YouTube censorship
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Funny. Less than twelve seconds into Stripe's video and the guy drops a truncated F bomb that you can mostly hear.
And this is why I should have followed my own new rule about YouTube videos on this site.
If this is how some more radical conservatives complain about having their polemics restricted it's hysterical (either). Maybe one day one of them will launch a civil and reasoned account of grievances.
Might be interesting.
All that said, if this guy's show is being censored and another show doing the same thing isn't because it toes some ideological line I'd disagree with the disparate treatment about as strongly as I do relating to the same practice here. The one Stripe and all those favored by it have been outraged about for years.
lain:
Rules should apply to everyone or they're likely bad rules, understanding that sometimes a principle in play will add distinctions--like you have to be an adult to drink intoxicating beverages, etc.
And this is why I should have followed my own new rule about YouTube videos on this site.
If this is how some more radical conservatives complain about having their polemics restricted it's hysterical (either). Maybe one day one of them will launch a civil and reasoned account of grievances.
Might be interesting.
All that said, if this guy's show is being censored and another show doing the same thing isn't because it toes some ideological line I'd disagree with the disparate treatment about as strongly as I do relating to the same practice here. The one Stripe and all those favored by it have been outraged about for years.
lain: Rules should apply to everyone or they're likely bad rules, understanding that sometimes a principle in play will add distinctions--like you have to be an adult to drink intoxicating beverages, etc.
Last edited:
Relative morality. For the left, if it feels bad it is bad. Therefore censorship is justified if what is being said makes the leftist feel bad.
Exactly. So their orthodoxy is what they say, and appointing homos is what they do.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Says the guy who spams up threads with silly little smileys as 'response' or completely irrelevant droning about 'Darwinists'? Can always tell when you're smarting as you turn into even more of a pompous, arrogant crank than you are already.
I'm beginning to get a clear picture of your problem with the left. It's the same as your problem with Muslims, a tendency to frame the "other" by the lowest expression you see in it and regard it as the rule.
The fact remains that most people who identify as liberal in this country also believe in God. I set out the link and data on that very point. So most leftists are not moral relativists at all, just as most of Islam doesn't read its book the way you do.
So far as I can tell, your response to these realities is to retreat behind mind reading and disbelief in profession for the former and repetition of your mistake without actually addressing the clear, empirical reality of the rebuttal on the latter.
All of which goes back to an old axiom of mine I use here from time to time, which is that it is unlikely that anyone can correct a position using reason that was not established by that faculty. Well, I more frequently use never instead of unlikely, but I suspect that reasonable people may yet find correction if they value reason, even though it may take time and involve a productive struggle.
Errant conclusion from a mistaken premise, generated by the thing I note above.
Well, no. Not if you look beyond your desire to see a thing and see the actual thing. Rather, a fraction of the church overstepped in clear violation of the actual law of the church, the holding and belief of its orthodoxy.
You don't see the Methodists at all. But in conflating the exception with the rule, the heresy with orthodoxy, you clearly illustrate the problem you have otherwise, both with confirmation bias and with creating rules from anecdotes that conform to it.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Did you get that off the back of a bumper sticker? Because it's either incredibly silly 'thinking' or just complete dishonesty on your part. Would be as stupid as claiming all right wingers enjoy lasagne...
Rather, you lack reason to see the difference between acting on a foundational principle and acting against it.
When the left censors someone they don't like, they are justified by their own principles. When a muslim acts like a terrorist or supremacist, they are justified by the principles they've been taught. When the right censors someone they don't like they have to act outside of the principles laid out in the bible and can be brought back to reason via this same foundation.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, no, you make silly blanket generalizations about 'the left' that aren't founded in reason to begin with but rather bias. You use exaggeration to tout this claim that isn't anything more than subjective opinion wrapped in peculiar ignorance. It's akin to typing in all caps except 'shouting' doesn't make such an opinion any the more true. You're not interested in rationality but solely your own skewed version of people who don't identify as right wing.
Btw, do you like lasagne?
:think:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Funny. Less than twelve seconds into Stripe's video and the guy drops a truncated F bomb that you can mostly hear.
And this is why I should have followed my own new rule about YouTube videos on this site.
