Online censorship is getting ridiculous

If you’ve ever bothered to read user agreements or terms of service, you’ll usually find verbiage forbidding politically incorrect speech.  Usually it’s just a couple of lines.  Thus, it’s easy to miss, since it’s inside a long, dry legal document that says essentially “Megalocorp can do anything, and you can’t sue us if we screw you over.”  However, they don’t even need a reason.  When the Silicon Valley control freaks click the “ban” box, sometimes it’s not because you used naughty words, but because they don’t like your ideas, even if you expressed them somewhere else.

Sometimes it gets quite persnickety.  One of my friends is a Warcrack addict.  One time, a team member wouldn’t join him in battle, and he told his reluctant comrade, “Don’t be a faggot.”  For that, the Warcrack mods sentenced him to a week in the penalty box for homophobia.  Not that it really matters, he didn’t actually mean “gay”, he essentially was calling the other guy a wimp.  My friend was pretty astounded by that.  Our generation was raised on the proverb, “Stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”

Twitter’s politically correct control freaks

Some other terms of service get much more extensive.  For example, Twitter has gone nuts with that lately.  They ban anyone for the NPC meme under their dehumanization policy, which means no robots or animals.  If you want to get technical about it, then you can’t call pacifists and warmongers “doves” and “hawks” any more.  Communists will be bitterly disappointed, since they’ll have to give up “capitalist pigs” and “imperialist running dogs.”  But what are we going to call fat, hairy gay guys now that “bears” is out of the question?

The “otherkin” present a potential dilemma here.  Some of them think they’re nonhuman fantasy creatures (look up “Elven Nation Manifesto” if you want some chuckles).  Others think they’re common animals, either physically or spiritually.  Some might consider themselves mechanical objects too – which includes robots.  So to follow their rules, if a guy thinks he’s a cat, then you can’t indulge him and call him a cat on Twitter, even if he wants everyone else to go along with the make-believe.

Speaking of delusional people who think they’re something they’re not, Twitter has forbidden “misgendering” and “deadnaming” (I didn’t know that word existed).  Basically, these newly made up words mean that if you refer to Caitlyn Jenner as “he” or “Bruce”, you’re gone.  If a man puts on a dress and calls himself a woman, you may not question that, or else!  Instead, you must buy into “her” reality, or at least pretend to believe it.  Your own beliefs about all that certainly don’t matter.  (If I start calling myself Napoleon, will they let me be emperor of France?)  If you’re on Twitter, just remember the following:

  • If a man calls himself a cat:  you cannot agree.
  • If a man calls himself a woman:  you must agree.

Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Council” has spoken loud and clear about this politically fashionable mental illness, among other subjects.  However, what does any of this have to do with trust and safety?  Is the name some Orwellian construction, like “Ministry of Peace”?  Either way, they’ve taken it upon themselves to dictate what views may not be expressed on their platform.  Fringe gender theories – which twenty years ago even most liberals would’ve found silly – are but one particular in the Party Line.  Thank the Gods that I’m not on that crappy platform!

3DXChat’s politically correct control freaks

If you haven’t heard of 3DXChat, you’re not alone; neither did I until recently.  It’s a sexually oriented virtual reality environment, I guess like Warcrack with nookie.  No, I’ve never been on it; I have two girlfriends, so I don’t feel like paying a subscription to create interactive animated cyber-porn.  This is about the last place you’d expect to find heavy-handed political correctness.  However, a pretty good chunk of their rules is exactly that, along with a lot of micromanagement.

After their “we can do anything” legalese, the following specifics are named.  I have to wonder what sort of contingencies some of them were meant to prevent.

“2.01. Excessive profanity and inappropriate language is not welcome.”

So you’re in this sex chat thing, and you can’t use naughty words?  Do you have to use the proper Latin terms for body parts and sex acts while narrating your encounter, or is romance novel type dialogue okay?

“2.02. Insults, personal attacks, abuse or harassment are not tolerated on any level.”

That’s what a block feature is for.  Don’t they have one?

“2.03. Derogatory comments based on race, nationality, religion, culture, underage sex, or underage sexual preference are prohibited.”

This one goes a little beyond politically correct.  Saying “I don’t like kiddy fiddlers” will get you banned.  Does this place have lots of people who will be offended by being called chickenlovers or something?  Granted, people with certain proclivities might be offended, but must the company must make an effort to spare the delicate feelings of degenerates?

“2.04. Allusion of racial or national supremacy, as well as discriminative propaganda on any level is prohibited.”

While grinding your digitized junk with someone else, remember not to say anything like “Greece is great!”, “China is the center of the world!”, “Nihon ichiban desu!”, or “Britannia rules the waves!”  Anyway, I have to wonder why they so greatly fear that someone will use their dirty chat service to spread “discriminative propaganda”.  Who do they think they are – Twitter?

“2.05. Spamming or posting nonsensical messages is prohibited in the chats. This also includes excessive use of caps.”


