4 ms·

Okay, so first let it be noted that you linked a list of 15 bad examples and when I called them out you called me cherrypicking, then when I stopped cherrypicki

Okay, so first let it be noted that you linked a list of 15 bad examples and when I called them out you called me cherrypicking, then when I stopped cherrypicking your immediate response was "I don't have enough time to engage with all the examples". Jeez louise, you literally just asked for me to "open up tangents". I was satisfied summarizing your list as ridiculous garbage that made no sense. The reason we're still talking about it is because you wanted to. Okay, let's only talk about Kathy Griffith for some reason. The reason YouTube did not ban Kathy Griffith under rules for threatening violence is because: 1) The purported threatened violence was not threatened on YouTube, it was for a magazine. 2) The purported threatened violence was not a threat of violence, it was a depiction of violence. Those are not the same thing, but I'm totally fine with banning for the latter. You're the one that isn't fine with the thing you're arguing for. 3) The threat occurred at a time before YouTube put these rules in place. Updating your rules isn't being a hypocrite because you didn't time travel after doing so. It's also literally what the left has been asking for for years. But separate from that, your position was that the left didn't deplatform her, and unsurprisingly, it did. CNN, Home Of The Left Biased Anti Trump Fake News, fired her immediately. So great, it is agreed that celebrities face significant reputational consequence for doing things that aren't threatening violence but are adjacent and might be perceived as uncouth. Again, I need to stress that the person in the OP directly threatened violence. She didn't say "I hope the people who own YouTube get shot". She didn't say "If I was alone in a room with YouTube lady, I'd punch her in the face". She didn't do a music video of robot YouTube getting exploded. She did a direct and personal threat to murder a specific named individual. And you thought the really important aspect of this story was talking about Kathy Griffith. Let's recap the thread: You think that no one should be banned for threatening violence on YouTube. To support this argument, you link a bunch of people, some of whom were deplatformed, most of whom aren't threatening violence, and most of whom weren't doing the thing they're accused of on YouTube. You then insist I'm being uncharitable to the evidence by not taking more seriously the threats of violence, which again are mostly not threats, and again, you don't think we should take actual threats of violence seriously. You should advance the argument you actually believe in, not do a bizarre strawman devil's advocate where you say "I don't believe in banning people, but imagine if I did because I was a tyrannical anti-speech leftist, then I would be a hypocrite, because I wouldn't ban this anti-Trump celebrity, which makes me a hypocrite, checkmate".

leereeves 7y ago
I said it was a reasonable position, not that it was my preference. I'm capable of admitting that something that isn't my first choice is reasonable. But it's not reasonable if it's enforced unfairly. And the policy here at Hacker News is to consider the strongest version of an argument. You did the opposite, cherry-picking the weakest examples. > you linked a list of 15 bad examples No, a list (that I didn't make) with some examples that were stronger than others, and you tried to ignore the strong ones. Even you admitted that Kathy Griffin's actions led to deplatforming from some platforms. And you've again ignored the cartoonist who also depicted Trump's severed head. And you're dismissing talk about beating someone up because you disagree with them as an "off-color joke". You also misrepresented my position. > your position was that the left didn't deplatform her This is a discussion about YouTube's policy, it's natural to assume I meant YouTube, which I did. Again, respond to the strongest version of my argument, not a different argument that's easier to attack.
- drcongo 7y ago
  As a bystander here, it's almost impossible to work out what your argument actually is, let alone what the strongest version of it might be. It seems to be nothing more than whataboutism, like when a primary school child gets told off and their response is to complain that someone else did something entirely unrelated and didn't get told off.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Your simile is terrible. I'm not one of the parties, I'm like a third party who watched two children be treated differently and pointed out the inconsistency. And my point is simple: YouTube should have a consistent policy and enforce it fairly, not ban haphazardly when they feel like it. What you call "whataboutism" shows that the policy isn't enforced consistently or fairly. I don't know why that's hard to work out when I said it in the first post.
    - drcongo 7y ago
      Because you're talking about _YouTube_ having a consistent policy again, while providing a load of examples of things that didn't happen on YouTube. You're all over the place here.

leereeves 7y ago

I said it was a reasonable position, not that it was my preference. I'm capable of admitting that something that isn't my first choice is reasonable. But it's not reasonable if it's enforced unfairly. And the policy here at Hacker News is to consider the strongest version of an argument. You did the opposite, cherry-picking the weakest examples. > you linked a list of 15 bad examples No, a list (that I didn't make) with some examples that were stronger than others, and you tried to ignore the strong ones. Even you admitted that Kathy Griffin's actions led to deplatforming from some platforms. And you've again ignored the cartoonist who also depicted Trump's severed head. And you're dismissing talk about beating someone up because you disagree with them as an "off-color joke". You also misrepresented my position. > your position was that the left didn't deplatform her This is a discussion about YouTube's policy, it's natural to assume I meant YouTube, which I did. Again, respond to the strongest version of my argument, not a different argument that's easier to attack.

drcongo 7y ago
As a bystander here, it's almost impossible to work out what your argument actually is, let alone what the strongest version of it might be. It seems to be nothing more than whataboutism, like when a primary school child gets told off and their response is to complain that someone else did something entirely unrelated and didn't get told off.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Your simile is terrible. I'm not one of the parties, I'm like a third party who watched two children be treated differently and pointed out the inconsistency. And my point is simple: YouTube should have a consistent policy and enforce it fairly, not ban haphazardly when they feel like it. What you call "whataboutism" shows that the policy isn't enforced consistently or fairly. I don't know why that's hard to work out when I said it in the first post.
  - drcongo 7y ago
    Because you're talking about _YouTube_ having a consistent policy again, while providing a load of examples of things that didn't happen on YouTube. You're all over the place here.