Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Clarifies 'Hate Speech' Definition and Which Videos Won't Be Monetized (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In a blog post, YouTube outlined more specific definitions of hate speech and what kinds of incendiary content wouldn't be eligible for monetization. Three categories are classified as hate speech, with the broadest one being "hateful content." YouTube is defining this as anything that "promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual's or group's race, ethnicity, or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization." The second category is "inappropriate use of family entertainment characters," which means content showing kid-friendly characters in "violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior," no matter if the content is satirical or a parody. The final category is somewhat broad: "incendiary and demeaning content" means that anything "gratuitously" demeaning or shameful toward an individual or group is prohibited. The updated guidelines are a response to creators asking YouTube to clarify what will and will not be deemed advertiser-friendly. YouTube acknowledges that its systems still aren't perfect, but it says it's doing its best to inform creators while maintaining support for advertisers. YouTube also launched a new course in its Creator Academy that creators can take to learn more about how to make "content appealing for a broad range of advertisers."
So I just need to make sure I don't do things like say or show anything "associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization".
Sounds like YouTube is doubling down on letting the folks in charge of "report abuse" triage bring their biases when choosing which videos make money and which ones don't. Hopefully Vimeo is taking notes...
Zeig Heil Motherfuckers!!
I want to run my ads on anti-SJW videos?
anything that "promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual's or group's race
How many far-left videos are there I wonder that whine about oppression from the evil white male, or just from white people in general?
Well now, all of them are subject to complaint under these rules... conservatives are going to have a field day bringing down videos.
After all, one of the worst things you can do an opponent is make them live by the rules they made...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I seriously doubt they're going to be applying this rule fairly to offensive videos on both sides of the political divide.
Trump supporters are certainly "associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization", if not outright hate. Does that mean any video insulting or making fun of people who voted for Trump should be not be eligible to monetization?
all these "hatespeech" commenters are just soliciting to get hated themselves imo. Purely because they are manipulative idiots.
Conservatives only attack people on an ideological basis, I don't see anything in the rules that would stop any conservative videos I've seen.
Nope, instead you are going to see a lot of content pulled from notable racists like Hillary Clinton, who can't help but blame problems on an entire race of people.
Remember kids, being color-blind means just that - don't place blame on people based on the color of their skin! Everyone has different pasts and experiences, such that you cannot categorically treat them as as a group instead of individuals.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ahh must be nice. Stealing the entire world's copyright, profiting off it, then playing god by decided who's copyright you don't want to steal, even though you could potentially rob them blind like everyone else.
By those guidelines, about 99.9999% of all youtube video are not allowed to have ads on them.
They're bastard people. Now I gonna go bite my pillow.
No demeaning of terrorists. Bad.
So, no videos attacking white men? What will I do with my time?
Unlike ethnicity, disability, or age, religion is something the individual chose him/herself, and should be completely open to ridicule and mocking. It's an ideology, there is nothing sacred about it.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
So any videos about Islam too, and any videos about removing those videos.
So no Happy Tree Friends like videos?
Another weekend of videos explaining what this mean for the YouTube community.
Trump haters far more are engaged in systematic discrimination against a whole group of people, who the libel as racist and misogynistic without knowing who the people are or what they believe.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This isn't really a conservative/liberal issue.
This is an authoritarian/libertarian issue.
This is how you suppress speaking truth to power. If it doesn't offend someone. Its probably some drivel that isn't worth saying.
Which is what YouTube wants. Less provocative news and social critique, more ad friendly cat videos.
If the rules were applied evenly, this would block out entire segments of the media like news, music and comedy.
I think Kathy Griffin and Chelsea Handler's dicks need sucking there pajama boy. Get after it douchetool!
I will stop posting viewpoints that offend your sensitive child-mind when all you fascist Deep State supporters are crying like Kathy Griffin over the many self-inflicted losses you have incurred...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Say whatever you want, just don't expect Google to help you make a living saying it.
