Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we need more censorship quite frankly.
I can think of no reasonable justification for that comment.
It's a satirical comment pointing out how ridiculous OP's platitude filled comment is.
YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
371–380 of 763 posts
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about. Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that…
You're mocking the intelligence of gun control supporters and doubting their sincerity and credibility. As you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject, and seem to believe that only persons such as yourself are qualified to have an opinion on the matter, what would you consider to be actually sensible gun regulation?
I don’t know if OP is stating that only s/he is qualified. But that if someone wants to explain knowledge of guns enough to control them, they should spend some time understanding their subject.
And saying someone is stupid isn’t mocking. (Although it can be)
It’s like old men legislating abortion laws who know nothing about female specific health topics.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm in favor a well regulated militia. So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.
The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the…
The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we need more censorship quite frankly.
Maybe you do. If you dislike the first amendment, there are plenty of countries you can move to that don't have it.
Definitely love censorship. The only people who don't love censorship are those fighting for the free speech rights of racists and conspiracy theorists.
And no, I live in this country so I think I'll be the change I want to see in the world.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.
These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of…
The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please weigh your own personal hobby against our society's clear dysfunction when it comes to gun violence. What do you think about prohibiting drugs and alcohol? Like another commenter was a victim of gun violence in his family, I'm a victim of alcohol abuse in mine. Yet, many people enjoy these substances recreationally without problem. It's hard to weigh a purely "for fun" activity against something with dire co…
For me the difference is that drugs and alcohol usually predominately affect the user. This obviously isn't always the case... Guns aren't toys. Yes, they can be used for hunting or just shooting stuff, and most guns aren't especially more effective at killing people than a variety of other household items, but assault rifles were actually designed to kill people, to assault entrenched positions (the stg-44 in WW2).…
[deleted]
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#377This is the 21st century equivalent to burning books.
No, it's more like a bookstore not selling books they don't like.
Reminds me of the RATM song, Bulls on Parade:
"They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pocket full of shells"
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, lik…
The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about. Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that…
The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon impact to maximize internal damage. It really is a poor choice for anything but warfare.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar to how other bans get carried out. Make it illegal and send those who violate the law to jail.
Worked for drugs, and tax evasion, and human trafficking, and alcohol for awhile. Simply make it illegal and it goes away!
People do illegal things. This isn’t surprising nor an argument against making something illegal. If it could be shown that banning guns and making it illegal to sell guns didn’t decrease the frequency of their usage to commit crimes then I would no longer be advocate for banning guns.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from You…
>It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. This is doublespeak. >censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. "Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, in which case it is primar…
You say that I doublespeak and I say that you cry "wolf". If you're willing to go full 1984 when Youtube updates its ToS where do you go from there?
Note that the definition for censorship you quote doesn't necessarily apply here, youtube is not prohibiting "any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security", they're prohibiting it on their platform. That's a huge difference. It's "you can't say that here" versus "you can't say that period". If I invite you to my home and you start spewing nazi propaganda I'm going to kindly ask you to leave, is that censorship?
You can't force Youtube to host your content if they don't want to and they can't prevent you from posting your content on other websites if you want to. There's no censorship or free speech issue here, only the problem of a monopolistic centralized platform without serious competition. That's why net neutrality is important and that's why Making the Internet Decentralized Again is critical if you value freedom of speech and opinion.