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.

 

[mr-x]

I didn't call you stupid as you are for "free speech"
which isn't free at all as it looks now

but because you were using the term "n_azi"
to call people names

You told me to think, called me unthinking and pitted me several times today. Make up your mind.

 

[mr-x]

Agreed. And my comment was aimed at the thread topic, not your discussion with frank.

I apologize.

 

[Silentptnr]

IMO,

I apologize.

Thanks. But I know you. No offense taken. You are an honorable person.

 

[mr-x]

Nothing personal @frank-germany. Have a great day, I'm going back to work!

 

[frank-germany]

deleted

 

[OmarVG]

- I did shut down my personal Twitter. If it comes back online, I will review it for content.

Too Little Too LATE! The damage is DONE!

The small registrar named epik Will SINK like the Titanic! LOL ( in a couple of years perhaps early).

The Big Premium registrar GoDaddy Will remain as the Best Registrar so far… thats why my portfolio is in GoDaddy!

 

[Domains - Wanted]

...Besides, free speech does not make fringe ideas more acceptable.

No, it does not make them acceptable. But guess what? If we agree on that, then, logically, we must also agree that neither does it make them unacceptable!

Free speech is there to allow ideas, any ideas, to be freely expressed, exchanged. Well, in theory. In practice, most people can't wrap their heads around this one. They are all for free speech, but with reservations, like only when acceptable ideas are put forward. Mainstream ideas. Ideas of benefit to the society. Sounds great! Except for two things: where exactly do you draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not? And who gets to decide that?

Free speech is simply meant to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and leave room for critical thinking that goes the mainstream, because society cannot progress without opposing views.

Well, if it's there to protect a minority, that means that racists and white supremacists can yell their ideals at the top of their lungs; make and publish objectionable content, videos, with no fear of persecution. Right? Or did you mean that it's there to protect only those minorities that you approve of, Kate?

Actually, free speech is there to protect each and every one of us from oppression, persecution if we see the need to speak out against something. It's there to allow every one of us to articulate our views, ideals, fears... like fear of colored people, for example. So, racists, huh? Gag them? Let them stew in their sick fear?

Free speech is a choice a society makes, or a select few make for their society. It is not a law of nature. And you are wrong, Kate: a society can flourish pretty darn well without opposing views. Take China for example. It's complicated. But it works.

It does not mean all opinions are equally valid. Is racism acceptable ?

Like @TheBaldOne has already asked, it depends on the scenario. Do you mean stopping someone for "driving while black"? Or expressing racist narrative, personal views, without the authority or intent to cause harm?

IMHO, a racist policeman is a problem. Not "acceptable", as he should not be allowed to wear any badge, giving him authority to persecute, terrorize colored people. A white supremacist, foaming at the mouth and cursing under his breath at the sight of colored people, but not willing or able to take it further - not a problem. Or "acceptable", using your inadequate terminology. Let him be. The price to pay for... freedom. His. Yours. Mine.

One other thing: once he crosses the "no threat" treshold: arrest and prosecute his sorry ass in accordance with the law! Preferably long before he procures, arms himself with an automatic rifle and goes "hunting"... whereby free speech, call it "very free speech", can come in very handy, allowing "Five Eyes" or others to better invigilate and forestall such people!

 

[frank-germany]

No, it does not make them acceptable. But guess what? If we agree on that, then, logically, we must also agree that neither does it make them unacceptable!

Free speech is there to allow ideas, any ideas, to be freely expressed, exchanged. Well, in theory. In practice, most people can't wrap their heads around this one. They are all for free speech, but with reservations, like only when acceptable ideas are put forward. Mainstream ideas. Ideas of benefit to the society. Sounds great! Except for two things: where exactly do you draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not? And who gets to decide that?

Well, if it's there to protect a minority, that means that racists and white supremacists can yell their ideals at the top of their lungs; make and publish objectionable content, videos, with no fear of persecution. Right? Or did you mean that it's there to protect only those minorities that you approve of, Kate?

Actually, free speech is there to protect each and every one of us from oppression, persecution if we see the need to speak out against something. It's there to allow every one of us to articulate our views, ideals, fears.

Free speech is a choice a society makes, or a select few make for their society. It is not a law of nature. And you are wrong, Kate: a society can flourish pretty darn well without opposing views. Take China for example. It's complicated. But it works.

Like @TheBaldOne has already asked, it depends on the scenario. Do you mean stopping someone for "driving while black"? Or expressing racist narrative, personal views, without the authority or intent to cause harm?

IMHO, a racist policeman is a problem. Not "acceptable", as he should not be allowed to wear any badge, giving him authority to persecute, terrorize colored people. A white supremacist, foaming at the mouth and cursing under his breath at the sight of colored people, but not willing or able to take it further - not a problem. Or "acceptable", using your inadequate terminology. Let him be. The price to pay for... freedom. His. Yours. Mine.

looks like we need a fine line
looks like we need definitions

 

[Silentptnr]

It's one thing to stand for free speech...generally. However, in the absence of "Where a person actually stands" on specific issues, that stand is easily misinterpreted. For example, I know racism exists. But I am clear on where I stand. I believe it is wrong. Things I believe are wrong, I in no way support.

Rob, I get that you support free speech but you have gone further by supporting specific issues.

 

[offthehandle]

Well, if it's there to protect a minority, that means that racists and white supremacists can yell their ideals at the top of their lungs; make and publish objectionable content, videos, with no fear of persecution. Right? Or did you mean that it's there to protect only those minorities that you approve of, Kate?

And this is the core of the problem, selective application and new laws made up on the fly, as we go, as the clock ticks, as technology changes.

I have posted over and over, in the USA nobody has the right NOT to be offended.
Turn the channel, use ear plugs, walk away, etc. Criminals, Idiots and extremists have and always will exist no matter what useless and innane govt wasted effort on legislation is inacted. Same with the 2nd amendment.

This thread is becoming nearly 1/2 as long as true monetary scandal threads where people lost money on domaining in the shill bidding. Ridiculous. Rob apologized, and that should be that. The end.

 

[Silentptnr]

I think the personal Rob Monster Twitter is active. Its @robmonster . I thought I read it was closed.

 

[frank-germany]

I think the personal Rob Monster Twitter is active. Its @robmonster . I thought I read it was closed.

I read he has restored it

 

[Rob Monster]

It's one thing to stand for free speech...generally. However, in the absence of "Where a person actually stands" on specific issues, that stand is easily misinterpreted. For example, I know racism exists. But I am clear on where I stand. I believe it is wrong. Things I believe are wrong, I in no way support.

Rob, I get that you support free speech but you have gone further by supporting specific issues.

Epiks technology support all lawful expression. We use our competencies without bias or preference. At any given time, some voices may be more oppressed than others. You are welcome to test my rhetoric.

As for me personally, I am an unapologetic Christian who has certain views on matters of public policy. For example, immigration and diversity are both great but unmitigated migration is a recipe for avoidable chaos.

 

[Silentptnr]

Epiks technology support all lawful expression. We use our competencies without bias or preference. At any given time, some voices may be more oppressed than others. You are welcome to test my rhetoric.

As for me personally, I am an unapologetic Christian who has certain views on matters of public policy. For example, immigration and diversity are both great but unmitigated migration is a recipe for avoidable chaos.

I disagree. Controls on unmitigated migration would have had enormous effects on many scores of people throughout history. Unmitigated migration "now" is pushed by those that feel threatened, and those who fear losing something. Those that believe they are "better".

 

[Silentptnr]

Seems you send a confusing message. On the one hand you say freedom is great. On the other you place limits. Interesting.

Why not freedom of migration? Don't like it, why not move. Why limit others?

 

[Kate]

I hope Kate meant the first and not the second, but to clarify I asked HER.

To some people racism is an opinion, and therefore it amounts to free speech. Does not mean that it's ok, that people will accept it or that they should. It means you have the right to harbor such thoughts and even express them quite openly. After all, if the Potus can, everybody can.
If your racist opinions spill into real life and materialize as discrimination toward others for example, it's no longer free speech.

You don't blame people for exercising their free speech rights, but for the message.
It is about the substance and not the form.
Free speech is not some kind of divine aegis that grants you immunity against ridicule, disapproval and condemnation from others. You still have to deal with it.

The bottom line is that when you run a business, it's not good business to get involved in politics or you are going to alienate people. I think it's also a good idea to maintain some separation between your official role and your personal life, even if it's not going to be watertight.

