Oh no, whatever will YouTube do without Stefan Molyneux? Is there another creepy old man waiting in the wings to obsess about women's ovaries and eggs to fill this clearly-needed niche?
The political spectrum is actually a circle and not a line. The extremes merge into the same entity. Eventually you get to a point where the only literal difference is the colours of the flag.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Beyond his name, no idea who this guy is - but any of these edgelord people who haven't created their own platform/way to distribute their stuff outside of these social networks are failing IQ tests at this point.
Anyone who celebrates the censorship of someone they politically disagree needs to get their head checked.
Being banned from Youtube is not censorship.
That said, I generally agree that attempting to remove voices you don't agree with is problematic particularly if that voice belongs to an honest actor and not just someone trying to stir up ####. But where does one draw the line? I'm not a lawyer but generally speaking the law has determined that hate speech and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. Molyneux, and people like him, linguistically tip-toe the line with enough dog-whistling and innuendo for listeners to understand what he's saying while still allowing him to have plausible deniability, at least from a semantic argument.
If he was an honest actor that was willing to listen to reason and change his stance based on reason that would be one thing. But he is not an honest actor. He has made it clear that he is a bigot and his mission is to spread hate and misinformation.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Anyone who celebrates the censorship of someone they politically disagree needs to get their head checked.
Removing certain voices from the discourse is a good thing. There is so much noise in the signal right now that clarity will only be achieved by attenuating that signal and removing cross talk. There are messages and voices that are counter productive to society moving forward, and those are the voices we need to move the periphery or eliminate all together. Stupidity and ignorance have no seat at the table when searching for solutions to complex problems. We need to recognize that and celebrate when subject matter experts have opportunity to work on solutions and not be dragged into the depths of useless dialogue with neophytes and bomb throwers. If the voice is there only to sow disinformation and seeds of discontent, they have no reason to be at the table. People who have a history of lying, spreading disinformation, or have an agenda of harm, have no seat at the table and should not be granted access to an open microphone.
There is a cost to granting access to the market of ideas. The cost can be dramatic and lead to the downfall of individuals and countries. We are seeing that in the United States right now. We are literally seeing the nation wither and die on the vine because of the hate and lies being espoused. The cost is heavy and the country may never recover. If it does, it will never be the same. The damage is done and the institutions long held as the foundations of the country are the causalities. Do yourself a favor and spend a few hours watching these two documentaries. They are excellent in sowing the negative effects of disinformation and lies, both on individuals and on our society.
After Truth: Disinformation and the Cost of Fake News
The Brainwashing of My Dad
There is a cost to free speech. The cost should be credibility, and when you lose it, and the facts stack up against you, you should lose your seat at the table to discuss that issue. For example,White Supremacists have no seat at the table when it comes to discussing race relations and equality. So yes, I cheered long and hard when The Daily Stormer was taken down and that fountain of hate was finally silenced. That was a good thing as those ideas and values are not healthy. Their seat at the table was eliminated and their time at the microphone had come to an end. This was a good thing. I hope the trend continues and those with abhorrent views are never granted more than an opportunity to be heard once then ridiculed forever. Oh, and abhorrent views exist in all corners of the political sphere so this "censorship" as you call it can happen to all.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Anyone who celebrates the censorship of someone they politically disagree needs to get their head checked.
We're not talking about disagreeing over fiscal policy or whether private schools should receive public funding or the merits of government single-payer healthcare vs. free market insurance or whether the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment. Those are political issues where reasonable people can have polite disagreements. We're not even talking about whether one should be required to wear a mask in public during a pandemic or whether schools should mandate that all students be vaccinated or whether climate change is caused primarily by humans burning fossil fuels, issues where the scientific evidence very clearly supports one side over the other.
Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, and Richard Spencer have nothing of value to add to contemporary political discourse and the marketplace of ideas. They are not interested in debating in good faith. They are simply hate merchants who radicalize their viewers into believing that everyone other than straight, white, conservative men are "the enemy". As a private company, YouTube/Alphabet is under no obligation to provide them with a platform from which they can spew their bile. That's not censorship. Their right to free speech is not being infringed. The government isn't locking them up for anything they said. It's no different than when the moderators of CalgaryPuck ban posters with particularly heinous views from this site.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
When did the liberal ideal of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" change to "I disagree with what you say, and will censor and de-platform you to prevent further exposure of your wrongthink"?
Extremists beliefs need to be exposed in the light and denounced/mocked for the toxic ideals that they espouse, not forcibly relocated to echo-chambers in the dark corners of the internet where they will only fester and self-reinforce, not being challenged in any meaningful way.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FunkMasterFlame For This Useful Post: