Thrashinuva said: @deg you are unable to distinguish what feels good and what is the truth, which is why we'll continually fail to come to terms. dude you repeatedly saying this is about my feelings i already made the if scenario that lets say scientific racism for example is factual then i bet government bodies like UNESCO will put regulations against it like they do with other dangerous science and technologies thats just my point |
| @Kyotosomo The Verge just summarize the massive Bloomberg article btw and i choose the summarize version this is not a new claim here even a popular right wing youtuber says this "Twitter is a tiny echo chamber. I'm not sure the left understand the monumental ass-whupping being dished out to them on YouTube." Thus reads a tweet posted this Tuesday by InfoWars editor Paul Joseph Watson, who you may remember best as the right-wing vlogger https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube here is another similar report in the past The alt-right loves YouTube Two new reports suggest that YouTube is ground zero for far-right movement recruiting. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/15/17979118/youtube-alt-right-two-reports and another one YouTube's 'alternative influence network' breeds rightwing radicalisation, report finds https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation While the mainstream members of the group typically don’t subscribe to alt-right or white nationalist ideals, they do host those who do under very friendly terms. “They have these conversations where really openly racist ideas are getting thrown around as if they are perfectly normal,” said Rebecca Lewis, the author of the report. “This amplifies these ideas.” She cites the example of Dave Rubin hosting Canadian rightwing influencer Stefan Molyneux, who openly promotes scientific racism and advocates for the men’s rights movement. |
degApr 7, 2019 10:38 PM
deg said: it's all possible, but the whole hate speech laws seem more likely, other countries already been there and a lot of ppl agree with it sadlyKillaclown said: like a white ethno state wouldn't be unconstitutional lmfao.... eh some states could possibly get away with it if they are able to brainwash people into believing that "hate speech" causes an immediate threat of lawless action or could harm others (like how you aren't able to yell fire in a crowded place or actually say something like "it's time we drive these Mexicans out of town by force, let's go follow inbred racists!") Though of course that would be total BS And those that are pro-ethno state seem to be absolutely dwarfed by those that seem to have a hard-on for controlling other people's speech but constitutional amendments are a thing so its possible hate speech and disinformation are rampant on the internet though like this news thread shows for example "Rampant", yes there is a lot, but not as much as the ppl that want to stifle free speech |
Omnimaniac said: not sure what part of the internet you're looking at but right-wing channels are the *ONLY* channels being taken down as of late.The only ideologies that can survive free speech tends to be right wing. Left wing ideologies needs to censor the right wing ideologies to survive. So of course right wing ideologies will be formed all over the internet as its the only place you can actually say what you really think. |
 |
hazarddex said: i should also point out. those "studies" that get rejects because they often suffer from sampling bias and also claim an average when not using a sample size that is anywhere close to any modern day population average. agenda pushing research always leads to bias results. look at that cheating website that recently pushed a claim saying a majority of woman enjoy cheating. do you really think people like that can be trusted to make none bias research? A little off topic, but here's a good read http://theconversation.com/why-more-women-dont-win-science-nobels-104370 and another one: https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/609930/half-of-women-in-stem-jobs-experience-sexism-at-work/ |
  |
| I'd rather make the argument that "extremism" of any sort thrives off of attention, rather than make the underlying supposition that Youtube is a place for extremists. |
 |
deg said: Because you keep flaking so hard.Thrashinuva said: @deg you are unable to distinguish what feels good and what is the truth, which is why we'll continually fail to come to terms. dude you repeatedly saying this is about my feelings i already made the if scenario that lets say scientific racism for example is factual then i bet government bodies like UNESCO will put regulations against it like they do with other dangerous science and technologies thats just my point The science is relevant when you want it to be, and then you're anti-science whenever it doesn't fit what you feel. How is one supposed to live in a world with your philosophy as its core? 1: Deny science when it's inconvenient 2: Deny opinions that are inconvenient Literally unless you start in the right direction and never make a mistake, then you're going to crash and burn. |
Thrashinuva said: deg said: Because you keep flaking so hard.dude you repeatedly saying this is about my feelings i already made the if scenario that lets say scientific racism for example is factual then i bet government bodies like UNESCO will put regulations against it like they do with other dangerous science and technologies thats just my point The science is relevant when you want it to be, and then you're anti-science whenever it doesn't fit what you feel. How is one supposed to live in a world with your philosophy as its core? 1: Deny science when it's inconvenient 2: Deny opinions that are inconvenient Literally unless you start in the right direction and never make a mistake, then you're going to crash and burn. its not black and white (all or nothing) thinking i already given examples that some science and technologies are dangerous decided by governments (not particularly about muh feelings) and anti-science is more about denying the scientific method altogether that includes going through peer reviews, you can accept the presence of dangerous science and that is still pro-science also there is definitely ethics in conducting science too like you cannot do tests on actual humans on the early stages of a particular science (animal testing is done first) and that specific ethics of science alone say they priorities humanity first instead of prioritizing pure science mentality i will also add that its been scientifically proven that we humans are more irrational so for the sake of science should we abandon majority of humanity? and again im not stating my own ethics alone, rather im giving real world examples that ethics are also applied to science and technology |
