Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right? - Page 32 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Was Youtube Right to Ban Bismarck?

YES
30
50%
NO
30
50%
#15155499
Drlee wrote:You really are insecure, aren't you? You seem to be obsessed with my personal details. Give it a rest Sport. Here's is what you should do. Instead of bluffing and blustering around about how smart you are, why don't you try developing an argument.



So much for your manifesto.



That could not be less ambiguous.



I could go on. I wait expectantly for your considered response and not some bullshit posturing about who has a bigger penis.


I have made a reply to everyone above. I'm not afraid of you; not insecure; did NOT come here to argue with anyone. This is a discussion board OR whoever owns it is guilty of false advertising. I do not have a "manifesto" and IF I did (see my above post) it would be irrelevant to this topic and something you would not discuss openly with me in a fair and civil manner.
#15155500
B0ycey wrote:I have no idea what this has got to do with YouTube and I didn't even mention the elections for new Senators so how can I be factually wrong? I never made such a claim to be wrong to being with :?:

Nonetheless I don't really know whether the Founding fathers wanted elected Senators or not, but being that elected Senators aren't unconstitutional, that suggests to me that there wasn't much thought on it. It was all to do with giving smaller states equal representation than dictating semantics I suggest.



It's a strawman for two reasons. The first, it has nothing to do with the topic. And the second, nobody brought it up. You have used it to back up a claim that the Alt Right are being discriminated against but have failed to link that to the fact that the founding fathers hadn't even heard of YouTube, let alone make it unconstitutional for them to have terms and conditions.



So. You have opposing views. Should they roll over to not hurt your feelings? This is a forum. Debating is part of the package of membership.



A Republic can be democratic. That is just a fact. In fact the US is a Republic and holds elections.

Nonetheless I don't care about your opinion. You are still wrong and haven't addressed peoples counter arguments on the topic in any case. You just spout strawmen and complain they have no IQ. How about addressing just the topic and show us your IQ is something greater than your shoe size.


This is my final input on this:

1) A Republic is not a Democracy no more than a virgin can be a whore. For the third time, we tried that Democratic Republic idea out and it failed. Giving you legal analogies is not a straw man argument. And had people not insulted me and made false allegations, they would not have had their IQ questioned

2) This is not my thread and you should focus on that. If this were a debate forum, then the rules of debate would have been adhered to. That being the case, the first person to single me out for harassment, cheap shots, name calling, and intimidation lost the debate for all of you.
#15155501
@The Resister

Your acknowledgement that the Alt Right has not been banned from YouTube has been noted. Those who did broke the terms and condtions they signed up for. The irony is the Alt Right use platforms to claim discrimination which happen to also be the sites they claim to be discriminated against. That isn't the problem for PoFo users or that they use misinformation for click bait. That is the absurd claim Alt Right are making and he topic is just highlighting that.

As for people claiming you are a racist, who? There is an icon to report if you feel targeted.

Oh and FYI, YouTube is just like any other business. They cannot discriminate. They can however have rules. And as long as those rules don't discriminate, there is no issue right?
#15155504
The Resister wrote:This is my final input on this:

1) A Republic is not a Democracy no more than a virgin can be a whore. For the third time, we tried that Democratic Republic idea out and it failed. Giving you legal analogies is not a straw man argument. And had people not insulted me and made false allegations, they would not have had their IQ questioned

2) This is not my thread and you should focus on that. If this were a debate forum, then the rules of debate would have been adhered to. That being the case, the first person to single me out for harassment, cheap shots, name calling, and intimidation lost the debate for all of you.


1. They are not mutually exclusive. The US is a Republic. It is also Democratic. So by definition it is a Democratic Republic. Your source explains what both are. And guess what, the US fits both categories. So you are proving yourself wrong. And I don't care about your disagreements with others. I would however like to know why you never addressed their points. But it seems you just wanted to bring forward your opinions and that was it. Most people would just start a new thread. You however made strawman arguments. I have already explain why they are. Not that your opinions don't matter just they don't address the topic.

2. Come now. This shit happens all the time. Don't be timid. Just be formal. It doesn't matter what someone calls you on here. When the computer is switched off this whole discussion is worth nothing. Just put forward your points and move on.
#15155506
I voted for a no. I have no idea who was banned or why, did they deserve it or not. But I see there some confusion anyway. When there are bans for politics (well, banning for political sights... But whatever) the ones who agree with that use "Well, it's a private company, they can do whatever it's want, it's absolutely, absolutely legal". "You have a right to be a dick and we have a right to boycott you". But on the other side if someone should be banned by their opinion and isn't it immediately turns into "it's illegal to propagate those views" and pushing a private company to do some politically motivated action suddenly becomes a right thing to do.

I think it's because social medias sit on two chairs at once and just use one or another depending on the context and that's the root of all evil. They really should declare themselves as "carriers", platforms who just provide a way to communicate and have no responsibility for content that is placed there but have no right to restrict access to their services (because it's not their content), or "communities" (or whatever) where content of users is their full property, they can do whatever they want to do with it (including restricting access) and also pull the full responsibility for this. It's just the young industry that didn't manage to regulate things properly yet. But this cynicism can't continue forever. Either you are a world-wide social network that provides access to communication to the whole population of Earth or you're a limb of some political party but in this case introduce yourself as this.
#15155522
Ganeshas Rat wrote:I voted for a no. I have no idea who was banned or why, did they deserve it or not. But I see there some confusion anyway. When there are bans for politics (well, banning for political sights... But whatever) the ones who agree with that use "Well, it's a private company, they can do whatever it's want, it's absolutely, absolutely legal". "You have a right to be a dick and we have a right to boycott you". But on the other side if someone should be banned by their opinion and isn't it immediately turns into "it's illegal to propagate those views" and pushing a private company to do some politically motivated action suddenly becomes a right thing to do.

I think it's because social medias sit on two chairs at once and just use one or another depending on the context and that's the root of all evil. They really should declare themselves as "carriers", platforms who just provide a way to communicate and have no responsibility for content that is placed there but have no right to restrict access to their services (because it's not their content), or "communities" (or whatever) where content of users is their full property, they can do whatever they want to do with it (including restricting access) and also pull the full responsibility for this. It's just the young industry that didn't manage to regulate things properly yet. But this cynicism can't continue forever. Either you are a world-wide social network that provides access to communication to the whole population of Earth or you're a limb of some political party but in this case introduce yourself as this.


My sentiments exactly
#15155524
@Ganeshas Rat The alt-right people who were banned were banned for breaking the rules of the site. They were not banned for their politics.
#15155533
As it turns out, it is said here that the Alt-Right was never banned in the first place. So, I feel I was had by not fully researching the subject to ascertain the facts. That way I would have known that answering the question was click bait.


Not at all click bait. @Unthinking Majority had posted that very fact in response to one of your posts. I gave examples of alt-Right people who were up on YouTube and prominently displayed.

You are new. Consider this. POFO is a place for political discussions. It is not something that you win or lose. Most of us have known each other for a decade and often more. I know and value Godstud and we are frequently on the same side of issues. Want to see a big argument? Get the two of us going on religion. Cats and dogs. But I respect his opinion and we are civil. Consider this also. Some of us are very happy to learn from you. But the learning process will not come from a one-sided lecture on your part. It will come with a discussion.

You had any opportunity to state your point. In fact you started to a couple of times. So rather than get angry because we question you, why not try to answer the questions we ask of you? That is the perfect opportunity for you to educate us. Why don't you answer my simple question as to why rules between disparate industries have to be the same? Or easier. Why do you reject the property rights of those who own big tech like Facebook. I could make the argument for you but we would disagree with the logical end point.

So how about a deep breath and you dive in. Argue your points with logic, facts and some smattering of emotion. Tell us about your manifesto and explain why we should embrace its points. Do not expect agreement but if you give us credit for our intelligence you get considered and equally passionate responses. You will come to like this place.
#15155584
Drlee wrote:Not at all click bait. @Unthinking Majority had posted that very fact in response to one of your posts. I gave examples of alt-Right people who were up on YouTube and prominently displayed.

You are new. Consider this. POFO is a place for political discussions. It is not something that you win or lose. Most of us have known each other for a decade and often more. I know and value Godstud and we are frequently on the same side of issues. Want to see a big argument? Get the two of us going on religion. Cats and dogs. But I respect his opinion and we are civil. Consider this also. Some of us are very happy to learn from you. But the learning process will not come from a one-sided lecture on your part. It will come with a discussion.

You had any opportunity to state your point. In fact you started to a couple of times. So rather than get angry because we question you, why not try to answer the questions we ask of you? That is the perfect opportunity for you to educate us. Why don't you answer my simple question as to why rules between disparate industries have to be the same? Or easier. Why do you reject the property rights of those who own big tech like Facebook. I could make the argument for you but we would disagree with the logical end point.

So how about a deep breath and you dive in. Argue your points with logic, facts and some smattering of emotion. Tell us about your manifesto and explain why we should embrace its points. Do not expect agreement but if you give us credit for our intelligence you get considered and equally passionate responses. You will come to like this place.


I started stating my opinions. The responses were NOT factually based, but people calling me names, trying to fit me into categories (some of which I do not like being accused of being put into). When the discussion became less and less about the facts of the case and more about cheap shots, personal attacks, and name calling, I got drawn into the little pissing match and we were no longer discussing the subject of the alt-right.

Yesterday on another board a friend of mine posted a video of a couple being gunned down after an argument over a couple of nazi flags flying in some guy's yard. The man had gone off the deep end due to people harassing him over the flags. So, the neighbors are screaming at him and he starts shooting and fills them full of holes.

I have to take an objective approach to censorship. In history we learned about Chinese backed Pol Pot who killed up to 20 million people in order to force them into communism. A few years ago the Wall Street Journal had an excellent article about 100 million people dead after 100 years of communism:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years- ... 1510011810

Communists embrace atheism and they hate the concept of private property. Yet we are a nation whose people have no problem with Bernie Sanders, the self proclaimed Democratic Socialist who is so left of the spectrum that he had his honeymoon in Russia. When I was a kid I went to Chinatown in San Francisco and never thought a second thought about communism. America is savagely attacked by Muslims on 9 / 11 and we learn that their religion teaches that they have to convert or kill us. The next thing we do is elect a Muslim to the presidency.

While we are being so tolerant and understanding, we encourage our government to go out and kill White people who do not want to be a part of this. The Amish simply live lives that we wouldn't want to live, so we don't think much about them. But, what about those that want to simply express their views, not accept socialism or communism and live normal lives? Well we Americans will have none of that. Those people must be driven from the face of the earth. We declare very subtle wars of genocide against them, lock them out of society, and one day wake up to find what might have been a regular citizen is now gunning down a couple in a rage over a freaking flag! I could relate to the rage as a young man I took in and raised as a foster child called me one morning as he drove down I 75 about an hour north of Atlanta. He passed a large company (most likely a warehouse) and they were, flying large communist flags from atop their buildings. To say he was pissed would be an understatement. My "argument" here is not about censorship, but who gets away with what and why.

My response to the original post wrongfully presumed that Youtube had totally locked out someone called the alt-right based upon the original post. It is dishonest for us to claim that there isn't a genocidal war against Whites - whether you agree with extremist organizations or not is irrelevant. We have to be honest. Their spokesmen are banned from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Websites are shut down. What constitutes "racism" is expanding to the point that even mainstream Whites look over their shoulders because any resistance to the changing of our Republic to a Social Democrat cesspool is vigorously pursued. For example, it wasn't that many years ago that Tea Party activists were being targeted by the IRS for their beliefs.

I realize that people here don't know me, but I quit wearing labels. You can tell that I'm not a Democrat. I never made a very good Republican because Ronald Reagan was anti gun and when the Republican Party nominated me to be one of his electors, I passed on the opportunity. My whole life has been spent voting for the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, Whites have had to suffer the "leadership" of extremists that advocate hatred, violence and terror as their primary tools of change. Couple that with mainstream Whites and the far left censoring people and committing acts of genocide against them, and it's making for an intolerable situation. And we really need to own up to what is going on. We are removing their flags, their statues, monuments, plaques, and memorials. We allow the Blacks to drive up and down the street with their rap playing and them calling each other the "N" word while we cannot even say it! There are television stations for Blacks and a national holiday for one (a luxury we don't even afford ourselves). Our country's history is being erased and the truth is being changed in order to usher in social democracy.

The only Whites who get air time are those who end up advocating violence. Even Donald Trump says to "fight like Hell," then after promising to march with supporters, he hides like a scared rat in the White House. When I came here and proclaimed how fed up I am with it and that I deplore the status quo, I'm called names, ridiculed, and a couple of people believe they have me figured out. They proceed by accusing me of racism, violence, etc. based upon my support for The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man - which is wholly consistent with the Declaration of Independence. This thread doesn't give much hope for having productive conversations and you leave all those disenfranchised fewer options by putting people like me into the kind of category that turns out hopeless and depressed people. By embracing censorship, people have contributed to the frustrations that lead some Whites to go out and murder people for petty crap that wasn't even worth the argument much less the lives it cost. It does nothing to promote a conversation when people are calling me names, making baseless accusations, and I cannot respond in the same spirit. Imagine if Youtube really had banned the alt-right. What kind of conversation would we be having then?
Last edited by The Resister on 08 Feb 2021 15:05, edited 1 time in total.
#15155588
@The Resister

You never answered my question.

There are historical reasons why discrimination against black people is illegal and discrimination against the alt-right is not. Do you know these reasons? Yes or no?
#15155593
Pants-of-dog wrote:@The Resister

You never answered my question.

There are historical reasons why discrimination against black people is illegal and discrimination against the alt-right is not. Do you know these reasons? Yes or no?


No sir. I do not. I spent over four decades of my life in think tanks, court-rooms, and in political strategy sessions. Many hours were spent having debates, discussions and interviews on television, radio, and in newspapers. THOUSANDS of hours were devoted to researching the law and writing proposed legislation. Tens of thousands of dollars of my own money went into activism. I was once a Justice of the Peace and went on to manage political campaigns. One of my mentors was our county historian who had me invited to speak several times at historical society meetings.

I have the largest personal library on the topics I talk about in this state and not all of the books, literature, and studies are on the Internet. In my stupider years I suffered this delusional belief that I had some kind or resume' by which would earn some respect in the community. After all, NOBODY I ever met had actually gone up against the SPLC and won in court. I did. Then along came this thing called the Internet and all of a sudden, a guy with less than a hundred of hours of research time (if that) in their entire life knows more about the subject matter than I do.

No, I'm not being a smart ass. You are being told the honest truth. History is rewritten by the victors. Unfortunately I do not know the current version because most of the swill on the Internet does not square with the original material I have acquired which goes back in excess of 150 years and they are recounting and quoting from historical documents going back to the time of the Mayflower and before. I'm sure you want to enlighten me since all of those people (though they participated in the events) are full of dog squat so have at it because the honest answer is... after all that wasted effort, I'm probably the dumbest of the dumb here. You're up.
#15155594
The Resister wrote:No sir. I do not.


Well, you should research it.

But “slavery and Jim Crow” is the easy answer. Black people have a long history of dealing with discrimination, while the alt-right’s history with discrimination has only been as the oppressor.
#15155605
The Resister wrote:My sentiments exactly

There's a "like" button for that, top-right of each post.

Thank you for keeping the board clean. :)

*likes his own post*
#15155611
QatzelOk wrote:There's a "like" button for that, top-right of each post.

Thank you for keeping the board clean. :)

*likes his own post*

I keep trying to 'like' my own posts, but the system tells me I'm not authorised to do so. Who do I complain to? :eh:
#15155616
I keep trying to 'like' my own posts, but the system tells me I'm not authorised to do so. Who do I complain to? :eh:


I just liked your post. I do not want you to become morose. :)
#15155618
Drlee wrote:I just liked your post. I do not want you to become morose. :)

Thank you, @Drlee. :up:

Anyone else want to contribute to the Potemkin Not Being Morose Benevolent Fund with more 'likes'...? :)
#15155622
The next thing we do is elect a Muslim to the presidency.


How can you post stuff like this and expect us to take you seriously?

I love the fact that the far right (which by your post appears to be where you are politically) was pounding the table and whining about Obama's Christian ministers inflammatory remarks years before, and calling him a Muslim at the same time.

There is a great deal in your post with which a conservative like myself might disagree. But I think I will let it go.
MY OPINION IS that your post is a great example of the general dissatisfaction of a great many mostly rural white people. The obsession with guns and the not so veiled threat to start shooting if they don't get their way is pretty typical of a shit ton of people. BUT. It is very unpopular with the population in general. If the second amendment falls, it will not fall to left wing action. It will fall because smart people have had enough with unintelligent people parading around like soldiers and deliberately trying to intimidate others.

I will not debate with an armed person. They are almost all unhinged anyway. I am a gun owner. I am a conservative old-style republican. Sanders is not a communist. Surely you know the difference between socialism and communism.

As for your claims of overwhelming knowledge on all things political. Please understand that, line by line, good people with differing opinions read your post and recoil.

The Republicans will be successful in leading America to become the fascist state you seem to prefer. Their open attacks on our most basic right to vote through voter suppression aimed and their opponents SHOULD send someone who is a constitutionalist like yourself up a wall. But my guess is that you heartily agree with their efforts. Having failed at the ballot box these un-American scum just want to abolish the ballot box altogether. At least in minority areas. And do not even think of forwarding that old nonsense about "the law was not followed". EVERYBODY, including the GOP, can see what is happening and the GOP admits it.
#15155635
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, you should research it.

But “slavery and Jim Crow” is the easy answer. Black people have a long history of dealing with discrimination, while the alt-right’s history with discrimination has only been as the oppressor.



EVERYBODY has a history of discrimination. Blacks (IF they are who they claim to be) held my ancestors in bondage for over 400 years. Since I do not know anybody in the alt-right and have not read any of their material or listened to their leaders, have no idea what they believe or disbelieve. As long as they are not breaking laws with what they say, I support their Right to say it, however. I might pay attention to them and actually get offended, but will still stand up for their Right to their own views (again so long as it does not jeopardize my Rights or put anyone into danger).
#15155636
Drlee wrote:How can you post stuff like this and expect us to take you seriously?

I love the fact that the far right (which by your post appears to be where you are politically) was pounding the table and whining about Obama's Christian ministers inflammatory remarks years before, and calling him a Muslim at the same time.

There is a great deal in your post with which a conservative like myself might disagree. But I think I will let it go.
MY OPINION IS that your post is a great example of the general dissatisfaction of a great many mostly rural white people. The obsession with guns and the not so veiled threat to start shooting if they don't get their way is pretty typical of a shit ton of people. BUT. It is very unpopular with the population in general. If the second amendment falls, it will not fall to left wing action. It will fall because smart people have had enough with unintelligent people parading around like soldiers and deliberately trying to intimidate others.

I will not debate with an armed person. They are almost all unhinged anyway. I am a gun owner. I am a conservative old-style republican. Sanders is not a communist. Surely you know the difference between socialism and communism.

As for your claims of overwhelming knowledge on all things political. Please understand that, line by line, good people with differing opinions read your post and recoil.

The Republicans will be successful in leading America to become the fascist state you seem to prefer. Their open attacks on our most basic right to vote through voter suppression aimed and their opponents SHOULD send someone who is a constitutionalist like yourself up a wall. But my guess is that you heartily agree with their efforts. Having failed at the ballot box these un-American scum just want to abolish the ballot box altogether. At least in minority areas. And do not even think of forwarding that old nonsense about "the law was not followed". EVERYBODY, including the GOP, can see what is happening and the GOP admits it.


This is the kind of typical insulting and repulsive posting I'm subjected to. I don't give two hoots in Hell what White people think or say. What I care about is how a person describes themselves:



I'm not saying Obama runs around with a prayer rug and observes Ramadan, but it is unequivocally unmistakable what drives his broken moral compass... well that that good "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright (of which Obama says is his moral compass):



Oh yeah, the liberals will accuse me of taking that out of context, but isn't that what my critics here are doing? Besides NO man of God would ever say that from the pulpit. Yet that is the only kind of "Christian" Barack Obama would back... and to the point of calling the man his moral compass!

The biggest difference between socialism and communism is that if the people vote for it, you have socialism. If it comes by a force of arms, you have communism. Outside of that, there is no more difference there than the Republic v. Democrat side debate we have going on - NONE of which is remotely related to the original poster's question.

Now, with respect to your condescending comment, I have told you and you refuse to read, I do not know what you know. YOU have all the wisdom. YOU are the one who cannot be questioned and I dare not challenge you for your title. There is no point in debate. It won't change your mind and you have all the truth. It still won't change my mind. But, I can tell you one thing. I do not read right wing stuff or conservative stuff... or anything put out by mainstream in terms of propaganda. I do spend a lot of time reading history and law AND when you hear people grabbing a nugget of truth that they think might help them, and you don't like it, they most likely got it from me - not vice versa.

Again, I have divorced myself from the hoopla. I'm not on either side. I'm not with an organization. I've signed The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. I posted an opinion regarding the OP and that is it. People will either commit to reclaiming unalienable Rights or they won't.
  • 1
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 37

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]