• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

YouTube bows to outrage mob and makes banning conservatives official policy.



Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,497
Yep, I helped Jordan Petersen out when it looked like he was losing his job because of a mob of snowflakes and Brett Weinstein and now Stephen Crowder.
When you lot are exposed to everyone as the actual fascists, when the minorities like the workers before them abandon you, I would like to say I did my bit.

His name is Steven, not Stephen.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,497
The current debate has nothing to do with Jones, who was banned months ago.

Since you apparently know so much about Sandy Hook, perhaps you can clarify exactly what Jones incited and in what way he incited it? I think the notion of freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if it doesn't mean the right for people to share nutty conspiracy theories. I don't even favour the censorship of Wolfgang Halbig, who is a morally depraved pervert who makes Jones look like a saint.

That doesn't imply that you get to do so on YouTube though.

He can do so on his own website, or on a soap box in his local park.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,497
What the far right contributors to this and related threads do not understand is no one has removed their right to freedom of speech.

They still have their own websites that they can spout on. But some sites have decided for business reasons, that they cannot say what they like on their sites.

And that to most people is fair enough.

Exactly.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,497
The current debate has nothing to do with Jones, who was banned months ago.

Since you apparently know so much about Sandy Hook, perhaps you can clarify exactly what Jones incited and in what way he incited it? I think the notion of freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if it doesn't mean the right for people to share nutty conspiracy theories. I don't even favour the censorship of Wolfgang Halbig, who is a morally depraved pervert who makes Jones look like a saint.

Jones incited and enabled Halbig.

Both men went way beyond sharing nutty conspiracy theories.

I hope that Jones and Halbig rot in hell.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,497
Who was the first person to broadcast the theory on INOFOWARS that SH was a false flag? Its not as if he said it once he was at it for ages laughing and sneering at those families ,for you or anyone else to insinuate now he bears no responsibility for the lies about SH and what reaction others had to it is a mealy mouthed cop out.
Jones is been sued for "false cruel and dangerous assertions" by some SH families why do you think that is?

Very well said.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,497
I'm saying you could put swap in any persuasion where you put conservative and it can imagine some other person saying it. I said it was inane because it didn't really say anything. It was like "This thing is 100% bad, I'm right and they're wrong.

I'll tell you what I think and you can apply any label you like.

Pro equality of opportunity. Pro free markets. Pro globalized world trade. Pro borders. Pro countries deciding how to govern themselves. Pro individual liberty. Pro small government. Pro protection of minorities. Pro social safety net. Pro progressive tax system. Pro social health care. Pro legalization of drugs. Pro religious freedom. Anti religion in education. Anti collectivist. Anti-relativist. Anti multiculturalist, Anti death penalty. Anti racial/gender/orientation quotas. Anti equality of outcome. Anti identity politics. Pro a woman's right to choose but 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are an abomination. Most of all anti totalitarian. Is that a conservative? You tell me.

I'd say that you hold social liberal views, and not conservative ones.

The "Pro protection of minorities. Pro social safety net. Pro progressive tax system. Pro social health care." views make you a social liberal, as opposed to a classical liberal.

Conservatives tend to be more authoritarian than you are. They claim to know what's best for people, and don't bother actually asking the people.

And current US conservatives are definitely against protection of minorities, social safety nets, progressive tax systems and social health care, even if conservatives in other places (especially in Europe) have accepted such things.

Have you ever tried the Political Compass test? It puts you on a 2D political scale, talking into account both economic and social opinions.


You might be surprised where you end up.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,497
I'm highly skeptical of the whole 'conservative' narrative.

What exactly is it that these self-identifying 'conservatives' are trying to 'conserve'?

Like religion, it seems to be another refuge for the wilfully ignorant, with 'my right to freedom of belief' (God made it so) replaced with 'my right to freedom of speech' (I don't have to reason), as the 'get out of jail free' card when confronted with robust, logical argument.

Basically, the right to spout any kind of irrational bullsh*t, without consequence.

Aren't these 'conservatives' simply bitter, angry trolls who are seeing their 'safe spaces' (the anonymity of the internet and access to popular online platforms), slowly diminish?