degApr 8, 2019 3:08 PM
deg said: Thrashinuva said: Because you keep flaking so hard. The science is relevant when you want it to be, and then you're anti-science whenever it doesn't fit what you feel. How is one supposed to live in a world with your philosophy as its core? 1: Deny science when it's inconvenient 2: Deny opinions that are inconvenient Literally unless you start in the right direction and never make a mistake, then you're going to crash and burn. its not black and white (all or nothing) thinking i already given examples that some science and technologies are dangerous decided by governments (not particularly about muh feelings) and anti-science is more about denying the scientific method altogether that includes going through peer reviews, you can accept the presence of dangerous science and that is still pro-science also there is definitely ethics in conducting science too like you cannot do tests on actual humans on the early stages of a particular science (animal testing is done first) and that specific ethics of science alone say they priorities humanity first instead of prioritizing pure science mentality i will also add that its been scientifically proven that we humans are more irrational so for the sake of science should we abandon majority of humanity? and again im not stating my own ethics alone, rather im giving real world examples that ethics are also applied to science and technology Using humans in experiments isn't some requirement to adhere to the scientific method. This argument is a straw man. We're not even talking about conducting any sort of experiments on live animals at all at the moment. If you want to argue against such practices, then you can use logic, reason, and science to formulate your argument, but looking at the two of us I'm much more likely to gain any ground on that than you are. The ethics you're talking about is general consensus, not individual feelings. When the first needles were used to administer medicine, you had better believe that there were individuals opposed to injecting drugs directly into the veins, but they pushed through and now we have vaccines and other medicines. Something that feels wrong to you might be something responsible for saving billions of lives, so instead of rejecting ideas because of your own individual "ethics", you should find some bigger reason than "because it's wrong". "we humans are more irrational"... than what? As far as I can tell, humans are the most rational beings that we've discovered. Where's the proof? |
Thrashinuva said: deg said: its not black and white (all or nothing) thinking i already given examples that some science and technologies are dangerous decided by governments (not particularly about muh feelings) and anti-science is more about denying the scientific method altogether that includes going through peer reviews, you can accept the presence of dangerous science and that is still pro-science also there is definitely ethics in conducting science too like you cannot do tests on actual humans on the early stages of a particular science (animal testing is done first) and that specific ethics of science alone say they priorities humanity first instead of prioritizing pure science mentality i will also add that its been scientifically proven that we humans are more irrational so for the sake of science should we abandon majority of humanity? and again im not stating my own ethics alone, rather im giving real world examples that ethics are also applied to science and technology Using humans in experiments isn't some requirement to adhere to the scientific method. This argument is a straw man. We're not even talking about conducting any sort of experiments on live animals at all at the moment. If you want to argue against such practices, then you can use logic, reason, and science to formulate your argument, but looking at the two of us I'm much more likely to gain any ground on that than you are. The ethics you're talking about is general consensus, not individual feelings. When the first needles were used to administer medicine, you had better believe that there were individuals opposed to injecting drugs directly into the veins, but they pushed through and now we have vaccines and other medicines. Something that feels wrong to you might be something responsible for saving billions of lives, so instead of rejecting ideas because of your own individual "ethics", you should find some bigger reason than "because it's wrong". "we humans are more irrational"... than what? As far as I can tell, humans are the most rational beings that we've discovered. Where's the proof? ok i just realize you are just gaslighting me again you keep making this about muh feelings and my personal ethics when im more citing real world ethics applied to science and technology EDIT: but to answer about we humans are more irrational, im talking about we are not rational all the time simply because we got cognitive biases and are prone to social influences like groupthink, tribalism, bandwagon effect, mob mentality, peer pressure, etc |
degApr 8, 2019 5:31 PM
| Take it off Youtube and it just goes into echo chambers and becomes more extreme. If there is rising extremism in society (and there is now on both sides), that probably means there are massive problems that are being ignored and discussion of those problems is being suppressed. You may be comfortable enough in your own life to want to shove this stuff under the rug, but that will come back to bite us all very hard down the road. |
| Any and all media that I have seen on television and on the big screen echo the same world views and concepts, it isn't the issue that there is saturation of this single mentality just the lack of awareness that other mind sets can and do exist. At my university there is a correct way of thought and an incorrect way of thought, step out of bounds and you will be publicly humiliated or harassed. People spout far-left and far-right, but I think that it would be much more healthy if we started to accept different mindsets as opposed to ridiculing them. Flat-earthers maybe retarded to me and most people I interact with, but they provide the insight of perspective on my own thoughts that can be beneficial to my holistic understanding of the world and its working. Similarly exposure to contrary thought can make you question the established and reach new and profound conclusions about the world. The disparity in mental ability is just a fact of life wishing the incompetence away will not cure it in anyway, societies are designed to keep people happy enough to a degree that the systems that supports the structures they inhabit can be sustained. Looking down on others due to your personal subjective reality only steels your positioning, it is this same mentality that put Galileo under house arrest. There is a very important concept in the scientific world called "Falsifiability" is simply means that a concept must be able to be dis-proven, this makes any thought or concept fall into the same playing field as every other theory or concept in science. Applying this to everyday thought adds a level of insecurity, but strengthens your ability to accept new thought. I ultimately just want to engage in conversations with independent minds conforming to any larger main stream mindsets is both dull and has zero tangible benefit. People will pool into large groups and find everything they can disagree on (not even bothering with the topics that we can largely agree on) this endless fighting is the only enemy party in my mind. Our inability to move on from topics that are cursed to be perpetually grid locked is remarkably close to the behavior Einstein called insanity. Lets all get along, agree to disagree, and move on to what we can unite over. |
deg said: There you go hiding into your bubble again. Is there someone who's telling you what to think in regards to our conversations? It's really weird how this happens. It doesn't feel natural.Thrashinuva said: Using humans in experiments isn't some requirement to adhere to the scientific method. This argument is a straw man. We're not even talking about conducting any sort of experiments on live animals at all at the moment. If you want to argue against such practices, then you can use logic, reason, and science to formulate your argument, but looking at the two of us I'm much more likely to gain any ground on that than you are. The ethics you're talking about is general consensus, not individual feelings. When the first needles were used to administer medicine, you had better believe that there were individuals opposed to injecting drugs directly into the veins, but they pushed through and now we have vaccines and other medicines. Something that feels wrong to you might be something responsible for saving billions of lives, so instead of rejecting ideas because of your own individual "ethics", you should find some bigger reason than "because it's wrong". "we humans are more irrational"... than what? As far as I can tell, humans are the most rational beings that we've discovered. Where's the proof? ok i just realize you are just gaslighting me again you keep making this about muh feelings and my personal ethics when im more citing real world ethics applied to science and technology EDIT: but to answer about we humans are more irrational, im talking about we are not rational all the time simply because we got cognitive biases and are prone to social influences like groupthink, tribalism, bandwagon effect, mob mentality, peer pressure, etc |
Thrashinuva said: deg said: There you go hiding into your bubble again. Is there someone who's telling you what to think in regards to our conversations? It's really weird how this happens. It doesn't feel natural.ok i just realize you are just gaslighting me again you keep making this about muh feelings and my personal ethics when im more citing real world ethics applied to science and technology EDIT: but to answer about we humans are more irrational, im talking about we are not rational all the time simply because we got cognitive biases and are prone to social influences like groupthink, tribalism, bandwagon effect, mob mentality, peer pressure, etc err what makes you think that? lol and that reminds me are you in favor of using science for discrimination? because obviously i dont |
deg said: The only thing I'm in favor of using science for is the truth. If I had a choice in what science could establish, it would be that treating everyone equally is not only appropriate but also ideal. I have no reason to believe science doesn't lead to that end. The only hints of potential discrimination arise from variables between peoples, which does not have to result in hateful discrimination at all, but depending on the circumstances could be used to provide advantages based on who legitimately needs it.Thrashinuva said: There you go hiding into your bubble again. Is there someone who's telling you what to think in regards to our conversations? It's really weird how this happens. It doesn't feel natural. err what makes you think that? lol and that reminds me are you in favor of using science for discrimination? because obviously i dont The left talks about reparations a lot these days, but in the end what that's ultimately alluding to is the inequality based on history, and that action can be taken in order to equalize. I think that the premise itself is faulty, and therefore I disagree with the argument as a whole, but ultimately what I suggest is that if there is inequality in people that is proven scientifically, that we can attempt a similar thing, though "reparations" is far from what I would consider the solution. |
Thrashinuva said: deg said: The only thing I'm in favor of using science for is the truth. If I had a choice in what science could establish, it would be that treating everyone equally is not only appropriate but also ideal. I have no reason to believe science doesn't lead to that end. The only hints of potential discrimination arise from variables between peoples, which does not have to result in hateful discrimination at all, but depending on the circumstances could be used to provide advantages based on who legitimately needs it.err what makes you think that? lol and that reminds me are you in favor of using science for discrimination? because obviously i dont The left talks about reparations a lot these days, but in the end what that's ultimately alluding to is the inequality based on history, and that action can be taken in order to equalize. I think that the premise itself is faulty, and therefore I disagree with the argument as a whole, but ultimately what I suggest is that if there is inequality in people that is proven scientifically, that we can attempt a similar thing, though "reparations" is far from what I would consider the solution. im for factual science too but what if science factually proven that black people are inferior in IQ and that females are biologically inferior to males do you support giving them less rights or treat them unfairly? Aldnox said: So if the right disregards science, they're evil conspiracy theorists who want to kill everyone by not vaccinating their children. But if the left disregards science, they're really nice people who stand against racism and discrimination. Made me think. if you are talking about me then i already said many times that im for factual science but that does not mean i agree with using factual science for unethical reasons, and there is a reason dangerous science and technology are regulated by government bodies like UNESCO |
