Twitch Becomes Safe Space

[rob mafia]

The answer is always money.

...exactly?

and that's why i think it's a dumb move? hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. it's like specific reasons were mentioned, or something. when 100% of a medium's content is made by streamers, punishing/censoring streamers seems to be a stupid business move.

as for "children", please go to twitch. check out the games all over the main page. they're not children's games.

 

[m52nickerson]

of course, not. but i don't think people should be censored and thus, be free from speaking AND the consequences.


hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

In this case the consequence is getting banned from Twitch. In the end you do believe in censorship in some form or the other if you believe in consequences.

...wow.

of all the facepalm gifs/etc i've used, none of them are worthy of this situation.

Not really. You just can't mount a counter argument.

 

[rob mafia]

...strawman needs a counter?

as for the first part... see selective, arbitrary, and biased - ie: the trend of late. ie: twitter, facebook, google, colleges. ie: the entire point i was making. ie: herp derp. ie: 4 pages of strawman bullshit.

 

[m52nickerson]

...strawman needs a counter?

as for the first part... see selective, arbitrary, and biased - ie: the trend of late. ie: twitter, facebook, google, colleges. ie: the entire point i was making. ie: herp derp. ie: 4 pages of strawman bullshit.

First, go look up what a strawman argument is. You will be surprised that it is not a argument that you simply don't like and cannot counter. Second, everyone get that you do not like the decision Twitch has made. People are simply explaining to you that it is not a freedom of speech issue. You need it to be because you don't know how to articulate any other argument against it.

 

[rob mafia]

First, go look up what a strawman argument is. You will be surprised that it is not a argument that you simply don't like and cannot counter. Second, everyone get that you do not like the decision Twitch has made. People are simply explaining to you that it is not a freedom of speech issue. You need it to be because you don't know how to articulate any other argument against it.

your argument(attempt) is just an attempt to retort something i never said. textbook strawman.

further, you keep thinking that i'm talking about the 1a. or "freedom of speech," when i stated about 15 times the concept of free speech. i even mentioned "open discussion," but you'd rather make up straw, while hypocritically typing about not knowing how to articulate an argument.

you don't even have an argument.

even further, you keep asking about consequences. as if terroristic threats, libel, slander, defamation, etc don't exist - and as if i said or implied anything about speech being free from consequences. derp.

 

[OnionKnight86]

Rob reminds me of the community episode where the high school kids show up

 

[OnionKnight86]

Wait, is terrorist threats freedom of speech?

 

[jojoRed]

So this guy is having a meltdown in a thread about twitter becoming a safespace?

 

[m52nickerson]

your argument(attempt) is just an attempt to retort something i never said. textbook strawman.

further, you keep thinking that i'm talking about the 1a. or "freedom of speech," when i stated about 15 times the concept of free speech. i even mentioned "open discussion," but you'd rather make up straw, while hypocritically typing about not knowing how to articulate an argument.

you don't even have an argument.

even further, you keep asking about consequences. as if terroristic threats, libel, slander, defamation, etc don't exist - and as if i said or implied anything about speech being free from consequences. derp.

People have been pointing out to the that freedom of speech equals the concept of the first amendment. Open discussion, which is the first time you mentioned that term, is a different concept. However the terms that Twitch has laid out does not prevent open discussions, as insulting people and using hateful language is not needed for an open discussion.

Now as far as speech having consequences, people are trying to point out the you that having consequences arise from speech, even legal ones, does not make it a freedom of speech issue. Somehow you have not gotten this.

 

[rob mafia]

People have been pointing out to the that freedom of speech equals the concept of the first amendment.

no, it doesn't.

this has already been blown the fuck out.

Open discussion, which is the first time you mentioned that term

are you now just making such an obvious lie or is your reading ability just terrible?

i mentioned it on page 5. on monday. GOOD JOB!

However the terms that Twitch has laid out does not prevent open discussions, as insulting people and using hateful language is not needed for an open discussion.

yeah, i covered that like 20 times. for starters, there's no such thing as "hateful language." secondly, subjective and selective enforcement. thirdly, outright bias. fourthly, the recent trend with this shit (including all of the first 3) from google, facebook, twitter, and colleges. try READING the posts you're incessantly responding to.

Now as far as speech having consequences, people are trying to point out the you that having consequences arise from speech, even legal ones, does not make it a freedom of speech issue. Somehow you have not gotten this.

..........................WOW

STILL tries to make this a legal issue.
STILL has no fucking idea what my clearly stated point is, despite it literally being restated and pointed out. numerously.

you probably still don't get why i mentioned strawman so much, either.

F-

 

[Phelly2]

I'm okay with this. Gaming is filled with angry, mentally stunted men and boys who wouldn't dream of dropping certain words in front of people irl because they'd get the shit kicked out of them or are too scared to do that because they don't have the safety barrier of the internet. Fuck 'em, fuck 'em all.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
When you put it that way, my experience in online gaming confirms this.

I have a strong dislike for the soft skinned approach of censoring everything for the fear that it might be construed as offensive to someone, somewhere, but Thulsa makes a valid point here.

If there's one place I can literally expect to see unabashed, unfiltered hate speech, it's online gaming. Because these pencil necked f*** sticks know they aren't going to get their asses kicked.

YOU SEE? I'm getting mad just thinking about my experience playing League of Legends all those years ago. lol

 

[RaidenPazzerello]

fuck twitch lol

 

[m52nickerson]

no, it doesn't.

this has already been blown the fuck out.

It that was true you could express an argument supporting it. You have not and can't.

are you now just making such an obvious lie or is your reading ability just terrible?

i mentioned it on page 5. on monday. GOOD JOB!

First time you mentioned it in a reply to me, bucko.

yeah, i covered that like 20 times. for starters, there's no such thing as "hateful language." secondly, subjective and selective enforcement. thirdly, outright bias. fourthly, the recent trend with this shit (including all of the first 3) from google, facebook, twitter, and colleges. try READING the posts you're incessantly responding to.

There clearly is hateful language. It is simply any language used to express hate. Yes, there is a trend of sites taking action against hateful and harassing speech. Of course these are subjective and selective, most thing in the world are. You are also right that it is bias. These rules are bias against people who can't behave in civilized manor.

..........................WOW

STILL tries to make this a legal issue.
STILL has no fucking idea what my clearly stated point is, despite it literally being restated and pointed out. numerously.

you probably still don't get why i mentioned strawman so much, either.

F-

Not at all, I said there can be legal consequences, but but those are not the only consequences. Try reading my sentence again.

 

[rob mafia]

It that was true you could express an argument supporting it. You have not and can't.

....already did.

predates the 1a by thousands of years. is not limited to the usa (you know, like twitch), unlike the 1a. is not limited to specific circumstances, like the 1a. you know, just for starters.

your reading comprehension is just as sharp as your logical prowess.

First time you mentioned it in a reply to me, bucko.

your willful ignorance is your problem. you're making these ridiculous posts, now apparently without even reading what you're posting about. which is most unsurprising, since you failed to make ONE relevant point.

There clearly is hateful language. It is simply any language used to express hate.

*facepalm*

what a great fucking definition. this is definitely real and precise. it's certainly not some purely subjective bullshit you just pulled from your colon.

Yes, there is a trend of sites taking action against hateful and harassing speech. Of course these are subjective and selective, most thing in the world are. You are also right that it is bias. These rules are bias against people who can't behave in civilized manor.

or just conservatives. or just anyone who doesn't believe that there are 122 genders...

nice strawgoalpost shift, though.

Not at all, I said there can be legal consequences, but but those are not the only consequences. Try reading my sentence again.

try heeding your own advice.

 

[m52nickerson]

....already did.

predates the 1a by thousands of years. is not limited to the usa (you know, like twitch), unlike the 1a. is not limited to specific circumstances, like the 1a. you know, just for starters.

your reading comprehension is just as sharp as your logical prowess.

Again, just because a idea predates a written expression of that idea does not mean the written can't capture the idea. So this part of your argument makes zero sense at all.

The first amendment and free speech are not limited to specific circumstances, so again your argument makes no sense.

your willful ignorance is your problem. you're making these ridiculous posts, now apparently without even reading what you're posting about. which is most unsurprising, since you failed to make ONE relevant point.

Funny, seeing that people are mocking you in this thread.

*facepalm*

what a great fucking definition. this is definitely real and precise. it's certainly not some purely subjective bullshit you just pulled from your colon.

...or words have meanings. Do you need a link to a dictionary?

or just conservatives. or just anyone who doesn't believe that there are 122 genders...

nice strawgoalpost shift, though.

Show me an example of someone getting banned for simply expressing that idea. I will wait.






try heeding your own advice.[/QUOTE]

 

[rob mafia]

Again, just because a idea predates a written expression of that idea does not mean the written can't capture the idea. So this part of your argument makes zero sense at all.

The first amendment and free speech are not limited to specific circumstances, so again your argument makes no sense.

this is so stupid and factually incorrect that i'm just going to stop you there.

FACT: the 1a IS limited to specific circumstances - for starters, the USA. in case you missed it, we're talking about a website that's global.

FACT: free speech is broader than the 1a

if one made a venn diagram, the part of this that's relevant to the 1a is going to be rather small. in terms of my arguments/position, it's going to not even exist. because the 1a has literally nothing to do with my point.

i have no idea why you keep trying to strawman the fuck out of this thread with some stupid 1a bullshit that you think is some retort - WHEN I WAS NEVER ARGUING ANYTHING ABOUT THE 1A, TO BEGIN WITH.

 

[fdswer]

This shit is bad even for the war room

 

[m52nickerson]

this is so stupid and factually incorrect that i'm just going to stop you there.

FACT: the 1a IS limited to specific circumstances - for starters, the USA. in case you missed it, we're talking about a website that's global.

FACT: free speech is broader than the 1a

if one made a venn diagram, the part of this that's relevant to the 1a is going to be rather small. in terms of my arguments/position, it's going to not even exist. because the 1a has literally nothing to do with my point.

i have no idea why you keep trying to strawman the fuck out of this thread with some stupid 1a bullshit that you think is some retort - WHEN I WAS NEVER ARGUING ANYTHING ABOUT THE 1A, TO BEGIN WITH.

Funny, this whole exchange between us started when you posed this...

ITT: people thinking that free speech only refers to the first amendment.

I said the first amendment and the idea of freedom of speech is not limited to a specific circumstance. The idea of freedom of speech, which is speaking with fear of government reprisal, is pretty universal. However it is not practices in many places.

Again, no the idea of freedom of speech is not broader then the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech is protection from government reprisal for speech, that is it. Anything more is a discussion of what if any consequences should come from certain speech, or if owners of places or establishments should allow some speech.

Now do you want to continue arguing about freedom of speech like we have been or not.

 

[deadshot138]

People are deleting offensive vods, emotes and YT videos in droves. You can get banned for stuff you do offstream now too. It’s happening.

 

[deadshot138]

Twitch is a private company, free speech doesn’t apply to employees.