YouTube Comments

[Vance]

I am not a troll nor a hater. I have had some very bad experiences and I have Bi-polar disorder. Sometimes this comes out when I'm typing. Your message to "haters" is called shaming. That's hateful itself and only engenders more negative feelings in the other posters. Sometimes people think they are so righteous that they don't see their own hypocracy.

[Sascha]

Vance wrote: "I am not a troll nor a hater. I have had some very bad experiences and I have Bi-polar disorder. Sometimes this comes out when I'm typing. Your message to "haters" is called shaming. That's hateful..."

Are you talking with me?

If so then sorry to hear that you feel that way. Of course I never meant to hurt or shame people with mental illness. I don't know what bad experiences you have made nor do I know what exactly comes out when you're typing. And I don't even understand why you feel affected by my message to haters.

But maybe I should give a definition of what I mean when I speak of "haters": For me, a hater is someone who is harassing, threatening, discriminating, shaming and hurting other people by using a language of hate. Haters often use this language of hate to defend their privileges and their position of power. And haters also use this language to silence other people who they think are of less value and inferior - they direct their hate against people of already vulnerable groups like women, homosexuals, transsexuals, refugees, people with mental illness and other people. And haters use this language to silence people with another opinion. Generally, you could say that the language of haters is a form of violence. I don't want to give you any examples of a hateful comment because I think you all know what it looks like, so I will spare you the horrible details.

Vance, you are saying that you are no hater. So please tell me, why do you feel affected then? I haven't written one word against people with mental illness. And so I don't understand why you suggest that I have shamed people with mental illness and that I am a hater myself. To make it clear again: my message to haters from above is only directed at people who fall under the definition of haters which I have given before.

[Vance]

It's not only because I have Bi-polar, which you are zeroing in on, but the fact that you yourself and those like you have "namecalled" other posters as haters and trolls to silence them, shame them, etc., because they disagreed with your ( people with your opinions) opinions. That's violence. So you are insidiously guilty of what you are complaining about. Progressives are notorious for this kind of behavior.

[Sascha]

Vance wrote: "It's not only because I have Bi-polar, which you are zeroing in on, but the fact that you yourself and those like you have "namecalled" other posters as haters and trolls to silence them, shame the..."

I don't agree with you. My critique of haters is not because I disagree with them on a factual basis. Instead, my critique is directed against their behaviour. I am against haters not because we have different opinions (although actually, we HAVE different opinons on many things because I don't share their sexism, racism, homophobia, antisemitism,...) but because they behave unkindly, hostile and even violently against all people they think are inferior. What you call "namecalling" (I have never heard that word) is what I call giving it a name for the reason of talking about the problem. Generally, I see that you only claim something ("you are a hater yourself", "you are violent yourself", "you are a hypocrite") without any argument and so I think I don't want to discuss with you anymore because it doesn't make any sense for me.

[Vance]

Oh, I disagree with you and you don't want to discuss it? You've never heard the word "namecalling"? I'm just making claims? Aren't you just making claims about people with differing opinions? I don't agree with the current behavior of the LGBT community. Does that give you the right to call me a homophobe? No! It does not! This is just one example. For disagreeing with the mainstream neoprogressive PC atmosphere, people are "shamed" and "namecalled" into silenceness. This is a grave injustice that we are not going to tolerate anymore.

[Felicia]

Vance and Sascha

Not knowing Sascha from anywhere other than this one discussion on this topic, I have the theory that the reason she doesn't want to discuss more with you is not that you disagree, but maybe that you seem a bit hostile in your way of discussing. To be fair, you are attacking her a lot. (For instance, Sascha didn't say you were making claims; she didn't even suggest towards it. She said she had never heard the word, and on an international forum like this, there's a good reason to mention these things, as it could be a doubt of the meaning of the word - not of the fact that such a word exist. - I see on Sascha's profile that she's not from an English-speaking country, just like me, and we don't know as many English words as you probably do.)
I say this, because if you go back, you'll see me and Sascha disagreeing on how to handle this issue, and Sascha never thought disagreeing with me meant she didn't want to discuss it.

