Since this came out today, I'd thought I'd share it:


Rather powerful and compelling; it questions so much about people's right to free speech.

I'd be careful around Vox. They've done a lot of propaganda stuff.

I suppose I have nothing to add to that now as @Dark Wind did all my duty for me in that regard. Legitimately I would prefer the "old internet", as it were, of lacking nebulous social rules and progressiveness but unstifled free speech - barring obvious exceptions as were noted above - to a landscape of discerning what is or is not "hate speech". No surprise to be said, but I do not believe in a concept of hate speech as it were or that it even needs to be policed; people can and will, under their own volition, quickly weed out opinions and persons who are not amicable to their perspective. By this I mean that there is no point in censoring offensive speech unless it becomes action.

If you come out fully and unabashedly, or even in trolling "jest", that you hate Jews and that they are some great conspiracy, I am going to detest you to the same extent as I do the social justice zealot who believes everything is sexist or racist because of whatever buzzword and newspeak tickles their fancy. Both are disagreeable people, even if only feigned. I note this because even if you were to later tell me that you did it "As only a joke." I am, at least only for myself, still inclined to not only hold a lacking of trust in you but a want to not interact with you beyond anything short of common courtesy.

It is imperative beyond a doubt that platforms of social media uphold an environment of freedom. This is because now more than ever the entire world is watching and people must, like it or not, be willing to open their eyes and ears to perceive all information, both good and bad. To do anything less than this is to be ignorant, willingly; it removes the option and duty to judge under one's own morals and motives - it removes the opportunity. If the entire internet culture, at least the dominant one as with say Twitter, became politically correct and "friendly", it removes that element of reality that no amount of virtualization can hide.

People need to be confronted by opposition and more importantly, have the inner strength of self and maturity to deal with it, be it returning fire or just ignoring the attack, perceived or legitimate. It is this philosophy that inherently makes me opposed to the censorship and infantile feel-good nonsense that has consumed an entire generation more or less.

I think the biggest misunderstanding of the first amendment and a person's right to free speech is that many people forget that it only keeps the government from punishing you, it does not protect you from criticism or punishment from your neighbor, employer, host, etc. as long as they adhere to other laws. An employer or social media host may reserve the right to fire you or kick you off their website, but the moment someone lays their hands on you, you can try them for assault. But you can't be tried for how you express yourself unless it's slander, hate speech, and so on. A good way of looking at it is "your rights end when another person's begins".

Whether I agree with it or not, Twitter is within their rights to do as they please with their platform. The ability to post through Twitter's services is a privilege.

Similar to this topic is a topic I heard on NPR. Should the president be able to block people on Twitter? Is it a form of censorship to shut down people's voices and ability to be heard?

I think the biggest misunderstanding of the first amendment and a person's right to free speech is that many people forget that it only keeps the government from punishing you, it does not protect you from criticism or punishment from your neighbor, employer, host, etc. as long as they adhere to other laws. An employer or social media host may reserve the right to fire you or kick you off their website, but the moment someone lays their hands on you, you can try them for assault. But you can't be tried for how you express yourself unless it's slander, hate speech, and so on. A good way of looking at it is "your rights end when another person's begins".

Whether I agree with it or not, Twitter is within their rights to do as they please with their platform. The ability to post through Twitter's services is a privilege.

Similar to this topic is a topic I heard on NPR. Should the president be able to block people on Twitter? Is it a form of censorship to shut down people's voices and ability to be heard?

Different line of topic entirely, I one hundred percent agree with the notion a company has the right to operate they want to operate within the realm of the law.

However, from a personal perspective, using vaguely worded 'hate speech' and 'harassment' guidelines as a shield to delete users who are generally providing a different viewpoint from the mainstream to be highly detestable. The problem with Twitter or any other platform banning users for 'hate speech' and 'harassment' is that those words most likely mean different things to different people. So, if you ban someone, you are taking a side.

If you don't ban, the other side may claim you're taking the other side. But, if you don't ban any person regardless of their opinion; you are, in fact, being neutral.

Let's also not forget that ad sponsorship is being selectively pulled from people who espouse 'unfavorable' content no matter the degree of actual, provable 'hate' on YouTube and therefore makes it difficult for them to continue creating their content. This practice should be frowned upon, and I wonder if it should be illegal.

Another point and position I might note of tremendous importance is that those with major influence, potential and power have a moral obligation to wield it wisely. Specifically what this means is that, in a medium as the internet and its inescapable relationship with human nature, thus sociability, it must preserve at all possible lengths the right to represent people as freely as it can. Simply put from this, it is the inherent mantle of responsibility​ to protect the liberty of all people to the maximum extent possible.

Companies as large as Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and countless others have a unique position that has not prior existed; they largely govern, outside any actual law, the expectations and norms of culture as a whole. They quite literally shape the face of how people interact, react, behave and speak. Because of this, they should reasonably need bear the weight of this understanding. Which, I worryingly note, they in fact do. This exact mechanism when placed into reverse with all gears turning is able to do what it has done now and foster an environment of "safe spaces" and protection from "hate speech". It has become the sheltering parent who ushers their children away from anything perceived unpleasant or unagreeable, in turn coddling them and making them incomplete, infantile people who cannot function in the real world let alone the virtual one.

Anything and everything offends these people, in that it is as simple as them lodging a complaint that their feelings were hurt or they felt bullied to shutdown opposition under thin guidelines and regulations; of which are so liberal in their writing, that you could argue them from any angle to suit a need. Hence they become exploited by those in their use and those who have authority over them.

The essence of the issue is that these great factors, these companies and their policies, are hardly good or responsible stewards of their domain. They are allowing themselves to be used as tools of a movement to further their own goals and that of their useful idiots to close out opportunities to others. Such a glaring misuse of power and overt hypocrisy is obvious to some - we are not fools ourselves as we can clearly see they are playing by double standards - but the larger matter is that this sort of activity is misconduct on a level higher than just the First Amendment. This is to ignore the very concept of what the Founders of the United States had in mind, but to a greater level as a violation of concept that all people should be allowed to engage in.

Twitter might be entitled to do these things legally, mostly, but they are equally entitled to suffer vehement repercussion for it as being enemies of free speech.

@mdk dont eat the pasta

seasoning the pasta, sir. I was only seasoning it.

@SleepingSilence The link to the margret thatcher statement seems to be broken, maybe it was a deleted tweet or something, I definitely remember him saying something like that but it was on one of his longer videos so I'm not going to try and dig it up, I'll accept whether you want to take my word for it or not.

He is absolutely a trump supporter, went from just attacking any criticism about him to actively voting for him. As seen here

As far as everything else I'm a little reluctant to start wading through hours of that guy talk for time stamps and context because there are frankly things I cant prove. I cant say for 100% he has or hasnt unsavoury intentions because I cant read his mind, I also cant give you a breakdown of his money driven aspirations because I have no access to his financial records. All I can do is point out his contradictions and shady interactions and accusations. But that really does mean nothing if you are going to give him the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

Now here is a video going in depth with soruces about the guy's behaviour and an earlier even longer on with even more context.

But because these videos were made by thunderf00t It seems like you are going to disregard everything said in the videos, even the things backed up by sources and video evidence. Now I'm no fan of Thunderf00t. He seems like a bit of a creep obsessed with making 500 videos about Anita Sarkeesian and his tone is too condescending for me to listen to for any length of time. But the fact he seemed to get in a spat with Sargon and Lauren Southern and they made response videos might make him out to be pretty combative but it doesn't make him a liar in every instance whatsoever. Especially when Lauren and Sargon aren't the most honest people on youtube if we have to be honest. And losing subscribers doesn't really mean anything. Jon Tron lost a lot of subscribers after the Destiny Debate stuff, but I'm sure you don't view him in the same way.

I don't want you to take this in the wrong way but you seem to be giving one person the benefit of the doubt in every instance and doing the exact opposite for someone else. I don't think its necessarily a political bias, because when it comes to feminism Thunderf00t and Stefan actually have very similar views. But I suspect there is not much more to say on this, so I'll leave it here.

I AM NOT A SCIENTIST [+]

but this would seem to be an alternative source of sea level rise/polar ice decline. Unless we're going with that questionable theory that global warming causes volcanoes.

Are you 100% sold on that source?

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Are you 100% sold on that source?

Nope. I actually scrapped a Newsweek link for this one, and it's being reported elsewhere too, like news.au and whatnot. Ultimate source is NASA, and I know they're already working on some supervolcano nonsense at Yellowstone, which I guess means this could be a ruse (the yellowstone thing could make a lot of money).

The link to the margret thatcher statement seems to be broken, maybe it was a deleted tweet or something, I definitely remember him saying something like that but it was on one of his longer videos so I'm not going to try and dig it up, I'll accept whether you want to take my word for it or not.

He is absolutely a trump supporter, went from just attacking any criticism about him to actively voting for him. As seen here

As far as everything else I'm a little reluctant to start wading through hours of that guy talk for time stamps and context because there are frankly things I cant prove. I cant say for 100% he has or hasnt unsavoury intentions because I cant read his mind, I also cant give you a breakdown of his money driven aspirations because I have no access to his financial records. All I can do is point out his contradictions and shady interactions and accusations. But that really does mean nothing if you are going to give him the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

Now here is a video going in depth with soruces about the guy's behaviour and an earlier even longer on with even more context.

But because these videos were made by thunderf00t It seems like you are going to disregard everything said in the videos, even the things backed up by sources and video evidence. Now I'm no fan of Thunderf00t. He seems like a bit of a creep obsessed with making 500 videos about Anita Sarkeesian and his tone is too condescending for me to listen to for any length of time. But the fact he seemed to get in a spat with Sargon and Lauren Southern and they made response videos might make him out to be pretty combative but it doesn't make him a liar in every instance whatsoever. Especially when Lauren and Sargon aren't the most honest people on youtube if we have to be honest. And losing subscribers doesn't really mean anything. Jon Tron lost a lot of subscribers after the Destiny Debate stuff, but I'm sure you don't view him in the same way.

