What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[rh2000]

I don't know what happened but after reading all of yall comments it sounds like you guys are a bunch of whiny babies. Saying lets stop using a great service because a guy shared the same video that millions of others had also did is retarded. Did you babies get offended that i said retarded? Do you need an emotional support animal for how Rob traumatized you ? Bottom line is acting like a bunch of liberal crybabies never gets you anywhere in life but running to your safe space asking for free handouts. If a service is good you use it . To denounce a good service because you found out the owner is human is retarded. Did he say something like all muslims need to choke on some bacon? Guess not. But you act like he did. please feel free to blow up my inbox and make a comment how i'm a racist since everyone here is on the rush to judgement train.

With a profile pic like that, I can't even take your comment serious.

 

[DN Playbook]

Because this thread is going off-topic and losing its seriousness, I will make my last attempt to reach Rob's inner-person, his heart.

Rob, you claim that you are a Bible-believing Christian. So you know that the second greatest commandment is to "love your neighbor as yourself", as stated by Jesus Christ, who as we know was both a Jew and the founder of Christianity.

The Jewish scholar who asked Jesus that question about the greatest commandment followed up with "Who really is my neighbor?"

Jesus' answered with one of his most famous parables. The one about the Good Samaritan. I don't think I have to go into details because we all know it. The Samaritan who found a Jew half dead, by the robbers, and then helped him to full recovery. All the while a priest and a Levite saw him but then wondered by and ignored this poor man.

In Jesus' day, Samaritans were hated by the Jews because although they descended from a Hebrew blood-line they became mixed with other nations. Yet he said they are to be loved as one loves himself. Today there is no Samaritan nation. So if Jesus gave this parable of the Good Samaritan today, what nation in existence would he use instead? It would more than likely be a Good Palestinian. A muslim.

So how would you answer "who really is my neighbor"?

Now why would you go and rub salt into the wound of our beloved neighbors whose tears from the loss of their loved ones have yet to dry off?

Why would you suggest that the death of 50 unarmed men, women, and children is a hoax? While real families and friends are still mourning their deaths?

Whether you actually answer these questions, or continue to remain silent, the answer will be loud and clear.

 

[BRANDERX]

The difference is in the civilized World school and work uniforms are required for Everyone regardless of Gender and are only used when people are taking part in certain Public activities and in most part are meant for safety, protection, cleanliness, branding and advertising, or convenience. If headscarves were also looked at as such and were required for all Genders then their use might be justified in certain circumstances for example surgeons, chefs, and some manufacturing workers might be required to cover their head, but that's for all Genders and only while they are at work, they don't have to wear headscarves all the time like some Women (and only Women) have to do in certain places who will be jailed if they don’t comply. For Women who Voluntarily wear headscarves it might be considered as fashion, but for those who are forced to wear one it is a Symbol of Suppression. When the President of NZ wears a headscarf some see it as a sign of respect to other religions and cultures, but some might look at it as a betrayal of the Universal rights and Values that many people have fought (and given their lives for) to uphold for the rest of us.

ok, thanks for the clarification.

& I thought you were talking favorably of Muslim women choosing to wear AL Hijab, as long as they are not forced to wear it(by men).

Obviously that is not the case, & that is not what you meant, & so we are not on the same page.

It looks like your mission in this thread is to question Islam & its practices. You are free to do that & I am free to be against it.

safety, protection, cleanliness, branding you say? Well that pretty much is the reason why Hijab is being adopted by Muslims women & other women too around the world

FYI, Hijab is only required in the presence of strange men, not the whole time like you claimed.

I hope one day you'll meet a decent, educated Muslim woman that'll teach you all about it.

& by the way, Allah does not " force it " he ask his worshipers to do it & they are free not to.

Just like Allah asked that terrorist not to kill an innocent soul, unfortunately he killed 50, probably HATE of Hijab was also a motive.

All the best to you,
Regards,
Mohammad

 

[oldtimer]

Moderation is key to mankind, as my religion teaches me.

Regards,
Mohammad

You sound like a decent person, I have much respect for those who choose the way of moderation as you had mentioned. But you have to agree those women who live under some of the most extreme and brutal systems and who are deprived of education and have no say in their own lives is not something that anyone can be proud of. To be a decent person and to have decent clothing should be encouraged for all people regardless of their gender, but to force some women to wear full cover as if they don’t even exist should be of concern to all who want a peaceful World based on moderation and understanding.

ok, thanks for the clarification.

& I thought you were talking favorably of Muslim women choosing to wear AL Hijab, as long as they are not forced to wear it(by men).

Obviously that is not the case, & that is not what you meant, & so we are not on the same page.