degApr 9, 2019 3:18 PM
deg said: Thrashinuva said: The only thing I'm in favor of using science for is the truth. If I had a choice in what science could establish, it would be that treating everyone equally is not only appropriate but also ideal. I have no reason to believe science doesn't lead to that end. The only hints of potential discrimination arise from variables between peoples, which does not have to result in hateful discrimination at all, but depending on the circumstances could be used to provide advantages based on who legitimately needs it. The left talks about reparations a lot these days, but in the end what that's ultimately alluding to is the inequality based on history, and that action can be taken in order to equalize. I think that the premise itself is faulty, and therefore I disagree with the argument as a whole, but ultimately what I suggest is that if there is inequality in people that is proven scientifically, that we can attempt a similar thing, though "reparations" is far from what I would consider the solution. im for factual science too but what if science factually proven that black people are inferior in IQ and that females are biologically inferior to males do you support giving them less rights or treat them unfairly? There's no connection between the two. If you could scientifically prove that humanity would better succeed if that were the case, then perhaps that could be argued, but I think you'd have trouble proving that. It seems to me that it's beneficial that everyone have equal rights regardless of IQ. |
| Censorship/promotion of ideals really shouldn't be necessary... Even in extreme examples like content ideas that promotes pedophilia, cannibalism, hate speeches or/and etc....as long as they don't break the youtube guidelines such as violence then it shouldn't be a problem.. The idea of censorship stems from the fear of other people's stupidity... Thinking that if such content is published it would largely affect the morality or ideals of people who have watched it... But I don't believe humans in general are stupid enough to easily conform to ideals that doesn't follow any basic principle of morality... There are two targets of censorship which is extreme ideas and ideas that are not in the norm 1 ideas that are not in the norm Creating artificial fix like censorship is discrimination of idea itself... Lets say there's a Islam chef who doesn't want to cook food for a gay couple that is getting married, does punishing/censoring him for his "hate" towards lgbt solves the "hate" if he is only following his beliefs? Isn't that discrimination to Islam's belief itself? It creates a paradox if two beliefs are always equally right They should let the morality of the community to balance itself out... What I mean by this is that society will always find counter argument to ideas that are abusive in some sense... an example of this is if people become too sensitive like Random Person : Your the Manager of this restaurant right... Average Person (if society become sensitive): Did you just called me "man"ager????!!!! I will publicly humiliate you for calling me that Random Person : Iam so sorry I mean "Human"ager..... If ever people become extremely sensitive like that people would get tired of it and will slowly lean towards the opposition of over sensitivity the same of what happen to racism... People used to be extremely racist and after time people learned the moral importance of opposition to the idea of racism... creating rules or especially laws that censors difference in idea disrupt the ability of society in correcting itself morally... Since the maker of this laws or rules are not all-knowing the possibilities and potentials of certain ideas will be left out in the future... 2 extreme cases Let say for example a Youtube channel promotes cannibalism through comedy with subtle hints leaning towards it Does it slowly conforms the people who watches it to accept/reject the idea of cannibalism? I don't know ... This is a question that requires scientific study to prove and introducing censorship may lead to frustration for its believers or the opposite effect of what is desired through censorship... And since it requires a study deciding immediately is an unnecessary coin flip risk ... Can contents (with) or (with hints) of extremity strong enough break the moral boundaries? If the trigger is strong enough to shake the moral of society, The society will first confront it before it creates influence that are strong enough to change the moral perspective of people Will the society not fix itself by slowly rejecting if it ever become over board that it challenges the moral boundaries making it less and less popular eventually dying out? Maybe it will fix it self, but the content will remain since a minority will always exist that conforms to this extreme ideas. But does censorship for this channels really solve the problem for the individuals that believe in it? In both cases censorship doesn't show important evidence of being required and implementation of it introduce some risk and potential waste of idea improvements in the future.... But to be honest i dont know what iam talking about iam just writing this to procrastinate and find excuse to not do my work.... TLDR its unnecessary |
Brueck said: I believe a video Debunking the ideology in it's entirety can persuade the audience from even glancing at this ideology, this is a better alternative. they already added fact checks on extreme videos but it was ineffective as they say lies spread faster than facts @cenalexis its scientifically proven that we humans are more irrational due to cognitive biases (like self-serving bias and confirmation bias, etc) as well as social influences like peer pressure, mob mentality, tribalism, groupthink, bandwagon effect, etc and again lies spread faster than facts do not underestimate disinformation |
| @deg hmmm.. but doesn't Lies or irrationality wont still be solve through censorship? what censorships add to the problem is the personal bias of those who chooses what to censor and those personal bias may affect the improvement of ideas on future it neglects the societies moral evolution ... since it eliminates the chance of opposition on ideas |
