Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right? - Page 24 - 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
18
51%
NO
17
49%
#15092944
Tainari88 wrote:@Unthinking Majority what do you think happens to anti-establishment white racists who spout a lot of rhetoric online and in demonstrations? If the say 'white traitors' and go on and on with 'you people who don't defend your white race!?' Does it lead to violence if it grows due to a lot of people not believing. The dude there in charge in England needs to recruit college educated intelligent racists. The ones who are kind of uneducated and ignorant won't grow the party.

Once they are grown what do they plan to do? Go to war with liberals who believe in letting the Pakistanis and so on in to their nation? Having some loco of theirs attack some shop owner who is from the Punjab? What does the hate speech lead to? Can you answer the questions?


https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and- ... ery-slope/
#15092949
Unthinking Majority wrote:It says nothing about racist speech. It says "perceived racism". Is this racist actions, being denied a job, police pulling you over, speech, what? Let's assume it's from racist speech. I'm not saying racist speech can't be harmful. I'm saying you don't have a legal right to be free from being offended and hurt feelings.

Calling people fat is psychologically harmful too, should it be illegal? Porn is offensive to many, should it be banned?


Previously, you seemed to argue that racist speech should be allowed because it does not cause harm.

And now that racist speech is shown to cause harm, you seem to be arguing that it should still be allowed because the harm is comparable to other insults.

This is a new argument. You seem to be conceding the previous argument.

Please note that the harm caused by regular insults has not been shown to be harmful, so if you wish to argue that the amount of harm caused by racist speech is the same as harm caused by other forms of insults, the burden of evidence is on you to support this claim of supposed equal level of harm.

Why don't you answer those questions? Do you want to ban books? It sounds like you do. It sounds like you want to ban Huck Finn because people are offended and hurt by it, which many are. It sounds like you're scared to answer my questions. I'm not on trial here, this is a discussion I'm allowed to ask you questions too. If you want me to keep answering your questions then answer mine too. My argument is that banning Mein Kampf or Huck Finn is worse than allowing it to be sold.


Because I do not care what you think about me, and the veracity of my claims is independent of my moral character.

If you want my personal take on it, I think the USA should have a museum of racism, where you guys put all of your incredibly racist artworks. You can have tours and educate kids about how racist you guys were and are.

At the same time, Youtube (or whatever it is called after the workers take it over) can choose to not platform whatever content targets historically marginalised groups.

We should also have a debate on whether or not hate speech should actually be restricted without having that deba5e shut down by accusations of censorship.

Yes that's basically correct. Racist speech specifically, not racist actions, which should all be illegal. Walk away, ignore it, argue back, protest it, do whatever you want.


And I do not think that racists should get off the hook and be allowed to do whatever they want, while the rest of us have our criticism of them regulated.
#15092954
Pants-of-dog wrote:Previously, you seemed to argue that racist speech should be allowed because it does not cause harm.


I never argued that. I've always said that offensive speech can cause offense and hurt feelings, and that people don't have a right to not have their feelings hurt or avoid being offended.

Please note that the harm caused by regular insults has not been shown to be harmful, so if you wish to argue that the amount of harm caused by racist speech is the same as harm caused by other forms of insults, the burden of evidence is on you to support this claim of supposed equal level of harm.


There's lots of evidence that calling someone fat or ugly can lead to low self-esteem, eating disorders, depression, and even suicide in extreme cases. I don't advocate calling people fat, but I don't think someone should be charged for it unless it goes into the territory of harassment etc.

Because I do not care what you think about me, and the veracity of my claims is independent of my moral character.


I'm not saying anything about your moral character, I'm trying to see what your limits are on offensive speech and racist speech, and what you'd censor. I'm not on trial. You've been asking my personal take on things this whole time. The moment I ask you some tough questions you get offended. Meanwhile you people have been calling me a racist.

I can only assume that you won't answer the question because you don't want to admit that you wouldn't have the government ban racist speech like Huck Finn because it hurts your argument. Books are speech.

If you want my personal take on it, I think the USA should have a museum of racism, where you guys put all of your incredibly racist artworks. You can have tours and educate kids about how racist you guys were and are.


I'm not American & I don't live in America, nor have I made any racist statements in this thread.

At the same time, Youtube (or whatever it is called after the workers take it over) can choose to not platform whatever content targets historically marginalised groups.


