Wordpress banned Chateau Heartiste

How This "Nice Guy" Steals Women from Jerks

Did you know a woman can be totally UN-ATTRACTED to you...

And she'll still sleep with you?

If you've ever seen a girl go home with some asshole she didn't even LIKE, you know this is true.

But how is this possible?

Because deep inside her brain, sexual desire has nothing to do with what you LOOK like...

And everything to do with how you make her FEEL.

Matt Cook knows this all too well.

Matt is a nice guy... but he steals women from JERKS all the time.

In this free video training below, he'll show you how he does it:

How to Control Her Emotions and Make Her Chase You

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
892
Reaction score
685
The censorship is getting bad.
Guaranteed, this will not end well. I'm telling you, when people feel like they can no longer either safely or at all express themselves, it's going to get ugly. Whether the "mainstream" people will actually admit it or not, they are the minority in the ideas, logic and ideology category. Most native Americans understand freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of firearm ownership. These are sacred, sacred to tens of millions of people. While most of them may eventually give up their rights to not be shunned from society, there are millions who will not go quietly. F*ck with these people at your own risk.
 

Tilex

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
324
Reaction score
233
Age
38
That's a damn shame.
I really liked his blog too!

It's probably still remaining in the archives though.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
3,203
Reaction score
3,578
Location
USA, Louisiana
You have a right to free speech, you do not have the right to be on a platform and be published. Host your own website and you can do whatever you want. You can put up a sign on your own property: you do not have the right to put a sign on my property.... it's just that simple.
 

Alvafe

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
525
Age
35
Guaranteed, this will not end well. I'm telling you, when people feel like they can no longer either safely or at all express themselves, it's going to get ugly. Whether the "mainstream" people will actually admit it or not, they are the minority in the ideas, logic and ideology category. Most native Americans understand freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of firearm ownership. These are sacred, sacred to tens of millions of people. While most of them may eventually give up their rights to not be shunned from society, there are millions who will not go quietly. F*ck with these people at your own risk.
hence why is a good thing you speak up, the weak will always follow the strong, for his safety, or acceptance, note these are also female traits, need to be in a herd to feel safe, most sell they freedom for the ilussion of segurity, they just are too lazy to take care of thenselfs, so they prefer to be slaves but safe, then free and having to deal with everything

feh matrix analogy at his finest here too, damn
 

TyTe`EyEz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,273
Reaction score
539
You have a right to free speech, you do not have the right to be on a platform and be published. Host your own website and you can do whatever you want. You can put up a sign on your own property: you do not have the right to put a sign on my property.... it's just that simple.
This is a popular argument and it's convenient for the powers that be. Why worry about censoring speech when you can get private companies to do it?

You already have companies like paypal and wepay refusing service to people whose views they disagree with. How long before banks and credit card companies are doing it too?

Before long it will be "yeah, you have a right to free speech, but don't expect to be able to participate in the economy if we don't like what you're saying."
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
3,203
Reaction score
3,578
Location
USA, Louisiana
This is a popular argument and it's convenient for the powers that be. Why worry about censoring speech when you can get private companies to do it?

You already have companies like paypal and wepay refusing service to people whose views they disagree with. How long before banks and credit card companies are doing it too?

Before long it will be "yeah, you have a right to free speech, but don't expect to be able to participate in the economy if we don't like what you're saying."
When governments start to dictate what people can do with their private property and companies that would be a serious breach of freedom. Don't get me wrong, it is very clear that those that promote boycotts and advertisement bans, and I think this behavior is reprehensible, are clearly doing this in the interest of attacking free speech. But all this does, when companies go along with this, is create new markets and new platforms for content they want. When YouTube started banning speech and demonetizing platforms, all this did was create DTube and Bitchute.

Forcing companies or individuals to host or support content they do not agree with, IMO is much worst than banning speech. It is compelled speech... and would be a vary dangerous precedent. It would be like someone forcing you to acknowledge that words you grew up now have a new meaning and you MUST use the new context. Or telling you if you have a Trump sign on your lawn, you also have to have a Biden sign or vis a vis... because that is only 'fair'.

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
1,158
This is a popular argument and it's convenient for the powers that be. Why worry about censoring speech when you can get private companies to do it?

You already have companies like paypal and wepay refusing service to people whose views they disagree with. How long before banks and credit card companies are doing it too?

