Free Speech? What the hell do yo mean by that?

All white people are racist. Yes, All white people.

So it doesn't really matter what they say or do. Racist regardless.

So according to Spartacus here, white people can't speak at all, because racism is not protected by freedom of speech. And this black... "man" accuse all white people of being racist, so anything white people say must also be racist.

youtu.be/N2P2qiINSng?t=1m10s

Can we err relax. No point getting hung up on the exact meaning. Focus in how YouTube interprets it.

Ok, to summarize:

Leftwing groups have become more and more extreme in both their offline and online activism.

Most of them have abandoned debating actual topics with rightwingers (conservatives) and have instead started to publicly brand any opinions to the right of Karl Marx as "nazism" or "racism". They've even gone so far as to try and redefine the word "racism" to mean something that it didn't originally.

The original definition of racism was the belief that humans can be categorized into different races, largely dependant on superficial biological traits like skintone, head shape and such. And that certain races are biologically "superior" to others.

But since, a definition originating from the Frankfurt School and so called "Critical Theory" has been gaining favor among the left wing, that define racism according to the formula of prejudice + privilige = power. Which basically shields all "minorities" from being guilty of racism, even when members of these minorities make statements that clearly adhere to the original definition of racism that I mentioned above.

Because as "minorities" they are defined as "oppressed" and "under-priviliged", while majority populations (usually white, especially white male populations) are classed as "priviliged", and therefore only white people can be racist.

So we've got a clear pattern of left-wing groups moving the goalposts by redefining words in order to weaponize them against people that disagree with their views and opinions.

So the discourse between conservatives and "progressive" left-wingers on youtube has long since stopped being about debates of ideas, and has instead stagnated into one side branding the other as racist/sexist/homophobic.

This in turn has lead to online activism where they want to get conservative content creators deplatformed/censored.

This in turn has lead to youtube attempting various solutions, like constant updates to their terms of service and community guidelines. Implementation of dysfunctional bots/A.I's coded to respond to certain keywords in video titles, but also the amount of reports a video recieves and other algorithms (so far, undisclosed).

This has then blown up in all of youtubes faces since even apolitical content is getting struck by these bots.

So the remedy was to hire people to do the reviews instead. But they clearly aren't doing a better job, since they let personal bias influence their decisions during such reviews.

So this shitstorm has started entirely because of the kind of "moralist concern" about racism that you've put forth here, which has then been used by a political bloc that abuse the mechanisms involved to get people they don't like deplatformed.

For more information about the development and left-wing redefinition of the term "racism", you can watch this informative video that breaks it down:

youtu.be/c7as0pFxPYc

I have been censored.

boo.

I'll remove my one and only post in this thread and allow you to get back to arguing with someone who believes that with enough sophistry the tail can wag the dog; but the polls suggest he's but a flea on that tail and you must consistently remind yourself of that fact.

My original post said the same thing but it had a comic flair to it... Oh well, one must be as strong as an oak and as flexible as a reed.

And regarding racism - I truly have no idea of what you’re talking about, which is a bit shocking to me (and I’m not being coy). I spend the better part of my existence studying 20th century history, with a pretty strong focus on the rise of nationalism. I’ve literally spent thousands and thousands of hours studying this and I’ve never heard of a theory based on the Frankfurt School of thought that anyone interprets that way, at least not in serious academic circles. I might be wrong, but it sounds like someone’s twisting things here. In my book and the book of everyone else I know who study this field professionally, the first definition you give is the ONLY definition of racism there is. I’ve heard that the extreme, racist right frequently accuse liberals of holding minorities incapable of racism. I’ve heard the extreme anti-establishment left argue that the far right is forcing reverse racism on minorities... but both those things are so seriously off the chart and fringe political blabla that those of us studying it from a perspective of history tend to ignore that kind of thing and focus on the verifiable facts to understand the motives, rather than the rhetoric. Your suggestion is even stranger to me.

This is ironic for someone crying about freedom of speech and the right to dissent:
It is obvious that the understanding of free speech is wanting with the young ones, and that they have not read their John Mills to understand the depth of the issue and the concept of tyranny of the masses.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

"Reverse racism" does not exist. The term "reverse racism" implies that only white people can subject others to racism, but not the other way around. Which is a false notion, since the concept of racism never takes the race of the offender or the victim into account.

Look up the names Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno if you want to study the phenomenon of cultural marxism and critical theory deeper. Feminism, Progressivism, "Social Justice" all of these movements grew out of the ideas and narratives penned by people like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the Frankfurt Institute of Social Science. You can clearly tell this because the statements made by them are almost identical to the statements made by the "progressives" of today, but Herbert and Theodor coined them decades before the rise of modern feminism, progressivism, social justice and multiculturalism.

The problem still persist, left wing groups abuse the non-protected state of "racist speech" by equating all of their political opponents as "racist" with the hopes that it will get their opponents into trouble with the law and the establishment.

Pride in ones heritage, the desire to see stricter laws on immigration, the desire to see more police prescence in troubled neighbourhoods, harsher prison sentences, being pro-death penalty etc. Several of these views are conservative, yet they're all branded as "racist" by the contemporary left, based on tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that conservatives only want these things because they might "affect minorities".