In fact, most of us here are pseudo-anonymous profiles 'hiding' behind aliases and it is a good thing. You can speak more freely and thus enjoy more free speech when you are confident that your opinions are not going to cause negative lifelong repercussions to your business or IRL. Or worse, to your relatives. They are part of the equation too.

But that is another topic.

 

[Domains - Wanted]

looks like we need a fine line
looks like we need definitions

Definitions - always!

Fine line? Where exactly to erect it?

In our globalized world, whom do you propose to give authority to decide these fine lines?

Beijing has the best hands on experience in this, so... put the Chinese at the helm? I'm seriously exploring your concept here! Their "fine lines not to cross" model has proven highly successful in building a pretty safe and harmonious society. Thing is, their model fits their culture, history, political and social reality. Applied to American sensibilities, it would cause a call to arms and another civil war!

And last but not least, where do you draw the line in... drawing fine lines?

Very simple: like in the 1980's classic "War Games", the only winning strategy here is not to play... not to draw any fine lines!

 

[TheBaldOne]

@Kate - For the very most part I agree with your last post, but that is what discussion is about.

However, to stymy discussion by putting up false barriers on political pretext leads eventually to anarchy within society, for humans are diverse and for the most part free thinkers, when discussion is curtailed on a political subject then people are not open to arguments that can so easily disprove a held belief simply because no human is capable of reasoning all aspects of information within their own mind or at the very least knowing that all aspects of information have been taken into account (we are not Mr. Spocks). We, as humans, are generally a social species, and we rely for assistance in all forms from others, and this most definitely includes information gathering and reasoning as a group in which we exist.

'Free Speech' is of course curtailed when it is seen to directly contradict laws that we as a society deem harmful to the society and sometimes even to individuals within it. All political systems do invoke restrictions on 'free speech' to a greater or lesser extent, how many laws can you think of where 'incitement of others' to commit criminal acts are forbidden but that is not looked on by the majority of society as a loss of 'freedom of speech'. However, beneath this level of 'incitement of others' free speech does allow such subjects to be discussed, and rightly so IMO.

Take a subject like human euthanasia for example, in most countries within the western world this is illegal, indeed the act to aid or abet such is illegal, as is the incitement for others to do so is considered illegal, however, the discussion of such a subject is not illegal. So should discussion about the ending of a human life before their natural time be made illegal? It is just as bad as racism itself, indeed the subjects could overlap whereby it is considered that only certain people should be either made, or allowed, or encouraged to be euthanised.

To ban open discussion on a subject is a political act - but it does not get rid of situation concerning that which has been banned and more importantly it does not dispel the arguments that are used to support the point of view that has been made illegal to express. Surely it is rather the defeat of racism as a belief that we as society are after. It is the very strength of the arguments against racism that need to be heard - and if racism as a subject is banned then it is actually the arguments against racism that will lose out whilst the racism will build like worms burrowing into the minds of people who will become poisoned without the logic of anti-racist arguments being heard.

Never want to ban something just because you disagree with it, rather debate it openly and freely countering the arguments the other side puts forward - that is the strength of 'Free Speech'.

 

[Silentptnr]

@Rob Monster

You support free speech, but you don't support the rule of law? If abortion is legal, why not be supportive of it? Why take a position in opposition to lawful behavior?

Why not open your home and invite abortion rights advocates to campaign from your home?

We both know why.

 

[Domains - Wanted]

...Why not open your home and invite abortion rights advocates to campaign from your home?

Am I missing something here...?

Why the heck would anybody invite people they disagree with into their home? Or offer to assist them in their activities?

Free speech is about tolerance, civil discourse. About ignoring or persuating those with different views. By any stretch of imagination, it is not about aiding and abetting them!

You support free speech, but you don't support the rule of law? If abortion is legal, why not be supportive of it? Why take a position in opposition to lawful behavior?

Neither is free speech synonymous with supporting the rule of law. On the contrary, opposing, criticizing existing or proposed laws that are not to your liking, is a big part of the package!

 

[Silentptnr]

Am I missing something here...?

Why the heck would anybody invite people they disagree with into their home? Or offer to assist them in their activities?

Free speech is about tolerance, civil discourse. About ignoring or persuating those with different views. By any stretch of imagination, it is not about aiding and abetting them!

Neither is free speech synonymous with supporting the rule of law. On the contrary, opposing, criticizing existing or proposed laws that are not to your liking, is a big part of the package!