cenalexis said: @deg hmmm.. but doesn't Lies or irrationality wont still be solve through censorship? what censorships add to the problem is the personal bias of those who chooses what to censor and those personal bias may affect the improvement of ideas on future it neglects the societies moral evolution ... history already experience this kind of stuff like scientific racism and social darwinism and its just history repeating itself again the goal of this extremism videos is to spread and grow this dangerous beliefs and the internet regulation talks right now is only talking about the big social media sites so its not like this extreme beliefs are totally censored like they can talk about it on smaller sites |
| @deg deg said: yeah history kind of repeat itself >< but... society still slowly improves itself... An example of this is that during the medieval time majority of people doesn't understand why racism is wrong but now majority of people knows that racism is wrong.... and if you ever look back on history the cases of racism is massive and very extreme that they thought it was the norm but now if you ever burn a person just because of their skin color majority of people would hate on you... history already experience this kind of stuff like scientific racism and social darwinism and its just history repeating itself again Also I think your focusing too much on a specific topic >< such as those "lies" but using censorship as a whole to eliminate it is too much of brute force and i don't think that "those lies" are really being promoted than actual facts... Also if its not a trouble do you mind to link a channel/video that promote lies that is critically acclaimed by the viewers/youtube itself? cause its hard for me to imagine the situation >< in which censorship is really necessary to override this "lies"... |
cenalexis said: @deg deg said: yeah history kind of repeat itself >< but... society still slowly improves itself... An example of this is that during the medieval time majority of people doesn't understand why racism is wrong but now majority of people knows that racism is wrong.... and if you ever look back on history the cases of racism is massive and very extreme that they thought it was the norm but now if you ever burn a person just because of their skin color majority of people would hate on you... history already experience this kind of stuff like scientific racism and social darwinism and its just history repeating itself again Also I think your focusing too much on a specific topic >< such as those "lies" but using censorship as a whole to eliminate it is too much of brute force and i don't think that "those lies" are really being promoted than actual facts... Also if its not a trouble do you mind to link a channel/video that promote lies that is critically acclaimed by the viewers/youtube itself? cause its hard for me to imagine the situation >< in which censorship is really necessary to override this "lies"... meh im too lazy to find and link more videos, i already posted investigative journalism examples of it and some videos on a certain youtube channel on this thread let me ask you this that i ask on other users, hypothetically scientific racism for example is factually proven are you in favor of using that to justify discrimination? and personally im fine if dangerous science are talked about and published but ethics/morality should be applied to them just like with some science and technology that are regulated base on ethics/morality |
| @deg the videos i found are all not critically acclaimed by the public and most of them are age restricted and stuff... So i don't think they are necessary for "censorship"... deg said: let me ask you this that i ask on other users, hypothetically scientific racism for example is factually proven are you in favor of using that to justify discrimination? and personally im fine if dangerous science are talked about and published but ethics/morality should be applied to them just like with some science and technology that are regulated base on ethics/morality To answer this question first I dont think that discrimination will ever be proven scientifically be favor since morality is also part of science.. The ultimate truth of morality is the ultimate fight of logic between ideas... Science is study of everything and the the study of what is moral and what is ethical is also a study of science... If ever that discrimination is justified as scientific then it should have been justified as moral first.... And obtaining what is the ultimate moral you need to be all-knowing and understand the consequence of infinite chain of events... And to prove discrimination is moral you need to asses the infinite possibilities of all the action of all the person in all time lines that ever existed ... So its very almost impossible to be morally correct and to prove that discrimination is truth in science But being said that do you still think its absolutely necessary to force censorship on youtube affecting the livelihood of content creators? rather than fixing the "lies" that are not even critically acclaimed by majority and only look upon by the minority which believes on them no matter what? |
cenalexis said: @deg the videos i found are all not critically acclaimed by the public and most of them are age restricted and stuff... So i don't think they are necessary for "censorship"... deg said: let me ask you this that i ask on other users, hypothetically scientific racism for example is factually proven are you in favor of using that to justify discrimination? and personally im fine if dangerous science are talked about and published but ethics/morality should be applied to them just like with some science and technology that are regulated base on ethics/morality To answer this question first I dont think that discrimination will ever be proven scientifically be favor since morality is also part of science.. The ultimate truth of morality is the ultimate fight of logic between ideas... Science is study of everything and the the study of what is moral and what is ethical is also a study of science... If ever that discrimination is justified as scientific then it should have been justified as moral first.... And obtaining what is the ultimate moral you need to be all-knowing and understand the consequence of infinite chain of events... And to prove discrimination is moral you need to asses the infinite possibilities of all the action of all the person in all time lines that ever existed ... So its very almost impossible to be morally correct and to prove that discrimination is truth in science the investigative journalisms provided here disagrees and youtube newer