensive by some is becoming widely accepted, especially among young people on the left.

There are, of course, major differences between using criminal means (violence, hacking, threats) and using arguably lawful means (speech codes, rescinding invitations) to achieve the censorship of offending material, but the results may be similar: self-censorship.

In my book "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law," published last year, I predicted that “self-censorship that results from fear of violent responses” will give “those who threaten violence an effective veto over what can be published in the United States.” Unfortunately, events since I wrote those words have confirmed their accuracy.

So why are we surprised when a foreign dictator tries to achieve what mainstream Americans – and indeed mainstream leftists around the globe – are trying to achieve: namely the “right” to be free from being offended.

This alleged “right” is, of course, in direct conflict with the most basic of rights in any democracy: the right to express views deemed offensive by some, and the corollary right to hear or see such views.

There are at least two ways a person can be offended by freedom of expression. The first is by actually having to read the offending book or see the offending film. In totalitarian dictatorships, citizens are indeed required to read and see what the dictator wants them to be exposed to. Not so in democracies, where we are free to choose our book and films.

The second is by simply knowing that others, who are not offended, may choose to read or see the offending work.

The first has a simple solution: don’t read the book; don’t see the movie; change the channel; drink Pepsi instead of SodaStream.

The second has no legitimate claim to acceptance in a diverse democracy. Citizen A should not be able to prevent Citizen B from reading or seeing something that would offend Citizen A if he were required to read or see it.

There are also cases in which the material in question reveals private information about Citizen A or portrays him or her in an unsavory light. In those cases, there are appropriate legal remedies – such as the law of defamation – for those who are harmed by what others read about them. Beyond that, being offended should never be the basis for censoring.

So if we really want any right to delegitimize what the North Korean dictator is ostensibly trying to do to us, we should begin at home: by delegitimizing the efforts of our own citizens to censor material that they find offensive.

Source

Hold a part of jezebel accountable

Gawker Media, particularly its weblogs Gawker, Jezebel, and Kotaku, need to be held accountable for several actions that any decent person would find reprehensible. We find that this company does not deserve any advertising at all, especially not from such big companies as Amazon or Google. We provide a list of their crimes-

There is a list of violations that Gawker Media has committed or allowed under its watch. Jezebel is a part of Gawker Media which is even a better reason to sign that petition. Gawker has committed all kinds of violations that are listed on the website.

What women really are

This video sums it up.

Women being themselves

Pro-male women?

Beware The Coming Breed of “Pro-Male” Women
By Ashlar Ben David

As Roosh accurately predicted it would a couple years ago, the manosphere is now mainstream. Excited as I am to see and be a part of this change in the direction of the narrative, I find it also prudent to discuss where these changes will lead and how we can remain vigilant—lest our guards drop and we find ourselves in unpleasant circumstances once more.

Now that feminism is starting to be considered “uncool” by many women, more and more of them will begin to openly speak against it. It does not matter if they were feminists last week; if it hurts their status today, then women will throw even their best friends under the bus without batting an eye. Many will quickly and sharply denounce their old friends, even taking the extra step of becoming openly “pro-male” if it becomes a popular stance that celebrities endorse (which it will).

To many men, this will appear to be progress. In some ways, it really will be. But consider that a “pro male” woman, a real one, is just a person who respects other people. She’s probably also a “pro female” woman, and just pro-humanity in general. As such, truly pro-male women probably never identified as feminists to begin with, having seen through the layers of deception and nonsense early on.

So the pro-male women are already the ones who are treating us well, and will continue to do so regardless of what is popular in the cultural narrative and indoctrinated into the masses through expertly hypnotic media outlets. The newly “pro-male” women we will see are simply going to be doing what women always do: outwardly going along with whatever gets them what they want, while inwardly having wildly different feelings and motives.

Remember, women are like water: their behavior conforms to the shape of whatever container you put them in.
If the media says “being feminist is uncool, being pro-male is the new black,” then women will jump on board. Their old beliefs will be discarded in a flash, since they were never real beliefs to begin with. Nor are her new ones, which is why she can make the switch without one iota of discomfort or cognitive dissonance.

The reason I am giving this warning today is that men will soon be in a uniquely vulnerable position and we will want to stay wary of this. Having been denied the opportunity to build real, loving relationships with real, loving women, we have pragmatically settled on simply sleeping with as many attractive and easy women as we can while committing nothing and compromising even less. As such, I believe that men are in a state of deep and painful yearning for true femininity—with all its supportive and healing qualities—and will be fairly easy to trick with a presentation that appears to be what we’ve been looking for.

We have seen before how prominent manosphere personalities have thrown everything out the window to get married, tarnishing their own legacies and making themselves out to be hypocrites all to lock down that “one special girl who showed them how wrong they were.” Now, I am certainly not denying the possibility that they truly did meet a unicorn, a beautiful and feminine supportive and loving woman who wasn’t just a manipulative, back-stabbing slut in a unicorn uniform.

But what all experienced men know is far more likely, is that they got tricked by a woman with better game than them. I suppose we shall see as time goes on, whether those relationships end early or not. Regardless, I don’t want to see a whole slew of learned men suddenly changing their minds and hearts because the cute girl they’re dating supports “men’s rights” or took a class about it.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind above else is this:

Women don’t really “believe in causes”—most of the time anyway. When you spend enough time around them, and around the kinds of people who “protest for causes” and “do activism,” you will tend to find that all such people—regardless of sex—are all heart and no brain, all passion and no reason, and are generally just protesting because they enjoy the feeling of it.
They think it’s fun to make signs and yell about things. And to be fair, it actually can be pretty fun. But the point is that most women are not nearly as attached to their “causes” as they seem, with the exception of the fervor with which they fight for animal rights.

So do not be fooled that the newly “pro-male” woman “gets it” so to speak, or understands the red pill man’s perspective. She does not. She has not one of the thousands of requisite male experiences she would have to have in order to “understand our side of things.”

At worst, she is saying it because she’s an undercover feminist trying to get some dirt on men. At best, she is saying it because she likes you and wants to impress you.
And as the frog sank, he surely thought “I knew it all along”….

Source

I've been talking about this until I'm blue in the face. That is why I never trusted the "pro-male woman". In fact I was banned by a "pro-male woman" so I'm aware of what they are like. There is also this. Roosh is a player so he knows a lot about women. I like to think that maybe definitions is a bridge to the rest of the manosphere,from MRA's to MGTOW's to PUA's. Proof we can work together.

Hold UVA misandrist president accountable

Fire University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan
Jonathan Farley
United States

University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan vandalized our legal system by immediately assuming the guilt of innocent men after an anonymous accuser without evidence cried, "Rape!" Sullivan suspended activities of all fraternities (not just the one fraternity the accuser mentioned), and no sororities---discrimination solely on the basis of sex. "Rolling Stone," which published the incredible accusation, now apologizes for running the story, saying it no longer trusts the lone accuser. While the Board of Visitors immediately apologized to the anonymous accuser and her parents, now that "Rolling Stone" has backed away from the story, the Board of Visitors' "zero-tolerance" approach to sexual assault must include firing the woman who aided and abetted a false rape accusation as well as physical violence against the fraternity---in recognition of Brian Banks, Johnathan Montgomery, and the research of Eugene Kanin.

Source and to sign petition

Not to mention the works of Dr. Charles P. McDowwell of the United States Air Force. Let's not exclude him. Let's sign this puppy. Don't let some misnadrist feminist get away with it.