| Also, white men aren't really a majority in the nation, especially since feminism is trying to turn all women regardless of race against us. White men are more like 30-35% of the population which is well under the majority line. 65-70% of the population can very easily gang up on 30-35%. But its not just about what race or gender you are. There are conservative black women out there too. Not as many as there are conservative white men, but they do exist as well and people like that get called uncle toms. Given the right's acceptance of people like Blaire White, Ben Carson, and Milo Yiannopoulos though, its hard to say that right-wingers are just motivated by bigotry towards people who aren't white males. On Fox News, they often bring on conservative black men who agree that the myth of widespread discrimination is a hoax and they bring on conservative women who agree that a return to traditional family values would be better for both men and women. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Also, white men aren't really a majority in the nation, especially since feminism is trying to turn all women regardless of race against us. White men are more like 30-35% of the population which is well under the majority line. 65-70% of the population can very easily gang up on 30-35%. But its not just about what race or gender you are. There are conservative black women out there too. Not as many as there are conservative white men, but they do exist as well and people like that get called uncle toms. Given the right's acceptance of people like Blaire White, Ben Carson, and Milo Yiannopoulos though, its hard to say that right-wingers are just motivated by bigotry towards people who aren't white males. On Fox News, they often bring on conservative black men who agree that the myth of widespread discrimination is a hoax and they bring on conservative women who agree that a return to traditional family values would be better for both men and women. quick google and it shows this Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White  https://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx |
Bourmegar said: @--ALEX-- erm do you know that even non political Channels, Left wing independant creators and etc also got banned/demonitised? It's not just tackling Right wingers. I’m not against banning leftists either. Especially if they’re on the far left. |
deg said: Ryuk9428 said: Also, white men aren't really a majority in the nation, especially since feminism is trying to turn all women regardless of race against us. White men are more like 30-35% of the population which is well under the majority line. 65-70% of the population can very easily gang up on 30-35%. But its not just about what race or gender you are. There are conservative black women out there too. Not as many as there are conservative white men, but they do exist as well and people like that get called uncle toms. Given the right's acceptance of people like Blaire White, Ben Carson, and Milo Yiannopoulos though, its hard to say that right-wingers are just motivated by bigotry towards people who aren't white males. On Fox News, they often bring on conservative black men who agree that the myth of widespread discrimination is a hoax and they bring on conservative women who agree that a return to traditional family values would be better for both men and women. quick google and it shows this Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White https://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx Well yes, Republicans definitely skew white. But 6% of Republicans being Hispanic actually means that about a third of the Hispanic community is Republican. 2% of Republicans being black means that around 10% of them are Republicans. That's not a big number but its a pretty decent number given that Democrats consider those groups to basically be in their pockets. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Optigisa said: Youtube pretty much dislikes everyone that isn't a multi-million dollar company at this point. Yeah, money does make the world go round. But I hope they apply the new rules evenly to the extremes on both sides. |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: Except that was in reference to the music claims they mentioned literally 30 seconds early against their channel which have no bearing on the events being discussed now. Even if he drifted off topic prior saying "we attended multiple summits" doesn't suddenly give them a free pass when they're called out for potentially breaking guidelines since they gave no point of reference. He did, and he did so quite thoroughly: 4:38-4:51 "...we're not only following their guidelines, but both myself, and my half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond have attended multiple summits with YouTube. Including at the YouTube headquarters in New York. We followed up with members of their legal department to ensure that we are following the rules." That wasn't the claim, it was more so because that the guy called himself queer: 02:19 "Because you speak with the lisp and you refer to yourself as a queer." Plus hate speech was not added to the guidelines yet("The tension was evident on Tuesday, when YouTube said a prominent right-wing creator who used racial language and homophobic slurs to harass a journalist in videos on YouTube did not violate its policies."