YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#651

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #545

fwip wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In reality, you're not a woman, we're just pretending because we're polite" isn't a very pro-trans stance.

“You must believe something to be true that you yourself know to be false” is a very “point deer say horse” kind of philosophy.

And there's only four lights, let's get the accusations of Orwellianism out of the way too.

It's not a matter of "my side has facts and your side has opinions." It's that we disagree on what the facts are. You can find a lot of scientists from a few centuries ago confidently asserting that black people are subhuman. It doesn't magically make them not-racist because they believed it to be a true fact.

They were wrong, and you are wrong.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#652

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:08 AM UTC

oceanghost wrote: post #482

fwip wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In reality, you're not a woman, we're just pretending because we're polite" isn't a very pro-trans stance.

Give me a definition of "woman" that is acceptable to all parties involved. Don't forget things like androgen insensitivity syndrome, infertile women, etc.

Woman: someone who, when you ask them, tells you they're a woman.

If we want a simple inclusive definition, you can't beat that.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#653

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:13 AM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #623

fwip wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important for doctors to know your medical history, that's obviously true. Do you know how trans people on HRT respond to Ambien, as your first link brings up? I sure don't. Depends on why the drug works differently. If you're scared that you'll die because your doctor thinks you're cis, tell them you're trans. That doesn't mean you have to tell your doctor "I'm really a man, despite being a trans woman, and it'…

>If you're scared that you'll die because your doctor thinks you're cis, tell them you're trans. I'm more scared that my doctor will know I'm trans but not give me proper treatment as a result of being scared of losing their career to backlash from the politically correct. It's a far more realistic fear than my doctor not knowing my gender and it isn't something that would be brought up because it is a taboo to ask s…

Hang on: your doctor knows you're trans, but they don't know your birth gender, and you think they're too scared to ask, and that you'll get a slightly wrong dose and then you'll die.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#654

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:19 AM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #615

fwip wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for your argument, most people have basic literacy and understand the meaning of words.

[flagged]

Begone, horse.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#655

Post by ralusek » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

oceanghost wrote: post #482

fwip wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In reality, you're not a woman, we're just pretending because we're polite" isn't a very pro-trans stance.

Give me a definition of "woman" that is acceptable to all parties involved. Don't forget things like androgen insensitivity syndrome, infertile women, etc.

To some people the word means woman as a biological sex, in which case it would be "has 2 X chromosomes, or otherwise falls in a slightly muddy intersex situation." To some the word means woman as a gender, which itself can also mean either biological sex or gender identity. Watching people make concrete assertions to one another on the basis of definitions they do not share is as predictably pointless as you'd imagine.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#656

Post by ralusek » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

fwip wrote: post #652

oceanghost wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a definition of "woman" that is acceptable to all parties involved. Don't forget things like androgen insensitivity syndrome, infertile women, etc.

Woman: someone who, when you ask them, tells you they're a woman. If we want a simple inclusive definition, you can't beat that.

Not everyone wants an inclusive definition, some people want discriminatory definitions. And I don't mean discriminatory in a negative sense. If "four" means 4, it would be more inclusive if it also meant 5 and 6, but it loses some utility in its inclusivity.

My problem isn't with your definition, it's with your implied assertion that we should "we want a simple inclusive definition," which is clearly not the case, as the differing priorities in definition are literally central to the debate.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#657

Post by danans » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:37 AM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #496

rhcom2 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't think of them as "white".

Well, they didn't think of anyone as "white" in a meaningful way. They were primarily concerned with Pan-Germanicism.

> They were primarily concerned with Pan-Germanicism.

If that was the case, then why did their policies include the murder of millions of German-speaking Jews, Gypsies, and people with disabilities. What was it about those people that made them not fit the category of "German"?

The answer from clearly documented history is that the Nazis systematized the categorization of humans on their deeply flawed model of the Aryan "race", and singled out those who didn't fit for subjugation or extermination.

Conversely they also planned to further "purify" their own people by planning to subject Scandinavian populations to forced interbreeding programs upon conquering them, and kidnapping "Aryan" children from neighboring countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

https://allthatsinteresting.com/lebensborn

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#658

Post by lugg » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

weaksauce wrote: post #544

lugg wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said they didn't have rules. And re your edit, it's not a clarification it's a redefinition and that's what scares people.

I disagree that it's not a clarification. from the original tou as far back as it went on archive.org: > You may not post, upload or transmit to the Site, or to the YouTube servers, any communications, text, graphics or other information or Materials that: (1) is unlawful, obscene, fraudulent, indecent or that defames, abuses, harasses, or threatens others, or is hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectio…

What is a clarification combined with a change in behavior?

Redefinition.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#659

Post by lugg » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:42 AM UTC

foldr wrote: post #425

lugg wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube started out as a way to empower people to post home videos on the internet, a place for every day people to share video. And you're right, it has always restricted illegal content. And that's a good line to draw. So.. What's illegal about this new content? Or what has changed that they now think they're ready to judge what is extreme and hateful? Or what has changed that they now think they even should?

Porn isn't illegal, but has always been banned on youtube.

Are you going to answer my questions or just keep repeating strawmans?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#660

Post by lugg » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:53 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #256

What I find funny about all this is that I'm certain if YouTube existed a few decades earlier we would likely be under pressure to ban "disgusting" pro-LGBT content or content supporting things as "vile" as interracial relationships. We would say, these private companies have a duty not to radicalise our children. That our children are being led away from god and into sinful lifestyles like homosexuality. Some of us…

I don't think the analogy fits. Those individuals are protected classes and refusing them access like this would be discriminatory behavior. Likely not illegal in USA but it would be illegal elsewhere.

Racists are not a protected class of people. They aren't afforded those same rights. And on some grounds their disruption of society actually puts an onus on you as a platform to restrict their access.