Unless of course TFA says more than TFS.
So basically YT is saying they only want cuddly cat videos. Is there another video hosting sight that isn't full of fucking bullshit?
Sometimes religion is chosen for you. Children often have no practical ability to opt out of their parents' religious practices.
The vast majority of people are born into a religion, and trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree. I don't know how you call that a choice. Like, not to break into a free will debate, but we only make choices based on what we know, and if what we know is limited, our choices are limited.
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
You could always start your own MediaGoblin instance on your own web site.
No, this is how a private corporation chooses to do business.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If YouTube is displaying your work without authorization and without grounds for fair use, what happened when you reported this to YouTube through its OCILLA notice process?
"Hate" is a euphemism for anything not in line with the liberal orthodoxy, so no, you can't show anti-SJW videos with ads.
I agree, but (as a Greek) with some -important- correction: this "anti-SJW" is "a-SJW" actually, meaning that any videos not to (i.e., without consideration for) SJW standards is bad, not just videos against SJW - since hate is the opposite of love, everything without love becomes hate.
To translate Google's barbaric text "Hateful content: Content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity, or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization." in "real Greek": everything can be labeled "hateful content" (a video with kitties "systematically discriminates or marginalizes" puppies)...
I can't say anymore that religious nuts are well defined in the ICD-10 F22.0 without being demonetized?
Hey, it's only the truth!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It also means that sane people can't post videos debunking the bullshit some preachers spread anymore if they want to make a living that way. So the religious nuts and those trying to milk idiots believing in that bull should be good, after all, the idiots they're preaching to keep sending them money, no need to monetize the videos themselves.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So we're going to continue being as arbitrary and vague about this as possible as we implement our agenda.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Racism against whites is going to be okay (it's not racism if it's against white people)
No. All it means is that Trump can't collect the 100 bucks he would make from his videos.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So this means they'll remove
This article is talking about being able to monetize videos, not what will result in a take-down of a video.
If you can't make your political point without being a bigot, you probably need to improve your rhetoric.
In any case, I don't know why people expect YouTube to be the ultimate defender of free speech. It's a commercial service whose primary source of revenue is ads. Maybe you should get together and set up a site dedicated to freedom of speech.
Crowd fund it. Bandwidth and disk space are cheap. Prove that it can work and can survive and thrive.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What happened? I almost put it in the wrong box.
Then someone asked if I was a regular citizen or gold tier, and directed me to the correct box under the sink. They weren't sure how I even found the room, since I used the front door and not the bot entrance.
Meanwhile, hitting the report button (via automated API of course) on your a video your own company made seems to now be a badge of honor.
So the people that produce some of the best content will no longer get paid, sounds like a great long term strategy.
I was just listening to this guy on the radio yesterday. He's a UK "Liberal" who spends his time attacking the ideology of the Progressives he so vehemently opposes.
YouTube demonetized him and so he went to Patreon, but is only getting 1/4 of the revenue he was before (which he says is enough to pay the rent and keep the lights on, so he's continuing).
Google has a serious problem when it's shutting down legitimate political speech under the pretext of "Social Justice". Jesus, if I couldn't handle hearing the occasional "fuck you, political group" I'd be on Twitter, not YouTube. I hope Google gets its head on right about political speech and returns to supporting Western liberal values. Y'know, "Do The Right Thing". "Don't Be Evil" was a better moral compass, though.
The ironic thing is that this guy points out that WSJ, which started this kerfuffle, is not really attacking these particular YouTubers, it's attacking YouTube, as the most successful New Media platform. It's an Old vs. New fight, and Google is walking right into the trap and handing power back to the Obsolete Media.
Anyway, where can I find a list of sponsors who are pulling out over the ideologies of whichever YouTubers? I'd like to boycott them.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...re-direct the funds generated to an oppositional charity, for example...