-NewYorkTimes), so you can't blame Crowder. At the time of that video, he did follow the guidelines. The article linked in the OP and that I relinked proved Crowder broke no rules in the YT guideline: “Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site,” YouTube said in a statement about its decision on Mr. Crowder." They just now decided it was against the rules: "On Wednesday, YouTube appeared to backtrack, saying that Mr. Crowder had, in fact, violated its rules, and that his ability to earn money from ads on his channel would be suspended as a result." But then he literally backtracked that statement 10 seconds after that time stamp. He essentially said "well I don't know how I'm supposed to refer to you, also I don't care this is just how I act, ask my friend sitting over there". That doesn't make it okay or respectful which would be the topics up for debate. The hate speech ToS guideline is not even part of my argument but it is now a part of the current discussion. I focused specifically on their advertiser friendly guidelines which as far back as March of 2018 says Hateful content that disparages or humiliates an individual or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or other characteristics associated with systemic discrimination is not suitable for advertising. They even put in a clause for comedy "Simply stating your comedic intent may still not be suitable for advertising". I can absolutely blame him for not reading that advertiser friendly clause which has been out for over a year. Frankly the issue was Youtube investigated it from almost exclusively a ToS range (which would be more vague because it comes down to interpretation of a few specific clauses. Specifically "Content that makes hurtful and negative personal comments/videos about another person". or "Content that is deliberately posted in order to humiliate someone" in their harassment and cyberbullying sections). Which at the start of this they said they couldn't clearly determine if it violated those sections but had they referenced their monetization policies they could have still publicly enacted a punishment with a already written rule. It has? Would you mind showing some proof? The most apparent cases are the House congressional hearing with Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey and Google's CEO Sundar Pichai. Despite having direct access to major figures in tech on multiple occasions Republicans have been unable to point out any notable bias in algorithms, search features, moderation, or any bias in general on any of the major tech platforms. Pretty much entirely relying on anecdotal evidence and debunked statistics publicly there's been nothing more than baseless accusation. I don't think you are able to prove they are just blindly following unless you know their thought process behind agreeing. The video itself had only its title relevant to my point anyway. Through the comments, he gained power by Vox's move of a threatened banned(that may come in light Wednesday) that was the only thing I was trying to prove through that example. "Unless you know their thought process behind agreeing" is a pretty flimsy argument. Because by the same logic I could say that they're clearly trolling and unless you know their thought process you can't say I'm wrong. Which is why we have to rely on generally ongoing circumstantial evidence surrounding information presented in the video. |
GamerDLMJun 7, 2019 7:01 PM
Aldnox said: Just going to leave this here for the skeptics, as she's still very much verified and a seasoned journalist at NYT.But leaving that aside, there's all those tweets of people saying "Fuck all white people", "Kill white people", "White people are scum", "Fuck straight people", and then the left is surprised straight white people are standing up against them! Who would've ever fucking guessed?  |
 |
Bayek said: Which statistics would those be? just anything related to extremism (be it verbal and physical) of both the left and right i googled it earlier and just get a bunch of right wing violence is on the rise both in USA and Europe but if there are more statistics related to that or even debunking that then lets see it |
deg said: Well let's just take the Government Accountability Office's domestic terrorism statistics, for example. Between September 12th, 2001 and December 31st, 2016, these are the following stats:Bayek said: Which statistics would those be? just anything related to extremism (be it verbal and physical) of both the left and right i googled it earlier and just get a bunch of right wing violence is on the rise both in USA and Europe but if there are more statistics related to that or even debunking that then lets see it Far Right Extremism - 62 attacks (73%), 106 kills (47%) Islamic Extremism - 23 attacks (27%), 119 kills (53%) Now even if you suppose that all of the far right terror has been committed by whites, as Don Lemon so eloquently stated, that's still well over 60% of the population involved in 73% of the attacks. In contrast, approximately 3% of the population commits the remaining 27% and still manages to get a higher death toll. Hmm... But I'm just stating factual information. There's absolutely no agenda, narrative or spin to what I'm saying. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf Edit: And just to provide a more current year example, let's look at the worst terror attacks of the year. White Supremacist Terrorism - Christchurch. Around 50 dead. Islamic Terrorism - Sri Lanka Easter Massacre. 250+ dead. Again, just rattling off statistics. It's all about the cold, hard facts. That's it! |
ZekkenshinJun 7, 2019 8:09 PM
|
Bayek said: deg said: Well let's just take the Government Accountability Office's domestic terrorism statistics, for example. Between September 12th, 2001 and December 31st, 2016, these are the following stats:just anything related to extremism (be it verbal and physical) of both the left and right i googled it earlier and just get a bunch of right wing violence is on the rise both in USA and Europe but if there are more statistics related to that or even debunking that then lets see it Far Right Extremism - 62 attacks (73%), 106 kills (47%) Islamic Extremism - 23 attacks (27%), 119 kills (53%) Now even if you suppose that all of the far right terror has been committed by whites, as Don Lemon so eloquently stated, that's still well over 60% of the population involved in 73% of the attacks. In contrast, approximately 3% of the population commits the remaining 27% and still manages to get a higher death toll. Hmm... But I'm just stating factual information. There's absolutely no agenda, narrative or spin to what I'm saying. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf Edit: And just to provide a more current year example, let's look at the worst terror attacks of the year. White Supremacist Terrorism - Christchurch. Around 50 dead. Islamic Terrorism - Sri Lanka Easter Massacre. 250+ dead. Again, just rattling off statistics. It's all about the cold, hard facts. That's it! ok i appreciate that eventhough its missing the left wing terrorism data that im hoping for to see like the Antifa |
Bayek said: deg said: Well let's just take the Government Accountability Office's domestic terrorism statistics, for example. Between September 12th, 2001 and December 31st, 2016, these are the following stats:just anything related to extremism (be it verbal and physical) of both the left and right i googled it earlier and just get a bunch of right wing violence is on the rise both in USA and Europe but if there are more statistics related to that or even debunking that then lets see it Far Right Extremism - 62 attacks (73%), 106 kills (47%) Islamic Extremism - 23 attacks (27%), 119 kills (53%) Now even if you suppose that all of the far right terror has been committed by whites, as Don Lemon so eloquently stated, that's still well over 60% of the population involved in 73% of the attacks. In contrast, approximately 3% of the population commits the remaining 27% and still manages to get a higher death toll. Hmm... But I'm just stating factual information. There's absolutely no agenda, narrative or spin to what I'm saying. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf Edit: And just to provide a more current year example, let's look at the worst terror attacks of the year. White Supremacist Terrorism - Christchurch. Around 50 dead. Islamic Terrorism - Sri Lanka Easter Massacre. 250+ dead. Again, just rattling off statistics. It's all about the cold, hard facts. That's it! Both of those are right wings of their respective region. XD |
 |
| @deg Antifa, at least for now, doesn't tend to kill people. They represent a more constant, low level violence. This is because the left is very powerful at the moment and gradually getting everything they want, so there is no reason for them to be serious in their violence. The left is obviously capable of mass violence, as a cursory glance through the 20th century will tell you. |
Mr_Question said: @deg Antifa, at least for now, doesn't tend to kill people. They represent a more constant, low level violence. This is because the left is very powerful at the moment and gradually getting everything they want, so there is no reason for them to be serious in their violence. The left is obviously capable of mass violence, as a cursory glance through the 20th century will tell you. well we are talking about the current times though no need to bring out all of human history into this and that is the thing if the left is more extremist than the right wing is claiming then i just want to see actual data about it so saying stuff like potential vs actual extremism are not helpful |
| @deg - The entire notion that right-wing, white nationalist terror is on the rise is a myth though. It's proportionate within a population's demographic. You told me to Google statistics so I don't really have much else to work with. Something else to consider too is that the notion of right & left are vastly different between the US & Europe. Many of the right-wingers in Europe would be classified as center left in the most moderate cases in America. It's not really much to go on when such things are split into an over simplified dichotomy. iasuru said: I won't fundamentally disagree, but you're only allowed to hate one and remain in the public square.Both of those are right wings of their respective region. XD |
|
layken001 said: A good number of Common WHITE GIRLS FUCK DOGS Filth fans joined ISIS actually. And they were White. huh. ok. what does that have to do with what i said. take a chill pill, bruh |
|
