[lskdfjldsf]

Here's a mirrored video of some lady flipping a shit. Nothing new here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXZyF8_dIOg

And here's what came up when I tried to view the original:



I tried thinking about this as objectively as possible, but just can't understand why this is deemed to be "offensive". Have we lost the ability to call out women for their bullshit? First, the "take me to the lake" video and now this.

[JayD]

Both need to STFU.

[Suits]

You nailed it.

Although, with all the articles in parenting magazines about cyber bullying, I can see why Youtube would adopt a policy that would reduce its liability.

When I got bullied back in high school (and earlier in life, by a couple trouble makers on my street) no one seemed able to protect me.

We've forced boys who could count on physical abuse to go to school for about two hundred years, exposing them to horrors that the adult population would absolutely flip their lid regarding, if it happened to them.

We've told those boys to not get into fights and punished them with suspensions if they defended themselves against legitimate attacks on their physical well-being.

But if a bitch gets caught on camera behaving like we all at RVF have seen women do to husbands and boyfriends out of the public eye,

Youtube goes to great lengths to ensure that there is no bullying of these poor misunderstood victims of the patriarchy.

[Fredster]

The mirrored link got deleted aswell.

[Suits]

You're welcome:

http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2013/07...sters-inc/

[Gmac]

Hope she goes to jail and/or a mental hospital.

[Norset]

A private company wishing to remove content they host online for free is not censorship.

If you were this company, why would you want to host this when there might be possible financial repercussions?

You are trying to make $, you balance risk and reward.

Laws that make uploading a vid like that to the internet illegal would be censorship.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2013 07:52 PM)Norset Wrote:  

A private company wishing to remove content they host online for free is not censorship.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[MikeCF]

YouTube also took down the video of the atheist who went on a rant at a college campus.

YouTube is left wing. Soon manosphere guys are going to get kicked off.

[Norset]

Ah; fair enough on the definition.

What I am trying to argue is that a private company should have the right to censor whatever content they host online, for financial reasons. I have no entitlement to youtube putting up free content for me to enjoy, likewise as I have no entitlement to any online media company providing me with unbiased news.

This debate is somewhat like people being offended at your jokes: Just do not laugh, and move on with your life.

So we can ask WHY does youtube have this type of censorship; probably cause they are basically a TV station now relying on ad revenue. So you have to cater to women if you want to live. Since they make most spending decisions. Which you can blame on the spinelessness of the majority of men. Do not shoot the messenger.

[DLZ]

Thank god for WSHH, still willing to tell it like is and piss off hoes everywhere.

[Roosh]

There's also Live Leak.

[lskdfjldsf]

I believe the problem with "hate speech" or "bullying speech" is the flexibility of definition. What most people supporting censorship fail to realize is that the door swings both ways. They may benefit now by muffling those they disagree with and censoring the information they put out, but like legislation in government, it can be manipulated by the opposing viewpoint should public sentiment change.

Look at the typical Christians vs. gays debate on marriage. Christians can't object to gay marriage or voice their opinions for religious reasons, on the grounds that it's somehow hateful and deprives people of rights. What happens when gay culture is the norm, and Christians are in the minority? Criticizing the Bible, or people's religious preferences, will then be accepted as "hate speech" and subject to censorship.

It's all a matter of principle.

[Beyond Borders]

When they start getting carried away with stuff like is usually about the time you can expect a formidable competitor to step into the arena.

[InternationPlayboy]

Wow, I've never heard such a fowl mouthed old lady before.

[placer]

I've already used http://keepvid.com to save a local copy of the video; the cat is already out of the bag.

[Atlantic]

She really wanted that rhubarb. I don't even find it that tasty.

[soup]

Homeys I got you:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-6470-p...#pid502776