“Investigations done by the Wall Street Journal and The Times have cost the biggest YouTuber and Google itself millions of dollars. It is outrage manufactured by the old media out of rational self-interest.”
“YouTube’s strict standards on freedom of speech…”…?!!…
These bozos pulled that one out of their arse.
YouTube will take a big steaming crap all over you, based on little more than how you identify yourself, and how you talk about certain topics…
…Incredulously…you cannot have a competent, real discussion on childhood sexuality or pedophilia…but you can spout off all the racist vitriol you please…Hell, you can run an outright hate and terrorism channel on YouTube [complete with doxing, character assassination and death threats], so long as it’s aimed at “pedophiles”.
YouTube doesn’t give a damn, so long as it’s not socially unpopular, or costing them in any way.
YouTube’s morals and ethics have been down in the sewer, for most of it’s existence.
The people behind YouTube are no champions of free speech…Nor are they good on human rights, or combating dehumanizing hate speech and terrorism.
The only reasons I am still keeping an account with YouTube, are because I have a huge collection on playlists [going back many years] that I’d like to blog about…and so long as I don’t directly talk about anything sexual, in anything but the briefest of vague passing comment, nor advocate much of anything…I can keep miscellaneous type videos on YouTube…And I enjoy making the occasional video, as much as anybody.
…I also have a general idea for creating a series, as a simple content creator…Someday, I just might start with that project.
But YouTube has had terrible problems with censorship, and it’s bizarre, inconsistent standards.
You cannot even make an authentic and thorough educational series, with regards to MAPs…or childhood and youth sexuality…But you can brazenly issue death threats against MAPs, on a whim…
…There is something deeply wrong with that.
…And for the record…when I talk about usage of YouTube, I’m speaking of it in the historically common sense…People who just wanted a platform to share their media on, and potentially interact with other people [possibly combat MAP stereotyping, etc.]…None of this AdSense, getting paid mumbo jumbo even factors into any of this…
…Literal activists don’t expect to get paid [or get popular] for anything they do.
…But it would be nice to at least get treated like a human being, on equal footing with everybody else…instead of the constant discrimination, YouTube is notorious for.
01) The Unjust, Irrational, and Unconstitutional Consequences of Pedophilia Panic
“The fear and disgust triggered by this subject help explain why laws dealing with sex offenses involving minors frequently lead to bizarre results.
Sounds like you enjoy sex with kids,” a reader tweeted at me after seeing a blog post I wrote about former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle. It was 2015, and Fogle had just signed a plea agreement in which he admitted to looking at child pornography and having sex with two 16-year-old prostitutes. “You also look like [a] pervert,” the reader added.
That’s the sort of response you can expect if you write about the broad category known as “sex offenders” and suggest that not all of them are the same or that some of them are punished too severely. In this case, I had noted that the decision to prosecute Fogle under federal law, which had been justified by factors that had little or nothing to do with the gravity of his offenses, had a dramatic impact on the penalty he was likely to receive.
It makes no sense to treat possession of child pornography more harshly than violent crimes—more harshly even than actual sexual abuse of children—unless you believe that serious harm is inflicted every time someone looks at the image of a child’s sexual abuse. In that case, a large enough collection of images could equal or even surpass the harm done by a single child rape, so that it could be just to impose a life sentence on someone who has done nothing but look at pictures.
Federal law enforcement officials claim to believe something like that, but it’s pretty clear they don’t. If they did, they would never condone the tactics that the FBI uses in child pornography cases, which include distributing it to catch people who look at it.”
“We’re taking back the narrative from people who use buzzwords and outrage to silence the rest of us who are trying to have meaningful conversation.”
Those sorts who do this kind of thing, can only advance themselves and their ideas, by creating disruptions and handicaps within the sphere of open dialogue.
This is why things have become so insane and extreme…
…The ideas and causes put forward by these people, are barely even being scrutinized objectively…because so many people are too intimidated, to stand in any perceived opposition.
Of course…this goes both ways…and extreme, right wing hostilities get no pass here…They’ve done an incredible amount of damage…It’s just that another extreme is in the spotlight, that’s spun way out of the realm of sanity.
No matter their political standings…it’s because to few of us stand up against these extremists who are trying to dominate the social sphere, that we end up with all this craziness, and usurped power…
There is a lack of healthy diversity, to temper their extreme viewpoints and agendas.
…This is why people need to set down together, and respectfully discuss social issues, with an emphasis on reaching a fair, honest consensus.
“Winner takes all” political ideology, does not work.
…Demonizing people of different persuasions, does not work.
Those things are based on a self defeating cycle, of unhealthy social ideologies.
We have to learn how to be livable with each other…and that’s just not happening, with these extremist movements.
Interesting video…Unfortunately, I’m only responding to one portion of it…
I have to question exactly how these social changes effect those intolerant of them…and whether or not these things are more hyperbolic, than substantive.
Humans have a tendency to blow things out of objective proportion, especially when considering social issues which position groups against each other.
Homosexual rights advances are given as an example in this video…
…Given the absolute hostility and intolerance sexual minorities have historically faced [and many continue to face]…you know that a lot of the resistance springs from people uncomfortable with social change…but people who wont really have their lives turned upside down, by the changes.
It’s mostly psychological, and wanting things to stay “as they’ve always been”…or, more accurately, how they’ve been perceived to be “normal”.
Of course…the cognition behind social push back is complex, and multilayered…I would not suggest, that no reason exists to be concerned about human sexual activity…or to expect some level of behavioral standards…
…But does that mean there is no social place for “alternative” sexualities?…or that such sexualities “should” be suppressed?
What is the path it takes, to justify that these sexualities have no right to exist?…in practice?…in speech?…maybe even in thought?
One of the fundamental problems with sexual politics…is that people are way to idealistic, to be genuinely honest…And I mean this, all around.
There are issues surrounding human sexuality, and the inclusion of previously prohibited practices…But they are not issues which will cause the world to implode…They are things which can be addressed.
They are not things to fear and scorn, to the extent that they cannot even be addressed.
That’s the biggest hurdle, right there…So many people just refuse to face what needs to be faced.
“When something is made sacred, it becomes incredibly difficult to think rationally and objectively about it. When SJWs create a group that they identify as ‘victims’ and this idea becomes sacred…watch out!
If you don’t agree, don’t follow along or even ask questions – you are the oppressor!”