YouTube ban former Pickup artist Roosh V

[IJB063]

9 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

The tragicomal part is that it didn't enhance their survival. A lot of the alt wingers got deplatformed. 

You win some lose some

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, IJB063 said:

@Leo Gura

What are truth, being and love if not abstractions created to help fulfil our survival interests 

Truth/Being/Love is not an abstraction. And it has nothing to do with survival.

1 hour ago, StarStruck said:

The tragicomical part is that it didn't enhance their survival. A lot of the alt wingers got deplatformed. 

That's exactly how devilry works. The devil always ends up getting hoisted by his own petard. Devilry always backfires and undermines survival when taken too far.

Quote

Big time alt wingers such as Milo are set for life. They made enough profit from books and invitations. 

Milo has been totally disgraced. I doubt he's swimming in money.

Quote

Small time alt wingers ruined their moderate minded fan base. Stained their name and became radicalized. It won't be easy to find a normal job after taken huge dumps on minorities and feminists. 

Well, tough titty. Bullies get their comeuppance. Karma.

This is a classic characteristic of selfish people. They flaunt their selfishness and act cocky, until one day someone bigger and stronger than them acts selfishly towards them, and then they cry at the taste of their own medicine.

When you act like an asshole inside any community, don't be surprised when one day the community excommunicates you. When that happens, of course your survival will be severely hampered -- because survival is a communal affair, yet you were being a selfish bastard, acting as though only your individual survival was at stake. NO! The entire community is at stake.

Roosh was acting like a dick and he got slapped for it.

[StarStruck]

@Leo Gura

I don't know too much about alt right but I know it is centred around white nationalism. If alt right got their way, their victims such as minorities and feminists would be excluded from the community, and the tragi-comical result is that it happened to the alt right itself.

In my opinion, just letting them be (instead of banning) would be a greater punishment, all of these channels like Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux and others were losing viewers, and they had to resort to more and more extreme things to hold onto a shrinking audience.

Now they got victimhood status, while before the ban they were just a slowly dying light. I have been following Stefan Molyneux to see how he would end up. This guy was becoming more and more desperate, at one point just breaking down and admitting he didn't know what to produce to keep an audience. It would have been interesting to see how he broke down further.

[Display_Name]

13 hours ago, StarStruck said:

Big time alt wingers such as Milo are set for life. They made enough profit from books and invitations. 

From wikipedia:

“In December 2018, The Guardian reported that documents assembled by his former Australian tour promoters, Australian Events Management, showed Yiannopoulos had accrued more than $2 million in unpaid debt. Yiannopoulos reportedly owed $1.6 million to his own company, $400,000 to the Mercer Family Foundation, $153,215 to his former lawyers, $76,574 to former collaborator and Breitbart writer Allum Bokhari, and $20,000 to the luxury brand Cartier.[93]“

So much for that.

[Leo Gura]

12 hours ago, StarStruck said:

 

In my opinion, just letting them be (instead of banning) would be a greater punishment, all of these channels like Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux and others were losing viewers, and they had to resort to more and more extreme things to hold onto a shrinking audience.

Now they got victimhood status, while before the ban they were just a slowly dying light. I have been following Stefan Molyneux to see how he would end up. This guy was becoming more and more desperate, at one point just breaking down and admitting he didn't know what to produce to keep an audience. It would have been interesting to see how he broke down further.

Meh...

Banning people who violate ToS is proper.

The notion that banning them makes them stronger is just not borne out by the results.

Letting someone like Alex Jones remain active on a major platform is toxic and the right wing plays victim all the time anyway. There is no upeasing such people because they are rabid ideologues. Their minds are rotted and their egos gigantic.

All online platforms MUST be moderated or they turn into vile 4chan. This is a law of the internet.

[tesla]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Meh...

Banning people who violate ToS is proper.

The notion that banning them makes them stronger is just not borne out by the results.

Letting someone like Alex Jones remain active on a major platform is toxic and the right wing plays victim all the time anyway. There is no upeasing such people because they are rabid ideologues. Their minds are rotted and their egos gigantic.

All online platforms MUST be moderated or they turn into vile 4chan. This is a law of the internet.

That's a really dangerous thing to say. Censorship isn't a good thing. Even if you disagree with what the person is saying, where do you draw the line between what counts as legitimate content, and what isn't permitted? You're basically asking for this to be abused so authorities can push whatever agenda they like, which is exactly what's happening now.

I'm not really a fan of Alex Jones either. But you also can't dismiss everything he says. Some of the things he talks about are real if you actually look at the evidence.

This is why these platforms let you personalise your feed. Because you as the user should be able to choose what content you consume. If you don't like something, ignore it. Yeah there's trash on the internet, but if you don't like it you can filter it out yourself. Censoring everything so no one can see it isn't the answer.

Edited July 17, 2020 by tesla

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, tesla said:

That's a really dangerous thing to say.

No, your position is more dangerous. 4chan is dangerous. Incel forums are dangerous. Letting racists indoctrinate others into racism is dangerous.

Quote

Censorship isn't a good thing.

Again, you just assume that. But actually regulation is a good thing.

Quote

Even if you disagree with what the person is saying, where do you draw the line between what counts as legitimate content, and what isn't permitted?

That's why ToS exist.

YT has very clear ToS about hate speech:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939?hl=en

The lines are clearly laid out.

This is not about banning people who YT disagrees with. It's about banning bullies who try to exploit YT's platform in devilish ways.

Quote

You're basically asking for this to be abused so authorities can push whatever agenda they like, which is exactly what's happening now.

No, that's your paranoid conspiratorial strawman. YT is simply regulating bullies and trolls.

Quote

I'm not really a fan of Alex Jones either. But you also can't dismiss everything he says. Some of the things he talks about are real if you actually look at the evidence.

Yes I can dismiss everything he says because he's a mentally ill toxic narcissist who has a cancerous effect on society. I don't have to take a single thing he says seriously because he has proven himself to be a shameless grifter with zero intellectual integrity.

Quote

Because you as the user should be able to choose what content you consume.

No you shouldn't. Users cannot be trusted not to watch ISIS recruitment videos and other such devilry.

The YT platform can be easily hijacked to start toxic cults which destabilize society. If YT doesn't regulate itself, Congress will be forced to step in an regulate it. So YT is forced to regulate itself.

Quote

If you don't like something, ignore it. Yeah there's trash on the internet, but if you don't like it you can filter it out yourself.

That's not good enough. These devils are not merely playing word games. They seek to grab power and exploit society for their personal gain while corrupting the minds of millions. YT management understands this and is too responsible to let that happen on their watch.

You, on the other hand, do not understand this and are irresponsible. Which is why you aren't a manager of anything socially important.

Quote

Censoring everything so no one can see it isn't the answer.

Nobody is censoring everything. Less than 1% of stuff gets regulated for violating ToS.

[Forestluv]

9 hours ago, tesla said:

That's a really dangerous thing to say. Censorship isn't a good thing. Even if you disagree with what the person is saying, where do you draw the line between what counts as legitimate content, and what isn't permitted?

Think about what a 100% censorship-free forum would look like. With zero regulation, you would allow people to coordinate and commit hideous crimes. 

Just because it can difficult to draw lines in grey areas, doesn’t mean that lines shouldn’t be drawn. . . .The answer to the question “Where do we draw the line?” is. . . somewhere. We draw the line somewhere. We have discussions about where to draw lines, rather than if lines should be drawn. 

If a parent allows their child to eat a candy bar, they don’t throw up their hands and say “Where do we draw the line?” and allow the child to inject black tar heroin. A line gets drawn somewhere. 

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

allow the child to inject black tar heroin.

But MA FREEEEEEEDOM!!!!

You fascist!

[Girzo]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Think about what a 100% censorship-free forum would look like. With zero regulation, you would allow people to coordinate and commit hideous crimes. 

100% free forum cannot exist, because the real people would be outnumbered by spambots with 1:100000 ratio. 

[tesla]

Quote

No, that's your paranoid conspiratorial strawman. YT is simply regulating bullies and trolls.

Is it really? That's what it looks like on the surface, unless you actually look at the evidence. But that's not what you've been doing. Based on everything you've said so far, it seems like you've already made up your mind.

Yes, people like Alex Jones look like nutjobs and don't make their arguments seem credible, I get it. I don't even watch his content. But there are level-headed people who investigate conspiracies, which you could go and look at. If you just throw them all in the same basket because some people think the earth is flat or whatever, that's willful ignorance.

Aren't you the guy who preaches looking at reality from multiple perspectives? Because if you're not going to look at the evidence, that's not what you're doing. You don't really know if what you say is true, you're assuming it is. How is this any different to a religious person not wanting to change their beliefs, or a rational materialist dismissing the implications of good science studying psychic phenomena just because it's controversial?

I get that quality control is important. But at the same time, it can easily be abused. And if you actually look at what's happening, it's so obvious this is the case. Do you really think that power structures aren't going to abuse such a thing? They abuse power all the time, you don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe that.

As for incels, racists, or whatever. Yeah, I don't know if you can just let people rampant like that because it's abusive. I'm not sure if it'd even solve the problem by censoring it, though, because people can just move elsewhere to another platform. And it's also difficult to gauge what should be censored and what shouldn't, who is calling the shots there? Again, it can easily be abused by authorities wishing to push their own agenda. And because it can be abused, it inevitably will be abused, and is obviously being abused right now if you investigate it.

Edited July 18, 2020 by tesla

[tesla]

In addition, think of it in terms of system design. It's shit, you have only a few nodes controlling the content people consume. There's only a few nodes in the network that need to fail/become corrupted for the entire thing to fall apart. It's not really any different to throwing away net neutrality.

This doesn't work. For society to progress, it needs to become decentralised. Decentralisation is the future. Everything needs to be decentralised, with each individual operating as its own independent node that thinks for itself. You can't have some authority doing the thinking for you, controlling what you should/shouldn't be able to consume.

People have to become conscious to the point they can discern information for themselves. Otherwise you have a few entities leading civilization (very few failure points that can easily be corrupted, and are being corrupted right now). Censorship isn't even a real solution, it's a band-aid solution pretending to mask the problem that leads to more problems (such as corruption). People will just move elsewhere and continue their shitty beliefs.

And if people aren't conscious enough to think for themselves, then we're screwed regardless. I don't really see any other way for society to sustainably operate itself. Every person has to be their own leader, there can't be a few people leading everyone. So many world problems can be reduced to this, this is just one of them. It's the next phase of the evolution for society.

[Leo Gura]

@tesla All of your logic could be used to argue against murder laws. And yet we still have murder laws. Get used to it.

[Extreme Z7]

4 hours ago, tesla said:

People will just move elsewhere and continue their shitty beliefs.

Somewhere their shitty beliefs would be more difficult to propagate to everyone else.

[tesla]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@tesla All of your logic could be used to argue against murder laws. And yet we still have murder laws. Get used to it.

How are these two things comparable. Freedom of speech is completely different to freedom of being able to physically murder or violate someone.

From what I've seen, most of the things being censored aren't even verbally abusive. I'm primarily talking about anyone who discusses conspiracies, such as questioning the narrative concerning coronavirus. These people aren't racists or incests. They're merely sceptics who have looked at the evidence and are sharing a contrarian point of view. To blindly accept what you're told without being able to question it is group think. You know the dangers of group think, therefore I don't understand why you think this is an exception to the rule.

It's an intelligent discussion, that's all. No matter what side you're on, to deny freedom of speech is basically promoting 1984. No matter how much you disagree with someone, they should still be able to voice their opinion.

From what I've seen, you have a dismissive attitude towards conspiracies, as if it's a joke and can't possibly be true. But to deny the possibility without open-mindedly investigating the evidence is willful ignorance. And not only is it ignorant, if it is true, it's a civil disservice considering the entire purpose of your platform is to enlighten people. You have to show both sides of the coin, this is just one of the dark things in the world that happens to be true, and ignoring/dismissing it only makes the problem worse.

I get that you don't want fear mongering or negativity, which is why you're put off like people such as Alex Jones. But as I said earlier, you can't put everyone in the same box. There's people like him or flat earthers that make anyone who investigates conspiracies look ridiculous. But there are many level-headed, intelligent people out there who aren't like that. The problem is people assume anyone who looks into conspiracies is the same as those people.

[tesla]

34 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Somewhere their shitty beliefs would be more difficult to propagate to everyone else.

And who decides what beliefs are shitty? Sure, a lot of them are. There's a lot of nonsense on the internet. But as I said, someone has to decide who can see what. And that person who decides is a point of failure that can (and inevitably will) be corrupted.

If you don't want people to believe dumb shit, then focus on solving the root cause of the problem, which is that they're unconscious. If you're a conscious, intelligent person, it's pretty easy to discern what's legit from what's not. People should be using their own intuition and reasoning to discern, you can't just have authorities do the thinking for you.

 

[Extreme Z7]

4 minutes ago, tesla said:

If you don't want people to believe dumb shit, then focus on solving the root cause of the problem, which is that they're unconscious. If you're a conscious, intelligent person, it's pretty easy to discern what's legit from what's not. People should be using their own intuition and reasoning to discern, you can't just have authorities do the thinking for you.

You realize you're saying this in the one and only Actualized.org Personal Development forum, right? Where the whole point is to find help to become conscious, intelligent people. Yet the rules here are pretty strict because otherwise it would make it more difficult to develop one's consciousness here if this place gets overrun by toxic, racist, homophobic, and other kinds of unconscious people.

You argue that authorities shouldn't think for you yet that's exactly how parenting, apprenticeship, and education works. It's not perfect but it's better than letting inexperienced children think for themselves. Forget leadership, you can't even raise a child.

[tesla]

1 minute ago, Extreme Z7 said:

You realize you're saying this in the one and only Actualized.org Personal Development forum, right? Where the whole point is to find help to become conscious, intelligent people. Yet the rules here are pretty strict because otherwise it would make it more difficult to develop one's consciousness here if this place gets overrun by toxic, racist, homophobic, and other kinds of unconscious people.

I don't have a problem with enforcing respectful communication. I don't have a problem with racist, abusive comments being deleted for instance.

But what I do have a problem with is Leo shutting down any form of intelligent discussion regarding conspiracies. I've noticed he has made dismissive comments regarding this in his videos, but has also locked threads in the forum too. Why is this out of bounds, but other controversial discussions aren't? If something can't be discussed, that's religious thinking.

Quote

You argue that authorities shouldn't think for you yet that's exactly how parenting, apprenticeship, and education works. It's not perfect but it's better than letting inexperienced children think for themselves. Forget leadership, you can't even raise a child.

Actually, I don't support that at all, nor did I ever say I supported it. I despise the education system and how most people do parenting. It could be dramatically improved. People should be taught how to think, not what to think.

[Extreme Z7]

2 hours ago, tesla said:

I don't have a problem with enforcing respectful communication. I don't have a problem with racist, abusive comments being deleted for instance.

But what I do have a problem with is Leo shutting down any form of intelligent discussion regarding conspiracies. I've noticed he has made dismissive comments regarding this in his videos, but has also locked threads in the forum too. Why is this out of bounds, but other controversial discussions aren't? If something can't be discussed, that's religious thinking.

Many popular conspiracy theories nowadays ARE racist or abusive but most frequently, toxic.

As far as I know, intelligent discussion on some conspiracy theories is still allowed here. Even then, it's a distraction.

[tesla]

5 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Many popular conspiracy theories nowadays ARE racist or abusive but most frequently, toxic.

As far as I know, intelligent discussion on some conspiracy theories is still allowed here. Even then, it's a distraction.

You can find douchebags in literally any demographic, including this one (people interested in personal development/spirituality). So yeah, that's not a real argument.

As far as I know, discussion about conspiracies isn't tolerated. I was just on a thread yesterday that Leo locked.

And no, it's not a distraction. If it's real, this impacts you, me, and everyone else on Earth. Don't you think that's important enough to talk about? I don't linger on it because it's depressing, but I also don't bury my head in the sand (which has consequences because of inaction). It's about a balance.