|
boner confessor posted:...it gets me rock hard True to your name! Gorn Myson posted:For a moment I thought that it was a joke because I've seen a few people deliberately include a dodgy browser history as a joke, but that is far too realistic and understandable that it has to be true. He defends himself in the comments. He's just careless. OwlFancier posted:I mean he is also literally married with a kid. Actually in the UK all marriages are figurative. Something to do with King Henry. fallenturtle fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Aug 10, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
My favorite part about that entire thing Carlgon gets banned, makes a youtube video about how he doesn't know who banned him other than twitter (who can do as they wish maybe sometimes only on tuesdays) so of loving course the video has "so much for the tolerant left" as the thumbnail, especially because as mentioned it could still be people pissy that he didn't dogwhistle "no no no the holocaust didn't happen!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Surely at this point "so much for the tolerant left" cannot be used sincerely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Considering he used the word "kikes" and "holo-hoax" in one of his tweets, it wouldnt surprise me if a bot just picked him up and dumped him like a trash bag. He most likely knew it would happen too and this is just another to squeeze the censorship/ironic racism is aokay cash-tit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
given that twitter isn't conservative or liberal but rather a for profit corporate entity, how can carl reconcile his claims of being a classical liberal while also implicitly stating that he's to the right of twitter? i know he's a liar, this is just a rhetorical observation of his stupidity
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:Why? Be-... Because trying to gently caress children is wrong What the gently caress is wrong with you?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:given that twitter isn't conservative or liberal but rather a for profit corporate entity, how can carl reconcile his claims of being a classical liberal while also implicitly stating that he's to the right of twitter? i know he's a liar, this is just a rhetorical observation of his stupidity Because he's using liberalism in its proper none American meaning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
drat too long for a thread title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:drat too long for a thread title. "The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread: Because trying to gently caress children is wrong" isn't though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Because he's using liberalism in its proper none American meaning. That still doesn't make sense if you assume Twitter is not a political entity. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that assertion but I think that's the point being made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
I dunno, liberalism in its proper non-American meaning usually boils down to being against doing things that the liberal themselves doesn't like. Would it be wrong for a private business to use chemicals to turn frogs gay if the business owns both the frogs and the chemicals? Who knows, Tim was hacked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Glazier posted:They’re pretty consistent actually. Wrong in every way, but consistent. Dude needs a better mic, but other than that, good vid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That still doesn't make sense if you assume Twitter is not a political entity. A business is automatically capitalistic and therefore a right wing entity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Rumda posted:A business is automatically capitalistic and therefore a right wing entity. what about ben and jerrys
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Be-... Because trying to gently caress children is wrong He's not actually loving a child in the video or advocating it, he's just making an rear end of himself. What's the point of censoring it? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
A friend of mine has been arguing with me about the Google incident all day. He's a pretty solid Democrat in every other category, but he seems to have a huge blind spot when it comes to FREEZE PEACH. He's even been using right-wing talking points like "bububub MLK said content and character matters more than skin color!". 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:What's the point of censoring it? because it makes idiots mad which is objectively a good thing. like facepunching nazis, only it's reducing their fake internet points Mr Interweb posted:A friend of mine has been arguing with me about the Google incident all day. He's a pretty solid Democrat in every other category, but he seems to have a huge blind spot when it comes to FREEZE PEACH. He's even been using right-wing talking points like "bububub MLK said content and character matters more than skin color!". the gently caress? the content and character of this guy is rancid. he wrote a manifesto about how he doesn't respect a third of his coworkers because of their biological inferiority and then he decided to double down and engage in a last ditch defense of his ego at the expense of his career. ask your friend if they would hire this guy knowing he's going to be an rear end in a top hat to other employees and he's 100% guaranteed to blow it up into a lawsuit if you ask him to knock it off
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:He's not actually loving a child in the video or advocating it, he's just making an rear end of himself. What's the point of censoring it? You may not know this, but "I didn't know she was 13" is not a defence in charges of sexual misconduct towards minors. Also, sexualizing minors is wrong. Also, sexually harassing women is wrong, regardless of age. Also, wtf is wrong with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:He's not actually loving a child in the video or advocating it, he's just making an rear end of himself. What's the point of censoring it? I'm not sure if "having sex with a minor is only wrong if I see it" is a position you want to take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:because it makes idiots mad which is objectively a good thing. like facepunching nazis, only it's reducing their fake internet points So its not a morality thing, you just want to troll them? Avenging_Mikon posted:You may not know this, but "I didn't know she was 13" is not a defense in charges of sexual misconduct towards minors. I'm aware, but the video seems tame in regards to sex, you just see her face, so other than being gross it basically just makes Mr. Alaska look like a jackass. I don't think it encourages any of the above nor does it seem harmful to children. quote:Also, wtf is wrong with you. Maybe I just have a different censorship threshold. If you want to protect children there a tons more videos of minors sexualizing themselves on YouTube that are worthy of being censored before this. Who What Now posted:I'm not sure if "having sex with a minor is only wrong if I see it" is a position you want to take. It's not the position I'm taking. I've noticed you have a serious habit of putting words in people's mouths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
