YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[Des-Bal]

Be that as it may, it's nevertheless true that speech that might seem harmless and consequence-free on its own can often be the first in a long chain towards extremism. The issue is not whether that original speech is literally Hitler and must be gulaged.

The "alt-right" has at times bragged about using "classical liberals" and "centrists" as gateways into their movement. And while there is always a certain degree of manipulative dishonesty in all far right discourse, they're not entirely wrong there. A lot of "classical liberal" figures online have the problem of not being particularly good at thinking critically and challenging the arguments of radical right-wingers who happen to share their anti-progressivism.

Yeah and condemning the Vietnam War is a dog whistle that evidences the influence of communist advisers and we have to stop that fucker Martin Luther King. We've swapped partners but it's the same old song and dance.

[Liriena]

Pretending naziism spreads because nazi ideas are just so convincing is a convenient way for liberals and progressives to ignore their own role in it. People are already turned far-right before they find other far-righters to congregate with.

They use this crap to ignore their role and seize more power to censor criticism and opposition to their bullshit, pushing yet more people to the far-right.

100% this, I've been seeing it more and more online lately and it's mind boggling.

Shit just the other day I saw some dumbass blue checkmark on Twitter celebrating how Texas is gonna be blue in a decade or two solely because of demographic change while saying the same thing happened in CA. Stuff like that is such an absurdly huge propaganda win for the far-right, they don't even need to really put a spin on it at that point. It can just be "hey look at this, liberals want to replace you with third world voters to push their agenda".

Blue checkmarks are worse than eggs. And yeah, Democratic strategists have been boasting about how the growing Latino population is gonna guarantee them a thousand years in power or something. Because Democratic strategists are empty husks whose motto seems to be "DON'T DO ANYTHING!!!".

[Liriena]

Be that as it may, it's nevertheless true that speech that might seem harmless and consequence-free on its own can often be the first in a long chain towards extremism. The issue is not whether that original speech is literally Hitler and must be gulaged.

The "alt-right" has at times bragged about using "classical liberals" and "centrists" as gateways into their movement. And while there is always a certain degree of manipulative dishonesty in all far right discourse, they're not entirely wrong there. A lot of "classical liberal" figures online have the problem of not being particularly good at thinking critically and challenging the arguments of radical right-wingers who happen to share their anti-progressivism.

Yeah and condemning the Vietnam War is a dog whistle that evidences the influence of communist advisers and we have to stop that fucker Martin Luther King. We've swapped partners but it's the same old song and dance.

If you're gonna keep relying on haphazardly devised analogies and strawmen... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Scomagia]

"Stochastic terrorism" is a fucking stupid term all things considered tbh

Be that as it may, it's nevertheless true that speech that might seem harmless and consequence-free on its own can often be the first in a long chain towards extremism. The issue is not whether that original speech is literally Hitler and must be gulaged.

The "alt-right" has at times bragged about using "classical liberals" and "centrists" as gateways into their movement. And while there is always a certain degree of manipulative dishonesty in all far right discourse, they're not entirely wrong there. A lot of "classical liberal" figures online have the problem of not being particularly good at thinking critically and challenging the arguments of radical right-wingers who happen to share their anti-progressivism.

And the radical left does the exact same shit with progressivism. It's just as stupid to blame, say, Bernie Sanders and his rhetoric for some people becoming radicalized Stalinists or Marxists. Playing this "three times removed" game is stupid.

[Liriena]

Be that as it may, it's nevertheless true that speech that might seem harmless and consequence-free on its own can often be the first in a long chain towards extremism. The issue is not whether that original speech is literally Hitler and must be gulaged.

The "alt-right" has at times bragged about using "classical liberals" and "centrists" as gateways into their movement. And while there is always a certain degree of manipulative dishonesty in all far right discourse, they're not entirely wrong there. A lot of "classical liberal" figures online have the problem of not being particularly good at thinking critically and challenging the arguments of radical right-wingers who happen to share their anti-progressivism.

