YouTube Censorship & Social Libertarian Socialism?

youtube.com/watch?v=14x1-pyNJj0

So I kinda used the recent youtube advertisement policy stuff to lead onto more leftist related topics, and I'm wondering what you guys think of my conclusion for this video, that being we need to add a clause to society to make sure that democracy cannot be used to interfere with situations that do not effect anyone but the person or consenting persons engaging in it - eg drug usage.

I dont really feel like this is a topic talked about much which is why I made this video, thought it would be interesting to have some discussion here too.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

And in other news, water is wet.

You kinda missed the point of the video. I even spelled it out in the OP to make it easy for you.

I honestly just think you need to read a book, bitch.

I am reading and have been for a while fam.

That's unrelated to the video though.

this.

its not YT's fault, the advertisers don't want their product to be associated with controversial topic/individuals.
its perfectly understandable.

it has nothing to do with "muh feedum of peach", yt isn't taking down those vids, they just won't put ads on them

So are you ever going to finish that conversation with me about how I'm wrong about everything or are you gonna spurge out and rage quit when I type while you're typing again?

Yea, I highlight this in the video and add how they're simply under the dictatorship of capital.

Did you watch all of it?

oops fucked up formatting somehow there

Well this is something I haven't given much thought on. But I will speak my mind for you Muke. So I for one do not agree with the idea of people directly interfering with other people's lives. Because what is the point as stated in your op, they are not effecting anyone but they still oppose it. Thus it should be the individual to make their decisions rather than democracy.

If a clause has to be attached then I will support that, and agree too it. Since democracy when misused can be used to promote to infringing on those rights of the individual stepping out of the bonds of what should be laid out.

Though I feel that my thoughts don't seem as clearly thought out. Since I have other things on my mind after reading some books I haven't read yet by Marx.

Calling yourself a "libertarian" is pretty stupid. It's such a misuse of the word. You only use it because you're dumb and like how it sounds. If you read any anarchist literature, you'd think again. The swastika dude in your comment section is right, you're just culturally liberal.

That's seriously what you're getting hung up about? Why worry about semantics so much dude I already admitted I was being a special snow flake in using it.

Constitution

I'll never get why the US - GB west has to use terms other than socialism and so on, to say the same thing…

"Culturaly liberal"..
WTF? Because you're not a nazi you're "cutluraly liberal"?

Anyway, FB, YT and so on have become essential to society and this just shows how fucked up neoliberalism will make society.

...

MUH CENSORSHIP!!!!!!
MUH FROZEN FRUIT!!!!!!!!

...

what conversation you're talking about ? wtf.
i think you're mistaking me for someone else
nein.

because it's fucking stupid. I guess any right-winger should call themselves a communist and be "special". You're only choosing that term because of how it sounds. Don't be stupid.

Libertarians should begin calling themselves vanguardists, I guess.

I spoke to someone on fb claiming to be freud poster.

Also, watch the whole thing.

Here you go you illiterates:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_liberalism

dude, i'm made it up to 2 minutes in the vid then shut it down, you keep rambling and not getting to the topic.
also its almost 6AM over here, could you write a TL;DR

Well no I actually have grounds for using this term, it's not arbitary or polar opposite like the examples you're giving.

The social aspects of mainstream libertarianism are pretty much 'do what you want as long as it dosnt effect anyone else' which I pretty much agree with but of course tagged onto that is the free market capitalism bullshit, so when I say social libertarianism I mean the social aspects of libertarianism only.

You get me?

Dude I put a tldr in the fucking OP.

That comes from liberalism

Anyways, it's still really stupid.


I ought to call myself a Leninist now because there are maybe some things that Leninists say that I agree with very vaguely.

Get you're shit right and read a book from the other socialist traditions for once.

You're just bastardizing libertarianism.

Really? Liberalism as it's known today is very much about controlling what people can and cannot do. Are you talking about liberalism when it was first really implemented? Why go by old definitions?

so thats your topic, right ?

Why not just call yourself socially liberal?

Socially libertarian isn't a thing, and if it is, it's retarded.

With all due respect Xexizy, you have a Steven Crowder tier understanding of modern day liberals.

Liberalism is about promoting policies and cultures that free up the most people possible from negative stigmas and oppression. Sometimes you have to step on toes, like the abolitionists did, like BLM is doing to state officials and wealthy white people, but liberalism is not intrinsically authoritarian nor does it have to be.

fuck off muke you don't know what you're talking about and your personality isn't enough to carry it

Coupled with the fact I dont think this topic is disscused in leftism that much, that's the conclusion yea.

So much stupidity here.


No. Social liberalism is what we have today. It means capitalism with social programs for the sake of some "equality" and government intervention in the economy. Social liberals are capitalists. One cannot be a socialist and a social liberal. You're conflating social liberalism with cultural liberalism.


Wtf are you even talking about? When you say "libertarianism" do you mean propertarianism (neoliberal b.s.) or libertarianism?

Either way, you're still being stupid with your use of words.

I didn't bother to watch your videos because you never stay on point but, Freeze peach is a capitalist issue. I'm surprised you haven't made that connection yet. When a small group of individuals privatize social media, liberal or conservative, they will promote their agenda.

If you did make this connection, then my bad fam.

No, that isn't liberalism. You're probably just trying to describe social liberalism.

Anyways, Crowder is a liberal to begin with.

I'm referring to it in it's currently most popular sense, the american sense, though I should of specified that

Why is it dumb?

This video isnt about defending freedom of speech ffs..

Yes, that's what we're talking about. Read the title of Xexizy's video.


My bad, lawl. I could've sworn there was some mention of it somewhere. Anyhoo, do you agree with me or not?

Also, make a script or something, your ramblings are annoying and make me want to click off.

kys

Holy shit!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism


Next you'll imply that conservative liberals are socialists.
You're just showing how stupid you are.


Why are you speaking like a clueless yank. American-style "libertarians" are just neoliberals. It's stupid because it's ahistorical. Not even propertarians say that. They would call themselves "socially liberal" (which is a conflation with cultural liberalism as I already said). I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

To be honest, I approve of this new development.

This definition does not make a distinction from conservatives who glorify the free market and liberals who abhor it, they want as much state intervention as possible, that's a far cry from endorsing a market economy. Liberals would probably nationalize housing, cars, etc. Yes, they're that dumb.

Conservative liberals and social liberals are both for markets and capitalism. The former just wants to regulate it more and cares about "social justice". The latter today tends to be neoliberal but it doesn't have to be so. They just have conservative social stances.

Both are liberals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism

This guy gets it.

Does anybody have that graph showing the different kinds of liberalism? I think idiots in this thread need it.

Yeah thats a good one someone should post it.

Would love to argue semantics some more but it's 5:30am. Will leave it maybe I am wrong but it dosnt change the content of my arguments so does it really matter?


Actually this is all based off a script already, though I dont read it off word for word like I used to. I've been told by many this is better and more natural. All the points I've made were intentional and were not added on as rammbles. Sorry if it came off like that though.

Stop calling yourself a "libertarian Leninist". It's the most stupid shit I've ever heard on so many levels.

youtube alternative when

When hen alt media starts using media goblin so they can't be censored and asking for bit coin so they can get micro donations like a few pennies at a time

I'm going to reread the Telekommunist Manifesto, anyone want to join me?