221–230 of 317 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"regardless of context" does not even exist. Your comment featured it and I don't think it's an inappropriate comment you made here.
"Death to all jews" -crooked-v 3/27/17
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not exactly spending hundreds of billions each year on asteroid mitigation programs. From what I can tell, the total spending at least in the US is at most in the hundreds of millions annually. If the odds of an impact were vastly higher, we probably would spend hundreds of billions each year. If we knew an impact was coming, we'd spend nearly every cent we had trying to stop it. Given the sheer magnitude of ou…
To be clear, you are laying out the premise that by reacting to racism at all, I am revealing I secretly believe it is more right than anti-racism. Does that sound about right? Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then? By the same logic, if racism is right you'll be fine.
No, not quite. It's the way in which you react, which is to silence the opposition. If you believed your ideas would win reasonable minds on their merits, and you believed the minds in question were reasonable, and you yourself were a rational person, you wouldn't feel such a strong need to shut down the dissemination of other ideas. Have I gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning?
Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then?
Sorry, where have I attempted to police anti-racism? Do you consider asking questions to be tantamount to policing thought? I've expressed no outrage over your ideas. I've never hinted at a desire to shut your ideas down at the source. I've simply asked you to defend them in a calm, reasonable conversation.
If asking you reasonable questions counts as policing your opinion, that is a very serious condemnation of your opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your opinions have consequences. They can affect other people in real ways. In this case, the imprecise, incredibly untrustworthy outrage of thousands of people -- fueled by a sensationalist media hit job -- almost ruined someone's career. You're welcome to your opinion. But you also have to take responsibility for it.
"Almost ruined someone's career" is such a stretch here. PewDiePie is a multimillionaire. He didn't almost lose his career, he almost lost a few business opportunities. Others like as not would have opened later. This is a very successful entertainer facing criticism; it's not analogous to a normal person being forced out of their job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the power of hordes of folks to try to make their views the predominant one is nothing other than a cynical phrasing of democracy, right? What is political freedom, if not the ability to work with like-minded others to advocate for or against a viewpoint? Should we censor people who wish to engage in this right? And I am confused how anyone here was silenced. This person's views, and the views of everyon…
There's a difference in airing grievances, political opinion, public discourse, etc, and the lynching of people outside your view with a specific intent of silencing and destroying their very lives. This vindictiveness is explicit and widespread. The very notion of "I disagree with you (and will bring it to light) but will defend your right to say it" seems to be dead in modern outrage culture.
Celebrities, unfortunately, are going to get hit when they say or do things that could piss off a bunch of people. I mean look at Muhammad Ali. He refused the Vietnam War draft as a religious conscientious objector. They stripped his title, his endorsements, and banned him from boxing. Not only that, but the appeals court did not even consider the merits of his case when they upheld the conviction. Or how Charlie Chaplan's passport was revoked after a FBI smear campaign and accusations of communism.
I understand people tend to look at current events in a vacuum, but saying something provocative and only losing endorsements is historically pretty good. Not even 50 years ago he would have had his passport revoked, been falsely accused of a crime, or some shady bureaucracy would have opened a file on him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that exposed opinion is "race x should be attacked" then kids of race x can end up attacked as result. If you convince children that it is right to attack members of race x, then other kids of race x will end up attacked. That is how it always was. After all, nazi did won war of ideas and so did hutu and so did khmer rouge.
If you convince children that it is right to attack members of race x, then other kids of race x will end up attacked. OK, but we're not discussing a scenario in which stormfront members have total control over what the children are exposed to. We're discussing a scenario where they have at most a few minutes of the child's attention. For the other fifteen and three quarters waking hours of the child's day, their att…
Also, stormfront ideas are appealing. They make people feel sense of community, common enemy (!), purpose and feeling of strength. I think that they are immoral and wrong, but that does not mean I am going to deny emotional appeal it has especially on young.
Speaking of nazi specifically, "hardship we are going through is partly our fault plus bad luck" is less appealing then "Jews caused us to loose the war" no matter how true. "We are superior and are entitled to take land of others" has a lot emotional appeal no matter how unethical.
2.) Sure Nazi win also adults, but they were super popular among university students and youth (and young veterans from WWI having trouble to adjust back). After all, it is easier to change young peoples minds then older minds.
Popular ideas come and go while their own quality stays the same. Nazi specifically had to loose the real war to actually loose.
I've been watching Youtube vids for a long time (well relatively, like 10+ years) and it's one of my primary forms of entertainment. It has been very interesting to see youtubers come and go, a lot of them seem to burn out on the schedule of trying to produce content regularly, which I can understand, anyone who's edited videos would realise the time it can take to produce something of good quality. Pewdiepie is an i…
> "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." I really don't think what he did was "honest" i.e. not meant to be provocative. As many sibling comments have pointed out, if you're making a living as a public personality, you kinda have to accept a higher level of scrutiny simply in order to avoid media hit jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The safe community spaces on college campuses are honestly doing the opposite of what you suggest, generally giving people the opportunity to speak without fear. An example being communities where LGBT students can speak without fear of being targeted by homophobia, transphobia or otherwise. It's not unusual for communities to create rules to help foster dialogue and make its members feel safe being in that community
Uh, safe for the minority perhaps, but not safe for anyone who would dare to express any contradicting views. Imagine if someone said they thought their was no such thing as being gay, or said that they didn't think being trans was a real thing. Do you think the "safe zone" would be "safe" for them? At least in my perspective it's a very one-sided, anti-freedom of expression movement. It seems ignorant of me for so m…
To pick a hopefully neutral example, should it be "safe" for you to go to a chess club meeting and diss everybody there because you think Go is superior? They'll ask you to leave, and rightfully so.
It's a good thing to have these small "bubbles" for all sorts of minorities in which they get to define the rules.
Where it gets more interesting is when it affects the broader public sphere. That said, the particular examples you gave are ones where you'd be rightfully excluded depending on how you approach the subject. The evidence seems pretty clear that being gay or trans are real things. It took me some time to figure that out, but I found that as long as I approached the topic in a civil way, others responded in kind.
The problem is that the kind of people who complain about "anti-freedom of expression" or "excessive political correctness" are usually not the kind of people who approach those topics in a civil way. They have a certain foregone conclusion in their minds, and aren't ready to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion. So naturally, they end up being (justly) excluded from the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His other crazy shit was to pay someone to say "Hitler did nothing wrong". When that guy, who was dressed as Jesus, was banned by Fiverr, Pewdiepie stated: "Isn't it ironic that Jews[1] found another way to fuck Jesus over?" Whether his quest to push the comedy envelope extends further than Nazi/Jew related material, I don't know. [1] Fiverr is based in Israel. Edit: And the predictable downvote within minutes. How f…
I didn't downvote you, nor am I a fan. I only saw parts of the episode when a friend watched it, so I did not see it in it's entirety. Is what you listed a complete listing of things he attempted to get through? Or just your selection of what he tried that was prejudice? It seems likely he also would have tried to get some other dumb things through on the level of dick jokes.
I've been watching Youtube vids for a long time (well relatively, like 10+ years) and it's one of my primary forms of entertainment. It has been very interesting to see youtubers come and go, a lot of them seem to burn out on the schedule of trying to produce content regularly, which I can understand, anyone who's edited videos would realise the time it can take to produce something of good quality. Pewdiepie is an i…
The pewdiepie controversy seems manufactured to me. I get pewdiepies humor. I watch his videos anticipating his originality and I guess 54 million subs do for varying reasons. His ability to express himself and generate content that makes me laugh repeatedly. He's not insensitive despite what some news articles say. The anti-semitism thing is so overused today its a little meaningless. The only way to push its worth…
His freedom of speech doesn't override Disney's freedom of association or YouTube's freedom of the press; they're under no obligation to publish or promote anyone's content, and the counterweight to that is that people who don't like their policies can boycott them.
But you're unlikely to find a successful boycott organized around the notion that there should be no ramifications for paying strangers to hold up signs that say "Death To All Jews."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." I really don't think what he did was "honest" i.e. not meant to be provocative. As many sibling comments have pointed out, if you're making a living as a public personality, you kinda have to accept a higher level of scrutiny simply in order to avoid media hit jobs.
Oh I wasn't suggesting that what he said wasn't meant to be provocative, the main instance they picked up was ill considered and in bad taste, but then if you watch any of his other videos this really shouldn't be a surprise. The hit job was some of the other items they'd cut together to make the "anti-semetic" charge stick. One item where he was comparing youtube policies to those of the Nazi's (i.e. casting both in…
And their fans then defend them with "If you've seen their other stuff, you'd know that isn't unusual," which is a pretty thin defense---a bit like defending an arsonist with "Oh sure, nobody cared when they burned down all those grocery stores, but now that the WSJ is reporting on that orphanage..."