Jeremy Hambly / The Quartering / MTGHeadquarters / Unsleeved Media / Midwestly - Buttblasted manchild upset he was banned from a childrens' card game, Grifter, supporter of the cancel culture

[Virus418]

1. You don't support free speech. Free Speech is freedom from consequences. If there are consequences for your speech than that's not free, there is a cost.
2. YouTube monetization is still BDS warfare. They are boycotting him. They are waging an economic war against him. If all your companies are punishing you for the same content then you're effectively a refugee in your own nation, a 2nd class citizen. Social justice is Jim Crow against whites.
3. "Build your own" A) Not always possible. B) Even if possible this creates parallel society. If you're not speaking or doing business with the other side, why even exist under the same government? YouTubes demonization leads to a civil war, political collapse. There are consequences for YouTube's censorship or demonization. So what you're saying doesn't result in a sustainable result.

1. ...but I do support freedom of speech. In my opinion, a violation of the freedom of speech on YouTube would be a permanent ban like what happened to Leafy. Not everyone gets paid on YouTube, and those who do have to agree to a certain set of guidelines. Jeremy knows he rides a fine line with the content he makes but does so anyway because it's a market not many are willing to risk. So no, I do not agree with you there.

2. Again, that is the risk Jeremy decided to take when he decided to capitalize on outrage content. I do not believe Jeremy's content is bad enough where he deserves a ban, but there's certainly a case to be made for YouTube not wanting to monetize it anymore. Plenty of his videos have led to brigades, witch-hunts, flame wars, and general misinformation. Jeremy has known this for months but continues in this direction because it's the only thing that works for him. No one cares about his Magic the Gathering discussions, Final Fantasy streams, or what new console he picked up from his local game store. Outrage content is the only thing keeping him afloat, but it's also the thing that puts his channel at odds with YouTube. More and more companies are not wanting their ads on this content, and it's generally this content that causes the platform the most headaches. Sooner or later, something's going to give.

3. Everyone knows that a career on YouTube is unstable longterm, especially Anti-SJWs. It's admittedly a very grey area but I don't think YouTube has any obligation to continue monetizing content it doesn't want. Now again, channels like Jeremy's shouldn't be banned but if YouTube was to cut his partnership tomorrow, I wouldn't exactly feel bad. There have been red flags about this for months, and to me, that's no different than whispers at a retail chain about massive lay-offs. Anti-SJWs aren't people YouTube can promote, and most beefs with journalists involve them. It's really no secret that if YouTube was re-evaluating partnerships going forward, Anti-SJWs would be near the top of the list. I hear what you're saying, but these content creators were already treading a thin line, and as adults, they should be figuring out their next steps should YouTube drop them.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

1. ...but I do support freedom of speech. In my opinion, a violation of the freedom of speech on YouTube would be a permanent ban like what happened to Leafy. Not everyone gets paid on YouTube, and those who do have to agree to a certain set of guidelines. Jeremy knows he rides a fine line with the content he makes but does so anyway because it's a market not many are willing to risk. So no, I do not agree with you there.

2. Again, that is the risk Jeremy decided to take when he decided to capitalize on outrage content. I do not believe Jeremy's content is bad enough where he deserves a ban, but there's certainly a case to be made for YouTube not wanting to monetize it anymore. Plenty of his videos have led to brigades, witch-hunts, flame wars, and general misinformation. Jeremy has known this for months but continues in this direction because it's the only thing that works for him. No one cares about his Magic the Gathering discussions, Final Fantasy streams, or what new console he picked up from his local game store. Outrage content is the only thing keeping him afloat, but it's also the thing that puts his channel at odds with YouTube. More and more comapnies are not wanting their ads on this content, and it's generally this content that causes the platform the most headaches. Sooner or later, something's going to give.

3. Everyone knows that a career on YouTube is unstable longterm, especially Anti-SJWs. It's admittedly a very grey area but I don't think YouTube has any obligation to continue monetizing content it doesn't want. Now again, channels like Jeremy's shouldn't be banned but if YouTube was to cut his partnership tomorrow, I wouldn't exactly feel bad. There have been red flags about this for months, and to me, that's no different than whispers at a retail chain about massive lay-offs. Anti-SJWs aren't people YouTube can promote, and most beefs with journalists involve them. It's really no secret that if YouTube was re-evaluating partnerships going forward, Anti-SJWs would be near the top of the list. I hear what you're saying, but these content creators were already treading a thin line, and as adults, they should be figuring out their next steps should YouTube drop them.