policies buries this extreme videos now https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/business/youtube-terrorism.html the natural world is unfair just base on natural selection (or darwinism or survival of the fittest) like in the jungle that was the basis for unjust treatments (discrimination) and the basis for abolishing equality that modern society is striving for and nah science is about finding facts and facts are not always ethical, science and technology is a double edge sword cenalexis said: But being said that do you still think its absolutely necessary to force censorship on youtube affecting the livelihood of content creators? rather than fixing the "lies" that are not even critically acclaimed by majority and only look upon by the minority which believes on them no matter what? the advertisers are the ones that will decide that, there is a reason youtube wants advertiser friendly content more now a days ever since some advertisers pulled off from youtube due to them finding out their advertisements are funding some of this extreme videos advertisers usually seek more customers globally (related to globalization that the right wing at the moment hates) |
degApr 14, 2019 9:42 PM
| @deg Ethics is also about finding facts of what actions makes people comfortable around you. Also the laws of nature is used to be governing since no larger force opposes it it acts on the way of how living things are most like to survive through self preservation. But now the science of human reasoning and the concept of purpose for humans that we humans create and decide are now stronger than the law of the jungle that we are able to override it with our ideals.. An example of this is we do not give disabled people less benefits since they are less useful right? ... or that we put in jail people who commit pedophilia.. Since the law of what is present now is the collective morality of the society if you don't act the way society expects you will be outcast-ed.. And those are base on how the social norms and morality are in present... Unlike jungle time we now decide our leaders base on their perspective, point of view and not through how big their muscles or how alpha they are... The laws of nature doesn't have the purpose or ideals that we have with us... The laws of nature only follow certain rules same as how laws of physics follows its rules, through cause and effect... and thats the reason why it doesn't follow what our morality is because universe doesn't care what we think is right... But we humans does have the "will"(free will is very complicated so lets not talk about it) to act base on our concept of truth... And the same with laws of physics we can manipulate this concepts to our own favor creating technology or machines that helps us... those extreme videos where never critically acclaimed by the audience i also remember those are the videos that cause "adpocalypse" on youtube and they where like 2 years ago youtube is a much more different place now... Also introducing the concept of "censorship" is really a very large commitment for youtube.... Using "censorship" doesn't just stop what you think or others as "lies spreading" but it will also stop the livelyhood of other creators since introducing censorship creates power that can be abused by those who decide whats "appropriate" content and if that happen some anime or meme channels might also get taken down... You might have known what's the large controversy about copy write system on youtube so adding censorship system will remove a lot of creators :((.. |
cenalexis said: @deg Ethics is also about finding facts of what actions makes people comfortable around you. Also the laws of nature is used to be governing since no larger force opposes it it acts on the way of how living things are most like to survive through self preservation. But now the science of human reasoning and the concept of purpose for humans that we humans create and decide are now stronger than the law of the jungle that we are able to override it with our ideals.. An example of this is we do not give disabled people less benefits since they are less useful right? ... or that we put in jail people who commit pedophilia.. Since the law of what is present now is the collective morality of the society if you don't act the way society expects you will be outcast-ed.. And those are base on how the social norms and morality are in present... Unlike jungle time we now decide our leaders base on their perspective, point of view and not through how big their muscles or how alpha they are... The laws of nature doesn't have the purpose or ideals that we have with us... The laws of nature only follow certain rules same as how laws of physics follows its rules, through cause and effect... and thats the reason why it doesn't follow what our morality is because universe doesn't care what we think is right... But we humans does have the "will"(free will is very complicated so lets not talk about it) to act base on our concept of truth... And the same with laws of physics we can manipulate this concepts to our own favor creating technology or machines that helps us... those extreme videos where never critically acclaimed by the audience i also remember those are the videos that cause "adpocalypse" on youtube and they where like 2 years ago youtube is a much more different place now... Also introducing the concept of "censorship" is really a very large commitment for youtube.... Using "censorship" doesn't just stop what you think or others as "lies spreading" but it will also stop the livelyhood of other creators since introducing censorship creates power that can be abused by those who decide whats "appropriate" content and if that happen some anime or meme channels might also get taken down... You might have known what's the large controversy about copy write system on youtube so adding censorship system will remove a lot of creators :((.. that bold part says you are agreeing with me though that we should use science for ethical reason (usually morals that benefit the majority of humanity) thats not for youtube to decide, its up to the advertisers to decide if they will support youtube |
| @deg the bold part actually means since laws of nature follows rules like laws of physics which we manipulate its concepts to our own favor we can also manipulate the laws of nature like creating better anti-bodies or bacteria that helps us and such its is not something that we are bounded with... Laws of nature doesn't chain us to seek for pleasure and seek only for self preservation we can decide what we want and act according to our core value of "truth" and we can manipulate even the laws of nature to our will and that's the reason why the "true" ultimate morality does conform with the ultimate answer of science's ideas infinitely arguing to each other.. Though you might be confuse on how people uses science to prove their point or how its "fact" but they have really no clue what they are talking about XD... Usually people argue for the sake of being correct not for the sake of pursuing truth which people most of the time interchanged... Using science to prove ethical reason is either not very scientific on the first place or it must have been all-knowing to know what outcome would come out best due to that decision and being all knowing is almost impossible so I don't think that they are advocates of what truth is but rather they are using science to advocate their own truth... I'll give you an example there's a bacteria spread and you need to sacrifice people to survive ... what most people would answer is sacrifice the minority to save the majority and they would deem it as the most scientific or logical action... But if you are all-knowing that situation would never happen in the first place you would have prevented the bacteria from spreading and thus its about how humans are erroneous by their own ignorance that we use fact we know as truth or most optimal but in most cases you would have gotten away without sacrificing anyone.... Being in a situation where you are a lose-lose means youve already failed and being morally perfect means you could avoid those situation from happening... which is obviously we are not good at XD... And thus we are unable to use science on its maximum potential and uses its name to pushes our truth... But the advertisers already decided what happened to youtube thus youtube changed... It would be very unfair for youtube to force this "censorship" especially to its creators who already been struggling... |
cenalexisApr 14, 2019 10:34 PM
cenalexis said: @deg the bold part actually means since laws of nature follows rules like laws of physics which we manipulate its concepts to our own favor we can also manipulate the laws of nature like creating better anti-bodies or bacteria that helps us and such its is not something that we are bounded with... Laws of nature doesn't chain us to seek for pleasure and seek only for self preservation we can decide what we want and act according to our core value of "truth" and we can manipulate even the laws of nature to our will and that's the reason why the "true" ultimate morality does conform with the ultimate answer of science's ideas infinitely arguing to each other.. Though you might be confuse on how people uses science to prove their point or how its "fact" but they have really no clue what they are talking about XD... Usually people argue for the sake of being correct not for the sake of pursuing truth which people most of the time interchanged... Using science to prove ethical reason is either not very scientific on the first place or it must have been all-knowing to know what outcome would come out best due to that decision and being all knowing is almost impossible so I don't think that they are advocates of what truth is but rather they are using science to advocate their own truth... I'll give you an example there's a bacteria spread and you need to sacrifice people to survive ... what most people would answer is sacrifice the minority to save the majority and they would deem it as the most scientific or logical action... But if you are all-knowing that situation would never happen in the first place you would have prevented the bacteria from spreading and thus its about how humans are erroneous by their own ignorance that we use fact we know as truth or most optimal but in most cases you would have gotten away without sacrificing anyone.... Being in a situation where you are a lose-lose means youve already failed and being morally perfect means you could avoid those situation from happening... which is obviously we are not good at XD... And thus we are unable to use science on its maximum potential and uses its name to pushes are truth... But the advertisers already decided what happened to youtube thus youtube changed... It would be very unfair for youtube to force this "censorship" especially to its creators who already been struggling... ye in other words morality is subjective right? but that does not stop humanity from making general morality like the human rights or striving for equality in society, and im pointing out that science is objective or factual i mentioned earlier that science and technology are a double edge sword, things like animal testing is done before human testing takes place and i know you heard of some horrible human science experiments all throughout history in the name of science, there is also about killer robots and nukes that are subject to international laws and environment protection laws are needed too just for the benefit of humanity in the long run, ethics and laws are different but they often support each other for the public to know whats right or wrong as for youtube, it did improve but there are reports like this saying it needs more improvement and again its up to the advertisers to decide that and ultimately also its up to the governments around the world to decide how they will regulate social media |
| @deg All the horrible human experiment through the name of science is what I am talking about on my previous post... its not science at fault its human's ignorance on fault that we do this tests... And using the name of science to conduct those experiments is like using the name of "God" in religions to advocate their motives... What your doing is actually trying to separate morality and pursuit of ultimate truth away from science which makes the view of it very incomplete... its the same story with the three blind man and the elephant trying to describe something by only its part and not its whole in general... >< pls dont underestimate morality since the reason we deem it as subjective is because we are not smart enough to answer its questions, but just because we are unable to find the truth due to our own ignorance doesn't separate it from science (study of everything)... On youtube, my take is that "censorship" is unnecessary and i listed the reason why it would be damaging instead of helping the community... But what I am trying to ask is are you still in favor of "censorship" on youtube? Even if the livelihood of creators are at stake? The advertisers might be the one to decide but the community as a collective can help influence that decision... So I want to know whether you still support "censorship " even though it would result on removal of some creators... |
