Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[SleepingSilence]

@catchamber I don't want to go in depth since I'm with a friend. But his one video didn't violate terms of service. It was something you could of shown on t.v. Twitter actually approved of the advertisements and took his money then banned him. They suspending him for the video once, than since he couldn't access his account, banned him for over a week for scheduled posting that he couldn't fix. Other people were banned merely for liking and sharing it, it's clear the video itself wasn't the problem.

@Dynamo Frokane If it does, you need to clean your ears. (the everything is sexist music is a song calling air conditioners sexist...therefore is implies it's fucking meaningless. Not that calling someone sexist is remotely credible. I'm not lying that you called me anything, but you did try to say people wouldn't be popular without their tits and (yeah, on it's face, that is a little sexist ironically.) But, it's your opinion that your free to have. Now, since I called you sexist, it's not an ad-hominem. If I don't invalidate your opinion on a given matter while doing so. So I do know what it means, you don't.

I'll reply to peeps tm. Don't set on fire while I'm gone. ;D

[SleepingSilence]

@catchamber I don't want to go in depth since I'm with a friend. But his one video didn't violate terms of service. It was something you could of shown on t.v. Twitter actually approved of the advertisements and took his money then banned him. They suspending him for the video once, than since he couldn't access his account, banned him for over a week for scheduled posting that he couldn't fix. Other people were banned merely for liking and sharing it, it's clear the video itself wasn't the problem.

@Dynamo Frokane If it does, you need to clean your ears. (the everything is sexist music is a song calling air conditioners sexist...therefore is implies it's fucking meaningless. Not that calling someone sexist is remotely credible. I'm not lying that you called me anything, but you did try to say people wouldn't be popular without their tits and (yeah, on it's face, that is a little sexist ironically.) But, it's your opinion that your free to have. Now, since I called you sexist, it's not an ad-hominem. If I don't invalidate your opinion on a given matter while doing so. So I do know what it means, you don't.

I'll reply to peeps tm. Don't set the place on fire while I'm gone. ;D

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Dolerman]

@SleepingSilence I'm pretty sure you just use the term Ad-homenim and Strawman when you feel like it. Your definitions seem to change multiple times. And You keep forgetting that they can only be applied in the context of a debate/argument. I'm not in a debate with Lauren or her horny fans so the term doesn't apply, clean your glasses and read your online dictionary again.

@Dynamo Frokane

Which is my point, that everyone has their niche appeal, but all of it has to deal with who they are speaking to, how they are saying it, and what they are saying. In the case of Lauren Southern, as with any of the other names, I could not tell you anything about her because I do not listen to her, just as I do not listen to any of the others;

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Thanks for admitting your lack of information on these individuals, maybe get back to me when more research has been done.

@IceHeart

All I said is that there is a percentage of her fans that follow her because shes an attractive girl, you've went 3 paragraphs to not disagree with me. And yes Justin Tredau is also someone who uses his sex appeal for popularity, what's your goddamn point? You think it's a 'gotcha' because he's left wing? I'm not Canadian. And don't you libertarian race realist types love weed too? Don't throw rocks in glass houses bud.

[IceHeart]

All I said is that there is a percentage of her fans that follow her because shes an attractive girl, you've went 3 paragraphs to not disagree with me. And yes Justin Tredau is also someone who uses his sex appeal for popularity, what's your goddamn point? You think it's a 'gotcha' because he's left wing? I'm not Canadian. And don't you libertarian race realist types love weed too? Don't throw rocks in glass houses bud.

@Dynamo Frokane

I believe the point was that attractiveness only works for so long without any real substance? Justin Trudeau is the prime minister and has a ton of backing but due to his utter lack of substance and competence, people are starting to abandon him by quite a large percentage. He recently went below 50% approval rating and more people now think he's on the wrong track. In contrast Lauren Southern at least has some backbone, I think most of her base has stuck with her since she keeps getting back in the game. The point is there is more to her than just some attractiveness holding up her somewhat high numbers.