It looks like your mission in this thread is to question Islam & its practices. You are free to do that & I am free to be against it.

safety, protection, cleanliness, branding you say? Well that pretty much is the reason why Hijab is being adopted by Muslims women & other women too around the world

FYI, Hijab is only required in the presence of strange men, not the whole time like you claimed.

I hope one day you'll meet a decent, educated Muslim woman that'll teach you all about it.

& by the way, Allah does not " force it " he ask his worshipers to do it & they are free not to.

Just like Allah asked that terrorist not to kill an innocent soul, unfortunately he killed 50, probably HATE of Hijab was also a motive.

All the best to you,
Regards,
Mohammad

 

[BRANDERX]

You sound like a decent person, I have much respect for those who choose the way of moderation as you had mentioned. But you have to agree those women who live under some of the most extreme and brutal systems and who are deprived of education and have no say in their own lives is not something that anyone can be proud of. To be a decent person and to have decent clothing should be encouraged for all people regardless of their gender, but to force some women to wear full cover as if they don’t even exist should be of concern to all who want a peaceful World based on moderation and understanding.

Thank you.

I'll respond to each point separately if I may:

those women who live under some of the most extreme and brutal systems and who are deprived of education and have no say in their own lives is not something that anyone can be proud of:

Resonse: Absolutely, I look at those women & I i get physically disturbed. It has to change & the first step is to acknowledge its a problem. It has a lot to do with bad politics, corruption & most importantly to me: twisted religious beliefs that are based on perverted ideologies. In Islam there is no place for this (deprived of education & have no say in their own lives). Believe me.

Personal note to give you an idea: my sister was fortunate enough to get a decent education, she holds a BA in business from an American university in the region, a decent university, & she was then employed at a startup where she worked for few years , eventually becoming the general manager. She then left that job, got married, & began a new career at one of the largest banks in the MENA region, forward five years, she is now the head of customer experience at the HQ of that bank. She is our family's champion.

That is my Muslim sister, & I am so proud of that. She is now a mother of two beautiful kids. My religion encourages this, & indeed requires it. Note, there are millions like her in "Stable" countries in the region, & beyond.

To be a decent person and to have decent clothing should be encouraged for all people regardless of their gender, but to force some women to wear full cover as if they don’t even exist should be of concern to all who want a peaceful World based on moderation and understanding.

Response: Full cover: NO NO NO, purely social & absolutely not required by Islam, don't go get some quotes by anyone, I have the proof & I know the facts.

What is required is: Hijab ONLY, covering the head, hair & wearing decent clothing. Whatever covers the face IS NOT REQUIRED in my Islamic sect, Sunna, which is the vast majority of Islam .

Now does that mean Muslim women & ladies who don't wear Hijab are not actually Muslims & must be punished? Absolutely not, never ever ever, that is between her & her creator, absolutely no place for any man or woman for that matter, to interfere, force , judge or anything like that.

That is why Isis hates people like me, because they claim to be Sunna, but actually they are perverts, thugs, & drug addicts. My country Jordan is always a target for those, because we are Muslims fighting perversion.

I got into personal details because I am passionate about this, always will be.

Regards,
Mohammad

 

[Domains - Wanted]

I don't know what happened but after reading all of yall comments it sounds like you guys are a bunch of whiny babies...

Not all of us here. I gather you were referring to the majority here, who appear to be very disturbed by Rob's action.

Saying lets stop using a great service because a guy shared the same video that millions of others had also did is retarded...

I agree with your premise, if not the disrespectful way that you've put it. A bit more civility, restraint, tolerance, on both sides, would go a long way. I respect everybody's right to follow through on their convictions. That is to say, Rob's right to publish whatever he feels the need to publish; my right to ignore it, not to watch it; as well as other people's right, need, to watch it and feel offended by it. And to take their business elsewhere. And to recommend to others here to do likewise. I just excercise my right to calmly ignore such calls as incredibly misguided and counterproductive. To my interests, that is. I couldn't care less if others drop everything and start transferring their domains out

Did you babies get offended that i said retarded?

Speaking for myself only, not at all. Some people have the sensitivity of a charging rhinoceros and can't help it. To me, it's impractical and not a little entertaining, is all, like many other lively, opposing posts in this thread... which reminds me... running low on popcorn again

Do you need an emotional support animal for how Rob traumatized you ?

Good one! It does begin to look like a few people here could use a little support, counseling. Interestingly, not so much because of the terrible, senseless tragedy in Christchurch, but because of Rob's action and some other people (like me) having the temerity not to hang him for it! And not transfering domains out from Epik doesn't help. Apparently this borders on being as bad a fascist, Nazi, as Rob himself

Bottom line is acting like a bunch of liberal crybabies never gets you anywhere in life but running to your safe space asking for free handouts. If a service is good you use it . To denounce a good service because you found out the owner is human is retarded...

