Where free speech applies and where it doesn't by John_Elliott in FreeSpeech

[–]DavidKing[A] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AVFM didn't publish offensive emails from David King to which I felt obliged to reply in kind.

So far as I know, the RT ticket as published contains all relevant correspondence, including everything from me, in connection with that ticket.

I then sent them an amended article which they had asked for. They failed to publish this version for your attention in their response.

You're right, I didn't bother with that since I assumed — perhaps wrongly — that there was no difference materially relevant to the dispute.

Against the possibility that there is something relevant in there, I've uploaded it and attached it to the relevant part of the ticket.

Well, I believe in free speech!

Strangely enough, so do we — as proven by this thread and elsewhere.

You're entitled to your opinions, and we're content to let others arrive at their own conclusions without telling them what to think.

Where free speech applies and where it doesn't by John_Elliott in FreeSpeech

[–]DavidKing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As Elliott says, we originally unpublished it, later the same day. Because of his latest stunt, we've republished the article as we originally published it (ie containing the edits he objected to) as well as the full editorial history. There is also a brief summary of the history of this matter in a comment on the article on mainsite.

Now that the relevant history is public, I leave it to you to make you your own mind whether the "stink" he raised was justified.

What is interesting is that, just as we suspected, Elliott just couldn't stay away despite his promises to do so, just has he has broken his word several times in the past. That's his prerogative, of course, but if you cannot "stick the flounce", it is better not to flounce publicly in the first place.


Where free speech applies and where it doesn't by John_Elliott in FreeSpeech

[–]DavidKing[A] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

u/John_Elliott, nice try, but we're not taking the bait, not in the way you seemed to hope, anyway. This post violates no site rules so we're not going to delete it.

But free speech is a two-way street. Those who want to make up their own mind can can read the original offending article, its full editorial history and our response which explains the history of this sorry case and why we have published it.

Bettina Ardnt: Cassie Jaye'€™s Red Pill too truthful for feminists to tolerate by DavidKing in AVfM

[–]DavidKing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Full text in case you hit the paywall:

The Red Pill: The movie about men that feminists didn’t want you to see.” This was the provocative headline that ran in Britain’s The Telegraph last November, a teaser for a documentary made by a feminist filmmaker who planned to take on men’s rights activists but was won over and crossed to the dark side to take up their cause.

Despite a ferocious campaign to stop the movie being made, it’s finally been released and the Australian screening was due next week in Melbourne. However the gender warriors have struck again, using a change.com petition to persuade Palace Cinemas to cancel the booking. Palace took the decision after being told the movie would offend many in its core audience but by yesterday 8000 had signed petitions protesting the ban. Organisers are now scrambling to find another venue.

Clearly this documentary has the feminists very worried — with good reason. Cassie Jaye is an articulate, 29-year-old blonde whose previous movies on gay marriage and abstinence education won multiple awards. But then she decided to interview leaders of the Men’s Rights Movement for a documentary she was planning about rape culture on American campuses. As a committed feminist, Jaye expected to be unimpressed by these renowned hate-filled misogynists, but to her surprise she was exposed to a whole range of issues she came to see as unfairly stacked against men and boys.

As news of this very public conversion started to leak out, Jaye came under attack. She was smeared, told she was committing “career suicide” and saw her funding dry up to the point where it looked as if the movie would never be made. Prominent feminists she had planned to interview refused to participate; none of the “human rights” funding she hoped to attract proved available for a documentary on men’s rights.

Then a Kickstarter fund raised $211,260, ensuring the movie’s cinematic release. Over the past month there have been screenings in the US, and hopefully Australian audiences will eventually get to see what the fuss is all about.

The title The Red Pill refers to a scene in The Matrix when Keanu Reeves’s character takes the red pill to expose “the truth” that challenges his closely held beliefs. Jaye’s The Red Pill reveals a world where the cultural dialogue is dominated by feminists still complaining that men have all the power, yet the “truth” in most Western countries is that many laws, attitudes and social conventions make life tough for men. Her fly-on-the-wall technique includes interviews with Men’s Rights Movement leaders such as Paul Elam and feminists who oppose the movement, graphics and animations revealing facts about family law and child custody, male suicide rates and the not-so-privileged side of traditional manhood, such as the 90 per cent of workplace fatalities that are male.

There’s a powerful interview with Erin Pizzey, who is no longer allowed near the British women’s refuge she started back in the 1970s, the first in the world. Pizzey ran afoul of the sisterhood by campaigning to expose the truth about women’s role in domestic violence.

Jaye shows feminist protesters shutting down a talk at a Toronto campus by men’s activist Warren Farrell, screeching at a young man who tried to attend and berating him as “f..king scum”, and on another occasion setting off a fire alarm in a building where a men’s rights lecture was to be held.

There’s discussion of men’s lack of reproductive rights, which includes a clip from a chat show where the audience cheers when a woman whose husband is resisting a second child says she’s considering going off birth control without telling him.

Reaction to the movie has been mixed, with the flamboyant anti-feminist Milo Yiannopoulos describing it as “a powerful film on a complicated, important, yet woefully unaddressed issue”. He applauds Jaye for “having the intestinal fortitude to not only tackle this subject, but to do so fairly”. Predictably, the movie has been panned by the left-wing The Village Voice, which calls Jaye an “MRM-bankrolled propagandist”, and the Los Angeles Times, whose reviewer claims she failed to understand “patriarchal systems”.

Stephen Marche in The Guardian admits that “men do sometimes suffer mistreatment from the courts or from the women in their lives”, but suggests the film fails to demonstrate any systemic cause. “Instead, the author of men’s troubles here is always that vague bugaboo feminism, which we’re told is designed to silence its opponents,” sniffs Marche.

That’s pretty ironic, given this “vague bugaboo” persists in trying to silence Jaye’s attempts to tell this story. As she points out in her movie, the issues she examines came as a revelation not only to her but to many others exposed to the material she put together. That bugaboo carries a lot of clout.

Details of the new venue for the November 6 viewing of The Red Pill will be on my website next week. bettinaarndt.com.au.

Another balanced (actually, positive) review of The Red Pill by DavidKing in AVfM

[–]DavidKing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In respect of the film. I didn't say he was balanced (lol)

The author is not a red-piller. He's an outsider reviewing a film about men's rights, so a bit of good ol' fashioned gynocentrism shouldn't really be much of a surprise.

Feminist theory has become our new religion, writes Corrine Barraclough by DavidKing in AVfM

[–]DavidKing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One thing I noticed is that every single one of the Rendezview articles your article links to are written by women.

It's possible that was deliberate on my part when I researched that article, I forget now.

But Bettina and Corrine are both definitely gold.

It illustrates, yet again, that many of the most staunch supporters of the MHRM are female, while almost every male MSM journalist is a virtue-signalling feminist sycophant.

At some level, male journalists have everything to lose by being supportive while women have nothing to lose. On the contrary, the notoriety is good coin in that industry.

'ReNew' program targeting boys aims to stop family violence by PeterWright in AVfM

[–]DavidKing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My comment (don't like its chances of getting published, given their disclaimer about 'errors of fact' and such):

It's good to see that somebody's beginning to take the inter-generational elements of DV seriously, but there are two glaring faults with the programme as described:

• Having accepted that DV is a social problem transmitted from generation to generation, why assume that girls are traumatised by it any less than boys? Why neglect or exclude the girls?

• Why wait for violence to manifest in the child before referral? Essentially, the quiet (but equally traumatised) kids get to suffer in silence while violence is rewarded with special attention.

This programme represents an important step in the right direction, but it has yet to shed the sexist idea that DV (the definition of which now includes emotional, psychological and coercive abuse) has anything at all to do with gender and that those who insist on genderising the problem do much more harm than good (as if any further proof were needed).

Search doesn't work by DavidKing in bugreports

[–]DavidKing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I've removed it for now.

Search doesn't work by DavidKing in bugreports

[–]DavidKing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reddit's default search infrastructure uses AWS CloudSearch. I calculated the cost and, for the moment, it isn't really justified. Remember, this is all being paid for by advertising from AVfM's main site, and we can't use AdSense on SFS because of AdSense's very strict content policies.

If SFS takes off, then we can re-assess and perhaps find a suitable ad provider. In the meantime, we'll have to live without search (or use google) until I can spare time to explore Solr.