Minisode 2: Deplatforming Part 1

[@BloodyVulnona]

"if she does Onlyfans, she owes him money because she is his" - thats... thats basically pimping, isnt it?

[@neonknight5857]

Yes. Hilariously, that's exactly how he started becoming wealthy. He called up his many girlfriends, none of who knew each other existed, and told them he wanted to start a camgirl business. Most left, a few stayed, and they built it from there.

[@LukasMatejka-du5hb]

how is that any different from "she sells coffee she made on MY coffee machine" ????

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

Technically a pimp, under the most ideal circumstances, is really just a manager/agent/adminiatrator prostitutes, or more likely a large prostitution ring/business in which the individual whores are basically the equivalent of employees. the reason why we look with extremely negative prejudice against pimpses because they're particular line of business is, generally, unacceptable in most places, and also because of the particular nature of that market they tend to be abusive or physically violent in a way that other managers are not or cannot. but aside from that, it's not really any different than Management in any other business, which is to say that the employees lose some autonomy but likely gain a much more sophisticated access to the market than they ever would have had on their own as solo freelancers.

[@theantithesis1]

@@LukasMatejka-du5hb It's her coffee machine. Not yours.

[@LukasMatejka-du5hb]

@@theantithesis1 try to read..... I wrote when it's MY coffee machine :D:D

[@monio.9444]

This video aged like a fine wine due to recent events, just sayin' :))

[@thewickerman5121]

There’s too many recent events this can fit into

[@geoffrygo]

Thank you so much for maintaining the ambiguity and the unknown in your presentations. I love that you can balance knowledge and information with the fact that an unknown exists. I've been stuck on your videos since your Race Horror video, and can't wait to hear your input on a gajillion other things.

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks 😊 social media encourages people to pretend they know a lot more than they do, I’m trying to break the mold, at least a little

[@dayegilharno4988]

@@themorbidzoo :) "Breaking the mold" at 98% already, looks promising!

[@ahobimo732]

"Things men will do instead of going to therapy." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 As a man who will probably be in therapy for the rest of my foreseeable life, this had me in stitches.

[@tiffanywyatt5137]

Why

[@ahobimo732]

@@tiffanywyatt5137 Sometimes, rather than making me furious or depressed, human nature makes me laugh. This was one of those times.

[@br1na332]

The chronic conditions bit nearly killed me! (I have C-PTSD, CFS, and Fibro). The best way to deal with dangerous bigots is obviously pacing and/ or a jog and a banana. But seriously, this is such important stuff to talk about because it doesn't feel very intuitive and it's so easy to get tied in knots doing feels over reals (it's funny that so many of us get unjustly accused of prioritising feelings, but we struggle so much to actually be self-critical when it actually matters)

[@ozymandia9902]

this is one of like 5 channels i feel i can genuinely learn something from, not just be entertained by

[@krustyknight2943]

What are the other 4

[@drowningin]

@@krustyknight2943 CNN, White House, Salon, KKK. You know all the things you leftys love

[@candide1065]

🤡🤡🤡

[@kostajovanovic3711]

​@@candide1065give us something better

[@amandamiller6081]

The statement about people holding odious ideas forming online communities and subsequently transforming those opinions "from a pathological tendency to a social identity" absolutely *nailed* it. Excellent.

[@jimmyjones8676]

The nazis got their start in beer halls. The antivaxxers branched out from the magic crystals croud. People never had trouble being wrong together without message boards and facebook groups.

[@Robert-ms2xs]

You are so damn well spoken and intelligent it is inspiring. Keep it up. Love your videos.

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks so much 😊

[@shmuelhoit7118]

Love video endings that are a mic drop on every level but physical

[@joecage7394]

Hello, KZbin fed me your video on the difference between the 82 thing and that ghastly remake. I appreciated your take, so I watched a few of your other videos. I drive a truck, so I like to put on long form videos while I'm working, so I played your hour+ long opus on Twilight. And I'm not a Twilight fan. In fact, I think the only thing I remember about it is my daughter had those books when she was a teenager. A point you brought up piqued my interest. Something about the way vampires are viewed in the modern folklore. How they evolved from these kind of dashing characters to pretty-boy teens, and it made me think of something I wrote, and you might like it. I've been writing spec screenplays since I was a teenager, so almost 30 years, and last year I came up with an idea for a vampire story, of sorts. I drive around LA alot, and there are homeless people everywhere. On nearly every corner and at every highway off-ramp. One day, I thought, "What if one of these dudes was a vampire?" It's the exact opposite of the way people generally think of them. So, I drafted a script. I think it turned out really well, but I would be interested to get your opinion on it. Judging by what I've seen, I believe you may enjoy it. I know your time is valuable. My daughter just got her master's a few months ago, and I'm aware of all she had to do. So, I would be willing to pay you. It's not a long script, only around 75 or 80 pages, if I recall, so it wouldn't take you very much time. Maybe an hour or less, depending on how fast you read. Since you're a film student, im assuming you're familiar with the format. How does a hundred bucks sound? I may be pissing in the wind here. I don't even know if you read these comments.

[@themorbidzoo]

Sounds fun and interesting. My email is [e-mail]. Shoot me line, I can for sure do this. :)

[@keelyourshelf]

The world would be a better place if all of your videos had millions of views.

[@asterion1729]

Great video. I would also like to add that making things a little bit more difficult for people really changes the final result. Users may know how to use Tor and that you can access KW by using it. But most kiwis, however, will just stop using the site to the point where only "true believers" remain. In time this last group will become too alienated from the rest of the world for them to be able to attract new followers.

[@sedwards3995]

why do you have a problem with the kiwifarms? have you actually been on the site? This is the problem with perspectives like hers. She starts from the position that she already figured it out and works out which strategy can best control the masses. It is an entirely Machiavellian. You havent done any research on kiwifarms other than what was spoon-fed to you by TYT and USA today and then you work backwards to determine how you can eliminate the other side without examining it. you realize keffals has doxxed people in turn right? that kiwifarms has an explicit policy against harassment, organizing raids, threats, and swatting correct? kiwi farms archived the material that was already made available by keffals and other people to compose a dox. Keffals has had numerous instances of misogyny, grooming minors, and suggesting that underage people begin medical regiments without their parents consent. Its no wonder keffals wants the site taken down. Not only taken down, but taken down illegally. And therein lies the problem; most people dont think like andrew tate. the VAST VAST majority of men have opinions completely opposite his own. And the argument for this hysteria of eliminating spaces for these people quickly falls apart. you are scrubbing society in an unprecedented manner for the opinions of fringe minorities. You are curtailing the spread of REAL stories like the hunter biden laptop scandal in the name of sanitizing your body of information. The world has never been in a better place if you ascribe to the same social axioms as the creator of this video. There has never been a point in history where rights of minority groups were more respected. Why are you so afraid? why do you have no faith in humanity to sort itself out? the enlightenment worked against the incredibly powerful might of the church to bring us where we are today. The idea that logic can not hold any might in western society is historically patently and resoundingly FALSE.

