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.