There just aren't a lot of games coming out if you don't count download only indies. Gamestop's built off used games.
Which has been a ridiculous model ever since eBay came about. Why sell a used game to GameStop for a pittance when you can sell it on the marketplace and get fair value? I remember when I sold some PS3 games years back and getting like half-price for them.
Also sold the PS3 and got a good price as well, which was ridiculous because for a few bucks more the buyer could have gotten a newer model. I actually felt bad for the buyer on that one, but oh well.
Nah, Breitbart is a thoroughly discredited source. [..] Find and actually credible source, or you're full of it:)
I gave you a Snopes source that addressed the topic head on, and did nothing to dispute the story. Did you even click it? Why didn't you respond to it?
The Snopes source also includes references, including to a Time article that says, "She enlisted veteran organizers Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour as national co-chairs with the aim of wrangling one of the largest Inauguration demonstrations in -history--and making it one that brought together activists of all stripes.".
The Tweets are a matter of factual record. So are the other sourced facts. Why does it matter if Breitbart reported on them vs anybody else? What sourced facts do you dispute? None.
Whatever "this" is, it's on Breitbart, so it's about 99% likely to be utter bullshit. Possibly a small kernel of truth wrapped in bullshit.
Then prove it. What did they say that was bullshit?
But if you're learning your opinions and, uh, "facts" from Breitbart still then there is no hope for you.
And if you dismiss everything out of ideology, there is no hope for you. The Breitbart article is sourced. It's all fact. The tweets aren't made up, the national recognition from the Whitehouse isn't made up, and her organizational leadership and speech at the Women's March wasn't made up. Even Snopes couldn't manage a half-assed dismissal.
Bury your head in the sand all you want, the truth is out there, and ignoring it is part of the reason Trump got elected.
No imagination there, you just validated my statements, the problem is that you won't look, so you claim not to see it. Hence the impasse.
The impasse is you won't provide a citation in the form of a link, as requested, and as I showed by example for the authoritarian left. You've had no problems supplying plenty of links for other things, so obviously the problem is on your end.
Did you forget that Milo is on the conservative black list now?
So what? That happened before he was torpedoed.
But in case you didn't get it the first time, I'm not terribly impressed that Milo can hire agent provocateurs to create a disruption, but he's on the outs anyway.
Yeah, so Milo committed a felony and hired provocateurs to beat his own followers and burn property. I guess he hired these guys, too, right? You truly are an ass.
Milo's talks have been openly oppressed for a long time, by both faculty, administration, and students. Berkeley was the second time that it became violent (the first time involved a shooting during the talk).
You actually didn't respond directly to any of the articles' information, or show any effort to do anything except twist their content for your own purposes.
I condemned the violence, and all you could do was act stupid enough to say I wasn't condemning right-wing violence. That stupidity is all you.
In fact, there's too much stupidity to be arguing with. I'm three points in, and I'm arguing in circles with sheer pig-headed stupidity. You aren't worth my time, the rest of your post will go unread, and you will get no more responses.
No, I wouldn't even try to begin to explain anything found on the pages of Breitbart.
So the anon pegged your reply exactly. Not that I'm surprised, but you'd think you might try and not be so obvious. Breitbart's article is a record of facts, with many supporting links throughout. You've just got your head in the sand.
And so is the right, my friend. Neither has a corner on idiocy.
When it comes to embracing Islam, the left has it in spades. And you're one of them too, because you deny facts while carrying water for them.
No, that's just your imagination. This is all you wrote: "On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places? Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it."
That's not a citation of the right trying to get BLM get kicked off of YouTube or stopped from speaking at colleges. Learn what a citation is. Link to something concrete. Here's an example of a citation where the authoritarian left shut down the free speech of a speaker on the right.
I noted that you initially said nothing to specifically identify, acknowledge, and condemn right-wing violence
And you're still an idiot. I was responding directly to articles you referenced, said I looked, and condemned the violence. If you want to pretend I wasn't talking about right-wing violence then that's on you.
