YouTube Remonetizes Steven Crowder

[Des-Bal]

Yes.


That was a joke I made, yes.

No, that is not what I said. I said that the whole point of having political ideas is that you presumable want some of those ideas to become the status quo, rather than others. Different political visions and movements inevitably clash with each other and, eventually, some of them become dominant over the others. Free speech is one tool with which liberal democratic societies aim to carry out this clash of ideologies, these political disputes.

It is true, however, that over time some ideologies will become so impopular and marginalized in a society's political discourse that they might as well not exist (see: feudalism or slavery). Which, unless you think that any society benefits from such ideologies having influence, is arguably a good thing. I don't want slavers having legitimacy and influence in society. Lots of people died so slavers could lose that.

"Destroy" and defeat are not synonyms. You are using very manipulative wording.

I don't see how I'm wrong in saying that some political ideologies have had to be defeated through violence. History is full of legitimate acts of violence which were regrettably necessary for good causes. You yourself are the heir of many such acts, from the American war of independence to all the striking workers who died fighting for your labour rights. Now, you might argue that the current circumstances in, say, the United States do not make violent action necessary right now, and I might agree with you.


Why?

I don't find your stupid meltdown here funny, tbh, but you do you.

So one stupid thing you said was your genuine opinion.

An equally stupid thing was a joke.

You refuted but then restated the the next equally stupid thing.

So I apparently used manipulative wording to misrepresent you but then you go ahead and make an impassioned defense of violence to remove opposition (with the caveat that someone might be able to make a case that you'd agree with that it isn't presently necessary at this exact moment.)

Why is everything you say ridiculous? Because it can't be distinguished from a joke. You have become Poe.

It's a shame you aren't finding as much joy in this as I am. I am dissecting your views like an owl pellet and no matter how gross and valueless it seems I maintain faith that there might be something in there.

[Liriena]

Honestly, Des-Bal, who is the "ridiculous" one here?

I'm the person who acknowledges the reality that politics aren't just polite abstract disagreements over tea where nothing happens, but rather a constant dispute for dominance and hegemony over how a given society will be administered, and that these disputes, in very extreme cases, have had to be resolved through violence (which is objectively correct of all societies, including liberal democracies like the United States, which have solved multiple political disputes through violence).

You're the person in the middle of a very bizarre meltdown who's apparently been able to post in a politics forum for years without understanding anything about what politics fundamentally are. And all of this because you got triggered by a joke you didn't get, and you then kept being triggered by it and complaining that I didn't make it obvious enough, and now you've devolved into manipulative, melodramatic misreadings of my arguments to make it sound like I'm saying something a lot more extreme than what I am actually saying.

[Liriena]

Yes.


That was a joke I made, yes.

No, that is not what I said. I said that the whole point of having political ideas is that you presumable want some of those ideas to become the status quo, rather than others. Different political visions and movements inevitably clash with each other and, eventually, some of them become dominant over the others. Free speech is one tool with which liberal democratic societies aim to carry out this clash of ideologies, these political disputes.

It is true, however, that over time some ideologies will become so impopular and marginalized in a society's political discourse that they might as well not exist (see: feudalism or slavery). Which, unless you think that any society benefits from such ideologies having influence, is arguably a good thing. I don't want slavers having legitimacy and influence in society. Lots of people died so slavers could lose that.

"Destroy" and defeat are not synonyms. You are using very manipulative wording.

I don't see how I'm wrong in saying that some political ideologies have had to be defeated through violence. History is full of legitimate acts of violence which were regrettably necessary for good causes. You yourself are the heir of many such acts, from the American war of independence to all the striking workers who died fighting for your labour rights. Now, you might argue that the current circumstances in, say, the United States do not make violent action necessary right now, and I might agree with you.


Why?

I don't find your stupid meltdown here funny, tbh, but you do you.

So one stupid thing you said was your genuine opinion.

An equally stupid thing was a joke.

You refuted but then restated the the next equally stupid thing.

So I apparently used manipulative wording to misrepresent you but then you go ahead and make an impassioned defense of violence to remove opposition (with the caveat that someone might be able to make a case that you'd agree with that it isn't presently necessary at this exact moment.)

Why is everything you say ridiculous? Because it can't be distinguished from a joke. You have become Poe.

It's a shame you aren't finding as much joy in this as I am. I am dissecting your views like an owl pellet and no matter how gross and valueless it seems I maintain faith that there might be something in there.

