Social Steven crowder demonetized

Telling jokes, expressing opinions and even stating facts that certain people don't want to hear will get you consored and potentially banned. Yet something like doxxing children in the hope that they are assaulted or even murdered, simply for the 'crime' of wearing MAGA hats while smiling, is not only allowed but congratulated. And this is perfectly fine because it's a private company doing it.

Imagine having the kind of backwards logic and moral compass to actually think like this.
 
nac386 said:
I don't think it has to do with money. I think it has to do with branding, and not being seen as a company that encourages or accommodates guys who use their platform to sell shirts that say, "Socialists are f*gs".

I think there is a bit of soul-searching that these companies face. They want to open their platforms up to the public, but they don't want people using their platforms for nastiness. I'm sure we put ourselves in their position, and felt that kind of weight, we'd understand how difficult it is to see your platform turn into a cesspool. I don't think these decisions are as easy as people pretend they are.



CNN was not selling "Trump is a f*g" T-shirts.

The "anti-Trump" stuff on CNN is no different than the anti-Obama stuff on Fox News for 8 years. All kinds of ridiculous slander was pushed against him and his family. That's politics as usual.
Click to expand...
Except, some kinds of nastiness are ok, while others are not. I’ll bet the gay Latino has a link to his twitter at bottom of his vids, where he has openly called for violence and shutting down conservative protests. But that’s ok. No problem.
 
Wulfanon said:
@lilelvis - I think they don't want Crowder getting banned. If he does, his supporters are going to go to places people like me go that are 100% absolutely non-controlled and against various narratives right and left.
Click to expand...
See post #156.. I agree.
 
LogicalInsanity said:
Bingo...

Or label certain terms as racist, insensitive, ...

Who exactly will determine this?

What metric will be used?

What is the barometer for determining a group to he a "hate group?"
Click to expand...

1. Doesn't matter it's a private company

2. Doesn't matter it's a private company

3. Doesn't matter it's a private company
 
Wulfanon said:
@nac386 "CNN was not selling "Trump is a f*g" T-shirts. The "anti-Trump" stuff on CNN is no different than the anti-Obama stuff on Fox News for 8 years. All kinds of ridiculous slander was pushed against him and his family. That's politics as usual."

Sarah Jeong openly called for White people to be "cancelled" and talked about how she gets off being "cruel to White men". If this was a White person saying something about another non-muslim race(you're allowed to critique them, but no other race - wonder why?), they'd lose every sponsor:
R8o1vbn.jpg
Click to expand...

CNN can hire whoever they want. They can fire whoever they want. That is their right as a company, just like Youtube has the right to control their content. If CNN chooses to overlook something some girl Tweeted in 2014, that is their right.

You can just not watch CNN. Or not watch Youtube. You can do whatever you want, including whine about all of it.

Fox News employs Mark Furhman. I'm sure you've heard his tapes from when he was a detective about beating up Ni****s as a police officer. Weird how there is no outrage over that on Sherdog. An actual cop admitting to beating up black people, calling them N-words. But that girl's Tweets were a huge topic of discussion.

The selective outrage is just goofy. I don't take any of it seriously.
 
nac386 said:
I think it has to do with branding, and not being seen as a company that encourages or accommodates guys who use their platform to sell shirts that say, "Socialists are f*gs".
Click to expand...

You're getting that quote from Carlos Maza, who is such a great journalist and so very observant to misquote a T-shirt.

Ck6EEG9UkAESTij.jpg
 
@nac386
"CNN can hire whoever they want. They can fire whoever they want. That is their right as a company, just like Youtube has the right to control their content. If CNN chooses to overlook something some girl Tweeted in 2014, that is their right.

You can just not watch CNN. Or not watch Youtube. You can do whatever you want, including whine about all of it."

Left people being libertarian style hyper pro-corporate people is a real mind-blower.
 
Using the spectre of nazis to ban conservatives before the election cycle ramps up.

What a shock. The left can't win on a level playing field and they know it.
 
nac386 said:
CNN can hire whoever they want. They can fire whoever they want. That is their right as a company, just like Youtube has the right to control their content. If CNN chooses to overlook something some girl Tweeted in 2014, that is their right.

You can just not watch CNN. Or not watch Youtube. You can do whatever you want, including whine about all of it.

Fox News employs Mark Furhman. I'm sure you've heard his tapes from when he was a detective about beating up Ni****s as a police officer. Weird how there is no outrage over that on Sherdog. An actual cop admitting to beating up black people, calling them N-words. But that girl's Tweets were a huge topic of discussion.

The selective outrage is just goofy. I don't take any of it seriously.
Click to expand...
YouTube and CNN are wholly different in their corporate status. CNN is open to civil liability if they libel or slander. YouTube is protected because they are an “open” platform. <Lmaoo>
You should look this shit up.
 
Wulfanon said:
@nac386
"CNN can hire whoever they want. They can fire whoever they want. That is their right as a company, just like Youtube has the right to control their content. If CNN chooses to overlook something some girl Tweeted in 2014, that is their right.

You can just not watch CNN. Or not watch Youtube. You can do whatever you want, including whine about all of it."

Left people being libertarian style hyper pro-corporate people is a real mind-blower.
Click to expand...

You deleted the portion of my comment about Mark Furman since it contradicted your point about CNN.

Stop censoring my posts!!!!! Lol.
 
lilelvis said:
YouTube and CNN are wholly different in their corporate status. CNN is open to civil liability if they libel or slander. YouTube is protected because they are an “open” platform. <Lmaoo>
You should look this shit up.
Click to expand...

It’s irrelevant to anything I said. I never made the claim that YouTube was legally responsible for their content.
 
@nac386 - Dude, you edited and added extra stuff at the end. Yeah we all do it sometimes, but that's the risk you take.
 
nac386 said:
It’s irrelevant to anything I said. I never made the claim that YouTube was legally responsible for their content.
Click to expand...
Yet you argue that their, one sided, selection of content is ok. You can’t have both.
 
lilelvis said:
Yet you argue that their, one sided, selection of content is ok. You can’t have both.
Click to expand...

Define “ok”?

It’s their right as a company to control their content. They should do it even handedly, in my opinion. Those are two different topics.
 
tehJameson said:
Who cares crowder is a low iq failed comedian snowflake who can't take the heat when it's fired back at him. He had links to his store selling a shirt that says socialism is for f*gs. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

FIGS
 
Tropodan said:
Force them to impose free speech on their platforms.
Click to expand...

Yikes. This is exactly what I’m talking about. That is not a conservative stance at all. A conservative would never say that the government should have a controlling interest in private companies content.

This is why I do not associate the right wing Internet community with conservatives. They are often anything but.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,733
Messages
58,314,830
Members
175,998
Latest member
beepbeepbwwp

Share this page

Back
Top