Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[Toho]

Did you hold BLM and many left-wing news outlets accountable when Micah Xavier Johnson murdered policemen in Dallas?

I hold news outlets responsible for sensationalize stuff.
You see as soon as you try to tell me a news organization is "Left" or "Right" you lose all credibility with me.

News is news. Thats it. Period. End.
When you got a news channel like Fox who keeps saying they "Offer the otherside" I know its BS. It shows they have an agenda and a propaganda machine for their ideology.

As for your question no. I don't hold BLM responsible because they are a movement borne out of public frustration with the police and an apparent lack of accountability.
I do hold someone like Sean King, is another "opinion guy" who tries to incite hysteria for his own motives.

[Cope]

I am holding all the political "Opinion" guys like Hannity as being responsible in fanning the flames for these animals.
You can't be going on the air every night and scream at the camera about a Muslim invasion or whatnot then "Oh I never meant for anyone to actually kill anybody!!!"

I agree that the corporate press artificially exaggerates (and in many cases willfully constructs) social divisions for the purposes of profiteering. Such serpentine behaviour is not, however, limited to Fox News: it's prevalent across the journalistic spectrum. The race baiting, in particular, seems to be limitless.

[Toho]

I agree that the corporate press artificially exaggerates (and in many cases purposefully constructs) social divisions for the purposes of profiteering. Such serpentine behaviour is not, however, limited to Fox News: it's prevalent across the journalistic spectrum. The race baiting, in particular, seems to be limitless.

I am not saying Fox News is the sole culprit.
Sure there are others but lets not kid ourselves who are the most predominant players in this sort of BS.

CNN is pretty much the Jersey Shore of News.
Fox is pretty much the Government sponsored Hysteria machine.

[Cope]

I am not saying Fox News is the sole culprit.
Sure there are others but lets not kid ourselves who are the most predominant players in this sort of BS.

CNN is pretty much the Jersey Shore of News.
Fox is pretty much the Government sponsored Hysteria machine.

CNN, the Guardian and the New York Times are equally as hysterical as Fox News - they just disguise their rhetoric in a more measured, bourgeois tone.

[Toho]

CNN, the Guardian and the New York Times are equally as hysterical as Fox News - they just disguise their rhetoric in a more measured, bourgeois tone.

This must be a joke.
None of those are even comparable to fox and how Fox operates... What is wrong with you?

Who is the Lou Dobbs of The New York Times? The Hannity? The Carlson? The Bolton? The Pirro? Yeah I am calling BS.
This is just a false equivalency plain and simple.

[mongrel]

Indeed Toho. + rep

There should be a Godwin version 2 for any post mentioning such things as 'the left' or SJWs.For the context of the thread, anything that advocates harm, in physical terms, or by way of discrimination ought to be scrutinised. Not sure why all these whataboutisms, talking of which....

Allow me to use my advanced knowledge of sarcasm to explain to you what his statement meant:
Streaming a violent crime (Chirstchurch murders fit said category) is NOT the same as making political commentary.

Notheless, I was referring directly to said event,in and to Ioanis's whataboutism. HH was merely penning his love letter to Putin as always.You should have corrected HH. My comment still stands.We know his views regard the outcome of Charlottesville.

[Cope]

This must be a joke. None of those are even comparable to fox and how Fox operates... What is wrong with you?

Who is the Lou Dobbs of The New York Times? The Hannity? The Carlson? The Bolton? The Pirro? Yeah I am calling BS.
This is just a false equivalency plain and simple.

The difference in format between broadcast and print media means that there isn't an exact equivalent of Carlson or Hannity working for the NYT or the Guardian. Don Lemon, Brian Stelter and Rachel Maddow are the "liberal" counterparts to Fox News' television personalities. The English equivalents are Piers Morgan (conservative), Cathy Newman and Jon Snow (liberals). All of them are opinionated, hysterical and agenda driven. That Carlson is a former employee of CNN serves to prove just how insular (and ultimately similar) the major news networks are.

As to the cosmopolitan print media, you will find regular articles from the NYT, the Guardian or the BBC spreading artificial moral panic about global warming, white supremacy, homophobia, political populism or "colonialism". On the conservative side are scare stories about migration, academia and language policing. Outrage and click bait culture is pursued equally by both sides. As I mentioned, the most significant difference between the political wings is the rhetorical tone: the manipulation from the liberal side tends to be more subtle and sophisticated.

[Toho]

The difference in format between broadcast and print media means that there isn't an exact equivalent of Carlson or Hannity working for the NYT or the Guardian.

So the hysteria personalities on TV are a unique feature to the Right Wingers?

Don Lemon, Brian Stelter and Rachel Maddow are the "liberal" counterparts to Fox News' television personalities.

I have only watched a few segments of Rachel Maddow, the others I do not know, She seemed to present the viewer with heavily researched
Are you seriously putting these two idiots to Rachel?
Here is some grade A sensationalism and idiocity by these personalities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPo67aQLl-U
And you are comparing it to this woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX1hk_8wTGk

Yeah. Oh yeah. Look at that. Definitly a counterpart to Hannity. Of course /Sarcasm.

The English equivalents are Piers Morgan (conservative), Cathy Newman and Jon Snow (liberals). All of them are opinionated, hysterical and agenda driven. That Carlson is a former employee of CNN serves to prove just how insular (and ultimately similar) the major news networks are.

Just because someone is opinionated does not mean they push a hysteria to serve their motive... christ.

As to the cosmopolitan print media, you will find regular articles from the NYT, the Guardian or the BBC spreading artificial moral panic

Oh boy this is going to be good.

about global warming,

Is this guy for real?

white supremacy,

??????????????

homophobia,

I don't understand how the print media is creating hysteria about homophobia. Like... show me.

political populism

Is this another "How dare they criticize the Nazis?" that you take issue with?

or "colonialism".

Don't let me stop you from providing any shred of context to what you are rambling on about here.

On the conservative side are scare stories about migration, academia and language policing.

And much much more.

Outrage and click bait culture is pursued equally by both sides.

Finally you said one thing I agree with.

As I mentioned, the most significant difference between the political wings is the rhetorical tone:

Lol no. It is not just about rhetoric. Its about the message itself.
Remember Obama scandals? Tan suits, Dijon mustard, saluting with a coffee in his hand, keep your doctor and not recovering the economy fast enough...
If Obama did half the crap trump did there would be an army of Texans on their pickup trucks tacking back Murica right about now.
You know it. I know it. So lets cut the BS.

the manipulation from the liberal side is more subtle and sophisticated.

Or you are just peddling misinformation and false equivalencies.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I hold news outlets responsible for sensationalize stuff.
You see as soon as you try to tell me a news organization is "Left" or "Right" you lose all credibility with me.

News is news. Thats it. Period. End.

News is news, sure, but the way it is reported, what news is even reported, etc are certainly influenced by the writer's, and by extensions the networks, opinions. Objective journalism is almost inexistant, everyone leans one way or another.

When you got a news channel like Fox who keeps saying they "Offer the otherside" I know its BS. It shows they have an agenda and a propaganda machine for their ideology.

It shows that they have an agenda indeed, the other networks do too, they just don't openly admit it.

As for your question no. I don't hold BLM responsible because they are a movement borne out of public frustration with the police and an apparent lack of accountability.
I do hold someone like Sean King, is another "opinion guy" who tries to incite hysteria for his own motives.

Several of the cases BLM organised mass protests and outrage over were justified, and they certainly fan the flames of outrage.

[Toho]

News is news, sure, but the way it is reported, what news is even reported, etc are certainly influenced by the writer's, and by extensions the networks, opinions. Objective journalism is almost inexistant, everyone leans one way or another.

Another false equivalency.

It shows that they have an agenda indeed, the other networks do too, they just don't openly admit it.

Again another false equivalency.

Several of the cases BLM organised mass protests and outrage over were justified, and they certainly fan the flames of outrage.

Clearly you have a comprehension issue because I have not seen anyone miss the point so consistently.

[95thrifleman]

Indeed Toho. + rep

There should be a Godwin version 2 for any post mentioning such things as 'the left' or SJWs.For the context of the thread, anything that advocates harm, in physical terms, or by way of discrimination ought to be scrutinised. Not sure why all these whataboutisms, talking of which....



Notheless, I was referring directly to said event,in and to Ioanis's whataboutism. HH was merely penning his love letter to Putin as always.You should have corrected HH. My comment still stands.We know his views regard the outcome of Charlottesville.

It's not whataboutism. The subject is media allowing or even promoting the incitement of political violence. In the context of this debate you can not just focus on one side of the political spectrum and pretend the other side is innocent.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Another false equivalency.



Again another false equivalency.



Clearly you have a comprehension issue because I have not seen anyone miss the point so consistently.

Elaborate if you will, otherwise this isn't very insightful.

[mongrel]

It's not whataboutism. The subject is media allowing or even promoting the incitement of political violence. In the context of this debate you can not just focus on one side of the political spectrum and pretend the other side is innocent.

The thread is based on an article titled 'YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views'. There are no 'political sides'. One either promotes extreme views or one does not.

Or if you like, there are those who are massive (insert perjoritive here)...and would cause harm to other identifiable groups or excuse it to benefit dubious cults and there are the rest of us, the normal people.

Elaborate if you will, otherwise this isn't very insightful.

Does the Guardian, CNN, FOX or indeed BLM news place material on the net designed to promote discrimination or physical harm against identifiable individuals or groups? If the answer is no, then you are clearly wasting Toho's time.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The thread is based on an article titled 'YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views'. There are no 'political sides'. One either promotes extreme views or one does not.

Or if you like, there are those who are massive (insert perjoritive here)...and would cause harm to other identifiable groups or excuse it to benefit dubious cults and there are the rest of us, the normal people.

Who decides what views are considered extreme?

Does the Guardian, CNN, FOX or indeed BLM news place material on the net designed to promote discrimination or physical harm against identifiable individuals or groups? If the answer is no, then you are clearly wasting Toho's time.

That isn't what he said however. According to Toho Fox can be held does through Hannity.

[Vanoi]

Because allowing corporate entities determine what can be said on the Internet is a great idea... if what you want is some orwellian dystopia.

Sorry HH i'm not a socialist like you. Youtube should have full right as a business to determine who can use their service. Youtube is not a tax-payer owned streaming service. Its a publicly traded company. They have the right as a business to deny you service. The minute you actually join youtube you have to accept a set terms and conditions no different than here on TWC with its ToS.

You want to take away the right of businesses. Take that socialism to Cuba or Venezuela.

I don't see anything wrong with just recognizing major media oligopolies as public utility,

A public utility by definition is an organization that maintains infrastructure for public use. Social media and streaming sites are private companies, not publicly owned infrastructure.

It does sound like though you want the government to take over these companies anyway. More socialism from you of course.

since there is no need to give them a right to deny anyone platform based on superficial and vague criteria such as "hate"

Where in the US Constitution does it say a person cannot be denied a right to a platform?

[alhoon]

Youtube is not a tax-payer owned streaming service. Its a publicly traded company. They have the right as a business to deny you service. The minute you actually join youtube you have to accept a set terms and conditions no different than here on TWC with its ToS.

You want to take away the right of businesses. Take that socialism to Cuba or Venezuela.

I am appalled and ashamed that some long time rightwing posters have fallen for socialism and want to impose government regulations on private companies.
It seems some of the conspiracy theories of the socialist take-over had some seeds of truth after all.
Without naming names, if you don't like what youtube is doing, you are free to open your own streaming service and regulate it with Cuba's or Vietnam's latest politburo directives.

Venezuela, I think, is less socialist than that. You have to go deeper to get to the level where the government decides which clients a private company has to deny service to.

For the rest of us that support free market and are not socialists, I have to suggest simply this: Vote with your money (or your clicks) and don't use YouTube if they offend you with their business choices, or don't go to bakeries that don't bake cakes for gay weddings. Feel free to use your free speech and tell others to not use YouTube and your reasons for suggesting so.

[Toho]

Elaborate if you will, otherwise this isn't very insightful.

I already elaborated. You just didn't bother to reply to it.
You conveniently skipped over anything that needed anything more than rhetoric on your part.

[Toho]

Venezuela, I think, is less socialist than that.

There is a difference between socialism and communism.

The American Military is socialist.
The VA is Socialist.
The Police force is Socialist.
Subsidies are a product of Socialism.

I could go on.
Rightwingers only get sand in their panties when the socialism touches anything that is not business or police force related.

[Heathen Hammer]

Sorry HH i'm not a socialist like you. Youtube should have full right as a business to determine who can use their service. Youtube is not a tax-payer owned streaming service. Its a publicly traded company. They have the right as a business to deny you service. The minute you actually join youtube you have to accept a set terms and conditions no different than here on TWC with its ToS.

You want to take away the right of businesses. Take that socialism to Cuba or Venezuela.

Huh? telephone company can't deny you service. this has nothing to do with socialism, it just makes sense to recognize companies like that as public utilities. No need for them to have a right to deny anyone service based on imaginary criteria.

A public utility by definition is an organization that maintains infrastructure for public use. Social media and streaming sites are private companies, not publicly owned infrastructure.

It does sound like though you want the government to take over these companies anyway. More socialism from you of course.

I didn't say that government should take them over. So yeah, your counter-point doesn't even make sense.

Where in the US Constitution does it say a person cannot be denied a right to a platform?

Also seems like you quoted my post but text under it doesn't address it.

[Vanoi]

Huh? telephone company can't deny you service.

Yes they can. A telephone company in America is not in anyway required to provide you with telecommunications service. They have the right as all businesses do to deny you service as long as it doesn't violate discrimination laws.

this has nothing to do with socialism, it just makes sense to recognize companies like that as public utilities. No need for them to have a right to deny anyone service based on imaginary criteria.

It makes no sense. Social media and streaming services are not public infrastructure. And it's obvious you don't realize public utilities can deny you service as well or did you not know that?

If i stop paying my water company which is a public utility they will shut off my water. They give me water, i pay them. They are in no way required by law to provide me with water.

So turning them into public utilities in no way would get you what you want. You want people to be forced to listen to what you have to say.

I didn't say that government should take them over. So yeah, your counter-point doesn't even make sense.

Attempting to turn them into a public utility would very much be doing that since the owners would lose much control over their own companies. Regardless sounds like socialism.

Also seems like you quoted my post but text under it doesn't address it.

I addressed it. A right to a platform does not and never has existed in the entire history of free speech in the US.