The guy put their fair trial at risk. That means he created a vulnerability for the defense team of the rapists to get them set free. He deserved what he got.
Except that he wasn't doing anything more than any other media in any other case, and in the original case, the judge said that there was nothing in his recording that could sway the jury. They reopened the case with a newly appointed judge who was specifically put on that case in order to dish out the harshest conviction possible. And he was not tried by a jury, so this conviction is illegitimate.
Tommy is a political prisoner at this point.
Oh my sweet loving Vitklim. You have such a big heart, and I can’t fault you for extending it to this poor confused boy. The first words out of his mouth in that video show just how confused he is. You see- I do not expect you to be an expert on U.K. law- and neither is he. Yes- for a criminal offense which carries a possible sentence of 6 months+ you are entitled to a right to trial by jury. But let’s start at the beginning shall we?
He wasn’t arrested for a criminal offense that fit those criteria. He wasn’t even arrested for a criminal offense. He was arrested for the U.K. version of disturbing the peace- a non criminal offense where the judge has considerable leeway in sentencing. He went to trial for this offense.
Now... his previous arrest and rightful conviction for contempt of court (he’s been arrested 2 times before for this offense along with many others including several fraud cases-) carried a deferred sentence provided he complete probation without another charge. On his own video outside the court he is heard saying that he hopes the police don’t get him because he is aware he is on probation and is aware he is violating it.
So when Tommy boy went to trial for his minor non criminal offense- he CONFESSED to contempt of court. He CONFESSED. There is NO TRIAL when you CONFESS. YAOU HAVE ADMITTED GUILT. Do you know who passes sentences in the case of a plea of guilty? A judge. Who did. On appeal it was determined he was guilty as shit- but that the sentence didn’t properly consider the crime and details and was rushed.
As for trial by jury? As we covered- he wasn’t initially arrested on the charge- but once he went to trial on a charge with over 6 months he had the right to a jury trial. The RIGHT. He could request trial by jury. You know who knows the laws really well? Lawyers. A high profile activist “Everyman” who at one point was earning over 10,000 pounds a month likely has attorneys who know it pretty well. And none of them brought up a jury at the trial? None of them brought it up at the appeal?
Look man- that’s an hour video. An hour of shit from a dad and confused boy who’s been in and out of jail and bounced from hate group to hate group in a short sad life. There is so much stuff there that if you think my regular posts are long- do you know how long a post could be writing commentary on an hour video by a handyman who is speaking as a legal expert concerning his own case that he confessed to and admitted on tape he knew he was committing a crime when he did it?
The maximum sentence for the crime he plead guilty to (again,) and broke parole over (from the last time he committed it) knowingly, is 2 years. They gave him 10 months + the suspended sentence. Meaning he was sentenced to less than half the max- which for a repeat offender with a record who knew they were committing a crime and did so with premeditation is pretty sweet as is.
Now add the irony of a man who broke a law intended to ensure the fair trial of others (multiple times) complaining he isn’t getting a fair trial- through in the hypocrisy of a man who at the time of his arrest was going on about how the defendants in a trial and the rest of an entire religion and multiple races should be jailed on principal alone- claiming he (repeat offender who confessed to a crime blah blah) only caught a verdict because of “who he is and not what he did”.... and well... really?
This is a guy who has spoken about how his justice system is too lax, how their prisons are too posh. Claiming the justice system was too harsh on him and prison is a cruel and unfair sentence for him?
He committed the crime. Before he did so he is on tape talking about how he is about to commit a crime. He videotaped himself committing the crime. He plead guilty to committing the crime. So.... what is supposed to happen next? “Oh- well as long as you admit it Tommy boy- be on your way...”? Of course they sentenced him. Of course that sentence wasn’t just a “slap on the wrist.” He’s a REPEAT OFFENDER who FLAGRANTLY broke the law KNOWINGLY and FILMED IT... WHILE ON PROBATION.
There is literally no question of his guilt. None. He admitted his guilt in and out of court. The only question is wether or not the sentence was correct to the crime- and taking into account the fact he is a repeat unrepentant criminal- I’m going to say he got lucky the first judge didn’t take longer to deliver a verdict or he’d be serving the full term appeal or no. The BEST thing a legal team could come up with for him was that the verdict was too fast. Not that he didn’t do it- not that he was coerced. Not that he was unjustly arrested, not that he didn’t get a jury trial- that the judge didn’t take long enough to think on the sentence.
So what the ever loving hell? Going to buy in to a self pariah complex of a confessed repeat offender? What? He really wanted that jury trial so he could declare himself guilty in front of a jury, they could all go home, and the judge could sentence him? You are aware that in the US you have the “right to remain silent” and the right to not self incriminate correct? But if you confess to a crime you don’t get to declare the trial a farce because your rights to those things were violated- they are eights that you may option. He did not option a jury trial. It’s a bit like telling your pal he should wear these pads you offered him when you play pick up against each other, and then him getting mad when he gets bruised up because he chose not to wear pads.
Whatever one thinks of his politics or him as a person- what of any of the bullshit coming out of his mouth superceeds that he knowingly committed a crime, while on parole for the same crime, on camera, in front of a court, confessed to it, and on appeal only had the defense that the sentencing was too fast? What defense has he offered about the actual crime? That he’s mentally incapable of decision making and trial? He has dementia, schizophrenia? Body snatchers? That the liberal media somehow deep faked his crime and taped confession(s)? Mind control rays?
That is what is called an open and shut case- unless he has evidence to show that he did not actually commit the crime. In which case one of his 3 trials would have been a better time to do that than on social media after he’s sentenced. And BECAUSE he’s speaking his political views and some people agree with those he should what? Be given special exemption from the law? What about the part where the last judge told him that if he stood in front of a court during an ongoing trial shouting anti muslim comments- that he was going to get locked up... and then he literally stood in front or court on an ongoing trial and shouted pretty much direct quotes of the things the judge used as examples of things he’d be locked up?
“Did you do it?”
“Yes I did. Here’s a video of me doing it and saying that I was breaking the law.”
“Oh. Ok. Here’s your sentence. Plus the other sentence you knew you’d get and mention in your video for the last time you broke this same law in basically an identical way.”
“Oh. This sentence is longer than last time.”
“Yeah. See, in British law our sentencing guidelines have statements of intent. A criminal sentence is meant as a deterrent. The last sentence didn’t deter you. So the only option you’ve really left me with is to give you a bigger one- plus the part of the last one you didn’t serve. Hopefully you will learn your lesson.”
“Oh wah. That’s totally unfair. I knew I was committing a crime, and have been to jail many tines for other crimes- but I totally didn’t think I’d go to jail for this.”
“Well- you are.”
“I don’t wanna! Waaah. You’re- you’re censoring free speech!”
“No. You can speak freely. You can go on tv and your own website or whoever will let you on theirs. You can get permits and speak in public or at events. You can bring people to your home or rent out auditoriums. You can rent billboards and take out adds in the paper and solicit people as legal... you just can’t endanger a huge sex crime trial or break laws while doing it.”
“You’re a Nazi! You’re a fascist! If I weren’t a white conservative with hundreds of thousands of euros in earnings potential and regular donors and backers I could get real justice! But you take a media personality who’s earned 10k a month- you know- an Everyman like me- and screw us! I’m telling all my angry malcontent friends and they’re going to annoy people with memes and anoint me next to Jesus- you’ll see! And the Americans..
.. when they read about this... the ones who can read and would support me, and when the rest have a friend anecdotally tell them about this while leaving our crucial details and any understanding of British law- they’ll all gripe on social media! You’ll have a storm of impotent rage! You’ll see! BWAHAHAHA!”
- what I imagine the transcripts of the trial look like.
Welp- that about does it for me. I have work to do, and I’m hungry. Maybe order a pizza. I’d rather have like... BBQ or something? But... work. I’m. It paying to have fast food delivered. It ends up being like $30 for a combo meal. But in closing- I’d just like to say- there hasn’t been an affront to free speech or the right- the fact this is an item of discussion is an affront to law, it is an affront to fact, and an affront to basic reading and general comprehension. Snowden was a “free speech” activist to. He broke the law, he admitted it. He wah wah wah’d over the consequences, endangered people and ongoing justice, and was tried and convicted and then made himself out as a martyr too.
So this isn’t about politics. It’s about assholes with complexes thinking that it would be totally cool to “disrupt the establishment” and shit on whoever it is they feel is the “true enemy of the people..” and then facing the justice of the people. The one that says it doesn’t matter if you’re speaking right or left wing bulllshit- if you break the law, it will try and break you back. These people don’t get to just run around breaking laws because they feel they’re justified, and because they’ve got this surge of people behind them agreeing- and then play victim when they aren’t actually as powerful and invincible or special as they have built themselves up in their heads.
We have a loser repeat offender of multiple crimes who can’t either figure out how to not get caught (spoiler: don’t tape your crimes. Don’t confess to them...) or how to exercise his agenda without committing crimes. Donald Trump is a right wing politician who’s been to court man many times. Alex Jones is a far right “activist” and media personality who’s faced heat. How many years in prison have they served? So I mean... the idea that he’s going to jail for being a right wing mouth piece.... nah dawg. His a garden variety moron and dad loser. That is why he is going to prison. You have to be intelligent to skirt the law. Listening to him is like listening to a 12yo explain how they could get their teacher arrested for calling them “bad” because... blah blah 12 year old misunderstanding of the legal system and a bunch of stuff they heard wrong from a friends older brother and some tv stuff, blah blah.
So yeah. Gotta go. Hope he’s gotten used to prison food in his many stays. I have a feeling that he will be back again too. Is it because he’s being targeted by “liberal lady justice..?” Or because he... is an idiot who keeps breaking the law. The same laws. In the same exact ways...? Stay tuned to BBC news to find out!
Sigh. You are the single most condescending cunt on this website, and I would not for a moment feel sorry if you left.
.
Just remember, that when the world finally breaks down, we will be on the different sides of the barricade. And my side will have the guns.
.
@xvarnah, @famousone, @firmlee_grasspit, dunno if you all know about the case we're discussing here, but you are welcome to watch the interview I linked above and watch guest_ not disprove a single thing of importance that was there. I'm not going to argue with this cunt, I'm far too tired and pissed off to argue in good faith, not like he did anyway.
All I can say is I’m surprised by guest_’s condescension. I’m not sure I can truly argue against the core if his argument (that is, guy commits crime, confesses, and is sentenced). I, too, will be on the side of guns, as it is our right and duty to fight against tyranny. It is our right and duty to reform government. Economic freedoms need to be taught much more thoroughly, otherwise we allow government to shift the keys of power from the citizens to militia, lobbyists, etc...something we are seeing happening before our very eyes (it can be said for both the U.K. and U.S. currently). So, we are talking about justice, right? A form of government that directs solutions to the problem of crime. Was the trial truly fair? I can’t say what fair is—that is why deliberation exists. As far as Tommy’s sentence is concerned, he confessed and the judge decided his punishment. I can’t tell you who was right and who was wrong, as it is always more complicated than that.
All I know is guest_ could have chosen to not be so abrasive, and perhaps there is an underlying reason, and you happened to be the spark that lit the match.
@firmlee_grasspit- I more or less agree with everything you said. Including that my reply is more abrasive than it needed to be, and certainly more than I intended. I’m sick of fake and totally twisted, biased, word of mouth news- of picking yams and then excuses anything those on “our team” do and condemning everything. The “other team” does- and I’m absolutely sick of having to circularly repeat basic facts that are self evident.
When you’ve explained something in the most basic- fundamental way that it can be broken down, and there is still a lack of understanding- when I wrote long posts that take the time to not only address the points brought up but how and why a logic can be reached to my point- and the types of replies especially from certain people tend to be “you didn’t address my point” or <just repeats what they said before> without addressing any of the points brought up in the counter, without refuting the logic, without seemingly self awareness or even an actual awareness of the issue at hand. People want to discuss this as a stand in for the entirety of a political philosophy or movement or as symbolism for some bigger issue- when if we remove the politics and everything else it’s plain to see that most any person having the same record and having violated the law the same way for whatever reason would most likely have the same outcome.
I was given homework by @vitklim in the form of a link to a 1 hour video that I spent an hour of my time watching in good faith so I could discuss the issue- and the very first things out of the guys mouth were easily disproved. Literally the first sentence he says sets the tone for what- if you decide to watch it and fact check it- is an hour of self flagellation through a tinted lens by a convicted and admitted criminal who isn’t in any way not guilty of a crime, not undeserving of punishment- but upset he has to deal with consequences for his actions.
Who continues as he has in past, to paint himself and the white race of Britain as victims. There is a dark humor to claiming that not only being part of one of the most historically colonial and well off groups that is still one of the wealthiest groups of people in the world- including the poor blue collar man- are marginalized victims. Especially when their champion is a guy who at one point was pulling in over 10k a month.
Just some months ago we were all discussing how Sanders was a hypocrite because he’s a rich communist trying to appeal to poor masses. The short memory thing is getting to me. The fact that we will literally be condemning a person one week for something and calling them out and invalidating them on their hypocrisy- but keep the behavior the same and change their views and they are suddenly a hero. The disassociation from reality gets to me. If you’re backing our home team because they’re you’re home team just say it. There’s too much BS, too much dishonesty. They recently shot down an attempt to redraw demographic lines because it turns out the entire reason behind it was racism. It was plain to see before the documents proving it were leaked but everyone involved swore up and down there were noble and practical intents behind it.
That’s the world we live in. The “fake news” isn’t always fake- if the news is reporting on what people say and the facts at hand but everyone is lying then the news will report lies. Left right and in between blame the media but WE are the ones twisting facts. We are the ones who either refuse to admit our true intentions and feelings, or are literally unaware of our subconscious biases.
So @firmlee_grasspit, @vitklim- how was I supposed to answer a self evident question that could have been self answered with 5 minutes of research that don’t rely on exclusively the testimony of bias sources? I watched an hour video that was less than riveting and far from thought provoking- not for my benefit but out of respect to vitklims position. There was no substance there as we have covered. If @vitklim has any specific points from the video he wanted addressed or feels weren’t covered in my reply, why not type those out instead of just relying on me to use an hour of my time to sort through it? I am sorry @vitklim if I hurt your feelings. There was a lot of sarcasm in my reply and it wasn’t intended to be insulting- it was more aimed at him than you because after watching him talk for an hour I’d like to punch him- not for his politics but for being an annoying imbecile.
And @firmlee_grasspit@vitklim- if you’ve ever read anything g I’ve said on here about guns you’d know I’m pro gun rights and enjoy responsible use of firearms- so my side also has “the guns,” really everyone except for the anti gun people have guns- except they actually often have guns too or those who use guns to protect them which is part of the hypocrisy of many wealthy anti gun mouth pieces. I’m not ready to draw guns on anyone over a repeat offender getting locked up for a crime they committed though- and I’d wager a guess based on Waco and similar analogs that it wouldn’t end too well for those who decided to do so.
Your reply is very much appreciated. Thank you for explaining, as I didn’t want to assume anything. My reply wasn’t completely directed at you, by the way. A lot of it was just touching on general relevant topics.
@firmlee_grasspit- no ill will perceived or taken. You wrote a very diplomatic, respectful, and honest reply. While much I do not regret as far as content, my overall tone would have been better served to follow your example. I was condescending and I think some of that came from my previous interactions with vitklim, and some of that came from my frustrations with the overall state of things, and most came from just how ridiculous I see the whole thing- especially in contrast to that middle one. Rosa Parks served time for each of her crimes even if those crimes were committed in the name of civil rights. It’s such a basic concept that it’s as if my mind became unglued. Some of the tongue in cheekiness and condescension is humor- from absurdity, is from my mind spinning around trying to make sense of how a guilty man who confessed to a crime that anyone else would be punished for could have his guilt questioned. As though Up was no longer up and reality was no longer a concern.
If you say you have watched the interview, then disprove his defense.
1. There were no reporting restrictions on the case as far as publicly available information
2. He was charged with "causing anxiety" to the defendants, which was expanded into influencing their trial, which by that time was considered to be over and the judge agreed to that in court (About 1:10 timestamp).
3. The third charge was for confronting them in an "agressive manner", which if the standard applied equally, would cover most of the MSM reporters as well.
.
Regardless, he was essentially convicted for being a journalist, since there is absolutely zero fucking proof that his actions influenced the trial, and I have doubts about the fact that they were a knowing breach and could influence the outcome at all.
.
And given how much he is already persecuted by everyone, I will still stand in defense of him. He was wiped off the internet, condemned by every single mainstream outlet, he is attacked on a regular basis.
Because I've seen where this leads. The future of the dissenters like him. I'm sure you wouldn't know what is going on in Russia, would you?
.
The main opposition leader's brother has been convicted for 2-3 years on fabricated charges, his attempts at creating a political party have been shut down through loopholes every single time, the only outlet through which he can report on the news is YouTube, and he is regularly arrested for 30 days for organizing an "unapproved" rally, with about 100+ days total in a year. While the law states that the government cannot prevent or arrest people for organizing rallies, as long as they inform the government that it will happen, which was the case. Their headquarters are regularly raided by the police, there have been hired thugs that hospitalized a number of the opposition figures.
.
And this is the path that the UK is sliding towards. The complete corruption of the government, the courts and the media.
Now to avoid repeating past misunderstanding- what I say now I say in earnest- even if I had no access to actual news of Russia- there is no point in my entire life where my default assumption would be that there was any semblance of actual and meaningful political freedom that didn’t have an army behind it. And so it has been for at least 100 years. The drapes changed a few times, some new cable channels were added- but the same guys running the USSR never went anywhere and a good number of them including the more or less lifetime “elected” president are still running the country from inside the government or outside. Opening up some McDonald’s and figuring out that letting people make some money is a great way to control them with a carrot instead of a stick didn’t magically change the hearts of those who in their lives carried the party line and its ways.
So with that said- any country where there is even a shred of freedom must always be vigilant of tyranny and fascism. Abuse of power to serve self also isn’t the exclusive purview of any one philosophy or way of government. When they come and take a person in the night- when they refuse to allow them the same right to assemble as another, these are cases where I could see cause to worry. But when you commit a clear and by the letter of the law crime, irrefutably, it isn’t fascism or censorship to arrest you. If they caught an ISIS member trespassing in a restricted area of an airport, but otherwise unarmed, would it be fascism to arrest them because they were there to give a speech on the tarmac and nothing more? Or would anyone regardless of their politics be arrested for that crime?
If you rent a billboard, or get a permit to do a public speech- you an put whatever you and the venue owner allow and desire. But if you scrawl your political message in spray paint on a police station- is it censorship or fascism to arrest you? Are you being unfairly targeted? Now- if there were a journalist who on that same day at that same court broke the order and broadcast opinions and related information to the case and it was known- and they prosecuted just Tommy boy but not the journalist- I might see some bias there depending on the circumstances. Especially if the journalist was also a repeat offender.
But what you speak of in Russia- a government blatantly disregarding its own laws is a far cry from a government which is adhering to its laws as written. The gag order wasn’t targeted to himA it was a general order to everyone of all political views. If there wasn’t a gag order at all and he was in a public place just filming? Yeah- I could possibly see an argument there. POSSIBLY- considering that “free speech” is not “free speech” anywhere with laws. Go on national network morning TV and drop a few swear words- lie in court, shout “fire!” In a crowded theater, say that you saw Richard Branson giving bill Clinton anal sex and accuse him of insider trading. Do any of these things and you’ll find yourself in legal trouble in many “free” countries.
In Germany a shout out to ol, Adolf Hitler or a denial of the holocaust will send you to court. In many countries saying you will harm a person, calling for others to harm a person, saying things that start a riot or cause a murder or a genocide or reasonably could- are all illegal. Now- some of the things Tommy Knocker was saying weren’t very “progressive,” and since that’s not why he was arrested or what he was tried for we don’t need to argue it- but there is some room to say that yeah- in general if he was just out on the street without a gag order, and not otherwise breaking one of these laws mentioned above- and they hailed him- THATS censorship and fascism. Not arresting a guy for committing a clear crime in broad daylight with witnesses.
Can you prove that the order for the reporting restrictions was publicly available at the time and Tommy deliberately breached or avoided finding out about it?
It was confirmed that his actions did not influence the proceedings of the trial, and "causing anxiety" is the most bullshit claim I've ever heard.
And can he then charge the MSM reporters for covering him in an "agressive manner"? Because if he can, then he should, just to prove how bullshit that charge is.
.
Stop weaseling around and answer the questions if you want to discuss this further.
Tommy boy went out and pursued a course of action that ANY reasonable Britain would have to assume would most likely end in legal trouble (or incarceration for those who know they’re on probation for the exact same crime..) regardless of who they were or what ideas they represented. He knew and said he knew he was breaking the law before he did it- and “freedom” isn’t the same thing as being able to do anything you want any time you want regardless of law or any other factors. That’s anarchy, not freedom. That’s a savage utopia or natural law. That’s not a free civilization because without rules or conventions and a means to enforce them there isn’t a society, just a bunch of people doing whatever they want until someone bigger comes along and decides to stop them.
In the end it isn’t even free speech that was ever in danger here. He makes films, he is on the Internet, he has it has had websites. He started his own little club of Tommy scouts and everything that he can talk to and tell stories with and have real friends who don’t laugh at him and all of it. He has a voice. He appears on U.K. tv from time to time as a guest on news programs even. If he waited for the gag order to be up and he went on tv or took to the internet or called a fan club meeting to say what he wanted to- he wouldn’t go to jail for it. They haven’t arrested him yet just for doing any of those things. His case is nothing like what you describe in Russia and it’s a projection of inner fears to conflate the two and reach far enough to subscribe to the man’s martyr/victim complex.
He writes and speaks and makes films and at various points has been very highly paid for all of it. They didn’t arrest him for mortgage fraud because he was right wing- they did it because he was defrauding people. When he illegally violated US borders that is why he was arrested- not because he wanted to speak here- because... well... if the talk of walls and the whole separating kids and parents and all that isn’t a clue- the US- especially right now- arrests people it catches trying to illegally enter our country and that includes from Europe, it’s not just Mexico.
I’m sure at some point he convinced himself his multiple assault cases also weren’t for... committing assault... but were political pressure. But the litmus test here is wether someone else would be arrested. If justice is being applied uniformly- then its hard to make a case he’s being singled out for his politics. And if free speech is really the secret motivation for his antics- maybe he shouldn’t say that instead of a bunch of slurs? If he is after free speech he seems oddly focused on Muslims and not free speech? Do it’s some tactic it is too advanced for me to fathom. Like- if I was concerned about free speech I’d probably go speak about how free speech was important, give examples of abuses of censorship, get arrested for raising awareness of free speech, maybe focus on... free speech.
But that’s just my thoughts though. So far the only aspect of free speech we really know he cares about are the ability to violate gag orders, the ability to slur Muslims, and... well that seems to be the majority of it. Oh- he also like many others feels the media in general is too liberal and should also.... publish more slurs against Muslims? Is what I gather. Him and his people also seemed a bit upset the liberal media didn’t really cover his arrest. I suppose it hurts a little to find out that most papers ran your arrest in the police blotter section instead of the front page when you consider yourself a celebrity? Couldn’t say. But I’ve heard exactly 0 people in my ordinary course of life talk about this and wouldn’t have known if it wasn’t for this site most likely. Now if someone could produce some kind of proof- any kind of proof that news media had been told or had collaborated to hide this story we might have a thread to pull...
But.... I doubt that would exist- because between the options of “guy myself and a bunch of generally well informed people have never heard of before this meme getting arrested for breaking petty crime laws wasn’t really news worthy..” and “secret radical leftist conspiracy to cover up the U.K. government trying to silence right wing activist through near total media blackout...” one of those sounds more credible than the other to me.
The story doesn’t really jump off the page unless we start adding our own editorials does it? As discussed before- “guy commits petty crime, again while on parole for same crime, gets a modest jail sentence” and add for almost American viewers: “you’ve also never heard of him and he’s completely irrelevant to you because pretty much his entire speil is about Muslims in the U.K., and it was at a court case you never heard of in the U.K...” that one doesn’t really need an article. Guy does crime at court house. Guy goes to jail for crime he did in front of cops at courthouse. Did it because he hates Muslims. Ok. We have all the facts there. No meat.
But if we start adding things like possible allegories to foreign despotisms and calls to arms and how you’re likely next in this Orwellian nightmare where criminals end up going to jail simply for committing crimes and the legal system does its job and all sorts of totalitarian horrors like allowing a guilty man to be sentenced to jail for a crime he committed without even the decency of not arresting him because some people agree with his politics? That starts to get certain people’s attention.
We can then ratchet it up. Make this poor downtrodden writer/producer/film maker/media personality/tv regular Everyman into the underdog. Well sure he broke the law- but was it fair they arrested him? There were way more cops than there was of him, and the judge knew the law better than him so that was also an unfair advantage. They didn’t even allow him to fully explain how the entire thing wasn’t his fault and was all caused by Muslims.
If you can;t get your personal feelings out of the way for a single moment, there is no point in discussing this further. I'm not going to debate you on any other topic either, there are much better people on this site to engage with. Consider this a farewell, because I will be ignoring you from now on.
So he’s an under dog martyr who had the guts to violate his parole for free speech and his beliefs! He stood up when they told him to sit down and they threw him in jail because they were afraid of what he had to say! (Yes- the overwhelming muslim politicians and judges if the U.K. are terrified that if his anti muslim agenda sticks that they will be ousted from power...) and they put a clandestine media blackout on his arrest because if it had gotten out then there’d be mass demonstrations for the uks true beloved son. And the trial(s) were rigged, the law is biased, the media is biased, the Muslims and their sympathizers control too much power as well and they were biased and if he’d requested a jury they’d have been biased too because the liberal media brainwashed them.
Wow. Right there would be some things to get mad about. A lot to talk about. They locked him up for speaking out against pedophiles?! The people will cry. “They railroaded him for... speaking his truth because they didn’t like it?!”! The U.K. government would take he side of pedophiles-
Foreign pedophiles against their own (actually not remotely, and having many cases completely unrelated to speaking or politics but just straight criminal offenses) law abiding son?!?! The magistrates support pedophiles?!?!!
We could chase that down a rabbit hole and never come back- if we were to ignore, forget, or toss away the facts. If what we really wanted was a reason to be panicked or outraged and we just needed an excuse but it didn’t have to be a good one.
No. That’s actually not the case at all. Tommy Robinson filmed DEFENDANTS in a high profile trial BEFORE jury deliberations were complete. At the time he filmed those men they were innocent in the eyes of the law. As this post shows however- many people are too ignorant to differentiate between a person accused of a crime and convicted. So what he did- and why it is against the law- is potentially endanger the lives of people not found guilty of any crime, as well as put their families etc. at risk. Even if you don’t feel that way- he DID blatantly violate a court order prohibiting filming in front of the court- for anyone, regardless of their politics etc. He broke the law, he was convicted for it.
Here is the interview with the man where he directly outlines how the prosecution was stacked against him and where it was unlawful or obviously skewed. Fucking prove him wrong, go ahead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj2nzV9BAh0&t
The trial was of the Huddersfield Grooming gang. The gang was found guilty of a laundry list of sex crimes against minors for a period of almost a decade. They were hugely guilty of terrible crimes and it was a HUGE bust. A huge case long in the making and the primary reason for the restrictions was because under the British justice system such actions as Robinson took could have allowed those men who did those horrible things to walk free due to a mistrial.
Dude- people keep talking about “muslim@ this and that- the ring leader was a British Indian and his religion was Sikh- he’s not even muslim. Most of the men were Pakistani- which is a predominantly Muslim majority nation but that’s like assuming someone is Christian because they’re American. Likewise- the conservative Home Secretary cake under fire after the trial- as others in the government have- for making statements that south Asians or Pakistani are the majority of sex trafficking cases tried in the country. Now- we can argue if that’s racist or not- but at least there’s some factual backing to the claim regardless of any extenuating information.
But jumping from “people from a certain region represent a higher percentage of crimes of a given type” (already somewhat a perilous statement,) to claiming that all people of one of the largest religions in the world- spread across great distances and diverse people’s- are all in the same umbrella- that’s a HUGE leap that one cannot factually back.
And no- the order wasn’t issued on basis of religion. Gag orders are common to British law and to high profile and/or complex cases where conjecture and misconduct or release of sensitive or inflammatory information could give grounds for a declaration of a mistrial or tainted proceedings.
Twice. Once initially, he appealed, and was found guilty again with a lesser sentence. Well- twice this time. On his impressive rap sheet he has a history of charges and convictions for this same behavior, slander, fraud, and assault. He also has a list of aliases and assumed identities known to law enforcement and the public.
@guest_ I know, I was just saying in reference to this in particular not including previous convictions. The big problem is that people seem to think that the whole grooming gang thing is something to do with the majority of them being Muslim but it's not: it's cultural more than anything. They've brought unpleasant and horrific aspects of their culture along with them rather than assimilating and abiding by the laws of the land and conjoined with the fact that the people came from the same community which in many ways is rather secular did nothing to help the situation as a liot of older people within their communities don't seem to see it as much of a problem and prefer to attempt to deal with it privately if they have to rather than contacting law enforcement.
It’s just a fact that sex trafficking is a thing, and certain places have governments etc. that are more conducive to that. German brothels and authorities will say that simply being from Romania or parts of Eastern Europe will automatically make them suspicious that a woman working in the sex industry is somehow involved in trafficking. I can’t say I agree I would call that a part of the culture of Romania- or on this case Pakistan, as much as it is a byproduct of their countries socio economic situations- but there certainly are elements of the culture that can help enable sex trafficking, such as the gender roles and dynamics etc. We do have to be careful though. That’s where accusations of racism come from. We must be clear that 1. Being South asian doesn’t equate to being a criminal. 2. South Asians are not more likely to be criminals. 3. Certain crimes of a certain type have disproportionate instances of being committed by south Asians. (In certain areas like parts of the U.K.)
So- we can agree that a large number of sex trafficking cases in the U.K. involve south Asians. We can agree that the socio economic situation in many south East Asian countries incentivizes certain people to crime as a means of profit.
It’s also a known and documented fact that immigrant communities- especially first generation communities, and especially ones who come from certain places where either their own government, or takes of their new government, lead them to believe that calling law enforcement would result in making a situation worse and not better. There’s also often a language barrier and sometimes cultural barriers that make integration with other communities difficult.
So having been clear on the facts we can agree upon- these are all challenges to be overcome when integrating various peoples. Trust, aligning values and laws. Most of these things take generations, it’s difficult for an adult to change their entire outlook in the course of a plane ride, or even over decades of living in a new place, and wanting to hold on to a sense of the identity a person came from can also make that more difficult as they literally fight assimilation. But over generations offspring usually become more and more integrated and elements of their culture also tend to start being assimilated by the host culture. It just takes time. In the meantime building trust and making bridges between isolated communities can help the process along.
I agree :) when I say culture I do not mean that sex trafficking is a part of the culture but that females are not seen the same level as males and therefore to them it doesn't exactly matter about what happens to them or how they're treated. Just to clarify what I meant.
@vitklim I've never actually witnessed guest_ go from zero to.. Whatever that was.. Before. Either way, I'm honestly too tired to insert myself into that comment chain.
'
I have absolutely no clue who this person is or the events of this case, so I'll have to actually look into it to find out what's going on before I can offer any real commentary
Yeah, take all the time you need. But this is why I don't respect guest_ anymore. When he flips the fuck out, he begins insulting the person he is trying to persuade.
@vitklim- I will not lose any sleep at night from a lack of your respect. I admit my reply was full of sarcasm (not primarily directed at you however, so apologies if it read that way, directed at the absurdity of the situation and the proposition,) and that it was on the harsh side. We all get frustrated sometimes I suppose, but that’s not an excuse. I’m unaware of where I insulted you though? This I am genuinely curious about because I do not recall insulting you in my reply. Did you mean that you felt insulted by my reply, or could you point me to where I insulted you? This isn’t sarcasm- I either didn’t realize I insulted you for whatever reason or did so without intending insult and knowing where you feel I did could help me avoid unintended insult in the future.
I was wondering if something was wrong because that seemed a bit out of character (in my experience). I mean, I've seen you get sarcastic and sometimes demeaning, guest_, but usually there's a chain of events and a progression to it that it's like "oh, okay, I see what happened here." This felt a bit more out of the blue (from my perspective anyway.) But I'll let you guys sort that out. Just elaborating on what I meant by "whatever that was."
Anyway, @vitklim (or anyone else) if anyone can provide any articles or such to read up on what actually happened, preferably ones that are as neutral as possible, that would be helpful. I looked some last night and may look more today, but for the most part it's all very vague, bias, or talks more about the events his conviction triggered (police having smoke bombs and cans thrown at them). Or else his past crimes, such as reportedly punching a man (who I believe was Muslim) to the ground
So far this is the most in-depth and most neutral account I've found: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-48942411
'
The most I've been able to find on what he actually did was something to do with illegally livestreaming men being lead to trial for hild-grooming, which lead to him being held for contempt of court. He was given a sentence for this, but that didn't seem to stick, and within a year he did the same thing again. The judge in one of the situations offered a very long explanation on why this was.
I'm going to be honest: so far whoever he is, the impression he leaves me with fits the profile of a lot of extremists and such, and I'd say he definitely has issues with his mental health as well as issues with anger and authority. He seems to be an extremely erratic person.
'
It does not sound, to me, like his motivation was to do with stopping sex trafficking, either. It sounds very much like it's racially motivated. Whether he has good reason (based on experience) to feel so strongly about this I don't know.
Either way it would be better to have more information on the trials he went after themselves before forming an opinion. The post says the men were accused of raping 11 year old girls but so far all I've found is "hild-grooming," which is a very generic term
BBC, the Biased Broadcasting Corporation is the least reliable account, given their track record of being a shill for progressives and outright communists.
.
Here is the video covering his previous sentence for contempt of the court that was overturned, plus the biased reporting on Tommy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL2Q57b48w
.
Coverage of him being banned from Facebook and Instagram, plus the biased reporting on him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0
.
Full timeline of him being banned from every social media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny9bVn6Kf6g
.
And finally, the analysis of the coverage on his sentencing from the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RBjNE4hxjE
Yes, haha, that's why I said they were the LEAST bias account I had found, not that they were unbias. Most of the other articles I found were much, much worse in terms of using trigger words and inflammatory language to try and paint a specific picture of the man.
'
I have since found this accounting, which seems fairly straightforward and, while still lacking detail, seems more or less in line with what the first video you sent had been saying:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7855a700-d300-4088-9bdc-792a3512bc2a
'
I do find the last video to be bias, and the person making it spends time pointing out things that he thinks are offensive (using Tommy's publicly available, real name, and people holding the flag) that really just felt like standard journalism to me. That said he's clearly frustrated with the way this has carried on, which is understandable
I still feel somewhat hesitant offering an opinion overall since I've never actually seen any of his social media to know if there is any merit to him being called a proponent of hate speech. I also am unfamiliar with the British rules and such in that regard. However, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, etc all fall under American jurisdiction I think, and therefore are meant to police their users to those standards, not the standards of other countries. I could be wrong on that.
'
Either way, I guess my biggest red flag for all that is that these major corporations are banning this man, but on the whole they're not providing evidence. Facebook should have been able to cite and produce an actual independently archived link of him calling for the beheading of any group. If they can't, they should never have said that was their reason for banning him, and likely should not have banned him at all.
Sadly, this is an issue a lot of these websites are facing where they claim they're incapable of censorship and therefore free from consequences. Hopefully this movement with Trump's twitter will actually make headway in overhauling the way these sites are allowed to handle the username.
'
Whatever the case, as I said he does seem to be a bit of an erratic man and he does clearly allow race to motivate a lot of what he does. When and if he is doing it specifically to point out an accuracy, however offensive people may find that accuracy, that is not a crime. It's not hate-speech (providing he's not using slurs etc). It's simply fact, and should be treated accordingly
Like I said I don't know enough about his own history on social media, but this does paint the picture of yet another false-flagging and brigading campaign to unperson someone, and that's dreadfully concerning if accurate.
'
Not being politically correct continues to be a fan-favourite reason to have people literally lose their ability to speak, interact, or even make a living.
That said, I'm going to speak just about the issue with the pedophile ring. I'm still not sure where the "raping 13 year olds" came from, but I suppose that's more a technicality at this point.
'
The issue doesn't so much seem to be about whether he was in fact guilty of contempt. This seems a bit foggy, but it seems apparent that there was a publication ban in place, and either way what he did did have the potential to disrupt the trial and have potentially devastating consequences for a group of men who had not been convicted of a crime. And to be clear, this isn't about defending pedophiles. But a lot of this argument with the trial has to do with the violation of due process, and if that isn't applied evenly then there's no point bringing it up at all on either side.
He could easily have reported on the issue without revealing faces or other such information until after the trial had finished.
'
That said, what happened to him after was a clear example of a power play. They don't mention whether his past criminal history actually has any legally definable impact on his conviction, so we have to assume it does not. In that scenario he did not get due process, he did not get a fair right to counsel, he did not get a fair judgement, and the conditions he was kept in May well have been for his own protection, but they were not equivalent or humane.
'
So I guess to answer the post, based on the information I have: I do think he was guilty of violating the publication ban. I don't think what happened after was justified.
Yeah, I mostly agree, only a couple things to point out. Tommy doesn't care about the race of people he's railing against, he cares that they are fundamentalist muslims and as such, treat the native people of UK without any respect for them being human. This is why they find acceptable to commit all sorts of crimes against them without feeling remorse.
.
As for the trial itself, my biggest suspicions here are that the publication ban was either hidden, or placed in there post-fact, since Tommy claims to have spent the time ensuring that it's not in place. Plus the fact that if everything was taken into account, including his confession, he would serve no time in jail at all, because he already served it from the previous mistrial. Yet they shoved him there anyway.
.
And as for the media bans and smears, it's yet again because he is going against political correctness. First, they came for Alex Jones, then for Tommy, and Crowder was supposed to be the next target, but they didn't dare.
Good grief. I only looked into it in minor detail but it was one of the most ridiculous things I'd ever seen. A gay man whose twitter handle has "gay" in it, who regularly posts about how gay he is, who posts regularly to some reddit or whichever very explicit pictures and stories about how much he likes to watch his husband having sex with other guys.... Gets offended when someone calls him gay.
'
And then, when that same person implies the only reason people give him a voice is because he's gay, he responds by trying to have that person DE-PERSONED. And when that doesn't work immediately, he... tags in the gay community and uses that as a way to guilt platforms into complying... which kind of is the exact point the Crowder guy seemed to have been making
'
And then it backfires and he accidentally gets a ton of "acceptable," as well as entirely unrelated channels caught in the crossfire. But it's totes not his fault
And he also goes after the guy for a shirt that has the word "fig" on it, which had nothing to do with gays... which just lead to the Streisand effect.
'
I guarantee I'm missing details, but if I'm understanding it correctly the whole thing is one of the most ridiculous farces I've seen in awhile
@xvarnah- missing details tend to be the way that the farther left and right manage to play the victim card. Like a kid telling their parents or a shamed adult telling the story of how they were suspended from work/school so that not through lies- but through omission, half truths, or bias perspective they look either innocent or more so than they otherwise would.
YouTube did mess up. Their policies can and do change on a whim. They apply them almost arbitrarily. They often fail to explain or document how or why a ruling is made and generally do not use that ruling as precedent for future ruling in similar cases.
Now- calling someone gay who is gay isn’t itself a hate crime- but again- like children who put their fingers in the face of others or similar but “aren’t touching them...” these sorts of things are often done subtly so that one can technically say they didn’t do anything wrong. Watching the videos crowder often puts on effeminate or mocking tones and a lisp to intimidate the man. He spent years sowing such things, as well as using slurs like “fag” or referring to him as a “Gay Latino” and such- which while technically true- also is extraneous to the topics at hand and what’s being discussed by him unless one thinks that by default those attributes somehow explain a behavior or speak to his character and not to some aspect of his lifestyle or some context to a story.
Crowder was not silenced- just demonetized- which he himself went on record to say he didn’t not care about and would not effect him as his primary income was from merchandise sales and other avenues. If YouTube was going to demonetize him they should have made clearer why- but regardless they didn’t outright ban him.
The fig shirt is another example of children “not touching each other.” Faggot is a slur for homosexuals. So if The word faggot is banned- one can still “technically” use “fag.” We all know what that means- and it’s the same as saying faggot. If you can’t say “fag,” “fig” works just as well. People you want to know will know what you mean. You’ll know regardless. Unless of course your actual business has something to do with figs the fruit or actions figures or etc- but when a right wing person who frequently mocks gays and uses words like “queer” as slurs sells shirts that say fig- any common sense says that he ain’t talking about figgy pudding.
Likewise- if you chop off the ends of a swastika so that it is a stylized cross on a red background etc to skirt regulations about displaying swastika- playing innocent about it doesn’t work. If a neo Nazi group starts displaying manji in Germany and claiming it isn’t a swastika- a human with a brain isn’t buying that one.
In the end- the freedom to not like a person or to spread ones opinion or say negative things about a person is important- but when those negative things are based in assumption of stereotype and not the actual person, or when those things are solely that an aspect of their existence is negative- there is discrimination. At that point we aren’t just saying that person is bad because of that attribute makes them bad, anyone else with that attribute is also bad and we are now saying the group with that attribute is less than the group without.
That’s the insidious nature of how many are lobbying their agendas in the world today. “Sportsmanship” is to play by the spirit of the rules- that while no rules can ever completely and comprehensively cover all possible subtleties- that if we remember the spirit of why a rule exists and stick to it- the rule works. When rules lawyers come and start trying to push every button and stretch any loophole which exists to allow discretion, in order to break the spirit of the rules and claim it is within the letter of the rules- that is where the rules start to be made restrictive because the judgment they once relied upon cannot be trusted any longer.
It's my understanding that, not only did the journalist instigate this war between them, but the journalist lead MULTIPLE false-flagging campaigns against every social media platform Crowder was on. He did this repeatedly, because while he was allowed to refer to himself as gay, a queer, and many other things ALL OVER THE INTERNET, he didn't like it when someone else did the same.
'
As an aside - unless Crowder actively sought out or specifically sent people after the reporter, as far as I know that doesn't actually qualify as harassment.
'
Not to mention the little I've seen of this reporter is VILE. And he is MORE than comfortable using slurs such as Nazi on his social media. He actively encourages violence - including telling people how they should PHYSICALLY ASSAULT people he doesn't agree with using milkshakes. And if that sounds like it's NBD take a look at some of the injuries from ANTIFA.
I watched the video this reporter posted to label Crowder evil incarnate. He does a lisp, and refers to the reporter as gay and a Latino. This is the video the REPORTER uploaded as an example of harassment. And yet it displays no actual hate speech in it. Just a general sense of mockery - and considering almost every post the reporter makes is either about how gay he is or else why you should be allowed to punch Nazis, I don't really see how he has any actual high ground to complain
'
There IS discrimination, and maybe Crowder is genuinely homophobic, but this is NOT a strong case for how persecuted the gay community is. This reporter literally uses his status as a gay man as a weapon and his methods are absolutely deplorable. And now he managed to screech so loudly he literally cost people their livelihoods. Crowder might be fine, but the scope of the damage caused by this reporter's campaign against Crowder lead to many, many, many more people being demonetized.
Including pro-gay news coverage channels and music channels that had nothing to do with anything.
'
And Crowder may not have been silenced, but that doesn't mean that's not what the reporter was trying to do.
,
He wanted censorship, but only of people HE doesn't agree with. Unless he can actually prove Crowder sought him out/directed others to harass him, or that Crowder was using genuine hate speech (which, again, the reporter is fine with provided he's the one doing it) I don't see how he has any right to try and take someone's free speech away.
'
And for the record I don't even really know who in heck either of these people are. Pretty sure I dislike both of them. But the way this went down was, as I said, completely ridiculous
I also don't think Crowder is just a hapless victim in this at all. Just getting fed up with this vicious cycle that people such as this reporter always seem to fall back on.
-see a person
-dislike the person, possibly because of something they said
-lash out
-use victim and/or minority status to recruit others to lash out
-go after the person's ability to interact, ability to be heard, and, often, go after their ability to earn a living
Well, the thing is, he didn't break any rules or go beyond reasonable reach for comedy. He debunked the Vox video as he often does, and refereed to Maza using the same words that he used to refer to himself. YouTube themselves had to admit that he broke no rules, and they demonetized his channel anyway, because of the fear of another adpocalypse.
.
He has literally done nothing wrong in the entire endeavour, it's just that YouTube is scared shitless of the sjw mob online, and will prostrate themselves to them and the mainstream media if pressured at all.
.
He is by definition a victim here, which is funny, but the irony is lost on the morons defending Maza.
I just realized I kind of derailed this entire comment chain from Tommy robinson, which wasn't my intent. Apologies for that, @vitklim , and feel free to steer it back :)
'
And I honestly don't know everything Crowder said or did which is why I'm hesitant to say he was just a victim. He did exhibit some provocational behaviour. However, the reporter Is under no obligation to watch him. And, based on the reporters actions this entire time, I'm not sure Crowder was in the wrong. When the option someone gives you it "change your opinion NOW, or lay down in the dirt and watch as we set your life to burn" it's hard to have sympathy for the "harassed" party
@xvarnah- mob justice isn’t good regardless of who the mob is- and neither is letting the strong (in this case YouTube) simply do whatever they want because they have the strength to. But I would not call him a victim at all. I’m old and come from a rough place. People didn’t get to walk around and say whatever they wanted. If you started popping off on some bullshit talking smack about someone- they’d punch you if you’re lucky or stab or shoot you if you weren’t. This isn’t a perfect system- but it largely insured that people who didn’t want to participate in violence kept some degree of manners about them.
My point there isn’t we should go around punching and stabbing- it’s that there is a problem here. See- what is the remedy when you don’t like the fact a person is being a cunt? Like YouTube Disney has rules. But they also have general rules they enact as needed. They may not explicitly forbid something you’re doing- but they’ll kick you out if they feel that whatever you’re doing is messing up other people’s ability to have a good time, which one clear way to know that is when people complain that they don’t appreciate what you’re doing.
Now- someone born a man may not get too upset being accidentally called a woman, but someone born a woman and transitioned to a man might no? So I can’t say what would upset a gay Latino guy because I’ve never been a gay Latino guy. I have to take his word on that. I can’t really say what’s homophobic etc except for that which I’ve had someone who is homosexual inform me they find it homophobic just like I can’t tell you the tampon with the best applicator because I’ve never used a tampon- and a woman can’t really tell a man which condom allows him the “best” feelings either.
But I can say this- as adults, we can’t tell teacher. And when the law isn’t being broken we can’t tell the cops either. We have to work it out between ourselves. Now, when someone mocking you- the fundamental respect needed to work that out is kinda missing by default. And you can’t just go outside and punch it out and whoever gives up first has to shut the fuck up about it now and as long as they dont want to get whooped again.
But the act of pushing buttons and pushing limits- of finding just how close you can get to breaking the rules without actually breaking them just so that you can piss someone else off? Not only is that shitty behavior but it’s childish behavior. Adults who are mentally children, but because they’re adults they don’t have a parent to complain to. So there does sort of need to be a parent to deal with these assholes.
In this case it’s YouTube. And while the idea of giving g a corporate overlord or anyone poet without accountability doesn’t appeal to me- picturing these two as the children they are- what would you do? I’d tell the little shit that was making fun of the other one that isn’t how we behave. Maybe send them to their room or hold their allowance or whatever- and tell the other one not to provoke him and not to do the same thing back.
But the issue- the one this crafty ass hat skillful subverts- isn’t that he made fun of a person- it’s why. I’ll make fun of a fat guy. I won’t make fun of him for being fat though. See the distinction? If you want to make fun of a gay guy, Jewish guy, lesbian, Whatever- that’s life. Sometimes we get made fun of. Not everyone will like us. But when the basis of that- the backbone and the avenue we use for the humor is based on such an attribute and it isn’t tongue in cheek ala Dave chapel or Jeff Dunham but takes the form of maliciousness on the grounds of what they are and not who they are- that is racism disguised as comedy and comedy involving race.
That’s the game being played very well. People figuring out the line they can walk up to to technically avoid breaking any rules, but figuring out how to do so in a way that subverts the intent of the rule. The one video spoken of is one in years of harassment and mockery.
Lots of comics make fun of gay guys or persons of color- without needing to make the entire joke “they are gay!” Or “they’re a minority!” They don’t generally pick a single one and make fun of that same person for years either. Now- Kevin Hart makes gay jokes and lots of people find those problematic. It isn’t the fact he’s joking about gays- it’s how he’s doing it. When Kramer went on his N word laced rant on stage- lots of people cancelled his shows. It’s not only a matter of principal but of money.
If a Taliban member or ISIS supporter were funny as hell I still wouldn’t watch their act. It doesn’t matter if all they ever did was hand out pamphlets but they believe what is on them. I don’t have room for extremists in my world.
