Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm sure The Mandalorian will be canceled over this.

Cancel culture needs to be canceled.

It was tasteless in the same way Rocket Raccoons prosthetic fetishism was tasteless. However, it is nothing the show should be or will be cancelled over.

@Backfire but was this coming from the left?

People tend to forget in this country that conservatives also have a strong history of trying to get things censored/cancelled if it doesn't meet their moral code.

Obviously though I think this was intended as a harmless gag and considering that Baby Yoda I don't think it should be taken seriously as a message.3

Originally posted by Newjak
@Backfire but was this coming from the left?

People tend to forget in this country that conservatives also have a strong history of trying to get things censored/cancelled if it doesn't meet their moral code.

Obviously though I think this was intended as a harmless gag and considering that Baby Yoda I don't think it should be taken seriously as a message.3 The truth is the religious right censored far more and far more serious issues.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The truth is the religious right censored far more and far more serious issues. Yeah like most of the viewing rating came about because of conservative parents.

Also heaven forbid if a show shows a female nipple lol it's the end of childhood then lol.

Although upon further investigation I did look into the two twitter links a little more. One of them is self titles as Pro-Choice so probably not conservative. The other one is listed as an OnlyFans account for someone. I would think conservative women would be less inclined to work on OnlyFans but that is also an assumption on my part.

That is also only 2 of the tweets. I would be interested in seeing how many more of these actually exist and were these 2 just cherry picked.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah like most of the viewing rating came about because of conservative parents.

Also heaven forbid if a show shows a female nipple lol it's the end of childhood then lol.

Although upon further investigation I did look into the two twitter links a little more. One of them is self titles as Pro-Choice so probably not conservative. The other one is listed as an OnlyFans account for someone. I would think conservative women would be less inclined to work on OnlyFans but that is also an assumption on my part.

That is also only 2 of the tweets. I would be interested in seeing how many more of these actually exist and were these 2 just cherry picked. The comics code A authority... Dry counties and as you say pro choice and many, many more.

nobody is cancelling the mando. someone expressed an unfavorable opinion, and the ny post ran with it, to make everyone mad about nothing (like they always do)

Was very disappointed.


Disappointed that Baby Yoda never once wolfed down an egg in front of the parents, or tried to eat a hatchling. Its like they were setting it up when Mando left the eating machine with the fish people and their tasty kids.


When they were leaving I kept expecting the two spawns swimming in the bowel of water to magically become one, and the oblivious couple to not even have noticed. (They can't seem to count, judging by a lack of reaction to their dwindling egg supply)

These 4 tweets you've listed have convinced me

Frankly I'm absolutely disgusted by these people. The child is the last of their species. Clearly starving to the extent that it is willing to eat raw eggs of a sentient being to survive. Any complaint about it is practically condoning the extinction of an entire species. These people are genocidal monsters. They should be imprisoned for hate crimes.

Im starting to think baby yoda is actually yoda.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
These 4 tweets you've listed have convinced me

As it un-sarcastically should.

"Cancel culture" is always a very small but vocal minority of people just whining on the internet.

Then news folks pick it up because it's "juicy righteous anger" that gets views from both the virtue signal crowd (a shitload of millennials) and the anti-cancel-culture crowd.


It's outrageporn, as I like to call it. And the media loves it. How else are they going to get clicks, watches, and views from their otherwise vapid content?

Originally posted by dadudemon
As it un-sarcastically should.

"Cancel culture" is always a very small but vocal minority of people just whining on the internet.

Then news folks pick it up because it's "juicy righteous anger" that gets views from both the virtue signal crowd (a shitload of millennials) and the anti-cancel-culture crowd.


It's outrageporn, as I like to call it. And the media loves it. How else are they going to get clicks, watches, and views from their otherwise vapid content? Yeah, Surt and you have your Internet outrage triggered thread pal.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It was tasteless in the same way Rocket Raccoons prosthetic fetishism was tasteless. However, it is nothing the show should be or will be cancelled over.

The story line didn't even make sense.


Why couldn't she simply produce un fertilized eggs on planet? Why couldn't her husband come to her instead? Why were they separated in the first place? Why wasn't her precious cargo better secured, so thieves couldn't do exactly as a baby did?

Why didn't the wife even notice her eggs kept disappearing? Why was Mando so casual about it, and why did he keep letting Baby Yoda out of his sight? The whole thing was too ridiculous to take seriously.

Just because I'm easily pleased doesn't mean I don't have standards.

Originally posted by cdtm
The story line didn't even make sense.


Why couldn't she simply produce un fertilized eggs on planet? Why couldn't her husband come to her instead? Why were they separated in the first place? Why wasn't her precious cargo better secured, so thieves couldn't do exactly as a baby did?

Why didn't the wife even notice her eggs kept disappearing? Why was Mando so casual about it, and why did he keep letting Baby Yoda out of his sight? The whole thing was too ridiculous to take seriously.

Yeah but do we really want to enter into a "shit that doesn't make sense about star wars" discussion cuz we could literally go through every film and tv show and find something. Why didn't the empire fire on the f*cking ship that just had droids, in the very beginning of Ep 4? Entire series doesn't happen if it does that. It makes no sense, why not just blast it away? Did they have a limited number of shots they could fire?

See what I mean? Go to tv tropes and look up star wars and then go to the "headscratchers" section.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
These 4 tweets you've listed have convinced me

Conservatives do not seem to understand that Twitter is not real life.

What they are seeing on their feeds is a finely-curated and very unrepresentative sample of the population.

Only 22% of Americans use Twitter at all. Most users rarely Tweet, and 80% of Tweets come from 10% of users.

So 80% of Tweets come from 2% of Americans, and it is not even a representative 2%.

According to Pew Research, far-left "cancel culture" Twitter represents less than .1% of all Americans.

That less than .1% has an outsized voice, because they are prolific Tweeters, and their Tweets get seen by public figures who use the platform, which is why there is so much discourse about "cancel culture," even though it is produced by a relatively tiny group of people.