Do they even exist outside of the internet?

That's an excellent question.

They claim to be trying to conserve what they call traditional values, but that's just a code phrase meaning "values that suited them".

What they yearn for is a return to when white men ran just about everything in the US, and it was legal to discriminate against just about every other group.

They claim to be in favour of the US constitution and the US declaration of independence, but then ignore any bits that don't suit them, like "all men are created equal".

That's where the white nationalism comes into it. All these documents are to be read from the viewpoint of white men.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
29,938
I'd say that you hold social liberal views, and not conservative ones.

The "Pro protection of minorities. Pro social safety net. Pro progressive tax system. Pro social health care." views make you a social liberal, as opposed to a classical liberal.

Conservatives tend to be more authoritarian than you are. They claim to know what's best for people, and don't bother actually asking the people.

And current US conservatives are definitely against protection of minorities, social safety nets, progressive tax systems and social health care, even if conservatives in other places (especially in Europe) have accepted such things.

Have you ever tried the Political Compass test? It puts you on a 2D political scale, talking into account both economic and social opinions.


You might be surprised where you end up.
That’s cool. I wonder which quadrant other posters would put me in. And if that’s the result I got. Some of the questions were like a double negative. And if you didn’t know an answer there was no option for that. Very stark choices though.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
749
That's an excellent question.

They claim to be trying to conserve what they call traditional values, but that's just a code phrase meaning "values that suited them".

What they yearn for is a return to when white men ran just about everything in the US, and it was legal to discriminate against just about every other group.

They claim to be in favour of the US constitution and the US declaration of independence, but then ignore any bits that don't suit them, like "all men are created equal".

That's where the white nationalism comes into it. All these documents are to be read from the viewpoint of white men.
Conservatism has a lot to do with ones skin colour, then. That's certainly a radical idea. Is that what you mean ? Finding it hard to believe it, so I thought I would ask.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,938
Twitter
Deiscirt
I'd say that you hold social liberal views, and not conservative ones.

The "Pro protection of minorities. Pro social safety net. Pro progressive tax system. Pro social health care." views make you a social liberal, as opposed to a classical liberal.

Conservatives tend to be more authoritarian than you are. They claim to know what's best for people, and don't bother actually asking the people.

And current US conservatives are definitely against protection of minorities, social safety nets, progressive tax systems and social health care, even if conservatives in other places (especially in Europe) have accepted such things.

Have you ever tried the Political Compass test? It puts you on a 2D political scale, talking into account both economic and social opinions.


You might be surprised where you end up.
I'm social liberal, fiscal conservative. Political compass has me reliably left of centre on social issues and slightly right/ libertarian on everything else. I don't think the left right thing works anymore. Today it's more pro/anti authoritarianism. I'm virulently anti.

Having said that "liberal" has moved left embracing all sorts of palpable garbage like intersectionality and cultural relativism.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,271
I am not sure at all that machine learning/AI would be up to the task and even if it was, it is very doubtful that it would be commercially viable to pay for all the compute power involved to classify each new upload.
Some AI efforts have not ended well.

The problem with applying AI to solving "morality" issues is that it cannot account for Natural Stupidity.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
29,938
Yes I did read the article, it's lies from start to finish designed to persuade people like you to stick to main stream media.
Bad news is generation Z get all their news online and MSM is dying.
Could you tell us if all the ‘news’ you get on YouTube from your favourite ‘creators’ Some of whom you were upset about on this thread are the following

- white
- male
- straight

- If not could you name us one black male you like
- one female
- A black gay
- one black female
- One female black lesbian

Non black is fine too, just as long as he’s not white where I’ve put black above.


- what percentage off all you watch is American, British, Irish, other, roughly

Same questions to Kevin.

Just wondered Benroe about your claims as to credibility and your earlier claims of bias in the MSM and how Youtube is so wonderfully different. Which makes you the receiver of the most unbiased news on the planet. The real truth in the news as it were.
 
Last edited:

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,424
Could you tell us if all the ‘news’ you get on YouTube from your favourite ‘creators’ Some of whom you were upset about on this thread are the following

- white
- male
- straight

- If not could you name us one black male you like
- one female
- A black gay
- one black female
- One female black lesbian

Non black is fine too, just as long as he’s not white where I’ve put black above.


- what percentage off all you watch is American, British, Irish, other, roughly

Same questions to Kevin.

Just wondered Benroe about your claims as to credibility and your earlier claims of bias in the MSM and how Youtube is so wonderfully different. Which makes you the receiver of the most unbiased news on the planet. The real truth in the news as it were.
Why?, so you can judge me on the diversity of those whose opinions I value?
Tell me first what difference a persons skin color ,sexual orientation or nationality has to do with the validity of their opinions.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
21,519
Could you tell us if all the ‘news’ you get on YouTube from your favourite ‘creators’ Some of whom you were upset about on this thread are the following

- white
- male
- straight

- If not could you name us one black male you like
- one female
- A black gay
- one black female
- One female black lesbian

Non black is fine too, just as long as he’s not white where I’ve put black above.


- what percentage off all you watch is American, British, Irish, other, roughly

Same questions to Kevin.

Just wondered Benroe about your claims as to credibility and your earlier claims of bias in the MSM and how Youtube is so wonderfully different. Which makes you the receiver of the most unbiased news on the planet. The real truth in the news as it were.
Indeed. Sourcing their news on the likes of Youtube, far right blogs, Infowars etc is the source of their woeful ignorance on so many subjects.

These people are simply not primary news sources. The likes of the BBC and CNN have correspondents, crews, sources and contacts all over the globe.

Pat Condell, Alex Jones, Paul Watson, Breitbart, Pamela Geller, Gates of Vienna etc have no such sources, and are run and by people simply browsing the web the same as anyone else.

You might as well consider Rasher a primary news source. This is why they come across as very stupid to most people.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,362
Two articles from Vox on the Maza-YouTube "thing".

Apparently, demonetizing the bully has little or nothing to do with Maza - it was done as part of a separate review.



There are two sides to every story. "Snowflakes silence Conservatives!" is a fairly tired old trope at this stage.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
29,938
Why?, so you can judge me on the diversity of those whose opinions I value?
Tell me first what difference a persons skin color ,sexual orientation or nationality has to do with the validity of their opinions.
I merely wanted to explore your claim of non bias in the ‘news’ you’re getting from the algorithms on YouTube.

And no I wouldn’t judge you at all your favourites just happening to be white males with racist, misogynistic homophobic tendencies on the main. I’d totally believe your sources of ‘news’ were credible and wholesome.
 
Last edited:

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
29,938
Indeed. Sourcing their news on the likes of Youtube, far right blogs, Infowars etc is the source of their woeful ignorance on so many subjects.

These people are simply not primary news sources. The likes of the BBC and CNN have correspondents, crews, sources and contacts all over the globe.

Pat Condell, Alex Jones, Paul Watson, Breitbart, Pamela Geller, Gates of Vienna etc have no such sources, and are run and by people simply browsing the web the same as anyone else.

You might as well consider Rasher a primary news source. This is why they come across as very stupid to most people.
I basically had no clue on any of this until about the last week. Thanks to this thread actually. Other than AJ and Breitbart I’ve never of any of the others. I wouldn’t know what AJ looks like. Most I know about him is from on here as people seem obsessed with him. Breitbart to me is Bannon, a good peg below Fox. Something I’d not be interested in

I’ve lived and worked in America for short spaces of time. You literally cannot watch anything on TV over there. There ads every two seconds. Drove me nuts. It’s the most dumbed down tv I’ve ever seen. I wonder is that why the web is proving so popular.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
29,938
So you’re happy a guy called Crowder makes racist and homophobic comment on some ‘channel’. Is he one of your go to guys for news?

And that’s a lie about censorship. The guy is free to continue. Just not fully on YouTube. Who I might add are absolute scum if that CEO declaration is true. I can’t know if that’s true as I’ve no idea how credible is ‘vice’ news.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top