Dynadot โ€” .com Transfer

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.
AfternicAfternic
Unfortunately I cannot agree with that statement. I personally have a lot of respect of Epik and the man that started it. When I opened the topic there was a big hoopla about something that was said by Rob and then deleted. I was hearing rumours all over the place and therefore opened the topic to get some clarification about the circumstances involved.

So I had no ulterior motive for a smackdown, a beatdown or even remotely trying to disrespect Rob Monster. Of course some of the posters were under a different opinion and probably did engage in an aggressive manner.

The fact that this topic has taken on several incarnations, where everybody's pen is equal, shows the power of debate is still alive and well on namepros. Personally I will always defend freedom of speech and the ability to converse in a controlled manner, and Rob Monster does that very well.

I cannot even begin to debate some of the subjects in this topic but I can say that I don't agree with the way Rob is blurring the line between his views, and those of Epik the company. I have this sinking feeling that his personal opinions will one day bite him back when the company grows and it is time for a more homogenized image. If by that time there is a board of directors, or shareholders, Rob will eventually find himself squeezed out.

That's just a personal opinion but I guess that is allowed in debate (y)

Thanks @MapleDots.

Your opening post was inflammatory in the sense that it drew attention to a judgmental Shane Cultra post whose comments were way out of line and gave other folks in the industry air-cover to also render judgment. It started a wave. I did wait several days, until page 16, before engaging the dialog here.

I stand by the decision to challenge arbitrary censorship. I also stand by the decision to fearlessly engage both the radical right and the radical left, and to challenge their (intolerant) views.

As for the prospect of some commercial consequence of my decision to be transparent, I obviously made a calculated decision there. Why? I believe the stakes are much bigger than NamePros, or even the domain industry. I believe the real battle is for the Creator-endowed right to search for truth.

In the meantime, there are forces at work that are working to portray me as a villain. For example, right now, there are some folks camped out on a biased Wikipedia article about me:

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

The Wikipedia authors are riffing off of the various other media narratives that surfaced since Epik defied those who wish to censor lawful free speech. The reality is that the law of the land remains highly permissive when it comes to free speech, including a 2017 ruling on the topic:

upload_2019-5-26_11-48-7.png

The good news of this thread is that the domain industry has been able to use it for a thoughtful conversation about a number of issues that are relevant to the future of the Internet.
 
0
•••
You can help bigots and bullies if you try.

Sometimes. People are often too dogmatic to learn. And bullies would rather attack than persuade. With @whenpillasrfall, I began by presenting evidence calmly and sympathetically. And I have challenged him to engage in a calm rational debate about ideas. But he couldn't handle that.

Are they in this thread?

Of course.

"ad hominem". Great Latin expression. But you just ended the argument right there.

No. Properly understood, "ad hominem" refers to a logical fallacy โ€“ not to personal attacks as such. The way I use "ad hominem" is meant to redirect discussion away from personal attacks (which are logically irrelevant) and back to the ideas.

Anything you say in respect from now on is falling on deaf ears. Maybe that occurred way before. But I wasn't paying attention.

@whenpillarsfall has been deaf ears from day 1.

It's best to either pay full attention or else disregard something. Paying only a little bit of attention tends to result in misunderstandings.
 
0
•••
You've never actually refuted anything I've said.

Thatโ€™s hilarious.

As everyone can see, I have refuted you with historical evidence, to which you have made NO RESPONSE.

And I have refuted you by exposing specific examples of your logical fallacies, to which you have made NO RESPONSE.

And I have refuted you by showing you that your stated assumptions imply consequences that you do not believe. If an assumption implies something that is false, then that starting assumption must be false. I have challenged you to explain why the consequences do not follow from your assumptions, to which you have made NO RESPONSE.

And I have pointed out, every day for a week, your LACK OF RESPONSE on all 3 of these fronts as evidence that you have no case. Even now, you have not presented any counterarguments.

The following 17 posts refute you. People can judge for themselves:

Exhibit #1:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7244184

Exhibit #2:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7244382

Exhibit #3:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7244628

Exhibit #4:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7245343

Exhibit #5:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7245381

Exhibit #6:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7245582

Exhibit #7:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7246913

Exhibit #8:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248435


Exhibit #9:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248900

Exhibit #10:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7249818

Exhibit #11:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7250314

Exhibit #12:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251205

Exhibit #13:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251230

Exhibit #14:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251236

Exhibit #15:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251240

Exhibit #15:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7251253

Exhibit #16:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7251274

Exhibit #17:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7252368


I dare you to point to a single counterargument to any of those refutations.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Your opening post was inflammatory

I couldn't disagree more. Your posts and comments regarding the New Zealand mosque killer were inappropriate and inflammatory (and what started this thread). @MapleDots OP was a rational response.

