YouTube censorship
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, nope, but it has been funny to see ya act all pompous and puritan like...
:chuckle:
There is no difference.
What would make matters easier is if there was a clear-cut standard for when — if ever — censorship is justified.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
that's what i was working toward :idunno:
Do my em-dashes not encode correctly?
I enter — ... Like you two hyphens, -- , but I see Æ or something in your quote.
Sad
What about this one: –
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Test.Do my em-dashes not encode correctly?
I enter — ... Like you two hyphens, -- , but I see Æ or something in your quote.
Sad
What about this one: –
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Sure you have. Calling a line not offered to define (I always use Merriam Webster to do that) something other than it was would be one. You even misrepresented you, which was something to watch.
You then brought up rights and the denial thereof.
So I answered directly on your point.
And you responded this way:
lain:No, I didn't. The "you" in that is an ongoing about the head of a federal agency and his suppression of speech by employees as I noted, presenting the quote and the context for it. If I'd known it would be that hard for you to connect I'd have used "he" instead of you, so you could have an easier time carrying the context forward.
But really, I don't believe you're having a hard time.
The dishonesty is completely your creation and it speaks to something you need to work on.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i put spaces in your post
i've seen people quoting me lately that have included emoticons i've never seen before, much less used
but i post from a whole lot of different computers, so i wrote it off to that :idunno:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
let me know if you ever get a response
As much as I want to answer, I probably won't get a chance to for about a week.
Although, if I could mention one thing; the censorship you accuse extremest of left and right of is assumed to not be the type where your boss tells you how to do your job or companies that began with a reasonable policy about what people are allowed to do on their platform.
The type people assume you are talking about is that of the type that the government or thugs are telling or encouraging one not to say something at threat of violence.
Oh, so your test doesn't establish censorship.
Why did you even say it?
Nope.
I characterized your words as a definition very early on. You only recently brought in a dictionary definition and tried to make it look like that was what I was contesting.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Not a problem, Yor. Whenever you can get to it, though given the length of the conversation it might take me a bit to remember the particulars and carry it forward on my end.
I don't see violence as a necessary element. Authority and the ability to impose it are all you really need to censor someone's expression. Of course, beyond that are attempts (as I've noted) to effectively impede discourse, to narrow what's acceptable within the public forum beyond the profane and hostile, beyond those things that limit discourse instead of sustaining or encouraging it, and that's troubling on its own.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if i'm working for a health care provider up here in NNY, and I see a client who is struggling with kidney stones, and I tell him that he should slaughter a chicken at midnight and rub the blood on his abdomen in the light of a full moon while walking backwards chanting "Ooga Chucka Oooga Ooga Oooga Chucka"...
i'll probably get called into my boss's office and be told to stop doing that, that I should be referring them to a physician who can recommend painkillers, lithotripsy, dietary changes, etc
is that "censorship"?
by the dictionary definition, sure.
by any sane person's measure?
of course not
:think:
perhaps i've hit on something there
I can neither confirm nor deny.
Me having time is just not going to happen. So if I could hit the high points.
The examples of censorship from the right brought by TH have been:
A censorship law that was conceived and implemented by leftists, and was exercised by people that *may* have been on the right.
A policy by leftists at FB, in the interest of delivering a quality product, that people had to prove they were real. And other leftists didn't want to follow that policy and TH called that censorship.
A boss that is not on the right telling his employees how to do their job, which included not being allowed to write certain phrases.
None of these show how people on the right *love* censorship.
Part II of hitting the highlights.
Censoring is good in some cases. If one wants to call keeping muslims out of the country censoring, then it's a good thing. But it isn't to censor muslims, but to keep the people within the country safe from jihad. TH responded:
TH brings up the paradise created by muslim rule in Iberia. But historians take two sides on the issue. And since at no other time in history have the muslims ever let conquered peoples live in freedom, I'd be willing to bet an honest appraisal of the evidence will show that non-muslims in Iberia were treated similarly to non-muslims today - which is to say shamefully.
