Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis
Sign in to follow this  
cdowis

Youtube announces new policy

Recommended Posts

Gray    4,372
46 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So, when KKK marches around with a cross pinned to their robes, we can no longer use the cross because it's racist? 

In any case, the history of Pepe as a meme does not support your theory. Whether racists have adopted it or not is immaterial, because it has been adopted by thousands of others for completely different purposes before and after. The first time Pepe became a racist symbol was actually not because racists used it. It was because a couple of jokesters induced the author of a Daily Beast to believe that this was some new "thing" just to show how she would "under the expectation that she would uncritically repeat what she was told". I suggest a read of the portion of the Wikipedia article summarizing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_the_Frog#Association_with_the_alt-right.  This Daily Beast article is what induced Hillary Clinton to claim that Pepe the Frog was a racist symbol, and apparently started the ball rolling.

Pepe the Frog is not a racist symbol. Pepe the Frog is a meme, and memes are used for whatever purpose the memer chooses. 

This video is the best video description of the evolution of Pepe I've found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyEQCYnYbyU

 

 

If someone spends every day being ironically racist on the internet in an attempt to troll others, there comes a point when they should admit to themselves that they're just plain racist.

Unlike the cross, Pepe is predominantly used by racists as their symbol. They have successfully appropriated it as their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,301
27 minutes ago, Gray said:

If someone spends every day being ironically racist on the internet in an attempt to troll others, there comes a point when they should admit to themselves that they're just plain racist.

Unlike the cross, Pepe is predominantly used by racists as their symbol. They have successfully appropriated it as their own.

 

Only to those who are easily swayed by pseudo-evidence confirming their dearest held prejudices. Confirmation bias is all about us.  Those who have trolled in order to take the gullible by the gulled's own gullibility, well, they then move on to something else that amuses them. They leave behind in their wake those who insist upon believing something merely because it once pleased their sense of justification, or because others believe it and they must follow the crowd. Regardless and in the face of facts.

Understand first of all that I am not pleased by Pepe the Frog. I think it is a juvenile, grotesque cartoon. Most of the use it has been put to, in the meme wars, is childish rubbish. What fascinates me is the willingness of those on the left to willingly jump onto any bandwagon at all, as long as it is presented correctly. And don't get me wrong, the right also has those who are subject to the exact same thing.  It's a human thing, unfortunately.

It is the left's fascination with Pepe the Frog, not the racists, that has turned it into a symbol for racism.  That a few racists have also adopted it, just because the left has said so, is just one more point of jocularity. The video of Richard Spencer being sucker-punched by an Antifa terrorist just as he started to explain the "Pepe" pin he was wearing is hilarious in this context. 

I wonder if I should CFR your claim that "Pepe is predominantly used by racists as their symbol"?  I suppose the proof would have to revolve around a definition of "predominantly".  And how many Pepe images are out there, do you think, so we could come up with a threshold for confirming your claim or debunking it?  Would 51% be enough? Or perhaps a lower bar, say 33%?  Would we have to exclude the Pepe images that came out before 2015, because that was when the meme first started being used in this way (supposedly)?  For my own amusement I have been informally researching Pepe the Frog meme images for the past month or so, and oddly enough I have found few Pepes that are racist in any form. One interesting example I saw was a Pepe with the frog in a kind of KKK-style sheet with a red celtic cross on his forehead. This one was originally shown off in a piece from CNN (I think), but at the time it was aired someone went looking for it in the "rare Pepe" collections online and could not find it there. The suspicion was that CNN had created it themselves.

I hesitate to suggest the following because some of the images are really gross. I did this CFR for you, so you don't have to. But you can duplicate the result if you wish.  Instead of Google, go to Bing.com. Do a search on "Pepe the Frog", and then click on the "Images" tab but leave your SafeSearch setting Off.  The reason I say to leave it Off is because if you have it on Moderate this will not work. You will be presented with a big page of Pepe images, I didn't count them all, but it was somewhat over 200.  In that large collection of Pepe images you will see a few that are scatological, a few that are indecent, a few that are political (both Trump and Hillary Pepes) and SIX, just six, Pepes that have any connection with racism (via Nazi symbols and one Hitler Pepe), and only one was overtly racist (the Pepe in question was in an SS uniform and held a yellow Star of David). I'm sure you can do the calculation yourself, but here it is: 3% of Pepe images could be regarded as racist, but only if the mere display of a swastika or other Nazi symbol were to be counted as racist per se.  

Your claim of predominance is busted.

And the left has been trolled, and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.  In some cases they even swallowed the rod and reel.  QED.