[@luissarmiento2501]

Found your channel today and this is my 3rd video already lol Can't wait for more! Keep up your amazing work 👏

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks 😊

[@raisins441]

this is my favorite youtube channel and juxtaposes my regular viewing content, keep up the good work :)

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks so much 😊

[@ivanangeli]

It is actually totally oposite from my viewpoints almost half of the time, but THAT is why this is one of my favorite channels - as we can discuss in smart, inteligent, civilized way and compare our standpoints :)

[@rob9943]

"...transforms those opinions from a pathological tendency to a social identity." Nicely put!

[@francescomuttini]

youre one of my new fav video essayists, keep it up and i hope your channel blows up, you deserve it!

[@RobExNihilo]

She's so goddamn good at this I almost forgot that I subscribed for scary monsters.

[@matthewlawton9241]

It's information dense content. I like that I usually have to watch a few times to pick it all up.

[@michaelwerkov3438]

I found a new Channel and now I'm scared that I found it right before they give up posting. Classic.

[@piedpiper1172]

She posted a new video today! Hope springs!

[@spectrobit5554]

Can't wait for part 2. Never have I seen a dismantling of the "redpill" mentality so concise. It flows so naturally into identity formation that it leaves me longing for more... It is an interpretation of The Matrix which can only loosely be taken from the first film, isolating it from a lot of context, and heavily discouraged in the sequels.

[@crimsonvexations]

You deserve so many more views, you're extremely well versed and back up your statements with facts. We need more people like you.

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks so much :)

[@drowningin]

No we shouldn't give Nazi sympathizers views. This girl also advocates for blk genocide via clan founded planned parenthood. Know who else liked deplatforming, and rounding people up so they have no voice? The Nazis, and the Democrats during slavery times and segregation, the communists. All these things this racist supports

[@KC-fk6oc]

Great argument, and it hit on a lot of points that are usually left out of the debate. However, one important aspect you didn't address is that de-platforming inevitable leads to a slippery slope because the choice of who or what to de-platform can change depending on who has the power to choose. Imagine what would have been de-platformed if we had had social media during the satanic panic or the AIDS crisis, or when anything that eventually becomes mainstream is still on the fringe, like jazz, hip hop or heavy metal, outsider art, Lady Chatterley's Lover, etc. I know these are not toxic examples like the Tate idiot, but my point is that de-platforming is ultimately just social media's most effective form of censorship, so all of Mill's arguments against censorship still apply.

[@themorbidzoo]

This is the bad precedent argument, wait a couple weeks :)

[@aludrenknight1687]

Jazz and hip hop and basically anything "Black" **was** de-platformed - or rather, no-platformed. It took a long time to wriggle around the much more powerful gatekeepers. They had zero exposure and had to build any audience from nothing. The current social media environment provides massive exposure opportunity, equal to any media giant in some circumstances, right off-the-top, day one. Popular creators who get de-platformed leave with a huge audience to build off of - if they can. If their message truly resonates widely they should rocket back into prominence due to demand for their voice, possibly even stronger, on any other outlet. For most of those de-platformed, podcasting should be ez mode. The way The Morbid Zoo explained this was very enlightening and made some ideas click.

[@llywelyngruffydd8474]

@@themorbidzoo Address the Emperor's New Clothes argument.

[@thatguywiththeface9463]

There is nothing new here. The 2016 US elections emboldened a large constituency of bigots to spew their vitriolic rhetoric, leading to a lot of de-platforming, which lead to alternative social media sights (which I don't care to remember the names of) created by said bigots to continue wallowing in their bigotry, albeit now in an even more remote echo chamber which bred extremism which we witnessed on the Jan 6th insurrection. The question is, if a majority of these people were exposed to opposing views that challenged their rhetoric, would Jan 6th still have happened? In other words, is de-platforming a contributing factor to extremism? I will leave the readers of this comment to decide.

[@bigplanslittledrive4791]

@@aludrenknight1687 I have to disagree with you just because of the toxic maniac Alex Jones. He wasn’t only banned from social media but a lot of others media platforms dropped him also. The reason people shouldn’t be silenced IMO is because we live in a world where the social media platforms and government work on tandem, and when we do have truth sayers (not Alex Jones) have an important message to convey, the companies and government work together to de platform them. We will always have idiots and those who choose to manipulate them for a cash payment, but we should allow all voices so that the sage of our future can’t be silenced by the corrupt system we live under.

[@Nerdyygrl]

I just discovered your channel. (1st vid was the Thing review-brava btw, I love that flick) and I'm loving your content so far!

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks so much 🥰

[@christianwilson5592]

This was an excellent social critique and examination. Hate that I’m late to the party. Fantastic video!

[@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739]

Sweeping things under the rug never works, that's all I have to say

[@wackousersden4726]

Only just found your channel and just want to say that you are incredible,funny and beautiful.Keep up the good work 🙂

[@themorbidzoo]

Thank you! 😊

[@chrislangbein6312]

I came across your channel a couple weeks ago and have pretty much binged all of your videos at this point. I am really excited to see new vidoes in the future as everything I have watched so far is great! Do you have opinions on whether things like hate speech should be illegal as opposed to just deplatforming?

[@themorbidzoo]

I’ll go into that in part 2 but the short answer is no, I don’t think hate speech should be illegal, there’s too much potential for a law like that to oppress. Thanks for watching and for the kind words! :)

[@sathishfrancisxavierr5301]

Hey there mate, just binge watching your minisodes and Twitter video, just love your content. Also have watched a video that you made on films, so overall a great stuff you are doing there! please keep on going... and come back soon... ❤🥃🥃

[@Yalam99]

Very good. Well reasoned and presented as usual. Thank you. If it is implicit in someone's ideology that they want to "deplatform" their chosen target group, ie hate groups wanting the extermination of their enemies, they do not deserve a platform themselves.

[@AnthonyAvon]

I actually didn't know he was gone. Great! And let's enjoy the win, we get so few anyway.

[@lotuspocus1113]

I love your videos

[@jasong7373]

I don't know the bad precedent argument you plan to make so this might be redundant. Tate being a jerk and Tate being censored are separate things, but the language is often interwoven. The ACLU once defended neo-nazis, and now often takes the side of censorship. Groups like the ACLU have blown past liberal principals under some unspoken notion we are in a "whole new world" on social media, but they haven't defended that. We ask if banning Tate is effective without asking why we banned Tate. International regulatory groups have great recommendations for social media, cool-down periods, registration requirements. Even better, many good recommendations to fix social media on the design level come from the engineers themselves who are internally stifled. There's great reporting on the creator of KZbin's suggestion algorithm sounding the alarm that it radicalized users and his proposed fixes. But before we fix social media, I think we need to take a step back and hammer out liberal principals. Tate has a right to say gross things, and we cannot merely elevate the bar of "harm and violence" to include speech we don't like. Much like a cop who desires to enter a home, one needs demonstrable reasonable cause. The enforcement of censorship is totally capricious. Richard Spencer maintains his twitter account to this day. Trump, who threatened nuclear war on Twitter, is banned much later for no real articulable reason after Jan 6. Misinformation from the left about COVID, such as the vaccines being sterilizing, or boosting young age groups, is totally ok, but Joe Rogan must be censored. TLDR: The framework for fixing social media is there, but before we start that process we need to take a step back and stop pretending liberal principals are a convenience.