What's the purpose/benefit in him uploading that part specifically?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Are you really having difficulty wondering why it might be appropriate to report a video of a man hitting on a 13 year old to the authorities?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
I think the person who uploaded that is doing it to embarrass him (which is another reason why I don't see the point in censoring it). I'm basing this on the fact that the same channel also has a video entitled "Cucked Alaska gets CUCKED at the gym!" Is a Cucked Alaska when you get pleasure watching someone else eat your dessert? OwlFancier posted:Are you really having difficulty wondering why it might be appropriate to report a video of a man hitting on a 13 year old to the authorities? Actually the legal aspect hadn't occurred to me. I thought they just wanted it taken down so other people wouldn't see it. TBH, I don't think the authorities would care since he's seen not realizing she was a minor until the end and doesn't appear to try anything after he learns her age. fallenturtle fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Aug 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:So its not a morality thing, you just want to troll them? do you... do you not realize what thread you're posting in? could that be the explanation for your intensely lovely, whiny posting all this time? OwlFancier posted:Are you really having difficulty wondering why it might be appropriate to report a video of a man hitting on a 13 year old to the authorities? you'll need to write a five paragraph essay on the ethics and morality of reporting a video of a man hitting on a 13 year old, and how this would advance civil discourse in society before fallenturtle will deign to read and consider your response
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:It's not the position I'm taking. No, it pretty much is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:Actually the legal aspect hadn't occurred to me. I thought they just wanted it taken down so other people wouldn't see it. ... How can the "legal aspect" of a man initiating sexual advances towards a 13 year old not occur to you...
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
If somebody is ignorant enough to hit on an underage girl but wise enough to stop after learning they're underage, I say no harm no foul, because people are dumb and I personally am incredibly bad at discerning people's ages The lovely behaviour in this particular scenario should be addressed though, because that's gross and bad regardless of her age
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
I reported it and will let the thread know if there's any follow up. I don't think I need super intense justification to report stuff I find offensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
fallenturtle, if you want to claim puppetmaster trolling defense, now is the time, because this forum doesn't look kindly on pedo apologists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:do you... do you not realize what thread you're posting in? Do you not realize that mocking doesn't always involve trolling? quote:could that be the explanation for your intensely lovely, whiny posting all this time? quote:you'll need to write a five paragraph essay on the ethics and morality of reporting a video of a man hitting on a 13 year old, and how this would advance civil discourse in society before fallenturtle will deign to read and consider your response Who What Now posted:No, it pretty much is. No, you dishonest hack, its not. I've said absolutely nothing that would condone sex with children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
I mean I've managed to go my whole life without perving on children and now I feel weird because apparently this is a rare achievement!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I've managed to go my whole life without perving on children and now I feel weird because apparently this is a rare achievement! now now, to be fair, he could have just been performatively harassing the rare female audience member of his livestream, which is entirely good and rational behavior, in which case have you considered that you are the real nazi for taking offense? have you considered that, *rolls dice* triggered, uh *checks table* cuck?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:
I mean, other than questioning why it's even wrong, sure. Sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:... Because it appeared to be a misunderstanding. WampaLord posted:fallenturtle, if you want to claim puppetmaster trolling defense, now is the time, because this forum doesn't look kindly on pedo apologists. The fact that I have to clarify this is nuts: I do not approve of sexual anything with minors. As a father of small children the idea that anyone would consider that poo poo is horrifying. That said, I don't think mistakenly hitting on a minor automatically makes you pedo unless the person clearly looks like a child or you have a track record of it. Edit: Pembroke Fuse posted:The context here is that Baked Alaska has a long and sordid history of stalking/harassing teenage girls online. I guess he is a pedo. fallenturtle fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:If somebody is ignorant enough to hit on an underage girl but wise enough to stop after learning they're underage, I say no harm no foul, because people are dumb and I personally am incredibly bad at discerning people's ages The context here is that Baked Alaska has a long and sordid history of stalking/harassing teenage girls online.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I mean, other than questioning why it's even wrong, sure. Sure. This is what I asked "why?" to: SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Oh I guess we should report the video where a guy hits on a 13 year old Clearly I must be VERY specific with my wording to keep your twisted hammer-based brain from reading it as a nail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
we must leave up the video where a grown man insults then hits on a 13 year old girl for archival purposes, and to remind people that insulting and then hitting on children is bad. those who censor history are doomed to repeat it after all, and without the example why wouldn't we be tempted to fall again to the same trap?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:This is what I asked "why?" to: I mean, I still can't see any reason not to report a video of a grown man hitting on an underage 13 year old girl. And as for it being a mistake, well, I, as a non-pedophile, have never had any difficulty in identifying children nor any inclination to try and hit on anyone who even looks even slightly as a child, so I don't really understand how that's something you could write off as an honest goof.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
fallenturtle posted:Because it appeared to be a misunderstanding. You must be aware that this is a memetically unacceptable defence both legally and ethically?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:26
|
|