Oh? You were trying to make it a comparative, rather than asking for observations about it chronologically? Why?
Because my point was that the original comparison was deliberately chosen after 9/11. And even then the numbers are still comparable, despite that Muslims are only about 1% of the American population.
That's what you tell yourself. Unfortunately for you, the writers of the Constitution realized what harvest would come of such beliefs.
That Islam is a hateful ideology is a matter of record, based on the scriptures, preaching, history, and practices shown throughout the world today. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens wishing to immigrate here, and legally, both in law and in precedence, we as a nation have complete discretion in this matter. It will be settled after Gorsuch is seated and the Supreme Court overrules the activist judges that stopped Trump's constitutionally legal executive actions.
the way to address a problem is not exclusion, but suasion, instead
We can "suade" them over in their own countries instead of inviting a hateful ideology into ours. It used to be that Muslims invaded to take over a country. Now we just invite them in masses as "refugees".
Neither Jesus nor Muhammed are alive today, so their immigration status is moot. You might as well be lying about Nikolaos of Myra.
Burying you head in the sand doesn't change the fundamental roots of the religion and how people act on it today. All it does is make you a useful idiot to those following in the teachings and path of Islam and its warlord prophet Muhammad.
Oh my, except...you just brought up another example of the right's attempts at censorship and violence. I'm glad they're relatively incompetent at acting on their brutality, but I won't deny it exists.
So not a single example of violence within the United States, despite Christians being 70% of the population, over a display of Christ in a jar of piss, but there was attempted murder with a gun over some drawings of Muhammad, despite Muslims being only 1% of the population.
And of course, the Piss Christ guy was lauded by the elitists left, while the defenders of free speech were villainized for daring to break a Muslim taboo. *golf clap*
If you don't respond, his bullshit gets modded up and goes unchallenged. Sorry, but as tiresome as it is, it must be challenged. And I don't consider it trolling, just shitty politics and poor arguments.
Bullshit. Sure, there are whackos of every stripe and type getting their 2 minutes of fame and air time, but 99.99999 percent of the left is NOT supporting sharia in any way, shape, or form. If you really believe they are, stop watching FOX News for a few minutes and let your head clear.
Can you explain this, then? Funny how they made sure to exclude women who were pro-life, but at the front and center included a Sharia-loving, Islam apologizing, hijab-wearing woman.
Time to open your eyes. The left is filled with useful idiots.
The British government can in no way be described as lefty anything.
When it comes to criticizing Islam, the British government is lefty, or establishment left/right, since this goes back to Bush and "religion of peace".
Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud.
Wahhabism may be one of the worst, but as far as I know all major sects still have as official doctrine the basic idea that Islam must reign supreme and Jihad is an acceptable path to that, following the Quran and the example of Muhammad. Look, for example, at the Muslim Brotherhood, or the theocracy in Iran, etc. If you look at all the bloody borders where Islam is fighting for supremacy, you can't limit it to just Wahhabism.
Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else.
True, but it's still a real threat, and I'm not into self-inflicted wounds because "diversity is strength", "not all Muslims", and "all religions have bad parts". As long as the beating, black heart remains within Islam, I do not want to import more Islam.
The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories.
That's a failing of education, not a lack of significance. For all the tears and angst about the Crusades, they were minor excursions compared to the depth and breadth of Islamic expansion, including deep excursions into Europe, including the conquering of Spain.
So I'm supposed to care that you pretend you don't see it?
You can cite it or shut it. It's not my job to back up your claims. But if all you're talking about is criticism, and not trying to remove them from YouTube or prevent them from speaking at places like colleges, it ain't the same, because that's the topic under discussion.
Notice how you don't say you condemn right-wing violence. You won't even condemn right-wing deceits and frauds.
You're a real idiot. I condemn left-wing and right-wing violence. I was responding to the articles which you posted about right-wing violence, so I didn't specify right-wing, because it was obvious.
Do you want to hear about them before 9/11?