And the radical left does the exact same shit with progressivism. It's just as stupid to blame, say, Bernie Sanders and his rhetoric for some people becoming radicalized Stalinists or Marxists. Playing this "three times removed" game is stupid.

The issue isn't blame. It's identifying and understanding the chain of causation that leads to terrorism, not for the purposes of personally blaming the people at the bottom of the stochastic terrorism pyramid, but for the purposes of having a better idea of how to know where radicalization starts and reflect on how to best manage ourselves to avoid it.

[Des-Bal]

If you're gonna keep relying on haphazardly devised analogies and strawmen... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's not haphazard, that's exactly what happened and it's what's always happened. You are using the exact same arguments as any Mcarthy era asshole talking about how blacklists don't effect free speech or how gateway views were dangerous. We've been here before, the left hasn't come to some amazing revelation that free speech can be abused, they've just taken more control of mainstream discourse and have the power to do the same shit they just finished complaining about.

[Scomagia]

And the radical left does the exact same shit with progressivism. It's just as stupid to blame, say, Bernie Sanders and his rhetoric for some people becoming radicalized Stalinists or Marxists. Playing this "three times removed" game is stupid.

The issue isn't blame. It's identifying and understanding the chain of causation that leads to terrorism, not for the purposes of personally blaming the people at the bottom of the stochastic terrorism pyramid, but for the purposes of having a better idea of how to know where radicalization starts and reflect on how to best manage ourselves to avoid it.

If the point isn't to take some kind of action, what is the point you're actually making?

[Liriena]

If the point isn't to take some kind of action, what is the point you're actually making?

Who said that the point isn't taking action? I just happen to disagree that the action should necessarily involve the state (or Youtube's rule enforcement, for that matter, on account of Youtube being generally awful at everything as demonstrated by this entire debacle).

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to send the message that Crowder's bigotry is unacceptable, they can do what they did for Fox News anchors: appeal to his advertisers. You can also have people who know their stuff get into the conversation, try to reach the people that Crowder has been conning with better content, and not let him and his ilk monopolize or dominate the conversation in their own terms (Breadtube has been getting pretty good at this).

[Des-Bal]

Who said that the point isn't taking action? I just happen to disagree that the action should necessarily involve the state (or Youtube's rule enforcement, for that matter, on account of Youtube being generally awful at everything as demonstrated by this entire debacle).

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to send the message that Crowder's bigotry is unacceptable, they can do what they did for Fox News anchors: appeal to his advertisers. You can also have people who know their stuff get into the conversation, try to reach the people that Crowder has been conning with better content, and not let him and his ilk monopolize or dominate the conversation in their own terms (Breadtube has been getting pretty good at this).

You should make a pamphlet, call it red channels, and list names of people who should have their advertisers targetted.

[Liriena]

Who said that the point isn't taking action? I just happen to disagree that the action should necessarily involve the state (or Youtube's rule enforcement, for that matter, on account of Youtube being generally awful at everything as demonstrated by this entire debacle).

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to send the message that Crowder's bigotry is unacceptable, they can do what they did for Fox News anchors: appeal to his advertisers. You can also have people who know their stuff get into the conversation, try to reach the people that Crowder has been conning with better content, and not let him and his ilk monopolize or dominate the conversation in their own terms (Breadtube has been getting pretty good at this).

You should make a pamphlet, call it red channels, and list names of people who should have their advertisers targetted.

One kind of action being used by bad people to hurt good people in the past doesn't mean that the action itself is tainted and unusable forever.

Stalinism imprisoned its opponents for "breaking the law", but I don't see you advocate for abolishing prisons and the rule of law on those grounds.

[Des-Bal]

One kind of action being used by bad people to hurt good people in the past doesn't mean that the action itself is tainted and unusable forever.

Stalinism imprisoned its opponents for "breaking the law", but I don't see you advocate for abolishing prisons and the rule of law on those grounds.