TH says that democrats haven't been the historical party of slavery. He somehow thinks the KKK was a conservative group:
This is a good example of leftists loving censorship.
TH claims FB, YouTube, and Vimeo are just businesses interested in money:
It continues as TH talks about what leftists think about murdering babies before they are born. He says there are plenty of anti-baby-murder folks in the democrat party.
And if a leftist party is willing to murder innocent babies, how much respect do you think that they are going to give to someone's right to speak freely?
Censoring is good in some cases. If one wants to call keeping muslims out of the country censoring, then it's a good thing. But it isn't to censor muslims, but to keep the people within the country safe from jihad. TH responded:
Muslims have been fighing muslims for as long as there have been muslims. That's because Mohamed equated apostates to unbelievers - and so muslims murder both - as commanded and as Mohamed did. Thus, ISIS isn't an extremist group, it's just another group. It's the group that follows closest to what Mohamed did and commanded his followers to do.
TH brings up the paradise created by muslim rule in Iberia. But historians take two sides on the issue. And since at no other time in history have the muslims ever let conquered peoples live in freedom, I'd be willing to bet an honest appraisal of the evidence will show that non-muslims in Iberia were treated similarly to non-muslims today - which is to say shamefully.
TH says that democrats haven't been the historical party of slavery. He somehow thinks the KKK was a conservative group:
Dude, the KKK was democrat through and through. It was the democrats that tried to keep slavery alive before and during the civil war... even northern democrats! The vast majority, if not all, of the Jim Crow laws were conceived and implemented by democrats. Democrats suddenly figured out good law only when opposing lynching laws on the federal level (they opposed lynching laws on good law principle, but they only swerved into doing what was right because they were racist). And you think FDR making the New Deal that had blacks voting democrat beginning and growing from the 1930's was because he liked blacks? He was smarter than most people give him credit for having "... those n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." long before Lyndon B. Johnson said it.
This is a good example of leftists loving censorship.
TH claims FB, YouTube, and Vimeo are just businesses interested in money:
But it isn't true. They said if one follows the rules they won't get their accounts deleted. But many more people on the right wing get hassled and deleted than on the left on those platforms. Will someone come out with a more freedom oriented platform? Probably eventually, and it will be based on right wing principles that everyone should be free, even those on the left, as we see with the Gab platform. Because people on the right don't *love* censorship like those on the left.
It continues as TH talks about what leftists think about murdering babies before they are born. He says there are plenty of anti-baby-murder folks in the democrat party.
Why, there is a percentage of a super-minority of Catholics that wish Democrats would stop advocating that babies be allowed to be murdered in the womb. Does the democratic party, leaders, candidates even give LIP SERVICE to this group? Nope... they are way to small to matter.
And if a leftist party is willing to murder innocent babies, how much respect do you think that they are going to give to someone's right to speak freely?
The same was true of Christians until Western civilization progressed enough to secularize its governments and call a halt to the nonsense.
It's an extremist group because it touts extremist measures, which is why it doesn't resemble Islam at large and why, again, Islam is doing most of the dying opposing it.
I didn't do anything of the sort. Now at least I begin to know why you aren't quoting me. You can't do it and make a claim like that.
Again, the point was raised that Islam has a position of convert or die and it's just not true for its orthodoxy, which is why when Muslims ruled a good bit of Europe both Christians and Jews lived there as well and kept their own faiths.
Here's what I actually wrote in response to Yor:
Well, here's how it went:
And this is what actually happened:
Whereas the Right gives tons of lip service. But I doubt you'd find a 28% chance of getting cancer too small a thing to be concerned about. It's a big number. Not as big as the percent of Republicans who favor choice, but in answer to your challenge on the point, a substantial minority.
About the same as the Right gives to the pro-choice crowd in their party, a larger dissenting group than the pro life in the Democratic party.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
can you show where 1st century Christians were fighting other 1st century Christians?
or second century Christians?