Infowars one strike away from YouTube ban

[Endus]

Yes, that's exactly what you said:

"You claimed Reddit was banning right-wing sites, when there's clearly strong right-wing subreddits still there, even ones that act in exactly the way you're projecting upon reddit itself.

It's not a "logic fail", the facts prove your claims to be meritless."

You said: here, because this right-wing site isn't banned, their bans are not biased against right-wing sides. You said it plain and clear and it was a first-grade logic fail.

See the last word in that post you're quoting?

"meritless".

I was saying you had no evidence to back your claims of bias. That is not a "logic fail", and all you're doing here is flagrantly misrepresenting my actual posts.

Or to put it another way, to defend your making shit up about Youtube and Reddit, you're now making shit up about me.

[Machismo]

You being either willfully obtuse or not capable of discerning things is not really my problem, mate.

And your inability to recognize a clear double standard that you are bringing up is not my problem, mate.

[rda]

Did you miss the post where I pointed out that Yarvin is also a competing web platform developer?

The security alert doesn't mention the reason he's on a watchlist, but why make up some assumption that it's partisan when a far more obvious reason is right there?

Because he was not the only guy on the list and do your research regarding what other guys on the list were.

[Deleted]

Not what I said. I'm well aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But the corollary to that is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You want people to believe there's bias? Then you have to provide evidence to back that up. Until you do, "nuh-uh" is all the response your claims deserve, because you haven't actually made an argument.

There's a reason I keep underscoring that your arguments are "baseless" and "meritless" and such. The point is not that Google couldn't be biased. The point is that you have provided absolutely nothing to justify that claim. No evidence to back it, at all. And until you do, we've got no reason to believe that.

Same reason I'm gonna expect evidence if you want me to believe that Bigfoot was your grandpa, or that you've got a real live unicorn in your backyard.



Am I supposed to feel sorry for you?

You want to make the argument, do the work. Until you do, you're making shit up and nobody has any reason to believe you.

Case in point, your example about pewdiepie, who was promoting hate speech. Pretty blatantly. He's used racial epithets and supported Nazi views. Maybe he was trying to be "funny" by being extreme and outlandish, but that really doesn't matter.

Case in point why it wont matter what evidence i present as you will just say they got rightly demonetized for being hate speech or some other ridiculous exaggeration like you did above. "Supported nazi veiws" gtfo It was satire you liberal loon.

[Elba]

And your inability to recognize a clear double standard that you are bringing up is not my problem, mate.

It's only a double standard if they can be equated. Are you now going to claim being black and being a Nazi are equivalent?

[Machismo]

Case in point why it wont matter what evidence i present as you will just say they got rightly demonetized for being hate speech or some other ridiculous exaggeration like you did above. "Supported nazi veiws" gtfo It was satire you liberal loon.

Once again, provide the evidence. If the people were pushing hate speech, and also happened to be conservatives, then your evidence would be backing up his claim.

For all the complaints, there is a clear lack of evidence being presented.

[rda]

See the last word in that post you're quoting?

"meritless".

I was saying you had no evidence to back your claims of bias. That is not a "logic fail", and all you're doing here is flagrantly misrepresenting my actual posts.

Or to put it another way, to defend your making shit up about Youtube and Reddit, you're now making shit up about me.

See that word "prove"? We can play that game together. No, "the facts" don't "prove" that my claim was "meritless".

This is just another post of yours where you try to justify the nonsense you managed to say before.

[alturic]

Those kinds of categories are left open precisely because people try to find loopholes. "Oh, this wasn't TECHNICALLY against the rules, even if I'm clearly acting in bad faith, see?"

Not that "abusive, violent, or harassing video" is all that broad a category, really.

But see, that's what these guys are having a hard time finding the words to expression why they are saying their "political beliefs" are being discriminated against. Because there is a blanket reason and they sit there and say "what in the hell was X, Y or Z about my post".

That's all I was trying to show, there is no actual reason given, just a blanket reason that 9/10 the definition of the words "abusive", or "violent" or "harassing" don't apply. So they say "oh no, I'm being discriminated again". Take InfoWars for example (I don't watch any of their videos), but I can almost guarantee the strikes against the videos were not covered in that blanket statement.

[Machismo]

It's only a double standard if they can be equated. Are you now going to claim being black and being a Nazi are equivalent?

No, I'm saying applying two different standards of action based on two differing criteria is a double standard. Your support of a company's freedom to refuse service is based on a double standard.

- - - Updated - - -

See that word "prove"? We can play that game together. No, the facts don't "prove" that my claim was "meritless".

This is just another post of yours where you try to justify the nonsense you managed to say before.

Your claim was simply baseless, as you refused to cite evidence to back it up. Let me know when you have that Reddit evidence handy.

[Elba]

No, I'm saying applying two different standards of action based on two differing criteria is a double standard. Your support of a company's freedom to refuse service is based on a double standard.

Maybe in the broadest sense. Is that bad, though?

[rda]

Your claim was simply baseless, as you refused to cite evidence to back it up. Let me know when you have that Reddit evidence handy.

As I said I don't have to provide anything, but I mentioned Gamergate as an example. This was a page ago yet you are still babbling something about no evidence and baseless claims.

[Machismo]

Maybe in the broadest sense. Is that bad, though?

