YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[Cekoviu]

Speaking about the real world:

How the hell is banning Swastikas from friggin vidya games supposed to prevent an apparently imminent return of Zombified Cyborg Hitler in 2025?

>"speaking about the real world"
>says something that nobody has ever said would happen, about recreational activities that are designed to get you away from the real world
[gamer intensifies]

[The Emerald Legion]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

"They say mean things about conservatives."

You act like it's meant to communicate something to you.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

Anything that disagrees with conservative and right-wing rhetoric.

[Ifreann]

As has been explained, this is a poor understanding of the situation.
In as simple a way as this can be explained,

• Maza is involved in the Vox Media Union
• Vox gets most of its money from Youtube
• When Youtube initially decided that Crowder wasn't doing anything severe enough to deserve punishment, Maza decided to threaten going after advertisers if they didn't change course
• Advertisers are how channels, like Vox, get much to most of their income (that and sponsorships, I don't remember if Vox does that though)
• Putting two and two together to get four here, going after Youtube and threatening an attack on their advertisers is very easily part of a ploy to bring Vox to the table
• It didn't work as intended though because Youtube staff has no spine, so instead of advertisers pulling out, channels are getting axed and demonetized, which indeed doesn't really benefit the union, as can be seen by Maza continuing to yell despite getting what he wanted

As a side note, I'll have to check on this myself, but reportedly the quality of Vox's articles has gone up since the strike began. Interesting if true.

See guys, this is what I was asking for - another possible explanation. Thank you.

That's the same explanation Ostro gave. And it's patent nonsense.

[West Leas Oros 2]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

[Cekoviu]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

that's actual nonsense believe it or not

[West Leas Oros 2]

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

that's actual nonsense believe it or not

As someone who was personally one of these types, I assure it is not. But if you want to defend people who want me dead because "white men bad", go ahead.

[Loben The 2nd]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

Nazis were the first SJWs to go about their goals tbh.

[West Leas Oros 2]

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

Nazis were the first SJWs to go about their goals tbh.

I honestly don't like the term SJW, because they aren't fighting for justice, "social justice" or otherwise. They're just hateful identitarians who think justice means killing those you view as evil simply because they were born with the "wrong" identity. Nothing remotely "just" about that.

[Juristonia]

that's actual nonsense believe it or not

As someone who was personally one of these types, I assure it is not. But if you want to defend people who want me dead because "white men bad", go ahead.

Your personal character flaws shouldn't be projected on to other people.
That's not a normal way to classify a group. That's just a you problem.

[Vassenor]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

See, these days we just call those people Neo-Nazis.

[Ifreann]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

That might be the stupidest use of a phrase I have ever seen.

[West Leas Oros 2]

As someone who was personally one of these types, I assure it is not. But if you want to defend people who want me dead because "white men bad", go ahead.

Your personal character flaws shouldn't be projected on to other people.
That's not a normal way to classify a group. That's just a you problem.

These aren't "personal character flaws". The people I met and worked with were exactly like what I described.

Also, you're telling me not to classify groups unfairly? News flash, unfairly classifying groups and singling them out as pure evil is exactly what they do.

[West Leas Oros 2]

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

That might be the stupidest use of a phrase I have ever seen.

How is it stupid to hate those who would rather kill than be decent human beings who judge others on their actions rather than stupid shit like their skin or genitals?

[West Leas Oros 2]

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

See, these days we just call those people Neo-Nazis.

So what do you call those who want to kill groups other than those that neo-nazis hate?

[Ifreann]

That might be the stupidest use of a phrase I have ever seen.

How is it stupid to hate those who would rather kill than be decent human beings who judge others on their actions rather than stupid shit like their skin or genitals?

It's a stupid use of a phrase. Try reading the posts you're responding to, it helps immensely.

[West Leas Oros 2]

How is it stupid to hate those who would rather kill than be decent human beings who judge others on their actions rather than stupid shit like their skin or genitals?

It's a stupid use of a phrase. Try reading the posts you're responding to, it helps immensely.

Of what phrase? I think that the words I used describe them almost exactly.

[Ifreann]

It's a stupid use of a phrase. Try reading the posts you're responding to, it helps immensely.

Of what phrase?

Social Justice Warrior.

I think that the words I used describe them almost exactly.

Not really. Rather diverges from popular usage as well.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Of what phrase?

Social Justice Warrior.

I think that the words I used describe them almost exactly.

Not really. Rather diverges from popular usage as well.

I don't really care what the "popular usage" of the term is. I'm actually fucking tired of neocons and others using the term "SJW" to describe anything they don't like. Kind of like throwing "fascist" around as an insult. Those aren't words that should be used lightly. And, as i've already stated, the term "SJW" is a misnomer, because they are as far from social justice as one gets.

[Proctopeo]

It's the "Live and let live" approach that has give rise to the alt-right.

Disagree. I'd wager that IdPol becoming the norm is what really gave rise to the alt-right. When everything becomes about X minority group and their needs and desires it was only a matter of time until white people started thinking about things in a collective manner about what's best for them too.

This. "Live and let live" is largely unrelated, and cracking down on speech and imagery will only make things worse for everyone without actually doing anything to stop the alt-right.

Neither of your responses are wrong as such. But they're sort of what I was talking about re the shortcomings of the way things are presented in history classes. You're focusing on specifics about institutions and circumstances, when what I was asking about was what was going in people's heads. The circumstances are important, bit they're obviously not the key thing to learn from. The real question is: what made people vote for Hitler, who was openly disdainful of the liberal democratic system and of the political rights of his opponents, even before he got his hands on the tools of the state and used them to silence opposition? And maybe even more interestingly, why did people come to support him even after he had taken power?

It's exceedingly difficult to argue for freedom of speech as an innate, universal right in the abstract. That's why almost any defence of it rests on its usefulness and its importance to holding a free and fair political discourse. Freedom of speech is considered important mostly because of it's functional importance to the liberal democratic system.

And why is it useful? Clearly the premise is that people present arguments for particular policies, and society through debate figures out the best tradeoffs of costs and benefits to each. It's a very rationalist sort of way of thinking. Very British liberal philosophy sort of stuff.

But clearly it has to be tested against the real world, precisely because that's the premise on which it rests. And Weimar Germany is just one of hundreds of examples of a marketplace of ideas not happening the way it is supposed to. Clearly there is not a great deal of good rational evidence for ending the discourse with concentration camps, going on a genocidal campaign against part of one's own citizenry, or starting the world's biggest war with a country that was objectively far weaker relative to its foes than the defeated Empire had been only a few years earlier. Yet substantial pluralities, and maybe majorities supported some or all of these.

Was it rational argument that convinced them? Or was it something else? And if it was something else, then how does it fit into the justification for freedom of speech?

My point is that maybe it doesn't. Instead, if you're looking for a functional argument for freedom of speech, then that's an argument that comes with qualifications. The argument that speech that seeks to end freedom of speech or the liberal democratic system should be tolerated implicitly assumes that its internal contradictions will be exposed and make it irrelevant. But if that's not the case, and people really can't tell a good argument from a snazzily-presented one, then the defence of the liberal democratic system would be better served by not having some things enter the public domain in the first place.

Speaking about the real world:

How the hell is banning Swastikas from friggin vidya games supposed to prevent an apparently imminent return of Zombified Cyborg Hitler in 2025?

Every swastika gives more power to Hitlericus, the god of Nazism, and once he achieves 100,000 Holocaust Points he conquers the world and puts leftists in gulags.

See guys, this is what I was asking for - another possible explanation. Thank you.

That's the same explanation Ostro gave. And it's patent nonsense.

You never gave an actual explanation as to why it's "patent nonsense", so you're just trying to dismiss it without any good reason.
That sounds like nonsense to me :^)

[Ifreann]

Social Justice Warrior.

Not really. Rather diverges from popular usage as well.

I don't really care what the "popular usage" of the term is.

Well that's gonna be a problem for you. You're gonna say "SJW" and mean "genocidal psychopath", but everyone else will hear "annoying liberal".

I'm actually fucking tired of neocons and others using the term "SJW" to describe anything they don't like. Kind of like throwing "fascist" around as an insult. Those aren't words that should be used lightly.

Do tell why "SJW", a term that has only ever been used as a joke and insult, should not be thrown around lightly.

And, as i've already stated, the term "SJW" is a misnomer, because they are as far from social justice as one gets.

And yet you insist on using it to refer to "them", the alleged people who want to kill you for being white. Very smart.

---

That's the same explanation Ostro gave. And it's patent nonsense.

You never gave an actual explanation as to why it's "patent nonsense", so you're just trying to dismiss it without any good reason.
That sounds like nonsense to me :^)

viewtopic.php?p=35786715#p35786715
viewtopic.php?p=35786963#p35786963

You should see someone about that lapse in memory.

[Nilrahrarfan]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

I define it as a leftist who breaks the rules of websites or is a general threat to the community, especially if they get away with it but those who disagree with them are the ones being banned despite not breaking any rules.

[Ifreann]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

I define it as a leftist who breaks the rules of websites or is a general threat to the community, especially if they get away with it but those who disagree with them are the ones being banned despite not breaking any rules.

I was banned for spam once, does that make me an SJW?

[West Leas Oros 2]

I don't really care what the "popular usage" of the term is.

Well that's gonna be a problem for you. You're gonna say "SJW" and mean "genocidal psychopath", but everyone else will hear "annoying liberal".

I'm actually fucking tired of neocons and others using the term "SJW" to describe anything they don't like. Kind of like throwing "fascist" around as an insult. Those aren't words that should be used lightly.

Do tell why "SJW", a term that has only ever been used as a joke and insult, should not be thrown around lightly.

And, as i've already stated, the term "SJW" is a misnomer, because they are as far from social justice as one gets.

And yet you insist on using it to refer to "them", the alleged people who want to kill you for being white. Very smart.

---

You never gave an actual explanation as to why it's "patent nonsense", so you're just trying to dismiss it without any good reason.
That sounds like nonsense to me :^)

viewtopic.php?p=35786715#p35786715
viewtopic.php?p=35786963#p35786963

You should see someone about that lapse in memory.

1. I've actually been trying to stop using it for that very reason. But I have seen the term used to describe genocidal psychopaths, but not usually.
2. It's precisely because it's used only as a joke or insult. The term has become too much of a catch-all, we're lumping in normal, sane people in with terrible people. That, in turn, trivializes the term. SJW does mean annoying liberal quite often, but it is being increasingly used to mean maniacs. We can't have both definitions at the same time. Again, the term fascist comes to mind. when real fascists take power, we'll sound like we're crying wolf.
3. Because no other such term exists. Either I'm going to use the pre-existing term and have annoying liberal lumped in, or I'm going to have to use a different term, but unfortunately, none exist. Also, they don't want to kill me just for being white. They also want to kill me just for being male. And likely for a long list of other reasons all tied into "we hate the identity you were born with".

[West Leas Oros 2]

So how are we defining "SJW" today?

I define it as a leftist who breaks the rules of websites or is a general threat to the community, especially if they get away with it but those who disagree with them are the ones being banned despite not breaking any rules.

SJWs (or more accurately identitarians, SJW is a bad term) are about as far from leftist as you can get. Ironically, they share more in common with fascists, such as yourself.