Bayek said: @deg - The entire notion that right-wing, white nationalist terror is on the rise is a myth though. It's proportionate within a population's demographic. You told me to Google statistics so I don't really have much else to work with. Something else to consider too is that the notion of right & left are vastly different between the US & Europe. Many of the right-wingers in Europe would be classified as center left in the most moderate cases in America. It's not really much to go on when such things are split into an over simplified dichotomy. iasuru said: I won't fundamentally disagree, but you're only allowed to hate one and remain in the public square.Both of those are right wings of their respective region. XD ye sure but your data clearly differentiates USA there though and its missing left wing terrorism in USA too like Antifa but if there is no data about that then just leave it at that for now for now im still skeptical of this claim by the right wing there in USA that the left wing is more radical overall |
deg said: And perhaps this might be the source of confusion because I don't fundamentally disagree with you in that regard. Measuring which side is worse leads down a never ending rabbit hole that, admittedly, is the wrong way to frame this topic. While it might be the SJW crowd today, it was the soccer moms last decade and the Christian conservatives during the Satanic Panic of the 1980's and the Weathermen Underground in the 70's.for now im still skeptical of this claim by the right wing there in USA that the left wing is more radical overall The core point I want to make is that this current era of censorship is being conducted by self-proclaimed liberals and it largely benefits those who are of a left leaning persuasion. The inherent problem isn't that it's leftists doing it - it's that it's being done so as to tip the scales completely in favor of those who are already wielding the levers of power. This is a dangerous precedent to set as there will be no justifiable defense when the pendulum eventually swings and the right seizes power. And believe me, I don't want conservatives telling me what I can and can't watch either. |
|
Peaceful_Critic said: Crowder played it off as a playful quibble and obvious joke which I think most of his insults and skits are going by the constant laughter from his friends and the weird voices. He didn't mean it to humiliate or insult a whole group or person genuinely and looks down upon insults during debates. He looks at comedy as "anything goes" which may have come off as insulting, but it's an obvious joke(I mean he has a natural laugh track). The other part: "simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be suitable for advertising." was to avoid people clearly lying about what they said is a joke which I don't think applies to Crowder. I actually found something to support that claim: "Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not suitable for ads. " I guess you are right about that. Vox should also be demonized too though since they also discuss similar topics. It's still disparaging or belittling an individual by consistently referring to them based on their ethnicity and sexual orientation. Again whether he meant to or not hardly changes the fact that he did, multiple times, pretty much in direct conflict to that advertiser friendly policy. In Vox's case I would wager they aren't monetized through Adsense which means they only tend to adhere to Youtube's terms of service. Because corporations can likely bring their own advertisers/sponsors/etc. to the platform and work directly with Youtube to develop their own methods of monetization. |
| Seems it went a bit further than needed to be but at least nothing of value was really lost aside from all the algorithm fails giving false reports. To anyone against this you can't logically consistently be against the decision of a private business while supporting the freedom of a business to make decisions like that. Also the whole idea of only regulating the big corporations you dissagree with is half assed and biased. Where there is an unrestricted economy there always will be large businesses with great power over many. WatchTillTandava said: While we're on the topic of mirages, the word "extremist" is a mirage in and of itself. A cheap parlor trick that means nothing. All it means is to be extremely opposed to the status quo (or some set of policies or aspects within it) at some place and some time from any given angle or point of view. It doesn't matter if it's rightist, leftist, or doesn't even fit anywhere on the political spectrum. The goal is to de-legitimize any opinion or conversation that doesn't conform to the echo chamber of "polite society". It's ideological zealotry disguised as moderation. A radical is someone against status quo yet gets used as if it's interchangeable with terrorist. Terrorist itself can be misused at times too. Extremist is harder to pin down the meaning of and can varry. |
Bayek said: deg said: And perhaps this might be the source of confusion because I don't fundamentally disagree with you in that regard. Measuring which side is worse leads down a never ending rabbit hole that, admittedly, is the wrong way to frame this topic. While it might be the SJW crowd today, it was the soccer moms last decade and the Christian conservatives during the Satanic Panic of the 1980's and the Weathermen Underground in the 70's.for now im still skeptical of this claim by the right wing there in USA that the left wing is more radical overall The core point I want to make is that this current era of censorship is being conducted by self-proclaimed liberals and it largely benefits those who are of a left leaning persuasion. The inherent problem isn't that it's leftists doing it - it's that it's being done