Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 352

Thread: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

  1. #101
    Captain Arrrgh!'s Avatar I'z in yer grass
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Skull Island
    Posts
    6,588

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Well, you did spoonfeed it to me:
    on par with various other statements by you.
    Bottom line being you support the persecution of political opponents, expressly McCarthyism, and hate muslim immigration.

    Not that it matters. By refusing to clarify, you allow us to assume whatever we want about you. Not that anyone cares that much about you.
    I only do because it's so hilarious that you and those on the other side support the same policy. You just don't agree on who the victim should be.

    But since you don't want to contribute.
    It's not refusing to clarify, it's that you can't understand even middle of the road concepts, and are ignorant of history. There's nothing I can do about this.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; June 08, 2019 at 01:23 PM. Reason: Offensive order deleted.

  2. #102

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    I am of two minds on the subject actually. I don't like the idea of the government forcing you to do business with someone. But I can see why it is sometimes necessary, as otherwise we'd still have white only establishments and Jim Crow laws.

    As for your second point, you of course know that both Brietbart and Fox also have videos on their sites. Whether or not they are social media is irrelevant. You can't simply dismiss my point. If Youtube can be forced to pay money to host a video, why can't they? Why couldn't I demand that your place of business host any video I want on it's site and claim I'm being oppressed if they refuse?



    Contrary to right-wing propaganda, we liberals don't see corporations as inherently bad things. It's only when they try to buy political influence to get around the laws that prevent them from abusing their employees, cheating their customers, and poisoning the environment that we have a problem with them.
    It's only when they try to buy political influence to get around the laws that prevent them from abusing their employees, cheating their customers, and poisoning the environment that we have a problem with them.
    LOL, but they do these things all the time. All these things increase their income, and this is exactly what these entities exist for, increasing their income and influence. But there is an interesting point to be made from what you said.
    You are, in fact, admitting, that entities that "try to buy political influence to get around the laws that prevent them from abusing their employees, cheating their customers, and poisoning the environment" are actually AGAINST groups that the OP refers to as "nazis". Interesting thought. And what do liberal groups do when say, a corporation bans "nazi" groups but at the same time bypasses some laws on employee rights? Protest against the corporation and at the same time praise the corporation? Praise the corporation one day and organise a protest against it on the next day? Must be somewhat confusing to be a liberal sometimes.

  3. #103

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    You are, in fact, admitting, that entities that "try to buy political influence to get around the laws that prevent them from abusing their employees, cheating their customers, and poisoning the environment" are actually AGAINST groups that the OP refers to as "nazis".
    Okay, let's go over this again. Banning hate groups from your platform and videos full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now" is generally seen as a good thing by liberals.

    See, we liberals think that gunning down innocent people because you hate them for their religion or skin color is bad.

    We also believe that using money to get around the law, to hurt others, is bad.

    And what do liberal groups do when say, a corporation bans "nazi" groups but at the same time bypasses some laws on employee rights? Protest against the corporation and at the same time praise the corporation? Praise the corporation one day and organise a protest against it on the next day?
    A big corporation should be held accountable when it breaks the law. That's another liberal belief.
    Last edited by Coughdrop addict; June 08, 2019 at 10:17 PM.

  4. #104

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Okay, let's go over this again. Banning hate groups from your platform and videos full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now" is generally seen as a good thing by liberals.
    Is that the only thing Youtube did was 'ban hate groups' whose video's were full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now"?

  5. #105

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    Is that the only thing Youtube did was 'ban hate groups' whose video's were full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now"?
    Is the thing Youtube did was go after right-leaning youtubers to push their own political agenda, because that's what Youtube cares about most?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  6. #106

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Is the thing Youtube did was go after right-leaning youtubers to push their own political agenda, because that's what Youtube cares about most?
    Don't forget people have died, live on Youtube, over these daft and cultish beliefs. Gone are the old days when the extent of activity amounted to the occaisional gammon-rant from Pat Condell.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  7. #107

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Okay, let's go over this again. Banning hate groups from your platform and videos full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now" is generally seen as a good thing by liberals.

    See, we liberals think that gunning down innocent people because you hate them for their religion or skin color is bad.
    Oh gee! I didn't see it that way. You know, until now I thought that was great. But now I only wish there were laws against libel, incitement of hatred, etc. Oh wait. There are in almost all countries, and even the US 1st amendment doesn't cover calls for violence?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    We also believe that using money to get around the law, to hurt others, is bad.

    A big corporation should be held accountable when it breaks the law. That's another liberal belief.
    But you don't think giving them full control over a big part of public discourse and thereby elections is bad. Nor do you think discrimination based on political beliefs are a bad thing. And whilst you want corporations to adhere to the law, you simultaneously also want them to replace it. ^^
    It all seems very anarcho-capitalist to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vince Gilligan
    I can't think of a movie where I like it that the bad guy gets dumb, because it's like I want the bad guy to be smart smart smart, so the good guy has to be even smarter!
    Please stop using politics as an excuse for bad writing.
    That being said: A deep philosophical take about god, Nietzsche, Marx & faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    So deep!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    A polished masterpiece!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    Hey! I never said any of those things!

  8. #108

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    An excerpt from an essay (PDF) by Daphne Keller who is the Director of Intermediary Liability at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society:

    Arguments That Platforms Are Essential Channels for Communication Another major must-carry argument is that platforms with high market share should have special obligations as de facto gatekeepers of public discourse. A number of legal doctrines—some focused on speech and ideas, others on economic competition—speak to this issue. Many are old, and in my opinion none create cognizable legal claims today. But these laws are more malleable than the constitutional law in the company town and shopping mall cases. The current push for platform regulation could drive legislative change, or spur courts to revive doctrines to support plaintiffs’ claims.

    One widely discussed idea holds that major platforms are like utilities: essential, unavoidable, and monopolistic services to which customers should be guaranteed access. This argument, while not actionable by plaintiffs in private litigation, could in principle be embraced by Congress in new legislation. It is bolstered by the idea that platforms, particularly social networks, may be natural monopolies, unavoidably tending toward concentration and best managed as a single operation. The “platform as utility” model has gained traction across the political spectrum, including from sources as far to the political right as Steve Bannon.88

    A related approach comes from the essential-facilities doctrine in antitrust, which in the past led to things like compulsory access to the only railroad line going into a town.89 The doctrine’s vitality today is debated, as is its wisdom. Like other historical approaches to competition law, though, it could see revival as part of the current wave of platform regulation proposals. Similar claims could also be raised based on traditional common-carriage law, which required entities such as railroads or shipping companies to accept all lawful packages and not modify their contents. At least one of the recent must-carry cases unsuccessfully raised this argument, based on California’s codification of common law.90 Like the California constitutional claim discussed above, though, state common-carriage arguments are likely to be preempted by federal legislation.

    Traditional sources of law about control over channels for speech—as opposed to channels for trade and competition—are less common. Laws expressly designed to limit communications channel owners’ power over the content they carry emerged in response to twentieth-century technologies. They were eventually codified in the dense body of federal law administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).91 Over time, these included rules like the fairness doctrine for broadcasters and net-neutrality obligations for internet access providers.

    This body of law does not currently support must-carry claims against user-facing platforms like Facebook or YouTube, because Congress emphatically declined to extend it to them in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The CDA, which passed as part of that act, declared Congress's intention to “preserve the vibrant and competitive free market” for internet services “unfettered by Federal or State regulation,” and immunized platforms from most obligations to either carry or remove content. But Congress could, as Republican members have recently threatened, try to change the law to create carriage obligations. If they did, the massive body of past and current federal communications law would be highly relevant. For one thing, these laws provide the dominant and familiar model for US regulation of speech and communication intermediaries. Any serious proposal to legislate must-carry obligations would draw on this history. For another, and importantly for plaintiffs in today’s cases, these laws have been heavily litigated and are still being litigated today. They provide important precedent for weighing the speech rights of individual users against those of platforms.

