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.
-
-
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
and by the way...Crowder IS NOT CENSORED. He is still on YouTube free to say the same bigoted stuff. He just is not being allowed to PROFIT from it. Those are two different things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton
If you deny monetization, you are pushing all most all independent content off the net that doesn't have corporate sponsorship. If you can't make a living at it, you can't really put the time into it to make it worthwhile.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeArr1
WE AGREE ON THIS POINT. That's why I have said the problem IS NOT demonitizing someone like Crowder for bigotry and harrassment (he should be). It's YouTube then using it as an excuse to target others. The fight must be against YOUTUBE FOR DOING THAT...not to say
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton @JoeArr1
"don't punish a bigot and harasser because it might make YouTube lash out at others." You can be 1) For penalty for bigots as far as taking away their right to profit off of bigotry 2) Fight YouTube for censoring others indiscriminately it's not complicated!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton
It's complicated because no one has able been able to agree on the definition of bigotry. The cost benefit analysis between occasionally being offended by bigots and surrendering freedom of speech to an unelected department of Google is a no brainer...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeArr1
Grouchy Goose....it's not complicated. Wearing "socialism is for fags" shirts and attacking an individual as "queer" and a "fag" while broadcasting to hundreds of thousands of people...IS BIGOTRY. You and Michael Tracey can twist yourself into a pretzel to minimize it as simple
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"mockery" or "ridicule" but....it's not. Go to San Francisco or other places and see the monuments to gay men and women killed or maimed for being gay. It is bigotry and it is violence. To call that "playing identity politics is outrageous."
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.