Anyway I would prefer if you would not try to 'typecast' me. While I probably do have a lot in common with a libertarian I do think legalizing recreational weed is a horrible idea. I live, course not right now cause I'm in Europe, in a state that legalized recreational weed...it stinks and it sucks. Any businesses or housing that is near one of those dispensers instantly loses a lot of value because of all the pot smokers literally being a burden to society, as it becomes a less safe and sanitary place. I avoid such areas like the plague.

[mdk]

@mdk@SleepingSilence If he was part of the conversation that he secretly recorded, he didn't violate US federal or Texas state law. After looking at Twitter and Youtube's policies, I haven't found anything that relates to the specific video you described.

@catchamber

The article I mentioned was regarding California law (they're a two-party state), and YouTube is a California company, and I dunno if that matters legally (can California entities sue YouTube over independent content on their platform? I tried to google an answer but the lawsuit alleging censorship is dominating search results). What I'm driving at is, I sorta just applied my daily encounters as the logic for YouTube's decision to pull the video and it made perfect reasonable sense -- even if it's just a "We dunno if this is legal or not, let's take it down while we talk about it."

Plenty of other explanations (including SINISTEREVIL ones) would also make sense; my explanation felt pretty even-handed though.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[SleepingSilence]

@Dynamo Frokane I'm assuming your arguing to be contrarian, because if I know you are but what am I is the best you got. I'm good. But it doesn't matter who it is. If I'm talking to you, but say @Harbinger can't talk about dogs because he's a cat lover. Same rule/fallacy applies. Yes I occasionally call things ad-hominem, when its just slanderous/character attack. (like it's any better.) But in this case you're incorrect. And I'm pretty sure I'm one of the very few people that ever uses the Strawman Fallacy in the proper context.

@catchamber It was a one party consent state, in a place with cameras everywhere since it was an event. The claim, I think was privacy...and Steven even went as far as to re-upload with blurry faces. But yeah it's pure blatant hypocrisy and I hope Prager and anyone else who has the money and balls sues the shit out of youtube.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Dolerman]

@Dynamo Frokane I'm assuming your arguing to be contrarian, because if I know you are but what am I is the best you got. I'm good. But it doesn't matter who it is. If I'm talking to you, but say @Harbinger can't talk about dogs because he's a cat lover. Same rule/fallacy applies. Yes I occasionally call things ad-hominem, when its just slanderous/character attack. (like it's any better.) But in this case you're incorrect. And I'm pretty sure I'm one of the very few people that ever uses the Strawman Fallacy in the proper context.

@SleepingSilence

Except it doesn't because I'm not debating the person I'm insulting. You can't just re-apply meanings to terms because it sounds better, grow up.

Also you are not the governing body on when a criticism becomes a 'slanderous character attack' and where that line is drawn. Its just your subjective feelings about who you think 'deserves' criticism more, which un-suprisingly doesn't hold up.

So if all you got is repeating that a criticism is an Ad-homenim or strawman even when it's outside the context of a debate with the target in question, then I'm good. You can read your dictionary now.

[Dolerman]

Anyway I would prefer if you would not try to 'typecast' me.

@IceHeart

And I'd prefer if you didn't misrepresent my country with assertions based on clickbait-rag titles. But the world is a cruel place right?

I guessed you were a libertarian and I was right, you also didn't refute being called a race realist, so I'm assuming I'm right about that too.

[Dolerman]

Lauren's got a sharp wit,

@catchamber

Citation Needed.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

@Dynamo Frokane

Thanks for admitting your lack of information on these individuals, maybe get back to me when more research has been done.

I know enough about them to confidently say they are not what you are accusing them of and that is through just cursory insight and information, the sort of thing anyone can spend five minutes on. But please, by all means do keep labeling people in an effort to rally the side of the argument against them and that somehow they are all truly bad, diabolical people, some of them so dangerous they must be kept out of a country because their opinion is bad-wrong. I am sure that a woman described as having no relative substance to her other than her appearance is truly a threat.