So if they want to understand why most people easily dismiss these sorts of Tweets, they need to pull their heads out of the radical bubble.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Conservatives do not seem to understand that Twitter is not real life.

What they are seeing on their feeds is a finely-curated and very unrepresentative sample of the population.

Only 22% of Americans use Twitter at all. Most users rarely Tweet, and 80% of Tweets come from 10% of users.

So 80% of Tweets come from 2% of Americans, and it is not even a representative 2%.

According to Pew Research, far-left "cancel culture" Twitter represents less than .1% of all Americans.

That less than .1% has an outsized voice, because they are prolific Tweeters, and their Tweets get seen by public figures who use the platform, which is why there is so much discourse about "cancel culture," even though it is produced by a relatively tiny group of people.

So if they want to understand why most people easily dismiss these sorts of Tweets, they need to pull their heads out of the radical bubble.

Does this just apply to twitter? Is Facebook real life?

I'd think it would apply to Facebook too. Of course democrats thought it was real enough in the wake of the 2016 election, but I know you'll have a great excuse for it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Does this just apply to twitter? Is Facebook real life?

I'd think it would apply to Facebook too. Of course democrats thought it was real enough in the wake of the 2016 election, but I know you'll have a great excuse for it.

Stay triggered over Twitter then.

Were Democrats triggered over Facebook?

You kinda avoided the whole "they thought social media was real life" thing while running your mouth about conservatives

Originally posted by Surtur
Lunatics are going after Gina Carano too. Trying to get her fired. Cuz just not watching the show isn't an option. Disney sends out a hit squad each week to force them to watch.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mandalorian-disney-fire-gina-carano-tweet-democrats-masks

They've been after her for awhile now. They hounded her to put up her pronouns and instead she put up something like beep/bop/boop.... Needless to say, they were not pleased and called for her to be fired.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Conservatives do not seem to understand that Twitter is not real life.

What they are seeing on their feeds is a finely-curated and very unrepresentative sample of the population.

Only 22% of Americans use Twitter at all. Most users rarely Tweet, and 80% of Tweets come from 10% of users.

So 80% of Tweets come from 2% of Americans, and it is not even a representative 2%.

According to Pew Research, far-left "cancel culture" Twitter represents less than .1% of all Americans.

That less than .1% has an outsized voice, because they are prolific Tweeters, and their Tweets get seen by public figures who use the platform, which is why there is so much discourse about "cancel culture," even though it is produced by a relatively tiny group of people.

So if they want to understand why most people easily dismiss these sorts of Tweets, they need to pull their heads out of the radical bubble.

Was not aware it was that few. Especially the 0.1% in regards to the "Far-Left". Makes sense though.

It's a very interesting phenomenon.

Imagine if someone who had never been to KMC before came here and used the GDF to shape their worldview on politics and political groups. That's basically what it's like when retards complain about some tweet they don't like or Facebook post.

Like imagine someone tried to prove that conservatives are retarded by linking silent master's post history.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Like imagine someone tried to prove that conservatives are retarded by linking silent master's post history.

Agreed. That'd be the worst case in history of trying to prove conservatives were "retarded" by using Silent Master's post history. Mostly because SM is a liberal and very smart.

"Are we actually the mentally disabled Nazis?"

Ah, you slipped up and thought that I was implying the common bridge between them was conservatism, and not retardation

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Ah, you slipped up and thought that I was implying the common bridge between them was conservatism, and not retardation

You might be able to. But Silent Master is the worst person to use for that if that's you're objective.


Hey, wait a minute, we're just saying the same things we said before but using different words!

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It's a very interesting phenomenon.

Imagine if someone who had never been to KMC before came here and used the GDF to shape their worldview on politics and political groups. That's basically what it's like when retards complain about some tweet they don't like or Facebook post.

Like imagine someone tried to prove that conservatives are retarded by linking silent master's post history.

I disagree. Yes, pretending all liberals are like these extremists cancel culture idiots is ridiculous. But complaining about them is not. Simply because these idiots have a massive amount of influence. Careers and lives have been ruined by them. And some industries, particularly western gaming, have basically begun to appease them. So, yes, I feel complaining about some tweet saying that calling a burnt faced "disfigured" is "ableist" and "unacceptable" is fair game considering that very tweet managed to modify a video game.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You might be able to. But Silent Master is the worst person to use for that if that's you're objective.


Hey, wait a minute, we're just saying the same things we said before but using different words!

The fact that you had to repeat yourself because he was unable to understand such a simple statement should tell you all you need to know about him

Originally posted by ares834
I disagree. Yes, pretending all liberals are like these extremists cancel culture idiots is ridiculous. But complaining about them is not. Simply because these idiots have a massive amount of influence. Careers and lives have been ruined by them. And some industries, particularly western gaming, have basically begun to appease them. So, yes, I feel complaining about some tweet saying that calling a burnt faced "disfigured" is "ableist" and "unacceptable" is fair game considering that very tweet managed to modify a video game. Okay, but "this incredibly small, vocal minority has too much sway on popular media" is an entirely different assertion from "the left created censorship, and here's these tweets for proof".

edit- as an aside, you have the right to complain about whatever you like. But keep in mind that right now Janet Jackson is still banned for life from the Superbowl due to an accidental nipple slip on tv from like 2004. That would never happen in more liberal places like western Europe. Don't fall prey to confirmation bias.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The fact that you had to repeat yourself because he was unable to understand such a simple statement should tell you all you need to know about him

Bingo. And yes Twitter isn't real life, but you can use it to potentially mess with someone's life.

Just recently target banned a book after a single tweet called it transphobic. Thankfully Target reversed, but a mob of about one was able to temporarily get a book pulled from a store cuz a corporation saw their whiny tweet.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Stay triggered over Twitter then.

Keep dodging the points made

Cancel culture is a dress rehearsal for mass murder.

If you can disappear someone from their job, or a digital or entertainment space, for example, with no one noticing, then it signals disappearing for real wouldnt be met with much blow back.

I kinda feel like comparing it to mass murder is just gonna render any legit criticism moot.

We don't wanna be like lunatics invoking Kristallnacht do we?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Cancel culture is a dress rehearsal for mass murder.

If you can disappear someone from their job, or a digital or entertainment space, for example, with no one noticing, then it signals disappearing for real wouldnt be met with much blow back.

^eon sure is chatty today

So that's eon?

Who isn't

Originally posted by Surtur
I kinda feel like comparing it to mass murder is just gonna render any legit criticism moot.

We don't wanna be like lunatics invoking Kristallnacht do we?

They're comparable in the way theyre the same thing but of different intensities.

An example can be found in someone like stefan molyneaux. Youtube deleted his channel, which had 15 years of content and he is fairly prolific, which would have an obvious effect on his income.

The reason why this is similar to mass murder is the illegitimate means that his channel was deleted; via the whim of a centralized power. Think of the holocaust, the holomodor, the cultural revolution etc.

So if there is no societal self correction mechanism to make things legitimate again in terms of attacks on ones reputational and financial then what is to stop it from escalating to murder?

If you think this sounds unreasonable think of how the media playing defence for the protesters allowed 2 billion dollars of property damage to go unpunished and the culture over whether rittenhouses claim to self defense is legit when there's video evidence.

Well hell, you gave a valid explanation

You're like a unicorn here

Trump is the King Of Cancel Culture

You down with KCC, yeah u know me

Originally posted by Surtur
Well hell, you gave a valid explanation

You're like a unicorn here

Wow, i love when i can get someone to change their mind through reason.

Thank you for being reasonable

It's a nice change. Someone explained a position. I'm used to just "reeee"

Originally posted by Surtur
It's a nice change. Someone explained a position. I'm used to just "reeee"

Entering into argumentation automatically insinuates a negotiation is at hand.
The rules and aims of negotiation is to reach a mutally beneficial end.
One thinks argumentation is valuable by virtue of entering it.
Dogs can commit speech acts, but cant engage in argumentation.
Anyone saying reeee only proves that they are dogs and the opinions of dogs are treated as such.

td;lr anything other than honest and committed engagement is a waste of everyone's time imo

Originally posted by ilikecomics
They're comparable in the way theyre the same thing but of different intensities. Ergo they aren't the same thing at all. Raising my voice at my child when he does something wrong and beating my child with a bat when he does something wrong are "the same thing but of different intensities", but only a retard would equivalate the two.

In any case, google what a slippery slope fallacy is.

Originally posted by Surtur
So that's eon?

Who isn't pretty sure Eon was Kurk

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Trump is the King Of Cancel Culture

All the more reason for those on the left to oppose it, correct?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Ergo they aren't the same thing at all. Raising my voice at my child when he does something wrong and beating my child with a bat when he does something wrong are "the same thing but of different intensities", but only a retard would equivalate the two.

In any case, google what a slippery slope fallacy is.

A society that allows adults to act like emotional terrorists towards their children, an association that involves zero choice on the child's part, will allow people to abuse their children.

The international statistics on child abuse are dismal, 80 percent of children are abused.

It's called the banality of evil, friend.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
A society that allows adults to act like emotional terrorists towards their children, an association that involves zero choice on the child's part, will allow people to abuse their children physically.

The international statistics on child abuse are dismal, 80 percent of children are abused.

It's called the banality of evil, friend.

Are you asserting that disciplining your kids is inherently child abuse?

The point is it's ignorant to shrug off bias with "twitter isn't real life".

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Are you asserting that disciplining your kids is inherently child abuse?

I don't think so. I think he is asserting this:


Originally posted by ilikecomics
A society that allows adults to act like emotional terrorists towards their children, an association that involves zero choice on the child's part, will allow people to abuse their children.

The international statistics on child abuse are dismal, 80 percent of children are abused.

It's called the banality of evil, friend.

Why does he keep needing you to explain shit to him?

Today i learned people will try to use sophistry on nearly defunt chat forums to justify hitting their kids.

Check out a book called spare the child, it's about the christian roots of corporeal punishment on kids.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why does he keep needing you to explain shit to him?

We are a duo.

He's just the one pointing out the simple things, asking the questions. I provide the clarifications and answers.


Don't ruin our thing, man. It's working out for both of us. But he could kiss a bit more...he's not as romantic as he used to be.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Today i learned people will try to use sophistry on nearly defunt chat forums to justify hitting their kids.

Check out a book called spare the child, it's about the christian roots of corporeal punishment on kids.

Dr. James Dobson or Greven?

Originally posted by Surtur
The point is it's ignorant to shrug off bias with "twitter isn't real life".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Stay triggered over Twitter then.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We are a duo.

He's just the one pointing out the simple things, asking the questions. I provide the clarifications and answers.


Don't ruin our thing, man. It's working out for both of us. But he could kiss a bit more...he's not as romantic as he used to be.

So it's like Rain Man and he's Dustin Hoffman.

Originally posted by Robtard


^Doesn't want to try to contend with the points made, instead quotes known liar as if it's a victory. Reasons for this are as yet unknown.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Today i learned people will try to use sophistry on nearly defunt chat forums to justify hitting their kids.

Check out a book called spare the child, it's about the christian roots of corporeal punishment on kids. Ah, don't be pretend to know what sophistry is- you've already proven yourself to be an idiot.

It's not really fair for you to get mad at me here. You're the one asserting that disciplining your children is inherently child abuse and criticizing people on twitter is equivalent to murder. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are a duo.

He's just the one pointing out the simple things, asking the questions. I provide the clarifications and answers.


Don't ruin our thing, man. It's working out for both of us. But he could kiss a bit more...he's not as romantic as he used to be. You knew what this was, you always knew. You whore.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dr. James Dobson or Greven?


Greven

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Ah, don't be pretend to know what sophistry is- you've already proven yourself to be an idiot.