Well, since I go out of my way to avoid hypocrisy, it's not something I choose to do. It undermines one's argument, especially when claiming to oppose authoritarianism... whilst actively supporting authoritarianism. It marginalizes a stance.

[Endus]

Because he was not the only guy on the list and do your research regarding what other guys on the list were.

Got a link to the list? Or are you making shit up, again?

Case in point why it wont matter what evidence i present as you will just say they got rightly demonetized for being hate speech or some other ridiculous exaggeration like you did above. "Supported nazi veiws" gtfo It was satire you liberal loon.

It doesn't matter if he was being satirical or not. Youtube's concerned with what he did, not what his secret inner intent was.

See that word "prove"? We can play that game together. No, the facts don't "prove" that my claim was "meritless".

This is just another post of yours where you try to justify the nonsense you managed to say before.

And now you're condemning me because I can't prove a negative, while trying to pretend you are the bastion of logic and reason.

All I can do is underscore that you have not presented any evidence to back your claims. Hence they are without merit. Want to change that? Produce evidence that gives them merit. Until you do, they are definitively without merit. When the evidence you DO provide fails to back up your claims, that is not a contribution of merit.

[alturic]

The baker wasn't fined and closed for being right wing or Christian. He was fined for doxxing the gay couple. Released their information on the internet, to their rabid fanbase of "Christians" that openly attacked, harassed, threatened the gay couple. Hell, they almost lost their adopted kid over it because of the hostile environment made by hateful "Christians".

Different baker.

[Machismo]

As I said I don't have to provide anything, but I mentioned Gamergate as an example. This was a page ago yet you are still babbling something about no evidence and baseless.

Of course you don't HAVE to do anything. it simply makes your claims baseless, and therefore, can simply be disregarded as nothing more than static.

You specifically made a claim to me about Reddit banning users. I asked for that evidence to back up your claims as to what Reddit was doing. i even went so far as to point out that the mother of all right-wing pages (/the_Donald) still exists, undermining the core of the very argument you refused to back up in the first place.

[Endus]

But see, that's what these guys are having a hard time finding the words to expression why they are saying their "political beliefs" are being discriminated against. Because there is a blanket reason and they sit there and say "what in the hell was X, Y or Z about my post".

That's all I was trying to show, there is no actual reason given, just a blanket reason that 9/10 the definition of the words "abusive", or "violent" or "harassing" don't apply. So they say "oh no, I'm being discriminated again". Take InfoWars for example (I don't watch any of their videos), but I can almost guarantee the strikes against the videos were not covered in that blanket statement.

For the most part, though, this is just people lacking the self-awareness to realize how their content broke the rules. You see this all the time;

"I'm not insulting that guy, he really IS a libtard fuckwit!"
"It isn't trolling to claim the Holocaust is a fake, you kikes!"
"I'm not being abusive when I claim a bunch of kids who just survived a school shooting are dishonest liars making up a story!"

They feel persecuted, because they're incapable of understanding that the rules apply to them, too. It isn't confusion about what the rules are, it's a misbegotten idea that those rules are for other people.

And worse; all three of the above folks will get together and decide that since of course their comments were all "correct", in their own minds, they couldn't have been banned for it, so it must have been because the three of them were right-wingers. And that's how persecution complexes get started.

Not through unclear rules. Through people being unwilling to accept responsibility for what they've done.

[rda]

Got a link to the list? Or are you making shit up, again?

I will leave you guessing. Frankly, it is amazing how little you actually know / have seen or read yet how much weight you put into your opinions, especially compared to those of others. You basically say "it's X" and then spend pages constructing reasons to reject everything talking against that. In the end, it's your loss. Ten years ago I would have happily butted heads for days, but I grew out of it, so we are out of luck here.

[Elba]

Well, since I go out of my way to avoid hypocrisy, it's not something I choose to do. It undermines one's argument, especially when claiming to oppose authoritarianism... whilst actively supporting authoritarianism. It marginalizes a stance.

Again, only if you equate inherent protected classes to political opinion. You morally equating being a Nazi to being black or gay marginalizes any stance you have and, a usual, proves libertarianism as a trash philosophy.

Political opinion is a choice. Class is not.

[rda]

Of course you don't HAVE to do anything. it simply makes your claims baseless, and therefore, can simply be disregarded as nothing more than static.

You specifically made a claim to me about Reddit banning users. I asked for that evidence to back up your claims as to what Reddit was doing. i even went so far as to point out that the mother of all right-wing pages (/the_Donald) still exists, undermining the core of the very argument you refused to back up in the first place.

It is amazing that even after I mentioned the example I gave specifically for the second time, you manage to spend two paragraphs talking about how I provided nothing.

[Endus]

I will leave you guessing. Frankly, it is amazing how little you actually know / have seen or read yet how much weight you put into your opinions, especially compared to those of others. You basically say "it's X" and then spend pages constructing reasons to reject everything talking against that. In the end, it's your loss. Ten years ago I would have happily butted heads for days, but I grew out of it, so we are out of luck here.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I went and Googled for "Google conservative blacklist". Ever result for pages was just referencing the Damore class action lawsuit, which you already cited.

So I added "-damore" to the search terms, to exclude discussion of that lawsuit. No results regarding any such blacklist any more.

You're not "leaving me guessing". You don't have anything, and you know it.

And to repeat an earlier point; you aren't the audience I'm speaking to. My goal here isn't to convince you that you're wrong. It's to convince everyone else that you're wrong.