I agree. So does that mean Rob does not disagree with the views of Gab?

Based on your statement, Rob must agree with Gabbers as he has invited them in.

I have no problem with a person being honest about how they feel. It doesn't make them right. They could be very wrong in fact.

 

[Slanted]

Rob posted this? I had not seen that. Where did it appear? Twitter?

Monitoring Rob's personal political views as expressed on Twitter or anywhere else has never been part of my job description. Now that it is a matter of public discussion and affects the Epik brand, I will need to review them.

I object strongly to such propaganda, which is false, offensive, and divisive.

 

[Slanted]

This is also new information as far as I'm concerned:

Apparently gets this kind of sh*t from....surprise! Gab!

Show attachment 113671

Show attachment 113672
Green=Goy(non-Jew) Blue=Nonwhite Red=Jewish

 

[JB Lions]

Rob posted this? I had not seen that. Where did it appear? Twitter?

Monitoring Rob's personal political views as expressed on Twitter or anywhere else has never been part of my job description. Now that it is a matter of public discussion and affects the Epik brand, I will need to review them.

I object strongly to such propaganda, which is false, offensive, and divisive.

Yes, he reposted that at Gab. He addressed that yesterday:

As for the other graphic, true Christianity is love. If you want to go down the rabbit hole of the crusades, we can do that but a true Christian would not force their faith on another. Ever. It is free will and nothing more.

If you want to read something enlightening about the Catholic Church, read "50 Years in the Church of Rome" by Charles Chiniquy. He was a contemporary of Abraham Lincoln.

The problem is you said you didn't come to NP much, didn't really check the Twitter accounts or Gab. So then you really didn't have a full picture. That graphic was posted in the first Gab thread. The link to the other (anti-semitic) graphic was tweeted from the Epik Twitter account. I didn't know about it, until the Gab troll posted a link to it in the same Gab thread.

Quote from that Gab troll where he posted that link, which was liked btw then unliked after I mentioned it:

Great job by Epik here. Doing the right thing isn't easy.

Imaging if GoDaddy pushed back against censorship and spread the truth the way that Epik does. SJW heads everywhere would explode.
http/ twitter.com /EpikDotCom/status/1074058943519969280
(Helpful reference for understanding who decides what most Americans see, hear and think.)
How many Jews vs Gentiles in the top media positions? Take a guess before you click.

Someday Epik will have a far larger reach than registrars like GoDaddy and will be able to spread facts like these to wake people up.

You all should try Gab, 1000x better than twitter anyway.

As far as the Jews control everything graphic, he addressed that as well:

I did not know the original source of the image about media concentration. I don't use either of the Chans. We are not their registrar either. That was not where I found it. As I recall, I saw it in a Tweet.

I don't think there is any debate about media concentration in major western markets. Part of the reason why propaganda can occur is because of the media's ability to control the narrative. I object to that.

So it's a simple, do these graphics bring people together or were being used to divide. It's an obvious answer. But he gave his answers yesterday. I still don't know why he reposted that one graphic, or tweeted that one out. I just assumed to gain some clout from Gab members, tap that market. I base that also on participation numbers:

Gab - 1759 posts since November, a few months
Namepros - 500 posts in almost 8 years

 

[NameLlama]

My point is the same as Rob's: sweeping garbage under the carpet does not a clean house make. On the contrary, things are more likely as not to grow and ferment there, out of sight, with no one in the mainstream the wiser. Until the rot eats through the carpet and... somebody gets himself an automatic rifle and vents his quietly accumulated frustrations on innocent people in a mosque. Or a catholic church. Or a public school.

Didn't you guys know that before the internet people with unsavory views felt so alone.. They bottled it up until it went Pop.. So many mass murders as a result of this..! Now that we have internet to allow everyone their safe space echo chamber, it is great..You know, fewer murders and stuff..No more sweeping under the rug. Because good people can always barge in and counter them with love and logic! Lol
All those people on Gab are open to love and logic and facts, didn't you know, They are all in search of truth
Just go try to defuse them, it should work
No chance that they are all there to goad each other on, feeling good because they have finally found a large number of morons like themselves. No chance that they will exponentially inflate their hate and stupidity until it..Pops.

But free speech, free speech!
That doesn't give you free reign on the internet duh
Go outside and walk around with signs about Jews and Muslims and black people if you want
Let's see the reaction to THAT..