It's not really fair for you to get mad at me here. You're the one asserting that disciplining your children is inherently child abuse and criticizing people on twitter is equivalent to murder.
You knew what this was, you always knew. You whore.


Your obvious highground is made more obvious through ad hominem.

Only winners do that.

It's needs to be clarified for the plebs that:

A) Disciplining children isn't child abuse, as there's a huge gap between say grounding your child and punching them. The later being child abuse

B) Attacking people on Twitter isn't comparable to murder, not even remotely comparable

Originally posted by Robtard
It's needs to be clarified for the plebs that:

A) Disciplining children isn't child abuse, as there's a huge gap between say grounding your child and punching them. The later being child abuse

B) Attacking people on Twitter isn't comparable to murder, not even remotely comparable

Fully agree

Detective Teg was right about you

Originally posted by Robtard
It's needs to be clarified for the plebs that:

A) Disciplining children isn't child abuse, as there's a huge gap between say grounding your child and punching them. The later being child abuse

B) Attacking people on Twitter isn't comparable to murder, not even remotely comparable

Why did this need to be clarified when nobody made these arguments?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Your obvious highground is made more obvious through ad hominem.

Only winners do that. You don't understand what an ad hominem is.

An ad hominem would be me saying that your argument is wrong because you're retarded. You being retarded is not related to why your assertion that bullying people on twitter is fascism is incorrect.

Someone who needed self explanatory posts explained multiple times calling other folk retarded.

Good stuff

Originally posted by Surtur
Why did this need to be clarified when nobody made these arguments?


You're wrong again:

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Cancel culture is a dress rehearsal for mass murder.

If you can disappear someone from their job, or a digital or entertainment space, for example, with no one noticing, then it signals disappearing for real wouldnt be met with much blow back.

You didn't prove that, but okay

Bottom line this: say there is no social media bias.

Who wants to go first?

@surt Social media bias exist and it exist on both sides and everything in between. No one claimed otherwise.

But that was just a silly distraction from you because you're failing hard in here and it's been noted.

Originally posted by Robtard
@surt Social media bias exist and it exist on both sides and everything in between. No one claimed otherwise.

But that was just a silly distraction from you because you're failing hard in here and it's been noted.

Does it exist equally on both sides?

Your distraction has already been noted, surt.

One more time: is the bias equal?

You fail to answer again: I assume you acknowledge it's not

Originally posted by Surtur
So it's like Rain Man and he's Dustin Hoffman.

Neither of us are savants a la Rainman.

uhuh

But one does seem more retarded than the other

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You don't understand what an ad hominem is.

An ad hominem would be me saying that your argument is wrong because you're retarded. You being retarded is not related to why your assertion that bullying people on twitter is fascism is incorrect.

Actually, if you read carefully, you're claiming i dont know what sophistry is because im an idiot, that is an ad hominem, regardless if the definition of sophistry is tangential to our main argument or not.




Saying inflammatory things on twitter isnt what im talking about.
That's a peer to peer voluntary action.
What i am talking about is removing someone's account without twitter's version of due process, which would involve a notice, deliberation, then delivering that deliberation etc.
This is a clumsy attempt at ideologically based censorship and clumsy at that.

If twitter, for example, just followed the boundaries of free speech instead of their own arbitration system this problem would disappear.


Also, using positive and negative re-enforcement in child rearing is not abuse and not what im talking about.

Im talking about abuse as categorized by any simple google search.

If there's any further misconceptions feel free to ask, that way it doesnt look like youre straw manning my argument.
You might even try steel manning it first.

Cheers.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Greven

Man, I'm good with guess shit about who published books about disciplining children with corporal punishment. The list is not very long, though, so, again, I'm definitely definitely not a savant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man, I'm good with guess shit about who published books about disciplining children with corporal punishment. The list is not very long, though, so, again, I'm definitely definitely not a savant.

^This b*tch hates kids!

Originally posted by Surtur
^This b*tch hates kids!


I spit out my cali roll, bro

https://media.giphy.com/media/x7gjmBuaHrWak/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
^This b*tch hates kids!

How DARE you call me a b*tch!


As we established, yesterday, with PVS: I'm a whore because I demand to be paid.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Actually, if you read carefully, you're claiming i dont know what sophistry is because im an idiotNo, I'm claiming that you're retarded because of your arguments. That you don't know what sophistry is, is just an unfortunate side effect of your retardation. Now, what evidence do I have that you don't understand how logical fallacies work? Well, the fact that you keep invoking them incorrectly in this thread is the evidence.

1. "Due process" and "free speech" are legal terms that apply in no way to a private entity. Twitter deleting your account because you said that you're voting republican this year is not a violation of your right to expression.
2. This is an entirely separate topic from your original assertion in this thread, which was that people losing their jobs/platform due to public outrage on twitter is equivalent to murder.


It doesn't matter- I'm the one who brought up child abuse vs child discipline- to highlight the ridiculousness of your slippery slope fallacy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How DARE you call me a b*tch!


As we established, yesterday, with PVS: I'm a whore because I demand to be paid.

I dont pay no man no mind

Emphasis on pay

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No, I'm claiming that you're retarded because of your arguments. That you don't know what sophistry is, is just an unfortunate side effect of your retardation. Now, what evidence do I have that you don't understand how logical fallacies work? Well, the fact that you keep invoking them incorrectly in this thread is the evidence.

1. "Due process" and "free speech" are legal terms that apply in no way to a private entity. Twitter deleting your account because you said that you're voting republican this year is not a violation of your right to expression.
2. This is an entirely separate topic from your original assertion in this thread, which was that people losing their jobs/platform due to public outrage on twitter is equivalent to murder.


It doesn't matter- I'm the one who brought up child abuse vs child discipline- to highlight the ridiculousness of your slippery slope fallacy.


Do you think im using those terms in the legal capacity, or do you think im talking about whatever mechanism would be analogous within twitter's organizational and procedural structure?

I ask because it doesnt seem like youre acting in good faith and are coming off pedantic, so ill ask point blank.