“2.11. Discussion on, or linking to illegal activities, such as illicit drugs, is prohibited. This includes but is not limited to the linking of, or discussion on, websites dedicated to vulgar, racist, abusive, illegal, or any other content prohibited by the EULA, or linking to the resources that contain such advertisement or content.”

“So yeah, I was smoking a joint the other day, oh, and before we get back to that story, let me share a link with you to the Truly Tasteless Jokes fan club.”

“2.14. Death threats and other threats of violence in real life, directed either against individual users, game masters or administration of the project, are prohibited.”

Why do they even need a contingency like this?  Let me see…  “When we were having cybersex, your avatar gave mine virtual AIDS!  I’ll have my revenge!”

“2.17. Discussion of social, religious, political, illegal or other controversial topics that may create offense is prohibited. This includes but is not limited to negative portrayal of religious and political figures is prohibited.”

Uh, guys, if someone says “I [love | hate] [Trump | Hillary | Pope Francis | the Dalai Lama]” and you don’t like it, there’s already a remedy.  Just block the user, like you would for anyone who’s bugging you for other reasons.  Anyway, how much of this are they really expecting on a service about digital nookie?

“2.18. Discussion of decisions or sanctions made by Game Masters or Administration in all game chats and channels is prohibited.”

You’d better not say that the referee made a bad call.  Anyway, I’m a little curious about these games – maybe they have naked ice hockey tournaments?

“2.19. Any kind of provocations for other players to violate the EULA as well as additions to it is strictly prohibited.”

“Hey, PenisColossus2016, let’s break item 2.17, how about it?  I’ll start putting down Justin Trudeau, and you start dissing the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

“2.21. Any attempt to create nicknames, groups, or organized communities of players associated in any fashion with organizations which violate any applicable laws or regulations is prohibited. This includes but not limited to, direct or indirect references to Nazi symbols, abbreviations and well known leaders.”

Did someone get “triggered” over the “NSDAP Gangbang Tag Team” or something?

Whew!  So section 3 is about “Names (Players and Rooms), Avatars, Images/Video, Signatures & Room logos”.  It begins:

“Certain content for names, avatars, images/video, signatures & clan logos, have no place on the 3DXCHAT forums or within the 3DXCHAT game, due to their extremely offensive, annoying or inappropriate nature.”

A non-exhaustive list follows.  I mean, it’s a cybersex server; we can’t have people thinking it’s some kind of disreputable joint, now can we?  You may not have the following “Names, Avatars, Images/Video, Signatures & Clan logos ….”

“3.01 that contain profanity, including its abbreviated form.”

So forget about naming your avatar BiggusDickus or DTF2018.  Remember, this is a respectable cybersex server!

“3.05 which have (in any way) racist or nationalistic implications which may create offense to a certain nation, ethnic, religious or racial group.”

Did they make this rule after having a lot of problems with user names like NorthKoreaSucks, GypsiesAreCrooks, or ScientologyIsGoofy?

“3.06 that contain an allusion of racial or national supremacy, as well as discriminative propaganda on any level.”

Okay, so no virtual orgy room called “We Support Segregation”.  Roger that.

“3.07 which contain insults or derogatory comments based on race, nationality, religion, culture, mental stature, sex, or sexual preference”

So you can’t create a “Faggot Funhouse” or “Homo Hotel” even if you’re gay?

“3.08 which have an association with pedophilia, sexual abuse; or have an offensive connection to the human body or bodily functions.”

It sounds like people with certain (ahem) bodily function fetishes are out of luck.  Also, chickenlover usernames or rooms are beyond the pale, but remember not to call a chickenlover a chickenlover, or that’s an item 2.03 violation.

“3.10 which contain excessive gore or violence, or are obscene/vulgar.”

Why, no, we certainly can’t have that on a visually enhanced X-rated chat server!  What kind of a place do you think this is?

“3.11 which make reference to addictive or illegal substances or their use, or any other illegal activities.”

You better not name your avatar LucyInTheSkiesWithDiamonds or GangsterOfLove.

“3.12 that contain Logotypes, symbols, emblems or figures connected in one way or another with organizations, that violate or were violating existing laws and rules; i.e. anything that may provoke strong negative reaction/association or promote national/ethnic/religious hatred. (For example, using different variations of Nazi symbolic, abridgments and signs [88, 14, 420, SS], or similar stylizing [such as, 55] as well as credentials, names and surnames of Nazi leaders.)”

Okay, so no “11th SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking” party room then.  I’m sure that was a terrible problem before they made up that rule.  Other than that, getting their panties in a wad about numbers is pretty silly.

“3.13 that contain reference to current mainstream religions that may create offense, i.e. names such as God, Jesus, Allah, etc.”

OK, so your username can’t be HungLikeShiva, but you can probably get away with Priapus.  It’s not clear whether or not BigAbdallah or JesusGonzalezHungLikeABull would work.

