Youtube goes on a Censorship/demonitizing spree against Conservatives to defend Dylan Mulvaney

[Curried Goats]

Its always "whataboutism" when you all start with the whataboutism

What whataboutism?

 

[Rust_Cohle]

What whataboutism?

Your whole "waaaaa whites are racist but no one else is" shtick

 

[hadit]

No.... just the people who practiced and supported slavery, which granted was probably a lot of people. Also I'm not arguing that a slaver can't be a good engineer or businessman or something. Maybe they're really good at turning a profit from their slaves. What I'm saying is that all slavers are shitty people. Now maybe you give out exceptions to slavers and murderers and rapists who can play a nice tune or really know how to slow cook a brisket but I personally have higher standards.

Acknowledging a person's contribution to society is not "giving out exceptions". There were millions involved in the slave trade of that day, in all races, colors and creeds. Despite the existence of slavery, those Found Fathers gave us the foundation that we used to create the free nation that we have today, freedom that is in danger of being eroded at every turn.

The artist isn't sending any message they are engaging in commerce. If the artist, like the pharmacist who objects to dispensing certain medication, doesnt like the message they're being paid for they should consider another line of work.

Right, the artist is compelled to send messages whether they want to or not. Thus, if an artist accepts commissions to create art, he/she can't refuse to create the art demanded.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your whole "waaaaa whites are racist but no one else is" shtick

You sure you're not just a little bitch? Or perhaps illiterate? That's not at all what I said.

 

[Curried Goats]

Acknowledging a person's contribution to society is not "giving out exceptions". There were millions involved in the slave trade of that day, in all races, colors and creeds. Despite the existence of slavery, those Found Fathers gave us the foundation that we used to create the free nation that we have today, freedom that is in danger of being eroded at every turn.

Freedom exists all on its own absent government. The Founders robbed men, women and children of their freedom and liberty and what they imposed was a slave State. They built their empire on the backs of slaves. What freedoms we have today we have in spite of them since as I said, absent government what we would have is absolute freedom.

That argument there is 4 sentences long. Take them each one by one and tell me if my logic is faulty with any one of those statements.

Right, the artist is compelled to send messages whether they want to or not.

He's not compelled to open a business in which he writes messages others dictate to him is he? You're using artist fairly loosely here. If a painter wants to work for himself, create original work and then try to sell that work for how ever much someone is willing to pay for it that's one thing. That's a different business than being the equivalent of a Kinkos. If you open up a shop to make signs and posters and banners you're not an artist, you're a human photocopier.

Thus, if an artist accepts commissions to create art, he/she can't refuse to create the art demanded.

We live in a society that requires taxes and cooperation. You shouldn't be allowed to exclude people who pay taxes that help make society possible and, by extension, your business possible, just because you dislike them. That goes for blacks, gays, nazis and conservatives. No conservative should walk into a business and hear we dont serve your kind. If you want to go barter your work in the wild have at.

 

[hadit]

Freedom exists all on its own absent government.

Absent government of any kind, you have ultimate freedom, which is anarchy and is not civilization.

The Founders robbed men, women and children of their freedom and liberty and what they imposed was a slave State.

Incorrect. They took an existing state, which was a bunch of English colonies, and formed a new nation out of them, one in which slavery was allowed to continue. Hardly a "slave state", which really means all of the citizens are slaves to the state. They were not.

They built their empire on the backs of slaves.

They built the strongest nation in the world using all kinds of labor, from paid to slave to white indentured servitude. It was only the wealthy that could own slaves, you remember, and the government owned none. Wealthy black Americans owned slaves, Native Americans owned slaves. Basically, anyone strong and/or wealthy enough could and likely did own slaves. That being said, it was a relative handful that owned slaves in the new United States.

What freedoms we have today we have in spite of them since as I said, absent government what we would have is absolute freedom.

That is anarchy, which is, wait for it, the rule of the strong over the weak, which results in, again wait for it, the enslavement of the weak by the strong. We've come full circle.

That argument there is 4 sentences long. Take them each one by one and tell me if my logic is faulty with any one of those statements.

I did that. Your last one, especially, is egregiously, and amusingly, wrong.

He's not compelled to open a business in which he writes messages others dictate to him is he? You're using artist fairly loosely here. If a painter wants to work for himself, create original work and then try to sell that work for how ever much someone is willing to pay for it that's one thing. That's a different business than being the equivalent of a Kinkos. If you open up a shop to make signs and posters and banners you're not an artist, you're a human photocopier.