Still wouldn't come close to the body count of 9/11 by the Islamic attack, now would it?
Oh yes, here you go, making your accusation that somebody is intentionally importing violence and hate?
Islam is a hateful and violent ideology, and since we are willingly allowing Muslims to immigrate, and even being cajoled to allow more, then yes.
Oh, I can dump text too:
Dump it all you want, that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Jesus, as described in the Gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.
That's why Islam remains the most violent, expansionist, and authoritarian religion in the world today. That's why you can have "Piss Christ" displays in the United States, and nobody gets killed, but if you draw cartoons of Muhammad, you are attacked with guns, despite Christians being 70% of the population and Muslims only 1%.
By claiming I'm advocating neo-Nazis getting money from YouTube, when I said at the very beginning, "It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions."
On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places?
I don't see the right trying to get BLM kicked off YouTube, or preventing them from giving speeches at colleges, etc.
Also, case in point, here, by a user named Raenex. Who will never look at the right's actions.
I looked. I condemn violence. However, Muslims are like 1% of the American population, but their attacks our roughly on par with American militias, according to your source (counting, of course, after 9/11): "In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead."
But let's bring in more of this hateful ideology! I'm sure we can ratchet up the Islamic body count in no time!
Which political party tries to convince us that Islam is a material threat?
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
No you numpty, this is all about mega corps not wanting their adverts to appear alongside (and give money to) groups/videos that they think are sufficiently misaligned with their brand.
Because the leftist press is making a point to smear the political right by lumping them in with Islamic terrorists, and then try to hang it on corporations, "numpty".
That's because those two groups have similar goals and use similar methods in pursuit of the "pure" society of like-minded psychopaths that they masturbate furiously to in the privacy of their basements.
Critiquing Islam can get you labeled "far-right" and "neo-Nazi", while the left has Sharia apologizers leading women's marchers and thugs trying to shut down free speech, while embracing Islamic immigration.
Or are Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh just a couple of courageous "freedom fighters" in your twisted little world?
Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?
Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?
Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no?
What does that have to do with free speech on gigantic platforms like YouTube?
Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful?
Let's see, who is committing the violence and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.
Also remember every single Islamic terrorists is a conservative. They are all right wing. They all want theirs at over science. Now which American party also wants religion over science?
Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading women marches?
The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.
There is no bug push from "leftist agitators" to censor YouTube
Bullshit. It's the leftist mainstream media that lumps together Islamic terrorists with "far-right" groups, yet never talk about "far-left" groups. It's also the left that's been hell bent on "deplatforming" the right the past several years.
On top of that, there has been a huge amount of criticism on social media from the left because what Youtube has done is indiscriminate and affects many non-controversial videos (unless you consider make-up tips for trans women to be a problem)
Yes, they are only concerned when they get caught up in the net. That doesn't mean they aren't for the net. Just so long as it only applies to "hateful" channels, that is, those on the right.
And refusing to give you a platform is now genocide.
Who is claiming that? Oh, you, in typical strawman fashion.
Don't get me wrong, YouTube has fucked up royally here, but your claims are laughable because I can still go to YouTube right this second and watch neo-Nazis spouting off, or Carl of Swindon ranting about feminazis, or The Golden One living out his liberal murder fantasies in video games, and all still monetized.
How does that refute what is desired by the leftist agitators versus what YouTube is actually doing? The boycott came about because YouTube didn't sufficiently turn itself into a "safe space".
It's obvious to anyone with a level head that YouTube is just incompetent. You can't attribute any political or philosophical or moral motivation to their actions, because they are too inconsistent to be rational.
It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions.
Slashdot Mirror
There just aren't a lot of games coming out if you don't count download only indies. Gamestop's built off used games.
Which has been a ridiculous model ever since eBay came about. Why sell a used game to GameStop for a pittance when you can sell it on the marketplace and get fair value? I remember when I sold some PS3 games years back and getting like half-price for them.
Also sold the PS3 and got a good price as well, which was ridiculous because for a few bucks more the buyer could have gotten a newer model. I actually felt bad for the buyer on that one, but oh well.
Is there some reason you're posting as anon now? Or is that not you?
Fake news! Fake news! IOW, No you didn't. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.
Perhaps you should read more carefully. That post is in reply to you, and you replied to that post.
Nah, Breitbart is a thoroughly discredited source. [..] Find and actually credible source, or you're full of it :)
I gave you a Snopes source that addressed the topic head on, and did nothing to dispute the story. Did you even click it? Why didn't you respond to it?
The Snopes source also includes references, including to a Time article that says, "She enlisted veteran organizers Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour as national co-chairs with the aim of wrangling one of the largest Inauguration demonstrations in -history--and making it one that brought together activists of all stripes.".
The Tweets are a matter of factual record. So are the other sourced facts. Why does it matter if Breitbart reported on them vs anybody else? What sourced facts do you dispute? None.
Are you that afraid of the truth?
Whatever "this" is, it's on Breitbart, so it's about 99% likely to be utter bullshit. Possibly a small kernel of truth wrapped in bullshit.
Then prove it. What did they say that was bullshit?
But if you're learning your opinions and, uh, "facts" from Breitbart still then there is no hope for you.
And if you dismiss everything out of ideology, there is no hope for you. The Breitbart article is sourced. It's all fact. The tweets aren't made up, the national recognition from the Whitehouse isn't made up, and her organizational leadership and speech at the Women's March wasn't made up. Even Snopes couldn't manage a half-assed dismissal.
Bury your head in the sand all you want, the truth is out there, and ignoring it is part of the reason Trump got elected.
No imagination there, you just validated my statements, the problem is that you won't look, so you claim not to see it. Hence the impasse.
The impasse is you won't provide a citation in the form of a link, as requested, and as I showed by example for the authoritarian left. You've had no problems supplying plenty of links for other things, so obviously the problem is on your end.
Did you forget that Milo is on the conservative black list now?
So what? That happened before he was torpedoed.
But in case you didn't get it the first time, I'm not terribly impressed that Milo can hire agent provocateurs to create a disruption, but he's on the outs anyway.
Yeah, so Milo committed a felony and hired provocateurs to beat his own followers and burn property. I guess he hired these guys, too, right? You truly are an ass.
Milo's talks have been openly oppressed for a long time, by both faculty, administration, and students. Berkeley was the second time that it became violent (the first time involved a shooting during the talk).
You actually didn't respond directly to any of the articles' information, or show any effort to do anything except twist their content for your own purposes.
I condemned the violence, and all you could do was act stupid enough to say I wasn't condemning right-wing violence. That stupidity is all you.
In fact, there's too much stupidity to be arguing with. I'm three points in, and I'm arguing in circles with sheer pig-headed stupidity. You aren't worth my time, the rest of your post will go unread, and you will get no more responses.
No, I wouldn't even try to begin to explain anything found on the pages of Breitbart.
So the anon pegged your reply exactly. Not that I'm surprised, but you'd think you might try and not be so obvious. Breitbart's article is a record of facts, with many supporting links throughout. You've just got your head in the sand.
And so is the right, my friend. Neither has a corner on idiocy.
When it comes to embracing Islam, the left has it in spades. And you're one of them too, because you deny facts while carrying water for them.
I did. You denied seeing it.
No, that's just your imagination. This is all you wrote: "On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places? Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it."
That's not a citation of the right trying to get BLM get kicked off of YouTube or stopped from speaking at colleges. Learn what a citation is. Link to something concrete. Here's an example of a citation where the authoritarian left shut down the free speech of a speaker on the right.
I noted that you initially said nothing to specifically identify, acknowledge, and condemn right-wing violence
And you're still an idiot. I was responding directly to articles you referenced, said I looked, and condemned the violence. If you want to pretend I wasn't talking about right-wing violence then that's on you.
Oh? You were trying to make it a comparative, rather than asking for observations about it chronologically? Why?
