To those who support the demonetization of conservative content: it's truly a slippery slope. Wait until minecraft is declared a white supremacist game, and let's watch Youtube torch themselves even harder.
Demonetizing videos that make homophobic attacks on public figures (the "conservative" content in question) is not "the other side of the coin" to being positive about LGBTQ issues.
If the majority of conservatives hold (and try to post) homophobic views, then it seems that banning the majority of them is the right thing to do.
Like the censorship of ISIS content, LGBTQ content censorship was celebrated by the same people now lamenting "conservative" demonetization.
The "same people?" All of them? Since when does "Conservative" equal "anti-LGBT?" You do know there exists LGBT conservatives, yes?
Recall George Bush Jr's presidential candidacy when banning gay marriage in the nation's Constitutional was a get-out-to-vote issue. Or California's 8. Why are these issues energizing? What about care for the poor and focus on education? Are these not red-hot winning issues?
You might also refer to the GOP platform of various states, or the GOP national platform. Here's some verbatim text from the Texas GOP platform, the 2nd-largest state in the nation.
> Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
> Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.
> Overturn Unconstitutional Ruling: We believe this decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.
I would also argue that discussing American conservatism without a rich narrative on Christianity is obtusely blind.
> Religious Freedom: As America is “one nation under God,” founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship as they choose.
If conservatives didn't care about gay marriage, then what political force would be left to oppose its legitimacy?
I'm not going to deny that there are LGBT conservatives. But the fact is that conservative politicians as a whole demonize LGBTQ people and have attempted multiple times to censor them [1] or bar them from aid.
"As a whole" they do not. There exists many who do, to paint it part and parcel of conservatism is incorrect.
One could just as well claim it's not their conservatism, but religious beliefs.
I am, however, willing to support a movement that results in conservative content being demonetized if American conservatism continues to pander to and fall back on its racist and reactionary cores. It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.
They don't.
> It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.
I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent. Are you fine with being socially outcast?
This is counterfactual, and I'm not interested in debating facts.
> I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent.
I'm sorry, but this is word salad. You don't know any of my concrete political positions.
> Are you fine with being socially outcast?
I am extremely comfortable with reactionaries being socially outcast. I belong to a few different groups that are traditionally (and violently) targeted when reactionary movements gain social and political power. Minimizing the ability of reactionaries to undermine systems of government and public discourse directly serves my end of continuing to exist in a liberal democracy. I'd quote Popper, but that's a little bit too cliche at this point.
what?
I'm not 100% sure you're criticising that, so if you're not, please take this comment as directed at the many other times I have seen it criticized on HN and elsewhere:
It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly. Communication is based simply on actual usage of language and symbols. If a bunch of people want to associate a symbol (especially one that's still ubiquitously known but has somewhat fallen out of popular real-world usage) with something very controversial and offensive, then they can realistically do that by simply using the symbol that way, even if they're only doing it as a hilarious joke. Then it just means that sometimes (depending on context), until they stop using it that way. If people are, in practice, using a symbol to mean a certain thing, then it means that thing (with the likelihood of meaning being a function of context). I don't have to think about it or philosophize about it when I see it - it comes naturally based on context, because that's how language works. If I've seen 10 usages of <Mercury-symbol> to mean "Mercury" in the past 5 years, and 75 usages of it to mean "kill all the elderly" in the past year, then when I see somebody who seems antagonistic write <Mercury-symbol> with no planetary context in sight, I can reasonably assume he probably means the latter, and I would probably be correct. As another example, the "V" sign means different things in different places - but if I see it in the US, I don't fret at the idea that I might misinterpret it. The fact is, in practice, it's used here to mean "peace", therefore it means "peace" at that moment. Sort of like how money works. You can't just say "no" and make the social agreement go away.
*edit: I didn't know HN filtered some seemingly innocuous characters - I've replaced my usage of the Mercury symbol with <Mercury-symbol>.
> It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly.
I don't think it's silly, but I do feel the media's coverage of it was irresponsible / clickbaity. The ADL website itself mentions that most uses are "entirely innocuous and harmless" but CNN's headline was "'OK' is now a hate symbol", which stigmatizes the gesture and feels like cultural vandalism. I understand your point about language usage, but far more people use the gesture in an innocuous way. It's not surpising to me that people would be upset when told it's a hate symobol (when it's not in most cases - documenting that it is in some cases is fine, but generalizing it as a hate symbol is what most people disagree with).
Can you provide some context examples? Genuinely curious.
What is happening, is notch tweeting reactionary opinion pieces on twitter and people are irritated by it. No one thinks he represents all gamers or their perceived 'wrongness', and no one expects him to fit into some imaginary SV mould.
But that's because I believe in private property and freedom of association as well as personal responsibility for one's actions while it seems "conservatives" in 2019 do not from the public stances they have adopted in their political efforts.
1. Outlaw "extremism"
2. Label your political enemies as "extrmist."
3. ???
4. Eutopia
I can see the criticisms now:
"These racists are using Mein Kraft to achieve power through the joy of gaming!"