No you don't support freedom of speech. You think people should be punished for their speech. Bans vs demonetized is just your own personal preference, level of censorship that makes you comfy but both are forms of censorship.

Do you want the government to force businesses to continue to sponsor and have their name associated with people who they actively disagree with and no longer want to have them as a representative?

Yes and the entire point of politics is to get control of the govt so you can force people and firms to act according to your culture, your moral code.

Does the consequence of plummeting views as a result of terrible content require the same freedom of consequence? If someone once was getting hundreds of thousands of views on a video and then begins to get tens of thousands when not outrage mongering as a result of being generally objectionable are companies now not allowed to deem someone not worth the cost of their advertising budget and thus choosing a channel which may yield higher reach?

Does being able to be a loathsome, insipid bore trump capitalism? Does The Quartering's freedom to say whatever he wants without consequence trump a free market?

Either way it doesn't really matter because your definition of freedom of speech is explicitly different from the USA's definition which specifies that freedom of speech only applies to government restrictions and not private restrictions.



Luckily being a noxious slob who is in the process of making his 35th Bre Larson video isn't a protected class, nor is any other myriad of political leaning along the vast spectrum of political leanings, like being a tankie.

I don't support free speech. I think people should be punished for their speech. I just have different standards vs. the SJWs and I think many people who claim to be free speech warriors are hypocrites who in reality do support censorship, they just compartmentalize this.

 

[Virus418]

No you don't support freedom of speech. You think people should be punished for their speech. Bans vs demonetized is just your own personal preference, level of censorship that makes you comfy but both are forms of censorship.

We shall agree to disagree then, but I consider myself an advocate for freedom of speech. Jeremy has a right to his opinion and the ability to share it, but isn't entitled to any revenue from YouTube should they move to de-monetize him. I don't support the idea of Jeremy being punished for "wrong think" so much as YouTube's freedom to monetize along with advertisers. Anti-SJWs arguably cause more trouble for the platform than any other genre with their spread of misinformation, flame wars, and edgy content. That's likely why we saw Leafy get hit with the hammer earlier this year, because YouTube is fed up with the image this content is giving it. They don't need another "adpocalypse" and the Anti-SJWs aren't exactly doing much to make things easier. They go after companies, people, and YouTube themselves, and their communities almost never follow the "please don't harass" disclaimer. You call it censorship, I call it a business decision to keep the peace.

 

[Old Man Mario]

Comments disabled??? Well shit, so much for my plans tonight.

Here's my question: Do you think he warned them, they disable every videos comments as a policy, or the comments being disabled were reactionary due to some comments against Quarterton?

 

[BoxerShorts47]

We shall agree to disagree then,

I don't agree to disagree. I'm not a liberal

but I consider myself an advocate for freedom of speech.

This is the problem. You think you support free speech but your actions show that you support a level of censorship.

Jeremy has a right to his opinion and the ability to share it, but isn't entitled to any revenue from YouTube should they move to de-monetize him.

Okay so then speech isn't free. He is going to be punished for sharing this opinions. That creates a "chilling effect" that stops other people from sharing their opinions.

I don't support the idea of Jeremy being punished for "wrong think" so much as YouTube's freedom to monetize along with advertisers.

You're just trying to compartmentalize your support for censorship.

Anti-SJWs arguably cause more trouble for the platform than any other genre with their spread of misinformation and flame wars.

That is free speech. So here we go, you support limiting certain types of speech.
Again I don't support free speech, I am against free speech. I just think you and many other so called "free speech warriors" are hypocrites.
I think very few people truly support free speech. The idea that someone can speech freely with no accountability fundamentally violates our concept of justice, holding people accountable for their actions.

That's likely why we saw Leafy get hit with the hammer earlier this year, because YouTube is fed up with the image this content is giving it. They don't need another "adpocalypse" and the Anti-SJWs aren't exactly doing much to make things easier. They go after companies, people, and YouTube themselves, and their communities almost never follow the "please don't harass" disclaimer.

Preaching to the choir.

You call it censorship, I call it a business decision to keep the peace.

Again the compartmentalization.
I find people like you to be incredibly dangerous.
You refuse to take responsibility for your actions and try to justify your actions as "following community guidelines" or "manifest observable behavior."
If I ever got political power, I'll lock people people like you in jail for being dishonest.

 

[Fromtheblackdepths]

Oh Boxershorts nice to see your ass out of the dryfucking hole.

 

[The Omni Cuckold]

Only getting demonitized is still pretty much free from consequences in the US compared to other countries. Rush Limbaugh had many problems with sponsors back into the 90s but still stayed ahead in advertising deals for years to get to half a billion net worth. Other places have either strict rules on hate speech that will cause legal action and / or libel laws that can risk a lawsuit just for a bad review. In the US it's very hard to sue for libel or defamation. Compare that to South Korea where it's led to a big Influencer culture before the US had it in part because of lack of critical reviews of services and restaurants.

 

[Eris!]

It's their platform and their money as far as I'm concerned.

I like how our entire society just collectively forgot that creed is one of the protected classes in the civil rights act.

 

[GunnlaugurSassoon]

Yes and the entire point of politics is to get control of the govt so you can force people and firms to act according to your culture, your moral code.


I don't support free speech. I think people should be punished for their speech. I just have different standards vs. the SJWs and I think many people who claim to be free speech warriors are hypocrites who in reality do support censorship, they just compartmentalize this.

Firstly, you seem to either genuinely not understand the definition of free speech in the country which you're arguing about its application, or just want your definition of freedom of speech to be the worldwide a priori definition, reality be damned. It's about freedom from government regulation. A person facing loss of income from a private source choosing to not do business due to belief it'll harm their business in any number of ways is anything but. Especially since it's still possible for private businesses to choose to advertise on his garbage dumps because they agree with his odious personality.

Second, why does it seem like your stance boils down to you literally wanting to force companies to advertise with/sponsor people they actively don't want to (I suppose with the possible asterisk that as long as the people getting the sponsorships aren't "SJW"s)?

Okay so then speech isn't free. He is going to be punished for sharing this opinions. That creates a "chilling effect" that stops other people from sharing their opinions.

The first amendment of the US, the country in which "Gout" Hambly is a citizen and YouTube is a corporation, literally says that is free speech. His speech has beget zero repurcussions from the government. End of.

I like how our entire society just collectively forgot that creed is one of the protected classes in the civil rights act.

Where has he suffered for his religious beliefs? Keeping in mind that legally creed tends to specifically mean ones religion (though as I understand it as a layman there isn't much actual case law saying it's not any other creed as well) and that most (possibly all?) states allow termination for political activity.

 

[Eris!]

Where has he suffered for his religious beliefs? Keeping in mind that legally creed tends to specifically mean ones religion (though as I understand it as a layman there isn't much actual case law saying it's not any other creed as well) and that most (possibly all?) states allow termination for political activity.

Can you describe a meaningful metaphysical difference between a religious belief system and a secular political ideology with a comprehensive worldview?
My point is that political views are obviously included in this, but in practice we all just collectively decided not to give a shit.

 

[Fromtheblackdepths]

Firstly, you seem to either genuinely not understand the definition of free speech in the country which you're arguing about its application, or just want your definition of freedom of speech to be the worldwide a priori definition, reality be damned. It's about freedom from government regulation. A person facing loss of income from a private source choosing to not do business due to belief it'll harm their business in any number of ways is anything but. Especially since it's still possible for private businesses to choose to advertise on his garbage dumps because they agree with his odious personality.

Second, why does it seem like your stance boils down to you literally wanting to force companies to advertise with/sponsor people they actively don't want to (I suppose with the possible asterisk that as long as the people getting the sponsorships aren't "SJW"s)?



The first amendment of the US, the country in which "Gout" Hambly is a citizen and YouTube is a corporation, literally says that is free speech. His speech has beget zero repurcussions from the government. End of.