If you create art on commission, you are getting paid to produce a custom piece that someone is asking you to do. An artist doing that should be open to the same restrictions as the baker is, and should be compelled to produce art he hates. Only by NOT producing "custom" art would he avoid that. The baker could also have avoided the restrictions had he only sold pre-made designs from which a customer could pick, or by stating up front that he would put a Bible verse of his choosing on every cake he bakes.

We live in a society that requires taxes and cooperation.

And is not your utopian "no government", aka anarchy, model.

You shouldn't be allowed to exclude people who pay taxes that help make society possible and, by extension, your business possible, just because you dislike them. That goes for blacks, gays, nazis and conservatives. No conservative should walk into a business and hear we dont serve your kind. If you want to go barter your work in the wild have at.

Again, it requires government to make any of that possible. In your utopian anarchy, you would have no guarantee that anyone would be willing to sell you anything, much less create something for you. You could be denied service for any reason and violently thrown out of the store. Ultimate freedom, remember?

 

[Curried Goats]

Absent government of any kind, you have ultimate freedom, which is anarchy and is not civilization.

Civilizations come in many different forms. The one the Founders created was a slave State. I merely wanted you to acknowledge your previous statement was false and poorly worded. More propaganda than fact. The Founders didn't give us the foundation to create a free nation. Nations impose restrictions on freedom for the sake of civilization. The Founders created a slave State for the sake of their profits and leisure.

Incorrect. They took an existing state, which was a bunch of English colonies, and formed a new nation out of them, one in which slavery was allowed to continue. Hardly a "slave state", which really means all of the citizens are slaves to the state. They were not.

This is simply emotion masquerading as a counter argument.. They did create a new nation. Fact. And that nation allowed and supported slavery. Fact. Calling America a slave State at its Founding is fact.

They built the strongest nation in the world using all kinds of labor, from paid to slave to white indentured servitude. It was only the wealthy that could own slaves, you remember, and the government owned none. Wealthy black Americans owned slaves, Native Americans owned slaves. Basically, anyone strong and/or wealthy enough could and likely did own slaves. That being said, it was a relative handful that owned slaves in the new United States.

Wrong. Especially in the South. At the start of the Civil War some states had nearly 40% of families who owned at least one slave.

That is anarchy, which is, wait for it, the rule of the strong over the weak, which results in, again wait for it, the enslavement of the weak by the strong. We've come full circle.

No. Anarchy is the potential for the strong to rule over the weak. The American Founding was the strong ruling over the weak.

I did that. Your last one, especially, is egregiously, and amusingly, wrong.

Only if you think freedoms come from government, which I think we've already established that they do not.

If you create art on commission, you are getting paid to produce a custom piece that someone is asking you to do.

No, you're doing what someone is paying you to do. It's not your artwork, it's theirs. It belongs to the person paying you. If I commission you to build me an office it isn't your office just because you stack the bricks on top of one another.

An artist doing that should be open to the same restrictions as the baker is, and should be compelled to produce art he hates. Only by NOT producing "custom" art would he avoid that. The baker could also have avoided the restrictions had he only sold pre-made designs from which a customer could pick, or by stating up front that he would put a Bible verse of his choosing on every cake he bakes.

And is not your utopian "no government", aka anarchy, model.

I'm not arguing for magic utopia I'm just arguing against your propaganda of history and government. Government isn't freedom.

Again, it requires government to make any of that possible. In your utopian anarchy, you would have no guarantee that anyone would be willing to sell you anything, much less create something for you. You could be denied service for any reason and violently thrown out of the store. Ultimate freedom, remember?

I have no idea what utopia you think I'm arguing for. I'm all for a planned society I'm just not going to do the silly propaganda you do and call restrictions on freedom, freedom.

 

[hadit]

Civilizations come in many different forms. The one the Founders created was a slave State. I merely wanted you to acknowledge your previous statement was false and poorly worded. More propaganda than fact. The Founders didn't give us the foundation to create a free nation. Nations impose restrictions on freedom for the sake of civilization. The Founders created a slave State for the sake of their profits and leisure.

Using that measure, the Native Americans had slave states.

This is simply emotion masquerading as a counter argument.. They did create a new nation. Fact. And that nation allowed and supported slavery. Fact. Calling America a slave State at its Founding is fact.

No, it is an opinion. Define slave state, that might help.

Wrong. Especially in the South. At the start of the Civil War some states had nearly 40% of families who owned at least one slave.

In the south, about 20% owned slaves in 1860. I'd like to see where your 40% came from.

No. Anarchy is the potential for the strong to rule over the weak. The American Founding was the strong ruling over the weak.

No, because they created a system where the weak were also given Constitutional guarantees as they were granted full citizen status.

Only if you think freedoms come from government, which I think we've already established that they do not.

No, you're doing what someone is paying you to do. It's not your artwork, it's theirs. It belongs to the person paying you. If I commission you to build me an office it isn't your office just because you stack the bricks on top of one another.

And using Public Accommodation laws, if you are in the market of taking commissions for paintings, you're obligated to paint whatever message the patron wants. If an artist can turn down a commission because he hates the message the art would send, a baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake that he feels would send a message he hates.

I'm not arguing for magic utopia I'm just arguing against your propaganda of history and government. Government isn't freedom.

Anarchy really isn't either.

I have no idea what utopia you think I'm arguing for. I'm all for a planned society I'm just not going to do the silly propaganda you do and call restrictions on freedom, freedom.

The government can't legally silence my speech. That's freedom.
The government can't legally prevent me from getting together with whomever I want. That's freedom.
The government can't legally shut down the press. That's freedom.
The government can't legally prevent me from owning a firearm. That's freedom.
The government can't legally search my person, my belongings, or my domicile without due cause. That's freedom.

What restrictions did they place on your freedom?

 

[Curried Goats]

Using that measure, the Native Americans had slave states.

You mean an objective measure? Yes. Native Americans also had slave states.

No, it is an opinion. Define slave state, that might help.

States and societies that allow there to be legal slavery within their society or State. That seemed fairly self explanatory.

In the south, about 20% owned slaves in 1860. I'd like to see where your 40% came from.

PolitiFact - Viral post gets it wrong about extent of slavery in 1860

State-by-state figures show some variation. In Mississippi, 49 percent of families owned slaves, and in South Carolina, 46 percent did. In border states, the percentage was lower -- 3 percent in Delaware and 12 percent in Maryland. The median for slaveholding states was about 27 percent.

No, because they created a system where the weak were also given Constitutional guarantees as they were granted full citizen status.

I was referring to the slaves. Slaves didn't have Constitutional protections. The minority interests the Founders were interested in protecting were the Slave holding states who because of their large slave holding population and fewer citizens would of always have had a disadvantage in national politics, hence the creation of the electoral college and the 3/5s compromise.

And using Public Accommodation laws, if you are in the market of taking commissions for paintings, you're obligated to paint whatever message the patron wants. If an artist can turn down a commission because he hates the message the art would send, a baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake that he feels would send a message he hates.

The point is I don't think an artist should be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to uses taxes everyone pays to create an economy that only certain people are allowed to participate in.

Anarchy really isn't either.

In what way is the absence of a controlling force not freedom? Anarchy is absolute freedom.

The government can't legally silence my speech. That's freedom.

It can. Your right to unlimited speech only exists in nature, this government will impose fines and penalties on you for speech it deems slanderous or threatening.

The government can't legally prevent me from getting together with whomever I want. That's freedom.

You seem to be describing the absence of government force as freedom. Now where have I seen that before.... oh right is exactly what I'm saying.

The government can't legally shut down the press. That's freedom.
The government can't legally prevent me from owning a firearm. That's freedom.
The government can't legally search my person, my belongings, or my domicile without due cause. That's freedom.

In other words freedom is when you're allowed to do what you want. Government exists to restrict that freedom in various ways.

What restrictions did they place on your freedom?

The Founders placed restrictions on their slaves obviously.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Hey I'm just going by your own words clown. You said at no point in human history were people who practiced or defended this kind of censorship, the good guys. I've got news for you, the Founders did much worse. They not only censored the speech of their slaves, they made it illegal to teach slaves to read and write. That's all on top of, you know, keeping people as slaves in the first place, which is arguably worse than censoring speech.

The Founding father did not engage in the sort of tyrannical censorship that you are defending. You know damn well that that is a flat-out lie.

This is not to claim that they were perfect, that they did not do anything which, in retrospect a couple centuries later, we can now judge was wrong, but your attempt at an absurd tu quoque on the matter of censorship fails, utterly, as anything other than a demonstration of your own extremes of both ignorance and of intellectual dishonesty.

And my previous statement still stands, unrefuted: At no point in human history were people who practiced or defended this kind of censorship, the good guys. The sort of censorship that is the subject of this thread has always been the undeniable mark of one who knows damn well that his position is full of shit, and cannot stand up to honest examination or discussion; that he can only “win” an argument by cheating, by silencing the opposition.

 

[Curried Goats]

The Founding father did not engage in the sort of tyrannical censorship that you are defending. You know damn well that that is a flat-out lie.

Hey Snowflake, they were slavers. They were tyrants. That's simply a fact.

This is not to claim that they were perfect, that they did not do anything which, in retrospect a couple centuries later, we can now judge was wrong, but your attempt at an absurd tu quoque on the matter of censorship fails, utterly, as anything other than a demonstration of your own extremes of both ignorance and of intellectual dishonesty.

