[nickrulercreator]

Removed for hate speech and violation of YouTube terms/conditions. It’s about time.

[Antithecystem]

Hate Speech?
You hate free speech!
His channel was removed because Nasa, the scientific extremists and ZOG can't stand having their propaganda and dubious claims challenged.

[ransom]

I am glad I watched some of them before they were removed. I am sure he will bring them back online under a different account.

[nickrulercreator]

Hate Speech?
You hate free speech!
His channel was removed because Nasa, the scientific extremists and ZOG can't stand having their propaganda and dubious claims challenged.

You're probably joking but just in case, he was a Nazi apologist.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm a bit torn about this.

On one hand, it's no secret I dislike Dubay. I'm not a fan of the Nazi/racist stuff, and I'm not a fan of that one time he came over here and demanded that we hand everything over to him. I also disagree with his perspective on the Flat Earth Theory.

But on the other hand, it's a shame that a free-thinker was silenced. I kind of wish we could have it both ways - keep his FE stuff (whether we agree with him or not is one thing, whether or not he should be able to say it is another), while getting rid of the deplorable bits.

Oh well, I'm sure he'll find a way to carry on doing his thing.

[devils advocate]

Yeah it's more complex than it might first appear.....

Why are people of Jewish faith allowed to say they are God's chosen race, they deserve Jerusalam and they can treat the Arab's in their country as second class citizens but the Nazi parallels of aryan race, land expansion and treatment of non-aryans is evil?

It's either free speech or not, you can't pick who has the freedom.

That said...........if I owned a worldwide media platform like YouTube and had some bellend spouting all that bullshit on it I'd probably pull the rug from under his feet too 

[Antithecystem]

Hate Speech?
You hate free speech!
His channel was removed because Nasa, the scientific extremists and ZOG can't stand having their propaganda and dubious claims challenged.

You're probably joking but just in case, he was a Nazi apologist.

I'm not a Nazi Apologist, althou sometimes I wonder if the Third Reich was really as bad as mainstream historians and media claims.

Every individual and group, no matter how abhorrent, should have their speech protected, not just including Nazi Apologists, but especially Nazi Apologists...and anarchists, and communists, and scientologists, and other groups our society despises.

[Roger G]

It's a matter of degree and how much is acceptable as free speech and stating an opinion, as against making false claims and faking evidence as the truth and spreading it globally. There seems to be some sort of idealistic idea that people can make up their own minds, but clearly that is frequently not the case as people can and do band together in mindless groups following the herd.

Just supposing you stopped in the street to ask your neighbour's 8 year old daughter if she was enjoying her new school and could your own 8 year old daughter play with her as you have just moved into the area? Another neighbour saw this exchange from the window and started telling other residents that you could be a paedophile. The rumour spreads around the neighbourhood and soon your picture appears on an anti paedophile website hate mail arrives in your mailbox, then groups of people with placards start to gather outside your house chanting 'Get the Paedophile' and very other hate slogans.

You could of course smile and say that there is freedom of speech and they are entitled to their opinion, but like I said there are degrees of freedom of speech and sometimes it can be very dangerous.

Roger

[Tom Haws]

Roger, that was a great hypothetical. (Now why doesn't Simple Machines Forum just add a "Like" button so I don't have to clutter the thread?)

[Roger G]

Roger, that was a great hypothetical. (Now why doesn't Simple Machines Forum just add a "Like" button so I don't have to clutter the thread?)

It just makes me angry Tom that people use the 'freedom of speech' get out, to justify abuse, indoctrinating and bullying of others,some of whom may be very vulnerable.

Roger

[Pete Svarrior]

Roger, that was a great hypothetical.

Can I please ask you to follow the most basic of netiquette? A couple of quick references:

Avoid posting "Me Too" messages, where content is limited to agreement with previous posts. Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.

Avoid repetition. If another student posts a message making a point with which you agree, resist the temptation to post lots more messages saying 'Me too' or 'I agree'. You should always say more, perhaps explain why you agree, or bring more evidence to support your position. Equally, if you disagree, explain why.

If you really feel the need to express agreement with someone without contributing anything else, just send them a PM. However, consider the fact that if they're a grumpy git like me, they might only find it annoying.

Now why doesn't Simple Machines Forum just add a "Like" button so I don't have to clutter the thread?

This already exists. We deliberately avoid using a karma system (or anything similar), because it can easily become a contributing factor to discussions degenerating. Consciously or not, people start engineering their posts to be more popular, rather than to simply express their thoughts. Reddit is a good example of that. Back when we experimented with an FES subreddit, a post along the lines of "EARTH IS ROUND XD I SURE SHOWED THEM" would easily earn more karma than a well thought-out argument for either side.

[Antithecystem]

@Roger

It's a matter of degree and how much is acceptable as free speech and stating an opinion, as against making false claims and faking evidence as the truth and spreading it globally.

It shouldn't be up to government, historians or media to determine what's false, it should be up to individuals.

There seems to be some sort of idealistic idea that people can make up their own minds, but clearly that is frequently not the case as people can and do band together in mindless groups following the herd.

Government, historians and media lie and make mistakes.

Governments become authoritarian, often under the guise of protecting us.

In a liberal democracy, it's our duty to be critical and scrutinize our institutions.

You're basically saying government and the intellectuals it allies itself with are the authority.

You have everything topsy-turvy, we're the authority, they're our servants.

Just supposing you stopped in the street to ask your neighbour's 8 year old daughter if she was enjoying her new school and could your own 8 year old daughter play with her as you have just moved into the area? Another neighbour saw this exchange from the window and started telling other residents that you could be a paedophile. The rumour spreads around the neighbourhood and soon your picture appears on an anti paedophile website hate mail arrives in your mailbox, then groups of people with placards start to gather outside your house chanting 'Get the Paedophile' and very other hate slogans.

You could of course smile and say that there is freedom of speech and they are entitled to their opinion, but like I said there are degrees of freedom of speech and sometimes it can be very dangerous.

The only time I'd restrict speech is when people are threatening an individual or group, or perhaps falsely claiming there's an immediate threat, classic example: someone yelling bomb in a movie theater, other than that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

As far as I know, Eric Dubay wasn't threatening anyone.

Now he may support some ideas about Jews that could lead to a few individuals threatening them, but that wouldn't be his fault, or the fault of his speech.
Fundamentally we're not children, and we shouldn't be treated as such.
Speech itself isn't responsible for what people do, people are.
Speech itself doesn't kill people, people do.
I'm not going to let a few idiots who commit violence ruin free speech for everyone.
Ultimately it's a small price to pay for sovereignty over my own consciousness, if you really value sovereignty.

[Roger G]

'You're basically saying government and the intellectuals it allies itself with are the authority'.

Why are you making up this nonsense? I didn't say that at all, it's simply you interpreting what I said in a way that fits in with your own ideas of a free society. People vote for who they want to represent them, they form a government, and the government and judiciary make laws. If the people, (that includes you by the way), don't like what their own elected representatives are doing, they can vote in someone else instead. In a democracy, it's who the majority vote for that gets in. That's why you got Trump! Of course those that didn't get who they voted for because they were the minority, have to put up with it until next time.

When it comes to freedom, people have the right to be free of harassment, prejudice and bullying just as much as the right to free speech, but you have to have rules and laws that stop it getting out of hand. There was a famous Briton, a much decorated WW2 pilot who once said, 'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of the blind'. Without rules you have anarchy!

'Speech itself doesn't kill people, people do.'

There is another well known saying: 'The pen is mightier than the sword.' A very true saying for both good and evil! If you spout enough rubbish at ill informed and ill educated people they will believe virtually anything, let me tell you a tale.
In the coastal town of Hartlepool in the UK back in the days of the Napoleonic wars, there had been years of propaganda and newspaper cartoons of Napoleon and the French people being satirised as Monkeys and subhuman. One day, the people of the town flocked to the seashore as a French ship was sinking just off the coast and amongst the floating wreckage they found the only survivor dressed in a military uniform, that they took to be a French spy. There was a summary trial on the foreshore and as the suspect didn't answer any questions, the verdict was guilty and the suspect was hanged. Now the good residents of Hartlepool had never see a Frenchman but had certainly seen the propaganda and satirical cartoons. The Spy was in fact a monkey, which the people had also never seen, and was probably a pet on the French ship. Still it was hanged and the people of Hartlepool were presumably very pleased with themselves for hanging a French spy

So the moral of the story is don't underestimate the power of the pen (or Youtube and the internet) I might also add don't underestimate the power of stupidity!

Roger

[devils advocate]

I think Roger's hit the nail on the head with don't underestimate the power of stupidity!

In a sane world we could talk all the crazy we wanted safe in the knowledge others would see it for what it was. In our insane world we can't make that assumption.

[Roger G]

I think Roger's hit the nail on the head with don't underestimate the power of stupidity!

In a sane world we could talk all the crazy we wanted safe in the knowledge others would see it for what it was. In our insane world we can't make that assumption.

DA you are correct that we can't assume that others will see stupidity for what it is. The growth of the internet, youtube and social media has opened up channels that the vulnerable and easily led can tap into. The sort of rubbish that is spouted is not the sort of thing that encourages well balanced people to visit the sites, which leaves a growing and in my opinion quite dangerous undercurrent of misinformation, indoctrination and cult status for some of it's exponents.

Roger

[devils advocate]

Indeed Roger, with a few articulated extroverts with YouTube Chanel's it would be theoretically possible to launch a counter culture movement that could challenge anything! Even the fundamental truths would not be safe, why hypothetically even the building blocks of established science could be under threat! 

[Antithecystem]

Look, not all ethnoreligious groups are equal, some commit blue collar crimes, white collar crimes and/or terrorism substantially more than others, for whatever reasons, environmental, mimetic and/or even genetic, and society needs to be more leery of such groups, both in its private and public dealings with them, and we may need to reduce or even temporarily eliminate these groups from coming here in the first place, at least until they clean up their act.

When some groups rise to positions of wealth and political power, they're still fiercely loyal to their tribe, and they use their wealth and  political power to benefit themselves at the expense of every other group or the nation itself.

We need to let people criticize groups, and it is, or ought to be up to people to determine what is and isn't reasonable criticism.

Now of course we can determine this individually, liberally or democratically, authoritatively, but in my opinion, not only is the former more effective, it's more moral.

For me, and I think a lot of other people across the political spectrum, free speech is sacred.

[Antithecystem]

Government shouldn't get involved much at all in group politics, but if it should, it shouldn't just be to protect minorities from the majority, but also to protect the majority from minorities, and minorities from other minorities for that matter.

You shouldn't have it only your way, if you want government to protect minorities from 'unreasonable' criticism, than government should also protect the majority from 'unreasonable' criticism, if you want want government to promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticism of the majority, than it should promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticism of minorities.

[Roger G]

Government shouldn't get involved much at all in group politics, but if it should, it shouldn't just be to protect minorities from the majority, but also to protect the majority or other minorities from minorities.

You shouldn't have it only your way, if you want government to protect minorities from 'unreasonable' criticism, than government should also protect the majority from 'unreasonable' criticism, if you want want government to promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticize of the majority, than it should promote and orient its policy around reasonable criticism of minorities.

You are unfortunately missing one basic fundamental point. In a democracy, YOU control the government, you can change it, that's what the vote is all about and how Trump got in. You can never let individuals take control and decide what is acceptable as criticism, because those with the biggest fists, knives or guns will wrest the control from the weaker individuals and shout down and intimidate all opposition. Look at ISIS if you want to see a modern example.

Roger

[Antithecystem]

Government shouldn't get involved much at all in group politics, but if it should, it shouldn't just be to protect minorities from the majority, but also to protect the majority or other minorities from minorities.

You shouldn't have it only your way, if you want government to protect minorities from 'unreasonable' criticism, than government should also protect the majority from 'unreasonable' criticism, if you want want government to promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticize of the majority, than it should promote and orient its policy around reasonable criticism of minorities.

You are unfortunately missing one basic fundamental point. In a democracy, YOU control the government, you can change it, that's what the vote is all about and how Trump got in. You can never let individuals take control and decide what is acceptable as criticism, because those with the biggest fists, knives or guns will wrest the control from the weaker individuals and shout down and intimidate all opposition. Look at ISIS if you want to see a modern example.

Roger

It's not that I missed your point about democracy, it's that I wasn't sure what point you were making, it sounded like you were saying we should just trust the 'experts' and let them decide everything, and not even have a democracy, or that a democracy was only right insofar as it trusted the experts.

Ideally we're a democracy, but really our government is often out of our control.
For example are you sure most people think you shouldn't be able to question the 'holocaust', or that most people want immigration, period, let alone millions of 'refugees', if that's even what they are?

If we're not allowed to criticize certain religions, like Islam, and the people who take it seriously (AKA extremists), as they grow in popularity in certain regions of the west, these people will run amok, change and flout our laws, and one day in the not so distant future they may even vote in a tyrannical government or stage a coup.
And then they'll be restricting our freedom of speech, and a whole lot more, for all the 'wrong' reasons.

Lastly, I think there's a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, in a democracy it's perhaps the most fundamental freedom.
You see if you forbid people to speak for or against x, then to even suggest that law be lifted, could itself be interpreted as speaking for or against x, and so we run the risk of banning some speech for all time, setting something in stone.
I think having open dialogue is really essential to what it means to be a democracy, you start limiting that, and you're basically saying citizens can't be trusted, or even if it's only for a few 'fools' (if that's really what they are) that can't be trusted, you're still giving up the most important freedom in a democracy, the freedom to assemble, to openly, honestly debate and discuss policy and the issues before casting our votes.