Where has he suffered for his religious beliefs? Keeping in mind that legally creed tends to specifically mean ones religion (though as I understand it as a layman there isn't much actual case law saying it's not any other creed as well) and that most (possibly all?) states allow termination for political activity.

This is Boxershorts47,this is the same guy who wanted to drive out all minorities from the U.S.A. He's also a spic,and or,a Flip.

Spoiler

God I hope he's a spic because I'm a Flip

 

[Eris!]

Firstly, you seem to either genuinely not understand the definition of free speech in the country which you're arguing about its application, or just want your definition of freedom of speech to be the worldwide a priori definition, reality be damned. It's about freedom from government regulation. A person facing loss of income from a private source choosing to not do business due to belief it'll harm their business in any number of ways is anything but. Especially since it's still possible for private businesses to choose to advertise on his garbage dumps because they agree with his odious personality.

You are confusing the concept of free speech and the first amendment. They are not the same thing. Free Speech means literally what it means: totally unrestricted speech. The first amendment means that the government may not restrict your speech. When people talk about Free Speech, they are literally talking about Free Speech, not the first amendment. It is possible for anyone, not just the government, to violate your free speech rights.

Second, why does it seem like your stance boils down to you literally wanting to force companies to advertise with/sponsor people they actively don't want to (I suppose with the possible asterisk that as long as the people getting the sponsorships aren't "SJW"s)?

Because they should be required to.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

Firstly, you seem to either genuinely not understand the definition of free speech in the country which you're arguing about its application, or just want your definition of freedom of speech to be the worldwide a priori definition, reality be damned. It's about freedom from government regulation. A person facing loss of income from a private source choosing to not do business due to belief it'll harm their business in any number of ways is anything but. Especially since it's still possible for private businesses to choose to advertise on his garbage dumps because they agree with his odious personality.

Second, why does it seem like your stance boils down to you literally wanting to force companies to advertise with/sponsor people they actively don't want to (I suppose with the possible asterisk that as long as the people getting the sponsorships aren't "SJW"s)?



The first amendment of the US, the country in which "Gout" Hambly is a citizen and YouTube is a corporation, literally says that is free speech. His speech has beget zero repurcussions from the government. End of.



Where has he suffered for his religious beliefs? Keeping in mind that legally creed tends to specifically mean ones religion (though as I understand it as a layman there isn't much actual case law saying it's not any other creed as well) and that most (possibly all?) states allow termination for political activity.

You're preaching to the choir.

The founding fathers never anticipated that private* corporations would be regulating citizens. Very few corporations existed before the 2nd Industrial Revolution and they were not doing social/moral engineering. I would argue that private* corporations are essentially foreign governments within a nation and should be full regulated. If a person is being deplatformed from social media (demonetization, bans), getting their credit card revoked / payment processes declined, and being fired from their job because of an ADL or SPLC email, that's not freedom, that's oppression. That is a classic example of being a "political enemy." Rather than being done by the govt. the private corporations have usurped that power. That created a chilling climate where people are incentivized to NOT speak their minds. There is no way the founding father would say, "ya that's totally okay because we didn't anticipate this issue."

Companies and people are already forced to do things they do not like whether it's SEC regulation or the Civil Rights Act (forcing white people to live and work with blacks). When you listen to what people say, including you, most people justify censorship and think it's 100% fine to use govt. power to coerce other humans, We heard these center right and left arguments during the skeptic and alt-light eras and most people have realized they don't make sense and don't exist in the last 2-3 years.

 

[GunnlaugurSassoon]

Can you describe a meaningful metaphysical difference between a religious belief system and a secular political ideology with a comprehensive worldview?
My point is that political views are obviously included in this, but in practice we all just collectively decided not to give a shit.

Aside from this being really dumb, it's moot, and in my posting quickly I got a couple countries of previous residence combined with the US (mea culpa). Creed isn't a protected class, nor is political activity. So back to your,

I like how our entire society just collectively forgot that creed is one of the protected classes in the civil rights act.

evidently society forgot because it isn't.

You are confusing the concept of free speech and the first amendment. They are not the same thing. Free Speech means literally what it means: totally unrestricted speech. The first amendment means that the government may not restrict your speech. When people talk about Free Speech, they are literally talking about Free Speech, not the first amendment. It is possible for anyone, not just the government, to violate your free speech rights.