No less, if you have evidence to support your accusations against them, then do lay them out for us to see what apparently the majority do not know on them.

[Mao Mao]

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Dolerman]

@Dynamo Frokane

<Snipped quote>
I know enough about them to confidently say they are not what you are accusing them of and that is through just cursory insight and information, the sort of thing anyone can spend five minutes on. But please, by all means do keep labeling people in an effort to rally the side of the argument against them and that somehow they are all truly bad, diabolical people, some of them so dangerous they must be kept out of a country because their opinion is bad-wrong. I am sure that a woman described as having no relative substance to her other than her appearance is truly a threat.

No less, if you have evidence to support your accusations against them, then do lay them out for us to see what apparently the majority do not know on them.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Accusations against who exactly? We were talking about Shaprio, Alex jones, Limbaugh and others, and what did I accuse them of apart from having a niche appeal for their audiences? You went on to agree with me. I think you need to be more specific.

As far as Lauren Southern, she has and does work with with a white nationalist group. Generation Identity. Google it, there is your evidence. What is your opinion of white nationalism? Bad-Wrong? Good-Wrong? Or Regular old normal wrong?

Also James Allsup is a racist, does it bother you I have proof of that? Where is your counter argument to invalidate the evidence I've given you?

[SleepingSilence]

You can't just re-apply meanings to terms because it sounds better, grow up.

Also you are not the governing body on when a criticism becomes a 'slanderous character attack' and where that line is drawn. Its just your subjective feelings about who you think 'deserves' criticism more, which un-suprisingly doesn't hold up.

@Dynamo Frokane

...Aren't I older than you? <.<

Yes, I'm smart enough to know what is a criticism is. And what the difference between them are, but also don't need to use them in every sentence. And just because I'm feeling snarky.

>*kicks you out of discord because you hurt my feelings* "Now I showed you whose the mostest maturist!" ;-;

(Yes that's spelled wrong on purpose.)

[Dolerman]

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
Her videos regarding South Africa's current problem are moderately well constructed.

@catchamber

I still wouldn't consider that 'sharp-wit' shes just a watered down Ann Coulter without the shock jokes.

[Dolerman]

...Aren't I older than you? <.<

@SleepingSilence

No you aren't.

Yes, I'm smart enough to know what is a criticism is.

@SleepingSilence

So Sleeping Silence thinks Sleeping Silence is smart? Well case closed I guess.

And just because I'm feeling snarky.

@SleepingSilence

You really should stick to facts and not feelings, bud.

>*kicks you out of discord because you hurt my feelings* "Now I showed you whose the mostest maturist!" ;-;
(Yes that's spelled wrong on purpose.)

@SleepingSilence

I kicked you out because your constant defense of your favorite you-tubers was getting really tired and boring. I can only explain to you that Stefan Molyneux is not a geneticist so many times before my head hurts.

[SleepingSilence]

<Snipped quote by mdk>
As far as I know, "YouTube's HQ is in California, so California laws apply across the platform" isn't a valid excuse, because the California law regarding secretly recording people doesn't explicitly mention transmitting the recording.

@catchamber

Nah, that's not how the law is applied. I know that for a fact. And besides there'd be plenty more videos than that getting the can, if that was the case. Even so, twitter, facebook and all the other subsequent bans and suspensions are just coming from bias. (unless this is agreeing with such. Like I said friend/not paying the slightest bit attention, only on here when he's texting.)

@Dynamo Frokane Your memory sucks worse than mine does. You actually kicked me because, you mentioned one person didn't wike me much. And I pointed out the dude has been nothing but an utter tool to me. And you basically white knighted. Youtubers never entered the conversation. It was you spending a lengthy time criticizing me, basically for no particular reason. And you got mad because basically all I did was verbally shrug my shoulders at you. :D