See here's where we get to the confusion. I believe in free speech. You don't. You don't care about free speech and you never did and it's painfully obvious in the way you're looking at "good and bad" people. It couldn't fucking matter less to me, MLK didn't have a right to speak because he was a good person he had it because he was a person. I have the presence of mind to understand everybody is casting themselves as the good guy. I don't think you should piss on people from high windows, and the lefties agreed with that sentiment right up until it was their turn on the balcony.

[Liriena]

One kind of action being used by bad people to hurt good people in the past doesn't mean that the action itself is tainted and unusable forever.

Stalinism imprisoned its opponents for "breaking the law", but I don't see you advocate for abolishing prisons and the rule of law on those grounds.

See here's where we get to the confusion. I believe in free speech. You don't.

Yes, I can clearly see that you are confused, based on those nonsensical assertions.

[Liriena]

See here's where we get to the confusion. I believe in free speech. You don't.

Yes, I can clearly see that you are confused, based on those nonsensical assertions.

Serious question: do you think that calling advertisers because you disapprove of the content they sponsor is an attack on free speech?

[Des-Bal]

Yes, I can clearly see that you are confused, based on those nonsensical assertions.

Good thing you got away from the rest of that quote it kind of fucked up your entire "hitler ate sugar" framework.

[Liriena]

Yes, I can clearly see that you are confused, based on those nonsensical assertions.

Good thing you got away from the rest of that quote it kind of fucked up your entire "hitler ate sugar" framework.

You mean the part where you dance around actually addressing how exactly calling on advertisers to drop content is an attack on free speech? Doesn't living in a free market, with a free market place of ideas, entail people on the demand side having the right to demand that the supply side stop offering a product that they are not satisfied with and even find harmful?

[Des-Bal]

Serious question: do you think that calling advertisers because you disapprove of the content they sponsor is an attack on free speech?

I think that concerted efforts to punish people for their thoughts, opinions, or expressions is exactly as tolerable as it was in the McCarthy era.

You mean the part where you dance around actually addressing how exactly calling on advertisers to drop content is an attack on free speech?

You might be getting confused because you're not quoting entire posts but I didn't do that.

[Liriena]

Serious question: do you think that calling advertisers because you disapprove of the content they sponsor is an attack on free speech?

I think that concerted efforts to punish people for their thoughts, opinions, or expressions is exactly as tolerable as it was in the McCarthy era.

It was a yes or no question. Not a "deflect to the thought-terminating cliché of McCarthyism" question.

[Des-Bal]

It was a yes or no question. Not a "deflect to the thought-terminating cliché of McCarthyism" question.

If it seems like a cliche it's because you could sit on HUAC with the barest changes to your rhetoric.

It also wasn't a deflection, the point of the statement is to 1) distinguish between complaining to advertisers which can be a perfectly valid thing to do and a "concerted efforts to punish people for their thoughts, opinions, or expressions" and 2) spell out that the latter is not okay and is not more okay when you like the putting names on lists.

[Liriena]

I think that concerted efforts to punish people for their thoughts, opinions, or expressions is exactly as tolerable as it was in the McCarthy era.

It was a yes or no question. Not a "deflect to the thought-terminating cliché of McCarthyism" question.

McCarthy was a senator who abused his power as a political figure to persecute innocent people on often false accusations of being secret communist infiltrators.

Private citizens calling advertisers because they're sponsoring a known bigot who openly despises and denigrates LGBT people and telling them that they won't be their customers for as long as they sponsor him is not the same thing. Crowder wouldn't be punished for his innermost thoughts, but for the harm his actual words cause to those on the demand side of the free market place of ideas.

Do you think boycotts are an attack on free speech?

[Liriena]

It was a yes or no question. Not a "deflect to the thought-terminating cliché of McCarthyism" question.

If it seems like a cliche it's because you could sit on HUAC with the barest changes to your rhetoric.