This will essentially move Christian channels elsewhere. MarkDice, R$E, bill shnoeblen, and others who attempt to make the rest of us see through the liberal fascist agenda week simply disappear to another medium, leaving YouTube as the festering pool of accept-all filth.
But YouTube still can??? Seems like they would have to disable even their own ads on hateful content or else they could be construed as endorsing it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Wrong box" sounds like a user interface problem. In my opinion, a user interface that is confusing to navigate is defective. Did you take a screenshot of the confusing part of YouTube's form?
Your "regular citizen or gold tier" appears to be a paraphrase. What phrasing did YouTube actually use? Using the same terminology that YouTube uses may help other readers understand exactly what went wrong.
The "bot entrance" appears to be related to the Content ID system. I have read that because Content ID is the most CPU-intensive takedown means, YouTube offers Content ID only to copyright owners whose work is uploaded most often. Is this qualification part of what you meant by "gold tier"?
or asking people who are not exactly like you what they know, value, and believe. Then your knowledge will become less limited and you will be free to choose.
The thought-police do not yet have the tools to know what you really think inside your mind.
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of secret atheists in mandatory-religion states. They can recite the words like robots, but they can ignore it and laugh at it on the inside.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
then move (for the Great Sphaghetti Monster's sake, may his noodly appendage wave over us beneficently), or have a revolution.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
you'll be herded like one, and all your utterances will be heard as "ba-a-a-a-a-a-h".
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
In a world where certain massive corporations often have more power than the government in specific areas (and are usually pulling the strings of the politicians behind the scenes anyway), "Eff the constitution, private corporation lol!" doesn't cut it anymore. Thanks to its near-monopoly on online advertising and lack of obligation to uphold civil rights like free speech, it's a thousand times easier for Google to silence and/or bankrupt a person or business for thoughtcrime than it would ever be for the government.
They hate all moving things smaller than them, and kill them at any opportunity. Ban the evil hate-filled cat videos.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Let me guess, spreading hate is any opinion that differs from your narrow minded point of view?
Only an idiot would celebrate an attack on freedom of speech. Only an imbecile would would state what you've stated. Only and fucking idiot would ignore all of human history for the sole purpose of virtue signaling.
YouTube uses the word "partner" a lot when referring to the media corps that pay to have access to the real tools.
The public gets a half-working form that generates a report that is never acted upon.
So, I take it, I can't upload my copy of "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips"?
Here's a thought experiment. There are certain sects of Islam that preach that Jews should be exterminated. Most of us would agree that this claim is hate speech.
But it's also part of their religion. So if I make a video claiming that people who preach that religion on YouTube don't deserve to make money from it, is that hate speech? After all, it is literally a claim that certain people should be artificially limited, based upon their religion. That's pretty clearly a disparaging remark.
So that puts YouTube in the moral dilemma of deciding whether to block my video from earning money. If they do, they're hypocrites because I'm simply stating an identical opinion to their own. If they don't, they're hypocrites because they're giving me a free pass to be intolerant simply because they happen to agree with me.
The only way to avoid that moral paradox is not to set limits on speech at all.
This is an authoritarian/libertarian issue.
Poppycock. You have a right to spout hateful bullshit, but nobody (least of all a private corporation) should be obligated to pay you for doing so.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
It also means that sane people can't post videos debunking the bullshit some preachers spread anymore if they want to make a living that way.
No it doesn't. It just means they have to be rational and civil while doing so, instead of shrieking hate at the top of their lungs.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Only an idiot would celebrate an attack on freedom of speech.
How is this an attack on freedom of speech? Since when is getting paid by advertisers a necessary component of the exercise of free speech?
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Calm down grampa, you are yelling at clouds again.
Youtube is now under control by the Republican Party.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, this is how a private corporation chooses to do business.
Youtube is a corporation of such size and reach that it's policy effects the direction of the world.
Thus their attempts to suppress concepts and ideas that they disagree with is an act of censorship, tyranny and oppression.
And yes, before you mis-quote how freedom speech is only respective to government, (p.s., you're wrong) a private corporation can be involved with the censorship and obstruction of freedom of speech.
Don't worry, it only applies to Islam.
You can still make fun of any other religion, it's only untoward to discuss how Mohammad stuck his D between a 4-year-old's thighs until she was big enough to penetrate.
No, they can't. If the bullshit the preachers spread is offensive, then quoting it to highlight just how crazy those guys are will get you a community strike and eventually banned. People reading sections of the Koran that call for violence against the infidel, to make a point about Islam, have been banned - not for hate speech against Islam, which would make some vague sense, but for supporting terrorism.
Being civil is no form of defense at all. Meanwhile, Jim Fucking Sterling Son still has never had a video taken down, and "uncivil" is pretty much his whole theme (of course, he doesn't monetize his videos, so YouTube gives 0 fucks about him since there are no ads running next to the guy waving the 3-foot dildo sword).
But that also shows the way out: support yourself via patreon or similar, not YouTube ad revenue, and YouTube will leave you alone.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Hey! your video panning the latest EA (tm) game is systematically discriminating against the group of people known as Electronic arts employees, Demonetized!"
Learn to make content appealing to advertisers?
What moron would want to learn how to make advertiser-friendly videos?
Fuck the advertisers. If there are no VIEWERS, then all the ads in the world are worthless. If you aren't creating content that appeals to VIEWERS, you are doing it wrong and will never get anywhere.
People watch youtube exactly BECAUSE it isn't sanitized like TV.
"or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization."
I made a series of anti-Obesity videos. I think Obesity is morally wrong. I never attacked or even mentioned individuals of any sort, either public figures or private citizens.
However, I would always get complaints from Obese people who said I was mocking the "Health at Any Size" movement (which I was. It kills people).
So now there's an "Adult content" warning and no ads.
Mr. Reality. Unlike you I am not an empty vessel full only of steam and hot air...
B.U.R.N. - Somebody put the kettle ON.
I'll let you have the last response, mine was too masterful to bother reading whatever half-boiled retort you manage cook up.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
OK, so what is your solution? I have problems with capitalism too, so I fully understand your frustration. Unfortunately, corporations of great size and reach that have an effect on the direction of the world have been with us for as long as we've had corporations (see "John Company" aka "East India Company").
You are welcome on my lawn.
You are welcome to join our anti-capitalism book club. We meet at the union hall every Tuesday night. It sounds like you're ready.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Within 5 years they'll find themselves asking why nobody is on their platform, where all the advertisers are without noticing all the content is based around the same set of circle-jerks.
Being offended just means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than yours.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
the pope speaks again
Literally none of your population is 'far-left' by any meaningful definition of the term.
Shut the fuck up about 'far left liberals'.
For one thing: if they actually were far left, they would no longer be liberal. For another, you just sound like reactionary whining MRA tossers. Go out sometime, meet some actual people, stay off 4chan and Reddit. Out there, people are three dimensional. Some of them may even like you despite your irrational fear of them.
Thus their attempts to suppress concepts and ideas that they disagree with is an act of censorship, tyranny and oppression.
They aren't censoring or suppressing anything. You can still put publish whatever. For free! To the whole world! They just won't attach ads to your speech if it's offensive to advertisers.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"“Secretly everybody's getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That's the kiss-ass generation we're in right now. We're really in a pussy generation. Everybody's walking on eggshells." - Clint Eastwood
I think the above is true and accurate. I've never seen a bigger bunch of cunts than the young people in the United States today.
Their brand of "political correctness" is in reality fascism wrapped in pretty packaging so it looks nice and they can all have a circle-jerk about how wonderful they are because of their groupthink mentality, which is pathetically similar to the mindset found in a high school clique.
Any time you want to regulate or control what some other person writes or says, you're heading in a direction that wars have been fought to
prevent, and it's fundamentally erroneous for the simple reason that rules and laws cannot ever possibly control what people really think.