You haven't "dissected" my views at all. You've constistently misconstrued and exaggerated them, or vaguely gestured in their direction in condemnation without actually making any specific counter-arguments other than calling my ideas "stupid", "gross", "valueless", etc.

Take your time and try to be specific and accurate for a change. You don't need to keep resorting to pretentious pontification if you actually have something specific and relevant to say.

[Des-Bal]

Honestly, Des-Bal, who is the "ridiculous" one here?

I'm the person who acknowledges the reality that politics aren't just polite abstract disagreements over tea where nothing happens, but rather a constant dispute for dominance and hegemony over how a given society will be administered, and that these disputes, in very extreme cases, have had to be resolved through violence (which is objectively correct of all societies, including liberal democracies like the United States, which have solved multiple political disputes through violence).

You're the person in the middle of a very bizarre meltdown who's apparently been able to post in a politics forum for years without understanding anything about what politics fundamentally are. And all of this because you got triggered by a joke you didn't get, and you then kept being triggered by it and complaining that I didn't make it obvious enough, and now you've devolved into manipulative, melodramatic misreadings of my arguments to make it sound like I'm saying something a lot more extreme than what I am actually saying.

You're presenting the idea that if two ideologies remain at the end of the day we'll just have to murder each other as "a reality you acknowledge." You're confused.

You're pretending making fun of the ridiculous things you say is "being triggered." I'm aware of your absurdity, if that's a black mark against me then I apologize for allowing you to rate notice and with my deepest regrets I probably won't do better in the future.

I'm not one to harp on a thing. If you pissed yourself I'm not going to spend all day talking about it but I need to know that you understand you pissed yourself. You're sitting here trying to justify violence, trying to make to make justifications for violence, I won't rub your nose in it if you acknowledge you had an accident. Do you remember what we're talking about?

Steven Crowder. If he's called for violence it's news to me, the reason it's a subject is because you advocated for it and refused to disclaim it. I'm repating your words back to you, if it sounds extreme it's because you haven't done self-analysis in a very long time. He believes a lot of wrong, stupid things. He has a right to believe them and express them. Where a private corporation punishes those beliefs or their expression that corporation stands opposed to the principles associated with those rights. This is my stand, Steven Crowder is wrong about abortion, god, climate change, COVID-19, racism, and other fun topics but he has a right to his expressions.

I also can't help but be thrown by this "melt down" and "triggered" rhetoric. My sweet child, I am sipping scotch and catching up on Girl Genius in another tab. Never assume that when I spank you it means you occupy my thoughts. I'd be delighted to help you be correct about things but I'm not about to get upset that you're wrong, the internet's a big place and I accept that I can't help everyone.

You haven't "dissected" my views at all. You've constistently misconstrued and exaggerated them, or vaguely gestured in their direction in condemnation without actually making any specific counter-arguments other than calling my ideas "stupid", "gross", "valueless", etc.

Take your time and try to be specific and accurate for a change. You don't need to keep resorting to pretentious pontification if you actually have something specific and relevant to say.

You made post to me in general and then a post that quoted me. Why did you do that? It was weird.


You know what? That's a fair point. I'd reccommend you :

A, become Steven Crowder or Youtube
B,Make a thread about your belief system

If you do either I'd be happy to go into detail about the issues in your belief system.

[Aureumterra]

Who is he radicalising? What causes is he readicalising for?

Climate change denialism, white supremacism, opposition to LGBT rights, neoconservate economics, etc.

How does calling someone a "lispy queer" have anything to do with political radicalisation, which is a stronger force on the left these days.

Two things:
1. Calling someone a "lispy queer", along with other instances of Crowder being blatantly homophobic and transphobic, goes hand in hand with him being openly and unironically opposed to LGBT rights. He denigrates LGBT people as a way to incite his audience to share in that denigration, and that denigration then helps pave the way for that opposition to LGBT rights.
2. Statistically speaking, the radicalized left is not the most significant extremist threat to American society these days. It's the radicalized right.

Steven Crowder is a white supremacist? Need some solid evidence for that

[Des-Bal]

Steven Crowder is a white supremacist? Need some solid evidence for that

He labors under the delusion that systemic racism is the only racism that matters and that if problems can be traced back to a black actor then those problems cannot have anything to do with racism but if he's expressed any white supremacist sentiments I'm unaware of it.

[No State Here]

I guess I wouldn’t like him since he’s Bible Republican, but I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t see why people are getting so angry on this thread, since you can just not watch his videos and get on with your life

[Liriena]

Honestly, Des-Bal, who is the "ridiculous" one here?