Do you intend on ever agreeing with anything i say or do you just like to argue?

If you think this convo is getting too pedantic we can step back to square one.

" is the same thing as , just different intensities"

No. That's retarded. You go on to extrapolate by saying that youtube deleting SM's account is equivalent to murder because they did so "illegitimately", which is also retarded as youtube was well within their rights to do so as outlined in their Terms of Service- terms of service that SM agreed to abide by when using their service.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If you think this convo is getting too pedantic we can step back to square one.

" is the same thing as , just different intensities"

No. That's retarded. You go on to extrapolate by saying that youtube deleting SM's account is equivalent to murder because they did so "illegitimately", which is also retarded as youtube was well within their rights to do so as outlined in their Terms of Service- terms of service that SM agreed to abide by when using their service.


I didnt say it's the same thing, i said it's a dress rehearsal for mass murder.

Dress rehearsal = conditioning for, a roleplay, a normalization of acts depicted, etc.

Your example of child abuse is a perfect tool to illustrate that there is a continuum of violence.
In the case of child abuse, the spectrum goes from yelling or bullying (not well intentioned pedagogical moments that require a certain level of authoritativeness.) on the tame side, spanning to physical punishment, sexual abuse etc.

Being impatient with a child is not an instance of abuse, it's just shitty parenting, in the same way deleting molyneaux's account, without going through the correct procedure to do so, isnt violence.

My positive claim is that a society that allows/noramlizes shitty parenting can ultimately and easily accommodate the normalization of abuse, on either end of the spectrum.
In the same way if people who dont like molyneaux's view dont mind if his work gets deleted also would mind if some poor turn in forture befell him, as evidenced by the fact that the deletion of his yt is no biggie and "totally under the rules to do so", even tho it isnt.


"If the video violates YouTube's Community Guidelines it will be removed; but if there is no violation, the video will not be removed no matter how often it is flagged."

Molyneaux never broke their terms of agreement.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
" is the same thing as , just different intensities"

Who said this, though? Seems kind of stupid that someone would say that.

Mass career murder, maybe.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who said this, though? Seems kind of stupid that someone would say that.

Mass career murder, maybe.

If i did, someone must have hacked kmc.

Also ddm, i like you better as an ally, but can i ask a question at the risk of being coarse?

Yeah but dont fret this dude has needed multiple things explained to him

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah but dont fret this dude has needed multiple things explained to him

I don't fret, i love explaining and i like not responding to bad attitudes and powering through for the sake of TRUTH.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
If i did, someone must have hacked kmc.

Also ddm, i like you better as an ally, but can i ask a question at the risk of being coarse?


If you have to ask if you can ask a question to a person who holds no higher station than you, the question is very likely to be shitty. Likely condescending. It's got some shit in it. Etc. Something like that.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I didnt say it's the same thing, i said it's a dress rehearsal for mass murder.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
They're comparable in the way theyre the same thing but of different intensities.

And now you've ****ed up and are on the slippery slope, because your argument hinges upon the idea that society has no nuance and can not see distinctions. There is a moral and legal distinction between giving your child a timeout, and beating them with a pipe. Society recognizes a moral and legal distinction between public demand that someone be fired or removed from a platform, and having their entrails ripped out by an angry mob and dragged through the city streets.

And furthermore your implication that people being fired due to public outrage is equivalent to murder due to the person's life being "ruined" is laughable. If I tell my boss that her titties look great in that dress and she fires me and I can't pay my bills and I become homeless and suck dick under the bridge for crack- is the company's termination of my employment equivalent to "murder", as you assert?

Per youtube, he broke their restriction on promoting hate speech and for saying crazy shit like "The Left is infested with pedophiles - they promote the welfare state and feminism in order to get protective fathers out of the home, so they have easier sexual access to the children of single mothers."

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you have to ask if you can ask a question to a person who holds no higher station than you, the question is very likely to be shitty. Likely condescending. It's got some shit in it. Etc. Something like that.

Hmmm you're right, so ill ask without pretension.

Do you remember when you called me names?
If yes, do you think it looked much different from the guy calling me a retarded idiot in this discussion?

It's important to highlight for your own benefit, if you care more about consensus building than winning.

what changed in this circumstance for you to not be inflammatory towards me? Is it just that we're on the same side in this case or when you talked to me like that did i just catch you on a bad day ?
I ask because im still interested in the healthcare chat that was originally the source of our discord.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
And now you've ****ed up and are on the slippery slope, because your argument hinges upon the idea that society has no nuance and can not see distinctions. There is a moral and legal distinction between giving your child a timeout, and beating them with a pipe. Society recognizes a moral and legal distinction between public demand that someone be fired or removed from a platform, and having their entrails ripped out by an angry mob and dragged through the city streets.

And furthermore your implication that people being fired due to public outrage is equivalent to murder due to the person's life being "ruined" is laughable. If I tell my boss that her titties look great in that dress and she fires me and I can't pay my bills and I become homeless and suck dick under the bridge for crack- is the company's termination of my employment equivalent to "murder", as you assert?

Per youtube, he broke their restriction on promoting hate speech and for saying crazy shit like "The Left is infested with pedophiles - they promote the welfare state and feminism in order to get protective fathers out of the home, so they have easier sexual access to the children of single mothers."

What is hate speech?

Are you asking for my definition of hate speech, the law's definition of hate speech or someone else' definition of hate speech?
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Hmmm you're right, so ill ask without pretension.

Do you remember when you called me names?
If yes, do you think it looked much different from the guy calling me a retarded idiot in this discussion?

It's important to highlight for your own benefit, if you care more about consensus building than winning.

what changed in this circumstance for you to not be inflammatory towards me? Is it just that we're on the same side in this case or when you talked to me like that did i just catch you on a bad day ?
I ask because im still interested in the healthcare chat that was originally the source of our discord. DDM is an example of the person that my signature quote is referring to. You would be a fool to take anything he says to heart.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Are you asking for my definition of hate speech, the law's definition of hate speech or someone else' definition of hate speech?
DDM is an example of the person that my signature quote is referring to. You would be a fool to take anything he says to heart.

I want you to understand that the definition of hate speech is whatever people with power say it is, in this case it's youtube's -who, as an institution slant super left.

If it happened to be predominantly right wing and they shadow banned people like sam sedar or david pakman for "fufu lefty snowflake bullshit" would you still have the same attitude you do now?



Edit: legally hate speech doesnt exist.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I want you to understand that the definition of hate speech is whatever people with power say it is, in this case it's youtube's -who, as an institution slant super left.

If it happened to be predominantly right wing and they shadow banned people like sam sedar or david pakman for "fufu lefty snowflake bullshit" would you still have the same attitude you do now?



Edit: legally hate speech doesnt exist. Depends on your definition of what "fufu lefty snowflake bullshit" is. Would I care if Twitter banned Beyonce for tweeting that the police hate black people? No.

Also, let the record show that this appeal is moving away from the "banning people from social media is one step away from murder" argument you were presenting before.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Depends on your definition of what "fufu lefty snowflake bullshit" is. Would I care if Twitter banned Beyonce for tweeting that the police hate black people? No.

Also, let the record show that this appeal is moving away from the "banning people from social media is one step away from murder" argument you were presenting before.

I asked about hate speech so it could act as a barometer for your overall thought process.
It seems you're at least consistent and im assuming you have good reasons for what you believe.

For me, censorship is a evil with no match.
This is because censorship is enforced through violence or the threat of it.
Obviously, it's not to the level that youtube has a militia but there are people on youtube with a way bigger following than legacy media, therefore they have a larger impact.
These channels with huge followings have their power propped up by the even bigger power that is youtube.
If youtube starts curating the channels on their platform based on ideology, it can condense into an echo chamber.
If public outcry can lead to molyneaux getting deleted, why cant a youtube channel lead to public outcry?
We're only a couple generations out from having lynch mobs as a normative social convention.

The internet is a digital environment, the same way america is a physical environment.

The idea of cancel culture has already transcended the boundary between these two environments in the form of something like metoo or the sentiment towards punch a nazi.

Metoo because it called for the destruction of men without due process, and punch a nazi because using violence to combat ideas makes you a loser, in the same way name calling does.

If you think metoo was necessary and cool and punching nazis is tight then obviously my point is moot.

So this is the part that you keep getting tripped up on in regards to a logical stream of causality vs appeals to emotion. The rest of your post is fairly generic concerns about the balance of power in social media and the moral dilemma of the freedom to express one's views vs the freedom of individuals to manage their businesses in the manner they deem fit.

Equating the act of a private service removing someone from their service to lynch mobs is yellow journalism. It's like the fools on 4chan crying that they're oppressed and being genocided because they can't say nig*er in Overwatch.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So this is the part that you keep getting tripped up on in regards to a logical stream of causality vs appeals to emotion. The rest of your post is fairly generic concerns about the balance of power in social media and the moral dilemma of the freedom to express one's views vs the freedom of individuals to manage their businesses in the manner they deem fit.

Equating the act of a private service removing someone from their service to lynch mobs is yellow journalism. It's like the fools on 4chan crying that they're oppressed and being genocided because they can't say nig*er in Overwatch.

Okay, fair points.

Then what, in your opinion, does the logical sequence leading to mass murder look like?
And how is the silencing of dissent not part of that paradigm?

Note: i specifically have ideologically driven mass murder in mind.



Edit: how can 1 logically distinguish between a probable sequence of events vs. a slippery slope, and what are the differences between the two as someone describing them and as someone interpreting them.


E.g. if i tell a girl in a physically abusive relationship to leave because he could kill her, would the girl in the abusvie relationship sound smart if she said a domestic abuser isnt the same as a murderer and told me im doing a slippery slope?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Depends on your definition of what "fufu lefty snowflake bullshit" is. Would I care if Twitter banned Beyonce for tweeting that the police hate black people? No.

Also, let the record show that this appeal is moving away from the "banning people from social media is one step away from murder" argument you were presenting before.

I would.

Speaking of slippery slopes, banning over "hate speech" is one. Who decides where that line is?

Is hate speech only overt statements, like "Certain people should burn in.."

Or does it include the latest definition on "Microaggressions" that no one outside of academia would have a clue about?

Or do we simply let any disadvantaged group make up the rules as they go along, and someone from said group complains, for any reason, that is hate speech?


And what stops legitimate political dissent from being labeled hate speech, and silenced? As politics are so polarized at this point that double standards are simply never self policed from within a political community.


I say let people say whatever they want, no matter how vile. Let the communities self police, or work out for themselves their own social norms. If someone is offended, they have options ranging from ignoring the perpetrator, blocking them, not engaging with them, or simply "dealing with it" when offended.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Hmmm you're right, so ill ask without pretension.

Do you remember when you called me names?
If yes, do you think it looked much different from the guy calling me a retarded idiot in this discussion?

Yes.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
It's important to highlight for your own benefit, if you care more about consensus building than winning.

I don't.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
what changed in this circumstance for you to not be inflammatory towards me?

I haven't. You're still a science-denying .

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Is it just that we're on the same side in this case or when you talked to me like that did i just catch you on a bad day ?

My entertainment is more important than maintaining an ideal enemy state for you to fight.


Originally posted by ilikecomics
I ask because im still interested in the healthcare chat that was originally the source of our discord.

And I am not. You're still an who is a science denier.


Be more interested in these nuts.




You blew it. You had the opportunity to have an adult discussion but denied very clear science. You fell into the hole of what I consider complete idiots who are not worth engaging in serious discussion. It's a very short list. Very few people are such giant idiots that they end up on this list.

Are they filed as a platform or publisher, that should be the only answer needed for this particular question.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Are they filed as a platform or publisher, that should be the only answer needed for this particular question.

You think communities should self-police. That is what they are doing. So again, what is the problem?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You think communities should self-police. That is what they are doing. So again, what is the problem?

I asked if they are a platform or publisher, so you say "self policing" and that would make them a publisher, got it

If they're going to self police they should either

A-Be consistent about it

or

B-Acknowledge they aren't going to be consistent about it

No more censoring unverified stories for one political party, but allowing them for the other. If they can't get their shit together they will be regulated one day.

And stepping back from twitter to look at other social media companies, how does this not make Facebook a publisher?

Originally posted by Surtur
So how are they not a publisher?

https://i.imgur.com/RK47Z2B.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes.



I don't.



I haven't. You're still a science-denying .



My entertainment is more important than maintaining an ideal enemy state for you to fight.




And I am not. You're still an who is a science denier.


Be more interested in these nuts.




You blew it. You had the opportunity to have an adult discussion but denied very clear science. You fell into the hole of what I consider complete idiots who are not worth engaging in serious discussion. It's a very short list. Very few people are such giant idiots that they end up on this list.


So, why would i argue in bad faith and deny science when im seemingly being so reasonable in my stance toward hate speech/ cancel culture?

Also, i never disagreed with your numbers, i was imploring to use a different approach, the different approach being that of a priorism.
The same way you would approach logic and math is the same way you approach praxeology.


It's a known metric that the state spends your tax dollar at 1/10th it's efficiency, why is it so hard to understand that people would still want healthcare without the state?
That people would still want to become doctors and nurses?


(your post made me lol so youre at least consistently funny if nothing else.)

Originally posted by cdtm
I would.

Speaking of slippery slopes, banning over "hate speech" is one. Who decides where that line is?

Is hate speech only overt statements, like "Certain people should burn in.."

Or does it include the latest definition on "Microaggressions" that no one outside of academia would have a clue about?

Or do we simply let any disadvantaged group make up the rules as they go along, and someone from said group complains, for any reason, that is hate speech?


And what stops legitimate political dissent from being labeled hate speech, and silenced? As politics are so polarized at this point that double standards are simply never self policed from within a political community.


I say let people say whatever they want, no matter how vile. Let the communities self police, or work out for themselves their own social norms. If someone is offended, they have options ranging from ignoring the perpetrator, blocking them, not engaging with them, or simply "dealing with it" when offended.


BIG AGREE WITH THIS RIGHT HERE

I especially can't trust the side that can't properly define words like racist, sexist, nazi, or fascist to have a non-insane definition of "hate speech".

The hilarious part is that calling someone a racist or a nazi merely because you disagree with them would seem to be pretty hateful speech.

Their definition is "anyone that disagrees with me".

Originally posted by snowdragon
I asked if they are a platform or publisher, so you say "self policing" and that would make them a publisher, got it

would KMC then a publisher then?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
would KMC then a publisher then?

What they always conveniently gloss over, as surely they're aware, is that all these companies, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc have a EULA which every user agrees too (digitally) and if you break the rules, you're subject to censorship or banning.


There's also an extremely easy fix for them, if you don't like how a social media company operates, don't use the service, find a service whose culture better fits your views/needs.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
would KMC then a publisher then?

It would seem KMC functions more as a distributor from the perspective of moderation and information.

Originally posted by Robtard
What they always conveniently gloss over, as surely they're aware, is that all these companies, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc have a EULA which every user agrees too (digitally) and if you break the rules, you're subject to censorship or banning.

Are you consistent in this principle and think Christians can turn away gays, muslims can turn away whites etc. ?

I mean this in a service setting.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Are you consistent in this principle and think Christians can turn away gays, muslims can turn away whites etc. ?

I mean this in a service setting.


As long as said actions don't break our existing laws in regards to discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and/or religion, I don't really care.

But as you probably know, those actions often do break our laws.

I'd also add that turning someone away because they're gay or a different religion is not very Christian and would make Jesus cry. So really, these people are using "my religion" as a means to hide their own bigotry.

Originally posted by Robtard
As long as said actions don't break our existing laws in regards to discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and/or religion, I don't really care.

But as you probably know, those actions often do break our laws.


It's not illegal to discriminate tho.
If i own a business i can turn away anyone at any time, no?

Edit: in the context of owner to customer.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
It's not illegal to discriminate tho.
If i own a business i can turn away anyone at any time, no?

Edit: in the context of owner to customer.

What part didn't you understand?

-Yes you can

-Unless it breaks our existing laws on discrimination

Originally posted by Robtard
What part didn't you understand?

-Yes you can

-Unless it breaks our existing laws on discrimination

Im saying specifically from the point of a business owner that there isnt any laws and im specifically talking about employee or owner to customer relations, not owner to employees, so there is no existing law.

So youre saying yes, it is kosher from robtard's pov that a christian baker can legally and legitimately tell a gay person no and to get out?


Edit: youre being consistent, and that's all i ask.

I doubt he will agree a Christian baker should be able to tell a gay person to get out, but I'd love to be wrong.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Im saying specifically from the point of a business owner that there isnt any laws and im specifically talking about employee or owner to customer relations, not owner to employees, so there is no existing law.

So youre saying yes, it is kosher from robtard's pov that a christian baker can legally and legitimately tell a gay person no and to get out?

This is wrong. There are laws in America that prohibit a business owner from certain discrimination practices against customers. See: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The "Christian" baker is less cut and dry because he's using his own freedom of religion as the reason why he's discriminating against people.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is wrong. There are laws in America that prohibit a business owner from certain discrimination practices. See: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The "Christian" baker is less cut and dry because he's using his own freedom of religion as the reason why he's discriminating against people.

You're absolutely right. I just looked it up.

Wow, i didnt know the civil rights act forced inclusion.
Do you like that the state forces association that way?

Edit: thank you for correcting me and providing information. I misunderstood it at first. Your patience is appreciated.

"forced inclusion" Oh you people.

I like that people can't be discriminated against because of something as trivial as their skin color.