[@RubidiumOxide]

I don’t really follow this. You’re talking about fixes for social media, even praising fixes that have been proposed, without explicitly saying what you think needs to be fixed. Given the rest of your argument, it’s not obvious to me what that is. Are you saying we can’t even decide what to fix until we all agree on “liberal principles”? If not, why do we need to do one before the other? If so, why do you imply that Richard Spencer shouldn’t have a Twitter account or that Trump should have been banned for threatening nuclear war? Please advise.

[@RubidiumOxide]

Actually I reread and it does seem like you imply “harm and violence” to be an undesirable outcome a priori (seems reasonable), but I’m still not sure how you relate that to speech. Surely some speech can cause harm and violence, but it sounds like you’re not convinced Andrew Tate cleared that hurdle. Why not?

[@jasong7373]

@@RubidiumOxide Graham the burden is actually on you, and more importantly tech companies, to specify the harm, why it takes priority over liberal principals like freedom of expression, as well as when and where the censorship applies.

[@matthewbrown3981]

Well said. The censorship only ever goes in one direction and that direction is always the preemptive scramble to "protect" perceived, expected or assumed minorities and victims. You never get censorship for harmful leftist ideology, only applause as the audience hurries to the top of the latest moral high ground to score internet points and feel good about themselves.

[@ashleyhall6464]

@@matthewbrown3981 if you can’t see how blatant misogyny, racism, and homophobia causes actual harm in the real world you’re more brainwashed by the right than you think

[@fredfry4756]

New to the channel. Whoosh, that's a lot to digest. These would be awesome segues for TYT segments. Pared to some degree and paired with 1 or 2 solid rhetorical qstns to get the audience a tad more engaged. Timed. Whichever way: Keep developing this stuff! I think you're on a good track.

[@tomsthomas1139]

Does Patreon have a single yearly payment feature? The banking laws in my country make repeat payments a real pain.

[@themorbidzoo]

I appreciate it! If you’d like, my PayPal link is in the description of my babadook video :)

[@Pauloveralls]

Such high quality videos, you deserve more views. Keep it up !!!!

[@christianwilliam1167]

One thing as a Brazilian that I can say, is that there's alot of African culture that are misogynistic, I haven talked or listen on videos of African people saying how shocked they're about our freedom of our bodies, but no one speaks about this because they will be labeled as racists

[@efxnews4776]

Um conterraneo?

[@Zionswasd]

It's weird that people talk about respecting cultures and beliefs if people are brown, to not be whatever kind of -ist, but then when it comes to people who are not brown, the same people are obsessed with destroying their cultures and beliefs.

[@id.1706]

@@efxnews4776 Um contido.Come to Brazil, you will never leave.

[@axiommoixa542]

@@Zionswasd which cultures and beliefs have you been asked to respect? I'm curious.

[@Zionswasd]

@@axiommoixa542 yknow, african, african american, native american, middle eastern, south american, indian, asian, etc. basically every brown person's culture is protected by the no-racism rule, but not modern day majority white people countries' culture, america basically, which happens to be gender roles and what not that the same left community is actively trying to destroy and calling immoral, even when its not even the most sexist or immoral culture by the left's standards, it gets the most hate and attacks against it. i guess its just because its in their face in the same countries, but that just makes me depressed that we're mostly apathetic to the rest of the world, and maybe racist ourselves as a community bc we're also only not focus firing on specifically brown people to virtue signal how not-racist we are, while targeting white people for their cultures...

[@jonahsingh5645]

My brain is bigger now, thank you.

[@Novous]

When you allow "deplatforming", it will always ALWAYS end up being used by the majority (those with power) to oppose those without power. Andrew Tate is a idiot. Don't watch his stuff. Just like we don't watch dumb movies by bad filmmakers. But to say "Andrew Tate cannot be allowed to make a film/comment/podcast because his ideas are wrong" will ALWAYS end with some GOOD creators being steamrolled. The number of GOOD KZbinrs who have been demonetized, for example, including HISTORY youtubers, ranks in the thousands if not tens of thousands or more. And why? Because they have no power to demand justice. Rammstein can post a music video with nudity because they're protected by a megacorp, but you or I accidentally post something that could auto-flag as nudity? Strike. A late-night show can say horrendous words, but you or I cannot. Arguing for deplatforming is asking for the powerful to become more powerful and the weak to become weaker. It's not about one person being an idiot. It's about allowing the creation of systems that can be used to oppress the rest of us en masse. Even idiots should be allowed to talk so that there's never any question that the rest of us should be allowed to express ourselves. That's the same reason we give CRIMINALS human rights. If there's never any question that human rights apply to criminals and the accused, then there's never any question that they apply to the rest of us even if we're slightly naughty or annoying to a government or corporation. There's a supreme court justice that once said something to the tune of "we apply rights to the worst of us, so there's never any question that they apply to the rest of us."

[@phantomliger89]

Very interesting. Excited for part 2.

[@Rafathy]

If YOU could address the situation head on in society, how would you go about it? In your opinion how would you directly address the cancer?

[@themorbidzoo]

Part 2 :)

[@Trunkf00t]

I enjoy your channel, keep up the good work!

[@gregchin4093]

I've got nothing specific to say about this video in particular. I just wanted to say that I find all of your work really compelling (please stay angry). Your last few have reminded me of how much I enjoyed grad. school and miss this kind of discussion. Keep up the great work!

[@LiamMoranVevo]

The structure and delivery of your arguments is really great. I'm here with a pen and paper taking notes for when this inevitably gets brought up in conversation.

[@antonyarakkal7203]

Anti-vaxxers? Are we talking about the classical definition of anti-vaxxer or are we talking about the updated definition?

[@krustyknight2943]

Great video

[@chavesa5]

You're on-point.

[@wone21r]

Another great video. Prior to watching, my view would probably have fallen into some kind of mix between your points 2 and 4. That is, I don't want at risk* people shielded from negative behaviour, I want them to be shown that negative behaviour is unacceptable, and I certainly don't want to create an environment where that at risk person is surrounded by those negative views and nothing else. (*By "at risk" I mean someone at risk of adopting those views as their own). However, this absolutely is based on the idea of social media being a neutral platform, which I wasn't aware of until viewing this video. So thank you for explaining this in detail and giving me something to think about.

[@Jeremobie]

Humans have always been irrational. Time to develop a sense of humor, personality, exercise, and love of self.

[@chekhovsgun4554]

Even if i agree that Tate and his brother have egregious opinions and deserve the depersoning they're experiencing, the problem i have with it falls under the bad precedent argument you presented. The larger issue is the contentious slippery slope. There are plenty of people simply trying to have honest conversations about difficult topics and are deplatformed for merely touching on certain subjects and aren't considered radical by their own personally held views. Tate is gaining traction because of this alone. It's like he knows he's a buffoon but if buffoonery gets everyone fired up about free speech, then so be it. I am not saying that's his particular motive but i know a lot of reasonable people that are sympathetic to him because they can see the issues with the narrowing of acceptable opinions. I am one of them, but i really liked and appreciate your argumentation in this video and will have to think more about what you have said, so perhaps my thinking will change.

[@themorbidzoo]

Part 2 :)

[@1monki]

Thank you for providing links to your sources -- lazybutt

[@jeddarcy3465]

It is a strange coincidence that everyone except people I agree with is in an echo chamber.

[@ivanangeli]

I live in Serbia, far from ident war of west, so my view is little more objective, I hope :) and here it is: there will always be bad influencess trough bad people - some for ideology, some for stupidity, some from profit and similar. If your plan of safeguard is to block them, you will miss a lot of them. What we do is leave them talking, then teach kids to reckognize them, and realize how damaging their rethorics are. And kids are smart, and can extrapolate, and even if there is a new speaker that speaks in a way that can;t be banned for some reason, kids still reckognize him as bad influence. Banning of that dude accomplish nothing other then showing weakness of your society, education system, upbringing and strenght within family. In truth, in my oppinion, he is just a symptom of how weak and bad your society has begone, and banning is just a bandage, while the rot beneath still attacks the body. And if you don;t think so, you should move to South Eastern Europe for a year and aclimatize a little, then watch your news - we have sites that are satire for fun, and sound more or less like your news today. In my opinion, it is a structural issue of really shifted values and morals, goals and logic that needs to be taken cared of before everything else

[@RubidiumOxide]

Did you watch the whole video? She addresses precisely this argument. You address the rot AND put on the bandage, because both are needed.

[@ivanangeli]

@@RubidiumOxide main focus of conversation, title of video and majority of time is about deplatforming. That guy and his deplatforming is uninportant in grand picture of issues why he is there in the first place. Methaphore would be, someone has flue symptomes and sneezes, and doctors spend whole time discussing and focusing on handkerchief and oils that stop people from sneezing, and 20 sec talking about antibiotics - but sneezing is unimportant, and what type of virus person has, what is the state of his health etc is. You would say, but they did both, sneeze talks and antibiotics - but issue is not handeled, not really. In case of your culture, every second you spend talking about that guy and deplatforming is second you do not talk about the deep issues that rot your society. And you have about 4 minutes left to handle it, so those seconds could be difference between Orwel or Denmark.

[@matthewbrown3981]

@@ivanangeli don't worry dude. That Graham guy is some kind of obsessed simp who replies to every counter argument or dissenting comment. You can't argue with some people. I appreciate your fresh perspective from a different culture. Thank you for adding to the discussion.

[@krustyknight2943]

@Ivan Angeli so if I get you correctly you're saying that sexism/ misogyny is the sickness and Tate is the symptom and we should focus on the sickness not the symptom? But how exactly would you cure misogyny considering that in this case it's a bunch of symptoms that pile up to become the sickness? And even if we begin a massive endeavour to "cure the sickness" don't you think that the presence of bad actors like Tate who have a large platform and are hell bent on poising the well will always draw back any progress that is made?

[@krustyknight2943]

@@matthewbrown3981 Why don't you argue the points he raised instead of calling him a simp?

[@coarsedirt4610]

Well made video. I liked the closing metaphor. I do want to mention. You have big eyes. Would suggest to take it as a compliment, I dont mention it on a negative way Have a great day, User reading this Haha

[@TheLastSaint17]

Red flag.

[@JustsomeSteve]

Ok, but how do we decide who to platform? Because everyone draws the line a little different.. And today a lot of people get deplatformed just because they are conservatives, which I'm not one of them, but I'm still not ok with that. Btw: I just found your Channel and I already like it. I'm sorry you only get 5000 views. Edit: OK, you only have a handful of videos, so that explains it.

[@themorbidzoo]

Hope you found part 2, that’s where I put my answer to this question. Basically it requires an overhaul of how the platform itself organizes and promotes information, nitpicking individuals won’t cut it. Thanks for the watch and kind words :)

[@JustsomeSteve]

@@themorbidzoo I'm going to watch it now. Thanks!

[@thoughtsuponatime847]

Perhaps the world would be better if there was no internet for one day a week and people were forced to talk to real humans.

[@EmilyKayTV]

i just binge watched your whole channel, you have quickly become one of my favorite creators on youtube. cant wait for more!!

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks so much! 😊

[@manuele.floresc]

I came across your The Thing video earlier today (bless the Algorithm) and I've come to love your video essays on horror, but even these minisodes have giving me quite a bit to reconsider. I hope to hear more takes from you, and may the Algorithm grace you still.

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks so much 😊

[@Valshiirs]

Yeah, The Thing video also popped up for me. Now I am checking out her other videos. I have not even watched anything on The Thing lately.

[@helganplay4832]

0:40 that f* broke me hahahahaha

[@cambodianz]

This is an extremely well thought out argument that a lot of consideration went into and I disagree with most of it. People are within their right to say things you find abhorrent. I think you understand that speech is not an aggression. And you are within your right to criticize and or counter such speech. When people are silenced from tech platforms who are in bed with government agencies for engaging in conversations that run counter to the government narrative as well as their corporate enablers (who’ve since been proven right and now have such government and media outlets agreeing with things deemed controversial just 20 months ago), then yes, they are counter cultural. By definition. The status quo was whatever the people who wielded monopolized violence claimed it to be and dissident voices were punished, even though they were correct. You also claim markets are based on logic and this is objectively false. Markets are based on value and value is subjective despite the value theory posed by both Marxists and Keynesians. The hype-beast phenomenon (that existed right before the government forced an economic lockdown and had trillions in fiat printed by their accomplices at the federal reserve) is testament to the subjective and irrationally of value. You could spray paint a stupid crowbar and slap a Supreme logo on it, post it for sale for $5K and someone would agree to buy it for that much. The market place of ideas works in much the same way. You don’t find value in Andrew Tate’s messaging, or you even find negative value in it, but someone else does and you don’t get to decide what is and it’s of value for other people. To your cancer argument, I think it’s both myopic and amnesiac. Before Tate, the public figure who young men looked to for guidance they found value in was Jordan Peterson. Peterson was the target of the corporate press and the mainstream who tried to smear him about every 15 minutes for about three years. This gave rise to a more belligerent and aggressive variant in Tate and if he’s successfully silenced his replacement will be even worse. This is what left wingers don’t understand about people like Tate or even Trump, they view these guys as the river, but they’re the damn. Everything their opponents (falsely) claim them to be will be replaced with the real thing and you won’t be able to cancel them. It’s going to get very ugly for the people who champion the cancellation of today if this continues.

