youtube shut him down
good
https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-shuts-down-far-channels-over-hate-speech-011652766.html
Good
share
MovieChat Forums > David Duke Discussion > youtube shut him down
Why is it good?
shareWhy wouldn't it be good?
shareSuppressing speech.
shareA privately owned company has every right to suppress speech. Freedom of speech only applies to the government.
shareIt's still suppressing speech.
shareI didn't say that it wasn't, I just said that a company has a right to suppress speech based on their mission statement, company guidelines, terms of service, employment standards, etc.
shareThey may have a right, but that doesn't mean they should. I think YouTube should allow anyone to say anything. If people don't like it, then they can make their opinion known by not watching the person's videos. It's not like anyone is forced to watch anything on there.
shareYou know what? I just went and read YouTube's mission statement, and it's in contradiction to their terms of service.
This is their mission statement
Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.
So, I take it back. You guys are right. Youtube should allow them to keep their channels. I was just going by their terms of service.
That is a surprisingly reasonable reply.
There is another video service called BitChute that recently popped up that is marketing itself as a true free speech video platform. It is tiny in comparison but it will be interesting to see how they grow and develop over time.
What is unfortunate is the obvious hypocrisy of all the social media companies: As if by magic, it is always right-leaning creators who are in violation of the ToS and never left-leaning types, no matter how extreme their rhetoric is.
Boo hoo. No fair! Racists deserve platforms too!
shareNot sure if you're American, but if you are, and you quietly stand by while voices you don't like are silenced, then what is your recourse when someone comes to silence YOUR voice? You can't say, "But. . . But. . . First Amendment!" Because you have already demonstrated that you're not actually interested in preserving the protections of the First Amendment.
That's the interesting thing about freedoms. You have to be willing to fight for them all the time, not just when you find it convenient.
I'm an American and I see what you're saying. Often times people come on these boards to bait people into calling them racists. You're arguing in favor of freedom if speech which is a good thing. There are many actual racists that make these arguments on the internet disingenuousl. I'm fir free speech but I'm too busy to debate it around the clock so if YouTube wants to save us all the time in ok with that exception. But it's a slippery slope and I could be wrong.
shareIndeed.
Are you familiar with the work known as "First they came. . ."? If not, you can read up on its backstory, but one form of it goes like this:
"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Our freedom of expression is under attack in this country right now. At the moment they're coming for the white supremacists and the like. But there's no good reason to think they'll stop there. The sort of people pushing these attempts to silence voices will continue to draw the circle tighter and tighter until the only voices that are allowed are those that toe the line of the party orthodoxy.
"First they came for the white supremacists. . ." That's where we are at this moment. But in America, even the white supremacists have a right to speak, and it's incumbent on all citizens to make sure that right is preserved. Otherwise, upon what moral ground do we stand when they come for the rest of us?
I'm familiar with it. I suppose it comes down to what you believe is the bigger threat. White supremacists ' or speech attack's.
shareI think that white supremacists are no real threat at all. They are a boogieman largely created by the media.
I decided to run a little experiment recently. I live in a fairly large city and I looked to see if I could find a local chapter of Antifa (a group that I regard as an extremist group that is far more dangerous than "white supremacists") and I could. It was not hard at all. I also had no trouble finding a local BLM chapter.
But do you know what I could NOT find? Any kind of white supremacist organization. No KKK. No Neo-Nazis. Nothing. Not just in the city, but in the whole state.
These people are a tiny fraction of American society that have gotten blown out of proportion. You never heard any reporting about white supremacists and no one even really took the idea seriously until Trump was elected. Then all the sudden the media made it out like there's some powerful network of these people existing just under the surface, ready to do some great harm to the country. There is not. There are a handful of people who get on the Internet and talk shit and perhaps occasionally they'll hold a "national rally" that attracts a few hundred people.