Again, needlessly disrespectful, but a good point nevertheless. But it's their right to act out, lash out, just like you here, and hurt their bottom line if it makes them feel better, morally superior. Heck, I approve wholeheartedly! I'm sticking with Epik. With lots of domains transfered out, maybe Epik will run another rare promo to get more business...?

Did he say something like all muslims need to choke on some bacon? Guess not. But you act like he did. please feel free to blow up my inbox and make a comment how i'm a racist since everyone here is on the rush to judgement train.

Again, not everyone here, by any count; see @MS-Domains's posts above for a breath of fresh air. But I fully agree with you that this (Rob's action) has been blown well out of proportion

 

[DN Playbook]

Apparently the conversation has moved to a new thread. If you are looking for Mr. Monster's comments, you can find them here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/free-speech.1129018/

I am punching out at Namepros. Will respond via blog below.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

We are sorry to see this in our industry. Our registry has donated to support the victims of this horrific tragedy, and we are gathering support from others as well.

If you'd like to join us in helping the victims, please visit http://Give.Monster to donate. Thank you for your support.

Maybe this in itself needs a new thread...

Because now it's not just epik, it's XYZregistry.

But before grilling, I think we need to hear from the @XYZregistry again.

While their delivery of [Give.Monster] to this thread can be argued as tasteless, the essence of sharing a victim fund, donating, and asking others to donate is an honorable thing to do.

Though, given their platform, I'm sure they could have implemented a much more meaningful campaign to generate traffic and/or donations for the victims fund, rather than it coming off as a shot at something else.

I mean, @XYZregistry first and only post, received 12 dislikes and 1 like at time of posting. You wouldn't expect a post urging members to donate to the victims fund to receive such a reaction. But when you consider the delivery, and the fact it was their one and only post, and the timing of their .Monster release, I won't be surprised if the dislikes continue to pour in.

I'm conflicted as to like it, or dislike it.

I like the donation aspect, and I didn't know about the fund until it was shared. Kudos for that.

But I do think the delivery to this thread seemed tasteless. A standalone thread promoting the fund, a proceed of profits, special auction, or matched domainer donation could have accomplished much more.

Regardless, who am I to question their motives?

Sadly, I don't think I'm in a financial position to be donating to causes at this point in time.

So, the way I see it, XYZregistery has done more to positively impact the victims than I have.

Upon realizing this, I started to feel bad about critiquing their post. And started to wonder why would the XYZregistery use GIVE.Monster to redirect to GIVEalittle.co.nz/cause/christchurch-shooting-victims-fund.

Was it simply, .MONSTER is in EAP right now, XYZ can register and re-direct Give.Monster to support the victim fund? Hoping to piggy back off the traffic of registrants looking to register .Monster domains, in specific Give.Monster? Or was their a press release somewhere that explained this -- maybe, in collaboration with the release of the .Monster TLD, they redirected Give.Monster to the fund, and themselves will be giving X amount of .Monster domain registrations proceeds to the fund? Was their any other angle besides the apparent obvious .monster in the room?

FWIW:

...

But why GIVE.MONSTER?

Why not GIVE.XYZ? After all, they are the @XYZregistry, and .XYZ seems more fitting to donate to a victim support fund than a .Monster?

Not sure what I'm ranting about at this point; I'd just like to see an amicable ending. As this seems quite strange.

It doesn't seem right for XYZregistry to try and profit over this.

It does seem right if XYZregistry did this to help the victims.

 

[wormfood]

Should a journalist use pejoratives like "Bible-thumping" instead of "christian" when characterizing someone's decision in a controversial freedom-of-speech case? No, I demand more objectivity from journalists. They failed to do their job properly, and I do blame them for having an agenda to smear Rob. Even if he deserves blame, journalists should not distort the case by using pejoratives or innuendo.

oh no, a guy who posts <sermon>s on here was characterized so unfairly.


https://www.namepros.com/threads/epik-announces-escrow-service.895046/#post-5134933

as some people in the domain industry know, I am a Bible-believing Christian, actively involved in ministry. Regardless of anyone’s personal theological beliefs, or lack thereof, be assured that all of the people who work at Epik apply the “Do unto others” acid test to everything we do.



https://www.namepros.com/threads/do-you-judge-people-by-their-domains.1105583/#post-6940545

<sermon>

Judge not, that ye be not judged. - Matthew 7:1


no no, I think it says "make stupid judgments about things you weren't personally involved in. assume that everyone else on earth was duped and shared false information with you, oh discerning one."


https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...fer-or-suspension.1107245/page-6#post-6957471

<sermon>

Life is created at conception -- there is a literal flash of light -- when the soul is implanted in the embryo.