You can assert this false narrative without proof all you like. I suppose that if enough people believe it, it will be so, a la Josef Goebbels.

Apologies to the OP for this digression.  When I brought up Pepe the Frog I didn't expect I'd have to spend this much time explaining the joke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Gray    4,372
14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Only to those who are easily swayed by pseudo-evidence confirming their dearest held prejudices. Confirmation bias is all about us.  Those who have trolled in order to take the gullible by the gulled's own gullibility, well, they then move on to something else that amuses them. They leave behind in their wake those who insist upon believing something merely because it once pleased their sense of justification, or because others believe it and they must follow the crowd. Regardless and in the face of facts.

Understand first of all that I am not pleased by Pepe the Frog. I think it is a juvenile, grotesque cartoon. Most of the use it has been put to, in the meme wars, is childish rubbish. What fascinates me is the willingness of those on the left to willingly jump onto any bandwagon at all, as long as it is presented correctly. And don't get me wrong, the right also has those who are subject to the exact same thing.  It's a human thing, unfortunately.

It is the left's fascination with Pepe the Frog, not the racists, that has turned it into a symbol for racism.  That a few racists have also adopted it, just because the left has said so, is just one more point of jocularity. The video of Richard Spencer being sucker-punched by an Antifa terrorist just as he started to explain the "Pepe" pin he was wearing is hilarious in this context. 

I wonder if I should CFR your claim that "Pepe is predominantly used by racists as their symbol"?  I suppose the proof would have to revolve around a definition of "predominantly".  And how many Pepe images are out there, do you think, so we could come up with a threshold for confirming your claim or debunking it?  Would 51% be enough? Or perhaps a lower bar, say 33%?  Would we have to exclude the Pepe images that came out before 2015, because that was when the meme first started being used in this way (supposedly)?  For my own amusement I have been informally researching Pepe the Frog meme images for the past month or so, and oddly enough I have found few Pepes that are racist in any form. One interesting example I saw was a Pepe with the frog in a kind of KKK-style sheet with a red celtic cross on his forehead. This one was originally shown off in a piece from CNN (I think), but at the time it was aired someone went looking for it in the "rare Pepe" collections online and could not find it there. The suspicion was that CNN had created it themselves.

I hesitate to suggest the following because some of the images are really gross. I did this CFR for you, so you don't have to. But you can duplicate the result if you wish.  Instead of Google, go to Bing.com. Do a search on "Pepe the Frog", and then click on the "Images" tab but leave your SafeSearch setting Off.  The reason I say to leave it Off is because if you have it on Moderate this will not work. You will be presented with a big page of Pepe images, I didn't count them all, but it was somewhat over 200.  In that large collection of Pepe images you will see a few that are scatological, a few that are indecent, a few that are political (both Trump and Hillary Pepes) and SIX, just six, Pepes that have any connection with racism (via Nazi symbols and one Hitler Pepe), and only one was overtly racist (the Pepe in question was in an SS uniform and held a yellow Star of David). I'm sure you can do the calculation yourself, but here it is: 3% of Pepe images could be regarded as racist, but only if the mere display of a swastika or other Nazi symbol were to be counted as racist per se.  

Your claim of predominance is busted.

And the left has been trolled, and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.  In some cases they even swallowed the rod and reel.  QED.

You can assert this false narrative without proof all you like. I suppose that if enough people believe it, it will be so, a la Josef Goebbels.

Apologies to the OP for this digression.  When I brought up Pepe the Frog I didn't expect I'd have to spend this much time explaining the joke.

 

I'm not seeing how you can bust a claim with your own subjective evaluation based on a rather poorly organized research project.

Share this post


Link to post
Helmuth    11
On 8/11/2017 at 0:43 AM, cdowis said:

“We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism,” the company announced Aug. 1 on its official blog. “If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.”

It appears that if LDS viewers start lodging complaints against the more extreme antiMormon videos, those videos may fall under this new policy.  Just flag them under the hate speech category.

But we need to be selective in the videos that we flag -- The Godmakers have many copies on youtube, for example, under different titles.

Hmm.  Do you believe as a general rule that "de-platforming" people who say things you don't enjoy is an effective means to combat them?

If you do, for the record: you're right.  It is effective.

For now.

I completely disagree with your proposal.  I see it as a lame, loser attitude.  Waah, I don't like this person saying this!  Make dem stop, Mommy!  And in the long-term, I don't think it will work, it will backfire.  Plus, consider the current deranged milieu.  Are criticisms of mainstream Christianity ever considered hate speech?  By anyone?  Obviously not.  Now, Mormons are not mainstream, so we've got that going for us, but we're not as outsider as Muslims, Jews, and other non/anti Christians, so we're never going to be awarded full Victim Status.  Youtube is run by ideological leftists.  Which is going to seem more hateful to them: a video promoting the "racist," "homophobic" church that got Prop. 8 passed, or a video criticizing that church?  I'll give you one wild guess.

Anyway, it's good you're wanting to stand up for the Church and combat anti-Mormonism, I just see your proposal as a very weaselly, cowardly, despicable way of doing it. Too personal.  Tone it down please.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Helmuth    11
On 8/11/2017 at 8:12 AM, ksfisher said:

Should youtube be considered a venue for free speech?  It is a for-profit business. 

I understand this argument completely and agree with it completely.

At the same time......

The great thing about the internet is (IMO) being an open forum of ideas and commerce.  A decentralized network.  To the extent that it is that is the extent that it is great.

Unfortunately, it is less and less that way as the years go by.  The last decade, it has become predominantly a centralized client-server network, not a decentralized peer-to-peer one at all.  We (well not me, but normal people) all log into a centrally-controlled server called Compuserve -- whoops, I mean Facebook -- to connect with people.  We all get all our information from AOL -- excuse me, Google -- if we want to learn about some topic.  These megacorporations are thus extremely powerful gatekeepers.  What content they want to feed us is what we will see.  They control the internet.  The internet more and more is just an obsolete protocol we use to log into these centralized services.

So, the companies should be able to run their business however they want, and refuse service to absolutely whomever they want.  Free market for the win!  But we should be aware of the situation, realize that it is not healthy, and address that.  How?  By building a new internet on top of the old internet.

https://urbit.org

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,511
1 hour ago, Helmuth said:

Hmm.  Do you believe as a general rule that "de-platforming" people who say things you don't enjoy is an effective means to combat them?

If you do, for the record: you're right.  It is effective.

For now.

I completely disagree with your proposal.  I see it as a lame, loser attitude.  Waah, I don't like this person saying this!  Make dem stop, Mommy!  And in the long-term, I don't think it will work, it will backfire.  Plus, consider the current deranged milieu.  Are criticisms of mainstream Christianity ever considered hate speech?  By anyone?  Obviously not.  Now, Mormons are not mainstream, so we've got that going for us, but we're not as outsider as Muslims, Jews, and other non/anti Christians, so we're never going to be awarded full Victim Status.  Youtube is run by ideological leftists.  Which is going to seem more hateful to them: a video promoting the "racist," "homophobic" church that got Prop. 8 passed, or a video criticizing that church?  I'll give you one wild guess.

Anyway, it's good you're wanting to stand up for the Church and combat anti-Mormonism, I just see your proposal as a very weaselly, cowardly, despicable way of doing it.

Hmmmm.....sounds like a real problem. Sounds like Leftists are a real problem. Do you have a solution? I think we really need people like you to come up with a Final Solution to the Leftist Question. Any ideas?

Edited by The Nehor
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Helmuth    11
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Do you have a solution?

Sure -- see my next post (under the one to which you replied)!

All we need to do is rebuild all of computing from the ground up.  That's all!  Simple problem; simple solution!

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,511
52 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Sure -- see my next post (under the one to which you replied)!

All we need to do is rebuild all of computing from the ground up.  That's all!  Simple problem; simple solution!

We can take up a BitCoin collection to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Helmuth    11
19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We can take up a BitCoin collection to pay for it.

Nah, it's OK.  We're funded.  No worries there.

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,511
14 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Nah, it's OK.  We're funded.  No worries there.

So your solution for kicking out all the inferior cultures and the defeat of those who support their continued existence is a computer software platform?

Are you mentally ill?

Share this post


Link to post
Anijen    893
On 8/13/2017 at 9:23 PM, The Nehor said:

the Nehor's post:

 

Your response is inappropriate for this site. We already know you oppose this for political reasons (i.e. you subscribe to different politics than Stargazer, but still your response was inappropriate for this site).

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,511
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Your response is inappropriate for this site. We already know you oppose this for political reasons (i.e. you subscribe to different politics than Stargazer, but still your response was inappropriate for this site).

Sir, I do not accept this besmirching of my honor. I have never acted inappropriately while condemning Nazis. I ask that you recant this spurious accusation or meet me on the field of honor tomorrow to settle this in a duel like proper gentlemen. I demand satisfaction Sir!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Anijen    893
15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sir, I do not accept this besmirching of my honor. I have never acted inappropriately while condemning Nazis. I ask that you recant this spurious accusation or meet me on the field of honor tomorrow to settle this in a duel like proper gentlemen. I demand satisfaction Sir!

The vulgarity in the cartoon you added was the content I found inappropriate. However, this remark almost makes up for it, because it is quite humorous. It does beg the question; is there an exception to allow vulgarity, if we condemn Nazis?

Could I use vulgarity on any type of discrimination, if not why do those ugly Nazis get an exception?

Your satisfaction perhaps may come from the fact that I (a proper gentleman) will meet you on the field of honor (although I feel unworthy).

In sincerity, Id like to thank The Nehor for his vigilant, funny, defense of the gospel and church even though we are political opposites.

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,511
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

The vulgarity in the cartoon you added was the content I found inappropriate. However, this remark almost makes up for it, because it is quite humorous. It does beg the question; is there an exception to allow vulgarity, if we condemn Nazis?

Could I use vulgarity on any type of discrimination, if not why do those ugly Nazis get an exception?

Your satisfaction perhaps may come from the fact that I (a proper gentleman) will meet you on the field of honor (although I feel unworthy).

In sincerity, Id like to thank The Nehor for his vigilant, funny, defense of the gospel and church even though we are political opposites.

I think Nazis form a lot of exceptions. One should not seek to offend unless they are Nazis. One should not lie unless you are hiding someone from Nazis. One should not kill unless a Nazi is attacking someone. One should not covet unless you are coveting a Nazi's dapper uniform. Etc.

Duel at dawn with paint guns and water balloons?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,301
On 8/15/2017 at 5:32 AM, Gray said:

I'm not seeing how you can bust a claim with your own subjective evaluation based on a rather poorly organized research project.

I didn't say it was scientific, did I? And why would you say it was "poorly organized"?  How would you organize the project so it would satisfy you as to its methodology and whose results you would accept as scientific, or at least, "well organized"? The nice thing about this little sampling exercise is that it is repeatable! Any good scientific research is repeatable, don't you find?  

But I can tell you why you didn't like the results of this little sampling exercise: it doesn't confirm your bias.  

And I'll bet that had I found that a significant fraction of the images were racist, you would have been quite happy with the "poorly organized research project".

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,301
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think Nazis form a lot of exceptions. One should not seek to offend unless they are Nazis. One should not lie unless you are hiding someone from Nazis. One should not kill unless a Nazi is attacking someone. One should not covet unless you are coveting a Nazi's dapper uniform. Etc.

Duel at dawn with paint guns and water balloons?

I can't decide if you're joking or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,301
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

About which part? ;) 

I'm pretty sure the bit about the water pistols is serious.

The rest is what I'm wondering about. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,511
57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm pretty sure the bit about the water pistols is serious.

The rest is what I'm wondering about. :) 

Well, the uniforms are incredibly dapper.

Share this post


Link to post
Gray    4,372
10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I didn't say it was scientific, did I? And why would you say it was "poorly organized"?  How would you organize the project so it would satisfy you as to its methodology and whose results you would accept as scientific, or at least, "well organized"? The nice thing about this little sampling exercise is that it is repeatable! Any good scientific research is repeatable, don't you find?  

It's based on a bing image search and your opinion about whether something is racist. No validity.

 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But I can tell you why you didn't like the results of this little sampling exercise: it doesn't confirm your bias.  

And I'll bet that had I found that a significant fraction of the images were racist, you would have been quite happy with the "poorly organized research project".

I'm as uninterested about your guesses as to what I'm thinking as I am in your guesses about the proportion of "ironically" racist to actually racists pepe memes are. Impressionable kids get sucked into the cult of neo-Nazism thinking that the racist memes are just irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,301
7 hours ago, Gray said:

It's based on a bing image search and your opinion about whether something is racist. No validity.

 

My opinion on whether a meme is racist is no better than yours, absent overt evidence of it. If my opinion is invalid, so is yours. 

Quote

 

I'm as uninterested about your guesses as to what I'm thinking as I am in your guesses about the proportion of "ironically" racist to actually racists pepe memes are. Impressionable kids get sucked into the cult of neo-Nazism thinking that the racist memes are just irony.

I know what you think.  You've made it clear.

A few idiots created racist Pepe images. Such images are a tiny minority and largely did not exist before around 2015 when suddenly in response to few trolls leading a gullible liberal writer to believe that the supposedly racist Trump campaign was involved with Pepe in some fashion, and convinced Hillary and many in her campaign to the conclusion that the meme itself was racist.  But even the Anti-Defamation League admits that the vast majority of Pepe images are not racist. So how could the meme itself be racist?

I've made my point. If you choose to disagree that's your affair, and we can agree to disagree. Thank you for your input.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×