When you have a mass of people adhering to political correctness, what you really have is a bunch of people who have been conditioned to be dishonest on a regular basis. They are dishonest because what they really think is often very different from what they are willing to claim they think. Anyone who wants a society which functions this way is the enemy of every person who loves freedom. Political correctness is never a good answer because it breeds the aforementioned groupthink dishonesty and stifles discussion.
Conservatives will whine about this because YouTube will no longer allow them to profit from spreading hate. They will claim this violates their freedom of religion.
So "conservatives" are the only ones who will be whining ?
Kathy Griffin and a host of SJWs who froth at the mouth when Trump is discussed indicate otherwise.
On first glance it seems to me that "fail" type videos and practical joke videos all fall foul of these rules.
I mean, is it not hateful to call every person that has a different opinion an Nazi?
So I'm sure we'll hear no complaints from you if a company starts censoring leftist dogma.
Oh, wait, I'm sure we absolutely will, since the number one trait of leftists is: hypocrisy.
if this applies to white people, the Christian religions, conservative political or social views, or people who identify as being a different gender as those with a different biological gender?
Google? Private? Seriously?
Read up on Alphabet and Google's closeness to the State Dept. Not only is the company a bog-standard corporate lobbyist in Washington, it also actively performs work for US intelligence abroad in organising and fomenting revolutions and uprisings and of course, undoing those uprising when they don't work out.
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
`YouTube is defining this as anything that "promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual's or group's race, ethnicity, or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization." `
I.e.: when I post a video declaring we want to limit immigration severely for the sake of stability of my country I am discriminating w.r.t 'race', ethnicity, origin, nationality, religion, etc. (we could not want any person with no or backward education because they are a drag on our society)
In such case pure logic shows the validity of the argument against limitless immigration.
Yet Youtube (leftist? libtard? hyper-PC?) thinks we cannot have such an opinion?
Weird organisation. Or at least weird rules by a questionable organisation not able to write rules.
And by "whine" I mean "have been squelched and are complaining."
This policy covers topics such as war and Syria. You can't report on war or Syria, as in "the war in Syria", and expect to be monetized. If you have "war" or "syria" in the title, it'll be automatically unmonetized.
You can't report on anything the nanny state has determined might be in opposition to mainstream news. Use the word "lawsuit" or the name "seth rich" and you're probably going to be unmonetized, even if your video parrots the mainstream propaganda, as in, "the DNC lawsuit is bunk", or "the seth rich story is conspiracy nonsense". Got naughty keywords? No ads for you.
And you sure as hell can't describe the dnc lawsuit or the seth rich story, fairly or not, and expect ad revenue.
Want to talk about propaganda? Call it something else.
Hillary Clinton? Be nice to her or her paid trolls (Correct the Record, now ShareBlue) will report you.
Something you want to describe as "rigged"? Don't do that.
Think you want to report on news and use words like murder or conspiracy or conflict? Yeah, nanny state don't like those words anymore.
Say something unapproved today? They're going to go through all your videos now and unmonetize the ones they don't like.
This might be google appeasing advertisers, as they say it is, or it might be google exerting political influence, like they do in search listings, or it might just be google realizing that political commentators will continue to produce content for their platform even if they don't pay them anything. Whatever it is, it's definitely not just a smack down on conservatives. Progressives are complaining, too.
A partner is a YouTube user who has an address in a supported country, 10,000 total views of public videos, an AdSense account, and at least one original video approved for advertisement. It doesn't necessarily mean "media corps". I guess you might be referring to Content ID, access to which requires approval because the process is so CPU-intensive. But what other parts of YouTube copyright enforcement are conditioned on having been granted access to Content ID?
You mean a company like Newscorp? Or SRN radio network? Clear Channel/iHeart?