[@themorbidzoo]

This is part 1, if you’d like me to respond watch part 2 and see if you want to revise anything

[@cambodianz]

@@themorbidzoo I saw it. The points in this one are better thought out.

[@drizer4real]

I hate the term toxic masculinity being thrown around but In the case of Andrew Tate it is accurate. I am no white knight but I hate the idea that some young boys and men take away from this is that all you have to do is pump iron, kick a bag and being awfull to women. I personally believe a man is a man when he is there for his family, is loyal to his friends and does the right thing when the poop hits the ventilator. Good honest men that show character and have morals. Like the men wrestling oil pipes or lobsters pots at minus thirty degrees that do this for their wive and kids. Salt of the earth but the ones were society builds her roads and bridges upon.

[@raymondle9966]

In a parallel universe, Studio Ghibli made a live-action Spanish language version of "Kiki's Delivery Service" and this video's thumbnail is the film poster released in Barcelona

[@xujhan]

This was the first time I've actually heard Tate speak, and I have to say, on the whole I think my life was not enriched by the experience. I would like to request the use of a time machine or, failing that, a stiff drink.

[@richierugs6544]

so the bison is a tattoo - very interesting

[@danlievi7587]

1. There are some truths in here in how certain online groups form through positive reinforcement and how difficult it can be to overcome psychological bias but the whole thing is all over the place. If you want to take an analytic approach to your video then make sure you got the structure down, I mean you can't preface it with a list of possible theories on the effects of deplatforming and *then* start talking about the cause and dynamic of the phenomenon. Do that first, then what happens if you deplatform 2. The analogy with cancer is not intelligent as you would think, every single status quo powerful political/social entity in human history has consistently characterized opposition as an evil to be eradicated, it just comes down to what you see "morally justified" 3. I'm not sure if referencing social studies papers has any value in proving your point. Even without considering statistical methods, the whole field is soaked in bias and ideology Andrew Tate is just a scammer, most people disliking your video and opposing censorship are not the incel community, they are broadly anti-liberal, which pretty much encompasses everything right of washing black people's feet. If you can neither appreciate free speech nor understand why someone would dislike the modern corporate HR dystopia, you should probably just start from scratch and take another approach

[@themorbidzoo]

Ffs how many times do I have to tell people to wait for part 2

[@adrianguinn3331]

Allowing content is not the same thing as platforming content. Sharing content. Spreading content. Assisting the algorithm with that content. And secondly, if one cuts a reach or numbers of a particular group, hasn't deplatforming eliminated the threat of that group? Deplatforming works. I've seen it in real time and can share links and images of that happening in real time. Bad ideas are not deserving of being spotlighted, regardless of what someone's Internet daddy told them. Fvck em 🤷🏻‍♂️ it really is that simple. Promise. Subscribed

[@annoyingmorlock]

I wish more people would use their brain as you do. 🧠

[@iknowbetterthanyou6260]

heh, some dude who is always frowning and expressing his "philosophy" on mic is basically the worst therapist. Therapists do what they do for money. I "saw" a counselor during COVID. He was twenty years younger than me and his advice was pedestrian. I got charged $150 an hour, even if I cut the session short and said I have nothing to say after a half hour. I guess what I'm saying is therapy/counseling is great if it works for you, but it's generally an upholding of capitalism and categorization (DSM-ing) of people.

[@covertcuttlefish2023]

How often do we hear the name Milo Yiannopoulos? Granted in n=1, but it seems to work.

[@strawpiglet]

I don’t really understand the point of this video in this context. For me, I don’t care about precedence. Precedence assumes it was right to deplatform this guy, not because he had an illegal point of view, but because we don’t like it. Easily half my views contradict the establishment line right now, and I don’t form these opinions lightly. You and your viewers might find many of them more offensive than a mouthy misogynist and not want them public. But I will point out that we have a rapidly accelerating warmongering and fascist state, and that’s not because we’ve changed directions, it’s because we are crushing unpopular dissent, and it’s the establishment telling us what’s popular. Do you believe more of the same direction will save us? I don’t think free expression has ever been more important in my lifetime.

[@themorbidzoo]

Wait for part 2 you’re literally describing the precedent argument

[@strawpiglet]

@@themorbidzoo ok, I’m waiting!

[@RubidiumOxide]

Are you saying it would have been okay to deplatform him if he had an illegal point of view? I’m curious if any speech at all should be suppressed in your opinion, and if so, which speech and why.

[@strawpiglet]

@@RubidiumOxide Better I had said expression than POV. For instance, credible death threats I believe are illegal. I’m big on free speech, so aside from sharing someone’s social security number, it’s hard to think of speech I want legally suppressed. But deplatforming, if something is really out of line with the other content - such as porn on a family oriented site - I have no problem deplatforming them. If that guy is posting where misandry is forbidden, maybe I’d say deplatform him, because it doesn’t allow gender hate, though I see that clip as more absurd than hate speech. Same with news media - if we had a society where people were really careful about posting the truth, I could see deplatforming liars, but we don’t. So, context.

[@strawpiglet]

@@RubidiumOxide what about you?

[@BayaRae]

Is that a buffalo necklace?

[@themorbidzoo]

🦬🦬🦬

[@huffers3111]

So long as we agree that much the same things you said about (for instance) Tate and white men can also be said about (say) Robin DiAngelo and black women, we've got no argument. Unfortunately, that's not how this discussion tends to go, not least because the extreme counterreaction - typified by DiAngelo - is viewed as more acceptable, for some reason.

[@matthewbrown3981]

I might just be a horrible nasty straight white male but I watched it all twice to hear you out. I do agree on a lot of points, especially that social media itself is inherently flawed in massive ways, especially for our survival focussed animal brains. It's a negative spiral racing to the bottom in favour of clicks and drama. I just think it's a little unfair that you only talked about the negative parts of social media which need silencing in the context of men's interest or male focussed topics while in the same breath you state that these echo chambers are a place for people to incorrectly affirm identity or personality flaws that you claim would be unacceptable or ostracized IRL. Surely you deliberately chose not to mention that this also applies to confused pubescent teenagers and Tumblr outcasts who are looking for bias confirmation on their unconventional identity politics too... It's not all just the nasty smelly men who all hate women. The cancel culture (or deplatforming, as you prefer to call it) only ever seems to go in one direction and that direction is always in favour of the perceived, expected or assumed victims or minorities. I will await your video on the bad precedent argument which hopefully does more than attempt to justify blaming men for everything. It's hard enough for men to join the conversation today. I genuinely didn't subscribe to your channel for this kind of video but every time I think you're gonna piss me off I end up learning something (albeit being mildly annoyed in the process). Inb4: comments will say OP is a triggered manbaby -ist/-phobe. Obviously I understand Tate was used as the example in this video because it's recent.

[@krustyknight2943]

To say the truth, I'm really struggling to understand how your comment relates to the video. Tate wasn't banned because he was speaking up about male interests and male focused topics, he was banned for extreme sexism. The Tumblr outcasts are just making cringe videos, fan arts and fanfics. If they were also engaged in sexist behaviour on the platform, they should be banned too. You say cancel culture only goes One Direction, maybe you should site examples, because dumb teenage Tumblr users ain't it.

[@ashleyhall6464]

Tate isn’t just an extreme misogynist he’s also in trouble with the law for sex trafficking so please stop trying to use this argument that he’s harmless and there’s no real world consequences for trash men like him to have wide reaching platforms. Because it’s bullshit. Plain and simple.

[@themorbidzoo]

Part 2 :)

[@ponekadglup6649]

watching this now for the second time because you make good points. first i wanna get a few things clear, i am not a sociologist, a psychologist, i have no formal or informal education on the matters. i do apologize for my thoughts going on many tangents and for any possible repetitions, as i am constantly watching and pausing the video, forgetting what your next words will be and making my conclusions as i type. please excuse the total and absolute lack of capital letters and the missing and misplaced commas. andrew tate was deplatformed. personally i did not find his content very entertaining or informative and did not watch it. it is the right of private media companies to ban anyone they wish in my opinion. if that person broke the terms of service go ahead. if they did not however, and they still got banned, it is the company's right to do so, with the only problem being that such an act would (or at least should) have a negative impact on the public's perception of the company. for better or worse though that does not happen a lot since as you point out later, rationality is not our best subject. breaking your own rules and abandoning principles you supposedly believe in shows a big lack of integrity. in the end, it is his freedom to do what he wants, and it is our freedom to not watch his content. win win, no? andrew tate gaining such a big following is in part because young men do not have such good masculine role models anymore, and stick to whoever is at that time big on social media. i can say with certainty that i would have done the same in my younger years (either following someone like andrew tate or someone very much like him personality-wise with views on the opposite end of the spectrum, it would only have been a matter of influence from people closer to me). as we mature, gain experience and knowledge we can make better decisions, which are hopefully more rational as well. therein lies the reason why i think parents should not allow their children to be on social media until they are adults who can at least in theory think and decide for themselves. personally i am very thankful to my parents for keeping me away from too much media and not buying me a phone until i actually needed it. god only knows what kind of fucked up zoomer i would otherwise be. going back to the first sentence in this section the most obvious and traditionally important masculine role model for young men is the father, whose role in a child's upbringing has repeatedly been bashed an disregarded in recent decades. it goes without saying that the traditional roles of a mother and more generally a woman have gotten a similar treatment. what i see online is that when young people are left without a normal role model or are pressured into abandoning one, they drift to the extremes. his "argument" about women in relationships and only fans is frankly stupid. a woman does not simply belong to a man. they can be loyal to each other which is really the only thing that barely comes close to the concept of ownership. a woman should have no obligation whatsoever to share her income from being a whore, just as the man has no obligation to be a massive cuck. deplatforming communities does no good for either side. the deplatformed community will more likely than not go elsewhere as you said, and possibly become more radical. after all, what happens to an outcast? chances are, they become even more of one. their reach is cut down yes but would the more elegant and fair solution be to let them stay and focus on at least trying to convince the followers with sound arguments? not giving them attention is a good approach as well. as for our mind being unable to equally process all and any information, that's to be expected, but should we not make an effort to be as rational and impartial as possible? we can't achieve complete rationality but we can prioritize it in conversations that demand it. while we might not be born with amazing research skills we can learn them. not all of us equally, as with any other skill of course. ostracized groups excusing their negative traits and/or transforming them into a social identity is spot on. i see this most with depressed people, who sadly often adopt depression as part of their personality and refuse to get help. speaking from experience and don't get me wrong, this is not some self diagnosed bullshit and my past feelings would best be described as perpetual sadness, i made that sadness an integral part of my personality and did not want help fixing myself until i realized just how mistaken i was. the basic principles of identity formation that you explain reinforce my belief that children should be protected from the wider internet until they develop critical thinking skills. i have no illusion that the free market solves everything but it is a whole lot better than a lot of systems we have in place now. andrew tate would not have gone out of fashion as fast as he did now if it was left up to the free market but i do believe that eventually as more an more people would provide constructive criticism and arguments against his ideas he would lose his following. while it may not be the quickest it is the fairest. (i would add to this but do not know on which grounds he was banned, if he broke the terms of service or if he was simply undesirable.) echo chambers serving to affirm and reinforce beliefs resonates with me as well. i am willing to bet that everyone falls into this to some extent, myself included. when you already believe that your side is the righteous one you further disregard the opinions and arguments of the other. i try my best to listen to what the other side has to say and include it in my considerations. many people say to always question authority and those in power, but often forget to question the authority that has control and influence over their thoughts. always question your idols and heroes. if you think you know best, question yourself. the martyr argument makes some sense when you apply the common saying "there is no such thing as bad press". the core difference being, of course, is that there is a difference between press and no press. naturally, removing someone's presence from a mainstream platform will reduce their reach on that platform. as mentioned though, that has other consequences too. as for the last, yes we should address the core cause of the illness, and yes we should address the symptoms of it. simple as. but as i hope is evident, not by deplatforming people, not in my opinion. for those who managed to read all of this, if anybody, good job i guess.

[@themorbidzoo]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I'll reiterate, because I don't think it's an easy thing to internalize given how ever-present it is, that social media and the capitalist philosophy it's based on are not neutral ground. They have their own agenda and while the agenda itself is not necessarily immoral, the methods it uses to try and get there often are, and are excused with the idea that "there's no other option," or "this is the best system possible." This is Capitalist Realism, the communicative and aesthetic method by which capitalism perpetuates itself. So, for example, while the desire for a solution that is, in your words, "fair" and "elegant" is not an immoral goal, Capitalist Realism blurs the point at which fairness and elegance is a reasonable expectation, holding to those principles regardless of the damage they might enable. Of course we should all individually strive to be rational and thoughtful, but as a society we need to be realistic about how the structure of social media takes advantage of certain human tendencies to be irrational and willfully ignorant. We need to respond to how people have been shown to behave, not how we would like them to behave. When the stakes are as high as people being radicalized into terrorism, as incel culture has been shown to do, equal treatment of all ideas on the internet is a luxury we can't afford.

[@ponekadglup6649]

@@themorbidzoo i fully support social media companies having their own rules as long as they are fair and they treat every side equally. and i can understand how removing radicals is a solution for them. it reminds me of highschool statistics. one lesson was how to determine outliers in the data and remove them. if you have extreme values in statistical data those are either abnormal and therefore irrelevant (depending on what kind of data we are collecting and studying) or a consequence of human error in the process of collection. i think with ideas it's not that simple because our perception of them is ever changing and what we might consider radical now will be normal in the future, or was in the past, same as people of the past might consider our modern ideas to be radical. thats why all beliefs should be able to be expressed and heard. it is neither the fault of capitalism nor fault of our own that we are not perfectly suited to one another. it is interchangeable. you could just as easily say that we are the cause of problems that arise in a capitalist society as you could say that the capitalist society is the cause of our problems. personally i would still opt to improve myself in order to survive in a capitalist society instead of trying to change the system to better suit me and others. deviating from it would mean a sacrifice of freedom and fairness, both of which i hold dear to me. i wanna ask you a question as well, because i have been thinking about it for a while. which is more moral: an employer paying 100 employees a very low wage and satisfying 1000 consumers with cheap products an employer paying 100 amployees a good wage and satisfying 500 consumers with more expensive products a sort of similar one would be is a soldier who sacrifices himself to save 3 of his fellows morally superior or inferior to a soldier who let's those 3 to save himself and 10 of his fellows in the future?

[@themorbidzoo]

@@ponekadglup6649 Whoop, sorry, I just saw this. It's for sure not capitalism's fault that we aren't all suited to be best friends with each other, it's an economic model, not a law of nature. But it's precisely because it's not a law of nature that it's our responsibility to consider how capitalism as a human product treats the people and environments within it, and constantly monitor the system so that it doesn't become abusive -- that's the nature of any kind of decentralized system, including democracy. But part of the reason this is so hard, as you allude to, is because all of us have the right and obligation to materially take care of ourselves and the people who depend on us. The answers to your questions can't be answered any more easily than I could tell you point-blank what should and should not be available for people to see online, because everything depends on context and circumstance. Is the product being made clean water, for example, or novelty t-shirts?

[@oscarl.3563]

The wise enlightened master - not to be confused with the age of enlightenment philosophers - said: _"the only sin is identification."_ Words to live by. Says a thing or two about identity-politics if you consider it, individually each word is ugly, put together it's an abomination. He also claimed it's mans fate to become food for the moon.., now THAT's an idea for an identity-crisis! Or it could just make for a great horror movie premise.

[@HowToPnP]

Great video! I will be honest: I didn't know anything about this Tate guy, but I love all the "WTF is wrong with this guy"-Videos. If you want a good example on why the "marketplace of ideas" does not work and why "absolute free speech" does not exist, I have one for each. If you want to use them feel free to do so, but they are very spice. Market Place of Ideas: QANON QANON is objectively crazy and has no bases in reality. It's basically just a collection of the most insane ideas the right wing ever came up with. BUT some people beliefe it and can't be reasoned out of it. The marketplace only works if everyone engaging in it is 100% sane and rational, and that's just not the case. Some people are irrational, some people are mentally ill, and these people will grad at anything that supports their twisted view of the world. Also teenager and children are super impressionable and will beliefe anything that seems intuitive. This example is especially touchy since there was a murder this week (multiple in the past) motivated by QANON. Absolute Free Speech: Child P*rn If everything is allowed, there is nothing illegal. The second someone says "we should not allow XYZ" (like any reasonable person should) we are not talking about absolute free speech, we are talking about reasonable limits. "But CP is illegal", yeah, so is most of the stuff Tate and other people get banned for! People don't get banned for saying "I don't like Biden", they get called for using slurs and spouting hate speech or for teaching people how to abuse their partners. Most publicly discussed TOS banns are for (borderline) illegal behavior! EDIT: banning would make these ideas and material not disappear, but they are not as easily found by impressionable people (see QANON example). Also Twitter is enforcing their TOS less strictly against right wing accounts, or they would have to bann a big chunk of the republican party. Not making this up!

[@deanc91]

QAnon was specifically boosted to prey on gullible people on one end of the political spectrum. The problem by having a culture where a hand determines what should be banned for being "objectively crazy" is that the same hand is not objective and may choose to boost what damages the group disagree wtih. In addition, the CIA and FBI was known to provide stories to certain eccentric and generally discredited personalities so they broke the story first and the story becomes tainted so the public by default believes it to be untrue despite being true. Tate and others that get banned aren't saying anything illegal. Immoral, and disagreeable sure, but not illegal. Referencing or suggesting something illegal, immoral, dishonest, despicable, in and of itself is not illegal. CP is explicitly illegal as material. FOIA releases and leaks have found that yes, people were actually getting banned for saying stuff like they don't like Biden, as the hand of the government has quite a lot of influence in a society where platforms get do make all these decisions.

[@themagiduck6334]

As much as I think Tate is a fool, I'm still not in favor of banning. As you said with the echo chamber you have to allow contrary view points, even if you end up being right. each side is prone to think they're objectively right and you never know when you might be on the wrong side. The only way to avoid being in an echo chamber yourself is to allow all things to be said no matter how vile they may be or appear. The moment someone decides that something is not allowed to be spoken everyone's speech is put at risk.

[@llywelyngruffydd8474]

Her argument is that her socially reinforced echo chamber is the right echo chamber. What other result would there be from deplatforming if not the creation of our own echo chamber?

[@libertatemadvocatus1797]

Authoritarians have been arguing since the invention of the printing press that certain ideas should be banned and certain people shouldn't be allowed to speak. I agree there are some absolutely horrible ideas out there. For example, the other day I was arguing with a group of zoophiles on Twitter. Yes, I was arguing with people who were actually pro-animal rape. While I do think those people should be in prison; it has nothing to do with what they said. I believe that we have more to lose from censorship and deplatforming than what we have to gain.

[@PlayNiceFolks]

"fool". I'm a fool, most people are. Tate is degeneracy.

[@decepter5227]

@@UberNoodleI was gonna post a super long deconstruction of everything you posted here, but nobody’s gonna read it so here’s all you get You’re wrong, cry about it, the “shout fire in a crowded theater” argument is overused and misappropriated in every conversation regarding free speech and I’m really sick of it

[@idontknowanymore2515]

@@decepter5227 at least give a argument for why he's wrong instead of just saying "your wrong"

[@axiommoixa542]

based and truepilled. the martyr argument lands a bit flat when the person doesn't literally die. They're still out there, they can still talk, and by trying to maintain their "celebrity" status they end up undoing their own popularity, not growing it.

[@DinkSmalwood]

A man eating lions!?

[@MichaelRenner]

You lost me at “Markets are based on rationality” :D

[@themorbidzoo]

They are!! It’s just people who aren’t based on rationality, and whoopsie, markets are run by people :)

[@luckyplvys]

correction, he doesn’t coach other men a majority of his audience is younger men… which is really sad tbh next generation is gonna be a doozy, side note: i think i have feelings for u

[@michaelmorse7627]

Superb!

[@PlayNiceFolks]

Checking in to do a premature victory lap on Tate being in jail, for now.

[@Sun_Downer]

Debate Destiny

[@oscarl.3563]

0:42 Haha sometimes people say things so at odds with us we either can't comprehend it or believe our own ears! He has got a point, though, so I'm essentially with him on this. Relationships be difficult. 🤷‍

[@themorbidzoo]

I get the impulse, but he does not have a point at all. If you don’t like your partner’s job for moral reasons, you break up, you don’t demand their stuff. Just to drive his gross point home, about a minute later he clarifies that this rule of his applies only if the woman in the relationship is the one doing sex work. If it’s the man doing sex work, or any other kind of work I guess, his partner has no right to claim any of his stuff in return, because “the woman belongs to the man.” Don’t take relationship advice from this guy. He will make you single forever and you will deserve it.

[@shmuelhoit7118]

Also i hate that I have to deplatform you now cause I spent a solid 57 pages on my thesis on this very topic and you did it in far less time and MUCH better

[@drowningin]

She's a white racist fake wannabe mex nazi(they settled there post war). She will be deplatformeh soon enough

[@cp-the-nerd]

There's an irony in your statement because the people in favor of deplatforming have absolutely no control over who is next, what the motive is, and whether it's themselves in the crosshairs next week or five years from now.

[@mossy3565]

Aged. Like. Wine.

[@ahobimo732]

Just finished watching this, and my main reaction is a sentiment that I see already in a couple other comments below... I agree that Tate is a toxic moron and if anyone deserves to be deplatformed, he does. But the question remains: how exactly do we decide what should or should not be removed from the public sphere? I think this is an extremely important question that can't be ignored in a discussion of this issue. Simply relying on concensus is not a valid solution, since history shows that popular opinion is far from infallible. Personally, I think that dialogue is the most effective tool that our species has developed so far for sorting the cultural "wheat" from "chaff". However, by "dialogue" I mean more than simply "talking". Communication is only effective when practiced in the right way, under the right circumstances. Sadly, social media has all but ensured that this never happens today. If the medium is the message, then the message of the internet as it presently exists is "strife, division, and hatred".

[@themorbidzoo]

Wait for part 2 :) thanks for all your thoughtful comments!

[@ahobimo732]

@@themorbidzoo Thank you for replying! I swear I'm not a stalker. Just a bit of a KZbin addict, and I had most of the weekend to indulge. I've seen most of your videos now, and I gotta say, you're fantastically entertaining. I honestly can't wait to hear the next installment!

[@MarKarda]

I´m just commenting to feed the algorythm cute buffalo necklace, matches your powerful dialectic materialism

[@zerosixzerosix]

Bump because good

[@jonasrayet9369]

smart smart smart

[@h0pelless850]

Taking the moment to appreciate the fit before watching a serious video about de platforming 👁️👄👁️

[@JuHim92]

I have a crush on you

[@galek75]

The real deplatforming is your arbitrary use of the term "bigot."

[@angelofbliss]

the biggest problem with the people your discussing is that they are speaking within a given context, and your extepected to already know it, they will not hand hold or drip feed you. And the people who know what they mean, and who there talking about, agree with them based on experience. If they are the types to be surrounded by users, and they gotta play that game too, then thats probably whats going on. Seeing things how we do, is part of why free specch is a thing, we all speak english but we dont all mean the same thing - we have dialects. THe world is filled with this, which is why commen sense and social standards used to be a thing, but thats been oblitereated. Communicating at work is based on HR politics/legal liabilities and not human decency or mutual respect. And it all gets curfuffled. This symptom is exasterbated by the past 15-20 years and churning onward. Our gen is respondsible for fixing it, not our previous generation, US not them, were the adults now not the children.

[@rens_happy_helmet]

yes

[@matthewbrown3981]

So really we best just deplatform the platforms

[@KINKYmustache]

I am not familiar with that Andrew Tate guy, but seeing a few seconds of him made me barf in my mouth. Absolutely horrendous creature. Let me add that the arguments you brought here are probably some of the most well phrased I have yet to hear from someone. But! To refer to your bone cancer allegory: as long as they 'deplatform' that guy, but promote drag queen shows for example, or braindead 'reality TV' material like Dr Phil, or white hating feminists; they do not try to ease the more immediate pain by healing the broken arm; the immediate pain is still there, they just handle the broken arm while dropping heavy stones on their leg, which is also broken. I hope it makes sense. Looking forward to more videos from you. It is fun to hear an intelligent person on this godforsaken Yt.

[@themorbidzoo]

Part 2 :)

[@themorbidzoo]

Part 2 :) thanks for watching! Not sure why drag shows are on your list tho, drag queens have seldom brought me anything but joy

[@KINKYmustache]

@@themorbidzoo Drag Queens are men who act like bitchy, hypersexual woman. And they look like shit. If you like them, more power to you, but they stem from the same cesspool as this poor Tate fella. Looking forward to part 2!

[@themorbidzoo]

@@KINKYmustache lol I appreciate it but no, they’re not similar at all, and please don’t compare a harmless art form to aggressive and overt misogyny just because it’s not for you.

[@lexruptor]

Look, I just follow you for horror lore. Idc about some anti-male feminazi agenda, it's annoying.

[@jordanfox1096]

I would like to point out that pua's aren't a problem with women. They are a problem for women. The problem is with men. I've watched several videos actually about pua's made by men. As a straight man I can assure you that their behavior and your disrespect are horrifying for a large percentage of us as well.

[@jasong7373]

You should be able to stomach a video you don’t agree with and mount a reasonable argument instead of becoming a walking hypocrisy

[@oritfx]

I keep thinking about Germans not banning Mein Kampf. I don't know what to make of it.

[@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739]

Banning books isnt a good idea. You cant really get rid of things by pretending they dont exist, it must be confronted

[@thepinkestpigglet7529]

Businesses have the right to throw people out if they come in shouting politics and hate speech. Social media platforms are businesses. They have the right too. End of story.

[@jimmyjones8676]

OK Milton Friedman.

[@JS-wp4gs]

Except they don't. They are the modern equivalent of the town square. They are at this point akin to public services that are so ingrained into daily life that its not feasible or acceptable to ban people from them. They need to (and eventually will be, its only a matter of time) be regulated and have the same restrictions in that regard that utilities have on them Phone companies and electric companies are businesses too, and they are explicitly not permitted to refuse people service no matter what they do. It will be the same for social media eventually. Its too easy to cause people too many social, personal and legal problems for it to be any other way. Its not a matter of if its when

[@speedingatheist]

You internalized the in- and out-group generalization. Women here and men there. Sad.