The moment you tell another human being that they are less, not by action but because of who they are- you lost me. The protection of unpopular thought under freedom of speech in my mind does not extend to those thoughts which are fundamental not reconcilable wit the existence of another type of human being (the irony of tolerance being intolerant of intolerance isn’t lost on me.) but that’s how it is. When you use your voice to try and take someone else’s you aren’t exercising freedom of speech. When you attack who they are fundamentally instead of who they are as a person or what they think or do you are attacking everyone who is like them and it has nothing to do with them but your bigotry.
The ability to make fun of a person- the criticize others, etc. these are important aspects of freedom of speech. But we have not just people with poor judgment- but people who knowingly and intentionally want to abuse their freedoms to circumvent the rules meant to protect people and groups from harassment, slander, and hate speech. People who intentionally play with the system and push those rules to the breaking point- and at some point as a practical matter someone will say that we need to close those loopholes.
And then actually wellmeaningI g people lose their rights too. We see it in all aspects of law- guns being a key example of where legislature is enacted and then people begin to find ways to subvert it- like when it was said in California that a magazine for a weapon required removal by a “tool” so a bunch of people made a type of release that you could work with a round of ammunition from the same gun- or when to get around bans on automatic weapons people used “bump stalks.”
And then what happened? They passed laws that not only banned these things- but a host of other things and made it that much restrictive to others who were responsibly and in good faith enjoying Their rights. That’s what happens. That’s how it works because in the end- those in power will always amend the system so they can maintain control.
So people like this aren’t “advocates” or helping free speech. Their miserable little trolls who are hurting it- because YouTube released a shit ton of new rules after this. As you comment above @xvarnah- a bunch of unrelated channels got caught up on the whole thing after that. And someone will come and push these new rules and then there will be even more restrictive rules.
And that serves their agenda- because they WANT that reaction. They WANT to push and push and force the system to have to try and react to stop such abuses so they can point at the reaction and say “see?! They’re tyrants!” And then people who weren’t on their extremes of beliefs start to believe them, listen to them, and if they were right about this- were they also right about the Zionist conspiracies or liberal coverups or whatever else? It’s a subversive game that’s using the rights of the masses as a weapon to try and garner support.
That’s who this guy is. It’s the same as he did with his prey- he poked and poked and instigated carefully so that the guy would respond and he could point it out and say “I didn’t break any rules, I didn’t do anything bad but see? I’m being made a whipping boy of big gay!”
That’s the behavior. Because in all the hype we are overlooking the fact that he fucking instigated and mocked and demeaned a fellow human being for years and years- that’s what he’s “innocent of.” He didn’t break any rules but he did do that. And that’s just what’s on video. We have no idea what interactions they’ve had etc. I don’t know about you- but to me that’s unacceptable regardless. To me- I don’t want that to be ok, and while fiat fights and knifing are extreme- my original point stands that when people act Like cunts there should be consequences. Because if we say “well- he wasn’t breaking any laws....”
Guess what happens? After awhile, after so many people see that you can do so much without breaking any laws- they do it to. Hate gays? Jews? Muslims? Catholics? Asians, blacks, women? Well- this is how far you can go and get away with openly causing them mental anguish or otherwise hurting their image or reputation and not get in trouble.... and when enough people or the right people get fed up with that and people say “yeah... I don’t think that just because they cheated on you means you should be able to post sex videos of them even though it’s not illegal...” they will pass a law and MAKE IT ILLEGAL.
Revenge porn is illegal. Not so long ago- it wasn’t. But what did they do wrong? They own the video. As an ex boyfriend I can post a video of me and my former partner at a birthday party- I can’t post a sex video? They gave it to me as a gift. I own it. I have consent and ownership to the images. What is bad about it? Just because it makes them FEEL bad or ashamed or whatever? But that’s them- I didn’t edit it. They DID do that. Why can’t I?
But it IS illegal because by and large- people don’t want their own sex tapes online- and it became a big enough thing that people noticed. So keep mocking people about being gay without breaking hate crime laws and see how long it is before you’re actually looking at censorship. And guys like this will make out well because they’ll smile and say “see! I told you!” When their self fulfilling prophecy comes true. It’s abuse of the system for personal gain and it hurts everyone not just gay people or Latinos or YouTube personalities.
You're actively ignoring:
-Crowder literally called the reporter nothing the reporter didn't call himself. If you don't want to be called an bitch, than don't parade it on just about every post you make on social media in public.
-The reporter labelled Crowder a NAZI and an extremist. And now he cries victim.
-Crowder was exercising his right for free speech when he critiqued the reporter's writing ability. The reporter couldn't handle that and lost his mind and has been trying to silence him ever since.
'
Again: if crowder never sought the reporter out, never tagged him in, never went after him, then the reporter does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to harassment. Because he does not have to watch that video. But he did. He watched every video. And while Crowder was merely name-calling (as far as I know), the reporter was ACTIVELY trying to silence Crowder, take away his livelihood, and have him unpersoned. All while, again, using slurs and insults to refer to Crowder
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't understand why you feel like minorities deserve rights they take from others. Carlos Maza posted a picture of his erection, uses the handle "gaywonk" on multiple platforms, and tells all about how he loves swapping his husband with another man. He calls himself gay and several other variants of that - loudly and often - on a daily basis on his social media. He weaponized his sexuality to the detriment of that community. And then he freaks out when he is called gay. And tries to, again, de-person the man who did it
The fact that it's his sexuality he's talking about is irrelevant. He could have red hair. If he refers to himself as a ginger every day and someone starts calling him a ginger and joking about how he'll steal your soul... so what?
'
Why is he allowed to encourage assaults? Why is he allowed to label people Nazis? Because he's gay? for the record: after he made his post telling people to go "milkshake" Nazis - people went and milkshaked other humans. With quick drying cement purportedly. They also beat the shit out of several of them. And then people like Carlos Maza posted pictures about it, BRAGGING about what a success it is.
'
But Crowder is the problem because he refers to "gaywonk" as gay.
Not fully related to Crowder, but As for the "you can make fun of a fat person but not because they're fat" - my response to that is maybe. I don't personally have much interest in going after people based on those aspects of themselves - provided they're not constantly making it a focal point.
'
However, I also have started caring far less when other people do it, depending on the circumstances.
'
If you're willing to label someone a Nazi or a rapist or whatever else; If you're willing to go after their livelihood, their income, their passion. If you're willing to organize mobs to attack that person; to attack their families; If you're willing to set someone's life on fire.. Well, then, tbh I don't care that much if someone calls you fat. When a person douses someone in gasoline, it's very difficult to have sympathy when they themselves get burned
'
That's just my personal stance. Again, not necessarily about Crowder and Maza, just in general
I realize this is probably short and not addressing a lot of what you said. And again I apologize if I'm sounding curt or like I'm attacking you or something, not my intent at all. I'm Trying just to focus on the main issue of The reporter and Crowder, because I'm honestly burnt out on debating people and I don't have the energy to put more into this at the moment. I'm also very uncertain of my use (abuse) of the semi-colon in that last comment
Completely understandable @xvarnah. To be honest I’m pretty burnt out to. This may or may not make sense- but an innocuous word can be as much a slur as any other depending on context, inflection, etc. the word “gay” is one variation of homosexual. But both gay and homosexual can be used outside the clinical sense as a slur. Think of it like this- the words “black” or “Mexican” or “Asian” aren’t slurs. Saying “this band is Mexican..” is not offensive if a band is Mexican. Saying “I wish this didn’t play this Mexican sounding music...” could birder the offensive. Saying “he is a criminal with ties to a Mexican gang” isn’t offensive perse- saying “he’s a Mexican criminal...” could be offensive. It’s also in the WAY a thing is said and it’s hard to give solid examples in my present state of weariness- but the point is that context determines wether something is offensive.
In a non charged example- many people might say something like “my husband/wife is being a real bitch...” or similar. “My mom is really dumb sometimes...” but if I were to walk up to you and say something like “your mom is real dumb sometimes...” you might take that offensively based on context. The relationship between two people also factors in.
The word “ignorant” is not an insult either. Everyone is ignorant in some areas to some degree. Some people are demonstrably more ignorant- especially on a subject at hand. But generally speaking- if you call a person ignorant- they will get offended or defensive. Language has subtleties. That’s how literally devices work, figurative language like metaphors, things like puns, and how people often can infer information that isn’t plainly stated. It’s what let’s us omit things like subjects from common speech and still be understood- because there are mechanisms to language where you can mean something other than what is explicitly said- such as with the use of sarcasm or oxymorons.
That’s where the room lies for people to use language subversively and claim innocence. When a headline reads “muslim bomber attacks....” and the bomber is protesting DACA laws- their vein. Muslim has nothing to do with it. They are also a “male bomber,” or a “Princeton grad bomber” or... so many things. But by choosing that one detail to highlight and conflate with “bomber” we are subconsciously setting a tone. Without reading the rest of the article a person can draw a conclusion that is not true to fact- and that’s a known thing. It’s a trick that is used to steer people.
Haha that's honestly why I haven't gone back to the other thread we were in yet. I'm sure you raised some interesting points in it but I'm just completely sapped of energy for it right now. And I'd probably end up coming across as a lot more derogatory than I mean to as a result
'
The issue with this is that, again, the reporter literally spams his social media (and several other places aside) with how gay he is. He's used his social media and his status as a gay person to attack and label someone else a Nazi and go after their life. At that point, he has no real right to claim how offended he is for being called gay. His handle is "gaywonk." If he doesn't want people to call him gay, he shouldn't force people to do so anytime they want to interact with him. And, again, as far as I know Crowder never encouraged any attacks or harassment or anything of the sort against the reporter - in regards to his sexuality or otherwise.
He did make an implication about it. But, as I said, Maza has no real reason to attack Crowder over it. If he was a good author, his work should speak for itself, and he's more than welcome to counter Crowder on his own corner of the internet. He can fire the same bullets Crowder does - but he doesn't deserve to be permitted to cut out crowder's tongue.
'
Ironically, as I said, he instead chose to weaponize the gay community - FORCING YouTube to violate its own terms of service BECAUSE of Maza's sexuality... And unintentionally essentially proving Crowder's point in process. Which is sad because it undermines so many other people in lbtq who don't actually agree with Maza's tactics
As an aside: I'm not sure how doing the lisp is any different or more offensive from someone making fun of a British person and doing a British accent.
'
I'm not saying I find Crowder's methods in all this are particularly palatable, but I also think the reporter should be held to the same standard. He's a huge proponent of the "punch a Nazi" mentality. And by "Nazi" he means "anyone who I disagree with." He is MORE than happy to set all the tone he wants.
'
I don't think we're going to agree on this one haha
I don’t know- we may agree more than you think. That’s somewhat my point actually. We won’t agree on justification. The fact he calls himself gay- he can call himself a Peter puffing Nancy if he wants to- but if YOU call him that, that’s not generally alright. If Janet in accounting is talking with her girls and says “I’m such a whore...” and then you intro her later to the group “hey- Janet wants to tell a story and you know it’s good because she’s a whore...” well- that’s not the same is it? So whatever he calls himself- Dr. Dre can call himself the nastiest n*g^a but Eminem would not introduce him that way.
Where we can agree though is that no one here is innocent. Like you said- Maza violated TOS. But- who went to YouTube about it? That’s the point. If I rob you and you don’t snitch, then you rob me and I tell the cops- you can’t call it bullshit because I robbed you first. You should have called the cops instead of trying to get back at me. If you want to go outside the system then you will not have the protection of the system. Now regardless of you can prove I robbed you first- we should both face the same penalties. So it’s not too hard to prove Maza broke the rules, and if he did then he should be punished for it in like kind.
Or at least as is appropriate based on severity, history, and actual infractions. But there is a concept of proportional response- and posting a picture of my penis against the rules if it bothers you isn’t proportionally met by mocking me in your own response video. It’s met through proper channels- and if you try and can’t get justice- THATS where your “activism” should go. Instead of mouthing off about all these unrelated things that have nothing to do with the hypocrisy of things or how the system is bias you step on the wrong side of the rules and don’t even advocate their application but instead flaunt them.
You can’t then claim victim status because you put yourself in that position when you had avenues which were constructive and within the rules with which to fight the rules. But this way is far more romantic and polarizing. Instead of a battle of paperwork you get a social media circus at the minor cost of being highly decisive over an issue which many more people would simply agree on in principal without the theatrics.
That’s a large part of my point on this. We largely agree- we largely would be in complete alignment if the way this went was Maza got suspended or demonetized by this guy reporting him instead of blowing off half cocked and off topic in a rebuttal that dances around the issue and instead focuses on personal attacks instead of infractions against the rules. But here we are debating instead- and it’s not because of what happened it’s because of how it happened. People do things the wrong way and then it’s a Greek tragedy when surprisingly it doesn’t work as cleanly as doing it the right but generally slower and less exciting way. That’s what he did. He shot himself in the foot and now the larger narrative isn’t about who broke what rules but about L v R or gay v straight or whatever. Which to my earlier point I believe to be his intent all along.
Much like Tommy boy or so many others- it’s all rhetoric and extremist messages until AFTER the bear trap closes and then suddenly it’s about how unfair the system is. But if the point is how unfair the system is- those details are usually missing when they’re rattling off whatever it is which gets them in trouble to begin- usually charged comments about some group or another. It’s a game of opportunity- any time there’s an audience for good or bad reasons the goal is finding how to spin that to give publicity to their agenda. This isn’t a “right wing” thing- it’s true of most extremists.
I really hope you’re working on a novel. Mate, you write a lot. Don’t let that talent go to waste on internet threads; though, obviously, your input is appreciated.
Horseshit about both sides not being innocent, Crowder's job as a political commentator and comedian is to debunk videos like Maza's and he did nothing wrong while doing so. So don't give me the "oh, but both sides fucked up", Crowder was completely justified in saying everything he said.
.
And I won't let people restrict language to be limited to only a privileged class of people. If we aren't allowed to call people niggers, then nobody should be. Otherwise, you are privileging a group above the individual, and that is poison to freedom.
An even better option is to not restrict language in that manner at all, but the hypocrisy is what shows how full of shit that argument is.
Well as I said at the start I legitimately have no clue who Crowder or who Maza is. I only learned about them following a completely unrelated dumpsterfire and suddenly youtube was being nerfed and people were talking about it.
'
I do think it's somewhat odd that Maza was allowed to flag the shirt Crowder had up. But that backfired on him, too, as I've now seen people take "figs" exactly the way Maza demanded they do, and suddenly the internet is filled with "fig ops," which is the opposite of his intent.
'
Even if the guy were in the right, he's so supremely BAD at everything he's trying to do..
By the way, @xvarnah, in that last comment I was responding to guest_'s direct words, so that wasn;t aimed at you, I know you know almost nothing of the situation. Just realized that you might have mistook that for me being a dick to you.
I love all 3 of you. Seriously. @vitklim, you’re a cool dude who believes in personal freedom without restriction. Absolutely Crowley of you. @guest_, you’re a novelist at heart and usually the most level-headed person around (minus a few instances). I spend at least 20 minutes a day reading your comments. And @xvarnah, you are just the right amount of serious and silly, and you always have a witty counter to anything I do. You three are honestly my favourites. Each if you brings so much colour to this site, and I wouldn’t enjoy it as much without you. This is from the heart, and in no way am I being influenced by pain meds because I hurt myself doing something stupid.
@vitklim- so.... if Someone else ant call someone’s spouse a “dirty boy/girl,” pet names etc- no one else can? Like- if someone’s mother has some sweet little nickname for them like “Scooter” that embarrasses them- your mom can’t call you that if I can’t right? If you call your mother or best friend or romantic partner a dummy or a bitch or whatever else when you’re angry- then I can run around calling them that? If it’s my job to debunk Enrico Fermi I can do it without saying “look at this bull shit greasy Italian science here...” even IF fermi had ever used that language about himself- his being Italian has nothing to do with debunking his politics or science.
I don't have time to read everything right now but @vitklim I wasn't sure If you were addressing both of us or not, but either way I didn't take it for you being a dick haha. Just you expressing your thoughts on the situation. Figured I'd clarify just in case haha
@firmlee_grasspit your comment was unexpected (I think I was anticipating more debate) but entirely welcome. It put a smile on my face - and not the way the Joker always offers to. I think we have some rough patches, but this is honestly a great little community when it wants to be.
'
You're one of the kindest and most sincere users. But you're also not about to stand on the sidelines when you've got something to say. And, while I'd never encourage anyone to stay when it's negatively impacting their lives, this website was not as bright without you. And I agree with your comments about Vitklim and Guest_ as well. You have a way with words, even when you're most definitely not being influenced by drugs (hope you're feeling even a bit better, btw)
Tommy is a political prisoner at this point.
“Yes I did. Here’s a video of me doing it and saying that I was breaking the law.”
“Oh. Ok. Here’s your sentence. Plus the other sentence you knew you’d get and mention in your video for the last time you broke this same law in basically an identical way.”
“Oh. This sentence is longer than last time.”
“Yeah. See, in British law our sentencing guidelines have statements of intent. A criminal sentence is meant as a deterrent. The last sentence didn’t deter you. So the only option you’ve really left me with is to give you a bigger one- plus the part of the last one you didn’t serve. Hopefully you will learn your lesson.”
“Well- you are.”
“I don’t wanna! Waaah. You’re- you’re censoring free speech!”
“No. You can speak freely. You can go on tv and your own website or whoever will let you on theirs. You can get permits and speak in public or at events. You can bring people to your home or rent out auditoriums. You can rent billboards and take out adds in the paper and solicit people as legal... you just can’t endanger a huge sex crime trial or break laws while doing it.”
- what I imagine the transcripts of the trial look like.
.
Just remember, that when the world finally breaks down, we will be on the different sides of the barricade. And my side will have the guns.
.
@xvarnah, @famousone, @firmlee_grasspit, dunno if you all know about the case we're discussing here, but you are welcome to watch the interview I linked above and watch guest_ not disprove a single thing of importance that was there. I'm not going to argue with this cunt, I'm far too tired and pissed off to argue in good faith, not like he did anyway.
1. There were no reporting restrictions on the case as far as publicly available information
2. He was charged with "causing anxiety" to the defendants, which was expanded into influencing their trial, which by that time was considered to be over and the judge agreed to that in court (About 1:10 timestamp).
3. The third charge was for confronting them in an "agressive manner", which if the standard applied equally, would cover most of the MSM reporters as well.
.
Regardless, he was essentially convicted for being a journalist, since there is absolutely zero fucking proof that his actions influenced the trial, and I have doubts about the fact that they were a knowing breach and could influence the outcome at all.
.
And given how much he is already persecuted by everyone, I will still stand in defense of him. He was wiped off the internet, condemned by every single mainstream outlet, he is attacked on a regular basis.
.
The main opposition leader's brother has been convicted for 2-3 years on fabricated charges, his attempts at creating a political party have been shut down through loopholes every single time, the only outlet through which he can report on the news is YouTube, and he is regularly arrested for 30 days for organizing an "unapproved" rally, with about 100+ days total in a year. While the law states that the government cannot prevent or arrest people for organizing rallies, as long as they inform the government that it will happen, which was the case. Their headquarters are regularly raided by the police, there have been hired thugs that hospitalized a number of the opposition figures.
.
And this is the path that the UK is sliding towards. The complete corruption of the government, the courts and the media.
It was confirmed that his actions did not influence the proceedings of the trial, and "causing anxiety" is the most bullshit claim I've ever heard.
And can he then charge the MSM reporters for covering him in an "agressive manner"? Because if he can, then he should, just to prove how bullshit that charge is.
.
Stop weaseling around and answer the questions if you want to discuss this further.
Foreign pedophiles against their own (actually not remotely, and having many cases completely unrelated to speaking or politics but just straight criminal offenses) law abiding son?!?! The magistrates support pedophiles?!?!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj2nzV9BAh0&t
Don't define them by race or religion, define them by their vile actions. Not that hard.
'
I have absolutely no clue who this person is or the events of this case, so I'll have to actually look into it to find out what's going on before I can offer any real commentary
'
The most I've been able to find on what he actually did was something to do with illegally livestreaming men being lead to trial for hild-grooming, which lead to him being held for contempt of court. He was given a sentence for this, but that didn't seem to stick, and within a year he did the same thing again. The judge in one of the situations offered a very long explanation on why this was.
'
It does not sound, to me, like his motivation was to do with stopping sex trafficking, either. It sounds very much like it's racially motivated. Whether he has good reason (based on experience) to feel so strongly about this I don't know.
.
Here is the video covering his previous sentence for contempt of the court that was overturned, plus the biased reporting on Tommy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL2Q57b48w
.
Coverage of him being banned from Facebook and Instagram, plus the biased reporting on him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0
.
Full timeline of him being banned from every social media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny9bVn6Kf6g
.
And finally, the analysis of the coverage on his sentencing from the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RBjNE4hxjE
'
I have since found this accounting, which seems fairly straightforward and, while still lacking detail, seems more or less in line with what the first video you sent had been saying:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7855a700-d300-4088-9bdc-792a3512bc2a
'
I do find the last video to be bias, and the person making it spends time pointing out things that he thinks are offensive (using Tommy's publicly available, real name, and people holding the flag) that really just felt like standard journalism to me. That said he's clearly frustrated with the way this has carried on, which is understandable
'
Either way, I guess my biggest red flag for all that is that these major corporations are banning this man, but on the whole they're not providing evidence. Facebook should have been able to cite and produce an actual independently archived link of him calling for the beheading of any group. If they can't, they should never have said that was their reason for banning him, and likely should not have banned him at all.
'
Whatever the case, as I said he does seem to be a bit of an erratic man and he does clearly allow race to motivate a lot of what he does. When and if he is doing it specifically to point out an accuracy, however offensive people may find that accuracy, that is not a crime. It's not hate-speech (providing he's not using slurs etc). It's simply fact, and should be treated accordingly
'
Not being politically correct continues to be a fan-favourite reason to have people literally lose their ability to speak, interact, or even make a living.
'
The issue doesn't so much seem to be about whether he was in fact guilty of contempt. This seems a bit foggy, but it seems apparent that there was a publication ban in place, and either way what he did did have the potential to disrupt the trial and have potentially devastating consequences for a group of men who had not been convicted of a crime. And to be clear, this isn't about defending pedophiles. But a lot of this argument with the trial has to do with the violation of due process, and if that isn't applied evenly then there's no point bringing it up at all on either side.
'
That said, what happened to him after was a clear example of a power play. They don't mention whether his past criminal history actually has any legally definable impact on his conviction, so we have to assume it does not. In that scenario he did not get due process, he did not get a fair right to counsel, he did not get a fair judgement, and the conditions he was kept in May well have been for his own protection, but they were not equivalent or humane.
'
So I guess to answer the post, based on the information I have: I do think he was guilty of violating the publication ban. I don't think what happened after was justified.
.
As for the trial itself, my biggest suspicions here are that the publication ban was either hidden, or placed in there post-fact, since Tommy claims to have spent the time ensuring that it's not in place. Plus the fact that if everything was taken into account, including his confession, he would serve no time in jail at all, because he already served it from the previous mistrial. Yet they shoved him there anyway.
.
And as for the media bans and smears, it's yet again because he is going against political correctness. First, they came for Alex Jones, then for Tommy, and Crowder was supposed to be the next target, but they didn't dare.
'
And then, when that same person implies the only reason people give him a voice is because he's gay, he responds by trying to have that person DE-PERSONED. And when that doesn't work immediately, he... tags in the gay community and uses that as a way to guilt platforms into complying... which kind of is the exact point the Crowder guy seemed to have been making
'
And then it backfires and he accidentally gets a ton of "acceptable," as well as entirely unrelated channels caught in the crossfire. But it's totes not his fault
'
I guarantee I'm missing details, but if I'm understanding it correctly the whole thing is one of the most ridiculous farces I've seen in awhile
'
As an aside - unless Crowder actively sought out or specifically sent people after the reporter, as far as I know that doesn't actually qualify as harassment.
'
Not to mention the little I've seen of this reporter is VILE. And he is MORE than comfortable using slurs such as Nazi on his social media. He actively encourages violence - including telling people how they should PHYSICALLY ASSAULT people he doesn't agree with using milkshakes. And if that sounds like it's NBD take a look at some of the injuries from ANTIFA.
'
There IS discrimination, and maybe Crowder is genuinely homophobic, but this is NOT a strong case for how persecuted the gay community is. This reporter literally uses his status as a gay man as a weapon and his methods are absolutely deplorable. And now he managed to screech so loudly he literally cost people their livelihoods. Crowder might be fine, but the scope of the damage caused by this reporter's campaign against Crowder lead to many, many, many more people being demonetized.
'
And Crowder may not have been silenced, but that doesn't mean that's not what the reporter was trying to do.
,
He wanted censorship, but only of people HE doesn't agree with. Unless he can actually prove Crowder sought him out/directed others to harass him, or that Crowder was using genuine hate speech (which, again, the reporter is fine with provided he's the one doing it) I don't see how he has any right to try and take someone's free speech away.
'
And for the record I don't even really know who in heck either of these people are. Pretty sure I dislike both of them. But the way this went down was, as I said, completely ridiculous
-see a person
-dislike the person, possibly because of something they said
-lash out
-use victim and/or minority status to recruit others to lash out
-go after the person's ability to interact, ability to be heard, and, often, go after their ability to earn a living
.
He has literally done nothing wrong in the entire endeavour, it's just that YouTube is scared shitless of the sjw mob online, and will prostrate themselves to them and the mainstream media if pressured at all.
.
He is by definition a victim here, which is funny, but the irony is lost on the morons defending Maza.
'
And I honestly don't know everything Crowder said or did which is why I'm hesitant to say he was just a victim. He did exhibit some provocational behaviour. However, the reporter Is under no obligation to watch him. And, based on the reporters actions this entire time, I'm not sure Crowder was in the wrong. When the option someone gives you it "change your opinion NOW, or lay down in the dirt and watch as we set your life to burn" it's hard to have sympathy for the "harassed" party
-Crowder literally called the reporter nothing the reporter didn't call himself. If you don't want to be called an bitch, than don't parade it on just about every post you make on social media in public.
-The reporter labelled Crowder a NAZI and an extremist. And now he cries victim.
-Crowder was exercising his right for free speech when he critiqued the reporter's writing ability. The reporter couldn't handle that and lost his mind and has been trying to silence him ever since.
'
Again: if crowder never sought the reporter out, never tagged him in, never went after him, then the reporter does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to harassment. Because he does not have to watch that video. But he did. He watched every video. And while Crowder was merely name-calling (as far as I know), the reporter was ACTIVELY trying to silence Crowder, take away his livelihood, and have him unpersoned. All while, again, using slurs and insults to refer to Crowder
'
Why is he allowed to encourage assaults? Why is he allowed to label people Nazis? Because he's gay? for the record: after he made his post telling people to go "milkshake" Nazis - people went and milkshaked other humans. With quick drying cement purportedly. They also beat the shit out of several of them. And then people like Carlos Maza posted pictures about it, BRAGGING about what a success it is.
'
But Crowder is the problem because he refers to "gaywonk" as gay.
'
However, I also have started caring far less when other people do it, depending on the circumstances.
'
If you're willing to label someone a Nazi or a rapist or whatever else; If you're willing to go after their livelihood, their income, their passion. If you're willing to organize mobs to attack that person; to attack their families; If you're willing to set someone's life on fire.. Well, then, tbh I don't care that much if someone calls you fat. When a person douses someone in gasoline, it's very difficult to have sympathy when they themselves get burned
'
That's just my personal stance. Again, not necessarily about Crowder and Maza, just in general
'
The issue with this is that, again, the reporter literally spams his social media (and several other places aside) with how gay he is. He's used his social media and his status as a gay person to attack and label someone else a Nazi and go after their life. At that point, he has no real right to claim how offended he is for being called gay. His handle is "gaywonk." If he doesn't want people to call him gay, he shouldn't force people to do so anytime they want to interact with him. And, again, as far as I know Crowder never encouraged any attacks or harassment or anything of the sort against the reporter - in regards to his sexuality or otherwise.
'
Ironically, as I said, he instead chose to weaponize the gay community - FORCING YouTube to violate its own terms of service BECAUSE of Maza's sexuality... And unintentionally essentially proving Crowder's point in process. Which is sad because it undermines so many other people in lbtq who don't actually agree with Maza's tactics
'
I'm not saying I find Crowder's methods in all this are particularly palatable, but I also think the reporter should be held to the same standard. He's a huge proponent of the "punch a Nazi" mentality. And by "Nazi" he means "anyone who I disagree with." He is MORE than happy to set all the tone he wants.
'
I don't think we're going to agree on this one haha
.
And I won't let people restrict language to be limited to only a privileged class of people. If we aren't allowed to call people niggers, then nobody should be. Otherwise, you are privileging a group above the individual, and that is poison to freedom.
An even better option is to not restrict language in that manner at all, but the hypocrisy is what shows how full of shit that argument is.
'
I do think it's somewhat odd that Maza was allowed to flag the shirt Crowder had up. But that backfired on him, too, as I've now seen people take "figs" exactly the way Maza demanded they do, and suddenly the internet is filled with "fig ops," which is the opposite of his intent.
'
Even if the guy were in the right, he's so supremely BAD at everything he's trying to do..
'
You're one of the kindest and most sincere users. But you're also not about to stand on the sidelines when you've got something to say. And, while I'd never encourage anyone to stay when it's negatively impacting their lives, this website was not as bright without you. And I agree with your comments about Vitklim and Guest_ as well. You have a way with words, even when you're most definitely not being influenced by drugs (hope you're feeling even a bit better, btw)