UN says Cyber Violence is equal to real life violence.

Not kidding sadly.

A recent UN panel meeting, thoughtfully headed by some high profile SJWs, have announced that calling someone a name online is the very same as physically assaulting them in real life. Of course this type of cyber violence only happens to women as pointed out by the attendees. Men being the sole perpetrator of any violence are of course free from cyber violence because we all know that men never call each other names online, it's only women who suffer cyber violence.

Here is the link https://archive.is/mrVYv

Note this lovely article is published by Time magazine, the assistant sectary of the UN is the quoted source.

Here are some lovely captions from the conference;


I wish I was making this shit up....
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Sanic, KFC, Jaiman and 4 others
Click to expand...
I know the UN is a paper tiger. That's not the real issue my concern is the legitimacy these professional victims are getting from media opportunities like this and that fucked up Google visit.

Legitimacy of their concerns is what they crave and my buggiest fear. As long as people keep laughing at these shitheads we are safe, once they get taken seriously well then I start to worry.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Splendid and Too Many Crooks
Null said:
If you're the kind of limp wrist, pencil neck cunt to see this and appropriate it to a fucking hashtag movement about video games, you are truly cancer and you are the reason why shit like this passes almost every single year. We are constantly losing our ability to speak our minds and nobody gives a fuck.
Click to expand...

This applies to why I think websites like this are important. A lot of this bullshit, crybaby SJW stuff gets passed and accepted because there is no voice of sanity amidst all the rampant hugboxing. These people readily join together and go out to push their agenda with little to no REAL opposition, while demonizing people who just simply don't agree with them. It's not even people like us making fun of them; the simple thought of thinking that maybe flipping their shit over the imaginary threat of literal rape from words as "a bit overblown" is being painted as backwards and anti-progressive.

I honestly wish I had the infinite source of income and time these people tend to have to go the UN and Google to campaign about bullshit, but sadly I do not. That's why I find myself staying away from the likes of Tumblr and posting here. I would hope just having large bastions of sanity on the internet will be enough to provide a voice against the future Tumblr desires, but seeing stuff like this article makes me wonder just where we are all going to end up a decade from now.
 
BadaBadaBoom said:
This applies to why I think websites like this are important. A lot of this bullshit, crybaby SJW stuff gets passed and accepted because there is no voice of sanity amidst all the rampant hugboxing. These people readily join together and go out to push their agenda with little to no REAL opposition, while demonizing people who just simply don't agree with them. It's not even people like us making fun of them; the simple thought of thinking that maybe flipping their shit over the imaginary threat of literal rape from words as "a bit overblown" is being painted as backwards and anti-progressive.

I honestly wish I had the infinite source of income and time these people tend to have to go the UN and Google to campaign about bullshit, but sadly I do not. That's why I find myself staying away from the likes of Tumblr and posting here. I would hope just having large bastions of sanity on the internet will be enough to provide a voice against the future Tumblr desires, but seeing stuff like this article makes me wonder just where we are all going to end up a decade from now.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the next generation just grows out of this. Some people here have said the next generation is actually growing more conservative.
 
An Ounce of Vagina said:
Hopefully the next generation just grows out of this. Some people here have said the next generation is actually growing more conservative.
Click to expand...

Too bad it's always "conservative" and "liberal" rather than realizing "hey, this suppressing freedom of speech shit was bad the last time it happened, maybe we should stop doing that!" Instead, it's usually just reveling in the ability to censor the other side again.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Ravenor, Bob's Fries, SolidusChris and 9 others
An Ounce of Vagina said:
Hopefully the next generation just grows out of this. Some people here have said the next generation is actually growing more conservative.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan's 1980 election campaign capitalized on the backlash against the civil rights movement quite well. He sold a more genteel form of racism that was palatable to the delicate sensibilities of middle-class whites, not only in the south but in the rest of the country as well. (Carter being a moron didn't hurt either.)

The pendulum always swings back in the other direction, and the people who are the most socially vulnerable always suffer the most. In this case, I think it will probably be the trans-folk that Tumblr is always going on about.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Disagree
Reactions: ToroidalBoat, Too Many Crooks, Splendid and 2 others
AnOminous said:
Too bad it's always "conservative" and "liberal" rather than realizing "hey, this suppressing freedom of speech shit was bad the last time it happened, maybe we should stop doing that!" Instead, it's usually just reveling in the ability to censor the other side again.
Click to expand...