    Platforms’ First Amendment Defenses If must-carry proponents ever convinced courts to recognize their claims or got Congress to create new statutory rights, their work would not be done. The next and very major hurdle would be to overcome platforms’ objections based on their own First Amendment rights. This set of arguments, made most prominently by Eugene Volokh and Donald Falk in work commissioned by Google, says that platforms express editorial judgment through their ranking and removal choices.92 Laws overriding these choices and forcing platforms to feature different content would compel them to say something else instead, in violation of the First Amendment.

    This is a strong argument. As discussed above, it has carried the day for platforms in a number of recent cases. The Supreme Court has recognized analogous rights for other entities resisting must-carry obligations, ranging from cable companies to parade organizers.93 In Miami Herald v. Tornillo, for example, it overturned a law requiring newspapers to print responses to articles.94 Similarly, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, it upheld a parade organizer’s right to exclude a gay-rights organization, calling it a protected editorial choice.95 But these rights do not provide an absolute trump card. In other cases, the Court has said they these rights must yield in order to protect the speech and information rights of the larger public. The Court required cable companies to carry local broadcast stations, for example, in the 1990s Turner rulings. A number of broad propositions can be distilled from these cases, but many questions remain.

    Legislation One takeaway from the Supreme Court cases is, unsurprisingly, that it helps to have Congress on your side. Federal statutes and FCC-administered regulations supported the must-carry mandates for cable companies in Turner, and similar laws supported rulings in the broadcast space.96 PruneYard, which recognized activists’ right to speak in a shopping mall based on California’s state constitution, is a rare exception. No such statutes support plaintiffs in today’s must-carry claims against platforms, at least so far. That makes it much harder for them to overcome platforms’ First Amendment arguments.

    Scarcity and Economic Considerations Another important theme of the communications cases is the “scarcity rationale,” the principle that regulation, and the resulting burden on owners’ First Amendment rights, may be justified to ensure fair access to physically finite, exhaustible communications channels. The Court developed this doctrine in upholding fairness requirements for broadcast spectrum and later applied similar reasoning to cable. Some degree of government interference with the companies’ rights was justified, the Court said, to keep them from restricting, “through physical control of a critical pathway of communication, the free flow of information and ideas.”97

    Platforms like Twitter or YouTube do not exercise the kind of physical bottleneck control over communications that supported the Court’s rulings against cable companies. In this sense, user-facing platforms are also different from present-day internet access providers like ISPs, whose First Amendment challenge to net-neutrality rules was rejected by the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, in 2016.98 Speakers banned from a site like YouTube can still speak on Reddit or Twitter; users kicked off of those platforms may find a home on Gab or 4chan. They can also put content online using their own servers.

    Many critics argue, though, that the platform ecosystem has created new forms of scarcity. Even if users can still speak on less-popular platforms, they argue, those may be inadequate because not enough other people are there to listen or respond.99 Following this argument, the economic success of a handful of platforms, and the resulting concentration of users—perhaps aided by network effects or natural monopoly dynamics—effectively creates new bottlenecks and scarcity of communications channels.

    Is economic dominance—or dominance in the “attention marketplace”—enough to justify must-carry obligations and override platforms’ own speech rights? Must-carry claimants would say yes, arguing that major platforms, like the cable companies in Turner, control “critical pathway[s] of communication.”100 Platforms would say that they are instead like the parade in Hurley: “enviable vehicle[s] for the dissemination of [one’s] views” but possessed of no “abiding monopoly of access to spectators.”101 This dispute, with its family resemblance to competition or antitrust law, appears in some First Amendment cases as a question about whether speakers have adequate alternate channels to speak and access information. In other cases, the Court expressly considers economic competition and market share.

    In 1990s cases about must-carry rules for cable, the Supreme Court split over Congress’s authority to override carriers’ First Amendment interests on grounds other than competition. Justice Kennedy’s four-justice controlling opinion in Turner II recognized the government’s interest in “preserving a multiplicity of broadcast outlets” and said Congress could act “regardless of whether the conduct that threatens it is motivated by anti-competitive animus or rises to the level of an antitrust violation.”102 But Kennedy’s replacement on the Court, Brett Kavanaugh, sees economic competition as the core justification for must-carry obligations. In a dissent written as a DC Circuit judge, he said that “absent some market dysfunction,” imposing net-neutrality rules on ISPs would violate their First Amendment rights. “If market power need not be shown,” he wrote, “the Government could regulate the editorial decisions of Facebook and Google” or “impose forced-carriage or equal-access obligations on YouTube and Twitter.”103

    As will be discussed below, a case now pending before the Court, Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck,104 will give Kavanaugh and the other current justices a chance to weigh in again on the tension between cable operators’ and cable programmers’ First Amendment rights—and, by implication, on the viability of must-carry claims for internet platforms.
    In summery, neither current US law nor precedent support must-carry arguments for social media, but there is some potential for this to change.
    Last edited by sumskilz; June 09, 2019 at 05:04 AM. Reason: added PDF link
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  9. #109

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Okay, let's go over this again. Banning hate groups from your platform and videos full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now" is generally seen as a good thing by liberals.

    See, we liberals think that gunning down innocent people because you hate them for their religion or skin color is bad.

    We also believe that using money to get around the law, to hurt others, is bad.



    A big corporation should be held accountable when it breaks the law. That's another liberal belief.

    Banning hate groups from your platform and videos full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now" is generally seen as a good thing by liberals.
    If I insert "ISIS" in the (insert people) slot, would that be seen as an acceptable, or an unacceptable statement, according to liberals?

    See, we liberals think that gunning down innocent people because you hate them for their religion or skin color is bad
    I agree with the above statement, without being a liberal myself. In fact, I would like to expand it. I also think that mowing down innocent people with a truck or similar vehicle because you hate them for their religion or skin color is bad, as well. Yet, for some reason, when I make that statement, some liberals will refer to me as a "nazi". In fact, I 've read that inevitably, some of the people who enjoy mowing down innocents because of their skin color or religion, will "slip through the cracks", and that this is ok. Who is the "nazi" here? Me, or the people who are willing to accept such "collateral damage"?
    You see, sometimes the line is not too clear, is it?

  10. #110

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    If I insert "ISIS" in the (insert people) slot, would that be seen as an acceptable, or an unacceptable statement, according to liberals?
    Not only is ISIS propaganda banned but their authors can either expect imprisonment or a drone strike, tough but fair. If only those Generation Indentity types could expect similar treatment.



    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    I agree with the above statement, without being a liberal myself. In fact, I would like to expand it. I also think that mowing down innocent people with a truck or similar vehicle because you hate them for their religion or skin color is bad, as well. Yet, for some reason, when I make that statement, some liberals will refer to me as a "nazi".
    Darren Osborne killed a Muslim pensioner whilst doing just that, having read something by Tommy Robinson. That Charlottesville guy likewise. Both events were discussed in detail on this forum. I invite anyone who condemned the attacks ( that rules out some) to say whether they were callled Nazis. I wasn't.
    Last edited by chriscase; June 09, 2019 at 02:53 PM. Reason: personal references removed
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  11. #111

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    The ironic part is that censorship advocates can't even coherently define "hate groups" or what "hate" even is. Not to mention that giving de-facto political powers to corporate oligopolies is hardly liberal and definitely nothing to do with concerns for working class or economic equality. Pretty much people who defend this are what Bezmenov described as "useful idiots".
    The reality of the situation is that the whole "anti-hate" nonsense is pushed by corporate entities (whose audience is dwindling) in an attempt to suppress alt-tech and independent content creators regardless of their political beliefs or creed.

  12. #112

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    The ironic part is that censorship advocates can't even coherently define "hate groups" or what "hate" even is.
    Neither can the corporations that declare the "ban on hate speech". It is deliberately left vague, so that people can't "dance around" such bans. The funny thing is that it's just not going to be implemented. How can, for example the YT authorities ban a video message with audio that isn't in English? How can they ban content that uses code phrases, such as "you know who" when discussing X or Y group?
    No matter how "open" they leave the interpretation, there's always going to be ways to deal with these bans.

    It's really interesting, though, I doubt whether anyone gets banned in any social medium or YT for, say attacking the Christian religion. At least I can't say I've seen it, I don't know if anyone else has.

    Not only is ISIS propaganda banned but their authors can either expect imprisonment or a drone strike, tough but fair. If only those Generation Indentity types could expect similar treatment.
    Niiiice, wishing drone strikes upon people who disagree with your views, and comparing them to actual terrorist groups that are responsible for the deaths of thousands. Very interesting.
    Last edited by ioannis76; June 09, 2019 at 02:49 PM.

  13. #113

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post

    Niiiice, asking for drone strikes against people who disagree with your views, and comparing them to actual terrorist groups that are responsible for the deaths of thousands. Very interesting.
    You suggesting that the killings in Christchucrh , Utoya, Charlottesville and Finsbury Park were not terrorist attacks, but mere expressions of a point of view? This is why these bans are necessary, obviously something is affecting your critical judgment of these crimes.
    Last edited by mongrel; June 09, 2019 at 02:54 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  14. #114

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    You suggesting that the killings in Christchucrh , Utoya, Charlottesville and Finsbury Park were not terrorist attacks, but mere expressions of a point of view?
    Are you suggesting that the thousands upon thousands who are part of the "Generation Identity" (had to look that one up, to be honest) were part of the killings you mentioned and/or others? I think that the people responsible for these crimes were the people who committed them. If, of course there were collaborators and/or enablers they should of course have the legal consequences. But I doubt that those thousands who merely question the whole illegal immigration issue are responsible for any crime, let alone for a crime that calls for a drone strike.
    I mean, wouldn't that type of statement call for a drone strike against sovereign european governments, such as the Italian government, which is anti-immigration?
    Last edited by ioannis76; June 09, 2019 at 03:04 PM.

  15. #115

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    Are you suggesting that the thousands upon thousands who are part of the "Generation Identity" (had to look that one up, to be honest) were part of the killings you mentioned and/or others?
    Yes, equally in much the same way as the thousands of jihadis post tweets and videos of terrorist acts in order to recruit more nutters and raise funds for their cause. There is no excuse for supporting such causes.

    The Italian government isn't murding people in cold blood.At the time when it had a fascist/racist government, deporting Jews to their death, , the RAF and USAF bombed Italy to buggery.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  16. #116
    Facupay's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    1,119

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    Are you suggesting that the thousands upon thousands who are part of the "Generation Identity" (had to look that one up, to be honest) were part of the killings you mentioned and/or others? I think that the people responsible for these crimes were the people who committed them. If, of course there were collaborators and/or enablers they should of course have the legal consequences. But I doubt that those thousands who merely question the whole illegal immigration issue are responsible for any crime, let alone for a crime that calls for a drone strike.
    I mean, wouldn't that type of statement call for a drone strike against sovereign european governments, such as the Italian government, which is anti-immigration?
    There's no reasoning with the left, they just want to ban whatever ideas they don't like. It's textbook procedure for them. I mean, wanting to control immigration makes you liable to what some insane psycho does and is similar to supporting terrorist groups because these are dangerous ideas that should not be allowed to spread. Who determines which are the dangerous ideas? them of course. And their ideas are never danergous of course because they are the champions of truth and equality. This is their level of cynicism that just can't be reasoned with.

    Instead of arguing or trying to refute what the "bigots" say, they merely try to remove their capacity to speak because people should be taught correct ideas as defined by them. Only approved people may be able to have a voice.

    And to further take this into full insanity, they are now allied to megacoprporations who seek to pander to their totalitarian ideology so that they can take selfies in Diversity months while they get record profit.

    Edit
    A short video on tht real issue behind this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWmi7VklAI
    Last edited by Facupay; June 09, 2019 at 06:55 PM.
    HUMAN IS FISH ISLAM IS WATER. COME TO WATER AND BE RELAX...


  17. #117

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    The primary issue is that liberal left is afraid of free market of ideas. They want censorship not because ideas they oppose are "hateful" (since both socialism and liberalism easily outweigh nationalism in death tolls they caused), but because if ideas are presented in a rational debate, liberal left simply can't win.