Sascha, I've been away and therefore haven't had time to reply to your message with the message. Actually, I don't think it will help the issue. I really like your idea about making it uncomfortable to be hateful. I never think it should be uncomfortable to discuss with other people, no matter if you agree with them or not, and I think you're with me on this one, but it's true that if it has to be uncomfortable for someone, it might as well be for the ones going to poison the discussion. (Vance, I want to add here that it's not about making anything uncomfortable for people you disagree with who are interested in having the discussion, but people like the "haters" or "trolls"(names we use, as said before, in lack of better) that just want to throw shit at you.)
I just think that if we should engage the trolls(which I'm still not sure we should), it should be with facts and love for others instead of the kind of "why are you like this"-message. I would be more interested in a "hmm, this is what I think, contrary to what you just posted"-message, again because we're mostly trying to aim for the "silent bystanders" that Sydney was talking about.

Mostly, I still don't think I would respond to the hateful comment. I would rather respond to five constructive comments, in addition to making my own.

[James]

Vance wrote: "Oh, I disagree with you and you don't want to discuss it? You've never heard the word "namecalling"? I'm just making claims? Aren't you just making claims about people with differing opinions? I do..."

Just so im clear based on your post here you do not agree with the alternative lifestyle correct? Im guessing you have been labeled a homophobe based upon your personal beliefs?

I will agree with you that when it comes to trolling it can and has happened on all sides of any given topic of conversation. But, for me when it comes to trolling it depends on how they approach a topic and what is said.

If a poster actually has a well thought out post regarding why they disagree with something i wouldnt consider that trolling rather just a difference of an opinion. But if a poster comes into the conversation and starts name calling, threatening people, or just downright derogatory with their comments i would certainly see that as trolling.

Im really not sure why you are so angry here but maybe ive missed something in regards to how you have been treated here. From what i can tell no one has called you personally a troll so im wondering why you are so combative with Sasha.

[Vance]

Felicia wrote: "Vance and Sascha

Not knowing Sascha from anywhere other than this one discussion on this topic, I have the theory that the reason she doesn't want to discuss more with you is not that you disagree..."

On one point I disagree with you: She did say that I was just making claims that were baseless. On the rest: I completely agree with you. If somebody is just throwing shit, then that person is just piece of shit shit thrower, but, if someone is actually speaking real opinions, albeit in a fiery way (nothing personally hostile to you Sascha), then people shouldn't so quick to judge them as haters. Then there's the point I made of deliberately judgeing someone to be something unpopular (namecalling) to silence them, which is wrong.

[Ross]

The recent exchange on the thread has thrown up another point. We are so accustomed to trolls we are seeing the effect even when it is not intended.

Is it possible therefore to troll by accident? Should we be more thick skinned or less?

[Sascha]

Oh wow... there would be so much to say now but I try to remain short.

1. Just for the protocol: I'm a "He" and not a "She". But you couldn't know this. And it's okay if you think I'm a woman. I really have no problem with being seen as a woman at all ;)

2. Felicia, yes, you have got me absolutely right. I don't have a problem with disagreeing and having different opinions. On the contrary, I think this is what makes a debate interesting: to learn from other people and their views. And when I said, I don't want to discuss with Vance anymore, the reason was not that we disagree but his hostile behaviour and style of discussion.

3. And yes, Felicia: I can understand what you say about maybe not engaging trolls and haters and better adressing the bystanders instead. I think I'm quite indecisive on this issue. Maybe it depends on the context of the conversation.

Let's take the situation of a hateful shitstorm. In that situation I think it definitely makes no sense to address the haters because everything is in such a rage and probably nobody will listen to your arguments. But let's take a normal conversation in a forum like we have here. The situation is different then. Because there is a place for respectful exchange of opinion. And I think the more people have a respectful and friendly conversation the less hate can intoxicate our conversation. So we need to expand our kind of conversation and let respect and kindness find their way forward.

On the other side, what seems very important to me is that the victims of Hate Speech are protected. They need a Safe Space where nobody is harassing and threatening and hurting them. So the question is also for me: what could be the goals of counter-speech against Hate Speech? A Safe Space for the victims for example. Let's support the victims of Hate Speech by giving them flowers (metaphorically speaking) and let's show them that there are as many people who fight against hate as there seem to be many people who hate.

Another reason for counter-speech could be - as we both have said - to make Hate Speech an uncomfortable thing for the haters. And I know this is idealistic and seems hard to achieve and you seem not to agree with me in this point but a goal of counter-speech could also be to teach the haters a lesson and convince them to stop their hateful and violent behaviour and change to a respectful conversation instead.

So there are many things which counter-speech can be addressing and often it seems like an uphill battle but I think it's worth it. Because the prospect of a world and a conversation without hate is a cause worth fighting for. And what seems also to be important for me: we should always look for companions and friends so that we don't fight this struggle on our own.

4. Ross, I don't have an answer to your questions but something comes to my mind: I guess trolling is not a problem taken by itself. First, I think we should make a difference between people who troll and people who hate. Until now, I think our conversation here was generally about haters. But trolls are not necessarilly the same. Trolling can even be a strategy to use against hate. Trolling can be a way to make hate uncomfortable for haters. It's like turning their own weapons against them. By this, I don't mean that we should respond hateful and hurtful to the haters but we could disturb their hateful conversation by trolling. For example, we could make humorous, ironic and provocative statements in the middle of a hateful shitstorm with the goal of interrupting the hateful conversation and turning the focus on something more friendly.

[Vance]

Does anybody see the hypocracy here? I have been accused of being hostile. Debates get heated. Don't take it personally. Sacha, you seem pretty hostile yourself. The words you use to describe people is hate speech, which is what you're complaining about. Yes, some people are protected while others are not. That creates a two tiered society. The protected can insult, abuse, and oppress me, but I can't say boo to them. This is wrong!!!

[Vance]

Meelie wrote: "To anyone engaging in conversation here.

I'd like to take the chance to reiterate the group rules. You can find them on the front page of the forum. Please re-read if you're not sure.

Of course,..."

I am obeying the rules. I have done nothing different than anyone else here. Is this reprimand solely for me or all parties involved? I was mentioned in a post so I replied. Am I being silenced because certain opinions are prefered over mine? If someone chooses not to debate with me any longer because I'm winning the debate, that's fine. Is posting my opinions about remarks that person makes in an impersonal manner without engaging that person against the rules? A timely reply is most certainly welcome. However, any threats of having my membership revoke if I don't unquestioning comply with all demands will resut in my immediate cessation from the group. I have been in this situation far too many times. Frankly I'm tired of dealing with this favoritist nonsense and group mind collective control.

[Vance]

deleted user wrote: "The disgusting whore with cunt mold named Emma Watson has a openstanding debt, she still refuces to pay so.

This is something that will happen with ALL woman, no exceptions. Nice equal right is it..."

You got a serious problem, man. You got shit in your cranium instead of brains or something? I may disagree on some issue, but I share the ideology of equality and fairness for all. Women have historically been horridly mistreated and oppressed by male dominance throughout the ages. No wonder they're pissed. We just have to prevent moves toward reverse oppression while addressing actual present areas where women are still oppressed, mistreated, disadvantaged. Hating on women is wrong, man. Assailling Emma Watson in such a manner shows you are still a knuckle dragging brute living in the dark ages of a pre-cambrian protohuman ancestrial evolutionary mindset. Do you club your women on the head and drag them away by the hair? Women don't like that, man. You gotta bribe'em with fish and fruit. You got issues, man.

[Sascha]

For all those who might be interested in an input: The discussion here (next to other reasons) has inspired me to write a text for my blog. You can find it here but you will only understand it when you speak German :

Fck Hate! Let's live Love!
Standing up against hate and for a human culture of debate: Let us build a society where there is no place for hate and violence anymore. One brick is a respectful and lovingly conversation on the web and in society.
http://neonschwarzefahne.blogsport.eu...