The myth of evolution and the myth that the earth is the product of randomness are all designed to make people think that they don't matter.



maybe this is why he appears to believe BS and thinks it's worth discussing whether every major event or tragedy is a hoax or false flag.


this guy says he "filled 2 libraries over a 10 year period in my own personal search" for truth, and he came to the conclusion that evolution is a myth there's no point expecting anything reasonable out of him.

 

[Silentptnr]

The Bible-Thumping Tech CEO Who’s Proud Of Keeping Neo-Nazis Online

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c17bb29e4b05d7e5d846f72

@Rob Monster You should be very saddened by articles like this unless you truly are comfortable aligning yourself with these organizations and are willing to say goodbye to those who can't stomach it. I sincerely hope that you will find your way out of the mess you have on your hands. Otherwise, I fear you are on a track to lose respect personally and professionally, lose momentum, and possibly lose your role at Epik.

Your approach to standing up for free speech is flawed. You have aligned yourself and company with the wrong groups.

It is not too late to come to your senses. Tell these companies that you were wrong and that they will have to find somewhere else. Business can be tough. You can be tough. You will be forgiven for making this huge error in judgment.

IMO

 

[carob]

Apparently the conversation has moved to a new thread. If you are looking for Mr. Monster's comments, you can find them here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/free-speech.1129018/

I am punching out at Namepros. Will respond via blog below.

A number of specific questions have been put to Rob Monster and Epik in this thread, so it really is to be expected that he should answer them here, not in another thread that is meant to be a hypothetical discussion about freedom of speech.

 

[xynames]

Bob Hawkes wrote something above about how he had a sit down chat with the Monster some months ago and found him to be quiet and thoughtful. This doesn’t gibe with the stubborn insensitive persona we’ve seen online to the point of his refusing to offer much more than a hollow “sorry if I offended anyone” type apology for all this mess, in another NP thread.

I think these two opposing characters make sense actually. The Monster has certain deep seated prejudices and biases which he’s more comfortable expressing online in relative anonymity. In person he’s more reserved more reluctant to let it all hang out. This could be said of most anyone (in person versus online) but in the case of the Monster what he’s been saying and said recently have come back to roast him, and (unfortunately for him), his in person and online persona are being merged, forcibly, by people who are taking a good hard look at him.

I think we’d get a different form of apology from him in person.

 

[NameLlama]

Despite his diverse circle of friends, Monster appears at ease with the anti-Semitic slurs and racist fearmongering that are rampant on the site. Earlier this month, he approvingly shared a video by Faith Goldy, a Canadian white nationalist, that characterized migrants as the bearers of “rape epidemics, sharia law, and the spectacle of terror.”



That same month, when one Gab user accused Monster of talking like a “RAT KIKE,” he responded that he is “not a ‘kike’ nor governed by one. ” When another person on Gab said he was pleased to know the site was hosted by a guy who wouldn’t “kowtow to globalists” — a term commonly used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle — Monster responded, “Indeed.” Monster assured another Gab user who was worried about Epik having two Jewish board members that “having a Jewish person on Epik’s board may be somewhat helping with keeping certain forces at bay.”

Tal Moore, one of the Jewish board members, stepped down from the board earlier this month because of Epik’s involvement with Gab, he told HuffPost. The other, Braden Pollock ― who is married to the famous civil rights lawyer Lisa Bloom — did not respond to a request for comment.




“Did it ever cross anyone’s mind that the story about the missionary disappearing after going on a mission work is Psyop?” he posted last month, linking to a CNN story about an American missionary who traveled to North Sentinel Island in the Bay of Bengal in an effort to convert its residents to Christianity. “What better way to dissuade Christians from fulfilling the Great Commission than to convince that the Lord is not actually with them.”





Earlier this month, Monster theorized that a new swastika-ridden Gab account was really a “fake Liberal account” created by a faculty member in the psychology department at the State University of New York at Geneseo. He claimed that the phone number listed on the account’s registration form matched the phone number on an outdated-looking website for the faculty member.




And Monster described Cantwell as “rational” and someone “who I actually quite like, in spite of the F-bomb theatrics.”




https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rob-monster-epik-gab-neo-nazi_us_5c17bb29e4b05d7e5d846f72

 

[Slanted]

to force some women to wear full cover as if they don’t even exist should be of concern to all who want a peaceful World based on moderation and understanding.

Of course. Women should be free to make their own choices, including how they dress. "Moderation and understanding" includes not judging women negatively who wear a head scarf. It's just an article of clothing like any other.