  18. #118

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Yes, equally in much the same way as the thousands of jihadis post tweets and videos of terrorist acts in order to recruit more nutters and raise funds for their cause. There is no excuse for supporting such causes.

    The Italian government isn't murding people in cold blood.At the time when it had a fascist/racist government, deporting Jews to their death, , the RAF and USAF bombed Italy to buggery.
    So you disagree with the statement made by some left media, according to which the decision of the Salvini Government to expel thousands of Roma is an action reminiscent of the "fscist past":
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...matteo-salvini
    It's good to know.

    About Mussolini, actually, he refused to deport Italian Jews to Germany:
    The Italian Army actively protected Jews in occupation zones, to the frustration of Nazi Germany, and to the point where the Italian sector in Croatia was referred to as the "Promised Land".[13] Up to September 1943, Germany made no serious attempt to force Mussolini and Fascist Italy into handing over Italian Jews. It was nevertheless irritated with the Italian refusal to arrest and deport its Jewish population, feeling it encouraged other countries allied with the Axis powers to refuse as well.[14]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Italy

    Other than that, it is amazing that you would actually support a drone strike against people whose only crime is to disagree with you on issues such as immigration (I am actually one of these people). I think that HH was correct, the only thing we need to do in order to expose the left for what it is, is to actually let them speak.
    Last edited by ioannis76; June 10, 2019 at 12:57 PM.

  19. #119

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Facupay View Post
    , they just want to ban whatever ideas they don't like.

    It is more than reasonable to want incitement to terrorism and murder removed from social media.Likewise harassment and what have you. What is wrong with people? Whst kind of politically correct daftness suggests that white nationalist terrorism should be treated differently from any other form ?


    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    So you disagree with the statement made by some left media, according to which the decision of the Salvini Government to expel thousands of Roma is an action reminiscent of the "fscist past":.

    Salvini is a Poundland Musillini. Anything to please the gammon.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...matteo-salvini
    It's good to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    About Mussolini, actually, he refused to deport Italian Jews to Germany:.

    Holocaust denial. Between September 1943 and March 1945, about 10,000 Jews were deported from Italy. The vast majority perished, principally at Auschwitz.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Italy

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    SOther than that, it is amazing that you would actually support a drone strike against people whose only crime is to disagree with you on issues such as immigration (I am actually one of these people). I think that HH was correct, the only thing we need to do in order to expose the left for what it is, is to actually let them speak.
    Christchurch, Utoya, Charlottesville and the massacre at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church had nothing to do with any legitimate discussion on migration.We all know that. The intent was to start some mythical race war so that white people would have their own homeland. Are you one of those people looking forward to murdering a few people so that a genocidal war can begin? If you are saying and I quote 'I am actually one of these people' you may want to step back a bit aand reconsider. I expect however you say no, but.....
    Last edited by mongrel; June 11, 2019 at 01:22 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  20. #120
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,559

    Default Re: Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    It is more than reasonable to want incitement to terrorism and murder removed from social media.
    Sure, those aren't covered by freedom of speech.
    Likewise harassment and what have you.
    This, however, is.



    Holocaust denial. Between September 1943 and March 1945, about 10,000 Jews were deported from Italy. The vast majority perished, principally at Auschwitz.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Italy
    How is that Holocaust denial? You need to brush up on your history. In Mussolini's Fascist Italy, Italian Jews were not deported. That's a fact. When they were, however, was after the collapse of Italy in 1943 due to allied invasions, which prompted the Germans to occupy Italy and set up a puppet regime under Rudolf Rahn, who commenced deportation of Jews. You could easily find this out by reading the wikipedia article you yourself linked:
    Before the Italian surrender in 1943, however, Italy and the Italian occupation zones in Greece, France and Yugoslavia had been places of relative safety for local Jews and European Jewish refugees. This changed in September 1943, when German forces occupied the country, installed the puppet state of the Italian Social Republic and immediately began persecuting and deporting the Jews found there.

    This is somewhat is similar to the situation in Hungary and Bulgaria, where the dictators refused to deport Jews who were their citizens, in the case of Hungary up until the Germans invaded it in 1944 and forced deportation.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •