Angel faced Youtuber, Evalion, kicked off the site after sharing racist views

[nonameelf]

you are bringing emotion and moral higher ground into it. We are arguing about principle here. Does the private entities in the country has to follow laws of the land or not? Because Rights ARE laws of the land. You are arguing in some subjects they don't (first amendment) and in others they do (gay rights). You are bringing up gay and assholes comparition to make the arguer feel bad to compare gay and asshole, so you can get support from the mob but it does not weaken arguer agreement.

Freedom of Speech means the government isn't allowed to regulate what people say, it has fuck all to do with private businesses.

Anti-discrimination laws do have something to do with private businesses.

You're still trying to compare apples to oranges there.

[Bryntrollian]

What is the meaning of this term " Angel faced " ?

[Chirri]

What is the meaning of this term " Angel faced " ?

I was starting to wonder that, as well.

[JohnnyRockets]

What is the meaning of this term " Angel faced " ?

I was starting to wonder that, as well.

I'm wondering that as well, please feel free to tell me what the term means if you ever find out.

I hope it doesn't mean that her face is angel-level pretty because I'm seriously not seeing that. And I'm not saying this because she is racist, I'm a bit of a racist myself.

[Atrea]

I think the implication is that she's "innocent looking", although that's still quite ambiguous.

[Slant]

I don't see him mentioning free speech anywhere in his post, but you seem to pretend like he did.
He's right. If some gay pride channel got banned, you would see exactly the same people now saying "it's YT, they can do whatever they want" then say "that's discrimination and YT should burn".

He doesn't say free speech, but his reasoning is along those lines. He thinks as long as it's within the first amendment, it's fair game. It's not. That's a misconception. To put it in different terms: The prohibition of views is also an expression of free speech. How about that?

[nextormento]

He doesn't say free speech, but his reasoning is along those lines.

This is a bizarre way to address an argument.
I know you're not saying A > I'll conveniently ignore the difference and assert you do think A > and I'll also inject my own argument (that is factually not addressing yours) just because.
Or, in other words: let me tell you what you actually think.

The prohibition of views is also an expression of free speech. How about that?

What about it. Neither person was arguing for freeze peach.
You keep doing that thing whereby you respond with stuff entirely unrelated to their point.

But you were right: your post was a waste. It was entirely irrelevant to the point. Nor did its production require "concentrating for more than 10 seconds".

[Deleted]

Because by definition, evidence of being a racist is antagonizing to patrons.

By definition, being Gay is also evidence of being antagonizing to patrons.
Hell expounding virtually Any View is.
Why are some views okay to offend people, and not other views?

[Slant]

This is a bizarre way to address an argument.
I know you're not saying A > I'll conveniently ignore the difference and assert you do think A > and I'll also inject my own argument (that is factually not addressing yours) just because.
Or, in other words: let me tell you what you actually think.


What about it. Neither person was arguing for freeze peach.
You keep doing that thing whereby you respond with stuff entirely unrelated to their point.

But you were right: your post was a waste. It was entirely irrelevant to the point. Nor did its production require "concentrating for more than 10 seconds".

Here's the post that spawned the entire sub discussion:

Youtube is not public space and it's within Youtube's free speech rights to decide what is censored and what is not within their owned area.

So, you're not able to follow a conversation and butt in midway without having any clue whatsoever what the fuck we're talking about. I mean seriously, you want to talk to me about irrelevance? Do I have to quote the entire line of posts to make a point everytime I post here?

[Deleted]

Failing to read and understand

No we read and understood.

And she has that voice. She just isn't allowed to say her ignorant bullshit on youtube. Racists are up in arms

Presupposing that Only racist people think its wrong to silence her.

and bringing up black people who say "cracker" like it makes what she did better.

No, it brings up the hypocrisy - Its not that that makes what she did better, its you don't think what they do, Is just as bad.

I don't think free speech supporters are racist.

No you did.

I think you and your lot complaining about her being banned then directly pointing to a black person and saying "Why aren't they banned? They said cracker!" is ignorant. She wasn't banned for saying the N word, she was banned for constant hate speech

Cracker is hate speech - There done.
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2P2qiINSng
Why no ban for him? - I'm guessing its going to be, 'black people cant be racist'

I never excused the word cracker, first of all. And second of all, cracker doesn't really carry much meaning behind it. It's a meaningless racial term.

Magical man - Most people have to have a few sentences in between contradictions.

[Fenixdown]

I fond it amusing that she's being described as "Angel-faced". On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate her a 4. That's not even close to angelic.

[Deleted]

He doesn't say free speech, but his reasoning is along those lines. He thinks as long as it's within the first amendment, it's fair game. It's not. That's a misconception. To put it in different terms: The prohibition of views is also an expression of free speech. How about that?

Oh gods no.
But you are still fucking completely wrong.

Youtube is not public space and it's within Youtube's free speech rights to decide what is censored and what is not within their owned area.

Why are so many people defending her then? Are they all racists as well?

This private business with its own rules nonsense is just a convenient way for people to defend discrimination against something they are against anyhow. If this was a gay pride channel being shut down, for whatever reason, the same people would be condemning youtube for being homophobic.

Now, if this youtube personality was claiming to speak FOR youtube, while broadcasting their views, that would be a different story. But as long as her videos were within the guidelines of the law (ie, no murder or tips on building chemical weapons), then it's just youtube discriminating against views it doesn't like.

The argument is this, 'Company A have the right to do X, because they own it, so its fine'
But if company A were to do Y, (where Y is shut down channels about say Gay issues) - Then those same people would magically insist that the prior argument now is bad - Its pointing out hypocrisy.
So again, Your entire post, missed the mark, and was inherently wrong.

Here's the post that spawned the entire sub discussion:
So, you're not able to follow a conversation and butt in midway without having any clue whatsoever what the fuck we're talking about. I mean seriously, you want to talk to me about irrelevance? Do I have to quote the entire line of posts to make a point everytime I post here?

Please parse the entire chain so as to make Direpenguin say what you imagined he said.

[nextormento]

Do I have to quote the entire line of posts to make a point everytime I post here?

No, you only need to keep relevant to the points raised.
Going back to what spawns an exchange is absolutely worthless. Unless, of course, you think reminding everyone that the Earth is round when debating Climate Change has any merit (after all, it's a previous point in scientific discovery).

That post you're quoting was entirely true. Tennisace's input was non-sequitur: they were asking a minimally related question that didn't follow from the true statement. They went on a tangent, which is ok. Direpenguin elaborated on their question about discrimination and gave it a spin.
You repeated the truism as if it mattered somehow and pretended to know what they actually think. Yes, your trivial input was entirely irrelevant: because the exchange was about something else. It is tangent to that exchange, which is ok: so long as you stop pretending you're addressing the exchange.

[Kourvith]

I don't get the angel/baby face mention. Is facial structure supposed to reflect one's education, social circles and psychology ?

[May90]

I fond it amusing that she's being described as "Angel-faced". On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate her a 4. That's not even close to angelic.

Come on now; she does look really beautiful to me. Granted, as is often the case, what's outside doesn't correlate with what's inside.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Who ever said it's that simple? Stuff like this goes into the social melting pot and festers. The holocaust also started with dumb people making dumb comments that spread around and at some point it escalated to the point of 60 million people dying in the worst conflict the world has ever experienced.



I don't recall using the phrase "hate crime". I referred to hate speech. Hate speech can lead to hate crime though, which is why hate speech should be nipped in the bud. She may not have actively been inciting violence, as in telling people to go out and commit hate crimes, but the provocative nature of her video has the potential, if left there long enough to stir up a hornet's nest of bitter and hateful arguments which eventually could result in people taking their anger out into the real world and actually harming other people.

Yeah man, you're right. This dumb girl that no one watches will totally cause the next holocaust.

No, she hasn;t incited any violence. That is false.

- - - Updated - - -

You're hilarious kid. I'm condemning racist hate speech, not name calling. Name calling and hate speech are two very different things. Anyone over the age of 10 should be able to grasp this concept...

You very literally called anyone who doesn't agree with you name. Practice what you preach.

[Poppen]

I'm all for free speech not speech is fine until I've got a problem with it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Facebook is in trouble for not allowing ads with a fat person in them. They are being "boycotted" or something along those lines. I sure hope everyone defending Youtube right now will also defend Facebook for not wanting to show fat people in their ads.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-ad-guidelines

Facebook has apologized for wrongly banning a photo of plus-sized model Tess Holliday for violating its ‘health and fitness’ advertising policy

[Bethrezen]

Free speech.

[Deleted]

Cracker is hate speech - There done.
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2P2qiINSng
Why no ban for him? - I'm guessing its going to be, 'black people cant be racist'

God damn that's horrible. I'm going to have nightmares.
That thing reminds me of a certain poster. T, is that you?