so as to tip the scales completely in favor of those who are already wielding the levers of power. This is a dangerous precedent to set as there will be no justifiable defense when the pendulum eventually swings and the right seizes power. And believe me, I don't want conservatives telling me what I can and can't watch either. well you said it yourself the endgame or end goal of the right wing is to replace and become the establishment and i find that scary considering right wing people are usually religious (the original pro discrimination with sexsim against females, and anti-LGBT) and worse they are anti-poor with the mindset of social darwinism that relates to laissez-faire capitalism im sure this current pro-censorship of the left is just temporary or reactionary in hopes to attract different customers and experts/skills workers around the world for capitalisms profit making sake, since obviously cultural conflict will arise but contact theory says it can be fixed so give it 1-3 generations at least and the world will become almost 1 giant tribe as Black Panther said it and that will make us closer to becoming a type 1 civilization too according to Kardashev scale but ye lately i do think the right wing will seize the establishment position sooner or later especially there in western countries then eventually willl influence poor countries like ours too |
| It'll just get to the point where its basically a hostile take-over preventing anyone from saying anything. We are already seeing the beginning of it now. So, if you care about freedom of speech or expression, now is the time to stand up for it guys! |
Peaceful_Critic said: @Traed "To anyone against this you can't logically consistently be against the decision of a private business while supporting the freedom of a business to make decisions like that." You can be against it while still thinking they have the legal right to do so. It's not contradictory, no one said the companies are unable to be criticized either. Not saying it's explicitly contradictory but implicitly contradictory. It's not exactly same thing but site rules are not totally unlike state laws in that they are a written policy people have to follow or be punished. I am speaking of people fully opposed on principle because they disagree with the decision not people that simply disagree with the decision but agree with the principle. |
traedJun 8, 2019 12:09 AM
| @Peaceful_Critic Reread my edit. I already clarified what I was talking about. |
Bayek said: you do know thoose are both right wing right? He was asking for a left and right extremist statstics. You gave him 2 right wing extremist.deg said: Well let's just take the Government Accountability Office's domestic terrorism statistics, for example. Between September 12th, 2001 and December 31st, 2016, these are the following stats:just anything related to extremism (be it verbal and physical) of both the left and right i googled it earlier and just get a bunch of right wing violence is on the rise both in USA and Europe but if there are more statistics related to that or even debunking that then lets see it Far Right Extremism - 62 attacks (73%), 106 kills (47%) Islamic Extremism - 23 attacks (27%), 119 kills (53%) Now even if you suppose that all of the far right terror has been committed by whites, as Don Lemon so eloquently stated, that's still well over 60% of the population involved in 73% of the attacks. In contrast, approximately 3% of the population commits the remaining 27% and still manages to get a higher death toll. Hmm... But I'm just stating factual information. There's absolutely no agenda, narrative or spin to what I'm saying. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf Edit: And just to provide a more current year example, let's look at the worst terror attacks of the year. White Supremacist Terrorism - Christchurch. Around 50 dead. Islamic Terrorism - Sri Lanka Easter Massacre. 250+ dead. Again, just rattling off statistics. It's all about the cold, hard facts. That's it! |
GrimAtramentJun 8, 2019 1:00 AM
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
hazarddex said: Bayek said: you do know thoose are both right wing right? He was asking for a left and right extremist statstics. You gave him 2 right wing extremist.Well let's just take the Government Accountability Office's domestic terrorism statistics, for example. Between September 12th, 2001 and December 31st, 2016, these are the following stats: Far Right Extremism - 62 attacks (73%), 106 kills (47%) Islamic Extremism - 23 attacks (27%), 119 kills (53%) Now even if you suppose that all of the far right terror has been committed by whites, as Don Lemon so eloquently stated, that's still well over 60% of the population involved in 73% of the attacks. In contrast, approximately 3% of the population commits the remaining 27% and still manages to get a higher death toll. Hmm... But I'm just stating factual information. There's absolutely no agenda, narrative or spin to what I'm saying. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf Edit: And just to provide a more current year example, let's look at the worst terror attacks of the year. White Supremacist Terrorism - Christchurch. Around 50 dead. Islamic Terrorism - Sri Lanka Easter Massacre. 250+ dead. Again, just rattling off statistics. It's all about the cold, hard facts. That's it! Here are some statistics: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/08/21/which-ideology-has-inspired-the-most-murders-in-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil/ According to which left-wing has caused 0.7% of the terrorist deaths on American soil. Right wing (assuming we don't consider Islamism right wing) caused 6.6%. So right-wing terrorism is around 10 times more deadly than left wing. The majority of the other attacks were by islamists. Of course, since this statistic starts from the 90s, 9/11 dominates it pretty heavily accounting for 92% of the total death count. After 9/11 they have killed roughly the same number of people as right wing. Please note that this source only covers US. |
NthDegreeJun 8, 2019 1:32 AM
--ALEX-- said: Bourmegar said: @--ALEX-- erm do you know that even non political Channels, Left wing independant creators and etc also got banned/demonitised? It's not just tackling Right wingers. I’m not against banning leftists either. Especially if they’re on the far left. But these Channels didn't even break the rules. That's is the whole thing. Ppl that did not do hate speach got labeled as hate speach. so youtube should at least Not F it up and hit the innocent channels but yh Leftists who break the rules should be hit as well. This whole situation came to be because of Capitalism AND FREE SPEECH. These 2 things allow companies and etc to be assholes to ppl and restrict their freedom without going against the 1st Amendment (the right to free speach) nor the law because there is no law that forbids censorship. So if Trump Succeeds in enforcing free speach on college campusses, is that then Capitalistic or is it SOCIALISTIC? The free speach amendment is kinda outdated in the west because it doesn't protect free speach at all in a capitalistic society because it only protects you from the government and not from the media. So is the government enforcing free speach on Companies/platforms Capitalism or another Socialist thing? So I see it like this: Capitalism: Big daddy companies restricting you. Socialism: Big daddy government restricting you. Pick your poison XD Sorry that I went of the rails for a bit. I just felt like this needed to be said to ppl who are like "muh free speach" and "socialism bad, capitalism good". I'm not in favor of socialism and Capitalism also should be criticized. So I might be more in the center/moderate like most ppl are. |
petran79 said: Unless they can moderate every YouTube comment in every world language, it will be impossible. Comments not written in English especially are a cesspool 90% of the comments in English are completely retarded so I cannot imagine what foreign languages would be like. Youtube comments are the lowest of the low. |
 |
QPR said: petran79 said: Unless they can moderate every YouTube comment in every world language, it will be impossible. Comments not written in English especially are a cesspool 90% of the comments in English are completely retarded so I cannot imagine what foreign languages would be like. Youtube comments are the lowest of the low. *Places that are unregulated have comments that are the lowest of the low |
|
| The rules just seem to be 'don't call for discrimination against other groups' which is a normal policy that calls for the most basic decency imo. |
Claptrap said: The rules just seem to be 'don't call for discrimination against other groups' which is a normal policy that calls for the most basic decency imo. So are they going to delete any videos advocating in favor of discrimination of individuals via quotas and affirmative action and delete and/or demonetize their channels as well? |
 |
Ryuk9428 said: So to find evidence of your persecution, you went to the most deeply conservative state in the entire US and showed an example of a mayor who is being told he has to resign from office because he thought what he was saying was private and it turned out it wasn't, which means that he knew he'd get in huge trouble if what he was saying became public, and a church in Alabama airing an episode of a same sex wedding. A fucking state won't air a cartoon in which two gay rats get married. How can you not see there is a problem with how society treats gay people. Oh wait, you never talked to a gay person in your life and you get all your infos from /pol/. Also didn't you just say conservatives don't hate people based on their gender or sex, hmmm. A few assholes isn't persecution. I agree. Granted, you think a few assholes screaming on Twitter is discrimination though. Turns out even in your hated state of Alabama though, you can still have gay pride parades... https://closetprofessor.com/2012/06/04/central-alabama-pride/ https://www.proudout.com/po-event/central-alabama-pride-pride-week/ Several Gay bars... https://birmingham.gaycities.com/bars Hmm, it's almost like there are gay people in Alabama. Now you should ask yourself, how well these people fare. an get legally married, and have access to the entire internet where your views will mostly be protected. Hey Alabama kid who got kicked out of the house and got called an abomination, you are OK because you can get married and have the Internet! If you don't kill yourself first. Meanwhile, you continue to prove my point that leftists are constantly using the whole "you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic," as their trump card because they think it will intimidate people to back down. But they're looking like the boy who cried wolf more and more with each passing year as they continue to rely on it as their trump card. Not really. The only ones who think that are right wings and their opinion is irrelevant duh. he far right is basically a reaction to the world that liberals created. Liberals have been obsessing over making identity politics the central issue of their ideology, AHAH. The rights love identity politics. Hate people because they are gay, black or jews. Hate people because they are Mexicans. Your president literally ran a campaign on that. Accept Milo and Candace because they are minorities who parrot our talking points. GG getting rid of Milo once he wasn't useful anymore. n the 1980s, everybody believed that we were past all this crap and that the racism of the past was gone. People felt more comfortable making racially insensitive jokes because they felt like racism was dead and not a problem anymore so its fine to joke about it. And it was pretty much true, but liberals literally resurrected racial tensions both on and offline out of desperation for their narrative to be true. Oh laws, this is amazing. It's liberuls' fault I think black people are dumber are more violent and I oppose race mixing! Everything was fine no one was racist back then! Also were you even alive in 1980? Edit: You were born in fucking 1998, literally didn't experience even the 90. You were 12 in fucking 2010 what the fuck you would know about anything. |
BernrikaJun 8, 2019 11:50 AM
Aldnox said: Everyone who's right of Stalin is /pol/. Well, you are certainly the only ones obsessed with comunism, yes. So you are pretty easy to spot. But also because you all post the same shit over and over.... |
Fate_Saber88 said: I don't support any of those ideas but it's getting out of hand. Remember the NZ mosque shootings? Youtube deleted some Euro beat songs from Initial D or blocked comments just because the shooter played gas gas gas Nz shooting is a false flag, mossad did it. |
 |
Bernrika said: Ryuk9428 said: So to find evidence of your persecution, you went to the most deeply conservative state in the entire US and showed an example of a mayor who is being told he has to resign from office because he thought what he was saying was private and it turned out it wasn't, which means that he knew he'd get in huge trouble if what he was saying became public, and a church in Alabama airing an episode of a same sex wedding. A fucking state won't air a cartoon in which two gay rats get married. How can you not see there is a problem with how society treats gay people. Oh wait, you never talked to a gay person in your life and you get all your infos from /pol/. Also didn't you just say conservatives don't hate people based on their gender or sex, hmmm. A few assholes isn't persecution. I agree. Granted, you think a few assholes screaming on Twitter is discrimination though. Turns out even in your hated state of Alabama though, you can still have gay pride parades... https://closetprofessor.com/2012/06/04/central-alabama-pride/ https://www.proudout.com/po-event/central-alabama-pride-pride-week/ Several Gay bars... https://birmingham.gaycities.com/bars Hmm, it's almost like there are gay people in Alabama. Now you should ask yourself, how well these people fare. an get legally married, and have access to the entire internet where your views will mostly be protected. Hey Alabama kid who got kicked out of the house and got called an abomination, you are OK because you can get married and have the Internet! If you don't kill yourself first. Meanwhile, you continue to prove my point that leftists are constantly using the whole "you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic," as their trump card because they think it will intimidate people to back down. But they're looking like the boy who cried wolf more and more with each passing year as they continue to rely on it as their trump card. Not really. The only ones who think that are right wings and their opinion is irrelevant duh. he far right is basically a reaction to the world that liberals created. Liberals have been obsessing over making identity politics the central issue of their ideology, AHAH. The rights love identity politics. Hate people because they are gay, black or jews. Hate people because they are Mexicans. Your president literally ran a campaign on that. Accept Milo and Candace because they are minorities who parrot our talking points. GG getting rid of Milo once he wasn't useful anymore. n the 1980s, everybody believed that we were past all this crap and that the racism of the past was gone. People felt more comfortable making racially insensitive jokes because they felt like racism was dead and not a problem anymore so its fine to joke about it. And it was pretty much true, but liberals literally resurrected racial tensions both on and offline out of desperation for their narrative to be true. Oh laws, this is amazing. It's liberuls' fault I think black people are dumber are more violent and I oppose race mixing! Everything was fine no one was racist back then! Also were you even alive in 1980? Edit: You were born in fucking 1998, literally didn't experience even the 90. You were 12 in fucking 2010 what the fuck you would know about anything. I don't post on /pol/. /Pol/ is just a bunch of trolls, I don't even know if they take their own shit seriously or they just want to offend people because they don't actually talk about traditional conservative values like keeping the family unit in-tact, they just want to say the N-word and spout off conspiracy theories about Jews. Its like every thread there. We have a loony right-wing too. I don't give a shit about race, I just don't like how leftists are constantly race-baiting everyone and trying to fan the flames whenever they get an inkling that there might be racial tensions somewhere. My dad was alive in the 1980s. Identity politics on the right are a response to liberals constantly harping on it. They wouldn't let the issue go and were so obsessed with proving their myth of widespread discrimination that they cherry pick every incident of racism that happens in the nation. Well the thing is, in a nation of 330 fucking million people, you're going to find just about anything in this country. If you made a national scandal of it every time somebody got struck by lightning, then people would be terrified to go outside because they would think they're going to get struck by lightning. Conservatives don't hate people based on race and sexual orientation, but people who do happen to hate people based on race and sexual orientation might be a little more attracted to deeply conservative areas because they think its easier to isolate themselves from the people they hate. Conservatives are less likely to bring up any discussions or topics regarding gay people because they just don't really care. Its not a matter of hating them, its just not something most people think about very often. But the example you gave was the church saying it was okay to air the program? So clearly, they didn't ban it. At least the right does accept minorities who are on our side. Even when white males support the left, its like they are under constant surveillance by everyone for racist or sexist tendencies of some kind. Feminists consider straight males in their "movement" tolerable at best, and unworthy allies at worst, white males who claim to be sensitive towards black issues are constantly told they aren't actually being as sensitive as they think and they need to dispel their inner racism. The right loves it when women or minorities support conservative positions because we know that in reality, minorities and women carry more social status and are more capable of supporting our ideas without automatically getting shouted down. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Absolutely ridiculous. I don't understand how anyone on any side of the political spectrum can support censorship to this degree. It's sad that even someone as lazy as me is going to be moving to alternative websites for their entertainment. Very soon youtube will implode from trying to become TV 2.0. I've noticed especially recently youtube has become very "Newspeak"-y and clearly this trend will continue. We should hook Orwell's grave up to a generator with the amount he must be rolling in it. |
 |
Ryuk9428 said: Conservatives don't hate people based on race and sexual orientation, but people who do happen to hate people based on race and sexual orientation might be a little more attracted to deeply conservative areas because they think its easier to isolate themselves from the people they hate. Conservatives are less likely to bring up any discussions or topics regarding gay people because they just don't really care. Its not a matter of hating them, its just not something most people think about very often. Is this dude serious? It's honestly scary how much he seems to be delusional about this. It's like, he genuinely believes minorities didn't have constantly to fight against right wings and their discrimination for most of their live to obtain some semblance of rights, and they still do in many countries. You can only blame so much on age. |
Bernrika said: Ryuk9428 said: Conservatives don't hate people based on race and sexual orientation, but people who do happen to hate people based on race and sexual orientation might be a little more attracted to deeply conservative areas because they think its easier to isolate themselves from the people they hate. Conservatives are less likely to bring up any discussions or topics regarding gay people because they just don't really care. Its not a matter of hating them, its just not something most people think about very often. Is this dude serious? It's honestly scary how much he seems to be delusional about this. It's like, he genuinely believes minorities didn't have constantly to fight against right wings and their discrimination for most of their live to obtain some semblance of rights, and they still do in many countries. You can only blame so much on age. Translation: @Ryuk9428 : Currently, in the year 2019, Conservatives in developed western nations usually don't discriminate against minorities. @Bernrika : SO YOU ARE SAYING that in the 1950s there was no discrimination against minorities by the right-wingers? LIAR! DELUSIONAL! Notice how Ryuk9428 talks about the present and Bernrika about the past. |
Grey-ZoneJun 9, 2019 5:21 AM
|
| If it’s banning neo-fascists who demonize and de-humanize groups of people through their hate preaching and harassment, then I don’t see a problem. Yes for freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech stops once you start treading over people (not literally treading over people; figure of speech). It’s okay to criticize in a constructive open minded way (debates) but not okay to demonize or dehumanize through hate speech imo. |
Shishou_23Jun 9, 2019 8:53 AM
 |
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 |