It also wasn't a deflection, the point of the statement is to 1) distinguish between complaining to advertisers which can be a perfectly valid thing to do and a "concerted efforts to punish people for their thoughts, opinions, or expressions"

Good thing I advocate for the former, then.

[Scomagia]

If the point isn't to take some kind of action, what is the point you're actually making?

Who said that the point isn't taking action? I just happen to disagree that the action should necessarily involve the state (or Youtube's rule enforcement, for that matter, on account of Youtube being generally awful at everything as demonstrated by this entire debacle).

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to send the message that Crowder's bigotry is unacceptable, they can do what they did for Fox News anchors: appeal to his advertisers. You can also have people who know their stuff get into the conversation, try to reach the people that Crowder has been conning with better content, and not let him and his ilk monopolize or dominate the conversation in their own terms (Breadtube has been getting pretty good at this).

How can you have action without blame? If you explicitly want people hounded by the mob for saying things, you must implicitly blame them for some effect of their speech. The fact that you claim not to want the government to do the blaming and taking action is admirable but you do, as you say, want people to be punished for saying things that lead to "radicalization", just by mobs instead of governments. That wouldn't be so terrible except you already demonstrated that what you find to be radicalizing is extremely slippery and based more or less on your own internal definition. Hence you saying that Ben Shapiro or Crowder are somehow a part of the far right radicalization process.

[Des-Bal]

McCarthy was a senator who abused his power as a political figure to persecute innocent people on often false accusations of being secret communist infiltrators.

Private citizens calling advertisers because they're sponsoring a known bigot who openly despises and denigrates LGBT people and telling them that they won't be their customers for as long as they sponsor him is not the same thing. Crowder wouldn't be punished for his innermost thoughts, but for the harm his actual words cause to those on the demand side of the free market place of ideas.

Do you think boycotts are an attack on free speech?

McCarthy didn't take a single person's job. The McCarthy era was defined by the privately run boycotts and privately managed blacklists that were used to pressure advertisers to drive out named parties. But you know, he who doesn't study history is doomed to repeat it.

[Des-Bal]

Good thing I advocate for the former, then.

I'm confident you believe that.

[Caracasus]

One kind of action being used by bad people to hurt good people in the past doesn't mean that the action itself is tainted and unusable forever.

Stalinism imprisoned its opponents for "breaking the law", but I don't see you advocate for abolishing prisons and the rule of law on those grounds.

See here's where we get to the confusion. I believe in free speech. You don't. You don't care about free speech and you never did and it's painfully obvious in the way you're looking at "good and bad" people. It couldn't fucking matter less to me, MLK didn't have a right to speak because he was a good person he had it because he was a person. I have the presence of mind to understand everybody is casting themselves as the good guy. I don't think you should piss on people from high windows, and the lefties agreed with that sentiment right up until it was their turn on the balcony.

Martin Luther King was spied on, harrassed and had the FBI send letters to him urging him to kill himself. That's the FBI as in an official arm of the government. The same FBI that assassinated Black Panther leaders. Don't pretend that freedom of speech wasn't bastardized and fucked over by the establishment of the day and don't pretend that some gay bashing youtuber getting told he can't make money off youtube is in any way in the same league.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It was a yes or no question. Not a "deflect to the thought-terminating cliché of McCarthyism" question.

McCarthy was a senator who abused his power as a political figure to persecute innocent people on often false accusations of being secret communist infiltrators.

Private citizens calling advertisers because they're sponsoring a known bigot who openly despises and denigrates LGBT people and telling them that they won't be their customers for as long as they sponsor him is not the same thing. Crowder wouldn't be punished for his innermost thoughts, but for the harm his actual words cause to those on the demand side of the free market place of ideas.

Do you think boycotts are an attack on free speech?

fwiw McCarthy actually wasn't that off base. The USSR did have tons of agents in the States, he might have gone after the wrong people at times but the general reasoning behind it was 110% correct.