RiteOn on the social justice warriors who intimidate corporations.

Who would have imaged it was this easy to scam corporate Australia, but this is exactly what is happening!

Australian businesses are falling for the latest scam from Sleeping Giants! (SG) and their angry sisters at Mad F**king Witches (MFW). These lynch mobs are using digital technology to multiply their impact and bully businesses advertising on conservative media platforms that they disagree with – to withdraw their advertising. Using twitter storms to deceive and intimidate Corporate Australia, these bullies want to silence and destroy conservative views and media platforms that air them.

This entry was posted in Politics of the Left, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to RiteOn on the social justice warriors who intimidate corporations.

  1. If you don’t use Twitter, then these knobs are completely powerless. And really, how many average Australians, ie those not of the Left, use Twitter?

  2. Iampeter

    “Using twitter storms to deceive and intimidate Corporate Australia, these bullies want to silence and destroy conservative views and media platforms that air them.”
    As opposed to conservatives that want to use the state to force tech companies to host content against their will.
    So unless you’re prepared to criticize conservatives doing the exact same thing, which we all know you don’t even realize is an issue, then you don’t have a leg to stand on here.

  3. max

    Big government to a business:

    “I’m Gonna Make Him An Offer He Can’t Refuse”.

    “All law, even law as it developed in pagan societies, is based on a belief that some god or god-force is behind it all.

    Even atheistic regimes like communism are inherently religious. The State assumes the role of a god once it officially declares there is no god. Ethics and morality are determined by the State.

    There is no escape from God even in modern-day secular humanism since this atheistic faith cannot justify ethical norms of any kind. There can be no right or wrong in a chance universe. The secularist must be inconsistent with his core beliefs in order to justify even the concept of meaning, let alone propose a system of ethics. In effect, the secularist must borrow from the Christian worldview for the development of his ethical categories. There is no fixed touchstone proposition in atheism. All is in flux. What is right today could be wrong tomorrow. Without a fixed touchstone, there can be no law…

    An umpire must follow a set of rules set forth in a rule book; a judge can only adjudicate in terms of the written law; “

  4. max

    “Theocracy is an inescapable concept. The rejection of one theocratic government leads to the choice of another theocratic government. Even democracy is theocratic. Have you not heard the phrase vox populi, vox dei? “The voice of the people is the voice of god.” Francis Schaeffer described democracy as “the tyranny of the 51%.” In a pure democracy, whatever the majority says is right becomes the law for that moment in time.

    Libertarianism is theocratic. Each and every individual is a god unto himself. I’ve heard the claim that libertarians believe people can do what they want as long as what they do does not hurt other people. Who says? What is the origin of this ethical standard?”

  5. Megan

    Interesting that Tiger and Virgin are among the withdrawals but Qantas is not. Qantas Amex has withdrawn…maybe they figured that might be enough to fool the NewAge Puritans. Brainpower is clearly not much in evidence.

    Lucky for me BMW have not succumbed. Yet.

  6. nb

    @ Iampeter #3163031, posted on September 21, 2019 at 1:11 pm:
    Should Telstra, Optus, et al be able to decide whose conversations they are willing to carry?
    Should we be able to sue them if they transmit something defamatory?

  7. nb

    Cool. They don’t advertise, so I won’t use their products. They clearly don’t want me to.

  8. Lee

    As opposed to conservatives that want to use the state to force tech companies to host content against their will.

    You may be happy for conservatives and the right to play by the left’s rules (when they often don’t follow their own), but I am not.
    We will never beat them at their own game.
    But then, maybe you’re a believer in Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

  9. Russell

    Remember when zero-day software exploits could be used to target businesses with DOS attacks and cripple their business? Authorities used to treat such activity as some sort of crime and many perps were sent to jail.
    Now seems we can emulate that sort of malicious-actor attack using actual real people who are so boofhead that they will send rubbish messages just like the bots of a computer virus.
    DOS attacks were eventually minimised by business by using gateway routers that can detect these vicious actors and filter them out. Maybe some bright folk will find a similar solution for these anthropogenic social media viruses. But not sure that Silicon Valley would be much help – more likely ground-zero of the hornets’ nest.