Yes agreed.

We should also have a debate on whether or not hate speech should actually be restricted without having that deba5e shut down by accusations of censorship.


Banning any speech is censorship. That doesn't mean censorship is always bad.

And I do not think that racists should get off the hook and be allowed to do whatever they want, while the rest of us have our criticism of them regulated.


Everyone is bound by laws like slander and libel. Ezra Levant was successfully sued for libel for saying racially charged claims that were deemed by the court as not true that hurt the plaintiffs reputation. Nobody can nor should get away with false defamatory claims.
#15092960
Unthinking Majority wrote:I never argued that. I've always said that offensive speech can cause offense and hurt feelings, and that people don't have a right to not have their feelings hurt or avoid being offended.

There's lots of evidence that calling someone fat or ugly can lead to low self-esteem, eating disorders, depression, and even suicide in extreme cases. I don't advocate calling people fat, but I don't think someone should be charged for it unless it goes into the territory of harassment etc.


Please present the evidence showing how these regular insults cause harm and we can then compare.

Also...

    GIVING OUT PARKING tickets in New York does not usually inspire goodwill. If anything, it inspires a steady stream of insults from angry drivers. So several years ago, Elizabeth Brondolo, a psychologist at St. John’s University, came to counsel the city’s traffic agents, most of whom were African-American.

    “We could do standard behavior therapy things about being called a ‘fat pig’ or ‘get a real job,’” says Brondolo. Her team ran through relaxation exercises and skits, which usually worked. “But the racial insults involved so much despair that we couldn’t do the same kind of intervention.”

    That experience set Brondolo on a path studying the psychological and physical toll of racism. African Americans face disproportionately high levels of diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. And when it comes to mental health, studies show that reporting more incidents of racism is linked to more signs of depression and anxiety. But does racism cause health problems? Hard to tell. Other factors like socioeconomic status confound the data. But one thing is more certain: Racism causes stress, and stress can wreak havoc on a person’s body and mind.

    A growing body of research now links experiencing racism to poorer health outcomes—from depression to low-birth weight to cardiovascular disease.Racism, blatant or subtle, marks the bodies of those who have to live with it. Much of the research, though not all, comes from the experience of African Americans in the US. “The literature is quite consistent,” says Naa Oyo Kwate, a psychologist and professor of Africana studies at Rutgers. “The more racism you experience, the worse your health experience in a number of domains.”

    ....

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/physical- ... rain-body/

The bolded paragraph implies that your claim is incorrect.

I'm not saying anything about your moral character, I'm trying to see what your limits are on offensive speech and racist speech, and what you'd censor. I'm not on trial. You've been asking my personal take on things this whole time. The moment I ask you some tough questions you get offended. Meanwhile you people have been calling me a racist.

I can only assume that you won't answer the question because you don't want to admit that you wouldn't have the government ban racist speech like Huck Finn because it hurts your argument. Books are speech.


Since I just answered these questions, I am ignoring this and moving on.

I'm not American & I don't live in America, nor have I made any racist statements in this thread.


If you are Canadian, British, Aussie, just substitute your country for the USA.

Yes agreed.

Banning any speech is censorship. That doesn't mean censorship is always bad.


I am not going to get into a debate about the meaning of the word “censorship”.

Regardless of how exactly it is defined, it does not change the fact that many people try to shut down any debate about hate speech with accusations of censorship.

Everyone is bound by laws like slander and libel. Ezra Levant was successfully sued for libel for saying racially charged claims that were deemed by the court as not true that hurt the plaintiffs reputation. Nobody can nor should get away with false defamatory claims.


I am not discussing Levant’s slander and libel. The fact that he is also a rude liar does not change my point about him.

I am discussing how he was brought in front of a human rights tribunal because he published the now infamous cartoons. You previously argued that this was an example of Orwellian overreach. I then pointed out that not allowing people to bring Levant in front of a tribunal for things like this is the same as limiting criticism of hate speech.

At teh same time, if an alt-right personality puts a racist screed on Youtube, people targeted by this racism should have more options than simply “to ignore it, or become more resilient”.
#15092963
There's lots of evidence that calling someone fat or ugly can lead to low self-esteem, eating disorders, depression, and even suicide in extreme cases.


Do see the difference between insulting a person and attempting to marginalize all people of a particular race?