cenalexis said: @deg All the horrible human experiment through the name of science is what I am talking about on my previous post... its not science at fault its human's ignorance on fault that we do this tests... And using the name of science to conduct those experiments is like using the name of "God" in religions to advocate their motives... What your doing is actually trying to separate morality and pursuit of ultimate truth away from science which makes the view of it very incomplete... its the same story with the three blind man and the elephant trying to describe something by only its part and not its whole in general... >< pls dont underestimate morality since the reason we deem it as subjective is because we are not smart enough to answer its questions, but just because we are unable to find the truth due to our own ignorance doesn't separate it from science (study of everything)... On youtube, my take is that "censorship" is unnecessary and i listed the reason why it would be damaging instead of helping the community... But what I am trying to ask is are you still in favor of "censorship" on youtube? Even if the livelihood of creators are at stake? The advertisers might be the one to decide but the community as a collective can help influence that decision... So I want to know whether you still support "censorship " even though it would result on removal of some creators... well lets just agree to disagree, my stance is that facts (like science) is different from ethics/morals but facts can help make better ethics/morals for the greater good as for youtube censorship, personally ye im in favor of it but i will leave the technicalities/technology needed for that to youtube |
| @deg D: T^T iam really sad that you disagreed with me i thought that my points are good that you would replied deg: I see !!!! I understand >< I agree with you now and i dont like censorship anymore I still dont understand why you would support censorship :((( .... I mean it only damages the channels right ??????????? And it wouldn't be helping to solve against lies and irrationality.... So there seems to be no point in censorship.... I also don't understand how science the study of "everything" cannot include an idea of "something" .... censorship is not the key to change..... its like to kill a bad weed(bad channel) you burned the whole farm(youtube) It also the same as stripping people of their job just to strip the bad ones off the platform...your sacrificing innocent people T^T !!!! and it contradicts with the concept of basic "morality"... its not too late D: come to my side :( lets fight against censorship together :(((..... |
cenalexis said: @deg D: T^T iam really sad that you disagreed with me i thought that my points are good that you would replied deg: I see !!!! I understand >< I agree with you now and i dont like censorship anymore I still dont understand why you would support censorship :((( .... I mean it only damages the channels right ??????????? And it wouldn't be helping to solve against lies and irrationality.... So there seems to be no point in censorship.... I also don't understand how science the study of "everything" cannot include an idea of "something" .... censorship is not the key to change..... its like to kill a bad weed(bad channel) you burned the whole farm(youtube) It also the same as stripping people of their job just to strip the bad ones off the platform...your sacrificing innocent people T^T !!!! and it contradicts with the concept of basic "morality"... its not too late D: come to my side :( lets fight against censorship together :(((..... censorship does not mean total banning of it though, just removing the extreme videos from the recommendation feed and removing them too on the first pages of search results are good enough too take for example here on MAL, they censor controversial topics now on anime discussion and casual discussion and only allow limited controversial topics here on current events |
| @deg I see !!! I understand what you mean >< I agree !!!! .... Also I think they might have already done that already... For example the ones on the articles you link those channels are either already removed or age restricted and i dont think they are on front page anymore.... One way to prove they are not on front page anymore is to go to youtube.com with incognito (if your in chrome) and check whether there are still topics that contain those ideas... So there's really nothing to worry about.... They are all covered with youtube guidelines on the first place... And this might be rude to you... Iam sorry >< since you trust those news sites... but some of them.. are you know... kind of bias..... So better try to be cautious of them >< But i guess everything is solved now... We have no more problem ... yay!!!! !! *high five* |
cenalexis said: @deg I see !!! I understand what you mean >< I agree !!!! .... Also I think they might have already done that already... For example the ones on the articles you link those channels are either already removed or age restricted and i dont think they are on front page anymore.... One way to prove they are not on front page anymore is to go to youtube.com with incognito (if your in chrome) and check whether there are still topics that contain those ideas... So there's really nothing to worry about.... They are all covered with youtube guidelines on the first place... And this might be rude to you... Iam sorry >< since you trust those news sites... but some of them.. are you know... kind of bias..... So better try to be cautious of them >< But i guess everything is solved now... We have no more problem ... yay!!!! !! *high five* DEMONETIZE THEM TOO! and err ok, mainstream news media are less wrong most of the times and MAL only allow sites that have high factual reporting rating seen on this site https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ |
| XD |
| Disagreeing with neoliberalism is extremism.. such an odd definition. |
gevohi11 said: Dunno fam, it's pretty funny to see PragerU getting kicked off of Youtube for making videos that the Free Market is the best thing ever and then suing Youtube for using their rights given by Private Property which is in line with what PragerU teaches. Sounds like Communism to me, someone get me a Pinochet. Prager U got kicked off youtube? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!! That is what you get you gynocentric bluepillers. Fucking tradcons, ugh. TAKe your internalised misandry somewhere else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbt9yK2DFrg |
SoverignApr 21, 2019 8:32 PM
 |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |