Social Steven crowder demonetized

[lfd0311]

Advertisers are leftists

Sure dude. All of them.

 

[MilesAbove]

Whoa.

The posting of a loathsome cuck.

Yeah, we’re gonna do our best to protect the children who are trotted out to strip for gays men’s pleasure

How can you call yourself a man?

How do you? You're so afraid of nonsense you might as well travel back to the 50s, put on a pretty sun dress, and enjoy that gender norm you're fitting neatly into.

 

[floivanus]

I don't know . . . if Crowder is going to run into issues over his videos then the same standard should be applied to others.

No, that would make sense. Im sure MSM channels have bullied Trump more than Crowder bullied Vox

 

[Oiler]

How do you? You're so afraid of nonsense you might as well travel back to the 50s, put on a pretty sun dress, and enjoy that gender norm you're fitting neatly into.

You are not a cuck, and the hateful rhetoric is too fucking far.

That said, there is probably a line. 10 year olds should not be give hormone therapy. Im allowed to raise my boy as a boy, im allowed to encourage my child to behave consistent with his her gender norm. If its clear he wants to do different im not going to go nuts and send him off to conversion therapy either. But I honestly think some percentage of children might be pushed into a very hard life that they would not otherwise endure.

Im for gay marriage, im for self determination, but like anything it can go too far.

 

[Islam Imamate]

News to me. I thought there were lots of protected classes of people that not hiring or firing (for the "wrong" reason) could wind them up in court. Plus they've got to pay a certain minimum amount all around, and have to make sure there's no significant pay discrepancy between genders.

Anyone who supports these laws, then defends censorship based solely on the censor being a private entity, should probably take stock of the consistency of their positions.

Not really because as far as I know Crowder is not being targeted for being part of a protected class, he is targeted for demonetization(not related to hiring/firing btw) for being a cunt. So you can support the idea of protected classes as it relates to discrimination in hiring/firing or access to businesses offering their services to the public while understanding the fact that in certain contexts platforms like YT have discretion in deciding who has access to monetization and who doesn't.

 

[MilesAbove]

You are not a cuck, and the hateful rhetoric is too fucking far.

That said, there is probably a line. 10 year olds should not be give hormone therapy. Im allowed to raise my boy as a boy, im allowed to encourage my child to behave consistent with his her gender norm. If its clear he wants to do different im not going to go nuts and send him off to conversion therapy either. But I honestly think some percentage of children might be pushed into a very hard life that they would not otherwise endure.

Im for gay marriage, im for self determination, but like anything it can go too far.

I agree. As I noted before, I think the problem is beauty pageant culture. My problem is the pointing at "ew, look s" as if it's some gay-culture thing, rather than it being a very weird thing some parents do to/with their kids. Moms have been doing it to daughters for a century now. That was my problem with the previous poster's position.

 

[Islam Imamate]

How do you harass a grown man who's a public figure via a YouTube video? It's not cool that Maza was harassed and doxxed by other people but there's no indications that Crowder directed or even encouraged any of that. Maza is a big boy who supports political violence and authoritarianism, yet he wants to cry like a little bitch when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Fuck him. I don't even like Crowder or agree with his politics. He should have destroyed Maza's stupid authoritarian positions without even mentioning that he's a queer, but he should still be allowed to do so and people should be allowed to listen to it. Open platforms benefit us all. What you spit in the wind might come back in your face...

I generally agree with you but I don't think demonetization was a step too far. I'm not gonna gloat over it but Crowder is edgy and offensive enough that it shouldn't surprise anyone. If Ben Shapiro gets demonetized I could understand some outrage.

I don't really like Shapiro either and he also says a lot of what he does to provoke and offend but he's far more careful with his words and strives to be more professional than Crowder. I think someone like him should be able to make money off of YT ads whereas someone like Crowder shouldn't be too surprised that he can't.

Bu yeah Maza seems like a cunt, even went as far to ask people to go and flag Crowder's videos. And his lisp and general effeminate mannerisms and hipster look really grind on me and make his videos tough to watch. Hate to say it but I agree with Crowder on him, just a chore to endure.

 

[Oiler]

I agree. As I noted before, I think the problem is beauty pageant culture. My problem is the pointing at "ew, look s" as if it's some gay-culture thing, rather than it being a very weird thing some parents do to/with their kids. Moms have been doing it to daughters for a century now. That was my problem with the previous poster's position.

Ppl fear what they dont know

That said the makers of that drag kids video might think im a bigot.....