In any case, even if there was a serious threat from Neo-Nazis or whatever, the solution isn't to try to strip away their freedom of expression. It's to use your own freedom of expression to call them on their bullshit. That's what's supposed to happen in a free and democratic nation. The best ideas should win out and rise to the top.
youtube & other social media giants are public forums & such never censor any type of speech
shareThat is simply not true. They do close accounts.
sharethey do, but they should never over anything related to free speech
shareFree speech is so misunderstood. Free speech protects you from the government, and there are even limits to that. Free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. Again, google/youtube is a privately run company with shareholders, and dictates the terms of services. If someone breaks the rules set forth in that contract, that company has the right to terminate the service. Its really no different than
No shirt
No shoes
No service
Normally I would agree with you, but he's a white supremacist who deserves to be shut down.
shareWhy?
shareLet's say there is someone who starts a movement saying it's okay to rape women and this movement starts to grow, it will create a dangerous society. Better to prevent it before it gets to that. I don't agree with silencing people like Jordan Peterson, but David Duke is just flat out hate.
shareDavid Duke says it's okay to rape women?
shareNo, it was an example. If someone said that, I wouldn't justify that as being free speech. The same with David Duke's views.
shareSo what views does David Duke have that justifies silencing him?
shareDavid Duke has not been silenced nor censored he is free to speak and the government has not infringed on his right to speak as a citizen.
shareAs the OP implied
YouTube on Monday shut down six far-right channels for violating rules against "supremacist" content, booting videos by David Duke, Stefan Molyneux and Richard Spencer.https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-shuts-down-far-channels-over-hate-speech-011652766.html share
As I stated the Gub-i-ment hasn't prevented him.
A private company has shut-him-down but he is free to exercise his Free Speech and get into lively debates elsewhere.
We're obviously discussing Youtube(various other social media platforms) silencing him and others. So the question is what views does David Duke have that justifies silencing him?
shareWe are obviously discussing David Duke.
shareWe're obviously discussing Youtube(various other social media platforms) silencing David Duke and others. So the question is what views does David Duke have that justifies silencing him?
share[–] JohnnyDoe (618) an hour agoSomething that Youtube has designated violates their Terms and Agreements:
We're obviously discussing Youtube(various other social media platforms) silencing David Duke and others. So the question is what views does David Duke have that justifies silencing him?
Prohibited Content
Your use of Google/Yahoo! Help Communities must comply with these policies:
Irrelevant Content. Topics and posts must be clear, concise, and related to support for the specific Google product that is the focus of that forum.Have you asked Youtube yet? What did they say David Duke said? share
Spam. Don’t spam the forums or create topics or posts with spammy content, including content or URLs that are promotional or commercial in nature, repetitive, unrelated, or excessive.
Nudity and sexually explicit material. We don't allow nudity, sexually explicit material, or content that directs traffic to pornography sites.
Harassment or violent behavior. We don't allow behavior that harasses, threatens, or bullies forum participants or anyone else. Harassment can take many forms including stalking, repetitive pestering of a targeted individual, profanity, and unwanted sexualization. Additionally, do not allow depictions of graphic or gratuitous violence.
Hate speech. We don't allow the promotion of hatred toward groups of people based on their race, ethnic origin or nationality, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or affiliation with any other protected group.
Impersonation. We don't allow impersonation of other people or companies or other behavior that is misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent.
Private and confidential information. We don't allow unauthorized publishing of people's private and confidential information, including credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's and other license numbers, addresses, or any other information that is not publicly accessible. Do not post or distribute images or videos of minors without the necessary consent from their legal representatives. Report a violation.
Copyright. We will respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. You may flag any copyrighted material by going to the Legal Help page.
Child exploitation content. We don’t allow content that exploits or abuses children. This includes all child sexual abuse imagery (even cartoon images) and all content that presents children in a sexual manner. We will remove such content and take appropriate action, which may include disabling accounts and reporting it to appropriate authorities.
Malicious or deceptive. Don’t facilitate the distribution of malware, viruses, destructive code, anything that may harm or interfere with the operation of the networks, servers, or other infrastructure of Google or others. Don’t facilitate the distribution of any software in violation of the Unwanted Software Policy or of any phishing or social engineering content.
Illegal activities. Keep it legal. Don’t engage in illegal activities, promote dangerous and illegal acts, or depict illegal activity. This includes content that facilitates the promotion or sale of illegal drugs or recruits or fundraises on behalf of violent extremist groups. We also don’t allow the promotion of regulated products or services, including alcohol, gambling, and pharmaceuticals.
User Profile. Your photo, display name, tagline, bio, and associated website and YouTube channel links (if applicable) must comply with these policies. Additionally, we don’t allow photos, display names, taglines, bios, or links that contain profanity, lewdness, racial slurs, or gibberish.
And that's suppressing speech/censoring/shutting down etc because of "hate speech", instead of refuting what is being said.
shareHate speech isn't even protected by free speech so why should it be allowed by private companies?
What is "hate speech", and what examples do you have of DD "speaking hate"?
shareFrom above.... We don't allow the promotion of hatred toward groups of people based on their race, ethnic origin or nationality, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or affiliation with any other protected group.
I do not watch anything that he's said on youtube, but you just have to look what he's said to see that there is a promotion of hatred towards non whites. I'm not going to copy any of his quotes here, because I don't want anything that he's said to be associated with me in any way shape of form.
If you don't see what he said as hate speech, then there is nothing I can say to you.
So what specifically has he and the others said that is promotion of hatred towards...? What specifically is promotion of hatred?
So you can't provide any proof that he has said anything that is promotion of hatred?
Again, if you cannot look at anything that he's said and see how it's racist and promotes hate towards non whites, then I don't know what to tell you.
If you really want to know, you can do a quick google search and see his comments.
Why are you trying to defend David Duke?
You can tell me specifically what is racist and what promotes hate towards non whites?
I'm discussing speech, silencing, deplatforming, censorship etc.
[–] JohnnyDoe (621) an hour agoHave you asked Youtube yet? What did Youtube say that David Duke said?
And that's suppressing speech/censoring/shutting down etc because of "hate speech", instead of refuting what is being said.
Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies, due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.As I said, this is not the Gub-I-Ment Shutting-Him-Down. It is a private company. If David Duke has an issue or feels wronged, he can Duke 😂 it out in the courts.
In academic circles, there has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.
Private RegulationMethinks he would protest too much and wouldn't have a leg to stand on. David is not entitled to have access to Youtube. share
AT&T aimed to regulate hate speech starting in the 1960’s, when various people and groups would connect tape recorders to a phone line and when anyone would call that line, the recording would play. These types of phone lines were nicknamed “dial-a-hate”. This technique was used by extremists groups like the Connecticut branch of the Nationalist Socialist White People’s Party and the Ku Klux Klan. These phone lines proved to be popular as a Neo-Nazi group in Philadelphia said they received 3,800 calls per week in 1973 and a Texas branch of the Ku Klux Klan used this method all the way into 1977. Some phone lines like Let Freedom Ring became popular shows that people would call in to hear a new recording every week, much like an early form of a podcast.
AT&T tried several times to end the “dial-a-hate” lines but phone companies and regulators said nothing could be done to shut down the recordings and courts protected them under the First Amendment. Eventually, AT&T required that the operators of the line identify themselves. Between this new AT&T policy and the growing expense of having a phone line, the “dial-a-hate” lines came to an end. Many of the groups found new and less expensive ways of promoting their agenda like sending messages through fax machines and digital bulletin boards. Eventually, the extremist group would spread their messages through the internet and social media.
In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes, but did find that "individuals have used telecommunications to disseminate messages of hate and bigotry to a wide audience." Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was through additional speech promoting tolerance, as opposed to government regulation.
So what specifically has he and the others said that is promotion of hatred towards...? What specifically is promotion of hatred?