There is a difference between (A) a head scarf (hijaab), which covers only the hair and often uses vibrant color or decorative patterns, and (B) a burka / niqaab, which is covers all but the eyes in black. I would agree wholeheartedly that (B) is oppressive toward women. But the hijaab is not. The hijaab is something of a fashion statement, and women shop for an hijaab partly for affirmative self-expression. Search for "hijaab fashion", if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Head scarves are not unique to muslims. If you've ever seen a painting in a museum, then you should already know this. How often is the Virgin Mary shown with her hair exposed? Never. She is always wearing a head scarf. Traditionally, and even today, women in Europe and Russia have worn head scarves too. There is nothing especially muslim about women covering their hair.

Any requirement to wear particular articles of clothing is limiting, and it can be downright oppressive. Women in western societies are sometimes told to wear a dress or skirt or bra, even if they'd rather wear pants.

A ban on the hijaab, which many women see as a badge of honor in their culture and a symbol of personal identity, is also extremely oppressive.

women who live under some of the most extreme and brutal systems and who are deprived of education and have no say in their own lives is not something that anyone can be proud of.

Let's not pretend that oppressing women is unique to muslim societies. Nobody can deny that women are very oppressed in some places. But historically they have also been oppressed in Europe and the USA, which now pride themselves on being enlightened. And throughout much of the muslim world, women are much more liberated than occidental stereotypes would have us believe.

When I studied in Cairo, my professors were mostly women. They held advanced degrees (often PhDs), spoke 3-4 languages, had lived in the USA and elsewhere. The school itself was, in fact, owned by one of these women, making her an accomplished entrepreneur. As it happened, all but 1 of these professors wore a head scarf. It was a personal choice. Their daughters, in some cases, chose differently.

Did these women feel oppressed? No. I can say that because they often told me so, complaining about stereotypes in the west. As a matter of fact, they believe that women in the USA are exploited – asked to show skin and wear tight clothing in order to appeal to a male-dominated society. Frankly, they have a point. Looking at the difference in male versus female swimwear or the typical Hollywood movie, it's hard not to agree we have a double standard.

 

[DN Playbook]

A number of specific questions have been put to Rob Monster and Epik in this thread, so it really is to be expected that he should answer them here, not in another thread that is meant to be a hypothetical discussion about freedom of speech.

His take on the "freedom of speech" is what got him into this mess and has pulled us with him.

Let's take the US Constitution as a guide. The first amendment is about the freedom of speech. The second is the right to bear arms.

Both are equal rights under the US Constitution. But what happens if you take your right to bear arms and kill someone innocent or injure them? You abuse that right and will lose it. The law and authorities will make sure of that.

What if you take the right to free speech and kill someone's reputation? Or injure them emotionally or psychologically? Or damage the reputation of others by association? Etc.

The laws are not as clear-cut but the principle should be obvious.

Just like the freedom to bear arms is not limitless, nor is the freedom of speech.

Your principles, your character, your morality comes out in plain view in how you use or misuse those freedoms.

 

[Slanted]

@NameLlama,

Yes, Rob has encountered loathsome people. They're people I'd repudiate in the strongest terms right away. And it is maddening to see that Rob doesn't.

Why not? In part, because Rob never stops seeing himself as a christian evangelist who can "save" such people. To him, they're not "loathsome" because no human being is beyond redemption. And he tries – very awkwardly, I must say – to engage with them.

I'm chagrinned to see him or anyone step over such racist views without challenging them directly. But if you imagine a priest or missionary trying to develop a rapport with a bigot, then you might understand why they'd try to soften the differences of opinion (like racism) and emphasize common ground (like distrust of the media and censorship) in order to ultimately persuade the person to give up the incorrect view. Genuinely, Rob always sees himself in that role of missionary.

To me, this approach seems naïve. I don't believe these bigots show any signs of moderating their views, whereas Rob chooses to highlight the "good" in such people. The lack of direct condemnation of their bigotry makes Rob look like an accomplice. Rob's breezy optimism and tendency to "reach out" to the worst people make for disastrous PR.

I don't approve of Rob's approach. In my opinion, he should condemn bigotry right away and not sidle up to it with mild complimentary expressions. What could be worse than that? But I know from private conversations that Rob doesn't share those bigoted views. He genuinely believes he is going to convert the bigots toward tolerance.

As I mentioned earlier, this has me pulling my hair out. Very few people are going to understand or be sympathetic to Rob's extremely charitable attitude toward bigots. Yet I can understand that it is – partly at least – an extremely christian attitude toward sinners.

