NameSilo

What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

Spacemail by SpaceshipSpacemail by Spaceship
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.
GoDaddyGoDaddy
Yeah, you're wrong.
 
0
•••
But now people have decided to come, but with blatant disregard for what it means to be American. They wave their home country's flag on our streets. I mean this literally.

Do you get upset on St. Patrick's Day if somebody flies the Irish flag or even on just a regular day? I doubt it.

It doesn't have to be either/or. You can both be proud to be an American and also proud of your ethnicity or country you used to live in. We are a melting pot in this country.
 
0
•••
0
•••
But the melting has stopped. This is the point. There is no common ground.
 
0
•••
Then the solution should be just as obvious as well

If I believed there were a solution, then I wouldn't have resigned.

However, Rob insists on supporting only one side (an extreme one at that), amplifying their voice, rather than acting as a neutral arbiter.

You are confused if you think Rob or Epik ought to act as arbiter. A private individual is not expected to act as an arbiter. Most individuals just sit quietly or else express their own personal views. Rob is doing the latter. Because his own private opinions reflect one side of controversial issues, and given that Rob is far from reticent about his opinions, I don't see how he could act as an arbiter between himself and someone he disagrees with. An arbiter is an outside 3rd party.

And domain registrars don't act as arbiters either, as if they were moderators in a political debate with an obligation to present both extremes: Right and Left. Domain registrars ought to be apolitical, not amplifying anybody's voice – just providing domains. Registrars aren't even involved in content. Ideally, a registrar is neutral and treats all domains the same way. Epik, in fact, does so.

As a matter of fact, though, Rob has expressed willingness to welcome far-left organizations and their domains at Epik. ANTIFA was 1 example that Rob mentioned to me at NamesCon when we discussed these issues. And he has repeated that invitation to accept far-left domains here in this thread.

There are 2 problems with that attempt at balance:

(1) It's really easy to find far-right websites that are at risk of de-platforming. Culturally, that is the way the pendulum has swung. Most of the pressure, as far as I can see, is being applied to transgressive content on the right. And I am hard pressed to identify a left-wing website that is being de-platformed. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Maybe they exist.

(2) If Epik invites ANTIFA or similar far-left groups to move their domains to Epik, do you really think they will say yes? If Epik is known as the registrar of Gab.com, then none of the "cool kids" on the left will want anything to do with Epik. As a matter of fact, the strategy favored by many of these far-left groups is precisely the de-platforming that has driven people on right to move from Twitter and Facebook toward Gab and which caused Gab.com to be suspended at GoDaddy and move to Epik. It is therefore unimaginable that these far-left groups would want balance. The goal seems to be censorship / exile of those they disagree with.

So where does that leave things? Epik has customers with domains with all kinds. Mostly the domains are not political. But some have topics that are political, and those are just as likely to be on the left or the right. In either case, Epik would treat them the same way.

He has taken an overt position on one side only. If you truly believe in the freedom of speech and search for the truth then you should lift up all the voices, instead of just one.

Who lifts up all voices? I personally will tolerate someone else who says heinous or incorrect things. But I'm not going to "lift them up". Who would? Rob is an individual. Yes, he has taken a position of his own – as many individuals do. It's reasonable to criticize his views. (Anybody's views are fair game for criticism.) But it is not reasonable to expect any individual to "lift up" all human opinions equally. Registrars should be neutral and agnostic. And individuals will always be lopsidedly in favor of their own views.
 
1
•••
Free speech societies should also be welcoming of other cultures. Otherwise there cannot be true free speech. God did not create country divisions. Those are men-made. All nations/cultures came from Noah's sons. So we are all related to single family.
 
0
•••
Who lifts up all voices? I personally will tolerate someone else who says heinous or incorrect things. But I'm not going to "lift them up". Who would? Rob is an individual. Yes, he has taken a position of his own – as many individuals do. It's reasonable to criticize his views. (Anybody's views are fair game for criticism.) But it is not reasonable to expect any individual to "lift up" all human opinions equally. Registrars should be neutral and agnostic. And individuals will always be lopsidedly in favor of their own views.

When you look at the posts Rob made of videos and website links, you can see the types of voices he lifts up. And as much as you try, you cannot separate Rob from Epik. Especially when you consider Gab.com, Watch Mask, etc., and compare the content there to Rob's commenting here. And the fact that Rob is using the NZ attack to promote Anonymize and Watch Mask. There really is no separation. Any logical person sees that.
 
1
•••
Free speech societies should also be welcoming of other cultures. Otherwise there cannot be true free speech. God did not create country divisions. Those are men-made. All nations/cultures came from Noah's sons. So we are all related to single family.

I'm not sure we're going to have a very fruitful discussion if you bring religion into this. I'll just leave it at this. We need unifying elements if we are to thrive as a nation. It doesn't have to be race. But I will again, point out that part of the beauty of a nation is its heritage. Part of the beauty of Thailand is its distinct Thai-ness. I respect their wish to preserve their ways. I would wai deeply if I met a high ranking Thai. And I would not wave an American flag on Sukhumvit road.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I'm not sure we're going to have a very fruitful discussion if you bring religion into this. I'll just leave it at this. We need unifying elements if we are to thrive as a nation. It doesn't have to be race. But I will again, part of the beauty of Thailand is its distinct Thai-ness. I respect their wish to preserve their ways. I would wai deeply if I met a high ranking Thai. And I would not wave an American flag on Sukhumvit road.

I live in the most culturally mixed city, probably in the world. Toronto Canada. And the city is an example of how you are mistaken. Sorry. Cultures and diversity are assets, not a disadvantage.

What made both United States and Canada thrive is diversity and the number of cultures that called them their home.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I'm not sure we're going to have a very fruitful discussion if you bring religion into this. I'll just leave it at this. We need unifying elements if we are to thrive as a nation. It doesn't have to be race. But I will again, point out that part of the beauty of a nation is its heritage. Part of the beauty of Thailand is its distinct Thai-ness. I respect their wish to preserve their ways. I would wai deeply if I met a high ranking Thai. And I would not wave an American flag on Sukhumvit road.
You probably need to define what "distinct American-ness" is / was if you want to complain about it being lost

"But now people have decided to come, but with blatant disregard for what it means to be American. They wave their home country's flag on our streets. I mean this literally."
So.in what ways they blatantly disregard
 
0
•••
Definition of a White Nationalist:

Beginning of time - 2017: A caucasian who is prideful and loves their country.

2018 - present: Racist, bigot, domestic terrorist.

My how times have changed when the mainstream media has completely planted false definitions to deceive the masses.

As far as I can tell, the phrase "white nationalist" has been associated with racism and terrorism for many decades. See this creep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce

"The National Alliance was organized in 1974. Pierce intended the organization to be a political vanguard that would ultimately bring about a white nationalist overthrow of the United States Federal Government."

In the man's own words:

"Terrorism only makes sense if it can be sustained over a period of time. One day there will be real, organized terrorism done according to plan, aimed at bringing down the government."

He also expressed admiration for Hitler.
 
1
•••
@Bernard Wright

Do you complain that Italians, Portuguese, and other European Americans wave their flags over their restaurants, homes, cars, RV's, and places of business?

If you do, make sure to stay at home during the World Cup. Lol.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
As far as I can tell, the phrase "white nationalist" has been associated with racism and terrorism for many decades. See this creep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce

"The National Alliance was organized in 1974. Pierce intended the organization to be a political vanguard that would ultimately bring about a white nationalist overthrow of the United States Federal Government."

In the man's own words:

"Terrorism only makes sense if it can be sustained over a period of time. One day there will be real, organized terrorism done according to plan, aimed at bringing down the government."

He also expressed admiration for Hitler.
There is actually lots written about this subject and, of course, opinions differ. Regardless, I respect your opinion and ability to debate without being nefarious. Best to you!

https://spectator.org/no-cnn-nationalism-is-not-white-supremacy/
 
0
•••
There is actually lots written about this subject and, of course, opinions differ. Regardless, I respect your opinion and ability to debate without being nefarious. Best to you!

https://spectator.org/no-cnn-nationalism-is-not-white-supremacy/

The article is not about the definition of "white nationalism" or "white nationalist" but the generic "nationalism".

However the use of the word "nationalist" could easily be construed as a whistleblow to those who are associated or refer to themselves by the much more charged title: "white nationalist".

IOW, "nationalism" is an easy way to white-wash "white nationalism", which in turn is an easy way to white-wash "white supremacy".

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The Internet lets you share your truth and put it alongside the truth of others. I am all for that. Do you advocate that others should not have the opportunity to present their truth?

As for Edward de Bono, it is funny that you mention him. He is a Rhodes Scholar. I was recently studying the legacy of Cecil Rhodes. Cecil left 7 wills, 5 of which included his Confession of Faith. Here is a copy:

https://mikemcclaughry.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/rhodes-confession-of-faith.pdf

As you can see, Cecil was inspired by the Jesuits and the Freemasons. He set about to build his own Secret Society, aligned with the British Empire.

I offer this not by way of judgment as to whether de Bono is a force for good, but as context for who sponsored him to get to where he is, and what their objectives were. Perhaps of interest.

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

When it comes to de Bono, I go back a ways - have most of his books, was on a forum he operated, did a diploma program of his. Never came across anything that seemed to follow Rhodes' thinking, that I can recall. I'd say the reverse - de Bono saying his thinking tools were meant to be able to help move all people forward, making them better and more independent thinkers. Eg. His CoRT thinking program for schools. I think Rhodes might turn in his grave over such, as CoRT is now in places he wanted to see ruled.

I usually don't have a problem with others presenting their truth/'truth'. It would be nice (to me) if people could more objectively examine their own truths, as well as that of others, about most things. Move more in what de Bono calls 'proto-truths' - truths that we operate by, but are willing to trade in for better truth/'truth', should it come along. But we haven't trained too well to do that.
 
1
•••
Am I naive to think that there is only one truth? Not "your truth" and "my truth"? But only the truth. One truth like one reality.

Still wondering what your definition of truth is, @Rob Monster.
 
0
•••
Still wondering what your definition of truth is, @Rob Monster.

You might want to work out the bugs in your own definition of truth first.

Truth is indisputable

Nothing is indisputable. Even something as generally accepted as a round planet earth – clearly some people dispute that too.

Some things are true. Some things are false. Some are neither. But everything is fair game for questioning.

Truth is indisputable. If it is in genuine dispute, then it has not yet become truth.

What is a “genuine dispute”? Who decides which disputes are non-genuine?

Truth is indisputable. If it is in genuine dispute, then it has not yet become truth.

So the truth isn’t truth if it’s disputed? Provided it’s disputed in a “genuine” way? I would have thought the truth would remain the truth regardless of disputes among human beings (who are notoriously truth averse). Somehow disputing an idea makes it temporarily untrue, though, huh? Until the dispute is over? And then whichever consensus emerges, that's the truth now? Makes sense.

Of course truth should and must be challenged. It is the only way it can become truth.

But I thought if there is a “genuine dispute”, then the truth becomes untrue – "has not yet become truth". Meanwhile, if there is NOT a challenge to the truth, then that truth can’t become a truth either?

So if it’s disputed, the truth isn’t true yet.
And if it’s NOT disputed, the truth isn't true yet.

So nothing is ever true. QED.

Facts are what make the truth the truth.

Facts make the truth. Sounds profound.

And what makes facts facts? Their truth.

Are we not going in circles?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
You might want to work out the bugs in your own definition of truth first.

Well, if you feel I have bugs in my definition then maybe you can help me. Also, the question was directed at Rob. Just wondering why you are answering it. In another post, a question was directed at you and Rob answered it.

Nothing is indisputable. Even something as generally accepted as a round planet earth – clearly some people dispute that too.

Some things are true. Some things are false. Some are neither. But everything is fair game for questioning.

Sure, everything is up for debate. But unless you back up your assertions with facts, you can not be expected to be taken seriously.

What is a “genuine dispute”? Who decides which disputes are non-genuine?

A "genuine dispute" is one that is supported by facts.

So the truth isn’t truth if it’s disputed? Provided it’s disputed in a “genuine” way? I would have thought the truth would remain the truth regardless of disputes among human beings (who are notoriously truth averse). Somehow disputing an idea makes it temporarily untrue, though, huh? Until the dispute is over? And then whichever consensus emerges, that's the truth now?

The truth should be challenged to be shown it is in fact the truth. If new facts come to light then truth may need to be reevaluated in light of new facts. Ideas are not truth until facts make those ideas indisputable. Truth is not arrived at by a democratic consensus.

I am wondering if even you know what the definition of truth is.

Facts make the truth. Sounds profound.

And what makes facts facts? Their truth.

If you can't tell what a fact is then I feel sorry for you. A fact is what stares at you in the face.

If you can't tell what a fact is then you are allowing your prejudices to cloud your judgement. That is a very sad place to be stuck in.

Are we not going in circles?

Rob, is this you actually posting?
 
0
•••
Am I naive to think that there is only one truth? Not "your truth" and "my truth"? But only the truth. One truth like one reality.

Still wondering what your definition of truth is, @Rob Monster.

To get to truth, I think one has to get to the first cause, i.e. what existed before nothing existed. For some the first cause was a "big bang". However, what caused the big bang? As one follows the chain of first cause, you eventually get to a root first cause.

Whether your leap of faith is a "big bang", or "God", either way one's truth about matter ame into existence is a leap of faith. The main difference is whether you believe the event was intentional.

For me, God is the foundational truth. The Big Bang is an attempt to explain away God. How matter and life came into existence is a foundational truth. I find it categorically implausible that matter, life and consciousness in all their complexity can exist as a product of randomness.

On a more practical level, there are people who research conspiracies. In some cases, they found compelling proof of a deception. This deception is sometimes highly organized. JFK famously talked about the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy shortly before being assassinated.

If one searches further, one finds that while there is a Satan. He is the father of lies and the author of confusion and deception. Indeed, the greatest conspiracy of all is that Satan actually exists and that he is the God of this world, iconically symbolized on the US dollar bill as the Eye of Horus, or all seeing eye.

Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, Satan has been God of this world. He is operating behind the scenes at the top of the monolithic, ruthless and worldwide conspiracy. He has earthly rewards to offer, and has convinced much of humanity that earthly rewards is all there is when it is not.

The atheists and skeptics may brush the idea of a Satan aside as nonsense. And yet pedophilia, infanticide, licentiousness, and the general "do as thou wilt" mindset that pervades much of humanity, has a first mover as well, and that first mover is Satan, who desires for every human to die in their sins.

The Creator God, YHWH, who is sovereign over all, knows the end from the beginning and is outside of space and time, did provision a savior to atone for the sins of man. Jesus Christ, lamb of God, celebrated on Passover, was the final sacrifice. He rose again on the 3rd day and his reward is eternal life.

The Bible is my authority. I am confident that it is the inspired word of God. The prophets of the OT and apostles of the NT were able to document it. Mankind preserved it, word for word, to the present day. The Bible happens to give us a very clear duality of the works of the spirit and the works of the flesh:

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

On the other hand, we have the carnal state of man:

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, carousing. (Galatians 5:19-21)

I get that there are those who believe that they can through sheer force of will be more like the former and less like the latter. The point is that much human behavior can be explained by this duality. When someone finds the truth, I believe they finally begin to understand why the world works the way it does.

The search for TRUTH is ultimately a search for MEANING, i.e. why are we here. This search is ultimately a search for GOD. As stated prior, I believe there is absolutely nothing in this life, or on this earth, that is more noble or worthwhile than the search for that universal and all-encompassing truth.

Hope that helps someone.
 
1
•••
Dynadot — .com TransferDynadot — .com Transfer

We're social

Spaceship
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
DomainEasy — Zero Commission
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back