YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[Liriena]

And in comes the gaslighting.


I appreciate the constructive criticism. I'll make sure to be more sensitive about how my extremely gay language makes you uncomfortable.

Although... "hypocritical homophobic jokes"? I just pointed out that the three of you were essentially having a circular debate with imaginary versions of me. Was my language crass? Sure, but then again, I assumed that the three of you wouldn't be bothered by mildly edgy language. After all, this is a discussion about crass language and free speech, and you guys are staunchly on the side of free speech and facts over feels, no?

It's not really about the crass language. It's more the blatant hypocrisy.

Bitching at Crowder for being homophobic whilst using homophobic insults against other posters is not a good look.

I didn't use "homophobic" insults though. Stop concern-trolling just because you couldn't win the argument in its own right. You don't actually care. You're just trying to "own" me personally.

[Des-Bal]

Oh, this is gonna be a loooooooong thread...

I expect it will be but I'm just so excited to see other ways you showcase hypocrisy.

[Nea Byzantia]

What I'm saying is, its a brand-name; its trademarked...you can't trademark nouns like "Chair" or "House" or "Faggot", nobody owns those words.

But if a product called the "Verizon Faggot" was created, it would then be okay to trademark the word?

In that case, "Verizon Faggot" would be Trademarked, not "Faggot".

[Nea Byzantia]

Yeah like the metaphorical fags whom Crowders stupid shirts posit socialism is for.

Oh, this is gonna be a loooooooong thread...

There's already too much Faggotry here...I'm out.

[Liriena]

I love how it took me using the words "straight" and "cishet" in a way that you interpreted as peyorative for the three of you to finally go "heeeeey, maybe Liriena has a point about words having a multiplicity of meanings dependent on context, tone and intent!"

I guess I should do that more often. I lose the moral high ground, sure, but I guess I could be willing to sacrifice that if it meant you and others acknowledging that my argument was valid just to "own" me.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said words could only have one meaning, that context didn't exist, or tone and intent didn't matter.

Except you pretty much did, by going out of your way to pretend that you didn't understand the difference between Maza calling himself "queer" and Crowder repeatedly referring to him as "a lispy queer".

[Liriena]

Oh, this is gonna be a loooooooong thread...

I expect it will be but I'm just so excited to see other ways you showcase hypocrisy.

You keep trying to prove I'm a "hypocrite" for making sex jokes. I'll just be here actually sticking to the topic and ignoring your sudden, totally sincere concern for the ethics of using the "circle jerking" metaphor when you and your three mates spend multiple posts laughing at imaginary arguments I didn't make.

[Des-Bal]

I didn't use "homophobic" insults though. Stop concern-trolling just because you couldn't win the argument in its own right. You don't actually care. You're just trying to "own" me personally.

You're getting kind of ravey.

In that case, "Verizon Faggot" would be Trademarked, not "Faggot".

Well not really because if I run AT&T I couldn't just market the "AT&T Faggot." This is a weird conversation, I don't think we need to have it.

[Nova Cyberia]

It's not really about the crass language. It's more the blatant hypocrisy.

Bitching at Crowder for being homophobic whilst using homophobic insults against other posters is not a good look.

I didn't use "homophobic" insults though. Stop concern-trolling just because you couldn't win the argument in its own right. You don't actually care. You're just trying to "own" me personally.

I can't win the argument?

Really? Even though I presented my argument to you several times and you never responded to it?

Sure, Liri, you win by ignoring the other person's argument. Congratulations.

And it's not concern-trolling to point out your rather blatant hypocrisy.

[Des-Bal]

Except you pretty much did, by going out of your way to pretend that you didn't understand the difference between Maza calling himself "queer" and Crowder repeatedly referring to him as "a lispy queer".

No I didn't, my point was that if was calling himself a queer people who didn't like him could be expected to do the same.

You keep trying to prove I'm a "hypocrite" for making sex jokes. I'll just be here actually sticking to the topic and ignoring your sudden, totally sincere concern for the ethics of using the "circle jerking" metaphor when you and your three mates spend multiple posts laughing at imaginary arguments I didn't make.

I'm not concerned about the ethics. You are. That's why it's hypocrisy, you're the one talking about jokes and policing language and then you used gay imagery and it's grossness as a rhetorical device. Hypocrisy isn't about you going against my values it's about you going against yours.