They didn't provide anything specific he said, just the generic promotion of hatred?
The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes, but did find that "individuals have used telecommunications to disseminate messages of hate and bigotry to a wide audience." Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was through additional speech promoting tolerance, as opposed to government regulation.So we can conclude that: the best way to fight hate speech is through additional speech promoting tolerance, as opposed to silencing speech? share
[–] JohnnyDoe (627) 7 hours agoSo what we can conclude is that David Duke has no exclusive rights to access a private company's forum, bulletin board, platform, etc in a way that would violate that company's terms and conditions. 😎
So what specifically has he and the others said that is promotion of hatred towards...? What specifically is promotion of hatred?
They didn't provide anything specific he said, just the generic promotion of hatred?
David Duke is free to create his own platform, forum, bulletin board, venue, etc to continue to exercise his Free Speech without restrictions to content.
David Duke has no restriction on his Freedom of Speech and David Duke is not having his Speech Suppressed nor Silenced. share
No, we can conclude that various companies silence/supress the speech of various people because they don't like what they have to say, without specifying what they don't like, they just claim it's some generic promotion of hatred.
[–] JohnnyDoe (662) 16 days agoHow could you get that so, so wrong?
No, we can conclude that various companies silence/suppress the speech of various people because they don't like what they have to say, without specifying what they don't like, they just claim it's some generic promotion of hatred.
No, you didn't get it wrong you have an agenda to promote.
We, and I do mean we as in the large number of people who followed the situation objectively and unemotionally could reasonably conclude the following:
"David Duke has no exclusive rights to access a private company's forum, bulletin board, platform, etc in a way that would violate that company's terms and conditions. 😎👍
David Duke is free to create his own platform, forum, bulletin board, venue, etc to continue to exercise his Free Speech without restrictions to content.
David Duke has no restriction(s) on his Freedom of Speech and David Duke is neither having his Speech Suppressed nor Silenced".
share
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/07/cancel-culture-harpers-letter-free-speech
shareUnless you are claiming some type of "Slippery Slope" into non-disambiguation I couldn't find any mention of David Duke in that article nor does the rather wordy article justify why Duke should have some type of unfettered access to Youtube's platform.
The article still doesn't justify your inconclusive determination that David Duke has somehow lost his Freedom of Speech via non-access to a private companies' platform or that the Youtube entity is acting in a coordinated way to "Cancel" David Duke. From Youtube:
Your Content and ConductDavid Duke even has a mechanism for dispute and redress.
This section applies to users who provide Content to the Service. It defines the scope of the permissions that you grant by uploading your Content, and includes your agreement not to upload anything that infringes on anyone else’s rights. Key updates:
License. We’ve clarified the content license you grant us to make it easier to understand. We’re not asking for additional permissions and there’s no difference in how we’re using your content.
Duration. We have removed the right for YouTube to use your comments in perpetuity.
Removals. We have included a link to the tools you will need to remove your content, as well as a clear description about why we might need to take down content, and how to appeal removals.
Analyzing Content. We may automatically analyze content on YouTube, to help detect abuse and keep the platform safe.
Account Suspension and Termination
This section explains how you and YouTube may terminate this relationship. Key updates:
Terminations. Our Terms now include more details about when we might need to terminate our Agreement with bad actors. We provide a greater commitment to give notice when we take such action and what you can do to appeal if you think we’ve got it wrong. We’ve also added instructions for you, if you decide you no longer want to use the Service.
So, uh NO. David Duke doesn't have his Freedom of Speech encumbered by Youtube.
share
Did you read it?
share[–] JohnnyDoe (664) 10 hours agoYou've come to the wrong conclusion and asked the wrong question again. You meant to ask:
Did you read it?
Did David Duke read the article? share
That makes no sense.
share[–] JohnnyDoe (665) a few seconds agoMakes perfect sense. Did or did NOT David Duke read the article? share
That makes no sense.