 

[GrandNewb]

And leftists claim everyone to the right of them are triggered snowflakes.

 

[MilesAbove]

Ppl fear what they dont know

That said the makers of that drag kids video might think im a bigot.....

You never have to explain to a wolf why the moon isn't something to howl to. You just mention it and continue on

The fringe will always howl.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I dont want the state involved. Hate speech is still free speech. I dont want clothing banned by govt or the wearers arrested.

Ok, I'm thankful we've settled that issue.

If you really think crowder does not harbor genuine hate and is just kidding, i can at least comprehend this logic. Maybe you can post a clip where he states this. I will have an open mind.

You want a video of him saying "I'm not a racist/bigot/homophobe?"

Howard stern had made a ton of racial jokes, but i dont think he is a real racist.

DOZENS of comedians have. Their job is to make people laugh. Period.

That's the danger of policing jokes, as I previously mentioned about Colbert/Cockholster, no one was saying he should be fired for that gay joke, because he's a liberal comedian mocking Trump.

But as soon as a conservative comedian targets a liberal with gay jokes, its "Ban him!"

So, its 'rules for thee, but not for me.'

Gaza is a complex issue. Egypt at fault, hamas at fault, israel at fault. Ppl that keep hamas in power at fault but need other options. But there can be no doubt ppl suffer there.

He's a Marxist, with an agenda.

There's nothing complex about him.

As a jew myself its an even wierder issue. But if im walking down the street and someone had a "joke" shirt on w holocaust pic and a misspelled slur, thats a problem for me. How can i be asked to keep mental room in that moment for this guy to just be a jokester? And what factors would i use to decide?

Grow thicker skin.

Sometimes friends just go back and forth w racial jokes about eachother because they trust eachother. And know they dont mean it. Is that present here? How does it get establshed? Why can some pull it off better than others?

No, that is not present here. Crowder and Gaza are not friends.

Gaza mocks conservatives endlessly on his videos and uses lies to assassinate their character. His own twitter profile says 'Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist.'

Yet, when his ideas are challenged, and destroyed, by Crowder in his reaction videos, with some mocking of Gaza as a person.... Gaza doesn't respond to Crowder's response, he does what a real journalist would do, and calls for Crowder to be banned.

So brave.

Also, explain why youtube (even if its being shitty) should not be free per open market principles.

Honestly, I'm not saying YouTube should be forced to keep Crowder on their platform. If they ban him, fine, that will help Crowder in the long run and hurt YouTube in a major way because it will expose their bias.

What I am saying is that YouTube should enforce their own rules equally, without regard to political bias.

No more bravado, trying to have an honest talk.

Based on your posts, I am pretty sure you are not a fig.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not really

If you say so.

 

[m25105]

"Private company, they can do whatever they want!" Isn't that what you righties always say when a bakery refuses to serve a gay couple? It goes both ways.
And lol at right wingers, trying to pull off the "it's just a joke, it says figs, lighten up". That shirt isn't even a dog whistle, it's a blow horn. It's all good, you lot can hang around in the gab, and complain about (((people))) and white genocide.

 

[Fight To Win]

RIP Crowder . They don't want him posting during the 2020 primaries especially after this classic about Biden which they know will not be forgotten, it was hilarious:

 

[Oiler]

Ok, I'm thankful we've settled that issue.



You want a video of him saying "I'm not a racist/bigot/homophobe?"



DOZENS of comedians have. Their job is to make people laugh. Period.

That's the danger of policing jokes, as I previously mentioned about Colbert/Cockholster, no one was saying he should be fired for that gay joke, because he's a liberal comedian mocking Trump.

But as soon as a conservative comedian targets a liberal with gay jokes, its "Ban him!"

So, its 'rules for thee, but not for me.'



He's a Marxist, with an agenda.

There's nothing complex about him.



Grow thicker skin.


No, that is not present here. Crowder and Gaza are not friends.

Gaza mocks conservatives endlessly on his videos and uses lies to assassinate their character. His own twitter profile says 'Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist.'

Yet, when his ideas are challenged, and destroyed, by Crowder in his reaction videos, with some mocking of Gaza as a person.... Gaza doesn't respond to Crowder's response, he does what a real journalist would do, and calls for Crowder to be banned.

So brave.



Honestly, I'm not saying YouTube should be forced to keep Crowder on their platform. If they ban him, fine, that will help Crowder in the long run and hurt YouTube in a major way because it will expose their bias.

What I am saying is that YouTube should enforce their own rules equally, without regard to political bias.



Based on your posts, I am pretty sure you are not a fig.

This is good dialogue.

Ive researched crowder some more, he does market himself as an equal oppty racial jokester

I guess my main question for you, is what conduct is racially unacceptable? Violence? Is any form of speech too far? (Not legally, morally)

Are the westboro whackos wrong to visit funerals of our veterans? What if they say "grow thicker skin?

For me, the use of slurs is one red line....i know we may disagree...so what is your line?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I guess my main question for you, is what conduct is racially unacceptable? Violence? Is any form of speech too far? (Not legally, morally)

Yes, there is speech that is 'too far' for me, but I acknowledge that 'line' is my opinion. I'm not an authoritarian and would not impose that line to any social standard.

#ThickSkin

Are the westboro whackos wrong to visit funerals of our veterans? What if they say "grow thicker skin?

I'm a veteran, and was born, raised, and currently live a few hours away from those cult of cunts.

Don't get me started on them.

For me, the use of slurs is one red line....i know we may disagree...so what is your line?

Some slurs are worse than others. For example 'queer' isn't quite as bad as 'f**.'

And apparently Sherdog agrees because one gets censored and the other doesn't.

But, I gotta give Crowder credit, I didn't know he said alot of these things in his recent "I'm sorry" video, but since he gave sincere apologies, I'll accept them and move on.

All the horrible things he's said in the past...

 

[Phisher]

 

[spamking]

Not really because as far as I know Crowder is not being targeted for being part of a protected class, he is targeted for demonetization(not related to hiring/firing btw) for being a cunt.

Not really. That gay vox dude was butthurt over Crowder fact-checking his "stories" . . . YT basically said he didn't break anything related to terms of use and was only able to provide 2 examples of videos with "issues". And then the dude whine about the figs shirt because he didn't get the joke.

So you can support the idea of protected classes as it relates to discrimination in hiring/firing or access to businesses offering their services to the public while understanding the fact that in certain contexts platforms like YT have discretion in deciding who has access to monetization and who doesn't.

Is YT a platform or a provider? How would you see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 applying to them?

Wouldn't it protect YT from any potential issues if they left content alone and let people decide to view content or not?

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...e-and-commerce/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Free choice has created a challenge the law can’t overcome.

If you pay any attention to conservative Twitter, you’re aware of this week’s incident in social-media censorship. YouTube has “demonetized” conservative comedian Steven Crowder’s YouTube channel. He’s not banned, but he’s lost one of his income streams. His offense was targeting a Vox journalist, Carlos Maza, in his bits, including calling him names like a “lispy queer” and a “sprite.”

I’m not going to spend too much time on Crowder’s case. Many of these social-media controversies share a dreary sameness. A right-wing speaker says something outrageous and faces consequences, while multiple left-wing speakers seem to spew venom with impunity, including at people (like, say, conservative Christians) who are also ostensibly protected by various social-media anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies.

The regularity of the controversies — combined with the persistence of the overt viewpoint discrimination — is resulting in a demand that government “do something” to solve the problem. But the problem is far too complex and deep-seated for the government to solve. And if the government tries to step in with too heavy a hand, it’s going to violate the law. It’s past time for an honest, realistic look at the true cultural, commercial, and constitutional challenges to social-media fairness.

Let’s deal with the most serious issue first. The American tech industry — especially in Silicon Valley — exists in a largely common ideological culture. While there of course exists some degree of overt discrimination against conservatives, the reasons for the monoculture reach well beyond overt discrimination. At elite levels tech is young, coastal, and disproportionately drawn from elite academies. In other words, it’s located in the most blue parts of America, is comprised of the most blue age demographic, and draws its workers from the most blue educational institutions.


Even then, however, the market in theory can rather easily correct the problem. Social-media companies have national (and global) ambitions. They became (and remain) economic titans in part by serving tens of millions of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and will happily vote for him in 2020. If Trump supporters en masse chose to punish even one social-media platform, it would suffer a colossal economic setback.




Here’s the blunt truth, however — most red Americans either don’t know or don’t care about social-media censorship. They certainly don’t care enough to delete their apps. This isn’t a market failure; it’s a market verdict. Apathy rules, and this apathy is sustained in part because social-media companies have chosen their targets carefully. There are few normal Americans who want to jump off their favorite app because YouTube censored someone who uses phrases like “lispy queer” or because Facebook ditched Alex Jones, a man who claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.