Going back to the 'yes you can turn people away, but as long as it doesn't break existing laws' stated earliar: if that "Christian" baker, wanted to turn away a customer because they're disabled, the American Disabilities Act of 1990 would likely overrule his own business owner's rights.

So, he can't turn away democrats?

Originally posted by Robtard
"forced inclusion" Oh you people.

I like that people can't be discriminated against because of something as trivial as their skin color.

Back to that "Christian" bake, if he wanted to turn away a customer because they're disabled, the American Disabilities Act of 1990 would likely overrule his own business owner's rights.

I call it forced because the role of the state.
The state is a monopoly on force, meaning there is no greater disparity in a power dynamic than between that of the levisthan and it's citizenry.
The closest we get is the disparity in the power dynamic between adult snd child.
It would be weird if a parent forced their child to never turn down a friend no matter what, or else.
The or else being the threat of punishment.
Now, if that same child chose to befriend everyone they met autonomously there would be no sinister element to that scenario.

My problem with forced inclusion in this case is how it actually preserves the business interests of the racists, sexists, whatever-ists.

If the owner of a diary queen franchise, in a free market, says they wont sell ice cream to someone because theyre black, for example, then that guy would be seen as a racist jerk and his dq would collapse.

In the current mixed economy the same racist dq owner still has hate in his heart and the money made from serving all those black people allows him to mobilize that hate.

So, if im black, id wanna ask what's more important; easy access to a racist guy's ice cream i can get because the money the state steals from me through taxes forces him to sell it to me?
Or that a racist loses his business, and therefore a large portion of his power to act in this world?

I see your point of: "If the owner of a diary queen franchise, in a free market, says they wont sell ice cream to someone because theyre black, for example, then that guy would be seen as a racist jerk and his dq would collapse."


I both agree and disagree. I like that idea that these people should be exposed, but we've seen where these bigots end up profiting because other like minded bigots flock to give them patronage and it would suck for those hypothetical Black people to lose out on Dairy Cream because of bigots if there's not another DQ within driving distance.

So let's stick to the existing laws on discrimination.

We shouldn't have laws on discrimination for private entities.

Originally posted by wxyz
We shouldn't have laws on discrimination for private entities.


Your opinion has been noted.

Agree/disagree?

Originally posted by Robtard
I see your point of: "If the owner of a diary queen franchise, in a free market, says they wont sell ice cream to someone because theyre black, for example, then that guy would be seen as a racist jerk and his dq would collapse."


I both agree and disagree. I like that idea that these people should be exposed, but we've seen where these bigots end up profiting because other like minded bigots flock to give them patronage and it would suck for those hypothetical Black people to lose out on Dairy Cream because of bigots if there's not another DQ within driving distance.

So let's stick to the existing laws on discrimination.

Well said, rob.

I want to push on one more intuition here, that can be tied back to your point on how the racist dq could then become a hotspot racist roadside attraction.

So, if the racist dq guy denied service to a racial minority, then as a result became famous and attracted racists, couldnt that act as the great covert honey pot style sting operation ever?
If taking away the civil rights laws would effectively expose the owner as a racist pig, how would this also not apply to every patron that goes there ?
Meaning, in cell phone world, the racist dq owner would act as a reputational bug zapper for anyone who went there.

So, either the law is preventing a slippery slope style of racist based business practice from flourishing and there are more covert racists waiting for the law to be eliminated so they can speed to their nearest racist dq to prop up aforementioned flourishing with their patronage.

Or, it would be like chik fil a and the gays thing.
They took a anti homosexual stance, still made a bunch of money, and gay rights are still increasing.
Chik fil a saying that stuff didnt affect the overal sociopolitical atmosphere, however protection of religious based hatred disguised as freedom is also something i see the state being the progenitor of.

Originally posted by wxyz
We shouldn't have laws on discrimination for private entities.

We shouldn't have a state to asymmetrically enforce laws.
We need governance, not government.

Nah, let's just stick to the existing laws on discrimination.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, let's just stick to the existing laws on discrimination.

You don't see any potential way the laws could be detrimental to the people they claim to protect?

https://mises.org/wire/discrimination-against-discrimination-why-we-don%E2%80%99t-need-anti-discrimination-laws

This article talks about it more in depth than i can.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You don't see any potential way the laws could be detrimental to the people they claim to protect?

Depends, as the larger whole, no. On as case-by-case basis I am sure exceptions to the rule could be found, as with most things in life.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
https://mises.org/wire/discrimination-against-discrimination-why-we-don%E2%80%99t-need-anti-discrimination-laws

This article talks about it more in depth than i can.


https://cdn.mises.org/styles/slideshow/s3/static-page/img/1920128_405778479594108_278900600999462871_n.jpg


I don't listen to and I discriminate against people who wear silly bowties.

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends, as the larger whole, no. On as case-by-case basis I am sure exceptions to the rule could be found, as with most things in life.




https://cdn.mises.org/styles/slideshow/s3/static-page/img/1920128_405778479594108_278900600999462871_n.jpg


I don't listen to and I discriminate against people who wear silly bowties.

That's fine, in this case that makes my point.
Your poor choice of criteria for discrimination in terms of knowledge acquisition only hinders you, in the same way a racist dq franchise owner who hires people because theyre white instead of skilled, reliable, and passionate, will fail.

Be better than a racist, rob.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You're absolutely right. I just looked it up.

Wow, i didnt know the civil rights act forced inclusion.
Do you like that the state forces association that way?

Edit: thank you for correcting me and providing information. I misunderstood it at first. Your patience is appreciated.

What puzzles me is that one of the protected classes is religion, but not politics. It's legal everywhere except DC to refuse someone business due to political affiliation.

Other protected classes include things one does not choose, like your gender, race, sexuality etc. You can't say the same about religion. It's a choice, just like politics. You could maybe say as a kid you don't have a choice(I didn't) but adults are indeed able to choose what religion they follow.

Religion is an ideology, so is political opinion.

So it's wrong to allow discrimination against one but not the other.