Still makes no sense.
share[–] JohnnyDoe (666) an hour agoYou're relatively well read, know how to post links, you'll figure it out eventually.
Still makes no sense.
David Duke hasn't been silenced nor has his Freedom of Speech been suppressed. 👍 share
He does not get to post videos on YouTube, as in:
Libertarian groups, to their credit, have criticized much of this, but when it comes to censorship by the likes of Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit, there is a sudden quiescence. Despite such social media platforms becoming a de facto public square, these are private companies, note libertarians. This is simply the workings of the market. Their stance is simply, “If you don’t like what they are doing, then don’t sign their Terms of Service agreements.”share
[–] JohnnyDoe (667) 7 hours agoBravo you finally got there.
He does not get to post videos on YouTube, as in:
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service!
Posting videos on Youtube is not a Right and is just barely even a conditional privilege. But the ability of Private businesses to deny service and access under the guise of "We Reserve the Right to Refuse anyone" is what David Duke should be arguing against as maybe a form of discrimination against his political ideology? You know like Nazis getting permission to hold a rally and march in Skokie, Illinois legally and with protection?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/skokie-legacy-nazi-march-town-holocaust-survivors/story?id=56026742#:~:text=A%20large%20group%20of%20anti-Nazi%20demonstrators%20chant%20at,a%20possible%20future%20march%20in%20Skokie%20by%20Nazis.
But there is that little problem of getting a permit to post on Youtube that will extend the protection of his Civil Rights. 👍
share
And then there is this: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/07/cancel-culture-harpers-letter-free-speech
share[–] JohnnyDoe (670) 18 hours agoIf your point was just to bump this thread with a meaningless post of a link that was already posted.....
And then there is this:
Mission accomplished.
To which I will respectfully bid you adieu. I have expressed my point and you? share
Your point is to repeat that DD is silenced by YT and it's in their TOS?
share[–] JohnnyDoe (671) 16 minutes ago671 posts at this point in your life and yet you find it quaint to be willfully ignorant, obtuse, disingenuous, deceptive, deceitful, dishonest, false,
Your point is to repeat that DD is silenced by YT and it's in their TOS?
crooked, duplicitous, indirect, mendacious,
oblique,
two-faced,
uncandid, underhanded,
unfrank....
By now you'll notice that I left out synonyms for Disingenuous that would have made you seem clever or wily or artful?
No, you didn't?
Probably went over your head. I am making an observation and not criticizing you nor am I passing judgement.
I could Block you but methinks your Freedom of Speech would be negatively impacted or that you might interpret that I would be personally Suppressing your voice. 😂
Or was that your attempt at sarcasm or hypocrisy at your own expense?
Accidentally clever or something more sinister in the mode of linguistic minimalism? share
Is silencing/deplatforming/censoring/cancelling/banning speech the best solution against speech one does not like/speech one disagrees with etc?
share[–] JohnnyDoe (674) 15 hours agoAre you being compensated, paid, financed or incentivized for asking the same question repeatedly?
Is silencing/deplatforming/censoring/cancelling/banning speech the best solution against speech one does not like/speech one disagrees with etc?
Just curious.
Why aren't you getting the answers you seek, as it doesn't matter to you what any of the replies actually state?
Inquiring minds want to know?
Are you doing a survey? share
Why is silencing/deplatforming/censoring/cancelling/banning speech etc a good thing?
share"A private company has shut-him-down but he is free to exercise his Free Speech and get into lively debates elsewhere."
Yes, but the Mindless Masses will inevitably take that as endorsement of their own prejudices.
"See? Youtube shut him down, so he must be wrong!"
[–] Popcorny (1777) 16 hours agoIf the Masses are Mindless how could they come up with that thought and take that position? Do you speak "Mindless"? 🤔 share
"A private company has shut-him-down but he is free to exercise his Free Speech and get into lively debates elsewhere."
Yes, but the Mindless Masses will inevitably take that as endorsement of their own prejudices.
"See? Youtube shut him down, so he must be wrong!"
He approves the Nazi genocide of Jews.
shareWhere?
shareI don't have the article where he stated that he would approve it the genocide, but here is an article where he was arrested for denying the Holocaust.
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/david-duke-arrested-in-germany_n_1119010?ri18n=true
I don't know what's worse: that he denies that it happened, or that he approves their genocide.
So you have no proof "he stated that he would approve it the genocide"? If he denies it happened, can't it be easily refuted, why can't he question it?
shareHe broke the law. That's why he got arrested.
shareWhy should speech be against the law?
So you have no proof "he stated that he would approve it the genocide"? If he denies it happened, can't it be easily refuted, why can't he question it?
Why should speech be against the law?
Slander and libel are both are against the law even though some would consider it free speech. In a courtroom you can't tell a judge to shove the lawsuit up their ass or you'll get held in contempt. A CEO can't go up to one of their employees and say "show me your tits". Everything needs standards.
If he denies it happened, can't it be easily refuted, why can't he question it?
It's not like he's a flat Earther. He's inciting which is also illegal. share
Is the slander and libel based on fact or not? A judge sues someone? The company the CEO works for can have standards. Why should speech be against the law?
How/what is he inciting?
The Holocaust happened so in the case of slander or libel, it would be the same thing. He is denying the Holocaust, which is a fact, and therefore is illegal.
shareWhere does he deny that the Holocaust happened?
shareIn the article I gave you before.
From it:
"The arrest appears to be tied to Duke's expulsion from the Czech Republic in 2009, following his detention there on suspicion of denying the Holocaust, a crime in many European countries, including Germany. "
So where does he deny that the Holocaust happened(suspicion of denying the Holocaust is not denying the Holocaust)?
shareHere
'Did you ever notice how many survivors they have? Did you ever notice that? Everybody - every time you turn around, 15,000 survivors meet here, 400 survivors convention there. I mean, did you ever notice? Nazis sure were inefficient, weren't they? Boy, boy, boy! ...You almost have no survivors that ever say they saw a gas chamber or saw the workings of a gas chamber...they'll say these preposterous stories that anybody can check out to be a lie, an absolute lie.'
Where?
shareDo you have google? Or another search engine? Look it up
shareIn what context did he say that?
shareOmg, why are you defending him?
I'm not defending him, I would like to know what he said.
shareI gave you the quote of what he said. If you are that curious, stop asking here and go do some research.
shareThat quote is why he was shutdown by various social media and arrested for suspicion of denying the Holocaust? If so, where does it say that it is?
shareI just gave you a quote of him denying the holocaust.
I'm bowing out now. I don't want to invest any more of my energy on such a despicable person.
White supremacists love playing dumb and talking in circles to waste your time. It's one of their most common trolling tactics. I don't even bother.
shareWhy do you think I'm a white supremacist? What makes you think that the quote is meant to deny the Holocaust? What is the context of the quote?
shareNo, "he" doesn't say it never happened, just "him" questioning why anyone survived.
Where is the context?
..."he was arrested for denying the Holocaust."
Do you think anyone should be arrested for not believing something that everybody else believes? Or for being mistaken in their beliefs?
If I don't believe I killed someone because my religion told me that killing is impossible, would that be okay?
shareSilly comparison, Joe. For a start, what religion teaches that "killing is impossible"?
shareIt doesn't matter. Scientology has only been around since the 50s. What's to stop someone from hiding behind a newfound religion to justify immoral ideals?
shareNothing. But let's stick to the point. Do you think anyone should be arrested for simply not believing something that everybody else believes, or for being mistaken in their beliefs?
Example: Should a person who doesn't believe that the earth is round be arrested? Or should a person who thinks the earth is flat be arrested?
Only the Holocaust.
shareSo, you mean that anyone who doesn't believe the holocaust happened should be arrested? Simply because he doesn't believe it??
[Just to forestall any outraged accusations from dimwits, I'll just affirm that I do believe it.]
If I don't believe in the existence of Christianity, does that mean I can go by a church and not treat it as a holy place? Can I walk into a church with a devil costume? It sounds like it's inciting.
shareIf you don't believe in the existence of Christianity, you wouldn't understand why there are churches dedicated to it, and you wouldn't accept that those quaint buildings were churches.
If you don't believe in the truth of Christianity, you wouldn't regard a church as a holy place, but rather as merely a meeting place for like-minded people.
But the difference is that the Holocause has been well documented. Christianity would be hard to prove in terms.of the existence of God.
shareFirst you stated that one should treat "holy places" with respect, and by implication one should treat the holocaust with credence, because to do otherwise may be seen as inciting disrespect to those who believe. That's a fair point.
Yet now you're suggesting that Christianity, which is believed by millions despite never having been "proven" to them, isn't quite as deserving of that respect because you don't personally believe it.
This gets back to my first point, that a person shouldn't be arrested for not believing something that everybody else believes. Or for being mistaken in their beliefs. You know you can't be arrested for doubting the crucifixion, obviously. So why should anyone be arrested for doubting the holocaust?
At worst, a person who repudiates the holocaust is guilty of insensitivity and callous disregard. That's not a crime.
I'm saying that you can question a religion but still respect it. The Holocaust is documented and filmed.
shareThe Nazi rallies were filmed extensively and exhibited across Germany. Millions of Germans, watching the films, were moved to believe that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were saviours and would usher in a golden age for Germany.
But those Germans who refused to accept that belief were targeted, arrested, and sent to concentration camps.
Today, people who refuse to accept the fact of the holocaust, which was similarly filmed, are being similarly persecuted.
In Germany, one could be arrested for refusing to accept something that everyone else believed. And today in America one can be arrested for refusing to believe something that everyone else believes.
Displaying a Swastika is illegal in Germany because of things like Holocaust denying. Also, Nazi propaganda films were a thing. But as I said, I would only apply these laws to the Holocaust and not something like climate change deniers.
shareNot trying to be merely contentious, Joe, but I have to say I still don't grasp this concept of criminalising peoples' personal beliefs and opinions, no matter how mistaken they are. One may choose to doubt that certain other historical events happened, yet not be considered criminal for it. A good example is of atheists, who choose not to believe that an historical Jesus existed or was executed in a barbaric manner. Everyone is perfectly free to declare their scepticism about that event, and a great many do. And in more recent history, there are any number of significant events that are vigorously debated because some people believe them and others don't. I'd go so far as to say that most major events in civilisation's history have been the subject of arguments as to their true cause. Who, for instance, knows exactly how and where the present virus, which has killed so many, began?
My problem is with the term, "Denying". It is patently ridiculous to lock someone up for simply denying that something happened. The charge should be reworded. "Holocaust Celebrating" or "Holocaust Commemorating" seems to be more applicable and useful as a criminal charge. Flying a swastika is a tacit endorsement of the Nazi mindset and is reprehensible not because it is a denial of the holocaust, but rather because it is a declaration of belief in it, and a public celebration of it, and that is rightly considered a criminal offence.
But those who merely express a personal doubt about it are hardly approving it. How can they be, when they don't think it really happened?
Calling people "Holocaust Deniers" just seems to me to be a weak and shaky term to describe people who sincerely approve of mass extermination.
That's a dangerous line of thought. The very reason the 1st Amendment was even necessary was because some ideas were deemed too extreme or distasteful or politically inconvenient to be allowed. Once you start down that path, where do you draw the line?
shareThere has to be a line drawn with everything. There is a difference between "let's burn this place down", "we should burn this place down", "I think we should burn this place down" and "burn this place down". Those statements range from implication to inciting.
shareI'm not an expert on the life and career of David Duke, but I did read up about him a few years ago. To my recollection, he never calls for violence, and in fact does the opposite.
IIRC his position is that white people should separate and establish a homeland somewhere and just live amongst themselves peacefully.
If that's what he and his followers want to do, it sounds fine to me. People who regard themselves as being alike tend to group together anyway. My only concern would be where would they get the land. They can't rightfully just take it from people who are already settled, so that could be a real challenge.
In any case, I didn't hear him say anything that I felt shouldn't qualify for 1st Amendment protections.
Suppressing the dangerous propaganda of card carrying white supremacist terrorist leaders is apparently a bad thing to some people. I wonder what kind...
shareWhy, it's only speech, all you gotta do is argue against them, problem solved?
shareWow! You think? I don't know in what world you are living but it looks incredibly neat.
shareWhy can't you argue against speech?
shareBecause arguing settles nothing. Did you ever see someone change his opinion over the internet? The more you throw good arguments (even if they're true) at someone... the more the other person closes up and guards his initial positions.
Arguing on social media is absolutely useless.
Social media is useless?
shareMaybe if you had read the history books you would know that argument was laid to rest in the annals of history as one of the most epic failed ideas. There's nothing new to be discovered or argued there.
share[deleted]
Arguments/discussion is pointless?
shareOk. Let me explain this in a language you can understand.
Was Hitler right in exterminating the Jews?
Do you think that this question needs to be debated again?
Killing Jews was all that National Socialism was about?
shareYou can't answer every post with a question and expect people to continue engaging you.
shareI'd like to know if you think that killing Jews was all that National Socialism was about?
shareWell I'm not really part of this conversation. I think you mean you want to know what RickkT's thoughts are.
I'm just saying that I've been reading through the thread and noticed that you aren't actually providing any thoughts, you're just responding to everything with a question.
I'd like to know if you too think that killing Jews was all that National Socialism was about?
I ask why it's a good thing that DD was shutdown by YouTube etc, because the OP and others wrote that etc.
Does it ever give you pause that terrible people can be right?
Now I'm not inclined to believe David Duke has much to offer to the public discourse. But I remember the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War, which even Democrats reluctantly supported. Duke was one of the few "dangerous" weirdos openly speaking out against it.
But, we are not discussing David Duke's policies on Iraq war, is it?
The strategy of the extremists in recent years has been to get into popular discussions, arguing on the supposedly "good side" to make themselves appear rational and appealing to younger people or people not aware of their history or agenda. This strategy involves sneaking into the mainstream for cultural acceptance and then disseminating their hateful ideas bit by bit once again and thereby legitimising it.
"Hey! if I can be right be right on one thing, I can be right on others!" is the fallacy they are going for here.
What is his agenda?
shareGood ideas come from bad people. That's not a fallacy.
Duke is a sideshow. One of the strongest anti-war voices was retired Marine & UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He's also a convicted pedophile. Does that make him less right? It shouldn't. Because instead of arguing about whether war was a good idea, we argued about Ritter's resume. It was glib gossip. And thousands of people are now dead because of it.
I wish someone would just shoot him like they did George Lincoln Rockwell.
shareWhy is it good?? Eh, the guy is a total racist.
shareNot to worry there are no plans of YouTube shutting anyone else down, ever.
LOL
Free Speech and YouTube/Twitter/Facebook just don't go together.
Basically, they're psychopaths.
No, I don't like David Duke. I do LOVE my RIGHTS. And if you want to take them, FUCK YOU!!!
Good point! The narrative is being controlled.
shareDon't like the rules, don't sign up. Start your own far right friendly service.
No rights are being violated.
Check out BitChute. It's a free speech YouTube alternative that is starting to gain steam.
shareAnd isn't he a buddy of #45?
shareIf you have to keep crowing about free speech and the first amendment...
If the BEST thing that can be said about what you want to say is that you have a legally sanctioned right to say it...
Then that doesent say much does it.
It usually transpires that you're a hate speech spewing racist.