Those who do truly care about censorship are a rounding error in the market. They’re part of the tiny slice of American citizens who are not only engaged in online conservative politics, they’re motivated enough to do something about censorship. This small group has no meaningful market impact, but it does punch above its weight in one key area — access to government power. They know senators. Senators know them.

But that brings us to the rather important topic of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment limits the government’s power to force a private corporation to provide a platform for speech it despises. Government regulation of media is an almost impossibly complex topic (if you want to dive into the topic in the social-media context, I can recommend this March 2019 analysis from the Congressional Research Service), but here’s a general principle — the more any social-media company curates its content, the more First Amendment protection it is likely to enjoy.


In a very direct way, as Facebook or any other social-media company works on its algorithms, tries to filter out fake news, and refines its community standards, it’s staking out its identity as a private actor making specific speech and membership choices to build a specific kind of private community.

Moreover, if the government launches other action (like, say, an antitrust investigation) in reprisal for social-media companies’ exercising their constitutional rights, then even that other action may well be shut down by federal courts.


But to say that there is no easy way to combat the challenge of social-media censorship is not to say there is no way at all. Persuasion, engagement, and market pressure are preferable to attempts to recruit the government to erode First Amendment protections that, in other contexts, stand as a firewall protecting conservative causes and conservative speakers from the emerging culture of coercion.

To rebuild a culture of liberty online, conservatives have to engage two audiences, first and most directly the small audience of men and women who hold the levers of corporate power. Do not presume bad faith. Do not presume that every key executive in every social-media company has closed his or her mind. In fact, we’ve seen persuasion work. We’ve seen accounts reinstated and apologies issued. It happens.

At the same time, conservatives need to reach the very large audience of indifferent Americans who either don’t see the problem with demonetizing a comedian they don’t know or don’t fear the slippery slope enough to take any meaningful action. This is the longtime challenge of the free-speech advocate, to convince people to care about free speech even when the relevant speaker says words they don’t like. This is an old problem, but free-speech advocates have won that argument for a very long time. They can win it again.


Then there’s also the matter of our own, individual commercial ambitions and our own entrepreneurial energies. It is foolish to presume that the companies that dominate the marketplace today will do so indefinitely, and it’s foolish simply to cede the halls of Facebook or YouTube to ideological opponents. Just as conservatives need to send philosophers into Stanford, we also need to send our programmers into Menlo Park and our entrepreneurs to San Jose.

But what conservatives cannot and should not do is use the government to erode freedom for the alleged purpose of saving freedom. The alleged “easy” solution — the fast fix of federal legislation — is likely blocked by the First Amendment. Moreover, there’s something fundamentally entitled and not-conservative about claiming that you should have government-mandated access on terms you prefer to a platform you didn’t create, that’s maintained by people you oppose, and that you should have that access for free.


Even if the Supreme Court allows intrusive regulations to take hold, the resulting new legal doctrines will create the sharpest of two-edged swords. One party never holds the permanent levers of power, and so censors must always ask, “Will my monster turn on me?” And with the impulse to censorship on the rise, the answer to that question will be “yes.” The government does not exist to correct market outcomes that well-connected conservatives do not like.

I wanted to post a lengthy diatribe on this subject, but this article mostly captures it and is worth reading. So I’m quoting it.

In short, I think YouTube is biased in applying their rules.

However, they are well within their rights to demonetize Crowder, or even ban him. I don’t have much sympathy for trolls in general, of which Crowder certainly is. I just listened to a rather controversial lecture on YouTube about the Condederacy, of which there are many. YouTube doesn’t delete them. But the lecturer also uses facts and doesn’t engage in trolling or in general act like a douchebag (Crowder.) Crowder might be surprised by how lenient YouTube and other platforms are if he stopped acting like a childish edge-lord. He needs to grow up. The fig shirt is ridiculous.

The selective application of YouTube’s rules are regrettable, but within their rights. The idea of the government somehow compelling YouTube to provide a platform against their will is far more egregious and is not an alternative.

 

[djacobox372]

He was wearing this shirt, while attacking the socialist views of a man while disparaging his sexuality. This is against Youtube policy, obviously.

Contrary to the character he plays on youtube, Crowder is not a dumb man. He is getting banned on purpose for the publicity. He's gotten big enough that he's probably trying to start his own thing.

https://hottrendtees.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Steven-Crowder-Socialism-Is-For-:eek::eek::eek:s-Shirt-Unisex.png