Before long it will be "yeah, you have a right to free speech, but don't expect to be able to participate in the economy if we don't like what you're saying."
What's the alternative...government compels private businesses to allow speech? Same difference, no?
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
892
Reaction score
685
You have a right to free speech, you do not have the right to be on a platform and be published. Host your own website and you can do whatever you want. You can put up a sign on your own property: you do not have the right to put a sign on my property.... it's just that simple.
See that's where you're wrong, this is more on the platform/publisher. FB, Twitter, they can't have it both ways. Are they a platform? If so, they can't really ban people or ban speech/content at all. Are they a publisher? If so, they can make editorial decisions and determine whether or not they want to publish certain content. However, FB, Twitter, they claim that they are simply platforms in public but in court, try to use the defense of publishers.

The problem is, they want your content, they want opinions, they want people to fight back and forth because it means you're spending more time on their platform. Now however, because they have long hung out with and courted the approval of the SJW crowd, now find themselves having to ban people that the SJWs don't like.

So now they're trying to hang one foot in the platform side of things and the other foot on the publisher's side of things. That doesn't work, once and for all, they have to determine what they are and stick with it. However, if they are no longer simply a platform, they become more or less like any other news website or news aggregator and there's not much chance of them staying culturally relevant for very long being a publisher.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
892
Reaction score
685
What's the alternative...government compels private businesses to allow speech? Same difference, no?
See, these are the types of arguments that are always put forward. Again, you can't have it both ways. If FB, Twitter, Instagram, if they are allowed to discriminate based on your political ideology because they are a private company, what's to say a company can't discriminate based on religion? How about race? How about orientation? You can't give certain groups, certain rights to discriminate because you don't like their message. Either you allow people freedom of speech or you don't and if you don't, then there's a lot of other "basic", "fundamental" rights that could be on the chopping block as well. Everyone needs to chill out and realize that it's impossible to regulate what everyone else thinks and says, nor would you want to. If someone says something you don't like, you don't have to keep listening.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
1,158
See, these are the types of arguments that are always put forward. Again, you can't have it both ways. If FB, Twitter, Instagram, if they are allowed to discriminate based on your political ideology because they are a private company, what's to say a company can't discriminate based on religion? How about race? How about orientation? You can't give certain groups, certain rights to discriminate because you don't like their message. Either you allow people freedom of speech or you don't and if you don't, then there's a lot of other "basic", "fundamental" rights that could be on the chopping block as well. Everyone needs to chill out and realize that it's impossible to regulate what everyone else thinks and says, nor would you want to. If someone says something you don't like, you don't have to keep listening.
I wasn't arguing, I was asking.

But I think you should be able to refuse business to anyone.
 

TyTe`EyEz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,273
Reaction score
539
What's the alternative...government compels private businesses to allow speech? Same difference, no?
Ideally, proponents of free speech would just start up their own platforms, as @RangerMIke mentioned, but this is difficult when the market has been cornered and companies like paypal refuse you service. Gab is a good example of this; it was temporarily deplatformed after what seemed like a concerted effort.
 

redskinsfan92

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
486
Reaction score
331
What do you do when your ISP decides they don't want to you using their service to acces certain content like this site and they block it?
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
3,203
Reaction score
3,578
Location
USA, Louisiana
See that's where you're wrong, this is more on the platform/publisher. FB, Twitter, they can't have it both ways. Are they a platform? If so, they can't really ban people or ban speech/content at all. Are they a publisher? If so, they can make editorial decisions and determine whether or not they want to publish certain content. However, FB, Twitter, they claim that they are simply platforms in public but in court, try to use the defense of publishers.

The problem is, they want your content, they want opinions, they want people to fight back and forth because it means you're spending more time on their platform. Now however, because they have long hung out with and courted the approval of the SJW crowd, now find themselves having to ban people that the SJWs don't like.

So now they're trying to hang one foot in the platform side of things and the other foot on the publisher's side of things. That doesn't work, once and for all, they have to determine what they are and stick with it. However, if they are no longer simply a platform, they become more or less like any other news website or news aggregator and there's not much chance of them staying culturally relevant for very long being a publisher.
You are WAY off. Twitter, Facebook, et. al are all for profit businesses that sells advertising targeting users based on their behavior on the internet. As businesses they are allowed to enforce terms of service which EVERYONE signs as a condition of using that platform... they give themselves, in these terms of service, the unilaterally right to change conditions 'at will'. If you are a user and you don't like this, then don't sign the terms of service and use it. They are not making 'publisher' decisions, they are enforcing terms of service, which is their right to do. They have never claimed that they are a publisher.

If you as a business want to be led around by the nose by SJWs, that is YOUR RIGHT to do.... then you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. There was a business that decided to start charging men more for coffee because of the mythical wage gap, that coffee shop is now going out of business. There was a not-for-profit business engaged in a worthy cause I was involved in, then got full of themselves and some SJWs decided it was a good idea to have an event where white people had to pay more.... because 'white privilege' ... Well now I don't have anything to do with them and neither do a lot of people.

You only become a 'publisher' when you start creating content. Facebook and Twitter, et. al DOES NOT create content. The only issue with social media platforms is if they have an obligation to inform the public of the veracity of claims made on their service. Personally I think they do... they should not limit what people post and say, but I believe it is appropriate for them to place context on what is published on their platform. So if some Russian troll posts a 'story' from a mythical service called "American Freedom Press", detailing that Hillary Clinton was running a sex slave operation out of a pizza place, I think Facebook or Twitter can and should detail exactly where the story comes from... then people get to decide if they want to believe it. No one can police what people chose to believe, and there was a butt load of really stupid sh!t that finds it's way on social media that people believe because human nature is that we make emotional decisions about things, then look for evidence that justifies their belief. Few people rationally evaluate everything they see.

People have the right to say what they want... even if it made up BS. Private companies have the right to set conditions on doing business with them.... AGAIN. If you want to exercise free speech, and you can not find a platform that is willing to host your content, then go create your own service.... really it's not that hard. You can go out, buy a server, become an ISP, hire a developer and you are off and running. Your reach will not be as good as broadly used platforms, but the right of free speech does not require others to listen or read what you have to say.
 

redskinsfan92

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
486
Reaction score
331
You are WAY off. Twitter, Facebook, et. al are all for profit businesses that sells advertising targeting users based on their behavior on the internet. As businesses they are allowed to enforce terms of service which EVERYONE signs as a condition of using that platform... they give themselves, in these terms of service, the unilaterally right to change conditions 'at will'. If you are a user and you don't like this, then don't sign the terms of service and use it. They are not making 'publisher' decisions, they are enforcing terms of service, which is their right to do. They have never claimed that they are a publisher.

If you as a business want to be led around by the nose by SJWs, that is YOUR RIGHT to do.... then you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. There was a business that decided to start charging men more for coffee because of the mythical wage gap, that coffee shop is now going out of business. There was a not-for-profit business engaged in a worthy cause I was involved in, then got full of themselves and some SJWs decided it was a good idea to have an event where white people had to pay more.... because 'white privilege' ... Well now I don't have anything to do with them and neither do a lot of people.

You only become a 'publisher' when you start creating content. Facebook and Twitter, et. al DOES NOT create content. The only issue with social media platforms is if they have an obligation to inform the public of the veracity of claims made on their service. Personally I think they do... they should not limit what people post and say, but I believe it is appropriate for them to place context on what is published on their platform. So if some Russian troll posts a 'story' from a mythical service called "American Freedom Press", detailing that Hillary Clinton was running a sex slave operation out of a pizza place, I think Facebook or Twitter can and should detail exactly where the story comes from... then people get to decide if they want to believe it. No one can police what people chose to believe, and there was a butt load of really stupid sh!t that finds it's way on social media that people believe because human nature is that we make emotional decisions about things, then look for evidence that justifies their belief. Few people rationally evaluate everything they see.

People have the right to say what they want... even if it made up BS. Private companies have the right to set conditions on doing business with them.... AGAIN. If you want to exercise free speech, and you can not find a platform that is willing to host your content, then go create your own service.... really it's not that hard. You can go out, buy a server, become an ISP, hire a developer and you are off and running. Your reach will not be as good as broadly used platforms, but the right of free speech does not require others to listen or read what you have to say.
Becoming an Internet Service Provider is not realistic.

Terms of Service? They are being violated. These companies that write these ToS enforce ambiguous parts when they disagree with the viewpoint and do not enforce the clearly defined parts. I understand they have a "right." What I say is this is not good. Not good at all. It is a problem. There are systematic efforts by these large monopoly corporations to silence people of certain viewpoints. I can't make my my own Facebook, bank, search engine, youtube, isp and God knows what else.
 
Top