  10. David Brewer

    Interesting post. The fundamental point is that most people don’t like “shut up” tactics, and they particularly don’t like activists applying “shut down” tactics to any source of speech they happen to disagree with.

    Fortunately, it seems from RiteOn’s list here that the tactics are not working. Practically all the advertisers who had pulled their ads are now having their names withdrawn from RiteOn’s list, presumably because they are again advertising on conservative as well as other media. They would be wise to continue to do so, since if they don’t they will miss out on a large slice of potential customers.

    Unfortunately, though, there is an inherent bias in the system. Left-wing activists can try to intimidate advertisers into withholding their dollars from conservative outlets, but it’s pointless to try to intimidate the government into closing the ABC. Its funding goes on year after year despite its refusing to even try to present a balance of views on political and social life in Australia. A billion a year of taxpayers’ money for an organisation that shuts down conservative voices every day by simply not employing any.

    Same with The Conversation, where Australian academics, government funded and left-wing to a (wo)man, get one free kick after another – and which on climate change has now even decided to shut down any opposing comments.

  11. Iampeter

    Should Telstra, Optus, et al be able to decide whose conversations they are willing to carry?

    Yes.

    Should we be able to sue them if they transmit something defamatory?

    No. You can only sue someone for something they are liable.

    You may be happy for conservatives and the right to play by the left’s rules (when they often don’t follow their own), but I am not.
    We will never beat them at their own game.
    But then, maybe you’re a believer in Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

    Lee, it’s Rafe and other posters here that are guilty of this and the purpose of my post was to point out the hypocrisy, contradiction and general confusion about the issue from most conservatives.

  12. John A

    Iampeter #3163205, posted on September 21, 2019 at 5:46 pm

    Should Telstra, Optus, et al be able to decide whose conversations they are willing to carry?

    Yes.

    Should we be able to sue them if they transmit something defamatory?

    No. You can only sue someone for something they are liable.

    There we have it – hypocrisy, contradiction and confusion.

    —-

    Let’s try it in another context:

    Should News Ltd, Fairfax, The Guardian, et al be able to decide what news they are willing to carry?

    Yes.

    Should we be able to sue them if they transmit something defamatory?

    No. You can only sue someone for something they are liable.

    Yes. Already established law of defamation.

  13. Nob

    The inherent bias is simply that left wing activists are amoral bludgers who have unlimited time to play politics, with little or no risk to themselves (while lauding each other as “brave” etc).

    The rest of us are working at productive enterprises and generating wealth to support them.

    And I think to myself: What a Wonderful World.

  14. Iampeter

    John A:
    Firstly, whether or not a private enterprise gets to choose what type of business it does and who it does it with has nothing to do with whether they can be sued or not for anything. Clearly you do not support private enterprise even existing, since you’re answer to this is no, therefore you are a leftist.

    Secondly, you can only be sued for something you are liable for. E.g. a newspaper publishing a defamatory article is liable. A tech company hosting hosting content that may be defamatory is not.

    Your position, like most of today’s conservatives, is politically illiterate and left wing.

  15. nfw

    Spouse and I usually vote against everybody and anything on shareholder voting forms for which the Board is in favour, not so much as we have any impact on the up themselves boy’s club the boards are in Australia, but to at least register our little protest at their anti-shareholder pro-themselves mates and goodies. However, I have noticed a tendency these days for anti-company pro-communist (read environmental and climate) resolutions to appear on the voting forms. For once we vote with the Board against these eco-warriors with their one or two shares.

  16. Tel

    Theocracy is an inescapable concept.

    That would also imply it’s a meaningless concept. If all societies are automatically Theocratic then that means none of them are.

  17. Dr F red Lenin

    I read on Pickering where one university tax funded employee was responsible for 43 oer cent of the “mass support” for some communist cause on Twitter, I have no use for Twitter but I wonder if he would haveneen allowed thousands of tweets if he had been anti immigration ? I doubt it very much . And as for that foulmothed bitch badham my granny would have washed her mouth out with carbolic soap ,what a dreadfull piece of work she is ,any media that emplos her should be boycotted totally ,drive her back under the rock she slithered out of from. She makes giliard sound almost lady like ! Now there IS a thing .

    she makes giliard look lady like ,now there IS a thing !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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