Why does that matter?

Plain and simple, if people feel like shit by reading someone's comments, they shouldn't have to.

If their only options are 1) stop coming to VideoSift, 2) teach an old dog new tricks (i.e., force them to teach their psychology to cope with the perceived abuse), or 3) continue coming to VideoSift but ensuring they aren't made to feel like shit, I don't understand your perspective is that option 2 is the only choice and that every dissenting opinion *must* be heard by *everyone* who comes across it otherwise... what, their civil rights are being violated or something? I don't see the offense.

Why should anyone care that newtboy is avoiding reading their comments with a little assistance from the site? From the commenter's perspective, how is that any different than newtboy just not reading their comments [unassisted]?

There are no Clockwork Orange eye-clamps here, and it's not censorship for a person to practice their right to ignore content they want not to experience.

(Btw, I hope this isn't coming across as an attack. I honestly just don't understand the point of view you're representing.)

What do people say about you that is so bad it requires the implementation of a new level of censorship at the Sift?

ok, this is much harder. First up, he's right that context absolutely matters.

But the Colbert thing was far more about stupid people not getting a joke than censorship. There was more backlash to the outrage than there was outrage in the first place.

But here's the thing, if you value freedom of expression, then you have to value people's freedom not to support forms of expression they find distasteful. People saying "I'll boycott X" is NOT censorship. Freedom of expression does not mean that private companies are required to provide you with a platform.

Political Correctness and Censorship he refers to

censorship RULES

Liberals oppose totalitarian ideologies automatically.

Read that sentence again. As far as I'm concerned, it's axiomatic. Consequent to that principle, no liberal will ever support or apologise for islam.

What we're seeing with our 'regressive leftists' is people who've been raised in an environment, the educated middle class say, in which liberalism is associated with goodness. Since they define themselves as good, they naturally also define themselves as liberal. They know that among the intellectual set to which they aspire, any admission of social conservatism will quite properly be met with contempt.

So, even while calling for censorship, even while defending the brutal and mindless suppression of individual freedom that is inherent in islam, these reactionaries delude themselves into believing that they're liberal.

No censorship for that finger?

I sincerely apologize for my ignorance, and thank you for setting the record straight. (really)

My incorrect understanding of that (education about the war in Germany) came from about 40% being presented with bad information (or interpreting information incorrectly), and 60% drawing the wrong conclusions based on the censorship of Nazi imagery there.

Before commenting, I did quick web research to support the information I had heard about the censorship side of things there. When that basically confirmed what I thought, I neglected to do the same due diligence with regards to how the war is taught in schools.

...Pretty shitty on my part, especially considering that my opener in my previous comment was that it would be "interesting" to compare how education handles history in both countries, and then apparently I wasn't actually interested enough to actually fact-check.

So again, I apologize.

With regards to the issues in the Daily Show video, ie. the Confederate flag, I think it is probably reasonable to say that in my opinion it would be a good idea to remove the flag from use for Government / State purposes. The way Germany handles Nazi imagery goes beyond that. I'm not sure that I would agree with that extent of what amounts to censorship in handling it, but that is just my opinion.

So I guess in summary, it really *is* interesting to consider both countries approaches to handling uncomfortable bits of our past. I just should have actually done it properly when I said it the first time.

What's the difference between God and a Democrat?

A: God knows He's not a Democrat.
------------------------------------------
You might be a liberal if…

you break out in a cold sweat at the mention of the Constitution.


you believe the Constitution is living but unborn babies aren’t.


you believe that a democrat freed the slaves and a republican created the KKK.

you abhor censorship unless it’s censoring race, religion, Conservatism, Western culture or Rush Limbaugh.

you believe 59% of whites who voted for Romney are racists but 96% of blacks who voted for Obama are not.

"Censorship is not censorship."

I suspect the coverup has less to do with modesty and more to do with avoiding censorship. I could definitely see this being so if it's an official or semi official campaign as it's already skirting the edges of good taste.

@billpayer, you are...mistaken. It didn't disappear, it was at the bottom of the list.

You still can't understand my clear explanation? Bill is anti-Islam, you can find many clear examples of it. This was not one of them, nor do I find it racist like you label it, so I downvoted. I stood behind it, and still do, I didn't cry, I didn't hide, and I didn't create a sift talk bemoaning a single downvote as censorship.
Please sir, where's the cowardice?

I can't believe Americans are upset over this. (whether this is fake or not)

The irony. Of all western democracies, the U.S. is the MOST like the countries they fear and despise. Censorship, extreme religious views. The idea that law should be based on a holy book. It's a long list, but you get the idea.

The thing here is, I don't have a bias about her, I barely have an opinion. I originally commented because you claimed she cut off her comments and canceled appearances solely to silence descent from her monologue. I disagree completely on that point, especially since she didn't cancel other public events afterwards, and I provided evidence that she had repeated disgusting, specific death and rape threats, giving her a legitimate reason to stop anonymous discussions online or to not have a public appearance where guns are 100%allowed even when specific death threats have been made about the specific event. EDIT: She even went so far as to petition the police to provide security and disallow firearms in the auditorium so she could continue with the scheduled appearance, but they steadfastly refused, THEN she canceled.
...But you ignore those threats and claim it was only about 'censorship' or 'silencing debate' because of your bias, your mind is made up, you think that she's wrong no matter how much evidence I put in front of you that there were other legitimate reasons for her actions. I did admit I was wrong about the police instructing her to cancel the appearance, but I still think it was the right thing to do (and I still can't believe the police actions in that instance...insane!).

As for her being anti sex worker, I have no opinion, I don't know, that's why I want evidence if I'm to have an opinion about her feeling on that subject. It seems wrong that someone who claims to be feminist would not see sex workers as empowered women, and I need to be convinced of something so illogical before I believe it, even about someone I don't' have a good overall opinion about....to convince me I need to hear from HER that those are her feelings about those women. If that's the case, it's terrible, but she's a terrible feminist, so no big surprise....I'm just not convinced yet....either way.

Again, IF her anti-sex worker stance is true, and publicly known (especially by sex workers) then this video was just a trolling attempt by the sex workers, because they know Sarkeesian is not a supporter!

I don't give a shit if a homeopath or an astrologer or a climate denier or any other nutjob you care to name disables comments on youtube. It's simply not a meaningful channel for debate. There are other, better channels.

There's no one claiming to represent everyone who uses the internet saying that online harassment is ok.

But those GG assholes claim to represent "gamers", and no, it's not even slightly about ethics in journalism. It is, in fact, the complete opposite. This is a group that called on Nintendo to withdraw support from reviewers who were critical of Bayonetta.

The fucking hypocrisy is mind blowing. Seriously, think about it. A group that is supposed to be anti-censorship and pro-consumer told one of the biggest names in the industry to boycott a publication because it criticized their product. It is to Nintendos credit that they ignored these assholes who can't understand the difference between critique and censorship.

There isn't some balanced 3rd party POV on GG. Those people are fucking troglodytes, and the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

And yes, of course, I'm ashamed to be part of society sometimes.

I'm not a WASP, but I am Irish and I'm deeply ashamed of some of the racist bullshit associated with my country. I was raised Catholic. Take a wild guess about how I feel about that.

The "gamers are dead" thing has been completely misinterpreted. Did you even read the source article? It's saying that the target market for games isn't "gamers", but just people. Stop marketing to a fictional teenage boy demographic.

And quite frankly, I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says SJW. How the fuck did advocating social justice become a pejorative?