There are two remedies for companies that censor speech. One is easy, the other is hard.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Use the word "lawsuit" or the name "seth rich" and you're probably going to be unmonetize
Then how does Leonard French, a lawyer who makes videos about tech lawsuits, keep his ads?
Something you want to describe as "rigged"? Don't do that.
What effect will this have on Blender 3D modeling tutorials, particularly when a man is associated with an armature?
The NSA's R+D arm, Google, was founded by zionist horrors who frequently attended events celebrating the mass murder of non-jews. 'hate' speech on Youtube is defined as anything likely to damage the agenda of Israel, or Israel's 'blood brother', the wahhabi state of saudi Arabia.
Israel and Saudi Arabia share the exact same position of influence in Washington- and this remains utterly unchanged whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. While the sheeple are told that Saudi Arabia and Israel are 'enemies' of one another, these two nations target exactly the same list of countries in the Middle East, North Africa, East Europe and Asia.
Google's public facing ops are Mankind's greatest psy-ops. And we saw with the sickening pro-Clinton propaganda on the mainstream media outlets during the election cycle just how this game is played. 99.999% (by volume) of all media content was pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. But because the mass-murdering monster Clinton lost, sheeple are told that it is 'unacceptable' that any media exists that can contradict the propaganda message from Google et al- and such 'off-message' outlets must be closed down.
Neo-liberal outlets like slashdot work day and night to promote this agenda. 'Hate speech' is defined by Google (and slashdot) as anything that slows down the NWO plan to destroy Iran and Syria. Literally anti-war sentiment is now 'hate speech'.
Eh.... Except the YouTube model has others making the content that apparently is in demand or it would not have been relatively lucrative for those content creators.
YouTube is more of the middle man in this scenario and true they have the right to deny service but I think it can still be a problem if they are pretty much a defacto choke point on getting stuff out on line.
There are other sites but since they are not popular enough and may be less prone as showing search results then they are nowhere near good enough to be as useful.
Metaphor time. It's like the bigger services are trees forming the canopy of the forest. The other sites are the underbrush.
Maybe after a forest fire then someone those other services can be a better avenue to get that exposure.
Not a perfect metaphor by any means. But better than going over the how's and why's at length for explaining why the systems in place don't work just for demand/efficiency.
Actually, he's right. Read the damned 1st Amendment for once. NOTHING about free speech on someone else's property
Having the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to have other people promote your speech for you. [...] So you will have to do it yourself.
Let's pretend for a moment that you have produced videos that you want others to see, and you have made them viewable on devices supporting HTML5 video. Now what steps would you take to promote them? I ask because I seek something to recommend to others seeking alternatives to YouTube's right column.
The great thing about doing that in the modern world is that just about everyone can play HTML5 videos on just about any device.
Except web browsers on iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad, until Apple adds WebM support to WebKit.
Jim is uncivil, but neither controversial nor radical.
Capitalism isn't the problem you stupid pinko commie, the issue is select institutions using their power to censor speech and violate the first amendment.
s/YouTube/Comcast/
s/show/transmit/
s/videos/packets/
Woo-hoo! Looks we can still make fun of short people, because height is not protected under law.
If you don't think his persona would spark controversy in society at large, you need to meet a broader range of people. Of course, within the very narrow world of games journalism, he's controversial and radical for a very different reason: he's willing to tell the publishers "fuck off, I'm writing an honest review of your shitty game, boycott me all you want". TB is the only other PC games reviewer I know that does the same.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I notice there's no mention of their weight? Maybe I could make a buck being a shitlord.
There is no surety of an audience. Nobody is entitled to an audience. The size of their site is immaterial.
Please fuck off.
I have a 3 year old niece and I would rather there was a separate site entirely that is heavily moderated for children instead of trying to child-proof the rest of Youtube.
Yours sincerely, EVERY SINGLE PERSON.
but the left's anti white/straight/male stance will not only be permitted, but 'celebrated' as promoting 'diversity'.
hypocrites much?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. If you don't know and don't believe, you're an atheist. If you don't know but believe anyway, you're a theist.
If you do know there's no god, you don't therefore believe in one, so you're an atheist. If you do know there is a god, you do therefore believe in one, so you're a theist.
Atheism is still not a religion.
Even the belief there is no god is not a religion, either.
>This isn't really a conservative/liberal issue.
>This is an authoritarian/libertarian issue.
Libertarianism is, by definition, a contradiction (to me, obviously).
Libertarian Belief #1 - Everyone should have a choice in everything.
One problem, who's to decide anything about that belief? How is it OK to force someone to do something, if the forcer believes in libertarianism? Do we have authoritarians enforce libertarian rules, who are then personally immune to libertarian rules?
My conclusion? Libertarianism is descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, is meaningless when deciding what the fuck to actually do.
Authoritarians, on the other hand, just do shit. It's a much easier system to follow, and that simplicity runs financial transactions, and therefore the world. The only argument becomes to what degree something is 'authoritarian'. To me, the whole authoritarian/libertarian debate is bullshit b/c of a false dichotomy - it's like saying something is agnostic/atheist.
One side claims they either don't know (currently) and/or can never know about the existence of a (g/G)od(s), and let people believe what they want, and the other side claims there is no God/gods/anything in between, never is, never were, never will, and everyone that believes otherwise is wrong.
In both false dichotomies, one side is WAYYYYYYYY more extreme than the other, and yet, whenever people say "something something authoritarian/libertarian issue", they bring this shit up, even though they have clearly not thought about defining anything, and well, even if they have, we don't exactly have political representation ANYWHERE on the libertarian side, so there's not even a balance in any form of discussion to begin with. Not that I'd want retards like Gary Johnson anywhere near the platform, and when the Daily Show went to their "convention" of nutjobs and people that should clearly be medicated/institutionalized/assisted, there were maybe 500 people there.
I'd venture to say that anyone believing seriously in the libertarian cause is a special snowflake, because they clearly don't want to the actually hard work of canvassing, raising money, and playing the politics game like every other serious candidate in America.
Damn, my soapbox is strong.
That's why corporate charters were highly restricted when the US was first formed. The founding fathers knew what corporations could become, so they made it as hard as possible to incorporate and very easy to disband a corporation. Unfortunately this changed over the next couple hundred years to the point a person can become a one person corporation by simply paying a fee and it is almost impossible to disband a corporation.
or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization
Like idiocy? Lying?
Listen, we discriminate against a LOT of characteristics because they're BAD characteristics. "Discrimination" might sounds like a bad word, but when picking fruit at the store, do you discriminate against the ones with worms poking out? Why don't you fairly give the wormy apple a chance? When a scientist says "don't do X, because it will kill us all, here's my proof" he's promoting people to discrimination against doing X.
The problem with discrimination comes up when people erroneously think a characteristic is bad when it really isn't. Like being black. Black people aren't bad. Some of them are, but not all. Just like some asian people are bad, but not all of them. It's been a political issue because so many people made a thing about it.
I get what they're trying to do. They want to protect the little guys, and the oppressed, and leave it open enough to bring in whatever scrappy underdog comes next. But they left it so open as to include literally everyone.
I mean... if me and my friend agree to say mean things on youtube about.... oh jesus...... uh.... Major General Richard Montgomery, then we have a system. And some people could call that systematic. Because good fucking luck getting a clear-cut definition of that.
For example, neo-nazis in Germany have been systematically discriminated against. With the whole "it's fucking illegal" thing. Saying anything negative about neo-nazis should therefore cut the purse-strings of your youtube video.
Lemme just... lemme re-phrase this plan using just one clause path:
"They cut the funding of anything that promotes discrimination of anyone on the basis of a characteristic associated with discrimination." Do you see the circular reasoning there? Slapping in the term "systematic" has enough wiggle-room to send California into the sea.