Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[nhytgbvfeco2]

About what portion of criticism leveled at Trump do you think is because he is white? Most complaints leveled at him don't seem to be "because he is white".

What portion of Steven Crowder's criticism of that Vox reporter was because he was gay? hint: none of it. Yet it spawned this current wave of censorship.
And what does it matter what portion anyway?

If someone were making youtube videos calling evangelicals backwards savages that need to be removed from society because they promote genital mutilation of children? Probably.

I remain doubtful. Can you provide an example of such a case?

How about I disagree with what you say, and no-one should be put to death for your right to say ". Much more in keeping when dealing with these fanatics who agitate gullible others into thinking there is some urgent race/religious war to fight.

What happens if your government decides that you can't criticise it? What if saying something bad about May, or maybe Johnson soon enough, gets you into prison? Clearly you are trying to incite some kind of anti-government revolution by daring to criticise it?

[The spartan]

What portion of Steven Crowder's criticism of that Vox reporter was because he was gay? hint: none of it. Yet it spawned this current wave of censorship.
And what does it matter what portion anyway?

Woah, I got whiplash from that whataboutism there, go easy on me. You were basically complaining that people should be deplatformed from youtube for criticizing Trump "for being white". I was saying that happens on a negligible level, so really it just seems like you are crying "they should go after people on the Left too!" out of some misguided appeal to political fairness.

If you want to discuss what Crowder said, we can, but it doesn't look good for him. Now, I get the strong urge to be like "well, what if you replace the words Crowder is saying with 'white' it would be perfectly fine with youtube!", because that is what people in your position always go to, but I can only recommend looking into Protected Groups in the United States and why they exist at all. This desperation for certain people to see "Whites", a dumb category because it is so non-monolithic, as being oppressed and downtrodden is getting ridiculous.

Think about what could even be comparable insults to "white" people Crowder could be leveling in the clip: Crowder is making jokes about gay stereotypes and derogatory terms ("lispy queer" and such). What would these be if he were trying to insult "white" people in the same way? That white people don't have rhythm and can't dance? Calling someone a "honkey"? Such generalized insults for white people don't even exist in the US, though there are plenty for various minority groups.

South Park even made a (brilliant, imo) joke sorta about this back in the day:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I remain doubtful. Can you provide an example of such a case?

You...want me to show you a case of a hypothetical Leftist video about how Evangelicals need to be removed? I don't know of such a video. Shouldn't you be the one to find a video of a Leftist that is expressing violence against Christians that is just being tolerated (I guess in this instance meaning 'monetized') by Youtube?

[Sir Adrian]

It's good that the nationalist extremusts are getting banned but when are we going to ban the other hate groups like feminists, sjws, euro-skeptics, militant/conservative islamists and and extreme leftists in general.

Banning only some of the hate-based ideologies is only a half measure. We need to ban hate fueled ideologies full stop regardless of whether they are based in islam, nazism or communism.



EDIT in case people do not pick up on the obvious i am being sarcastic in order to point the absolute crasse stupidity of baning people you don't like. Hate is diminished through education not silencing the other party.

Feminism really is a hate group though.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Woah, I got whiplash from that whataboutism there, go easy on me. You were basically complaining that people should be deplatformed from youtube for criticizing Trump "for being white".

It's not really whataboutism when it's heavily related to the topic of the thread, and mentioned by the OP's source.
That's not at all what I'm complaining about. Read my previous posts on this thread where I state that I'm against any and all censorship of free speech unless there is a call to violence. What I WAS doing in the part you replied to was pointing out double standard.

I was saying that happens on a negligible level, so really it just seems like you are crying "they should go after people on the Left too!" out of some misguided appeal to political fairness.

I'm asking why the reaction to someone criticising others for being gay is that it is fine to censor, but when it's criticising others for being white it's "negligible". I don't think they should go after people on the left, or right, or any people. But if they are, why not keep it fair and apply it equally to all, rather than only to some?

If you want to discuss what Crowder said, we can, but it doesn't look good for him. Now, I get the strong urge to be like "well, what if you replace the words Crowder is saying with 'white' it would be perfectly fine with youtube!", because that is what people in your position always go to, but I can only recommend looking into Protected Groups in the United States and why they exist at all. This desperation for certain people to see "Whites", a dumb category because it is so non-monolithic, as being oppressed and downtrodden is getting ridiculous.

Maza's twitter handle is @gaywonk, but it's wrong to call him gay? And yeah, it's a comedy show, he's going to make fun of him, people really need to stop getting offended at everything.
Also yeah, white isn't a monolithic group. Neither is black, latino, asian.. so?

You...want me to show you a case of a hypothetical Leftist video about how Evangelicals need to be removed? I don't know of such a video. Shouldn't you be the one to find a video of a Leftist that is expressing violence against Christians that is just being tolerated (I guess in this instance meaning 'monetized') by Youtube?

No, a case where someone got banned for any criticism of Christians really.

It's good that the nationalist extremusts are getting banned but when are we going to ban the other hate groups like feminists, sjws, euro-skeptics, militant/conservative islamists and and extreme leftists in general.

Banning only some of the hate-based ideologies is only a half measure. We need to ban hate fueled ideologies full stop regardless of whether they are based in islam, nazism or communism.

What? since when are Euro-sceptics a hate group?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Feminism really is a hate group though.

Yep, its surely the fault of those feministic women to be victims in Romania. How can they dare to be not finish with cooking, when the master of the house is coming back from work? Or dare to have a opposing opinion against the wishes of the godgiven patriarch of the family?

In Romania, 800 people were killed in DV incidents between 2004-2011.^[7] The laws on DV are not strictly enforced - one year after the 2012 law, there had been 1.009 files for protection orders; only 23% ended in criminal proceedings as they were supposed to.^[8]

In the 2010 Eurobarometer poll on violence against women, 39% of Romanian respondents said that they thought DV in their country was "very common", 45% "fairly common", 8% "not very common", 0% "not at all common", and 8% did not know/did not answer.^[9] Victim blaming attitudes are common in Romania. In a 2013 Romanian survey, 30.9% of respondents agreed with the assertion that "women are sometimes beaten due to their own fault".^[10] In the 2010 Eurobarometer survey, 58% of Romanians agreed that the "provocative behaviour of women" was a cause of violence against women.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest...nce_in_Romania

Such NONSENSE claims show how justified feminism still is and what bs "femnazis" whataboutism is.

[Heathen Hammer]

The ironic part is that "deplatforming" doesn't really work, since "hateful" (by "hate" of course, establishment wants us to believe is anything that implies not hating your own people or simply not embracing globalist nonsense), while it is becoming incredibly evident that corporate virtue signaling doesn't align itself with profits - we already see that on example of lamestream media outlets, which have to fire scores of propagandists due to lack of revenue, from CNN and MSNBC to Vox and Vice.
In the same way, youtube does cut the branch on which it is sitting on. Pretty much the reason why I canceled youtube preimum and use adblock whenever I'm on it since the last few years, when this trend started.
Bitchute is also becoming a more viable alternative (as far as political content goes), I recommend using it (and other alt-tech in general)instead of youtube when possible. Once they get their app game in order they'll pretty much become superior in all aspects.
Having said that, corporate oligopolies do remain a threat to society's capability of idea exchange - which is why I don't see anything bad in either breaking up corporate oligopolies, or defining them as public utility (despite thier "private" status) and thus stripping their "right" to deny anyone platform.

[The spartan]

It's not really whataboutism when it's heavily related to the topic of the thread, and mentioned by the OP's source.
That's not at all what I'm complaining about. Read my previous posts on this thread where I state that I'm against any and all censorship of free speech unless there is a call to violence. What I WAS doing in the part you replied to was pointing out double standard.

I mean you gave up the "criticizing Trump for being white" thing really fast and immediately switched to Crowder. And I am not exactly going to take you at your word that you are proud Liberal that defends free speech no matter what.

I'm asking why the reaction to someone criticising others for being gay is that it is fine to censor, but when it's criticising others for being white it's "negligible".

Wait, you think referring to somebody as a "lispy queer" or calling them "an angry little queer" a critique? They are insults, and the problem with these particular insults is that they are homophobic, and homophobia in the US has a pretty messed up history. "White"-o-phobia hasn't really had the same issues...

I don't think they should go after people on the left, or right, or any people. But if they are, why not keep it fair and apply it equally to all, rather than only to some?

But we don't actually think of political groups that way. Imagine if the most heinous political organizations (Nazis, Stalinists, Khmer Rouge) of history got up in arms because their propaganda videos got demonetized. Would you be coming in here and saying that if they are demonetized, their political opposites need to be demonetized as well? Political parties and affiliations are not morally neutral things.

Maza's twitter handle is @gaywonk, but it's wrong to call him gay? And yeah, it's a comedy show, he's going to make fun of him, people really need to stop getting offended at everything.

Is this more just, dishonesty or something? I can never tell with you. Crowder didn't get in trouble for "calling him gay". Did you see the clip? There are some homophobic slurs in there that are kinda hard to defend (but boy, are you trying).

Also yeah, white isn't a monolithic group. Neither is black, latino, asian.. so?

This was literally why I brought up and linked Protected Groups. You see, here in the United States, we have had historical issues where it was deemed permissible to dismiss, demean, or even harm individuals in certain minority groups. We, therefor, made certain protections for these groups when it comes to basic living practices (laws against housing discrimination, loan discrimination, business discrimination, etc.) so that the significant number of people who wanted to harm these groups of people couldn't do so. Homosexuals are one such group, in the US, and have a rather sordid history of being mistreated. When you pay homage to those days, and use derogatory terms that were once used as a much more direct form of oppression, that is obviously going to freak people out in a way that you wouldn't get with a not as targeted group. "Whites" are not a particularly at-risk group in the US, as history has shown us.

You even skipped over my whole "equivalent insult" example; what kind of insults could Crowder have leveled at "white" people that would have been comparable to his homophobic insults (lispy queer, angry little queer)? What stereotypical insults could he have leveled at "white" people?

No, a case where someone got banned for any criticism of Christians really.

No, you would have to provide an example of a youtube channel that posts Christianphobic stuff that is being monetized. I can't prove a negative to you. Maybe no such examples exist, I don't know.

[Aexodus]

It’s quite sad isn’t it when ribbing someone is likened to racism and homophobia.

[The spartan]

It’s quite sad isn’t it when ribbing someone is likened to racism and homophobia.

Have you heard the things he said? You think that is good natured?

[Cope]

Have you heard the things he said? You think that is good natured?

I was going to say that I've heard worse in South Park and Family Guy, but then I realized that even the BBC publishes more risqué material. Not that anyone should be fooled into believing that this is anything other than a power grab by large multinational corporations.

[The spartan]

I was going to say that I've heard worse in South Park and Family Guy, but then I realized that even the BBC publishes more risqué material. Not that anyone should be fooled into believing that this is anything other than a power grab by large multinational corporations.

Ignoring that Crowder's production is not really similar to South Park or Family Guy; how is this a power grab? No legal precedents have changed here, we have let these platforms self-regulate for years. We got that capitalism, baby! I would be very interested seeing some ideas of legislation that would soothe the ego of the ever-persecuted Right wing, because it just sounds like they want to be a snowflake Protected Group as well.

[Cope]

Ignoring that Crowder's production is not really similar to South Park or Family Guy; how is this a power grab?

Whether the productions are similar isn't relevant: all three programs use "offensive" comedy to make political commentaries. The outrage over Crowder's content - which predictably appeals to "hate speech" concerns - is so selective that one would be a fool to believe that it was motivated by his humour.

No legal precedents have changed here, we have let these platforms self-regulate for years. We got that capitalism, baby! I would be very interested seeing some ideas of legislation that would soothe the ego of the ever-persecuted Right wing, because it just sounds like they want to be a snowflake Protected Group as well.

This isn't an issue of left vs. right. It's simply another episode in the ongoing attempt by large multinational media corporations to collude with advertisers, tech giants and the political establishment to monopolize digital spaces.

[The spartan]

Whether the productions are similar isn't relevant: all three programs use "offensive" comedy to make political commentaries. The outrage over Crowder's content - which predictably appeals to "hate speech" concerns - is so selective that one would be a fool to believe that it was motivated by his humour.

I mean, Crowder certainly seems to be somehow personally involved with the guy he is insulting, using classic homophobic insults, and he got his advertisements pulled. Is this new or novel in any way? His content wasn't even removed, you can still go and watch it. I don't recall Family Guy or South Park ever making "jokes" Crowder made. Oh sure, they use bad words, but I don't think either show hammered multiple "lol, get a load of this queer" "jokes" over and over again about a person they were having a personal dispute with. C'mon he is personally insulting the guy with homophobic slurs, broadcasts shows don't do that.

This isn't an issue of left vs. right. It's simply another episode in the ongoing attempt by large multinational media corporations to collude with advertisers, tech giants and the political establishment to monopolize digital spaces.

I actually agree with this to some extent (though I think you would find "anti-establishment" politicians lap up lobbing money as fast as "establishment" politicians), but this was the Faustian bargain we made as Americans when we fully embraced corporatism. The Left has spent years trying to take shots at corporations, but the Right likes to protect them. Don't want to tax them, don't want let unions or regulations have teeth, but now we have people like HH who unironically talk about having the State seize internet platforms and it is like "Seize the means of production comrades!"

[saxdude]

Maybe it's just that the mods in the forum have become increasingly complacent, but a lot of the resident alt-righters seem to be forgetting they throw up their tangents in a forum that will actively warn and ban them for saying slurs, at least according to the TOS.

Mongrel it is not just extremists getting demonetised. Journalists, educators, comedians are all being censored.

For a while now, leftwing youtubers (that people with low education levels call SJW) have had their accounts suspended, banned, demonitized, etc. by the Youtube Algoritm. Mostly because they get reported by a bunch of alt-right turds, but also because their content doesn't abide to some arbitrary measure of ad acceptability. Same thing i've personally seen happen to hunting youtubers, vegan youtubers, artist youtubers, gaming youtuber's, critic youtubers and the list goes on. None break the Youtube TOS.
Curiously enough, right wing youtubers, especially of the white nationalist, racist and homophobic variety don't, even when reported several times.

Now, anyone that is even remotely familiar with the comings and goings of Youtube knows that, for years now, youtube has been famously incompetent with how it manages it's TOS, famously idiotic in it's refusal to curate and leave everything to algorithms and famously sycophantic to corporations and advertisers, unless the youtuber, like Crowder is big enough that they will make enough of a fuss that forces them to fix an issue.

It occurs to me that the bunch that are whinging about censorship in this thread, are the kind of people who's horse binders are so tightly placed they can't even begin to acknowledge that there exists a community outside their propagandist circle jerk. That perhaps, what they think is exclusively happening to them is actually a widespread problem and that Crowder's demonitization was actually well deserved, Youtube has only acted because it was being called out for picking and choosing who can get away with breaking their terms of service and who can't.

[Coughdrop addict]

Say I made a video praising the Clinton foundation for the good it does while pointing out that the Trump Foundation was shut down for fraud. And then I not only demand Breitbart or Fox host the video on their site, but pay me to do so. And when they refuse I then claim it's all a massive conspiracy and some kind of genocide and that the government should force them to host my video and pay me for it.

Sounds pretty ridiculous huh?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I mean you gave up the "criticizing Trump for being white" thing really fast and immediately switched to Crowder. And I am not exactly going to take you at your word that you are proud Liberal that defends free speech no matter what.

I didn't, I asked you why it matters what portion of the criticism it is, and you haven't given much of an answer.
I didn't say that I was liberal, I said that that ideal was. I'm more of a conservative, somewhat libertarian. Though conservative is a broad term and means something different in every country.

Wait, you think referring to somebody as a "lispy queer" or calling them "an angry little queer" a critique? They are insults, and the problem with these particular insults is that they are homophobic, and homophobia in the US has a pretty messed up history. "White"-o-phobia hasn't really had the same issues...

Why is queer an insult? isn't it the Q in LGBTQ? And Maza called himself a "queer creator" in an unrelated tweet, and had hosted an event called "queering the blank slate", so clearly he has no problem with calling himself queer and in fact does so. Why can he call himself queer but others can't? Imagine if I introduced myself "Hey, I'm Dan, I'm a Jew, but if you call me a Jew then that's anti-semetism".
And yeah, he made some fun of his lisp. Since when is that homophobic? But nah, not a critique, but a joke.

But we don't actually think of political groups that way. Imagine if the most heinous political organizations (Nazis, Stalinists, Khmer Rouge) of history got up in arms because their propaganda videos got demonetized. Would you be coming in here and saying that if they are demonetized, their political opposites need to be demonetized as well? Political parties and affiliations are not morally neutral things.

I didn't say political opposites, I said that if it is applied, that it should be fairly applied to all.

Is this more just, dishonesty or something? I can never tell with you. Crowder didn't get in trouble for "calling him gay". Did you see the clip? There are some homophobic slurs in there that are kinda hard to defend (but boy, are you trying).

Such as? Queer? The term Maza also uses to refer to himself by?

This was literally why I brought up and linked Protected Groups. You see, here in the United States, we have had historical issues where it was deemed permissible to dismiss, demean, or even harm individuals in certain minority groups. We, therefor, made certain protections for these groups when it comes to basic living practices (laws against housing discrimination, loan discrimination, business discrimination, etc.) so that the significant number of people who wanted to harm these groups of people couldn't do so. Homosexuals are one such group, in the US, and have a rather sordid history of being mistreated. When you pay homage to those days, and use derogatory terms that were once used as a much more direct form of oppression, that is obviously going to freak people out in a way that you wouldn't get with a not as targeted group. "Whites" are not a particularly at-risk group in the US, as history has shown us.

Oh, so whites would first need to be oppressed for a couple decades or centuries before "fk white people" becomes a racist saying, cool.
Irish were oppressed in the US too during the early days, what special protection are they given?

You even skipped over my whole "equivalent insult" example; what kind of insults could Crowder have leveled at "white" people that would have been comparable to his homophobic insults (lispy queer, angry little queer)? What stereotypical insults could he have leveled at "white" people?

Cracker?

No, you would have to provide an example of a youtube channel that posts Christianphobic stuff that is being monetized. I can't prove a negative to you. Maybe no such examples exist, I don't know.

There's no real way to know if a video is monetised. Even if it does play ads, they could be run by a company that claimed the video, such as what happened with several of Sargon of Akkad's videos.

[Heathen Hammer]

Say I made a video praising the Clinton foundation for the good it does while pointing out that the Trump Foundation was shut down for fraud. And then I not only demand Breitbart or Fox host the video on their site, but pay me to do so. And when they refuse I then claim it's all a massive conspiracy and some kind of genocide and that the government should force them to host my video and pay me for it.

Sounds pretty ridiculous huh?

Yeah, because this has nothing to do with big tech's current war on independent content creators, who are being slandered with intentionally vague and meaningless concepts such as "spreading hate".

[TheLeft]

1) Your username is obviously a lie then.

Wait?? Does that mean you actually ARE the Cookie God?? A thousand apologies Your Chocolatey Biscuitness...

2) Hiding behind the "free market" argument is a dumb thing to do for three reasons: 1: We're clearly dealing with an oligopoly here. So free market principles do not apply.

They really do. Unless you are advocating for the Nationalisation of YouTube. Also people agree to the Terms and Conditions when they sign up. If you either can't be bothered to read the T's&C's or break the agreement for the use of their free service, don't be surprised if you have your services revoked. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Also, since when was every entertainer and media personality utterly dependant on YouTube?

2: Before talking about "the right to refuse service" you should know what critical infrastructure is.

Mate, I work in Server Hosting (both locally and in the cloud), if you honestly think that YouTube comedy videos represent 'Critical Infrastructure', then I can't really help you.

3: The right to refuse services are already limited. Or do you want corporations to be allowed to refuse gay people and people of colour service?

Nice strawman.

3) Critical infrastructure seems to be a foreign concept to you. It is a very basic, and widely applied concept - across the globe. Every government does, and has the obligation to, make sure that private enterprises do not work in a way that harms their interests and values.

I'd actually pay real money to see you turn up to a job interview for an IT role and proclaim that YouTube comedy videos are 'critical infrastructure'. Your internet link? Yes. YouTube? No.

4) Don't pretend you don't know why they're doing the censorship. Not because of morals, but because of outside, but extralegal pressure.

Got a source for that?

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Yep, its surely the fault of those feministic women to be victims in Romania. How can they dare to be not finish with cooking, when the master of the house is coming back from work? Or dare to have a opposing opinion against the wishes of the godgiven patriarch of the family?

In Romania, 800 people were killed in DV incidents between 2004-2011.^[7] The laws on DV are not strictly enforced - one year after the 2012 law, there had been 1.009 files for protection orders; only 23% ended in criminal proceedings as they were supposed to.^[8]

In the 2010 Eurobarometer poll on violence against women, 39% of Romanian respondents said that they thought DV in their country was "very common", 45% "fairly common", 8% "not very common", 0% "not at all common", and 8% did not know/did not answer.^[9] Victim blaming attitudes are common in Romania. In a 2013 Romanian survey, 30.9% of respondents agreed with the assertion that "women are sometimes beaten due to their own fault".^[10] In the 2010 Eurobarometer survey, 58% of Romanians agreed that the "provocative behaviour of women" was a cause of violence against women.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest...nce_in_Romania

Such NONSENSE claims show how justified feminism still is and what bs "femnazis" whataboutism is.

Yeah, no, he's absolutely correct. Feminism is a hate group. Women are turning their backs on that lunacy en masse.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Regarding Milo, let's be honest here. He's not in debt from deplatforming. He's in debt because he prefers 600 dollar sunglasses, 200 haircuts, anal relaxant drugs (his own words) and hosting massive sybaritic parties.

Anyone who makes a craptonne of cash from the political outrage industry like him, only allegedly to go into debt, has nobody to blame but himself.