611–620 of 983 posts
Meanwhile flat earth videos are okay
If anything these videos should continue to exist as a siren call for increased education funding and initiatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to agree with someone to think it's wrong to censor them.
Do you think it is correct or incorrect to deplatform white supremacists? Do you think white supremacists deserve a platform? Edit: I've asked variants of this question several times in this thread, all without response. I can safely assume that those who won't freely answer this question are (attempting) to hide their bias.
Censoring/deplatforming will not have the effect you think it will. Nor is it ethically palpable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. By your logic, the first amendment has no salutary rationale. We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. There is no animating principle that we mig…
If we're going to have a marketplace of ideas, then some ideas will become popular and win, and some ideas will become unpopular and lose. This is how marketplaces are supposed to work. If we want a forum for speech where every idea is always welcome, and platformed, and no one is allowed to lose no matter how unpopular they are, I don't know what you'd call that. I'd call it a form of hell, personally. Philosophical…
Your interpretation, that persuading a large institution to ban opposition ideas is winning, and being banned is losing, is entirely consistent with getting rid of the 1st amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If YouTube shows itself as an unfair judge, then let's criticize them for that when it happens. Otherwise, having a judge is much better than having no judge at all.
That's the current situation, and maybe it's worked well so far (I don't create content on YouTube). What appears necessary or at the very least helpful, is to have a very clear terms of service that outlines exactly what is unacceptable so these situations can be avoided in the first place. One question is, why did it take until now for these bans to come into effect? Gray areas are always going to emerge. For examp…
I’m sadden a bit to see him banned, but haven’t kept up with him in years. He was big in AnCap circles for a while but was a bit “out there” even in that group. He always struck me as somewhat unstable, so I guess it isn’t really a surprise. I don’t even have the urge to go see what he’s been posting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this sarcasm? Because I can give you a couple examples of well documented, savage, systemic oppression of white people. Are you one of those that thinks history begins in the US 250 years ago?
Even if it did, he's forgetting that US was incredibly racist towards the Irish, and they are as white as they come. Racism is racism, no matter who does it towards whom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those things are literally not related, and, conveniently enough, panampost if a far right "news" website. Supporting Maduro doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting marxism doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting Cuba doesn't invalidate their fight. Oh, by the way, those three are countries or ideologies the US have actively tried to destroy. Should I go and make my own website claiming the US government for do…
> Supporting Maduro doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting marxism doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting Cuba doesn't invalidate their fight. That’s exactly what I said: > I’m quite pro-BLM. I don’t believe in guilt by association. I’m responding to an entirely different point: > The worst of the alt-right are far, far worse than the worst of the extreme left I don’t think this statement is accurate given ho…
I do not support Maduro, in fact I'm pretty ignorant overall about Venezuelan politics. But if the same measurement stick is applied to US presidents, a lot of Americans are neck deep in trouble given the usual US foreign policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it did, he's forgetting that US was incredibly racist towards the Irish, and they are as white as they come. Racism is racism, no matter who does it towards whom.
This is the crux of it and why a lot of people logically follow the middle ground such as All Lives Matter and would do so more of it weren't so viciously attacked. As soon as you get into this messy game of "but they did that to this group" and "those others did that only after this group did that thing", etc you're in a spaghetti mess and there is no way of untangling it. We're witnessing an entirely new oppressed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think it is correct or incorrect to deplatform white supremacists? Do you think white supremacists deserve a platform? Edit: I've asked variants of this question several times in this thread, all without response. I can safely assume that those who won't freely answer this question are (attempting) to hide their bias.
Yeah it's kind of shocking to see people defend white nationalist speech on private platforms. Of all the marginalized groups out there why does the group that advocates for the discrimination, removal, or even genocide of historically discriminated and murdered people (black people, indigenous people, Jewish people) need defending?
The thing that still continues to shock me is that there are people here that argue on behalf of white supremacists but still argue that they themselves are not, instead they are playing "devils advocate". At some point, let's call a duck a duck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If YouTube shows itself as an unfair judge, then let's criticize them for that when it happens. Otherwise, having a judge is much better than having no judge at all.
That's the current situation, and maybe it's worked well so far (I don't create content on YouTube). What appears necessary or at the very least helpful, is to have a very clear terms of service that outlines exactly what is unacceptable so these situations can be avoided in the first place. One question is, why did it take until now for these bans to come into effect? Gray areas are always going to emerge. For examp…
For all of it's concerning parts, the the DOJ recommendations for amending section 230 address that specifically: "Department proposes adding a statutory definition of 'good faith,' which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation, unless such notice would impede law enforcement or risk imminent harm to others." [1]
[1]https://www.justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review-secti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remind me when was the last time that an organized revolutionary Marxist movement openly defied the US government in its own soil.
Here ya go: https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/ >Days of Rage is important, because this stuff is forgotten and it shouldn’t be. The 1970s underground wasn’t small. It was hundreds of people becoming urban guerrillas. Bombing buildings: the Pentagon, the Capitol, courthouses, restaurants, corporations. Robbing banks. Assassinating police. People really thought that revolution was imminent, and thought viol…