"Gay sprite", "angry little queer", insinuating that his love for chips is equivalent to his supposed appetite for penises, the list goes on. Just cause he self identifies does not give bullies a free pass to use the same terms in clearly hurtful rhetoric.https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136057689585410050 …
-
1:25 -
That is true; you're right, he shouldn't have said those things, however are you aware of the differences between a web platform and a web publisher?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣 Retweeted 𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣
I'm not sure why it's relevant, honestly.
@TeamYouTube themselves said they were hurtful at the very least, which theoretically violates their own terms of service, which is the crux of the whole issue.https://twitter.com/The_CO_Atheist/status/1136741293382672396 …𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣 added,
𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣 @The_CO_AtheistReplying to @NoLogiclFallacy @mtraceyExcept their harassment policy literally states hurtful personal comments will be removed, and@TeamYoutube literally stated the comments were hurtful, (https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1136055351885815808 …) pic.twitter.com/8FtkvaRpwG2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
But you see that's part of a much bigger problem, YouTube is a web platform (to not get sued for every piece of copyrighted thing uploaded to the site) and this is pushing the line pretty far since, even though it is hurtful, doesn't break the first amendment
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
The issue isn't 1A, it's that they're refusing to do anything when presented pretty damning evidence of a large creator violating their own harassment policy, which they themselves admitted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
Yeah, I would think people in YouTube are also arguing a ton as well since they're harassment policy is so vague (in general) and is subject to change over time. For all we know, this could be perfectly acceptable language in 3 years
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
I mean, I guess we can re-evaluate in the future, but in the present, Crowder's actions seems to pretty succinctly fall into the definitions of toxic, demeaning, abusive, harassment, homophobic, insulting, etc. We have to draw a line somewhere, and it should be well before this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
In my opinion, YouTube should have just left the situation alone. Although what he did say was very demeaning, their involvement gives them a political bias due to these channels being so outspokenly left and right. All their actions did was lead to people losing their livelihood
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
Does a guilty man in court argue that he shouldn't be convicted because it will threaten his livelihood? If these people can't refrain from being toxic assholes, then that's on them. They should have the personal responsibility and self-awareness to better themselves as humans.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
Actually yes, a guilty man in court can plead for a lesser sentence, to the jury, if it not only affects his livelihood but also the people around him, like people he takes care of or family. If you researched Crowder you would see he's currently employing 10+
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Seems like those employees should have the self-agency to recognize just how toxic/tenuous their boss is and calculate the risks from there. I still don't see this as something that should be tolerated whatsoever just because some people are dependent on him.
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.