I don't want you to take this in the wrong way but you seem to be giving one person the benefit of the doubt in every instance and doing the exact opposite for someone else. I don't think its necessarily a political bias, because when it comes to feminism Thunderf00t and Stefan actually have very similar views. But I suspect there is not much more to say on this, so I'll leave it here.

It's not just because you said it, or anything. Just healthy to have a skeptical mind. I'm not outright saying he's done nothing wrong. Very few people have spotless records anymore, you're bound to find dirt on just about any human being.

I just did some wading through Trump's voting video and almost all of it was someone else talking about Trump. Not him. But the first thing he does bring up, is "it's not about what trump -will- do, it's what he won't do" He won't go after the 2nd amendment, he won't bring in 3rd world people (a little vague for my personal tastes. He does specify refugees. But there's only one refuge group type that's caused problems for all of Europe. <.<) No more leftist on supreme court. He also doesn't really seemed that enthused. He said, he'll won't pull the breaks, but ya know maybe he won't step on the gas in driving america off a cliff. This seems like the typical reason, most people DID vote for Trump. The Ye Olde, Lesser evil argument. Doesn't seem like he's making a hypocritical argument.

B-but those videos are just from Thunderfoot again...I just wanted an original link video. Or at least someone who hasn't has such problems with lying directly about youtubers before.

Now, I'm not going to defend Laura Southern. Because I do -not- watch her stuff.

But Sargon of Akkad, has never been purposefully dishonest that I can see. He always corrects slip ups he makes and never doubles down. He's more honest about his political beliefs than most.

Well, I never liked Destiny. I could see he was manipulating the conversation. In a way, that reminded me of something like Angry Joe VS. Geoff Keighley. Angry Joe wasn't wrong in ideas. But he was unprepared and was outsmarted. JonTron is not a political activist and shouldn't have debated a manipulator.

But that doesn't work, because Destiny lost all of his when he said like several stupid things in a row. One mocking patreon artists. A few more cherries on top, Then using a bunch of hateful racist language. Making his judgement of JonTron pulling a Mitt Romney. Quite ironic.

Also I'm going to bring up I'm actively searching for Destiny racist quotes...and google has a front page of pewdiepie and jontron shit (ya know almost like leftist who are popular, never get the same coverage for their hateful nonsense.) Google your bias is showing again. Jesus, I found the animator spat before I found the racist quotes...



You don't need to search for it, it seems like you just have a negative gut reaction on them. It's not uncommon for people to hate someone for not completely clear reasons, everyone has that celeb you never met in your life but you can't stand in every movie there in, regardless of performance. I'm not going to look down at you, for disliking someone.

Okay, I don't take it personal that you think that I may take some opinions given to me by you, with a grain of salt. But I assure you, you're not the only one and it isn't just because you're saying it, that makes the statements questionable. I just doubted someone else on this very thread, posting something about VOX and taking them seriously.

Okay, I don't take it personal that you think that I may take some opinions given to me by you, with a grain of salt.

Well right back at ya, trying to separate the parts of your arguments that are logical, from the parts that clearly have emotional or personal bias is a task I'm just not up to, so once again I said I'll leave it.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/09/reddi…

In other news, Reddit has banned the R/incels subreddit. Incel is short for Involuntary Celibate. Basically angry male virgins who use cherry picked stats and anecdotal evidence to argue that women have a conspiracy against sleeping with them.

They also hated the 'chad' a slang term for a square jaw guy in shape who gets laid a lot (and hell of a lot more than they ever would).

@Dynamo Frokane

>Deleted everything I just wrote, because I thought of a better response.

The two things we discussed was Thunderfoot and Stefan. We both asked for videos on their own channel.

I did prove my point with videos of his. It's not an emotional argument, that he is a liar. I just proved it.

You said Stefan is a paid shill, but you admit you didn't have any evidence. But you personally felt that way. Note: I said I won't look down on you for feeling that way.

You bought up Destiny as well. Which I gave tweets that he did send. Sure, it's personal that I dislike Destiny more, because his behavior has always been worse than JonTron's. But we're just making character judgements for the most part. Those will often -be- based in emotional logic.

You shouldn't tell me you think I'm using only emotion, and you're using facts when it's really just "what I dislike about X and why?"

You shouldn't tell me you think I'm using only emotion

Well I didn't say that.

Now I said I'm dropping it, so unless you want to be talking to yourself I suggest you do too.

This is a fun year.

@Inkarnate You're a bit late Gowi, we already talked about that a few pages ago.

@Inkarnate You're a bit late Gowi, we already talked about that a few pages ago.

Well drat. How was I to know it was in-between your debate with Sleeping Silence and your debate with Sleeping Silence?!

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
Well drat. How was I to know it was in-between your debate with Sleeping Silence and your debate with Sleeping Silence?!

Very observant Gowi, with attention to detail like that you should consider a career in forensics.