What further muddies the waters is that Rob's own political views are conservative and somewhere on the "right". That means he does have some common ground with people who are much more extreme than he would ever be. He is not alone in minimizing the problem of white supremacy. Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have done so for many years. Congressman Steve King has expressed openly white supremacist views ad nauseam, yet a majority of people have re-elected him year after year.

As a progressive, I'm never going to be satisfied with the genuine opinions of people in much of the USA. They elect bigots like Steve King and Donald Trump to government and cheer them on because they share some of those attitudes. Those views will be around until those people kick the bucket, if not beyond. Some of the people who vote that way and think that way are going to be CEOs. Rob is far from being alone.

I don't know much about Rob's politics because, as an employee, I don't try to bring up divisive issues with my coworkers. Though Rob has some right-wing views that seem absurd and wrong to me (as a progressive), Rob is not a bad guy. I have seen the way he interacts with muslims and others. He's not only tolerant; he's welcoming.

Rob has crossed a line. And he will have to come to terms with the PR consequences, if nothing more. We should not excuse bigotry of the kind Rob has sidestepped in public. Based on private conversations, I know that Rob doesn't excuse or share it. He too should denounce it.

 

[Internet.Domains]

@NameLlama,

Yes, Rob has encountered loathsome people. They're people I'd repudiate in the strongest terms right away. And it is maddening to see that Rob doesn't.

Why not? In part, because Rob never stops seeing himself as a christian evangelist who can "save" such people. To him, they're not "loathsome" because no human being is beyond redemption. And he tries – very awkwardly, I must say – to engage with them.

I'm chagrinned to see him or anyone step over such racist views without challenging them directly. But if you imagine a priest or missionary trying to develop a rapport with a bigot, then you might understand why they'd try to soften the differences of opinion (like racism) and emphasize common ground (like distrust of the media and censorship) in order to ultimately persuade the person to give up the incorrect view. Genuinely, Rob always sees himself in that role of missionary.

To me, this approach seems naïve. I don't believe these bigots show any signs of moderating their views, whereas Rob chooses to highlight the "good" in such people. The lack of direct condemnation of their bigotry makes Rob look like an accomplice. Rob's breezy optimism and tendency to "reach out" to the worst people make for disastrous PR.

I don't approve of Rob's approach. In my opinion, he should condemn bigotry right away and not sidle up to it with mild complimentary expressions. What could be worse than that? But I know from private conversations that Rob doesn't share those bigoted views. He genuinely believes he is going to convert the bigots toward tolerance.

As I mentioned earlier, this has me pulling my hair out. Very few people are going to understand or be sympathetic to Rob's extremely charitable attitude toward bigots. Yet I can understand that it is – partly at least – an extremely christian attitude toward sinners.

What further muddies the waters is that Rob's own political views are conservative and somewhere on the "right". That means he does have some common ground with people who are much more extreme than he would ever be. He is not alone in minimizing the problem of white supremacy. Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have done so for many years. Congressman Steve King has expressed openly white supremacist views ad nauseam, yet a majority of people have re-elected him year after year.

As a progressive, I'm never going to be satisfied with the genuine opinions of people in much of the USA. They elect bigots like Steve King and Donald Trump to government and cheer them on because they share some of those attitudes. Those views will be around until those people kick the bucket, if not beyond. Some of the people who vote that way and think that way are going to be CEOs. Rob is far from being alone.

I don't know much about Rob's politics because, as an employee, I don't try to bring up divisive issues with my coworkers. Though Rob has some right-wing views that seem absurd and wrong to me (as a progressive), Rob is not a bad guy. I have seen the way he interacts with muslims and others. He's not only tolerant; he's welcoming.

Rob has crossed a line. And he will have to come to terms with the PR consequences, if nothing more. We should not excuse bigotry of the kind Rob has sidestepped in public. Based on private conversations, I know that Rob doesn't excuse or share it. He too should denounce it.

I believe you started well with your intent to help Rob, but you have wrongfully gone off course. You are making it what not.

What exactly did he do to "cross a line?"

I only saw tweets where he questioned some video evidence and news reported. Is that really offensive? How? Why?

Are people not entitled to question and verify what's reported to them?

 

[DN Playbook]

@NameLlama,

Yes, Rob has encountered loathsome people. They're people I'd repudiate in the strongest terms right away. And it is maddening to see that Rob doesn't.

Why not? In part, because Rob never stops seeing himself as a christian evangelist who can "save" such people. To him, they're not "loathsome" because no human being is beyond redemption. And he tries – very awkwardly, I must say – to engage with them.

I'm chagrinned to see him or anyone step over such racist views without challenging them directly. But if you imagine a priest or missionary trying to develop a rapport with a bigot, then you might understand why they'd try to soften the differences of opinion (like racism) and emphasize common ground (like distrust of the media and censorship) in order to ultimately persuade the person to give up the incorrect view. Genuinely, Rob always sees himself in that role of missionary.

