The Great Debate
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Well, thank goodness that a Youtube video isn't government.Mike Fang said:
(There's absolutely nothing wrong with censorship in a private setting... nothing.)
OT: I love the guy's expression in the last panel. It depicts so much.
I suppose I'm a little bitter at being pushed into line with every last douche bag that told her to go get raped.Phasmal said:
I can see that, but surely you don't think her seeing your one specific civil opinion is so important that she must put up with death threats?erttheking said:
I don't blame her, people are free to, but at the end of the day that's what she's going to do.
Some people are saying that the good comments will be voted on and find their way to the top. That's cute.
I don't know, as someone who posts content onto the internet myself, part of the process is having to deal with jackasses. I have had to deal with jackasses in the past, to the point where I've ended up banning a couple from commenting on my work, not as many to be honest, but I'm just saying that putting up a video series with no way for her to get feedback seems a wee bit pointless. Not to mention she took it an extra step and disabled ratings. Not to mention other people have gone through this stuff in the past, TotalBiscuit actually got stress related illness from his youtube comments but he didn't disable them, he just doesn't read him and he has his wife and friends comb through them looking for comments that they think he'll actually want to see.Phasmal said:
All I can say is, if you think disabled YouTube comments are "stifling free speech" or "hurting the discourse", then you need to spend less time on the internet. It's like Major Kusanagi said, overspecialization breeds weakness. Get over it, or go find one of the fifty-fucking-billion other places on the internet where you can discuss things.
Yes, you have had to deal with jackasses, but you have not had a massive hate campaign against you. It's not just `what comes with the internet` and it's not okay.erttheking said:
Like I said, feel free to disagree with her decision, but after all that- fuck, I would have done the same thing.
Freedom of speech means being able to say (most) anything you want without having to fear physical retaliation, either through attack or detention.
It does not mean the right to always be heard. I may think t's my right that the president be personally appraised of every opinion I have, but that is false. You can say whatever you like through any channel available to you. That doesn't mean people need to provide you one, or listen to a word that comes out of your stupid face.
It does not mean the right to always be heard. I may think t's my right that the president be personally appraised of every opinion I have, but that is false. You can say whatever you like through any channel available to you. That doesn't mean people need to provide you one, or listen to a word that comes out of your stupid face.
Wait, do you feed booze or model dinosaurs to robots? Or are they models of robots? Or do you feed the robots to model dinosaurs? Or is it all three?Daystar Clarion said:
OT: Is it censorship? Maybe, but then again the same tired "debates" are readily available for thousands of other videos, I'm not sure there's any need for more, and they just distract from the topic of the video. I'd probably disable comments if it got out of hand. Can you do that retroactively?
I do not get it. If one posts a youtube video with the comment section disable, it doesn't mean that one killed the debate. You have the WHOLE internet to share your ideas on the topic: you can upload a video to not only youtube, but vimeo and other media sharing sites, you can discuss it here on the Escapist Forum, you can blog about it and so on...
It seem that people get personally offended by that woman's action of not listening (which is not totally true, cause you can still try to PM her or send her an email), and totally dismiss REAL debate: objectification of women on mass media.
Even if she was just dismissing opposing arguments to her point of view, it shouldn't matter that the one that 'started' this instance of the debate listen to what you have to say, but rather that the debate itself goes on...
I don't need to talk to Richard Dawkins to discuss his ideas on secular societies or talk to William Craig to disagree with his view on the origins of the universe and god, but it is important to think about those issues and address them in some way.
Saying one has killed the debate by only disabling comments in a video is, IMO, ridiculous.
It seem that people get personally offended by that woman's action of not listening (which is not totally true, cause you can still try to PM her or send her an email), and totally dismiss REAL debate: objectification of women on mass media.
Even if she was just dismissing opposing arguments to her point of view, it shouldn't matter that the one that 'started' this instance of the debate listen to what you have to say, but rather that the debate itself goes on...
I don't need to talk to Richard Dawkins to discuss his ideas on secular societies or talk to William Craig to disagree with his view on the origins of the universe and god, but it is important to think about those issues and address them in some way.
Saying one has killed the debate by only disabling comments in a video is, IMO, ridiculous.
Its not censorship, they are completely free to make a forum thread somewhere where they can say how horrible or great your video is. If i build a house, people can complain all they want, but they are not allowed to spray paint cocks on it.Mike Fang said:
Its only actually censorship if you delete comments you don't like/agree with while keeping the praise. Of course, the parasites on youtube complain if you delete comments that are just strings of profanity with no purpose, people don't understand that if you want freedom of speech, then you are responsible for the crap that comes out of your mouth. Blocking comments is actually doing them a favor, this way they aren't burdened with their complete incompetence being displayed for eternity.
And the minute Youtube becomes free you will have a point.rembrandtqeinstein said:
Until then, you're not talking about a forum for free speech in the first place, so lolfreespeechandcensorshipclaims, I guess.
It's nice that you want some sort of platform for intelligent discussion, but trying to force it on Youtube is like trying to get a panda to mate with a BMW. Fruitless, and probably frustrating for the panda as well.
But fine, we'll play it your way. Part of freedom is freedom of determination. If we are talking a truly free forum (though we are not), then people should absolutely have the right, nay the obligation to determine the channels by which they are interacted with. Why do you oppose others' freedom, rembrandtqeinstein?
I honestly can't blame them for not wanting to be laughed at openly.1337mokro said:You have CLEARLY never wandered onto a Creationist channel have you?
Except it's more than just jackasses in some people's cases, and it's pretty disgusting to see that downplayed because you've dealt with a couple trolls or whatever.erttheking said:
Hmmm...The Amazing Atheist's histrionic response and Thunderf00t's response keep showing up in my recs. Apparently, a few people have figured out how to talk about this (I shudder at the thought that either of these count as "debate"). What sorcery is this?????erttheking said:
You know.
I don't really love Anita. I'll listen to her, but she... frustrates me sometimes.
And yet, even I think the notion of disabling comments = 'silencing debate and discourse' is a load of crap.
Why?
Because... that notion is stated, usually, within threads discussing her and her videos. Which whenever a thread about Anita is brought up, (especially on the escapist) drag on for over a dozen pages. Every time.
So yeah. 'Censorship/Silencing discourse" my ass.
I don't really love Anita. I'll listen to her, but she... frustrates me sometimes.
And yet, even I think the notion of disabling comments = 'silencing debate and discourse' is a load of crap.
Why?
Because... that notion is stated, usually, within threads discussing her and her videos. Which whenever a thread about Anita is brought up, (especially on the escapist) drag on for over a dozen pages. Every time.
So yeah. 'Censorship/Silencing discourse" my ass.