And your repost of the article "Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no โ€˜hate speechโ€™ exception to the First Amendment" shows that you, @Rob Monster, support hate speech. What's legal doesn't make it moral.

You, sir, are on the wrong side of history.

@Slanted, who are the bigots and bullies? Let's call them out.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Why? I believe the stakes are much bigger than NamePros, or even the domain industry. I believe the real battle is for the Creator-endowed right to search for truth.

If the Internet is your source of "truth" then that is a very sad and dangerous place to be in. The Internet is a haven for misinformation and fake news. You can find anything to support any point of view on the Internet. It is incredibly easy to fake any info online. Even more so if you feel you are a "truth-seeker" and go on forums where other "truth-seekers" feed of off each other's delusions.
 
0
•••
I couldn't disagree more. Your posts and comments regarding the New Zealand mosque killer were inappropriate and inflammatory. @MapleDots OP was a rational response.

And your repost of the article "Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no โ€˜hate speechโ€™ exception to the First Amendment" shows that you, @Rob Monster, support hate speech. What's legal doesn't make it moral.

You, sir, are on the wrong side of history.

The problem with "hate speech" is that it has no definition, other than the subjective determination that someone's sensibilities were offended. To suppress objectionable content is to advance "Group Think".

Media outlets and politicians can be bought, or can be manipulated into operating within prescribed boundaries. A free press is needed to preserve intellectual integrity and to offset groupthink.

Like it or not, the USA was built on this foundational principle of free expression. I believe it has been instrumental to keeping subversive forces in check .

As for the problem of "Fake News", it is not a new problem. It is just that now anyone can do it which puts unprecdented burden on the consumer of news to apply discernment and filter effectively.
 
1
•••
The problem with "hate speech" is that it has no definition, other than the subjective determination that someone's sensibilities were offended. To suppress objectionable content is to advance "Group Think".

Wrong. Hate speech has a universal definition. Look it up. It goes beyond offensive speech. If someone threatens you and your family with a gruesome death, would you accept that as "free speech" and let it go?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
So if someone says, "I really hate white people," you get to call the police on them?
 
0
•••
@Slanted, who are the bigots and bullies? Let's call them out.

Within this thread, I have already criticized bigoted views and pushed back against bullies. That should be clear enough.

Making a list of bigots would brand people in a rather permanent and absolute way. People who are left off the list aren't necessarily innocent. And people who are on some "Bigot List" aren't all equally abhorrent. Iโ€™m sure my deceased grandparents held some old-fashioned views that might be judged harshly today. Most people hold a variety of opinions, some of which may be intolerant, dogmatic, or employ negative stereotypes. But it's a matter of degree.

I think what you're trying to do is get me to add the name "Rob Monster" to such a "Bigot List". But I'm not going to do that. I prefer to criticize people's statements and actions in a more nuanced way, and not to damn anybody irrevocably.

Thereโ€™s nothing half-hearted about my choice here. Gab is full of bigotry, and I have always condemned that. Likewise Fox News or Alex Jones. From my perspective, Trump is a bigot; and all of his supporters are complicit to some degree. But you wanted me NOT to be polarizing, right? Yet you want me to name and shame bigots?

Internally at Epik, Rob and I had strong disagreements about Epik becoming entangled with far-right views. When Rob circulated a video of the New Zealand massacre, I criticized that privately and publicly immediately. Likewise, without hesitation, I criticized anti-muslim and anti-semitic messages by Gab members, which Rob did not repudiate at the time, when I was shown them. Right away, I asked Rob to repudiate them; and he did. When I resigned from Epik, my public explanation referred to some of this. You already know that.

Does this mean Rob is a bigot? No. I have always found Rob to be tolerant and welcoming of others, including muslims, jews, and atheists. Certainly I would criticize many of Robโ€™s views. But Iโ€™m not ethically obligated to comment on all of my ex-bossโ€™s private opinions, am I? We are rehashing material from 2 months ago at this point. Do you really think thatโ€™s productive?

Letโ€™s be honest. When you ask me to name the bigots, you ARE trying to get me to issue a Yes / No judgment on Rob Monster, correct? That is the gist of your question. And I assume that you DO regard Rob as a bigot. Perhaps not. I will let you clarify.

I understand that you are looking for that ammunition from me. But how does that square with what you said earlier:

You can help bigots and bullies if you try. I believe no one is beyond help.

I prefer to criticize ideas and not to label people. Even with @whenpillarsfall, whose intolerant dogmatic view that Religion = Poison / Mental Illness / Plague strikes me as bigoted, my wish is not to permanently label him as a โ€œbigotโ€. Instead, as you can see, I have been refuting his ideas โ€“ ideally so that he will moderate those ideas and behave in a less bigoted way. And I have invited him to present a case for his ideas that will result in a debate about ideas and not brand anybody one way or the other.

We don't need a "Bigots List". And we don't need censorship. We need free discussion. And we need rational debate about ideas โ€“ leaving aside the identity or supposed motives of the people involved โ€“ so that we can focus on what's right and true.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
So if someone says, "I really hate white people," you get to call the police on them?

No. But if someone starts killing people because you or someone else convinced them, then you should definitely call the police. By then it is too late for the murdered people.
 
0
•••
@Slanted, who are the bigots and bullies? Let's call them

I think he's trying to refer to me, presumably because I don't agree with him. Apparently calling religion poison is the worst thing in the world and makes me a terrible person that has hidden desires to murder and torture people :xf.rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
0
•••
giphy.gif
 
0
•••
Your opening post was inflammatory in the sense that it drew attention to a judgmental Shane Cultra post whose comments were way out of line and gave other folks in the industry air-cover to also render judgment. It started a wave. I did wait several days, until page 16, before engaging the dialog here.

Let me repost it here...

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.

My main reason for posting the topic was not what you said or did, it was this...
Picture0001.png


RichardDynas is @uglydork here on namepros and at the time I opened the topic I knew little to nothing about the controversy or events that occured.

I was trying to understand why a member of namepros had such a strong opinion that he was prepared to move his domains.

To this point @uglydork has not responded and I am curious to know if he actually moved his domains.

If you look further down the topic I actually sided with Epik and stated that the owner of GoDaddy shot elephants and I am still with them. It did not empower me to say I'm moving all my domains because I don't like the owner of the company.

So if you follow me throughout this topic I don't think you can really say anything I have done has been inflammatory in any way. Sure I asked questions but the last thing I would ever want to do is harm Epik in any way. I think Epik has some phenomenal services and the demise of the company would be a great loss to domainers.

Now because I represent my company MapleDots I will refrain from contributing in other forms in this topic because I don't think talking about the subjects at hand in an official capacity will be beneficial to my company.

So you see Rob, that is all I keep saying.....

Make a new login, make it incognito and speak your peace. For the sake of Epik you need to control your words and actions or you will alienate more people very similar to what happened to Richard in my opening post.

I say that truly because I do care, both for your well being and that of Epik.

Strong opinions evoke strong reactions, mixing that with company business is never beneficial.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Wrong. Hate speech has a universal definition. Look it up. It goes beyond offensive speech. If someone threatens you and your family with a gruesome death, would you accept that as "free speech" and let it go?

In this case, I agree with Rob. "Hate speech" strikes me as dangerously vague. And I have seen my fellow progressives apply the phrase in an attempt to censor speech that โ€“ wrong though it might be โ€“ ought not to be censored.

Within a given context, we can define terms however we wish. As long as both sides of a debate agree to use the same definition, that's perfectly fine โ€“ indeed, helpful.

Rather than say that there is a "universal definition" for hate speech and urging others to "look it up" without telling them which authoritative website or law or book has the official definition, please supply or cite the definition of "hate speech" that you wish to use for the context of this NamePros thread. Then people can debate the merits of regulating "hate speech". That way, their disagreements will be about the same THING, rather than mere disagreement about what the term applies to.
 
1
•••
If you look further down the topic I actually sided with Epik and stated that the owner of GoDaddy shot elephants and I am still with them.

As terrible as that was, human lives are on a different level than elephants. I think that is what made this situation more repugnant. And your OP was actually understated and completely fair, not inflammatory at all.

In this case, I agree with Rob. "Hate speech" strikes me as dangerously vague.

If it is vague then it is not "hate speech".

Rather than say that there is a "universal definition" for hate speech and urging others to "look it up" without telling them which authoritative website or law or book has the official definition, please supply or cite the definition of "hate speech" that you wish to use for the context of this NamePros thread.

Just Google it:

"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

The key words are "abusive or threatening". And it is not subjective. It is obvious to anyone.
 
0
•••
I think he's trying to refer to me

Of course. I said so. Read it.

presumably because I don't agree with him.

No. You're not a bigot for disagreeing with me. You're a bigot for denigrating a group of people, disparaging their ideas as "Mental Illness" or "Poison" or a contagious "Plague".

If you were capable of disagreeing with religion WITHOUT referring to it as Mental Illness or Poison or a Plague, then I wouldn't regard you as a bigot.