[Liriena]

I didn't use "homophobic" insults though. Stop concern-trolling just because you couldn't win the argument in its own right. You don't actually care. You're just trying to "own" me personally.

You're getting kind of ravey.

I appreciate the tone-policing, but what's its relevance to what I'm actually saying?

[Des-Bal]

I appreciate the tone-policing, but what's its relevance to what I'm actually saying?

That what you're actually saying appears to be devolving into raving. You're not actually presenting any points or arguments, just repeating that you're being gaslighted and that nobody owns you.

[Liriena]

Except you pretty much did, by going out of your way to pretend that you didn't understand the difference between Maza calling himself "queer" and Crowder repeatedly referring to him as "a lispy queer".

No I didn't, my point was that if was calling himself a queer people who didn't like him could be expected to do the same.

Well... yeah... dickheads will be dickheads. Doesn't mean we can't complain when dickheads are dickheads, or that our complaints wouldn't be valid.

You keep trying to prove I'm a "hypocrite" for making sex jokes. I'll just be here actually sticking to the topic and ignoring your sudden, totally sincere concern for the ethics of using the "circle jerking" metaphor when you and your three mates spend multiple posts laughing at imaginary arguments I didn't make.

I'm not concerned about the ethics. You are. That's why it's hypocrisy, you're the one talking about jokes and policing language and then you used gay imagery and it's grossness as a rhetorical device. Hypocrisy isn't about you going against my values it's about you going against yours.

So if I admit that the "circle-jerk" metaphor is homophobic*, apologized and said that I won't use it again... what else have you got to contribute to the discussion?

* Which... meh? It's kind of a weird hot take, and I live for weird hot takes.

[Liriena]

I appreciate the tone-policing, but what's its relevance to what I'm actually saying?

That what you're actually saying appears to be devolving into raving. You're not actually presenting any points or arguments, just repeating that you're being gaslighted and that nobody owns you.

I've literally said "gaslighting", like, twice in multiple pages. And I didn't say that "nobody owns" me.

Also, "you're not actually presenting any points or arguments"? You mean other than all the points I've been arguing against you in between dealing with your petty attempts to sidetrack the whole thing with personal comments, your shared fantasies of my arguments with other posters, and bad faith criticisms of one pretty innocuous common saying?

[Liriena]

I didn't use "homophobic" insults though. Stop concern-trolling just because you couldn't win the argument in its own right. You don't actually care. You're just trying to "own" me personally.

I can't win the argument?

Really? Even though I presented my argument to you several times and you never responded to it?

Which one? "If Maza calls himself queer then queer is not an insult"?

Sure, Liri, you win by ignoring the other person's argument. Congratulations.

And it's not concern-trolling to point out your rather blatant hypocrisy.

"Blatant hypocrisy" because I said "circle-jerk".

[Nova Cyberia]

I can't win the argument?

Really? Even though I presented my argument to you several times and you never responded to it?

Which one? "If Maza calls himself queer then queer is not an insult"?

This is from the second time I posted it after you ignored it the first take:

Yes, it's dickish. I don't get where you got the "totally the height of dickishness" thing from, but I guess your constant failure to actually make a serious, credible argument is starting to take a toll on your reading.

I made my argument during the last page. Perhaps go back and read it instead of pretending that it was never posted.

To reiterate (because apparently that's necessary): he isn't reclaiming shit. He only serves to stereotype the very community you pretend to want to protect. He wants to be seen as flamboyantly gay as possible. He's not a victim. He's a hack.

Sure, Liri, you win by ignoring the other person's argument. Congratulations.

And it's not concern-trolling to point out your rather blatant hypocrisy.

"Blatant hypocrisy" because I said "circle-jerk".

Because you made a joke that you sure as shit would have lambasted Crowder for if he'd done the same.

[Scomagia]

We don't have an issue with what you said, it's just hilarious that you're using homosexual behavior (us three males jerking each other off) as a put down

You're smart, Scomagia. I'm sure you can understand that the use of a common and easily understood metaphor is not necessarily reflective of any sort of active bigotry.

as well as sex shaming and assuming our orientations while pretending to be super woke.

I apologize for assuming you were straight. That was a genuine misstep.

But... "sex shaming"? You do understand that I was being metaphorical, right? Do I have to explain the difference between denotation and connotation to you too?

