SJWs launching coordinated attacks on anti-censorship Facebook accounts


#Metalgate explodes in full bloom as the gloves are off: SJWs, who call themselves “Social Justice Warriors” but are more accurately referred to as “Safespace Jihad Worriers,” are using mass messages on Facebook — and secret, anonymous profiles — to coordinate to mass-complain about anti-censorship Facebook accounts.

During the last 48 hours, accounts belonging to Brett Stevens and Richard Corbin, founder of the Anti-Censorship group Make Baltimore – NO PLAY ZONE!, have been deleted by Facebook after receiving hundreds of complaints coordinated by Safespace Jihad Worriers (SJWs). The Baltimore group has been under a lesser form of attack as SJWs have swarmed it to post negative messages, memes and pornography in the hope of getting the group banned. Facebook, which itself vigorously supports certain kinds of censorship and nagging nanny content restrictions, has complied despite these accounts not having anti-immigrant speech at all.

In particular, Stevens’ account was attacked for his posting of a feminist article about positive body image. Although no other users complained, and although Facebook can see the secret group from which all complainers were coming, Facebook rubber-stamped the deletion because of its policy of censoring content that might offend someone somewhere, mainly because it wishes to create a “safe space” free from controversial news items and images. This is in addition to censorship where Facebook works with repressive regimes to remove content contrary to the official propaganda. Internet users have compiled a long list of privacy and censorship violations by Facebook.

Others have pointed out that Facebook’s nebulous content censorship policy permits abuse of the type that is happening here. Certainly, it seems odd that Facebook would allow secret groups to form lynch mobs against pages on its own site. Then again, Facebook censors mentions of its competitors as well as blocking trending news stories that contradict the political leanings of its administrators. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has rated Facebook a censorship risk that has failed EFF’s censorship test, and many in the moderate wing of the tech industry have expressed doubts about Facebook’s intentions. Some have even started watchdog groups to track Facebook censorship and political bias.

In the meantime, rumors about as to who is the mystery “MAS” or “ALS” who coordinates the hidden group, which is reminiscent of both the JournoList scandal and the foundations of #metalgate. In the meantime, SJWs such as Mary Spiro, whose daughter reportedly dates Bestial Evil guitarist Shawn Rucker II and who book shows in Baltimore with rumored political intent, can be seen justifying the mass attacks via Facebook:

Tags: , , , ,

13 thoughts on “SJWs launching coordinated attacks on anti-censorship Facebook accounts”

  1. OliveFox says:

    “We humans are not meant to have to deal with all this input. But here we are…”

    Outside of the self-victimizing and melodramatic attitude, this statement just solidifies the worst of the SJWs crimes: Attacking something, tearing it down from the inside-out, and failing to provide anything “better” in its place.

    If for whatever reason SJWs attack on metal led to better metal, metal heads would probably get on-board. But it hasn’t and doesn’t and NEVER WILL!

    1. Social Justice = Genocide says:

      We’d just end up with waves of Deafheaven.

  2. Dualist says:

    Its incredible that she implies she’s sooo ABOVE all of our ideas – straight after justifying censorship of them.

    When debating something, people only ever screech and get blood-vessel-poppingly angry when they are TERRIFIED that they’re wrong about EVERYTHING.

    The other thing people do when they are scared they are wrong is to get as many other people to back them up as possible. Because in their world, whatever most people think – that’s the TRUTH.

    1. ChoirOfWolves says:

      “The other thing people do when they are scared they are wrong is to get as many other people to back them up as possible. Because in their world, whatever most people think – that’s the TRUTH”

      The fallacy of Democracy! Haha.

  3. Phil says:

    Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental objection. Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct. With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feels much interested in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause. In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion. It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. This is the real morality of public discussion: and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.

    J.S. Mill, On Liberty

  4. Vae Victis says:

    How do you know that it was the body image article that led to the deletion /suspension of your account? I was a regular visitor to your page when it existed and while I agreed with most of the stuff you posted, I equally knew many special snowflake types would find most of it much more offensive than the article referenced above.

  5. mary spiro says:

    there is more metal in the cottage cheese discharge in my underwear than the entire racist,transphobic metal scene combined

  6. muthafukcas! says:

    Have SJWs even read Schopenhauer?

    1. vOddy says:

      Hahahahaha, most certainly not.
      Most people haven’t read him, so why would these pseudo intellectuals have?

      I actually haven’t read his work myself. Can I find it for free online somewhere? I don’t have a lot of money yet.

      1. muthafukcas! says:

        Introduction to his main philosophy/metaphysics:

        His book of Essays & Aphorisms is also great. I believe a lot of that content is available in google.

        If you’re in the US, the public library system has a giant network where they will send specific materials you request online to your local branch. You can hold up to 100 things per library card. You can also get more library cards by asking people to sign up and having them give you their cards. They don’t need to be present when you pick up books & CDs.

      2. Dualist says:

        I’ve got plenty of PDF’s of his works if that’s any use to you? If you want any PDF’s (or pretty much any book – I’ve got over 10 000, so there should be something you fancy), just reply and we can sort something out.

        If you prefer ‘proper’ books, I picked up a second hand copy of the Essays and Aphorisms a two months back for about 50 pence (plus postage).

        ‘The World as Will and Representation (or Idea, in some editions)’ is generally considered the culmination of his thought. But be careful: Wordsworth Classics do a really cheap version but it’s abridged – even though it doesn’t mention this Amazon’s.

        1. vOddy says:

          I’ll gladly take a PDF. Do you have a dropbox, or can you email it to me?

  7. The Chubber Bandit says:

    Mary Spiro is also the same person who posted that “all cops are bad”, after Freddie Gray and then told cops to “do their fucking jobs” when crime rates went through the roof in Baltimore city. She is a fucking bottom-dweller.

Comments are closed.

Classic reviews: