Enabling what, a right to free speech. He wasn't rallying people to cause harm unlike Carlos and was expressing his viewpoint. He has that right, and YouTube isn't enabling him, he uploads on their platform and receives money for the audience he brings in. That's it!
-
-
Replying to @MilkiestMan @MegaRobot2798 and
Oh my. If you don't understand that using gay slurs is a insight to violence you obviously need to educate yourself. LGBTQIA+ are actively being killed, here in the US. This language which dehumanizes drives exactly that behavior. You know this. If you don't educate yourself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AMaterialistGrl @MegaRobot2798 and
Wow what a fucking assumption. First off, no. A slur doesn't insight violence so and stop reaching. Also nice way of avoiding the fact that Carlos has outright asked for violence. You only defend him because you relate to his situation.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MilkiestMan @MegaRobot2798 and
I want to be clear, I reject the idea that throwing anything at anyone is a valid form of political discourse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AMaterialistGrl @MegaRobot2798 and
And yet you defend a person that publically enticed this sort of behavior and (to my knowledge ateast) still hasn't deleted it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MilkiestMan @MegaRobot2798 and
I have not defended anyone, I have not once defended anything that Crowder's victim has done, but rather I am saying that the actions of Crowder are in and of themselves worth of the actions Google has taken, and more. Stop changing the subject.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AMaterialistGrl @MegaRobot2798 and
That is a fair point. I suppose I have jumped the gun in assuming you were defending him, and yes Google is in a position where they can terminate him if need be. Problem is, he didn't break any ToS and removing him for his words is blatant censorship.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MilkiestMan @MegaRobot2798 and
It's not censorship because they are not a government, they are a private company and at best it is an editorial decision. I think its pretty debatable that he broke TOS. The language used can be seen as inciting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AMaterialistGrl @MegaRobot2798 and
I disagree fundamentally. Provocative language is very easy to spot out and stereotypically if you have to debate it, it's not provocative. And whether they are a private company or not, it is still censorship regardless, only difference is they are entitled to do so.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MilkiestMan @MegaRobot2798 and
I concede the point that it is censorship, I was wrong there. Crowder's language is in my mind unacceptable in our society, we can and must do better. Using intentionally harmful language is base discourse, for the sake of shock and harm. We disagree, but thank you for the dialog
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
As much as I disagree, it was fun to discuss. For the sake of my fingers I wish you a good day.
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.