YouTube ban former Pickup artist Roosh V

[Zak]

Roosh V is/was a controversial pick up artist who always has been very controversial and is banned from some countries as well.

He was famous for his work in the pick up community, including his book Game and his online forum. (Not promoting him)

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Zak

[Zak]

Stream that got him banned from YouTube:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/VbXiBywmnOg/

[Leo Gura]

Quote

"Anything organized by women is guaranteed to be evil" -- Roosh

??

Roosh is dumb.

Gives pickup a bad name.

A perfect example of a stage Blue/Orange reactionary against Green. Culture war drivel and toxic masculinity.

Unfortunately this kind of ideology is common within the pickup community. The ideology that can come with pickup techniques is like mind cancer. It's utterly selfish and self-biased. Classic devilry and projection.

[Zak]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

??

Roosh is dumb.

Gives pickup a bad name.

A perfect example of a stage Blue/Orange reactionary against Green. Culture war drivel and toxic masculinity.

Unfortunately this kind of ideology is common within the pickup community. The ideology that can come with pickup techniques is like mind cancer. It's utterly selfish and self-biased. Classic devilry and projection.

Yes he absolutely is the dumbest and the most delusional guy out there. He was also the one who voted to legalize rape in order to eliminate rape. Huh? 

I am so glad YouTube is taking down all similar channels.

[electroBeam]

Here's a song which gives good pickup advice in its lyrics:

compare that to Roosh.

[IJB063]

@Zak

13 hours ago, Zak said:

Yes he absolutely is the dumbest and the most delusional guy out there. He was also the one who voted to legalize rape in order to eliminate rape. Huh? 

Voted to legalise rape? 
Huh?

I’d like to see that fucking vote

lol

The man didn’t vote to legalise rape, from what I know all he did what entertain a question which was something along the lines of, if when a woman allows a man into her house, but she can’t later accuse that man of rape, would women me more selective in there choice of sexual partners?, that’s it, purely a hypothetical question, he’s not advocating rape, rape is practically universally despised, even in prisons with the most evil, sadistic, psycho fucks on the planet they still go out of there way to torture and kill rapists, you seriously think that this guy is pro rape? That’s just the way is what purposefully misinterpreted to give carte Blanche to censor and ban him

If you could send link to back up what you said that’d be appreciated 

Roosh is still dumb as fuck though

13 hours ago, Zak said:

am so glad YouTube is taking down all similar channels.

Yeah censorship is great ?

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

Yeah censorship is great ?

Homophobia is against YT Tos. And he is clearly a homophobe.

This case is clear-cut.

If someone comes to this forum and starts talking about how gays and feminists are evil -- yeah -- he'll be immediately banned.

[IJB063]

@Leo Gura

This forum is separate from YouTube, you have the prerogative to be selective with who you choose to allow on this forum

YouTube is the largest video sharing platform in the world, being the main means by which people share their ideas via video, hence why people want to censor them.

In a free society people have a right to say what they want, even if you don’t agree with what they say. You don’t have the right to censor them from what, in the modern age, is the means by which people express their ideas. If this forum magically became as popular as YouTube then I’d being saying the same thing, that you don’t have the right to censor if it is legal speech.

All a TOS basically amounts to is, we can do whatever the fuck we want and you can’t do anything about it. I don’t agree that giant tech conglomerate monopolies have the right to say what you can and can’t hear.

 

[IJB063]

@Etherial Cat

8 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Youtube belongs to Google. And Google is private company.

Google has the right to boot people out of its platform if it pleases them, as long as it is reasonable...

Youtube isn't a public service, not matter how big it is. 

Private company’s don’t have carte Blanche to stomp on your civil liberties because they’re private, Google is an evil corporation

Its not the word of the law that matters it’s the sentiment, freedom of speech is what matters

8 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

as long as it is reasonable...

Whose to say what’s reasonable?

A tiny handful of billionaire technocrats

Its funny how supposedly progressive people side with unbelievable corporate power if it allows them to be censorious

8 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Youtube isn't a public service, not matter how big it is. 

YouTube should be a public service, if not than they should be held legally accountable for every single thing on the platform, and if that we’re the case google would be sued into bankruptcy 

Edited July 15, 2020 by IJB063

[AtheisticNonduality]

I don't care if racist dirtbags get kicked off privately owned platforms.  We must be cautious though.

[IJB063]

@AtheisticNonduality

2 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

I don't care if racist dirtbags get kicked off privately owned platforms.  We must be cautious though.

I do, I believe every person has a right to speak

If one person loses his rights, we all lose our rights

Rights don’t mean anything if they’re not defended, laws don’t mean anything if they’re not enforced

Why people resort into these servile boot lickers for corporate America because someone somewhere is a racist dirtbag aka disagrees with them, I find disgusting 

[Display_Name]

What a clown

[TrustTheProcess]

@IJB063 they are a private company...

If I am hosting a private event on private property and some asshole comes to my party drunk as fuck yelling racial slurs and sharing conspiracy theories with children, I am calling security. that is a violation of the TOS

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

If one person loses his rights, we all lose our rights

This only looks at one side of the die. ? 

It depends on what that loss was over. Suppose someone is prevented from freedom of expression. One may say “If he loses his freedom of expression, we all lose our freedom of expression”. . . Yet what that freedom of expression was is important. There is a difference between being prevented from wearing a hat of your favorite sports team vs. burning down someone’s house. Those freedom of expressions are not equivalent. Yet to the arsonist, he is being treated unfairly. 

[TrustTheProcess]

@IJB063

 

[IJB063]

@louhad

5 minutes ago, louhad said:

@IJB063 they are a private company...

If I am hosting a private event on private property and some asshole comes to my party drunk as fuck yelling racial slurs and sharing conspiracy theories with children, I am calling security. that is a violation of the TOS

Being on private property and trespassing is different from using a major social site.

If everywhere you went was private property. And everywhere every person was at a private event. And you were restricted to some small isolated island, then guess what, you right to freedom of speech would be redundant.

 

[IJB063]

@Forestluv

4 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This only looks at one side of the die. ? 

It depends on what that loss was over. Suppose someone is prevented from freedom of expression. One may say “If he loses his freedom of expression, we all lose our freedom of expression”. . . Yet what that freedom of expression was is important. There is a difference between being prevented from wearing a hat of your favorite sports team vs. burning down someone’s house. Those freedom of expressions are not equivalent. Yet to the arsonist, he is being treated unfairly. 

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to arson lol, I’m talking about speech

You don’t have the right to burn down someone’s house, you do though have the right to say you’d like it if there house was burnt down

see the difference?

@Etherial Cat

4 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

They surely can if they offer you a service which is subject to TOS, and those TOS are legal. Not to mention that they could technically be held accountable for hosting harmful content, depending on what it is.

Content moderators under the guidance of lawyers at Google.

I'm actually not siding with corporate power, I am just stating how things are without giving an opinion on whether it is right or wrong.

The thing is, as a private company, they can do whatever they want as long as it is legal. 

Antitrust laws are kinda sorta hot among progressives, you know...

4 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

They surely can if they offer you a service which is subject to TOS, and those TOS are legal. Not to mention that they could technically be held accountable for hosting harmful content, depending on what it is.

The legality isn’t important, the law stomp on people’s right every day, why do you think there are mass protests all across America?

I don’t care what the law says, the law what is just, what is just is just

And what that is, is to allow people the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of thought

7 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Not to mention that they could technically be held accountable for hosting harmful content, depending on what it is.

As they should if they censor 

7 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Content moderators under the guidance of lawyers at Google.

And who are those lawyers representing?

7 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I'm actually not siding with corporate power, I am just stating how things are without giving an opinion on whether it is right or wrong.

The thing is, as a private company, they can do whatever they want as long as it is legal. 

I’m not talking about the ways things are, I’m talking about the way things should be

8 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Antitrust laws are kinda sorta hot among progressives, you know...

Im the only person in this thread who so far has said that google should t have the right to censor, progressives are disproportionately in favour of this kind of censorship

[TrustTheProcess]

@IJB063 racist, white nationalists are free to go and make TrumpTube. if youtube does not feel like racist and homophobic content aligns with their values, they are free to kick users who post that shit off their platform

Edited July 15, 2020 by louhad

[IJB063]

@Etherial Cat

5 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Freedom of speech has limits. Defamation or hate speech is one of them.

Here you've got a list 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

1# The first amendment isn’t what’s important, the concept of freedom of speech is

obscenity - this is proof of point

whos to define what is obscene?

This undermines right from the get go the entire first amendment, legally right now we’re America to become majority Muslim, it would be constitutionally legal to ban the drawing of the prophet Muhammad because it would then be seen as obscene, this is why I don’t care about the specific of the law I care about what the law is trying to achieve

 

[IJB063]

@louhad

4 minutes ago, louhad said:

@IJB063 racist, white nationalists are free to go and make TrumpTube. if youtube does not feel like racist and homophobic content aligns with their values, they are free to kick users who post that shit off their platform

They shouldn’t be 

@Etherial Cat

1 minute ago, Etherial Cat said:

Even on a public platform, hateful content would be subject to sanctions.

People have the right to be hateful and express hateful ideas, they’re wrong but they have the right to be wrong and they have the right to be heard

Whos to define what is hateful content?
 

Edited July 15, 2020 by IJB063