To me, this approach seems naïve. I don't believe these bigots show any signs of moderating their views, whereas Rob chooses to highlight the "good" in such people. The lack of direct condemnation of their bigotry makes Rob look like an accomplice. Rob's breezy optimism and tendency to "reach out" to the worst people make for disastrous PR.

I don't approve of Rob's approach. In my opinion, he should condemn bigotry right away and not sidle up to it with mild complimentary expressions. What could be worse than that? But I know from private conversations that Rob doesn't share those bigoted views. He genuinely believes he is going to convert the bigots toward tolerance.

As I mentioned earlier, this has me pulling my hair out. Very few people are going to understand or be sympathetic to Rob's extremely charitable attitude toward bigots. Yet I can understand that it is – partly at least – an extremely christian attitude toward sinners.

What further muddies the waters is that Rob's own political views are conservative and somewhere on the "right". That means he does have some common ground with people who are much more extreme than he would ever be. He is not alone in minimizing the problem of white supremacy. Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have done so for many years. Congressman Steve King has expressed openly white supremacist views ad nauseam, yet a majority of people have re-elected him year after year.

As a progressive, I'm never going to be satisfied with the genuine opinions of people in much of the USA. They elect bigots like Steve King and Donald Trump to government and cheer them on because they share some of those attitudes. Those views will be around until those people kick the bucket, if not beyond. Some of the people who vote that way and think that way are going to be CEOs. Rob is far from being alone.

I don't know much about Rob's politics because, as an employee, I don't try to bring up divisive issues with my coworkers. Though Rob has some right-wing views that seem absurd and wrong to me (as a progressive), Rob is not a bad guy. I have seen the way he interacts with muslims and others. He's not only tolerant; he's welcoming.

Rob has crossed a line. And he will have to come to terms with the PR consequences, if nothing more. We should not excuse bigotry of the kind Rob has sidestepped in public. Based on private conversations, I know that Rob doesn't excuse or share it. He too should denounce it.

@Slanted

In one sentence you sound like a logical, reasonable, decent person. In the next you totally try to exonerate Rob.

If Rob doesn't share the views of neo-nazis, extremists, white nationalists, etc, and makes it clear to you in private, why doesn't he make it clear in public?

I don't doubt that Rob's intention was to help such people. In what way, I have no idea. But the problem is that he is spending so much time interacting with them that he is starting to sound like them.

You should highlight this scripture to him:

1 Corinthians 15:33 AMP Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor15:33&version=AMP

 

[Internet.Domains]

@Slanted

In one sentence you sound like a logical, reasonable, decent person. In the next you totally try to exonerate Rob.

If Rob doesn't share the views of neo-nazis, extremists, white nationalists, etc, and makes it clear to you in private, why doesn't he make it clear in public?

I don't doubt that Rob's intention was to help such people. In what way, I have no idea. But the problem is that he is spending so much time interacting with them that he is starting to sound like them.

You should highlight this scripture to him:

1 Corinthians 15:33 AMP Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor15:33&version=AMP

I see it the other way, opposite......I don't see him exonerating, I see him convicting.

 

[DN Playbook]

I see it the other way, opposite......I don't see him exonerating, I see him convicting.

Read it again. Without the "convicting" parts.

@NameLlama,

Why not? In part, because Rob never stops seeing himself as a christian evangelist who can "save" such people. To him, they're not "loathsome" because no human being is beyond redemption. And he tries – very awkwardly, I must say – to engage with them.

But if you imagine a priest or missionary trying to develop a rapport with a bigot, then you might understand why they'd try to soften the differences of opinion (like racism) and emphasize common ground (like distrust of the media and censorship) in order to ultimately persuade the person to give up the incorrect view. Genuinely, Rob always sees himself in that role of missionary.

But I know from private conversations that Rob doesn't share those bigoted views. He genuinely believes he is going to convert the bigots toward tolerance.

Yet I can understand that it is – partly at least – an extremely christian attitude toward sinners.

He is not alone in minimizing the problem of white supremacy. Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have done so for many years. Congressman Steve King has expressed openly white supremacist views ad nauseam, yet a majority of people have re-elected him year after year.

Those views will be around until those people kick the bucket, if not beyond. Some of the people who vote that way and think that way are going to be CEOs. Rob is far from being alone.

Rob is not a bad guy. I have seen the way he interacts with muslims and others. He's not only tolerant; he's welcoming.

Based on private conversations, I know that Rob doesn't excuse or share it.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Read it again. Without the "convicting" parts.

Yeah, I'm totally thrown off. I am college educated and I have completely lost my place in this conversation.

Originally, I was supportive of Rob because he questioned some things. He saw some oddities and looked for further information. Nowhere did I see him call it a hoax. That came from accusers.

Now, in another thread, I see @Slanted said he did call it a hoax.

Calling it a "hoax" verses questioning oddities and news given are two completely separate things. BIG DIFFERENCE!

If it was called a hoax, I see the need to apologize. I understand the offense. I feel that is disrespectful to victims.

So, the big question is:

Did Rob call it a hoax or did he not?

 

[JB Lions]

I believe you started well with your intent to help Rob, but you have wrongfully gone off course. You are making it what not.

What exactly did he do to "cross a line?"

I only saw tweets where he questioned some video evidence and news reported. Is that really offensive? How? Why?

Are people not entitled to question and verify what's reported to them?

You seriously are coming off as bit of a troll. For example, the hoax stuff.

People have literally posted a screenshot, what do you think he was saying? If you posted it was sweltering outside, over 100 degrees, that you were sweating buckets and can cook an egg on the sidewalk and I said, you were pointing out it was hot. I would be correct. If that wasn't good enough for you Slanted himself said that's what Rob was saying, multiple times - https://www.namepros.com/search/32521677/?q=hoax&o=date&c[user][0]=994412

Let me quote 1 for you:

Rob did say this from the beginning, actually, even though he maintained the video was a hoax.

Yet you still argue.

And this wasn't the only incident. You can't have your feet in both worlds. Here, I love everybody but then you had this incident and........

I posted a link to the tweet from the Epik account, one most would agree was an anti-semitic graphic made by 8 chan. Right after I posted that, it was deleted, along with liking the post from that Gab troll that first posted it here.

In the first Gab thread, I posted the anti-Muslim meme that was reposted. That Islam was spread thru war or violence, while Christianity was spread by people just hanging out on rocks, talking about the good word. One of the ways it was spread was by violence as well.

I still haven't seen that stuff addressed. Why? It seemed to be as trying to gain some clout with those folks.

And while Slanted was here with the PR campaign, Rob was on the other site linking to these 2 threads and saying this:

"All rhetoric notwithstanding we have seen very few domains leave over this latest controversy. That being said, I am astounded by the brutally intolerant rhetoric."

 

[Internet.Domains]

You seriously are coming off as bit of a troll. For example, the hoax stuff.

People have literally posted a screenshot, what do you think he was saying? If you posted it was sweltering outside, over 100 degrees, that you were sweating buckets and can cook an egg on the sidewalk and I said, you were pointing out it was hot. I would be correct. If that wasn't good enough for you Slanted himself said that's what Rob was saying, multiple times - https://www.namepros.com/search/32521677/?q=hoax&o=date&c[user][0]=994412

Yet you still argue.

And this wasn't the only incident. You can't have your feet in both worlds. Here, I love everybody but then you had this incident and........

I posted a link to the tweet from the Epik account, one most would agree was an anti-semitic graphic made by 8 chan. Right after I posted that it was deleted, along with liking the post from that Gab troll that first posted it here.

In the first Gab thread, I posted the anti-Muslim meme that was reposted. That Islam was spread thru war or violence, while Christianity was spread by people just hanging out on rocks, talking about the good word. One of the ways it was spread was by violence as well.

I still haven't seen that stuff addressed. Why? It seemed to be as trying to gain some clout with those folks.

And while Slanted was here with the PR campaign, Rob was on the other site linking to these 2 threads and mentioning saying this:

"All rhetoric notwithstanding we have seen very few domains leave over this latest controversy. That being said, I am astounded by the brutally intolerant rhetoric."

Look above, I do feel an apology is needed if in fact it was called a hoax. My heart goes to the victims.

My home town is still suffering from the last US mass shooting. My nephew just missed being there. He lost two of his closest friends. There is still mass suffering. 12 young lives lost.
It was not a hoax.

Again, my heart goes out to those suffering.

 

[DN Playbook]

Look above, I do feel an apology is needed if in fact it was called a hoax. My heart goes to the victims.

There is no IF about it. You gotta call it for what it is. @Rob Monster did post on Twitter that the New Zealand mosque massacre is a hoax.

It's been well recorded here. Just go back in the posts.

 

[Kate]

Why not? In part, because Rob never stops seeing himself as a christian evangelist who can "save" such people. To him, they're not "loathsome" because no human being is beyond redemption. And he tries – very awkwardly, I must say – to engage with them.

With all respect due he is one who needs saving right now.
And it's worth reminding the fact that those 'sinners' are not just some strangers on a forum, they are customers of Epik who add up to your bottom line. Perhaps the business is good and that is the reason why Epik continues to cultivate and tap the market.