I'm the person who acknowledges the reality that politics aren't just polite abstract disagreements over tea where nothing happens, but rather a constant dispute for dominance and hegemony over how a given society will be administered, and that these disputes, in very extreme cases, have had to be resolved through violence (which is objectively correct of all societies, including liberal democracies like the United States, which have solved multiple political disputes through violence).

You're the person in the middle of a very bizarre meltdown who's apparently been able to post in a politics forum for years without understanding anything about what politics fundamentally are. And all of this because you got triggered by a joke you didn't get, and you then kept being triggered by it and complaining that I didn't make it obvious enough, and now you've devolved into manipulative, melodramatic misreadings of my arguments to make it sound like I'm saying something a lot more extreme than what I am actually saying.

You're presenting the idea that if two ideologies remain at the end of the day we'll just have to murder each other

No, I'm not. Once again, your inability or unwillingness to read my arguments in good faith has led you to putting words in my mouth.

The idea that I'm presenting is that in some historical circumstances, dominant ideologies left no avenue to be challenged by dissenters other than violence. This has been the case with many tyrants: their brutal repression of even peaceful dissent meant that the most viable way to defeat their ideology, to challenge its dominance and reform society in accordance to new principles, was violence.

The American revolutions were a prime example of this: colonial powers did not allow the liberals of the American continent to become independent and build societies based on the principles of the Enlightenment through peaceful action. It took multiple wars for that independence to happen across most of the continent.

At no point did I try to present the idea that "if two ideologies remain at the end of the day we'll just have to murder each other". That was not at all what I was talking about. You seem to be under the impression that I see politics as a death match between tribes, a zero-sum game where only one tribe can live, which is not the case. Kind of the contrary: I kinda dig the Gramscian take on hegemony, where it's less about one set of values just slaughtering all the others and standing alone forever, and more of a constant back-and-forth. A dynamic, ever-changing system of values in which, quite often, new values which rise up to challenge the dominant values become assimilated, and older values become archaic remnants without never fully disappearing.

Even if socialism won worldwide tomorrow, be it through a referendum or a revolution, all of the ideologies which preceeded it, and which existed simultaneously with it, would live on in some form or other. They just wouldn't be on top anymore.

[Des-Bal]

No, I'm not. Once again, your inability or unwillingness to read my arguments in good faith has led you to putting words in my mouth.

"I don't support political violence but here's a five paragraph essay in defense of political violence."

I don't care. You have failed to create your own thread or transmogrify into Steven Crowder or Youtbue so it doesn't actually matter.

I guess I wouldn’t like him since he’s Bible Republican, but I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t see why people are getting so angry on this thread, since you can just not watch his videos and get on with your life

He's a total dickhead but I'd add the caveat that watching his videos is a good primer for dealing with total dickheads. He's a big fan of making broad claims, defining things in narrow terms, and arguing incidental facts.

[Liriena]

No, I'm not. Once again, your inability or unwillingness to read my arguments in good faith has led you to putting words in my mouth.

"I don't support political violence but here's a five paragraph essay in defense of political violence."

I accuse you of putting words in my mouth... and you proceed to do exactly that. Again. And instead of engaging in any way with the content of what I've said, you just complain about the vague immorality/ridiculousness of it and make idiotic demands.

I'm just putting you on ignore until you find it in yourself to be reasonable again. I'm done enabling your meltdown. I'm satisfied enough with how I've presented my views and I welcome any other posters who care to read them and argue with me on them without your level of hysterics. I don't doubt that there are legitimate criticisms to be had but I can see I sure as fuck ain't getting them from you.

[Ifreann]

I guess I wouldn’t like him since he’s Bible Republican, but I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t see why people are getting so angry on this thread, since you can just not watch his videos and get on with your life

Crowder is a mouthpiece for billionaires who are using him to oppose measures to fight climate change that would negatively impact their wallets. Obviously he is not the be all and end all of that political movement, but he is a tool being wielded by the people who want to carry on poisoning the world because there's big money in it. We can't just get on with our lives because Crowder is fighting to keep making our lives worse.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Steven Crowder isn’t even that extreme, he’s you’re average run of the mill paleoconservative without radical white supremacists rhetoric or Alex Jones "Us vs. Them" populist shit. Youtube should really focus on taking down all those anti vaxx and flat earther channels first

[Ifreann]

Steven Crowder isn’t even that extreme, he’s you’re average run of the mill paleoconservative without radical white supremacists rhetoric or Alex Jones "Us vs. Them" populist shit. Youtube should really focus on taking down all those anti vaxx and flat earther channels first

YouTube doesn't want to take any of them down if they can avoid it.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Steven Crowder isn’t even that extreme, he’s you’re average run of the mill paleoconservative without radical white supremacists rhetoric or Alex Jones "Us vs. Them" populist shit. Youtube should really focus on taking down all those anti vaxx and flat earther channels first

Actually he is nothing more than a neocon. Basically, it's mere establishment "conservatism."

[Jello Biafra]

You have the freedom to like LGBT culture/marriage, while others have the freedom to dislike it. Both of you enjoy your freedom and go your separate ways. It only becomes a problem when people like you try to encroach on the liberty of others.

A ban on gay marriage infringes upon the liberty of gay people. Anyone who opposes gay marriage therefore is attempting to encroach upon the liberty of gay people. Therefore, anyone who opposes gay marriage is being a problem, by your definition. Good to know.

So long as they aren't inciting violence or physically harming gay people, you have no right to dictate whether or not they can say it.

I do have the right to argue that anyone who uses homophobic slurs should be deplatformed. Free speech, and all.

[Esternial]

I think this shows that YouTube only cared about advertising revenue

Well of course.

[Page]

I think this shows that YouTube only cared about advertising revenue

Well of course.

Every corporation only cares about the bottom line.

[Tekania]

Well of course.

Every corporation only cares about the bottom line.

Yeah, ultimately every corporations primary objective is to return investment to its shareholders..... anything else is secondary.

As YouTube makes money via ad revenue, it thus should be expected that the primary thing they will care about is that ad revenue.

If a company does not have that primary goal, it does not survive long. That's just how business is.

[No State Here]

Steven Crowder is a white supremacist? Need some solid evidence for that

He labors under the delusion that systemic racism is the only racism that matters and that if problems can be traced back to a black actor then those problems cannot have anything to do with racism but if he's expressed any white supremacist sentiments I'm unaware of it.

From what little I know he just seems like the average conservative, not a white supremacist.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

He labors under the delusion that systemic racism is the only racism that matters and that if problems can be traced back to a black actor then those problems cannot have anything to do with racism but if he's expressed any white supremacist sentiments I'm unaware of it.

From what little I know he just seems like the average conservative, not a white supremacist.

More like just repeating Fox News talking points, nothing extremely radical or out of the ordinary though, like I said YouTube should focus on taking down anti vaxx and flat earth channels, many of which have over a million subscribers, because they are a bigger threat than a Fox News anchor reject will ever be

[Salus Maior]

Youtube monetization is so poorly run and inconsistent that I'm not really surprised.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

He labors under the delusion that systemic racism is the only racism that matters and that if problems can be traced back to a black actor then those problems cannot have anything to do with racism but if he's expressed any white supremacist sentiments I'm unaware of it.

From what little I know he just seems like the average conservative, not a white supremacist.

White supremacist just means a poor and unfashionable white person these days. Its a bogey man term for progressives.

[Duvniask]

I guess I wouldn’t like him since he’s Bible Republican, but I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t see why people are getting so angry on this thread, since you can just not watch his videos and get on with your life

Crowder is a mouthpiece for billionaires who are using him to oppose measures to fight climate change that would negatively impact their wallets. Obviously he is not the be all and end all of that political movement, but he is a tool being wielded by the people who want to carry on poisoning the world because there's big money in it. We can't just get on with our lives because Crowder is fighting to keep making our lives worse.

Oh, they aren't just using him for climate change denial. They're using him for the whole range of alt-right grift. The whole package, baby.

[Loben III]

Crowder is a mouthpiece for billionaires who are using him to oppose measures to fight climate change that would negatively impact their wallets. Obviously he is not the be all and end all of that political movement, but he is a tool being wielded by the people who want to carry on poisoning the world because there's big money in it. We can't just get on with our lives because Crowder is fighting to keep making our lives worse.

Oh, they aren't just using him for climate change denial. They're using him for the whole range of alt-right grift. The whole package, baby.

Such as?

[Liriena]

Crowder is a mouthpiece for billionaires who are using him to oppose measures to fight climate change that would negatively impact their wallets. Obviously he is not the be all and end all of that political movement, but he is a tool being wielded by the people who want to carry on poisoning the world because there's big money in it. We can't just get on with our lives because Crowder is fighting to keep making our lives worse.

Oh, they aren't just using him for climate change denial. They're using him for the whole range of alt-right grift. The whole package, baby.

And doing yellowface. Don't forget the yellowface.

Oh, and that one time he crossdressed to own the libs.