You tube banning supremacy and hate videos

[Kevin L]

The point is censorship. Vandalizing somebody property is not free speech, it is against the law. Saying I hate whites, of blacks or liberals or conservative or any other group, is free speech. If I walk into a black bar and spout the KKK mantra, I will probably get my butt kicked but I won't got to jail. When the voice of the people is silenced by censorship, not matter if it is for or against your political views, you have lost an irreplaceable constitutional right. Freedom of speech is the first Freedom to be stolen by government so they can steal the next constitutional right, to bear arms. Once the the public has been silenced and then disarmed, the government can and will do what every it wants, regardless of any moral or legal laws. Nobody will hear about these violation or be able to resist those in power. Yes, people must be accountable for their action but that accountability is not the result of censorship, just the opposite.

What would Dr. King or Gandhi have accomplished if they and been cast as hate mongers and all their work was censored and so nobody would know what they were trying to accomplish. You silence the opposition, not for the good of all but just for your own good. When you can't defend your position, then you censor the opposing opinion. Just another form of BOOK BURNING.

I agree.

As I said, I don't believe in censorship (except--maybe--during war, where communications should be monitored to make sure that information doesn't get leaked), I was only playing the devil's advocate.

One of my personal heroes is the late Carl Sagan, and he said: "The supresssion of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge."

 

[DrHenley]

"Freedom of Speech" is not the right to say things that are inoffensive. If that were the case then it would be totally unnecessary. The whole point of freedom of speech was the freedom to say things that DID offend people because their political/religious views were different than yours.

 

[Kevin L]

"Freedom of Speech" is not the right to say things that are inoffensive. If that were the case then it would be totally unnecessary. The whole point of freedom of speech was the freedom to say things that DID offend people because their political/religious views were different than yours.

I agree.

 

[Brent S]

The point is censorship. Vandalizing somebody property is not free speech, it is against the law. Saying I hate whites, of blacks or liberals or conservative or any other group, is free speech. If I walk into a black bar and spout the KKK mantra, I will probably get my butt kicked but I won't got to jail. When the voice of the people is silenced by censorship, not matter if it is for or against your political views, you have lost an irreplaceable constitutional right. Freedom of speech is the first Freedom to be stolen by government so they can steal the next constitutional right, to bear arms. Once the the public has been silenced and then disarmed, the government can and will do what every it wants, regardless of any moral or legal laws. Nobody will hear about these violation or be able to resist those in power. Yes, people must be accountable for their action but that accountability is not the result of censorship, just the opposite.

What would Dr. King or Gandhi have accomplished if they and been cast as hate mongers and all their work was censored and so nobody would know what they were trying to accomplish. You silence the opposition, not for the good of all but just for your own good. When you can't defend your position, then you censor the opposing opinion. Just another form of BOOK BURNING.

I feel that when an individual expresses an opinion it is his right. My problem is when these people are broadcasting it to millions to spread hate and discontent. I kind of feel the same way with the tobacco companies. If you choose to grow your own and smoke until you have cancer, well that is fine by me, I have an issue when you want to mass produce and market it to the general public.

 

[tmttactical]

Brent, if I understand you, what you are saying is if you agree with the product then it is okay to bombard millions but if you don't agree , then it should be censored. How very liberal and democratic of you.

 

[Brent S]

Brent, if I understand you, what you are saying is if you agree with the product then it is okay to bombard millions but if you don't agree , then it should be censored. How very liberal and democratic of you.

No, I think both the far right and left are equally nuts and hate filled. I an secure in my beliefs and ideals so when I hear someone rallying for a radical idea I take it with a grain of salt and see it for what it is. Unfortunately for many young and impressionable people it can have a mesmerizing effect and lead them on a lifelong radical path as well. As someone once said, the pen is mightier than the sword. Words do have real world consequences, and when left unfiltered can have horrible consequences. I’m not advocating for a government control on the media here, just pointing out that unchecked spewing of hate and extreme ideas is not a good thing.

 

[Kevin L]

I did find an interesting point that's relevant to this thread.

Youtube wants to ban hate speech....but at the same time, videos on how to make explosives from fertilizer, making boobie traps, how to freebase cocaine, and make methamphetamine from scratch are perfectly acceptable.

 

[JackDW]

I feel that when an individual expresses an opinion it is his right. My problem is when these people are broadcasting it to millions to spread hate and discontent. I kind of feel the same way with the tobacco companies. If you choose to grow your own and smoke until you have cancer, well that is fine by me, I have an issue when you want to mass produce and market it to the general public.

Brent, we just need to take your post a little further. Who determines who is doing the "Broadcasting to Millions". Everyday the corrupt media is spreading hate, lies and discontent regarding out President to millions and millions of people. If they shut down the conservative opinions then they also need to shutdown the other side which basically shuts down most of the liberal media.

 

[Brent S]

Brent, we just need to take your post a little further. Who determines who is doing the "Broadcasting to Millions". Everyday the corrupt media is spreading hate, lies and discontent regarding out President to millions and millions of people. If they shut down the conservative opinions then they also need to shutdown the other side which basically shuts down most of the liberal media.

I don’t feel the mainstream of either side is bad, but the fringe extremes are, on both sides.

 

[Brent S]

I did find an interesting point that's relevant to this thread.

