|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 20:17:53 GMT
Just noticed this. Bre isn't bailing out, but she is dealing with it.
It's amazing what a few well-placed Soros-funded SJW dirtbags can do, isn't it? By the same token, there's a cowardly pansy on this board calling himself vernuf, and it's amazing what he has done with a few lowbrow slogans like "homophobic" and "straw man" and that all-time favorite, "projection."
YouTube is going about this all wrong IMO. If they support free speech, they need to show it instead of just proclaiming it. And if someone gets panties-in-a-wad about it, too bad.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 20:23:29 GMT
Just noticed this. Bre isn't bailing out, but she is dealing with it. It's amazing what a few well-placed Soros-funded SJW dirtbags can do, isn't it? By the same token, there's a cowardly pansy on this board calling himself vernuf, and it's amazing what he has done with a few lowbrow slogans like "homophobic" and "straw man" and that all-time favorite, "projection." YouTube is going about this all wrong IMO. If they support free speech, they need to show it instead of just proclaiming it. And if someone gets panties-in-a-wad about it, too bad. There are NO exceptions to free speech, just as there are no exceptions to having to suffer the consequences of what you say, having said that free speech does not give you the right to post against a sites ToC. Racism would fall into that category.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 20:26:24 GMT
Just noticed this. Bre isn't bailing out, but she is dealing with it. It's amazing what a few well-placed Soros-funded SJW dirtbags can do, isn't it? By the same token, there's a cowardly pansy on this board calling himself vernuf, and it's amazing what he has done with a few lowbrow slogans like "homophobic" and "straw man" and that all-time favorite, "projection." YouTube is going about this all wrong IMO. If they support free speech, they need to show it instead of just proclaiming it. And if someone gets panties-in-a-wad about it, too bad. There are NO exceptions to free speech, just as there are no exceptions to having to suffer the consequences of what you say, having said that free speech does not give you the right to post against a sites ToC. Racism would fall into that category. Even if she didn't say the N-word?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 20:32:25 GMT
There are NO exceptions to free speech, just as there are no exceptions to having to suffer the consequences of what you say, having said that free speech does not give you the right to post against a sites ToC. Racism would fall into that category. Even if she didn't say the N-word? Does not matter what she personally says, what matters is the content of her video, her own admission is that the clip contained that word repeated many times. If Youtube has a policy of no racism then the removal was justified.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 20:34:33 GMT
Even if she didn't say the N-word? Does not matter what she personally says, what matters is the content of her video, her own admission is that the clip contained that word repeated many times. If Youtube has a policy of no racism then the removal was justified. Then someone should be able to say it on one of your threads and get the whole thread deleted.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 20:36:30 GMT
Does not matter what she personally says, what matters is the content of her video, her own admission is that the clip contained that word repeated many times. If Youtube has a policy of no racism then the removal was justified. Then someone should be able to say it on one of your threads and get the whole thread deleted. Or their post removed, given that a post can be removed without destroying the thread. I have had exactly that happen to me.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 30, 2017 20:41:16 GMT
Does not matter what she personally says, what matters is the content of her video, her own admission is that the clip contained that word repeated many times. If Youtube has a policy of no racism then the removal was justified. Then someone should be able to say it on one of your threads and get the whole thread deleted. No because the person who created the thread didn't post someone else's racism to that thread. If someone else comments with racial slurs, that is their fault, not the OP's fault. That is entirely different from choosing to post a video containing racial slurs.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 20:44:26 GMT
Then someone should be able to say it on one of your threads and get the whole thread deleted. No because the person who created the thread didn't post someone else's racism to that thread. If someone else comments with racial slurs, that is their fault, not the OP's fault. That is entirely different from choosing to post a video containing racial slurs. Are you suggesting that Bre should have censored her guest's racial slurs from the video? That wouldn't have been free speech, now would it?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 20:47:56 GMT
No because the person who created the thread didn't post someone else's racism to that thread. If someone else comments with racial slurs, that is their fault, not the OP's fault. That is entirely different from choosing to post a video containing racial slurs. Are you suggesting that Bre should have censored her guest's racial slurs from the video? That wouldn't have been free speech, now would it? Circular argument is circular, she is entitled to free speech, but she must not contravene the rules of the platform she is speaking on.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 20:51:03 GMT
Are you suggesting that Bre should have censored her guest's racial slurs from the video? That wouldn't have been free speech, now would it? Circular argument is circular, she is entitled to free speech, but she must not contravene the rules of the platform she is speaking on. Didn't the likes of Mark Twain and William Faulkner use that word in their stories? Do you agree that their books should be banned from public libraries?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 20:59:34 GMT
Circular argument is circular, she is entitled to free speech, but she must not contravene the rules of the platform she is speaking on. Didn't the likes of Mark Twain and William Faulkner use that word in their stories? Do you agree that their books should be banned from public libraries? Strawman. I am not advocating any kind of ban or censorship, in fact I would have preferred that this woman's video stayed up so I could judge the content for my self, but what she posted contravened the rules of the platform she was using, if your public library has a ban on the word 'elephant' being printed, then one can reasonably expect that all books with that word are removed, not because free speech is not allowed, but because the word contravenes the rules laid out.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 21:07:26 GMT
Didn't the likes of Mark Twain and William Faulkner use that word in their stories? Do you agree that their books should be banned from public libraries? Strawman. I am not advocating any kind of ban or censorship, in fact I would have preferred that this woman's video stayed up so I could judge the content for my self, but what she posted contravened the rules of the platform she was using, if your public library has a ban on the word 'elephant' being printed, then one can reasonably expect that all books with that word are removed, not because free speech is not allowed, but because the word contravenes the rules laid out. Strawman? Really? You should leave that kind of thing to vernuf. He does it much better than you do.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 21:18:56 GMT
Strawman. I am not advocating any kind of ban or censorship, in fact I would have preferred that this woman's video stayed up so I could judge the content for my self, but what she posted contravened the rules of the platform she was using, if your public library has a ban on the word 'elephant' being printed, then one can reasonably expect that all books with that word are removed, not because free speech is not allowed, but because the word contravenes the rules laid out. Strawman? Really? You should leave that kind of thing to vernuf. He does it much better than you do. You asked me about something I never advocated and implied that it would be reasonable for me to demand it in another situation, it is the very definition of a strawman.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 21:21:40 GMT
Strawman? Really? You should leave that kind of thing to vernuf. He does it much better than you do. You asked me about something I never advocated and implied that it would be reasonable for me to demand it in another situation, it is the very definition of a strawman. I was hoping for something called consistency on your part. If the word is "hate speech," and if "hate speech" must be eradicated, then it must be eradicated everywhere, yes?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 21:28:32 GMT
You asked me about something I never advocated and implied that it would be reasonable for me to demand it in another situation, it is the very definition of a strawman. I was hoping for something called consistency on your part. If the word is "hate speech," and if "hate speech" must be eradicated, then it must be eradicated everywhere, yes? You are again speaking about a stance I did not present. I do not advocate any censorship of language, I support free speech and the consequences associated with it, but I also recognise that a private company (Youtube) is entitled to enforce it's terms and conditions, this woman (by her own admission) broke those terms by posting a video which contained racial slurs. See if you can actually present an argument based on what I have said, not what you want me to have said. Also please point out where my stance is inconsistent.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 21:39:01 GMT
I was hoping for something called consistency on your part. If the word is "hate speech," and if "hate speech" must be eradicated, then it must be eradicated everywhere, yes? You are again speaking about a stance I did not present. I do not advocate any censorship of language, I support free speech and the consequences associated with it, but I also recognise that a private company (Youtube) is entitled to enforce it's terms and conditions, this woman (by her own admission) broke those terms by posting a video which contained racial slurs. See if you can actually present an argument based on what I have said, not what you want me to have said. Also please point out where my stance is inconsistent. Please point out where it is consistent? Is the N-word a bad racist "hate speech" word that needs to be banned, or isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 21:45:17 GMT
You are again speaking about a stance I did not present. I do not advocate any censorship of language, I support free speech and the consequences associated with it, but I also recognise that a private company (Youtube) is entitled to enforce it's terms and conditions, this woman (by her own admission) broke those terms by posting a video which contained racial slurs. See if you can actually present an argument based on what I have said, not what you want me to have said. Also please point out where my stance is inconsistent. Please point out where it is consistent? Is the N-word a bad racist "hate speech" word that needs to be banned, or isn't it? The very post you just replied to answers the question you are asking, have you actually read what I said?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 21:48:34 GMT
Please point out where it is consistent? Is the N-word a bad racist "hate speech" word that needs to be banned, or isn't it? The very post you just replied to answers the question you are asking, have you actually read what I said? Yes, I read it, and it was a bunch of junk like everything else brainwashed SJWs have to say. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 21:51:09 GMT
The very post you just replied to answers the question you are asking, have you actually read what I said? Yes, I read it, and it was a bunch of junk like everything else brainwashed SJWs have to say. Enjoy. The beauty of conversing with you is the limited effort ones needs to put in to make you give up with insults and derision. Stay classy Erjen.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 30, 2017 22:53:20 GMT
No because the person who created the thread didn't post someone else's racism to that thread. If someone else comments with racial slurs, that is their fault, not the OP's fault. That is entirely different from choosing to post a video containing racial slurs. Are you suggesting that Bre should have censored her guest's racial slurs from the video? That wouldn't have been free speech, now would it? No it wouldn't because the "Free Speech" appeal is irrelevant here. Free speech has to do with the First Amendment right to not be prosecuted and jailed for public statements that those in authority disapprove of. It has nothing to do with people making racist comments on forums that have rules against hate speech. This has been explained to you before.
|
|