Because my point was that the original comparison was deliberately chosen after 9/11. And even then the numbers are still comparable, despite that Muslims are only about 1% of the American population.
That's what you tell yourself. Unfortunately for you, the writers of the Constitution realized what harvest would come of such beliefs.
That Islam is a hateful ideology is a matter of record, based on the scriptures, preaching, history, and practices shown throughout the world today. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens wishing to immigrate here, and legally, both in law and in precedence, we as a nation have complete discretion in this matter. It will be settled after Gorsuch is seated and the Supreme Court overrules the activist judges that stopped Trump's constitutionally legal executive actions.
the way to address a problem is not exclusion, but suasion, instead
We can "suade" them over in their own countries instead of inviting a hateful ideology into ours. It used to be that Muslims invaded to take over a country. Now we just invite them in masses as "refugees".
Neither Jesus nor Muhammed are alive today, so their immigration status is moot. You might as well be lying about Nikolaos of Myra.
Burying you head in the sand doesn't change the fundamental roots of the religion and how people act on it today. All it does is make you a useful idiot to those following in the teachings and path of Islam and its warlord prophet Muhammad.
Oh my, except...you just brought up another example of the right's attempts at censorship and violence. I'm glad they're relatively incompetent at acting on their brutality, but I won't deny it exists.
So not a single example of violence within the United States, despite Christians being 70% of the population, over a display of Christ in a jar of piss, but there was attempted murder with a gun over some drawings of Muhammad, despite Muslims being only 1% of the population.
And of course, the Piss Christ guy was lauded by the elitists left, while the defenders of free speech were villainized for daring to break a Muslim taboo. *golf clap*
If you don't respond, his bullshit gets modded up and goes unchallenged. Sorry, but as tiresome as it is, it must be challenged. And I don't consider it trolling, just shitty politics and poor arguments.
Bullshit. Sure, there are whackos of every stripe and type getting their 2 minutes of fame and air time, but 99.99999 percent of the left is NOT supporting sharia in any way, shape, or form. If you really believe they are, stop watching FOX News for a few minutes and let your head clear.
Can you explain this, then? Funny how they made sure to exclude women who were pro-life, but at the front and center included a Sharia-loving, Islam apologizing, hijab-wearing woman.
Time to open your eyes. The left is filled with useful idiots.
The British government can in no way be described as lefty anything.
When it comes to criticizing Islam, the British government is lefty, or establishment left/right, since this goes back to Bush and "religion of peace".
Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud.
Wahhabism may be one of the worst, but as far as I know all major sects still have as official doctrine the basic idea that Islam must reign supreme and Jihad is an acceptable path to that, following the Quran and the example of Muhammad. Look, for example, at the Muslim Brotherhood, or the theocracy in Iran, etc. If you look at all the bloody borders where Islam is fighting for supremacy, you can't limit it to just Wahhabism.
Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else.
True, but it's still a real threat, and I'm not into self-inflicted wounds because "diversity is strength", "not all Muslims", and "all religions have bad parts". As long as the beating, black heart remains within Islam, I do not want to import more Islam.
The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories.
That's a failing of education, not a lack of significance. For all the tears and angst about the Crusades, they were minor excursions compared to the depth and breadth of Islamic expansion, including deep excursions into Europe, including the conquering of Spain.
So I'm supposed to care that you pretend you don't see it?
You can cite it or shut it. It's not my job to back up your claims. But if all you're talking about is criticism, and not trying to remove them from YouTube or prevent them from speaking at places like colleges, it ain't the same, because that's the topic under discussion.
Notice how you don't say you condemn right-wing violence. You won't even condemn right-wing deceits and frauds.
You're a real idiot. I condemn left-wing and right-wing violence. I was responding to the articles which you posted about right-wing violence, so I didn't specify right-wing, because it was obvious.
Do you want to hear about them before 9/11?
Still wouldn't come close to the body count of 9/11 by the Islamic attack, now would it?
Oh yes, here you go, making your accusation that somebody is intentionally importing violence and hate?
Islam is a hateful and violent ideology, and since we are willingly allowing Muslims to immigrate, and even being cajoled to allow more, then yes.
Oh, I can dump text too:
Dump it all you want, that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Jesus, as described in the Gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.
That's why Islam remains the most violent, expansionist, and authoritarian religion in the world today. That's why you can have "Piss Christ" displays in the United States, and nobody gets killed, but if you draw cartoons of Muhammad, you are attacked with guns, despite Christians being 70% of the population and Muslims only 1%.
By claiming I'm advocating neo-Nazis getting money from YouTube, when I said at the very beginning, "It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions."
On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places?
I don't see the right trying to get BLM kicked off YouTube, or preventing them from giving speeches at colleges, etc.
Also, case in point, here, by a user named Raenex. Who will never look at the right's actions.
I looked. I condemn violence. However, Muslims are like 1% of the American population, but their attacks our roughly on par with American militias, according to your source (counting, of course, after 9/11): "In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead."
But let's bring in more of this hateful ideology! I'm sure we can ratchet up the Islamic body count in no time!
Which political party tries to convince us that Islam is a material threat?
Islam has bloody borders:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
No you numpty, this is all about mega corps not wanting their adverts to appear alongside (and give money to) groups/videos that they think are sufficiently misaligned with their brand.
Because the leftist press is making a point to smear the political right by lumping them in with Islamic terrorists, and then try to hang it on corporations, "numpty".
Calling everybody who disagrees with "progressive" positions a neo-Nazi is not an argument.
That's because those two groups have similar goals and use similar methods in pursuit of the "pure" society of like-minded psychopaths that they masturbate furiously to in the privacy of their basements.
Critiquing Islam can get you labeled "far-right" and "neo-Nazi", while the left has Sharia apologizers leading women's marchers and thugs trying to shut down free speech, while embracing Islamic immigration.
Or are Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh just a couple of courageous "freedom fighters" in your twisted little world?
I'm not defending anybody of that ilk.
Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?
Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?
Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no?
What does that have to do with free speech on gigantic platforms like YouTube?
Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful?
Let's see, who is committing the violence and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.
Also remember every single Islamic terrorists is a conservative. They are all right wing. They all want theirs at over science. Now which American party also wants religion over science?
Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading women marches?
The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.
There is no bug push from "leftist agitators" to censor YouTube
Bullshit. It's the leftist mainstream media that lumps together Islamic terrorists with "far-right" groups, yet never talk about "far-left" groups. It's also the left that's been hell bent on "deplatforming" the right the past several years.
On top of that, there has been a huge amount of criticism on social media from the left because what Youtube has done is indiscriminate and affects many non-controversial videos (unless you consider make-up tips for trans women to be a problem)
Yes, they are only concerned when they get caught up in the net. That doesn't mean they aren't for the net. Just so long as it only applies to "hateful" channels, that is, those on the right.
And refusing to give you a platform is now genocide.
Who is claiming that? Oh, you, in typical strawman fashion.
Don't get me wrong, YouTube has fucked up royally here, but your claims are laughable because I can still go to YouTube right this second and watch neo-Nazis spouting off, or Carl of Swindon ranting about feminazis, or The Golden One living out his liberal murder fantasies in video games, and all still monetized.
How does that refute what is desired by the leftist agitators versus what YouTube is actually doing? The boycott came about because YouTube didn't sufficiently turn itself into a "safe space".
It's obvious to anyone with a level head that YouTube is just incompetent. You can't attribute any political or philosophical or moral motivation to their actions, because they are too inconsistent to be rational.
It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions.
Steve Jobs is dead. You can step out of the reality distortion field.
Nobody will give a country loans without concessions and Chavez won't give any.
Kinda hard to do when you're dead.
The Html5 canvas has been widely available since 2006
Is it more secure, or did they just move the bugs normally found in Flash to an even deeper level within the browser that can't be disabled trivially?
Yes, if you don't want your country flooded with illegal immigrants or Muslims, you are racist. *facepalm*