I'd take a neo-con or hell even Trump as president over a SJW president any day. At least Trump's first act probably won't be issuing an executive order legalizing the enslavement of whites and banning heterosexuality.
 
  • Autistic
  • Agree
Reactions: KFC, Rin, Marvin and 2 others
AnOminous said:
Most of the bad parts of the Communications Decency Act, the part about actual "decency," has actually been found unconstitutional and basically doesn't exist any more. However, there's a part called § 230 that goes like this:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).
Click to expand...

In this lengthy post from Saturday, I extolled the virtues of 47 U.S.C. § 230 as basically the best piece of legislation since the First Amendment itself for freedom of speech.

Guess who hates it?

Arthur Chu. In TechCrunch, which used to be an outlet where you could occasionally find something other than the imbecility of this little fuck Arthur Chu. Since reading anything by Chu makes me feel like blood is about to start shooting out of my eyeballs, I won't quote his shit, but will note that Popehat, lawyer Ken White, took the piss out of this little pissant nicely.

3. Arthur Chu seems to think that removing Section 230 will help end online harassment, because forums and sites and blogs will take down nasty things said about people he supports. Maybe. But does Arthur think that harassers won't just as quickly use this new tool he's kindly given them? Does Arthur have a blog? If he does, folks can use anonymous proxies to post mean and nasty criticism on that blog against, say, me — and then I can rush in and sue Arthur. "But I didn't post it! It wasn't up that long! How could I know it was false? It's not really actionable harassment, is it?" Great arguments Arthur. You've got a real shot with those at the summary judgment hearing 18 months and $150,000 from now. Do you really think, Arthur, that the scumbags who threaten and harass and abuse and SWATT people will scruple for a moment about abusing your new less restrictive legal system to harass women and minorities for their online expression? Then you're a damned fool.

What's the result? Web platforms that take down content the minute anyone demands it. The death of any platforms discussing inherently controversial and anger-provoking things. And do you think people abuse complaint systems to shut up their enemies now? Just you wait.

And the flood of lawsuits! Oh, the lawsuits. See, lawsuits are about leveraging the expense and brokenness of the system to shake money out of people. Even if you figure out who HurrHurrFeminitzSuck on Twitter is, he's probably a dude living out of a storage locker. No money to be gained suing him, especially if his comment is close to the line between defamation and non-defamation. But if you can sue Twitter, too, when he talks? Deep pockets ahoy. Now it makes sense to sue, because even if you have a shitty case on the merits, Twitter may settle for a few thousand bucks to avoid the cost of protracted litigation. There are lots of idle lawyers out there, friend. Do you have a house? If so, you better not have comments on your blog.

Should threats and harassment and abuse be addressed? Absolutely. Convince private companies like Twitter and Facebook to offer better tools, and to expel bad actors. Vote with your feet from one platform to others that handle abuse better. Work together to track and whenever possible stomp the bad actors.

But eliminate Section 230 because you think the legal system is made of rainbows and children's laughter? Ridiculous.

Internet harassment and free speech are serious issues, but Arthur Chu is not a serious person.
Click to expand...

https://popehat.com/2015/09/29/arth...ke-lawyers-richer-and-you-quieter-and-poorer/

(Note: the context is Chu is supporting Sarkeesian and Quinn in their quest to do away with freedom of speech. He may be a stupid, venal little cocksucker, but he is entirely aware that § 230 stands completely in the way of his little cabal of fascists.)
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin, Trombonista, c-no and 2 others
Honestly, the UN is just scratching the tip of the iceberg. It's not just women that are victims.

Just the other day I was playing Xbox and a 13 year old called me a homophobic slur and made sexually abusive comments about my mother. If that isn't violence, then I don't know the definition of that word.
 
  • Feels
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: Whatisgoingon, Marvin, Quijibo69 and 3 others
Kaz said:
The Patriots feminists are trying to protect their power, their own interests, by controlling the digital flow of information.
Click to expand...
Is it bad to say that they are making Chris-chan's idea of conformity look like candyland. And this is coming from a female gamer who finds Quinn and Sarkeesian as fake as Chris' efame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back