I understand that you used a metaphor that is used as a derogatory because it implies homosexual behavior.

And no, you used a metaphor that is explicitly using sexual behavior as a reference to bad behavior. It is sex negativity because it equates some wrong behavior with jerking off oneself or others. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have used it.

Not that I take any issue with it. I just find the hypocrisy and doublethink amusing.

[Liriena]

Which one? "If Maza calls himself queer then queer is not an insult"?

This is from the second time I posted it after you ignored it the first take:

I made my argument during the last page. Perhaps go back and read it instead of pretending that it was never posted.

To reiterate (because apparently that's necessary): he isn't reclaiming shit. He only serves to stereotype the very community you pretend to want to protect. He wants to be seen as flamboyantly gay as possible. He's not a victim. He's a hack.

Ah, I did indeed miss this.

My response: his effeminacy, his flamboyance, doesn't mean he deserves to be the target of homophobic abuse. Nor does it make him a "hack". Effeminacy is not a character flaw. Flamboyance is not a character flaw. And he shouldn't be denigrated for being "stereotypical". It's not his personal fault that anti-gay stereotypes exist, nor is it his responsibility to go against who he sincerely is to try to somehow keep Crowder's homophobia at bay. Crowder is a bully, and bullies aren't undermined through appeasement or concession. Negative stereotypes aren't defeated by self-censoring ourselves.

You may not like flamboyant gay men, but your personal tastes do not justify homophobia.

"Blatant hypocrisy" because I said "circle-jerk".

Because you made a joke that you sure as shit would have lambasted Crowder for if he'd done the same.

Not really?

[Scomagia]

This is from the second time I posted it after you ignored it the first take:

Ah, I did indeed miss this.

My response: his effeminacy, his flamboyance, doesn't mean he deserves to be the target of homophobic abuse. Nor does it make him a "hack". Effeminacy is not a character flaw. Flamboyance is not a character flaw. And he shouldn't be denigrated for being "stereotypical". It's not his personal fault that anti-gay stereotypes exist, nor is it his responsibility to go against who he sincerely is to try to somehow keep Crowder's homophobia at bay. Crowder is a bully, and bullies aren't undermined through appeasement or concession. Negative stereotypes aren't defeated by self-censoring ourselves.

You may not like flamboyant gay men, but your personal tastes do not justify homophobia.

Because you made a joke that you sure as shit would have lambasted Crowder for if he'd done the same.

Not really?

Crowder's a bully? He's the one who tried to ruin another person's livelihood for referring to him with words that he uses for himself?

[Nova Cyberia]

This is from the second time I posted it after you ignored it the first take:

Ah, I did indeed miss this.

My response: his effeminacy, his flamboyance, doesn't mean he deserves to be the target of homophobic abuse. Nor does it make him a "hack". Effeminacy is not a character flaw. Flamboyance is not a character flaw. And he shouldn't be denigrated for being "stereotypical". It's not his personal fault that anti-gay stereotypes exist, nor is it his responsibility to go against who he sincerely is to try to somehow keep Crowder's homophobia at bay. Crowder is a bully, and bullies aren't undermined through appeasement or concession. Negative stereotypes aren't defeated by self-censoring ourselves.

His flamboyant gayness and provocative use of words he pretends to hate only serve to advance anti-gay stereotypes. So yes, they are character flaws on his part.

Crowder is not a bully for mocking him. Give it a rest. The dude isn't a victim.

You may not like flamboyant gay men, but your personal tastes do not justify homophobia.

I don't, but that's not the point. The point is he's promoting harmful 1980s stereotypes of gay men.

Because you made a joke that you sure as shit would have lambasted Crowder for if he'd done the same.

Not really?

Yes really.

[Nova Cyberia]

Ah, I did indeed miss this.

My response: his effeminacy, his flamboyance, doesn't mean he deserves to be the target of homophobic abuse. Nor does it make him a "hack". Effeminacy is not a character flaw. Flamboyance is not a character flaw. And he shouldn't be denigrated for being "stereotypical". It's not his personal fault that anti-gay stereotypes exist, nor is it his responsibility to go against who he sincerely is to try to somehow keep Crowder's homophobia at bay. Crowder is a bully, and bullies aren't undermined through appeasement or concession. Negative stereotypes aren't defeated by self-censoring ourselves.

You may not like flamboyant gay men, but your personal tastes do not justify homophobia.


Not really?

Crowder's a bully? He's the one who tried to ruin another person's livelihood for referring to him with words that he uses for himself?

Well, this is Clown World, so yes.

Honk honk

[Scomagia]

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said words could only have one meaning, that context didn't exist, or tone and intent didn't matter.

Except you pretty much did, by going out of your way to pretend that you didn't understand the difference between Maza calling himself "queer" and Crowder repeatedly referring to him as "a lispy queer".

Maza is a queer. He says so himself.

He is also kinda lispy. So, what's the issue, exactly? If he self designates as queer, it's accurate to call him queer. If he has a lisp, he is lispy.

[Liriena]

You're smart, Scomagia. I'm sure you can understand that the use of a common and easily understood metaphor is not necessarily reflective of any sort of active bigotry.


I apologize for assuming you were straight. That was a genuine misstep.

But... "sex shaming"? You do understand that I was being metaphorical, right? Do I have to explain the difference between denotation and connotation to you too?

I understand that you used a metaphor that is used as a derogatory because it implies homosexual behavior.

And no, you used a metaphor that is explicitly using sexual behavior as a reference to bad behavior. It is sex negativity because it equates some wrong behavior with jerking off oneself or others. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have used it.

Not that I take any issue with it. I just find the hypocrisy and doublethink amusing.

But... wait a minute.

My point, throughout this entire mess, has been that the problem with Crowder's use of the word "queer" and his allusion to the word "fag" exist in the context of his very open disdain towards LGBT people, and he does those things in the service of denigrating LGBT people. As I kept saying, over and over: context, tone and intent.

I didn't say "circle-jerk" to denigrate you for being bi. I didn't say "circle-jerk" to imply that I actually think gay sex is wrong. I didn't say it because I agree with the etymological origins of the phrase. Much in the same way that, if I talk about queer people, I'm definitely not doing it to be negative towards LGBT people, and you'd know that based on how I talk about LGBT issues in general (and, you know, the fact that I'm LGBT myself).

So, it's just ocurred to me... this entire attempt, by you and the other two, to cast me as a hypocrite... is built on you not understanding, or pretending not to understand, my original argument.

I'm not a hypocrite. You guys are just trying to trick me.

[Liriena]

Except you pretty much did, by going out of your way to pretend that you didn't understand the difference between Maza calling himself "queer" and Crowder repeatedly referring to him as "a lispy queer".

Maza is a queer. He says so himself.

He is also kinda lispy. So, what's the issue, exactly? If he self designates as queer, it's accurate to call him queer. If he has a lisp, he is lispy.

Context, tone, intent.

[Cekoviu]

Except you pretty much did, by going out of your way to pretend that you didn't understand the difference between Maza calling himself "queer" and Crowder repeatedly referring to him as "a lispy queer".

Maza is a queer. He says so himself.

He is also kinda lispy. So, what's the issue, exactly? If he self designates as queer, it's accurate to call him queer. If he has a lisp, he is lispy.

You're again ignoring tone and intent.

[Nova Cyberia]

I understand that you used a metaphor that is used as a derogatory because it implies homosexual behavior.

And no, you used a metaphor that is explicitly using sexual behavior as a reference to bad behavior. It is sex negativity because it equates some wrong behavior with jerking off oneself or others. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have used it.

Not that I take any issue with it. I just find the hypocrisy and doublethink amusing.

But... wait a minute.

My point, throughout this entire mess, has been that the problem with Crowder's use of the word "queer" and his allusion to the word "fag" exist in the context of his very open disdain towards LGBT people, and he does those things in the service of denigrating LGBT people. As I kept saying, over and over: context, tone and intent.

I didn't say "circle-jerk" to denigrate you for being bi. I didn't say "circle-jerk" to imply that I actually think gay sex is wrong. I didn't say it because I agree with the etymological origins of the phrase. Much in the same way that, if I talk about queer people, I'm definitely not doing it to be negative towards LGBT people, and you'd know that based on how I talk about LGBT issues in general (and, you know, the fact that I'm LGBT myself).

So, it's just ocurred to me... this entire attempt, by you and the other two, to cast me as a hypocrite... is built on you not understanding, or pretending not to understand, my original argument.

I'm not a hypocrite. You guys are just trying to trick me.

Darn, he figured it out boys!