YouTube to ban 'hateful, and 'supremacist' videos

a reply to: theantediluvian

So left wingers have a problem with crowders shirt, but not with a left wing comedian saying Trumps mouth is putin's c***holster.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: theantediluvian

Who would have anything to say if he was demonitized while linking to t-shirts emblazened with "Kids Are Sexy" or "Save the Planet, Kill Whitey" or some other offensive thing? But because it's an anti-homosexual epithet, right-wingers don't seem to see what the problem is.

It's a t-shirt, but because it says something you do not like, you don't see what the problem with censorship is.

Not at all. I really couldn't care less about it. And I don't care what you put on your t-shirt either. Nor do I care if you wear that shirt in public every single day of your life.

What I would care about is if you wanted to use my website to sell it when a big chunk of my customers were offended by it.

a reply to: Grambler

I personally don't care about the shirt. I'm neither gay nor a socialist but even if I were, I probably wouldn't care then either.

What I would have a problem with is selling it in my place of business or allowing others to. I also don't care about Stephen Colbert saying what he said but a lot of people did, including people on the Left that denounced it as homophobic. And you know that people on the Right, particularly most Trump supporters, had a problem with it — just like they had a serious problem with Kathy Griffin's stupid picture.

I don't remember the mass of... well, anyone, right or left, losing their collective # when CNN deplatformed Kathy Griffin for it and it had nothing to do with her hosting their New Year's Eve thing with Anderson Cooper. How many expressing outrage in this thread right now were posting their upset over how Kathy Griffin had been censored merely for expressing her "progressive point of view?"

I'm going to guess it's a low number. You maybe? DBC?

My point was that this isn't about people being censored for their conservative political points of view. The whole thing is just so fake on its face. There's a reason why Milo is broke and banned from Twitter and Ann Coulter is neither.

Now if you want to have a talk about needing to rip control over the world's virtual town square from the hands of an alarmingly small number of technocrats who think they can social engineer a better world as they see fit, then that's a serious conversation I'd welcome.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: theantediluvian

Who would have anything to say if he was demonitized while linking to t-shirts emblazened with "Kids Are Sexy" or "Save the Planet, Kill Whitey" or some other offensive thing? But because it's an anti-homosexual epithet, right-wingers don't seem to see what the problem is.

It's a t-shirt, but because it says something you do not like, you don't see what the problem with censorship is.

Not at all. I really couldn't care less about it. And I don't care what you put on your t-shirt either. Nor do I care if you wear that shirt in public every single day of your life.

What I would care about is if you wanted to use my website to sell it when a big chunk of my customers were offended by it.

I like that attitude.

Then again, many people are offended by many different things. In such a case a principle works far better than accommodating the arbitrary passions of the offended few.

With all the free speech warriors in this thread, I ask you, would you allow some American ISIS recruit to post YouTube videos of their hate speech? ISIS is as much as a supremacist entity as the Aryan Nation, so would you protect your fellow American who became radicalized online by groups like ISIS and "fight" for them to post their newly found Islamic extremism videos on YouTube?

a reply to: Swills

They are free to say whatever they want to say.

Why are you against free speech?

You sound more like an ISIS sympathizer than anyone else simply because you are against freedoms.

originally posted by: Swills
With all the free speech warriors in this thread, I ask you, would you allow some American ISIS recruit to post YouTube videos of their hate speech? ISIS is as much as a supremacist entity as the Aryan Nation, so would you protect your fellow American who became radicalized online by groups like ISIS and "fight" for them to post their newly found Islamic extremism videos on YouTube?

Personally I would defend them. I would prefer knowing who the Nazis and ISIS supporters were rather than remain in ignorance. I would argue that terrorists would be less likely to commit their crimes had their extremism been refuted and ridiculed in free and open debate.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

So left wingers have a problem with crowders shirt, but not with a left wing comedian saying Trumps mouth is putin's c***holster.

Agreed. The left is hyocrytical just like the right.

In this instance we've had regulation and oversight taken away from corporations while allowing them to get in bed with politicians. "The corporations will self regulate and the market will correct".

This isn't aimed at you, as I would venture to guess you've humored such possibilities.

But man, can people try to empathize with the independents who see this and constantly get screwed to partisanship.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: vonclod

Well i'm sure all the rap music about murdering whitey and police will stay up.

Make a complaint..find out! Banning music(subjective..lol) never works anyway.

And to be clear, I would never make such a complaint, on anything. If I don't appreciate something, I wont watch/listen to it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It is about people being silenced for the conservative point of view.

Lets look at it in just this instance.

On one hand, we have crowder making offensive jokes. Maza, the guy complaining about him, just this past week advocated assaulting conservatives.

