• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Youtube is finally cutting down on hate content

Tigerace117 said:
The thing is is that some of these groups are intentionally trying to cause violence, then using free speech as a shield to avoid the consequences of their actions. That was certainly not what the founders intended with freedom of speech--- while they spoke against the king, they never said that all English people should be murdered.
Click to expand...

Which of these groups are trying to cause violence is the question, so far nearly every bit of violence since the election with a few exceptions has been from antifa, a far left extremist group, yet everyone keeps calling the right violent and calling for violence, still not seeing it.

Last I checked hate speech is not calling for violence, calling for violence is calling for violence, which lately has been almost exclusive to a certain leftwing group. Of course we can use antifas version of violence, which means anyone who says anything in defiance to antifa and marxism is spouting violence, aka anything of opposing views is violent.

So far your side of the argument has been the losing one, as were it the winning one, groups like antifa would not have to resort to brownshirt tactics to silince opposition while accusing everyone of being nazis, while at the same time accuse any viewpoints other than extreme left as advocating violence. Yes they literally view supporting trump as being violent, actually google these guys.
 
21 pages for censorship of ideas the owners of YouTube do not like. That is all it is, and should be recognized that way. Hate of different ideas is the only hate demonstrated here.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The only reason that they're pulling funding is due to shaming by WSJ. Do you really think that those advertisers hadn't checked where their ads were being shown at? Do you think that they don't know what YouTube is like?

In any case, advertisers have a right to withdraw their funding. And YouTube has a right to withdraw monetization from video's. I don't blame them for this. I blame SJW's for trying everything in their power to make it to where only their voices are heard. It might be legal, but it certainly is not American or morally right for them to do this. These SJW's are the bane of Rights and one day they'll regret doing what they are doing as it will eventually come to bite them in their ass.

But you do bring up an interesting point. Maybe we need an affirmative action law that protects speech that is in the minority.
Click to expand...
Affirmative action would do more harm than good. We need open and honest communication in the arena of ideas. Money will naturally gravitate toward popular odeas and gravitate away from unpopular ones in a free market. We should not be tampering with that. Doing so creates a false impression of where our culture is at.

Discrimination should be illegal when it pertains to gov services and monopolies. The gov cant ne allowed to deny a citizen a permit because of their race, gender, religion, or sexual oreintation. That is where i draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable.

I you want to run a buisiness that only employees single black women over 40, rhats your right to try to make that buisiness model succeed.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
I think they weren't aware of some of the specific hate content, yes. Advertisers tend to avoid that stuff because it angers their customers.


Yes yes, it's SJWs fault that the KKK exists. :roll:

It's not morally right to kick hate speech off my platform? Whatever dude. For some reason, free speech cries only come in defense of bigots, never in defense of the "SJWs" who are calling them bigots.
Click to expand...
SJWs have the right to object to any form of speech they wish. They overstep their boundries when they infringe on the rights of the people they disagree with.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Tigerace117 said:
You take down videos and channel which spew hatred and bigotry, whether it's white supremacist, jihadi or any other form of bull****.
Click to expand...

So you do want to ban em. Are you going to do the same for your side? Because they spew just as much hatred and bigotry.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The only problem is you think that telling the truth is "being a hack"

When people try to incite violence under a thin veneer of "free speech" then we shouldn't pretend that's the same as rights for other people.
Click to expand...

Inciting violence is not protected speech. Saying hateful things however IS protected speech and should always be protected. That is the whole point of having free speech in the first place. At one point in time the Catholic church tried to silence people because they talked about things that they considered hate speech. Do you really want to emulate them?

And no, I have never considered that telling the truth is "being a hack". I dare you to find any post of mine where I have ever said that.
 
beerftw said:
Which of these groups are trying to cause violence is the question, so far nearly every bit of violence since the election with a few exceptions has been from antifa, a far left extremist group, yet everyone keeps calling the right violent and calling for violence, still not seeing it.

Last I checked hate speech is not calling for violence, calling for violence is calling for violence, which lately has been almost exclusive to a certain leftwing group. Of course we can use antifas version of violence, which means anyone who says anything in defiance to antifa and marxism is spouting violence, aka anything of opposing views is violent.

So far your side of the argument has been the losing one, as were it the winning one, groups like antifa would not have to resort to brownshirt tactics to silince opposition while accusing everyone of being nazis, while at the same time accuse any viewpoints other than extreme left as advocating violence. Yes they literally view supporting trump as being violent, actually google these guys.
Click to expand...

There's a reason violence against minorities shot up after Trump - what had been hate speech was seen as validation to commit violence. There is very little difference in practice
 
trouble13 said:
Affirmative action would do more harm than good. We need open and honest communication in the arena of ideas. Money will naturally gravitate toward popular odeas and gravitate away from unpopular ones in a free market. We should not be tampering with that. Doing so creates a false impression of where our culture is at.

Discrimination should be illegal when it pertains to gov services and monopolies. The gov cant ne allowed to deny a citizen a permit because of their race, gender, religion, or sexual oreintation. That is where i draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable.

