Dynadot โ€” .com Transfer

What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch

MapleDots

Account Closed (Requested)
Impact
13,186
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.

Picture0016.png
 
9
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Unstoppable Domains โ€” AI StorefrontUnstoppable Domains โ€” AI Storefront
@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 โ€“ very awkwardly, I must say โ€“ 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 naรฏve. 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 โ€“ partly at least โ€“ 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.
 
3
•••
@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 โ€“ very awkwardly, I must say โ€“ 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 naรฏve. 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 โ€“ partly at least โ€“ 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?
 
1
•••
@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 โ€“ very awkwardly, I must say โ€“ 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 naรฏve. 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 โ€“ partly at least โ€“ 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: โ€œBad company corrupts good morals.โ€

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor15:33&version=AMP
 
2
•••
@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: โ€œBad company corrupts good morals.โ€

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.
 
1
•••
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 โ€“ very awkwardly, I must say โ€“ 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 โ€“ partly at least โ€“ 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.
 
0
•••
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?
 
1
•••
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."
 
Last edited:
1
•••
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.
 
1
•••
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.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
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 โ€“ very awkwardly, I must say โ€“ 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.
 
3
•••
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.
Show it?

The tweet I saw Rob did not use the word "hoax."....The tweet I saw he seemed to question oddities. ..The word "hoax" was words others used.

Perhaps @Slanted can answer.

Was it called a "hoax" by Rob?
 
2
•••
Show it?

The tweet I saw Rob did not use the word "hoax."....The tweet I saw he seemed to question oddities. ..The word "hoax" was words others used.

Perhaps @Slanted can answer.

Was it called a "hoax" by Rob?

I'll let @Slanted take this one.
 
1
•••
People died, but there was a fake video, just questioning if the video is fake
Makes a lot of sense
(y)
 
1
•••
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.


I believe that everyone should respect the right for women (or anyone else for that matter) to Voluntarily wear headscarves, and no one should think any less of them for their choice of fashion. But if it is made Mandatory for Only the Women to wear headscarves, then that is considered a form of discrimination. An article of clothing once forced on a certain group of people can become a symbol of Suppression, Intimidation, and Hate no matter how simple or small it is, a good example is when our Jewish friends were forced to wear armbands.

If there is a law that requires to cover ones head or hair then that law must apply to everyone equally regardless of their gender or race.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Show it?

The tweet I saw Rob did not use the word "hoax."....The tweet I saw he seemed to question oddities. ..The word "hoax" was words others used.

Perhaps @Slanted can answer.

Was it called a "hoax" by Rob?

This is what I'm talking about. Just went over that in my last post. I literally gave you a link where Slanted used the word hoax in 12 different posts. How many times do you want him to address it? Again:

https://www.namepros.com/search/32521677/?q=hoax&o=date&c[user][0]=994412

Just go reread those posts.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
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.

@strugar

Can you explain what you dislike about the post?
 
0
•••
This is what I'm talking about. Just went over that in my last post. I literally gave you a link where Slanted used the word hoax in 12 different posts. How many times do you want him to address it? Again:

https://www.namepros.com/search/32521677/?q=hoax&o=date&c[user][0]=994412

Just go reread those posts.
Yes @Slanted used the words "hoax."....Undeniable.

The question is did Rob use the word "hoax?"

I have been on this thread defending the right of Rob to question oddities. I saw nowhere where Rob called it a hoax. I defended his right to question evidence. At no time did I see Rob called it a hoax.

So did Rob call it a "hoax"?

I understand the disrespect that using the word "hoax" has on victims. I apologize if my words have not conveyed that properly in my defense of Rob.

This thread is about Rob, not @Slanted.

So again.

Did Rob use the word "hoax?"
 
0
•••
0
•••
@Rob Monster You wrote in the Twitter post linking to the killer's video, "maybe discerning eyes will dicypher the use of symbols and runes".

Can you enlighten us as to what those symbols and runes mean?

Was this anywhere expounded upon?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Just reposting for info a couple of archive links others have posted already:
http://archive.li/RmKAT
http://archive.is/I6AtH

By the way in the Free Speech thread I have asked Rob Monster a question that might need a bit of reflection:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/free-speech.1129018/page-4#post-7164239
So since you want to discuss freedom of speech and values, I would really like to hear you explain how you reconcile Christ's teachings - that one should love one's fellow man - with facilitating the broadcast of messages that are intended to make us hate our fellow man.
 
1
•••
Spaceship
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
NameMaxi - Your Domain Has Buyers
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back