Because they should be required to.

No, the original arguer seems to be mixing the two. Or he's engaging in an argument that is even fucking dumber than I originally thought, and instead of arguing about if the actual rights of a US citizen have been violated by a US corporation, he's arguing that the universal rights of a fat man with gout who whines about a woman being cast in a superhero movie in 3/5 of his video output have been violated because Ford looked at metrics and without even knowing specifics of his dumpsterfire branding decided his terrible views on non-outrage videos weren't worth their YouTube budget.

This is Boxershorts47,this is the same guy who wanted to drive out all minorities from the U.S.A. He's also a spic,and or,a Flip.

Spoiler

God I hope he's a spic because I'm a Flip

lmao holy shit is this the dude that takes creepshots of dudes dicks on the subway? I forgot this guy existed.

Because they should be required to.

Nike bankruptcy after being forced to advertise on literally every piece of content published with adsense lest they look at metrics and accidentally choose to not advertise on a right leaning channel that's floundering and therefore oppress them.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

Can you describe a meaningful metaphysical difference between a religious belief system and a secular political ideology with a comprehensive worldview?
My point is that political views are obviously included in this, but in practice we all just collectively decided not to give a shit.

Ideology is religion.
"All men are created equal" & "unalienable rights" = axioms
Interpret the US Cons. vs Interpret the Bible.
People have the same religious fervor for ideology as they used to have for religion; ideologue = zealot.

 

[Eris!]

Ideology is religion.
"All men are created equal" & "unalienable rights" = axioms
Interpret the US Cons. vs Interpret the Bible.
People have the same religious fervor for ideology as they used to have for religion; ideologue = zealot.

Exactly. Youtube is discriminating against people's creeds, their systems of shared beliefs. Obviously no judge will ever care, but that's what Youtube is doing.

Nike bankruptcy after being forced to advertise on literally every piece of content published with adsense lest they look at metrics and accidentally choose to not advertise on a right leaning channel that's floundering and therefore oppress them.

Yes.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

Exactly. Youtube is discriminating against people's creeds, their systems of shared beliefs. Obviously no judge will ever care, but that's what Youtube is doing.

There is fundamentally no difference between saying I hate black people vs saying I hate blackness, all the ideas of black people. Likewise no difference saying I hate white people vs all the ideas of white people. As long as you hold an idea or trait, you are that idea or trait. I assume this is why religion was originally included in Civil Rights because discrimination (saying no, rejection) based on beliefs/values is the exact same result as race or sex or national origin.

 

[GunnlaugurSassoon]

Exactly. Youtube is discriminating against people's creeds, their systems of shared beliefs. Obviously no judge will ever care, but that's what Youtube is doing.

Yes.

Interesting you read my post but chose not to respond to the part that pointed out your soapbox about society "forgetting" creed was a protected class was wrong. While continuing on about how YouTube is discriminating against the protected class of "creeds". Tell us more about how no judges will care that YouTube is discriminating against a protected class that isn't a protected class?

There is fundamentally no difference between saying I hate black people vs saying I hate blackness, all the ideas of black people. Likewise no difference saying I hate white people vs all the ideas of white people. As long as you hold an idea or trait, you are that idea or trait. I assume this is why religion was originally included in Civil Rights because discrimination (saying no, rejection) based on beliefs/values is the exact same result as race or sex or national origin.

First they came for the YouTube outrage mongers and I did not speak out...
Then they came for the Filipino guys who take creepshots of dudes dicks in the subway...

 

[TheMadAutist]

You are confusing the concept of free speech and the first amendment. They are not the same thing. Free Speech means literally what it means: totally unrestricted speech. The first amendment means that the government may not restrict your speech. When people talk about Free Speech, they are literally talking about Free Speech, not the first amendment. It is possible for anyone, not just the government, to violate your free speech rights.

Because they should be required to.

When people talk about "free speech" 99% of them mean the 1st Amendment. Only assholes and loli fags want full free speech.

People like Pounder only want free speech for themselves and will regularly block/mute/ban others.

 

[KillThemCrackasBabies]

I seriously thought @BoxerShorts47 was doing a bit at first and am confused and weirded out that he's evidently sincere.