Cancel Culture turned its gaze to Baby Yoda

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.

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.

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?

Molyneaux never broke their terms of agreement.

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.

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.

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.

We're only a couple generations out from having lynch mobs as a normative social convention.

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 BrolyBlack
Sorry had to break my silence.

I won’t be responding to posts but I’m curious as to see who takes which sides here or maybe we all have a unity moment and say enough is enough of this crap

If you don’t believe what the NYP is saying read any other article or tweet on what these retards are saying

Baby Yoda ruining women’s futures

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 [insult].

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 [insult] 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.

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.

In one breath, you say you would care if Twitter banned Beyoncé for her speech, and in the next, you say communities should self-police. In your scenario, that is precisely what Twitter is doing, self-policing. So which is it?

In one breath, you say you would care if Twitter banned Beyoncé for her speech, and in the next, you say communities should self-police. In your scenario, that is precisely what Twitter is doing, self-policing. So which is it?

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?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes.

I don't.

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

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

And I am not. You're still an [insult] 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.)