My dishonesty? Aren't you the intellectual giant who thinks people who censor speech (of white people) are the bad guys in any time but the slaver Founders were ok because they practiced human slavery a long time ago? The inhumanity of slavery has a time limit but not the censoring of white speech.

And my previous statement still stands, unrefuted: At no point in human history were people who practiced or defended this kind of censorship, the good guys.

Sure. Censors are bad guys all throughout time, slavers..... well that depends. Where the slaves black? Because in that case censorship of liberty is A-ok!

The sort of censorship that is the subject of this thread has always been the undeniable mark of one who knows damn well that his position is full of shit, and cannot stand up to honest examination or discussion; that he can only “win” an argument by cheating, by silencing the opposition.

I got you. Censorship always bad, slavery.... that depends. Makes perfect Bingo sense.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Hey Snowflake, they were slavers. They were tyrants. That's simply a fact.
My dishonesty? Aren't you the intellectual giant who thinks people who censor speech (of white people) are the bad guys in any time but the slaver Founders were ok because they practiced human slavery a long time ago? The inhumanity of slavery has a time limit but not the censoring of white speech.
Sure. Censors are bad guys all throughout time, slavers..... well that depends. Where the slaves black? Because in that case censorship of liberty is A-ok!
I got you. Censorship always bad, slavery.... that depends. Makes perfect Bingo sense.

I'm not intimidated at all by your army of strawmen.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm not intimidated at all by your army of strawmen.

View attachment 790233

I'm not intimidated by you being too much of a Snowflake to accept basic facts. George Washington was a slaver and slavers are tyrants, ergo Washington was a tyrant. That's really basic logic my guy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm not intimidated by you being too much of a Snowflake to accept basic facts. George Washington was a slaver and slavers are tyrants, ergo Washington was a tyrant. That's really basic logic my guy.

Nevertheless, regardless of what Washington thought about slavery (and it's not what you claim), he never was on record, and neither of the other founders were, of supporting the kind of censorship that you are defending.

You're flat-out lying when you claim that they supported any such thing.

But then lying is what you do.

Lying is what you are.

One can no more expect a common house fly to refrain from eating shit as expect you to refrain from lying.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I'm not intimidated by you being too much of a Snowflake to accept basic facts. George Washington was a slaver and slavers are tyrants, ergo Washington was a tyrant. That's really basic logic my guy.

Washington did own slaves, but he was opposed to the institution of slavery. His concern was what a free slave would do to support himself. At the end of his life, he did end up freeing his slaves. All of us (you, me, and the rest of mankind) have battles with moral dilemmas at some point in our lives. Washington ended up making the right choice. But he should have taken things a step further and sent his freed slaves back to their home continent, where they'd have been more at home.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nevertheless, regardless of what Washington thought about slavery (and it's not what you claim), he never was on record, and neither of the other founders were, of supporting the kind of censorship that you are defending.

You do understand that when you keep people as slaves you're not just censoring their speech but their liberty and freedom as well right? It's censorship of the whole person, not just their speech. Also, I don't care what Washington thought about slavery, I'm referring to the fact that he was a slaver which makes him a literal tyrant.

You're flat-out lying when you claim that they supported any such thing.

Kind of hard to deny Washington supported slavery when he owned slaves.

But then lying is what you do.

You're the one trying to fantasize about what Washington thought of slavery rather than him being a literal slaver.

Lying is what you are.

Snowflaking is what you do.

One can no more expect a common house fly to refrain from eating shit as expect you to refrain from lying.

Way to make it clear that don't have a rational point to make.

 

[Curried Goats]

Washington did own slaves, but he was opposed to the institution of slavery. His concern was what a free slave would do to support himself. At the end of his life, he did end up freeing his slaves. All of us (you, me, and the rest of mankind) have battles with moral dilemmas at some point in our lives. Washington ended up making the right choice. But he should have taken things a step further and sent his freed slaves back to their home continent, where they'd have been more at home.

You don't get credit for finally stopping your abuse of other people when you finally die. That's stupid and also the whitest argument I've ever heard.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

You sure you're not just a little bitch? Or perhaps illiterate? That's not at all what I said.

Thats exactly what you said faggot

 

[Curried Goats]

Thats exactly what you said faggot

It's not you illiterate bozo.

 

[The Duke]

Another win for the good guys.

Let me know when they waste 3 years of their lives screaming voter fraud--as you have done with your "life"

You're not a liberal. Liberals are for free speech, not censorship and fascism.

Also, Mueller investigation; You ignorant non-introspective moron!