to both stand up against homophobia AND stand up against YouTube's absurd overreaction punishing others. Michael--straight up...you're wrong and offensive in this particular situation.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @JordanChariton
Jordan, you fumbled this one...I would think you would know better after how identity politics was used to sabotage your work at tyt, costing who knows how many lives? Google doesn't care about gays' feelings. This is about censorship, just like your experience was.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeArr1
Sorry---being against homophobia and harassment isn't "identity politics." That's a false equivalence. Steven Crowder has every right to be a bigot. But there's no guaranteed right to profit off of that. That is a completely different thing from YouTube's insane reaction.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton
Letting a billion dollar company use demonetization is a way to force off most dissident content. And fighting homophobia and racism, etc. is the definition of identity politics...and there is nothing wrong with it unless it used to do things like cennsorship
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeArr1
no--identity politics is USING ones identity to achieve political goals. The Vox reporter did not ask to be harassed by Steven Crowder. He did not create the situation.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton @JoeArr1
You can be two things 1) For Steven Crowder being demonetized if he wants to be a bigot and harrass people (doesn't matter to me that it's a journalist he's doing it toward or a nobody) 2) Fight YouTube on blanketing and screwing other innocent people because of it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton
What if this unelected anonymous department in Google decides BDS is hate speech, or says calling Kissinger a war criminal is harassment? I would rather take my chances or getting offended occasionally than losing what little freedom the internet has left.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeArr1
You can create "what ifs" for anything. I think YouTube and Google are out of control via censorship and I share your concerns (trust me we have been suppressed worse than most). But that doesn't mean a unilateral FUCK IT let hosts be BIGOTS and HARASS individuals. I think folks
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton @JoeArr1
like you are so focused on the indiscriminate censorship (bad, we should fight it) that you're losing sight that the open bigotry and harrassment is not really debatable. When a host is calling individuals "fags" or "queers" or other slurs....it's not really a grey area. That IS
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton @JoeArr1
offensive and hate-speech. There is NO blanket first amendment right to PROFIT off of hate-speech. Their is a right to SAY hateful and bigoted things---but nowhere are you guaranteed to profit. If I go live today and start calling black people the N-word or Latinos slurs or
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
mentally challenged individuals slurs...I WOULD EXPECT TO BE DEMONITIZED because I'm on a private platform and that would be hateful speech by me. I don't see why you don't understand that.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.