Obesity is an interesting case. Our own government discriminates on the basis of obesity denying certain jobs to obese people. And for very good reason though I cannot see a single good reason for denying someone a job because of race. Obesity is something that can be ameliorated however and race is not. But at the end of the day you are attempting to justify one wrong by citing another. Earlier in the thread I mentioned that this would happen. So let's do this. Let's remain on topic and discuss race and not obesity, or IQ or height or... OK?
#15092967
Unthinking Majority wrote:https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-slippery-slope/


Slippery slope fallacy is what I write about Unthinking? No, I am not talking about hypothetical situations. The video clip has far right members in England who have a small online presence. About only one hundred members. But there was one member who took the flag of the website he listened to and interpreted it to mean he should do something about the 'foreign' element in his community. He then went in to the shop where a Sikh man was attacked by a machete. Harming him. So the hate speech did lead to violence in that case. Didn't you see the video? So if it has led to violence what should the state do about it? They explore the options, arrests, silence, recruitment and or containment of some sort. Why?

If you give me some fallacy theory that has no bearing on what I write about? @noemon is correct about you. Discarded as a man who can't be candid about his positions.
#15092971
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please present the evidence showing how these regular insults cause harm and we can then compare.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/

    Fat shaming is making people sicker and heavier

    Fat shaming is harmful to health and may drive weight gain, said presenters at the Canadian Obesity Summit, recently held in Ottawa.

    ...But the harms of fat shaming are well documented, Alberga said. Studies show that exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain. “You actually experience a form of stress,” Alberga explained. Cortisol spikes, self-control drops and the risk of binge eating increases, she said.

    The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with. They’re also more likely to die from any cause, regardless of their body mass index (BMI).

    Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance, Alberga said.

Since I just answered these questions, I am ignoring this and moving on.


You avoided the question entirely.

I am not discussing Levant’s slander and libel. The fact that he is also a rude liar does not change my point about him.

I am discussing how he was brought in front of a human rights tribunal because he published the now infamous cartoons. You previously argued that this was an example of Orwellian overreach. I then pointed out that not allowing people to bring Levant in front of a tribunal for things like this is the same as limiting criticism of hate speech.


Criticism is different than legal action. Legal action is expensive and time consuming. You can criticize someone just as much outside a courtroom. Limiting legal action or other laws is not limiting the right to criticism. Legal action is coercing someone to shut-up. Free speech works where someone says an opinion, and another person is free to respond to that opinion with their own criticism or agreement.

At teh same time, if an alt-right personality puts a racist screed on Youtube, people targeted by this racism should have more options than simply “to ignore it, or become more resilient”.


Agreed. Youtube is a private entity, if a user breaks the terms of service another user can complain and Youtube is free to warn, suspend, or ban etc, and that's great.

The following is an interesting case. The government made the right call by not banning the Epoch Times and making postal workers deliver it. But we can see how some people want to ban anything that offends them. FYI Canada Post is a government-owned corporation that delivers the mail like the USPS, and the Epoch Times is a news outlet run by pro-democracy Chinese who are anti-CCP: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/epoch-ti ... -1.5548217
Last edited by Unthinking Majority on 20 May 2020 00:48, edited 2 times in total.
#15092974
OK. So you've identified that speech can cause harm, thereby weakening your argument about speech not being harmful, or just being offensive.

:lol:
#15092975
Godstud wrote:OK. So you've identified that speech can cause harm, thereby weakening your argument about speech not being harmful, or just being offensive.

:lol:


No i'm saying if you ban racist speech you also have to ban all other speech that is equally as offensive and harmful, which is ridiculous.
#15092976
Unthinking Majority wrote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/

    Fat shaming is making people sicker and heavier

    Fat shaming is harmful to health and may drive weight gain, said presenters at the Canadian Obesity Summit, recently held in Ottawa.

    ...But the harms of fat shaming are well documented, Alberga said. Studies show that exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain. “You actually experience a form of stress,” Alberga explained. Cortisol spikes, self-control drops and the risk of binge eating increases, she said.

    The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with. They’re also more likely to die from any cause, regardless of their body mass index (BMI).

    Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance, Alberga said.


So are you arguing that fat shaming and racist speech should be allowed because the measurable harm it does is lower than a certain threshold?

Criticism is different than legal action. Legal action is expensive and time consuming. You can criticize someone just as much outside a courtroom. Limiting legal action or other laws and is not limiting the right to criticism. Free speech works where someone says an opinion, and another person is free to respond to that opinion with their own criticism or agreement.


Yet you did not condemn Levant when he used legal action to silence criticism.

If the idea is that legal action against speech is considered censorship and therefore not allowed, then censorship happens all the time and it is weird to focus solely on people who fight against racism.

Agreed. Youtube is a private entity, if a user breaks the terms of service another user can complain and Youtube is free to warn, suspend, or ban etc, and that's great.

The following is an interesting case. The government made the right call by not banning the Epoch Times and making postal workers deliver it. But we can see how some people want to ban anything that offends them. FYI Canada Post is a government-owned corporation that delivers the mail like the USPS, and the Epoch Times is a news outlet run by pro-democracy Chinese who are anti-CCP: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/epoch-ti ... -1.5548217


Canada Post also refuses to deliver some hate speech.

https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/f ... propaganda
#15092977
Unthinking Majority wrote:No i'm saying if you ban racist speech you also have to ban all other speech that is equally as offensive and harmful, which is ridiculous.
:roll: It is NOT ridiculous, if it causes harm. Pretty much every rule in society is there to prevent harm to individuals, or to protect them from harm.

You argument has become downright stupid, at this point. You agree that preventing harm is OK, as long as it doesn't interfere with people insulting, discriminating, or being racist against people. :knife:
#15092981
Unthinking Majority wrote:No i'm saying if you ban racist speech you also have to ban all other speech that is equally as offensive and harmful, which is ridiculous.


Nope, and your book example is wrong as well. It is not about banning the word. I am using racist & offensive words in this thread to describe a certain racist activity. I am not using these words to express my hatred towards other human beings. Hate-speech does not ban the word, it bans the act of hatred against another merely for being born a different colour or ethnic-origin. It applies as much to Black people as to Jews, Muslims, Asians, Whites, Slavic people and whatever.

Old Books invariably promoting hate-speech need not be banned because they can be read within the context of the time and as Drlee said by adults or with adult supervision. New books promoting hate-speech against others should indeed be banned. Books promoting Holocaust denial are already banned for the exact same reason.
#15092987
noemon wrote:Old Books invariably promoting hate-speech need not be banned because they can be read within the context of the time and as Drlee said by adults or with adult supervision. New books promoting hate-speech against others should indeed be banned. Books promoting Holocaust denial are already banned for the exact same reason.


Ok I guess we just disagree then. I think it should be legal for holocaust denial books to be published. I think they are stupid and filled with falsehoods and BS claims, but i don't think we should ban offensive arguments. It's a dangerous road. People should be free to question things and be free to be stupid. Same with dumb anti-vaxx books that could lead to harm, I put the onus on the reader to make that decision & be legally responsible if they make their kids sick from not getting vaccines. I don't want to burn books. Banning ideas and arguments is government-controlled brain-washing.
#15092989
First of all, it you and your side that is arguing that people should be forced to publish whatever, whenever and by whoever. Second, it's not about the book or magazine or video, but about the act of hate-speech either within a book or in the media or in everyday life. Most importantly, we are not talking about banning them in law, but whether private persons should have the right to permit or deny them inside their own private areas. The argument in here has always been a moral one than a legalistic one. And after all why would any private person permit that hatred in their property unless they were hateful themselves?

Personally, I do not see a legal argument and have even let it be implied that we(PoFo) have to abide by certain laws because we are legally required to not because we agree with those laws. But there is a moral argument on a) whether people should be encouraged to engage on hate-speech, the answer is that they shouldn't be and b) whether those who engage in hate-speech should be provided with a platform forcefully, even if the platform for her own reasons rejects such content, once again the answer is obvious, that platforms should not be forced to permit haters which is really the crux of the argument in here. Both of these arguments are true beyond any doubt.

Your side is the one making the argument that all content must be permitted and enforced everywhere taking away the freedom of the individual to decide what to host in his own back garden.
Last edited by noemon on 20 May 2020 01:41, edited 1 time in total.
#15092995
No i'm saying if you ban racist speech you also have to ban all other speech that is equally as offensive and harmful, which is ridiculous.


Why?

Two points.

You have made no case that racist speech equal to the other examples.

And there is no reason to assert that if two things are bad then eliminating one of them is anything other than what it is.....progress.
#15093367
For every alt-righter you ban you confirm thousands of followers in their conspiracy theories and prejudices. IMO it's counterproductive.

The argument that Facebook or YouTube are private companies and thus should not be regulated is simply dumb. They have such a dominant market position that their platforms might as well be a public good. Also, let's not pretend the liberal state doesn't force tolerance upon private companies all the time. If YouTube were to ban videos of gays or videos that put Trump in a bad light, would that be ok? No, obviously not.
#15093370
Rugoz wrote:For every alt-righter you ban you confirm thousands of followers in their conspiracy theories and prejudices. IMO it's counterproductive.


The alternative is to allow their racism to continue unchecked, and also base policy on their beliefs and perceptions.

How is that more productive?

The argument that Facebook or YouTube are private companies and thus should not be regulated is simply dumb. They have such a dominant market position that their platforms might as well be a public good.


Okay.

Which public? Does a Canadian who gets banned from Youtube have to take Youtube to court in the USA?

Also, let's not pretend the liberal state doesn't force tolerance upon private companies all the time. If YouTube were to ban videos of gays or videos that put Trump in a bad light, would that be ok? No, obviously not.


Do you think tolerance and intolerance should receive equal reactions from government and business?
#15093374
Pants-of-dog wrote:The alternative is to allow their racism to continue unchecked, and also base policy on their beliefs and perceptions.

How is that more productive?


Racism won't stop if you ban its proponents from talking. If you want to counter it with arguments and science, you have to allow the debate.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay.

Which public? Does a Canadian who gets banned from Youtube have to take Youtube to court in the USA?


No, to a Canadian court. As long as YouTube operates in Canada, it is subject to Canadian laws.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think tolerance and intolerance should receive equal reactions from government and business?


It is up to society to decide how far tolerance should go. Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere.
#15093392
Rugoz wrote:Racism won't stop if you ban its proponents from talking. If you want to counter it with arguments and science, you have to allow the debate.


Are you sure?

Milo Yiannoup9owhatever is pretty much non-existent these days.

No, to a Canadian court. As long as YouTube operates in Canada, it is subject to Canadian laws.


So what happens if Trump decides to force Youtube to show racist content, but the Canadian House of Commons makes a law against it?

It is up to society to decide how far tolerance should go. Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere.


Exactly.

So if society in general thinks that tolerance is more socially acceptable than intolerance, that can and will be reflected in laws and business regulations.
#15093395
noemon wrote:First of all, it you and your side that is arguing that people should be forced to publish whatever, whenever and by whoever.


I've never made that argument. No private entity should be forced to publish anything, ever, It should always be their choice. In democratic societies I believe that's how it always is.

Personally, I do not see a legal argument and have even let it be implied that we(PoFo) have to abide by certain laws because we are legally required to not because we agree with those laws. But there is a moral argument on a) whether people should be encouraged to engage on hate-speech, the answer is that they shouldn't be and b) whether those who engage in hate-speech should be provided with a platform forcefully, even if the platform for her own reasons rejects such content, once again the answer is obvious, that platforms should not be forced to permit haters which is really the crux of the argument in here. Both of these arguments are true beyond any doubt.

Your side is the one making the argument that all content must be permitted and enforced everywhere taking away the freedom of the individual to decide what to host in his own back garden.


Pofo can allow or disallow any content they want, as long as it's lawful, just like Youtube, as it should be. Youtube should be free to ban anyone they want, and if their consumers and viewers don't like their policies they're free to take their business elsewhere. I think that's a good system, it seems like you'd agree with that. And I agree that neither Pofo nor Youtube should be forced to make a platform for anybody or any kind of ideas they morally disagree with, though I never argued they should be forced to. My argument is that if they choose to allow racist speech on their platform, they should be allowed to, unless it includes things like violent threats, calls for genocide, harassment of an individual etc. If their customers/viewers didn't like that, they're free to move to another platform or protest/complain, or make videos refuting those ideas.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
Who is right?

You can't make legal claims based on bible refere[…]

Election 2020

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i[…]

@James Redford @ckaihatsu Here is a website […]

Trump and Russiagate

Don the Con commuted the sentence of Roger Stone o[…]