Cyber Violence Is A Myth: Words Have Meanings For A Reason

Cyber violence is a myth.

Do you know why? It’s pretty simple…

Words have particular meanings.

Violence Definition

Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Violence is physical. Period.

Therefore, there is no such thing as cyber violence. Someone should tell the United Nations.

The U.N. defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts.” The report notes that cyber violence is an extension of that definition, that includes acts like trolling, hacking, spamming, and harassment.

I’m sorry, but none of those fit the definition of violence, yet this report claims 73% of women have been victims of cyber violence… in an effort to push Internet censorship treaties.

Thankfully, the U.N. treaty failed; it’s scary that 89 countries were on board. However, it’s not surprising, since freedom of speech disrupts the power of government, mass media institutions, and extremist beliefs.

And that’s what this is all about: freedom of speech.

There is this belief today that people have the right to not be offended. That they have a right not to hear opinions and viewpoints they do not agree with.

That’s not how freedom of speech works.

You’re allowed to say what you want to say, and I’m allowed to say what I want to say. If either of us gets offended, that’s perfectly okay. When you start passing laws that restrict what I can say simply because you are offended or disagree with me, that’s a violation of my rights.

And when you misuse words to elicit a particular response, such as propagandizing the term “cyber violence,” you are being a manipulative little cunt. Plain and simple.

I shit you not, this is a line from the executive summary of the report: “A current Twitter hashtag shows just how rough it is being a woman on the Internet in North America.

Yup, hashtags.

Hashtags threaten the lives of white, feminist, suburban Twitter and Tumblr users. They claim this is about women in more developing nations being deterred from the Internet, but in reality, SJWs and feminists are the ones leading the charge to stop first-world problems. #MyTroll is so devastating to these women they want to censor the Internet…

Although the treaty failed, do not think for a moment that this issue is over. The United Nations will continue its push towards censorship while riding on the back of illogical feminists and touting it as a righteous act towards “equality.”

To them “equality” means:

The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center of those in charge of producing and providing the content, technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society. Failure to do so will clip the potential of the Internet as an engine for gender equality and women’s empowerment.

So according to the United Nations, every content provider, every software developer, every network administrator — literally anyone that uses or designs the Internet according to this statement — must place the respect for and security of females as their highest priority, or it will clip the potential of the Internet (to promote mainstream brainwashing while censoring opposing viewpoints).

Oh, and to do that will obviously require more Orwellian policies:

Rigorous oversight and enforcement of rules banning cyber VAWG (violence against women) on the Internet is going to be a conditio sine qua non (i.e. indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient) if it is to become a safe, respectful and empowering space for women and girls, and by extension, for boys and men.

I’m honestly surprised they even mentioned males, but clearly, females come first. #Equality

More government oversight is not what the Internet needs. More government oversight is not what ANYTHING needs.

And what the hell is this obsession with safe spaces?

Panic Rooms For Everyone!

You do not have a right to safety. You have a right to self-defense, but not safety.

Danger is inherent in the human condition, and even more inherent with freedom and liberty. Isaac Asimov demonstrates that with his Three Laws of Robotics:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

However, by logical extension, this leads to the Zeroth law.

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Humans are fucking dangerous.

Logically, a robot would be in violation of the Zeroth Law if it allowed humans to continue waging war upon each other. Enter Will Smith and the fight for liberty vs. safety (i.e. rise of the robots).

The only way to prevent every human from coming to harm, would be to eliminate freedom and free will by placing each and every one of us under separate lock and key. #SafeSpace

Robots do not have emotions, so the elimination of free will is a moot point for them. Safety is their priority in this circumstance.

If you truly want to be safe, we should be focusing all of our energy on making I, Robot a reality. Just imagine how safe, long, and uneventful lives we could lead if we allowed robots to manage everything and eventually place everyone in cryostasis.

End cyber violence! End murder! End freedom!

Let’s Humor The SJWs For A Moment… Throw Them A Bone Since They Make Us Laugh So Consistently

The United Nations had Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn speak during the launch of the report.

Cyber Violence

This is absolutely laughable. You are not a “survivor” of anything. People who believe this are complete fucking morons.

For anyone that doesn’t know, Anita Sarkeesian is a proven reporter of false crimes and has manipulated the GamerGate controversy to line her own pockets.

Zoe Quinn has committed the exact “crimes” she would like to see established as law.

Feminists and social justice warriors display such brazen hypocrisy that it still amazes me when it really shouldn’t anymore.

My point is, these are the types of people our world leaders listen to when making policy. Hell, these are the types of people our world leaders ARE!

Feminists and SJWs are some of the worst people imaginable. They completely disregard facts and logic, and base all of their hive-mind opinions off of whichever moronic, cat-enslaving blogger is popular at the time on Tumblr. And then they affect policy based on bullshit information and feelings.

If someone receives a legitimate death threat where an online harasser says, “I’m going to rape and murder you,” then yes, the authorities should probably be notified and that person should possibly be looked into.

Not charged. Not arrested. But investigated for the legitimacy of the threat.

If someone is simply being trolled, harassed, or spammed, they need to grow up and develop a thicker skin with a rock-solid mindset. All of these technologies have simple ways to block others from contacting you. But personal responsibility is asking just too much of these poor, defenseless, strong, independent feminists…

When someone doesn’t share the EXACT same viewpoints about EVERY topic, they are immediately demonized and silenced. Universities are becoming nothing more than liberal indoctrination centers that silence opposing viewpoints, establish “free speech zones” and “safe spaces,” and prevent students from discussing meaningful topics in a logical manner.

We are teaching people to grow up to be a bunch of pussified, coddled children that cannot handle the real word. Instead, they require trigger warnings and benzos to even function throughout their day-to-day life.

The world is so harsh and victimizing when you’re a femenist or SJW.

But guess what.

Rape culture is a fantasy.

The wage gap is a fantasy.

Shame culture is a fantasy.

The women’s equality movement isn’t about equality. It’s about demonizing young boys and men as potential rapists and abusers, while giving special privileges to women.

Just look at the court systems. Rape accusations and divorce can ruin a man overnight, without any proof of wrongdoing whatsoever. If you don’t believe the woman’s story (no matter how contrived or fabricated), you are a fucking victim-blaming misogynist that deserves to be locked up or dead.

Once again… #Equality #Hypocrites

How To Stop Cyber Violence

If cyber violence WAS real, which it most certainly IS NOT, then how do you stop it?

Here’s a tip for Twitter, which you can modify for the rest of your online experiences:

Basically, grow the fuck up!

All I hear is a lot of whining women proclaiming that they are so thin-skinned, so emotionally sensitive, so childish, and so easily psychologically manipulated, that they simply cannot bear to use technology unless they get to dictate how anyone and everyone is allowed to interact with them.

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Under-Secretary-General of the U.N. and Executive Director of U.N. Women, claims that:

Dead is dead. Whether you are dead because your partner shot you or beat you up, or you killed yourself because you couldn’t bear cyber-bullying, or you were exposed to many of the sites that lead people to suicide pacts— bottom line, we lose a life.

Two things: 1) Actual violence, which is prosecutable, & 2) personal choices, which require mindset changes to correct, not laws.

Mlabo-Ngcuka also emphasizes that “cyber violence exists on a continuum with physical violence, and that both problems are byproducts of a society that is inherently unequal for women.”

Um, no it is not. Feminists like to scream “equality,” but what they are really pushing for is superiority over the “big bad men” who have “wronged” them over the course of history.

Besides, believing men and women are the same is bordering on a mental illness. They are not, on a biological level.

Equality Means Privileges For Me, Not For You

I’d like to particularly highlight the topic of women in the military.

Feminists want the standards of physical ability to be lowered for women, so that they have an “equal” amount of success in joining the military as men.

This is absolutely asinine.

If we are deployed onto a battlefield, the point of having a particular level of strength and endurance is so that we are able to get each other through the Suck. So that we are physically capable of performing the demanding tasks of war.

When you allow female soldiers to join at a lower level of physical fitness, they are not capable of pulling the same weight as men. Literally.

If my buddy is hit with a round and is incapacitated, I must be able to drag his heavy ass (gear weighs a lot) to safety. Lowering the standards for women is not equality. It’s a liability.

Personally, I do not believe that women belong on the battlefield. Period.. And that does not stem from a sexist point of view.

It’s because women are not physically equal to men, and never will be.

Pretending that they are is insane, and is inviting more tragic loss of life in the name of “equality.”

We Must Violate Freedom of Speech to Protect… Freedom of Speech?

Mlambo-Ngcuka also states that:

If the woman is tormented, she may then decide that ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with technology,” she said. “To be disconnected from technology in the 21st century, it’s like having your freedom disrupted: your right to work, your right to meet people, your right to learn, your freedom of speech. So if women become so intimidated and traumatized from the experiences they may have, it’s a whole world that will be lost to them for the rest of their life.

So to protect freedom of speech, we must enact censorship laws that violate freedom of speech so women won’t feel “intimidated” or “traumatized” by experiences they “may” have? No.

Abso-fucking-lutely, no.

If you want to avoid being so terribly frustrated by these people, just realize that they do not see their intentions or actions as violating free speech.

The left is ignorant of the fact that subjective laws are absolutely terrible.

They do not understand the concept of a “slippery slope” when it comes to restricting rights. And they certainly do not see the bigger picture, the sinister implications, of allowing the Internet to be controlled by government bureaucracy.

Don’t pretend for a second that this issue is over. Enemies of free speech will continue their push to violate our rights.

It is up to us to stand against them.

Never allow someone to shout you down for your opinions. And never give in to censorship.

Keep fighting the good fight,

Nick Hagood
Masculinity Rising

Leave a Reply