If this is how some more radical conservatives complain about having their polemics restricted it's hysterical (either). Maybe one day one of them will launch a civil and reasoned account of grievances.
Might be interesting.
All that said, if this guy's show is being censored and another show doing the same thing isn't because it toes some ideological line I'd disagree with the disparate treatment about as strongly as I do relating to the same practice here. The one Stripe and all those favored by it have been outraged about for years.
Rules should apply to everyone or they're likely bad rules, understanding that sometimes a principle in play will add distinctions--like you have to be an adult to drink intoxicating beverages, etc.
scroll to 0:39
seriously town, this stuff isn't that hard to find :idunno:
That's a silly and unfounded thing to say, but it's nothing compared to what follows.
Again, everyone believes in censorship. The only question regards the kind and litmus for it. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, would argue against pornography, or at least against it being, say, on a comic rack or on display with a street vendor.
Some, to be sure. On the whole though, no. Which is why most of Islam isn't doing anything like what you keep saying they must and rejects what you keep insisting must be their orthodoxy.
Every time you run into a group you don't like you make that same, fundamental mistake. Over generalizing, conflating the anecdote that confirms your bias with the clearly observable, empirically demonstrable rule.
That's irrational.
You make it with Muslims, leftists, and even the poor Methodists.
Right wing isn't a religious distinction, though as with most people they have a variety of religious principles in play among people who follow it. And my example of religious motivated or supported censorship puts a kink in your attempt in any event, supra.
OK, I fixed the inaccuracy:
"Relative morality. For the left, it only has to feel bad to be bad. Therefore censorship is justified if what is being said makes the leftist feel bad."
The matter of what Methodists do with the homo they appointed has been taken up by the highest authority in the church. But they didn't purge the "small group that went errant". They are leaving the homo in place while they look into it and they aren't looking into the group that appointed the homo at all. That's not a small group leaving the homo in place (and ignoring the problem, too), it's the whole church minus a minority that wants to point out that a homo bishop is against church rules. It took almost a year just for this minority to get a hearing.
How would you define censorship?
I think it is best to regard it as solely a function of proper authority. Censorship would only be justified when a man in authority removes from the realm he controls that which he deems unwholesome.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Asserted and rebutted quite a while back:
I can't make you stop repeating the mistake, so I suppose that leaves the conversation at an impasse.
No idea what you mean by purge. They should take a role call to see who agreed with the appointment of the Bishop and ask them to stop attending the church? At any rate the church has an administrative process that isn't complete as yet, though the judgment regarding the Bishop has been settled with authority by its ecclesiastical court.
Supra.
It's not small within that gathering/conference, but it's a sliver of the Methodist Church, which is found in over 120 countries and the last time I looked was the third largest Protestant denomination.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it's much worse than that yorzhik - relative morality has been accepted by the left for so long now that it's been replaced by relative reality - in which whatever they agree is the truth becomes the truth
That hits the nail on the head.
In the case of YouTube, they have the right to censor people except that they got into the dominant market position they are in by not censoring and shared the ad money for content they were previously not censoring, and the definition of what is to be censored is very vague.
And then, beyond that, the governments in Europe have begun to "work with YouTube, FB and Twitter" to censor certain speech. Now *THAT* will be censorship in its most unjust form.
What YouTube, FB and Twitter need to do is let everyone know they are leftists and right wing content will be treated poorly at best. But they won't because they want to make money from the content they hate.
Good point. As TH is demonstrating, they can say they believe in absolutes while at the same time ignoring the very same absolutes they purport to believe in and still claim to be justified in doing both.
That would mean YouTube is not censoring, because they keep the stuff available.
What the company is doing is denying revenue.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Except that's not what I'm or they're demonstrating and saying it is really is only proof of your bias, Yor.
To believe in God, even Christ as God is not to necessarily believe in Yor's exegesis and application. Someone who differs with you on any number of particulars rooted in scripture can believe as fundamentally in moral absolutes as you.
Until that makes its way into your head you'll continue a variation on your "All Methodists and Muslims" mistake.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i don't think yorzhik said "all" methodists
how about that
he didn't
I agree, you normally don't appear to think. Or to read over the actual and entire conversation. Part of Yor's ongoing problem is his over generalization, from liberal, to Muslim, to Methodist.