Youtube forced to step in.

[ace_cheaply]

12 minutes ago, Nowak said:

Ah yes, the good ol' deflection. Some leftist he is, specifically citing Trump, Alex Jones and a number of prominent right-wingers for "inspiring" his attack.

 

Quit your bullshit.

Ah, yes, the right winger who says his views most closely align with communist China, a self described "eco naturalist or eco fascist" who thinks President trump is an "idiot and a terrible leader" who "he would never vote for."  

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, Nowak said:

Au contraire, I read the manifesto.

A wonderful post, The equivalent of "no u".

 

If you had read the actual thing, you would know that this person was an absolute leftist, inspired by the hatred of the likes of Trump.

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

A wonderful post, The equivalent of "no u".

So you're just gonna dismiss that because you consider my post the equivalent to "no u"? He SPECIFICALLY cites people who are known for anti-Muslim rhetoric in his manifesto.

[Trik'Stari]

4 minutes ago, Nowak said:

So you're just gonna dismiss that because you consider my post the equivalent to "no u"?

Because that is what your posts equate to, yes. Because I read the actual manifesto, yes.

 

This person was a leftist.

 

If you didn't want this argument, you shouldn't have tried to mischaracterize this event to satisfy your own misinformed worldview.

[ThePD]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Because that is what your posts equate to, yes. Because I read the actual manifesto, yes.

 

This person was a leftist.

 

If you didn't want this argument, you shouldn't have tried to mischaracterize this event to satisfy your own misinformed worldview.

Not only that but in his manifesto he knew the media would run wild with the story. The media did exactly everything he wanted them to do.

[Trik'Stari]

8 hours ago, Majinhoju said:

Youtube can censor their platform as they see fit.  If a chat is getting out of hand and doesn't represent their community standards, they're free to disable it.

Until you consider that they are essentially a public utility that functions as a mirror for the public to view or see itself. As does Twitter and Facebook.

 

At a certain point, monopolies like Youtube, twitter, and facebook need to qualify as utilities and need to be forced to respect the first amendment. That or they need to admit their own bias and disable commentary by default.

[Nowak]

8 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Because that is what your posts equate to, yes. Because I read the actual manifesto, yes.

 

This person was a leftist.

 

If you didn't want this argument, you shouldn't have tried to mischaracterize this event to satisfy your own misinformed worldview.

And where'd you get this idea that he's somehow a leftist from, Rush Limbaugh? Because the language he used in his manifesto mirrors that of white nationalists.

 

But hey, I guess the right can do no wrong, right? Anyway, I digress.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Nowak said:

And where'd you get this idea that he's somehow a leftist from, Rush Limbaugh? Because the language he used in his manifesto mirrors that of white nationalists.

 

But hey, I guess the right can do no wrong, right?

No, I actually read the manifesto, that's where I got the "idea" from. It's not an idea, it's a flat out fact. The shooter flat out HOPED that the media would portray him as they have.

[Nowak]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

No, I actually read the manifesto, that's where I got the "idea" from. It's not an idea, it's a flat out fact. The shooter flat out HOPED that the media would portray him as they have.

Right. Anyway, we should stop arguing about this before the mods come swooping in all "IS THIS OFF TOPIC?"

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Nowak said:

Right. Anyway, we should stop arguing about this before the mods come swooping in all "IS THIS OFF TOPIC?"

They will regardless. Always happens regardless of commentary.

 

I'll give the modstaff that, they are fair in their unflinching enforcement of the no-politics rule. I guess we can agree on that?

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

They will regardless. Always happens regardless of commentary.

 

I'll give the modstaff that, they are fair in their unflinching enforcement of the no-politics rule. I guess we can agree on that?

Yeah, I guess we can agree on that, even if we can't agree politically.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Nowak said:

Yeah, I guess we can agree on that, even if we can't agree politically.

Fair enough.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

they are fair in their unflinching enforcement of the no-politics rule. I guess we can agree on that?

I can't agree with that at face value. Most mods, sure.

[Stefan Payne]

11 hours ago, Nowak said:

There was a mass shooting fueled by the perpetrator's racist worldview in Christchurch, New Zealand not too long ago. Did you forget about that already?

That's total bullshit you're saying right now.

You should read his Manifesto. He told you why he thought this way. Though most of what he has written was just trolling nonsense.

 

Hint: It might have to do something with him travelling to France.

 

But the Real Reason is the suppression of speech that really radicalized him!!

If he would have been allowed to talk about what he had seen in France and people would have listened to him and talked to him about what he has seen, he would never have shot up that Mosque. And neither would have Anders Breivik either!!

 

Both were radicalized because they couldn't talk about what they thought!

THAT is the real problem.

 

And What New Zealand did after the Shooting totally proved his point!

The Authorites are persecuting everyone who might have watched the Video or shared a Link to the Video. That is total insanity.

[Nowak]

14 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's total bullshit you're saying right now.

You should read his Manifesto. He told you why he thought this way. Though most of what he has written was just trolling nonsense.

 

Hint: It might have to do something with him travelling to France.

 

But the Real Reason is the suppression of speech that really radicalized him!!

If he would have been allowed to talk about what he had seen in France and people would have listened to him and talked to him about what he has seen, he would never have shot up that Mosque. And neither would have Anders Breivik either!!

 

Both were radicalized because they couldn't talk about what they thought!

THAT is the real problem.

 

And What New Zealand did after the Shooting totally proved his point!

The Authorites are persecuting everyone who might have watched the Video or shared a Link to the Video. That is total insanity.

...all I got to say to that is:

 

 

Like look I get that people love their freedom of speech, it's a wonderful thing, but people don't just shoot up a fucking mosque because they can't speak their mind, unless they think their hate speech is still socially acceptable. (here comes the hot takes saying that hate speech "doesn't exist") People would shoot a mosque because they believe in the "white genocide" conspiracy theory and that Muslims are "invaders".

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, Nowak said:

Like look I get that people love their freedom of speech, it's a wonderful thing, but people don't just shoot up a fucking mosque because they can't speak their mind

Yes, that is exactly how it works.

If you can talk about an issue you see, there is no need for violence.

If you can't speak about the Issue, you will get radicalized by your own thoughts because there is nobody that can convince you that you are wrong.

Because there is nobody you can convince they are wrong if they don't listen.

 

Especially if it is something serious that might affect us all or even lead to a civil war, that is something you HAVE TO talk about.

But you can't because in the minds of some people, there are some groups they see as "oppressed Minoritys", although they are the Opressors and the Majority.

They don't know anything about their way of life at all, they don't care.

And if someone tries to talk with people about what he/she thinks, they get ousted from society, their social Media Accounts get banned for "Hate Speech", they lose their Jobs.

They might even get killed by those people for talking about the stiff - even if it is true!

 

THAT is the Problem. 

 

2 minutes ago, Nowak said:

unless they think their hate speech is still socially acceptable.

See there is no such thing as "Hate Speech". There is lawful speech that allows you to talk about anything, as long as it is not a direct incitment to harm another beeing.

 

Telling things about a Religion, even if they are horrendeous, is not hate speech, especially if it is the truth. 

 

The Hate-Speech Bullshit is _THE_ Problem we have right now and that can, if we're unlucky, to a new Civil war, because you can't talk about shit and some peopel are the Oprressed!!
There are already Studies going around that show that shit already hits the fan but if you even dare to mention it, you're labeled as a "Mysoginist"; "Woman Hater" and other shit, even if what you are talking about doesn't even mention anything in that direction at all.

 

2 minutes ago, Nowak said:

(here comes the hot takes saying that hate speech "doesn't exist")

Exactly, as was ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

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

 

 

And what is Hate speech anyway?!

Right now it seems that I am participating in "Hate Speech", because I'm telling you things that make you uncomfortable, thus "Hate Speech", even though nothing in my speech right now is hateful at all...

 

2 minutes ago, Nowak said:

People would shoot a mosque because they believe in the "white genocide" conspiracy theory and that Muslims are "invaders".

There are Conspiracy Theorys that have been proven to be right, after a couple of years.

And thus we need to talk about it, there is nothing wrong with talking about it and discussing the tings people think.

 

But you are trying to shut people down from speaking their mind, wich will radicalize them because they are ousted from Society, can't talk with nobody, except likeminded people. They can't work on the thing that bothers them, they feel helpless. And then in some cases, there comes the "ah, fuck it" moment and something terrible happens.

And why? Because YOU thought it was a good idea to suppress the thoughts of other people that saw a Problem but were forced into hiding and weren't allowed to talk about their point of view.

THAT; my dear, is the Problem. And what radicalized them!

 

If the Christchurch Shooter was allowed to talk openly and other people were allowed to talk to him, it would never have happened.

It only happened because he couldn't talk about what bothered him!

 

[Nowak]

12 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And what is Hate speech anyway?!

Right now it seems that I am participating in "Hate Speech", because I'm telling you things that make you uncomfortable, thus "Hate Speech", even though nothing in my speech right now is hateful at all...

"Speech that attacks or disparages a person or groups of persons on the basis of origin, race, nationality, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability." There's the dictionary definition. Your speech right now isn't being hateful because you're not attacking me because I'm gay, atheist, ethnically German (hallo!) or am disabled because of my right arm, but if you were, then it would be hate speech. That satisfy you?

[ATFink]

15 hours ago, Mr. horse said:

there are a lot more reasons to hate Jews that stem not only from race but also religion, culture and there place in the world and politics.

The problem with that statement is that you can literally use that same phrase and just replace "Jews" with any group of people by race, religion, or creed and add/misconstrue any form of controversy to describe anyone or anything by categorical relation (from an intersectionalist perspective). For example:

 

Replace "Jews" with "Whites" and explain the historical context of colonialism and the Crusades.

Replace "Jews" with "Blacks" and talk about the instability of African Governments.

Replace "Jews" with "Capitals" and portray the supporters of it as selfish and greedy pigs that would enslave the world for profit without any care for humanity.

Replace "Jews" with "Communists" and say that all communists would kill millions to gain authoritative control to make everyone else equal in the status quo of poverty.

Replace "Jews" with "Islam" and provide examples of extreme religious conservatism.

Replace "Jews" with "Hindus" and demonstrate the continued cycle of poverty created by the caste system.

Replace "Jews" with "Japanese" and mention the mass slaughters when Japan invaded China just before the US entered WWII.

 

Yet in all of the above examples any individual that may fall underneath any label is probably a decent human being with life experiences totally seperate from the modern or historical controversy associated with their supposed group.

 

TL;DR - The most oppressed minority is the individual - not the group they belong to. Don't judge anyone by group identity at face value. You never know who your talking to or what they may know until you speak with them. Tread lightly and keep preconceived notions to a minimum when addressing people because the chances are the group-related notions are wrong especially when applied to an individual.

[Stefan Payne]

11 minutes ago, Nowak said:

"Speech that attacks or disparages a person or groups of persons on the basis of origin, race, nationality, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability."

So you know that you did the same with the Picture above?!

Or other People...

 

And that is the Problem that YOUR side is the one with the most Hate Speech??

And Oprression of People??

 

Because you insulted me because of my "Religion".

I believe its wrong to lie, I believe its important to look at the facts and think about both sides...

 

 

And why are some of the most mildly mannered people you see on the Internet considered to be hateful??

Because they have the wrong oppionion!!

 

[Stefan Payne]

14 minutes ago, ATFink said:

TL;DR - The most oppressed minority is the individual - not the group they belong to.

The most Oppressed "Minority" right now are the people that see things differently, outside of the "Mainstream".

It doesn't matter that they are Teddybears that don't even raise their voices in Discussions at all or insult People...

 

14 minutes ago, ATFink said:

 Don't judge anyone by group identity at face value. You never know who your talking to or what they may know until you speak with them. Tread lightly and keep preconceived notions to a minimum when addressing people because the chances are the group-related notions are wrong especially when applied to an individual.

I can only agree with that!

 

Treat the other Side with Respect and listen to what they have to say and try to understand their side of the story.

[Nowak]

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

So you know that you did the same with the Picture above?!

Or other People...

 

And that is the Problem that YOUR side is the one with the most Hate Speech??

And Oprression of People??

 

Because you insulted me because of my "Religion".

I believe its wrong to lie, I believe its important to look at the facts and think about both sides...

 

 

And why are some of the most mildly mannered people you see on the Internet considered to be hateful??

Because they have the wrong oppionion!!

 

What in the... are you trying to push me into a corner so you can get your way? So you can "win" the argument?

[Stefan Payne]

13 minutes ago, Nowak said:

What in the... are you trying to push me into a corner so you can get your way? So you can "win" the argument?

No, I'm trying to tell you that "Hate Speech" is bullshit because it is not a hard defined thing and very subjective.

 

 

Basically Hatespeech is Speech I don't like or agree with. That is how it is used these days.

Not real hateful Content.

[Nowak]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

No, I'm trying to tell you that "Hate Speech" is bullshit because it is not a hard defined thing and very subjective.

 

 

Basically Hatespeech is Speech I don't like or agree with. That is how it is used these days.

Not real hateful Content.

Uhh, no it's not. It's when you intentionally disparage someone because of a variety of factors, like sexuality, gender or ability. It's like if you told me that I was a piece of human shit because I got a bad arm.

 

...am I?

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

The Authorites are persecuting everyone who might have watched the Video or shared a Link to the Video. That is total insanity.

No they aren't/haven't. One of the people charged took photos of the Mosque and posted them online with the words "target acquired" before the attack. There's a lot more to the cases than you portray. Many, many people shared and watched the video, extremely few have been charged.

 

Either way more recent discussion points have been getting slightly further away from the topic and some rather political so I would suggest jumping back to the OP and make sure comments are framed around that

[ThePD]

2 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

its simple

• if your only defence to what your saying is "muh freedom of speech" then you should shut up because your racist

Free Speech = Racism?