I you want to run a buisiness that only employees single black women over 40, rhats your right to try to make that buisiness model succeed.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The AA idea was a tongue in cheek comment. I'm actually against any sort of AA laws.
 
chromium said:
There's a reason violence against minorities shot up after Trump - what had been hate speech was seen as validation to commit violence. There is very little difference in practice
Click to expand...

What had been hate speech has always been, trump being elected had nothing to do with hate speech increasing. And no hate speech= violence would be on par with blaming coca cola as indoctrinating dylan roof because their polar bear in the commercial was white, therefore caused him to commit violence.

Violence is violence, and hate speech is hate speach, saying something hatefull towards someone else is not a call for violence, and never has been in any plane of existence known to man. Calling for violence is calling for violence, and can be with or without hate speech.
 
beerftw said:
What had been hate speech has always been, trump being elected had nothing to do with hate speech increasing. And no hate speech= violence would be on par with blaming coca cola as indoctrinating dylan roof because their polar bear in the commercial was white, therefore caused him to commit violence.

Violence is violence, and hate speech is hate speach, saying something hatefull towards someone else is not a call for violence, and never has been in any plane of existence known to man. Calling for violence is calling for violence, and can be with or without hate speech.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's up with truly god awful analogies of late, but the damn polar bear in a soda commercial can hardly be interpreted as an endorsement of the KKK. Whereas Trump saying he wants to build a wall and comparing mexicans to rapists can very easily be interpreted by hateful ****s as a license to attack hispanics. Likewise with his fear mongering against muslims. The outcome was utterly predictable, some of it even happened DURING the campaign at his rallies, and a lot of the perpetrators even credited Trump. I'm pretty goddamn sure dylan roof would never credit the polar bear commercial

I would say, and i don't say this lightly, that the increase in violence against lgbt can be less directly blamed on Trump, even though he did certain things to cast as lgbt in a 2nd class light (applauding Scalia and appointing cabinet members and a VP with a history of oppressing lgbt). I think in that case, the right wing has been linked to anti gay bigotry for so long that it would take a lot more than Trump was willing to do to put a stop to that
 
chromium said:
I don't know what's up with truly god awful analogies of late, but the damn polar bear in a soda commercial can hardly be interpreted as an endorsement of the KKK. Whereas Trump saying he wants to build a wall and comparing mexicans to rapists can very easily be interpreted by hateful ****s as a license to attack hispanics. Likewise with his fear mongering against muslims. The outcome was utterly predictable, some of it even happened DURING the campaign at his rallies, and a lot of the perpetrators even credited Trump. I'm pretty goddamn sure dylan roof would never credit the polar bear commercial

I would say, and i don't say this lightly, that the increase in violence against lgbt can be less directly blamed on Trump, even though he did certain things to cast as lgbt in a 2nd class light (applauding Scalia and appointing cabinet members and a VP with a history of oppressing lgbt). I think in that case, the right wing has been linked to anti gay bigotry for so long that it would take a lot more than Trump was willing to do to put a stop to that
Click to expand...

For one building a wall to secure sovereign borders is not hate speech, for two yes there are a lot of rapists around the mexican border, most specifically within the criminal cartels.

Man now yall consider enforcing the law hate speech, yeah wanting to build a wall is now code word for go attack mexicans or something.
 
beerftw said:
For one building a wall to secure sovereign borders is not hate speech, for two yes there are a lot of rapists around the mexican border, most specifically within the criminal cartels.

Man now yall consider enforcing the law hate speech, yeah wanting to build a wall is now code word for go attack mexicans or something.
Click to expand...

It's the way it's interpreted by his followers and he's a billionaire politician FFS. It has nothing to do with the law or anything else except how he benefits. So always look the motive - hispanics don't vote for him, rednecks do. He doesn't give a **** about families torn apart or hate crimes that are 'inspired' by his actions
 
chromium said:
It's the way it's interpreted by his followers and he's a billionaire politician FFS. It has nothing to do with the law or anything else except how he benefits. So always look the motive - hispanics don't vote for him, rednecks do. He doesn't give a **** about families torn apart or hate crimes that are 'inspired' by his actions
Click to expand...

Did you whine as loud when blacks were attacking whites after Obama's election... knockout games anyone?

Or when Obama called the police stupid?

Or Obama saying if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon?

Or when 36,000 illegal alien criminals were released by ICE in 2013 alone?

You can keep your racism charges to yourself.
 
chromium said:
It's the way it's interpreted by his followers and he's a billionaire politician FFS. It has nothing to do with the law or anything else except how he benefits. So always look the motive - hispanics don't vote for him, rednecks do. He doesn't give a **** about families torn apart or hate crimes that are 'inspired' by his actions
Click to expand...

Actually, nearly a 3rd of Hispanics voted for Trump.
 
chromium said:
It's the way it's interpreted by his followers and he's a billionaire politician FFS. It has nothing to do with the law or anything else except how he benefits. So always look the motive - hispanics don't vote for him, rednecks do. He doesn't give a **** about families torn apart or hate crimes that are 'inspired' by his actions
Click to expand...

so him talking = violence, if someone wanted to crush free speech and install a fascist govt this would be the goto excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom