One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Youtube is censoring Steven Crowder....
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Jun 7, 2019 12:24:44   #
vernon
 
Kevyn wrote:
Please explain how you come to the conclusion that a private company deciding what they will and will not allow on their platform has anything at all to do with communism.


Its not a private company. It is a cor prate owned public entity.

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 12:40:46   #
Rose42
 
How did he violate their terms? Not being far enough left?

If Youtube were instead owned by a right leaning company and started censoring the left the left would be singing a much different tune.

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 12:59:31   #
moldyoldy
 
Rose42 wrote:
How did he violate their terms? Not being far enough left?

If Youtube were instead owned by a right leaning company and started censoring the left the left would be singing a much different tune.


Being liberal is the opposite of condoning hate.

Reply
 
 
Jun 7, 2019 13:04:16   #
woodguru
 
billy a wrote:
I'm not very tech-savvy. Three years ago I had dozens of firearm-related sites to visit on YouTube. Now,very few. I'm done with y.t. but don't know where to go for a similar format/variety...any suggestions?


Predator Masters, they run liberals off... The Fire, rabidly ultra hard right... Gunbroker, toning their hard rightness down with a bit more tolerance for other POV, much like OPP

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 13:05:47   #
woodguru
 
Kevyn wrote:
Please explain how you come to the conclusion that a private company deciding what they will and will not allow on their platform has anything at all to do with communism.


It's an over and misused term that has an emotional trigger like socialism

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 13:25:46   #
woodguru
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

When a private entity in the US decides to start banning any demographic it is cause for concern...

Simply put you cannot operate in a nation that allows for freedom of speech if you yourself do not allow for it...


When a country starts influencing and curbing media is where the problems start. Given the degree that Russia and other countries are mounting concerted propaganda drives designed to influence people into believing garbage that is not true, and division and hatred is being used as a tool, eliminating divisive messages has to start somewhere.

I'm more concerned with the degree that Trump rails against mainstream media and how anything that Trump doesn't agree with or makes him look bad is fake news. This is how and what propaganda is... it's an authoritarian figure who says what the facts are regardless of truth, and his supporters happen to believe anything they say, thereby creating an alternate reality and facts.

The scary part is that this alternate reality is happening in front of our faces and people no longer have the ability to look at obvious facts and see through even the most easily seen facts.

Mainstream media, regardless of Trump's constant fake news labeling, provides documentation and sources to the things they cover about Trump and his merry swamp critters. Most of what is in the Mueller report has already been covered and called fake news, it's not news to those who have followed the news. Meanwhile FOX has responded to everything as it has come out over the last two years and called fake news to everything item by item, without a shred of documentation or evidence being used by mainstream media, and their followers are content to take them at their word because they cover it as a defacto conclusion that it must be fake because mainstream media is nothing but fake news.

Now we have these same people and FOX news that refuses to read the report, and prosecutable facts have been called nothing there by Barr and Trump.

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 13:30:21   #
woodguru
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:


Explain why a private company like Youtube can decide who posts on it, but a baker doesn't have the right to decide who he designs a cake for? (Unless you are equally outraged at that one...)


I say fine about the person who doesn't want to bake a cake for gays...

Let him put a sign on the door that states that their religious beliefs prohibit them from catering to gays, so that all the people who object to such religious beliefs being taken to such an idiotic degree can go find another baker too, and I assure you such a sign would cut their business in half.

Reply
 
 
Jun 7, 2019 14:06:12   #
woodguru
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
We almost had a civil dialogue going...

Why conflate Alex Jones with Steven Crowder?

The baker participates through the act of designing - a utilization of his innate artistic talent...

If it was only a cake the "gentlemen" wanted then there was a whole shop full of them to choose from...

It wasn't selling a cake tgat the baker was refusing to do...


I suspect there was more to the baker thing than was well covered, a baker has a right to say they won't do a nude oriented thing, use words that are offensive to them, themes that are offensive. A "straight" cake with nothing outrageous or flaming is a cake, nothing more. So if our baker was in any way offensive in a context of I hate fags, go somewhere else...no, uh uh, this is a public business violating someone's civil rights. Even toning it down to say because of my religious beliefs I am not comfortable doing a cake for a gay wedding is iffy. It's all "I don't like fags, go somewhere else".

That would be no different than a baker telling a black person they don't like blacks so go somewhere else, or a jewish person for a bar mitzvah cake...maybe they want a star of david on it, or a muslim wearing a turban...I'm christian I have a problem with muslims" doesn't fly.

This would be saying that it would be okay for a muslim to open a bakery, and refuse to do a cake for a christian ceremony because they were wearing a cross on a necklace. I suspect most muslims leave their religion at the door when dealing with the public, and that would apply to putting a cross on a cake. The idea that this would be "participating" in this christian ceremony is ludicrously weak.

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 14:14:21   #
woodguru
 
Rose42 wrote:
How did he violate their terms? Not being far enough left?

If Youtube were instead owned by a right leaning company and started censoring the left the left would be singing a much different tune.


The right has some ludicrously divisive, hateful, and intentionally inciting messages

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 17:10:27   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
woodguru wrote:
I suspect there was more to the baker thing than was well covered, a baker has a right to say they won't do a nude oriented thing, use words that are offensive to them, themes that are offensive. A "straight" cake with nothing outrageous or flaming is a cake, nothing more. So if our baker was in any way offensive in a context of I hate fags, go somewhere else...no, uh uh, this is a public business violating someone's civil rights. Even toning it down to say because of my religious beliefs I am not comfortable doing a cake for a gay wedding is iffy. It's all "I don't like fags, go somewhere else".
I suspect there was more to the baker thing than w... (show quote)


What I have read concerning the case is that the baker agreed to sell the "gentlemen" any of the standard cakes in the shop... There was catalogue I believe...
He only refused to personally design a cake for the wedding...

Quote:
That would be no different than a baker telling a black person they don't like blacks so go somewhere else, or a jewish person for a bar mitzvah cake...maybe they want a star of david on it, or a muslim wearing a turban...I'm christian I have a problem with muslims" doesn't fly.


No... It would be no different from a baker telling a Black man that he won't design a BLM cake because he doesn't agree with the movement...

Quote:
This would be saying that it would be okay for a muslim to open a bakery, and refuse to do a cake for a christian ceremony because they were wearing a cross on a necklace. I suspect most muslims leave their religion at the door when dealing with the public, and that would apply to putting a cross on a cake. The idea that this would be "participating" in this christian ceremony is ludicrously weak.


I expect that if a Christian went into a Muslim bakery and asked the Muslim baker to personally design a cake denoting the glory of Christ as God, that the baker would refuse... That would be forcing another to participate in a belief against their will....

Reply
Jun 7, 2019 17:12:44   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
woodguru wrote:
The right has some ludicrously divisive, hateful, and intentionally inciting messages


Last year I watched a commercial where the left (a candidate for the House I believe) depicted Trump supporters as hatefilled bigots who drove trucks around looking to murder minority children...

Sick...

Reply
 
 
Jun 7, 2019 17:21:58   #
Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas
 
Kevyn wrote:
Alex Jones demonstrated a menace when one of his nutter followers shot up a commit pizza joint after Jones lied and said there was a sex dungeon with little kids in the basement. Good riddance to this lying hate fueled scum. The baker doesn’t participate in anything he simple makes a cake.


All that stuff was spooled up by some leftist disinfo agent to keep everyone off Podesta the Molesta's trail
The podesta's pedo's were on the verge of getting caught and mueller covered for them in his report.
https://www.infowars.com

Reply
Jun 8, 2019 09:35:23   #
TrueAmerican
 
Kevyn wrote:
Please explain how you come to the conclusion that a private company deciding what they will and will not allow on their platform has anything at all to do with communism.


Only a communist would see it the way you do, yet you think a baker or a florist MUST adhere to your lbqrtusvm crowd. You are about a simple as a person can be --- are sure you're not a bot !!!!!!

Reply
Jun 8, 2019 09:37:09   #
TrueAmerican
 
Kevyn wrote:
The baker is an entity known as a public accommodation and is subject to the civil rights act, they are within their rights to refuse to decorate a cake with an objectionable message, for instance a pornographic image they can not however refuse service to people due to their sexual orientation, religion or race. You tube is not providing a platform for specific content they see as harmful such as the streaming of the assault rifle massacre in New Zealand, pornography or posters who deny the holocaust. If a poster repeats posting clips that violate the corporate standards they are denied the ability to post. Similar to the way a habitual drunk who starts fights is banned from a pub. They are very different situations.
The baker is an entity known as a public accommoda... (show quote)


Careful --- your prejudice and ignorance is showing !!!!!!

Reply
Jun 8, 2019 10:09:56   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
woodguru wrote:
When a country starts influencing and curbing media is where the problems start. Given the degree that Russia and other countries are mounting concerted propaganda drives designed to influence people into believing garbage that is not true, and division and hatred is being used as a tool, eliminating divisive messages has to start somewhere.

I'm more concerned with the degree that Trump rails against mainstream media and how anything that Trump doesn't agree with or makes him look bad is fake news. This is how and what propaganda is... it's an authoritarian figure who says what the facts are regardless of truth, and his supporters happen to believe anything they say, thereby creating an alternate reality and facts.

The scary part is that this alternate reality is happening in front of our faces and people no longer have the ability to look at obvious facts and see through even the most easily seen facts.

Mainstream media, regardless of Trump's constant fake news labeling, provides documentation and sources to the things they cover about Trump and his merry swamp critters. Most of what is in the Mueller report has already been covered and called fake news, it's not news to those who have followed the news. Meanwhile FOX has responded to everything as it has come out over the last two years and called fake news to everything item by item, without a shred of documentation or evidence being used by mainstream media, and their followers are content to take them at their word because they cover it as a defacto conclusion that it must be fake because mainstream media is nothing but fake news.

Now we have these same people and FOX news that refuses to read the report, and prosecutable facts have been called nothing there by Barr and Trump.
When a country starts influencing and curbing medi... (show quote)

Sacrificing principle for the sake of marginalized groups is short-sighted.

At the first-ever nationally televised debate between candidates for the Libertarian Party, the subject turned to a fundamental issue: the freedom not to associate. The subject concerned anti-discrimination law, particularly as it affects religion.

Gary Johnson was asked whether he, as president, would retain laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion. He said he would, especially given the current political climate in this country. There’s so much anger out there, he said, that he would be concerned about Muslims being denied access to basic utilities, for example.

Opponent Austin Petersen immediately seized on this compromise of principle. People must have the freedom to associate or disassociate based on whatever criterion. If they do not, he said, a Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake for Nazis. Johnson agreed that non-discrimination would imply exactly that.

It was the best moment of the debate, and it sparked a thousand Reddit and Facebook discussions.

Who is right?

One objection is that this hypothetical is wholly unlikely in any case. Why would a Nazi demand such a thing from a Jew? If the Jewish baker really refused a Nazi, could he actually expect to be prosecuted for doing so?

However unlikely this scenario would be in the United States today, it is not entirely ahistorical. In the early years of the rise of the Nazis, party members demanded boycotts of Jewish businesses. This was part of their propaganda to whip up the public into scapegoating Jews for all the sufferings of the German people. Over time, public antagonism intensified to more direct forms of attacks and exclusions, from lootings, pogroms, ghettoization, concentration camps, and finally gas chambers.

A Slippery Slope?

Supporters of anti-discrimination law cite this as a case in point. If you let people refuse service based on a religious criterion (or race, sex, disability, and so on) you create a slippery slope. What starts as a bigoted choice ends in more violent modes of exclusion. Yes, this can lead to weird results such as forbidding a black-owned hotel from barring a Klan member, and a Jewish baker forced to service to a Nazi based on religion. But this is a small price to pay, they say, for a more generalized atmosphere of tolerance.

Let’s consult the great economist Ludwig von Mises, a Jew himself, who was actually present in interwar Vienna and personally affected by the rise of anti-Semitism. It kept him from obtaining a position at the city’s great university, and it eventually drove him out of his beloved Austria. Eventually arriving in the United States, he wrote what might be considered the most anti-Nazi book ever: Omnipotent Government (1944). It opposed Nazi racism and anti-Semitism but also the entire Nazi economic policy that itself was rooted in a form of legal discrimination of some producers over others.

Choice and Coercion

Where did Mises stand on the issue of discrimination? He distinguished two kinds: that extending from choice and that imposed by law. He favored the former and opposed the latter. He went even further. He said that a policy that forces people against their will creates the very conditions that lead to legal discrimination. In his view, even speaking as someone victimized by invidious discrimination, it is better to retain freedom than build a bureaucracy that overrides human choice.

“In an unhampered market society there is no legal discrimination against anybody,” he wrote. “Everyone has the right to obtain the place within the social system in which he can successfully work and make a living. The consumer is free to discriminate, provided that he is ready to pay the cost.”

What might this principle imply?

A Czech or a Pole may prefer to buy at higher cost in a shop owned by a Slav instead of buying cheaper and better in a shop owned by a German. An anti-Semite may forego being cured of an ugly disease by the employment of the ‘Jewish’ drug Salvarsan and have recourse to a less efficacious remedy. In this arbitrary power consists what economists call consumer’s sovereignty.

These choices are up to the consumer, and, presumably, the producer too.

In a world in which people have grasped the meaning of a market society, and therefore advocate a consumer’s policy, there is no legal discrimination against Jews. Whoever dislikes the Jews may in such a world avoid patronizing Jewish shopkeepers, doctors, and lawyers.

And yet, if you have a social movement that is just dead-set against a certain group, and pushes a strategy of boycotts and exclusions, does it eventually end in harming people in devastating ways? So long as markets are working, Mises says the answer is no.

Many decades of intensive anti-Semitic propaganda did not succeed in preventing German "Aryans" from buying in shops owned by Jews, from consulting Jewish doctors and lawyers, and from reading books by Jewish authors. They did not patronize the Jews unawares—’Aryan’ competitors were careful to tell them again and again that these people were Jews. Whoever wanted to get rid of his Jewish competitors could not rely on an alleged hatred of Jews; he was under the necessity of asking for legal discrimination against them.

Mises is arguing, in other words, that voluntary discrimination tends not to create permanent disabilities for groups. It might be wrong. It might be ugly. It might be intended to create harm. But so long as the market is working, exclusion does not work over the long run. The benefits of the division of labor are too great, and the costs of pervasive discrimination are too high, to make it worth it.

As Mises wrote elsewhere:

The market does not directly prevent anybody from arbitrarily inflicting harm on his fellow citizens; it only puts a penalty upon such conduct. The shopkeeper is free to be rude to his customers provided he is ready to bear the consequences. The consumers are free to boycott a purveyor provided they are ready to pay the costs. What impels every man to the utmost exertion in the service of his fellow men and curbs innate tendencies toward arbitrariness and malice is, in the market, not compulsion and coercion on the part of gardeess, hangmen, and penal courts; it is self-interest.

Power Will Be Used

What’s more, argues Mises, society needs a market society that includes a full range of freedom to choose precisely to prevent political violence against groups. Nazi economic policy punished importers against domestic producers, large stores against shopkeepers, large-scale industry against startups, and so on. The machinery was already in place legally to punish Jewish businesses against non-Jewish businesses.

Sacrificing principle for the sake of marginalized groups is short-sighted. If you accept the infringement of human rights as an acceptable political weapon, that weapon will eventually be turned on the very people you want to help. As Dan Sanchez has written, “Authoritarian restriction is a game much better suited for the mighty than for the marginalized.”

Commerce has a tendency to break down barriers, not create them. In fact, this is why Jim Crow laws came into existence, to interrupt the integrationist tendencies of the marketplace. Here is the hidden history of a range of government interventions, from zoning to labor laws to even the welfare state itself. The ruling class has always resented and resisted the market’s tendency to break down entrenched status and gradually erode tribal bias.

Indeed, commerce is the greatest fighter against bigotry and hate that humankind has ever seen. And it is precisely for this reason that a movement rooted in hate must necessarily turn to politics to get its way.

The real danger is not human choice but a regime that overrides it. The market is rooted in choice, which also means the right to discriminate. But so long as the state stays out of it, the discriminatory intent can’t last.

The freedom to choose implies the freedom to decline any particular choice on any grounds.

What about the Johnson scenario of a public utility that denies service to a Muslim community? One can easily imagine a private power generation company using that as an opportunity for profit.

As for the Nazis, they will just have to find someone else to bake their cakes.

By: Jeffrey Tucker

(He is the Editorial Director at the American Institute for Economic Research, a managing partner of Vellum Capital, the founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, economics adviser to FreeSociety.com, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books.)

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.