This is very straightforward. Here is the definition of "bigot":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Obviously, that's you. This NamePros thread contains pages of evidence to that effect.

And here is the definition of "bigotry":

"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

You have shown that intolerance toward Religion by labeling it a "Mental Illness", a "Cancer", a "Poison", and an infectious "Disease". Nobody is tolerant toward Cancer or Poison or Plague.

Hence referring to you as a "bigot" or your opinion as "bigotry" isn't controversial. You are a bullseye for the dictionary definition.

If ANYBODY believes @whenpillarsfall does NOT perfectly fit the definition of "bigotry", please explain why. I will assume from people's silence on this point that they accept him as a clear example of "bigotry".
 
Last edited:
0
•••
What's abusive
"White people are all stupid racist pigs who revel in their privilege!!!!"
Now can they be punished by law?
 
0
•••
Just Google it:

"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

The key words are "abusive or threatening". And it is not subjective. It is obvious to anyone.

I think we all agree that THREATS should be taken seriously. Threats of violence are illegal. But a threat to expose someone isn't illegal โ€“ unless it's blackmail, involving payment. Likewise, a threat to transfer domains away from 1 registrar to another registrar is perfectly fine. Not all threats should be made illegal, right? So "threatening" is actually somewhat unclear.

What is "abusive"? That is VERY subjective. Have I been "abusive" to @whenpillarsfall by harshly criticizing his viewpoint here on NamePros? Or perhaps by ridiculing his week-long attempt to escape rational discourse? Ridicule might be "abusive".

What if someone denigrates religious people by saying that Religion = Mental Illness or a contagious Disease or a Poison? That definitely "expresses prejudice against a particular group", and it's "on the basis of ... religion". The people insulted by such remarks might regard it as "abusive".

Please explain whether or not the anti-religious comments by @whenpillarsfall are hate speech. Yes or No? Why or why not?

This post isn't actually a criticism of @whenpillarsfall. I'm simply using his bigotry as a specimen in order to examine your definition of "hate speech" โ€“ in order to better understand your definition.

I personally don't find that definition of "hate speech" to be very helpful or meaningful in real life. It's not exact enough for me to use it and expect someone else to understand and apply it in the same way.

Also, it seems to me that not everyone agrees that the definition of "hate speech" you found in Google is THE definition. I believe it is applied rather broadly and indiscriminately by other people. But that's fine. We just need a working definition for NamePros. This one will do as well as any other.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
As terrible as that was, human lives are on a different level than elephants. I think that is what made this situation more repugnant. And your OP was actually understated and completely fair, not inflammatory at all.

And I agree with your statement, the big difference being that the owner of godaddy actually shot the elephants and Rob Monster was only stating an opinion regarding a video of events. If I recollect correctly he said he thought the video was manipulated in some way.

This goes right back to what I was saying....

Rob can have an opinion but when you are so closely connected to a company, and you are that companies public face then you need to temper those type of responses because they will eventually affect the performance of the company.

That for me is why the topic was made, how it evolved makes my point even stronger and one only needs to read the topic to understand the harm it will eventually do to the company.
 
0
•••
Of course. I said so. Read it.



No. You're not a bigot for disagreeing with me. You're a bigot for denigrating a group of people, disparaging their ideas as "Mental Illness" or "Poison" or a contagious "Plague".

If you were capable of disagreeing with religion WITHOUT referring to it as Mental Illness or Poison or a Plague, then I wouldn't regard you as a bigot.

This is very straightforward. Here is the definition of "bigot":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Obviously, that's you. This NamePros thread contains pages of evidence to that effect.

And here is the definition of "bigotry":

"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

You have shown that intolerance toward Religion by labeling it a "Mental Illness", a "Cancer", a "Poison", and an infectious "Disease". Nobody is tolerant toward Cancer or Poison or Plague.

Hence referring to you as a "bigot" or your opinion as "bigotry" isn't controversial. You are a bullseye for the dictionary definition.

You can only be bigotted against people. My issue is with religion. I don't hate people that are religious, I consider them misguided and, in some cases mentally unwell. I've been very clear about this.

You have tried to imply that means I want to eradicate these people, hurt these people or generally be awful to these people, and time and time I have told you I do not.

Let me say this very slowly for you: religion is poison to the human mind - religious people are not poison.

Please stop misrepresenting me and my position and polarising the debate. You keep backing yourself further and further into this corner.

My views above would clearly fail the bigot test. Although I suspect you think you know more about what I think than myself.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Appraise.net
Spaceship
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
DomainEasy โ€” Payment Flexibility
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back