Youtube wants to ban hate speech....but at the same time, videos on how to make explosives from fertilizer, making boobie traps, how to freebase cocaine, and make methamphetamine from scratch are perfectly acceptable.

That’s interesting. Can you really find drug use and manufacture on it, and bomb making? I thought that stuff was censured long ago.

 

[Kevin L]

That’s interesting. Can you really find drug use and manufacture on it, and bomb making? I thought that stuff was censured long ago.

You can find it if you look.

 

[Brent S]

You can find it if you look.

Somehow I think looking up how to manufacture drugs and make bombs just dosent seem like a good way to stay below the radar......
I did watch some videos about how to make rocket fuel from sugar, moonshine and potassium nitrate. Looked like a load of fun for me when I was a teen. We used to make homemade rockets all the time. With you tube now you can guarantee to kill yourself now!

 

[bigpaul]

but who gets to decide what is a hate video and what is just someone's opinion?
like the old saying " one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist".

 

[Kevin L]

but who gets to decide what is a hate video and what is just someone's opinion?
like the old saying " one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist".

I have to strongly disagree with that old saw about a terrorist vs. a freedom fighter being one's point of view.

A freedom fighter attacks military and/or police targets, while a terrorist attacks unarmed civilians. A suicide bomber who blows up a military barracks is a freedom fighter, while a suicide bomber who blows up a hospital or shopping mall is a terrorist.

In my definition, the USA has sometimes qualified as a terrorist nation. When we went into Panama to get Noriega, 75 innocent, unarmed civilians died for every enemy soldier that we took out, which seems inexcusable given our precise "smart" weapons that can hit a dime from a hundred miles away.

I would also define the destruction of Nagasaki (not Hiroshima) as a terrorist act.

 

[tmttactical]

Nagasaki was NOT a terrorist act. If you understood the Bushido code and the Japanese military, you would know why we dropped the second bomb. If the Emperor had not gotten his surrender publication out, we would have had to drop even more bombs, as the military did not want to surrender. Cultural thing, not terrorist or racist. Understand your enemy and history. Forget the P.C. crap.

 

[Kevin L]

Nagasaki was NOT a terrorist act. If you understood the Bushido code and the Japanese military, you would know why we dropped the second bomb. If the Emperor had not gotten his surrender publication out, we would have had to drop even more bombs, as the military did not want to surrender. Cultural thing, not terrorist or racist. Understand your enemy and history. Forget the P.C. crap.

I don't always believe in being politically correct....unless I'm trying to avoid a beat-down in a rowdy bar.

And I do believe that I understand Bushido--and what it means--at lot better than most people.....for reasons which I'd rather not go into.

I wasn't around in WWII, but I believe that we needed to show the Soviets (who were our allies, but also a potential future adversary) what we were capable of.

In a secret agreement, the Soviets agreed to side with us in our war against Japan after the Nazis were defeated, as the Soviets didn't want to engage different enemies on two fronts (a mistake made by Nazi Germany). At the time of the agreement, the Soviets explaoned that it would take four to six months to transport men, materiel, and other supplies across the vastness of Siberia, so they couldn't engage the Japanese immediately.

The japanese were on their last legs before we dropped the bomb, and here's the kicker: August 7 was when the Soviets agreed to fight the Japanese, and we dropped the Hiroshima device on August 6th.

I suspect that the Hiroshima device was sufficient to secure Japan's surrender, but we destroyed Nagasaki as a bonus....right on Russia's doorstep, as we wanted to establish who was going to be the boss after WWII.

This is why I tend to think of the Cold War as an extension of WWII.

 

[TexasFreedom]

One nuke is a bad day. But even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. 2 nukes in a matter of days is a wet-your-pants event. The japs had no idea how many more we could produce. But we showed that it as not a fluke, that it was a repeatable devastating weapon and they had no choice but to do an unconditional surrender. "Unconditional" is a really deep word.

BTW, we only had the materials to make 3 nukes. The first was tested in the US, killing several scientists who didn't realize the power it held. The second & third hit Japan. That's all we had at the time.

 

[tmttactical]

kevin L, if you understand the code of Busjido, then you should know that without the Emperors surrender announcement, the Japanese people --- old men, old women, children of both sexes and everybody capable of picking up any type of weapon, would have been obligated to fight to the death. The Japanese military were not convinced we had more than one bomb. Even after the second bomb they still wanted to fight and even stormed the Imperial Palace to prevent the Emperors surrender announcement from being distributed. The Russian were just trying to capitalize, as usual. MacArthur never planned to share any power with Russia, or anybody else for that matter.

 

[Robinjopo1]

Pinterest of all sites. I don't use the site and always thought it was about arts and crafts.

The new Project Veritas video put it all in a new light.

 

[grayghost668]

censorship ,,it will never be fairly done,so read or watch what you want to ignore the rest,,,,,,,,,,,,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIME EXAMPLE

I used to watch Saturday Night Live but all the Trump bashing pisses me off so I will never watch it again or any who take part in it,,,,,,

the left feels it's ok to do this,,,I wonder how that show would have been perceived if the show had been anti Obama??????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if I had control I would pull the plug on the show and black ball everyone who was a part of it

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTT,,,,,,I have no say in it so I just don't watch