Two weeks back I did
an entry on a “censorship crybaby” on YT and how he (and others there) misuse
the word “censorship” to gain the sympathy of others like them who feel put
upon because the quality of their commentary is recognized for being as poor as
it is. The crybaby has “responded” with a vid of his own now, though to call it
a “response” would be to misuse and insult that particular word by attributing
to the vid he made a dignity that word bestows which is does not warrant. Serious commentators would hesitate to use the
word “response” in their own vocabulary for the next ten thousand years if I
did that.
Not surprisingly, in 25 minutes of production – which included
about a minute and a half of “dead air” at the end of his vid – the crybaby ignored
virtually all of my critical points, and refused to admit several errors of his
own (such as the claim that my reference to Congress in the free speech clause
was “disingenuous” because some people didn’t live in America – an argument all
the more embarrassing from the crybaby, inasmuch as I showed that in his native
UK, the equivalent freedom is phrased just the same). My challenge to report me
to censorship organizations was ignored, though that is to be expected since
the crybaby was forced to admit that I indeed was not practicing “censorship”
(but, he said, it doesn’t matter, he doesn’t like what I’m doing anyway, so I
should stop!).
At any rate, I decided it was not worth a
vid response of my own, but that for the record, a Forge post would be
adequate.
I had made a point about a private YT channel as equal to
what is called a “special library” – generally, a private collection of materials
devoted to a specific topic, within which censorship is virtually impossible.
The crybaby responded with the inane observation that my channel couldn’t fit
this description because it is “not a library” but “more like lectures.” The
idiocy of this response is par for the course for this poor fellow, and it is
not hard to see why he prefers to offer victim rhetoric (as noted in entry two
weeks ago) rather than arguments. In reality, films, including filmed lectures,
are just one example of the sort of media that would be collected in a library.
Beyond that, of course, the crybaby ignored my many points about the qualities
of a special library that also match a YT channel: Not funded by taxes, set up
for a special purpose and select audience, etc.
Regarding censorship, as noted, the crybaby ignores my
second challenge, and says he "doesn't accept my definition of
censorship" – though he fails to mention to his gullible viewers that it
comes from professional organizations concerned with the issue. He says later
he will not play “word games” – apparently meaning he won’t respond to the way
professional orgs define censorship.
The crybaby also has the temerity to claim that he “won”
with respect to my first challenge to censorship whiners, saying their should
go to a Skeptical site with harsher rules than mine and complain. Apparently,
to the crybaby, a “win” constitutes him mistaking my moral challenge for a tu
quoque (which was the first mistake he made) and then ducking and dodging that
challenge by making excuses and asking for rewards if he does it.
Regarding my moderation of the channel, the crybaby objects
that what I say of this and my rules is “moot” because 1) I changed my rules
there recently and 2) I do not follow them consistently.
The first is an irrelevancy: A private entity is also able at any time to
change its rules; barring legal and contractual obligations (of the sort that
do not apply to a private YT channel), this is also the standard expectation
for any moderated community, which can and must be able to adjust to changing
needs, desires, audiences, and purposes. At such points, senior members may also
freely withdraw from such a group – with no obligation.
For the second, it is claimed that I do not follow my own
rules when 2a) I mock idiots like him, or 2b) allow some non-substantive
comments. The former is simply false – I have no rules against mockery. The
second is merely an equivocation and a nitpick: My goal, as stated, is
intelligent and informed comments; but in order to maintain a community
interest which will gather persons who offer that type of comment, it is
manifest (and should hardly need to be stated to anyone not of a legalistic
mindset) that this also means permitting a certain degree of bantering or other
social discourse. In essence the crybaby has imposed upon me his own Puritan
interpretation of my purpose.
A couple of other points are manifest idiocy on their face.
I am told I should allow stupid comments to be posted because they may be
instructive to others. I am also told that it is not right that I, the owner of
the channel, gets to judge the quality of comments. This latter, we may observe in
close, reflects the petulant monstrosity that the current generation of spoiled,
postmodern Wikipedia addicts has become. Once again, it is their belief that
their every word is precious and to be revered, and that their views are worthy
of a hearing simply by virtue of them having views.
Too bad for them: Not all of
us will bow and scrape to that – and that’s a view they’ll learn to respect the
hard way.
No comments:
Post a Comment