The goal is UN control over the internet and a committee of censors approving of every post - all you have to do is READ it. They want social media to be “licensed” by a Soviet and to put responsibility for posts on the carrier, rather than the poster. Pretty gross to see Anita and Zoe get on board with this policy.…

Neither are feminist websites

How about instead of spewing dumb catch phrases that make feminists look like idiots, you have a discussion as to why you believe this person is wrong? Seems all I ever see from you people is catch phrases and name calling when you’re not censoring people who disagree with you. Also, that MRA phrase makes you sound…

My favorite part is they mention solutions like pure censorship, clearly an agenda by some countries to police their citizens, and to do so they trot out some online e-victims who would be stoned to death in those countries and say “look at these poor brave white girls getting yelled at online, we need a global…

The UN can’t even stop actual, literal genocides, oh, but Timmy disagreeing with a girl on twitter is a huge worldwide problem.

Hey you’re criticizing them, a women and that’s sexist but now that I think about it, according to them everything is sexist.

And because thats also whats really the most important issue, people getting their feelings hurt over the internet.

Same as feminists like anita.
But the concept of both are equality.

I never understood how MRA is an insult since to me it has the same definition as feminist.

Yes! If we just taught young boys that disagreeing and criticizing isn’t even an option.

Ah, but only if you disagree with them. The UN talks about how bad guns are and all of Gawker treats the words as the second coming of Michael Bloomberg.

exactly.

This is what happens when you invite Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn to talk to the UN about how to help keep professional victims in business.