“3.14 that are connected with negative historical or political personalities, first of all those who are judged by international courts for crimes against humanity, those that generally arouse feelings of suffering or disgust in the majority of people, as well as members of currently existing terrorist organizations;”

Then usernames like IvanTheTerrible, VladTepes, ErszebetBathory, IdiAmin, and SlobodanMilosevic are not allowed.  I’m not sure whether or not you can get away with LBJ or RichardNixon.

WTF was all that?

So here we have a site where you’re a cartoon and can give another cartoon a hi-res facial.  Quite oddly, their rules are so politically correct that it hurts.  In fact, a very large section of their rules was about that.

You’d think that being a sex site, they might have different rules, maybe like “no donkey punch, Dirty Sanchez, incest, necrophilia, or sheep bothering”.  There is only a small amount of that, but there is a considerable focus on politically correct protected categories, and a particular obsession with NS ideology.  If you happen to be a leftist pixellated porn connoisseur, fortunately you still can get away with something like the “Young Octobrist Teabagging Hut”, the “Viet Cong House of Nookie”, or whatever.

What exactly possessed them to make up all these persnickety rules?  Did the Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit der ehemaligen Angehörigen der Waffen-SS create a virtual party house there, where they spoke too freely about the good old days whenever they weren’t occupied with digitized poontang?  Or did some apple-polishing hall monitor grow up, major in sociology at Berkeley, then become a cybersex mogul?  I can imagine another scenario that might have caused their odd NS fixation.  Skip the following if you can’t take a joke:

PCLC:  “Politically Correct Law Center, Muffy Millennial speaking, how may I help you?”
Kinky:  “Hi, I’m Kinky Lipshitz, and I need to file a complaint.”
PCLC:  “We’ll be happy to help, Mr. Lipshitz.  What happened?”
Kinky:  “You see, I was in 3DXChat, which is a virtual reality porno game thing, right?”
PCLC:  “The PCLC investigates, monitors, and ruins the reputations of people who have different opinions than us.  Did you need technical support for your cybersex app?  I can look up their helpdesk if you like.”
Kinky:  “Oh no, this was a hate crime, all right.  So I was in a virtual bedroom, unzipped my virtual pants, and pulled out my virtual shlong.  Then someone took a look at it and called me ‘Clip Tip’.  How infuriating!  I’ll have you know, my briss was done by the most accomplished mohel in Brooklyn.”
PCLC:  “Okay, I can tell you’re very proud of it.  I’ll see what we can do to make sure you’re never called ‘Clip Tip’ online again.”
Kinky:  “Please, Muffy, you’ve got to do something – I will not have anyone making fun of my top-grade kosher salami!  I’m telling you, my mohel is a miracle worker.  If you saw it, then you’d agree that it’s the most beautiful shlong you’d ever laid eyes on.  It looks like it came off of an angel, I tell you!  I’m sure the bitch who said that was a Nazi!”
PCLC:  “I understand your concern.  I’ll escalate this hate crime immediately to the Wrongthink Prevention Department.”
Kinky:  “Oh, thank you so much for saving me from the cyber-Nazis!  What happens next?”
PCLC”  “We help Internet companies rewrite their terms of service so that politically incorrect views can’t be expressed online.  We got all the major social media companies converged already.  We’ve had problems with some of the smaller platforms, but we pressure them and write them up in our report if they refuse to comply with our demands.  However, unfortunately it looks like we haven’t yet got all the cybersex companies on board with our hate speech censorship policies.”
Kinky:  “How can I ever repay you?”
PCLC:  “I’ll gladly add you to our mailing list for donations.  You’ll be happy to know that ‘watchdog’ foundations like us are the only thing preventing a second holocaust.”
Kinky:  “Oh shit!  I’d better cut you a check right away!”

Okay, so that was a little flippant and silly.  Still, foundations like that do exist, and they’re promoting online censorship.  Journalists have gotten into that act, too.  While they’re supposed to be doing their jobs, they’re combing through YouTube clips and the like, looking for things to report.

Why censorship is wrong

Viva Pinochet

The hyper-PC policies of a cybersex site are rather absurd, but simply a symptom of the times.  What’s more pernicious is how this has overtaken the more serious online forums (Twitter is just the beginning of a long list).  They’ve taken it upon themselves to make certain perspectives, or even entire topics, off limits.  Things like globalist social engineering and population replacement migration are wrecking countries across the Western world, and even threaten the future of civilization, but they’ve decided that you can’t talk about any of that.

For a century, tight corporate control over the mass media prevented open discussion about anything the Powers That Be found inconvenient.  Now that the Internet allows the public to talk back, they’re working themselves into a frenzy to put a lid on it.  Still, they really should reconsider.  As one notable figure put it:

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The dangerous right wing extremist who said that was a guy named John F. Kennedy; maybe you’ve heard of him.

Online censorship is getting ridiculous

2 thoughts on “Online censorship is getting ridiculous

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.