So youtube bow to maza and punishes crowder, while doing nothing to maza.

This is what happens at these social media companies over and over again.

The have vague toc's and the always are able to say the people they punish violated them. Meanwhile, we can see that its almost all ideological right wing people punished, and when people on the left do almost the same things they go free.

So clearly its more than just punishing behavior when there is such a skew ideologically.

I would think that you, who felt that Russian trolls using social media was such a big deal would be aghast at these companies themselves acting with political bias, which is such a greater magnitude of influence of a few dozen trolls.

Anyways, my longwinded video on this.

So, now all it will take to get a video banned/demonitized is one person making a claim it is hateful or supremacist? This is going to work out well (sarc). I heard Crowder on Levin's show tonight, and he was pretty pissed. He didnt get banned, just demonetized I think.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"Aww you got banned, harden the # up".

Yet the reason "they" got banned is because a few candy-assed soy-bois couldn't harden the # up and take criticism.

When your ideology is so effing fragile that it cannot withstand any form of criticism, then you're the god-damned candy-assed sissies!

pretty funny that.

is literally everything these clowns say projection?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dug88

It's a shame that corporations are denying a platform of free speech to those they disagree with.

But censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

We just don't know which one Youtube is yet.

Doesn't ATS ban people for posting white supremist stuff?

The work around is to post Anti-White Supremacist stuff.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's funny why they seem to purge conservatives when they talk like this. We know the left wing code words for it already. Racism, hate speech, etc. It's lies to censor differing views and has become common. Any excuse will work if they can make you look bad. You watch and see. I guarantee they will protect left wing hate speech. They've already shown this.

originally posted by: Swills
With all the free speech warriors in this thread, I ask you, would you allow some American ISIS recruit to post YouTube videos of their hate speech? ISIS is as much as a supremacist entity as the Aryan Nation, so would you protect your fellow American who became radicalized online by groups like ISIS and "fight" for them to post their newly found Islamic extremism videos on YouTube?

Yes, I would. I'd rather see it and destroy it. Let them speak how they will and show themselves to be the evil trash they are. Censorship is for pussies that can't deal with reality.

a reply to: Grambler

You a conservative, you been banned from youtube yet?

So many complaints about being targeted, yet no one steps up and produces an alternative.

Follow the rules and you don't get banned.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dug88

It's a shame that corporations are denying a platform of free speech to those they disagree with.

But censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

We just don't know which one Youtube is yet.

Doesn't ATS ban people for posting white supremist stuff?

The work around is to post Anti-White Supremacist stuff.

This country has rights for everyone right now.

You have the right to say whatever you want, but you don't always get the venue of your choice. Such is the world.

White supremists and the extreme left (trans, feminists, take your pick ect.) are fighting for equity, not equality.

Both parties have whored out sentient beings for establishments. Reap what they sow and all of that.

Anyone still with either side is supporting what they fight.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

I'll reply to your bs comment.

Your first point is irrelevant. Nobody said all conservatives would be banned

Your second point is a lie. There are alternatives that just aren't as popular.

Your third point is an assumption that all of these people broke any rules whatsoever. Therefore also irrelevant.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dug88

It's a shame that corporations are denying a platform of free speech to those they disagree with.

But censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

We just don't know which one Youtube is yet.

Doesn't ATS ban people for posting white supremist stuff?

The work around is to post Anti-White Supremacist stuff.

This country has rights for everyone right now.

You have the right to say whatever you want, but you don't always get the venue of your choice. Such is the world.

White supremists and the extreme left (trans, feminists, take your pick ect.) are fighting for equity, not equality.

Both parties have whored out sentient beings for establishments. Reap what they sow and all of that.

Anyone still with either side is supporting what they fight.

On the contrary. To post White Supremacist stuff you basically have to build your own venue, meanwhile, at the Legion of Doom, they figured out that leftists get off on Anti-White Supremacist content, not to mention rabid hypocrisy, so now that is en vogue and widespread en masse whatever.

Isnt "progress" the shizzy?!

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

I'll reply to your bs comment.

Your first point is irrelevant. Nobody said all conservatives would be banned

So not all conservatives are being banned, but conservatives are being targeted...hmm so I'm guessing you're about to reply to me showing data that ONLY conservatives are being banned. I'll wait.

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor
Your second point is a lie. There are alternatives that just aren't as popular.

There are alternatives, but they just aren't as popular...hmm...yet conservatives are being targeted. There are lots of conservatives....and conservatives are being targeted, so why exactly aren't the alternatives popular again?

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor

Your third point is an assumption that all of these people broke any rules whatsoever. Therefore also irrelevant.

You've dismantled your own rebuttal.