Well, even though she appears to resort to fallacies, I think they helped her cause.
Maybe fallacies are wrong only if their cause is wrong, and so any law student can destroy their critics on the basis of assumption, that their cause is wrong?
This is a weak attempt to Mock her! who is the one appealing to the "Big Brother" Show the video, im sure with all the other conspiracy theories, political bandering, and religious slanders they have on youtube, this one cant be that bad can it! I mean maybe youtube should just SHOW THE BLEEPIN VIDEO!
Everything the left says is the absolute truth and fact. They never use rhetoric or lies to promote their interests. Everyone should know that by now.
Wow, its becoming really difficult to open your mouth these days without having at least five peer-reviewed references to support whatever yer about to say (is sarcasm a logical fallacy too??).
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't much of what she said merely her opinion of Youtubes stance?? Feel free to rip my fallacy-ridden ineptitude to shreds.....
@arklowrockz The Issue, is Free speech, if nothing else! As much junk and slander and foolishness, i see on youtube. And yet, they can Ban her videos is amazingly ironic! From people being drowned, secret societies, you name it its on youtube. Funny how this M Malikn video is not allowed. I agree with her. Free speech show the video!
ONLY focusing on Islamic crimes (even if they're 100% true) and ignoring, omitting or understating crimes committed by any or all of the other religions can be considered hate speech since you're specifically targeting a particular group.
Its like me saying that the ONLY problem with the world is that too many South East Asian women are hookers. Although it might be true that some SE Asian woman are indeed hookers, I can't only focus on them and ignore hookers in other parts of the world. ; )
@gregrutz hookers ARE killing ppl. : spread of HIV. Africa alone some populations are decimated. But, thats not really my point.
Islam is just a religion. It does not do anything. ppl kill ppl. If you want statistics, the western countries has killed more ppl in the last few hundred years then muslims ever have. READ some history b4 making shoot from the hip comments.
BOLLOKS! Why don't people grow the fuck up and take responsibility for their own actions and attitudes. Since when is criticism however vehement or strident a 'hate crime'. Since when is hatred (a personal emotion at most) a crime? What a load of utter shit. Nobody can tell either you or I what we must love or hate, nor should they attempt to censor what we think or say. You can say what ever you like about South East Asian women. I don't give a fuck, because I don't have to agree.
@skepticoz If you read carefully you would know I wrote hate speech, NOT hate crime. You have all the right to hate as long as you keep it to yourself, but when you express it in the form of discrimination, degradation or defamation, you are violating other peoples rights.
@kennegun "If you read carefully you would know I wrote hate speech,"
I understood what you said. I meant to say 'hate speech' but i was thinking of the words 'thought crime' at the time and confounded the two. What I should have said is:
"Since when is criticism however vehement or strident 'hate speech'. "
What you are attempting to police here is 'thought crime'. You are supposing the ideas or attitudes one holds are or should be predisposed to censorship.
"You have all the right to hate as long as you keep it to yourself, but when you express it in the form of discrimination, degradation or defamation, you are violating other peoples rights."
Here we get down to the matter of expression. ANY form of censorship in my opinion, is a violation of free speech. It is complete bollocks, to suggest somebody can violate your rights with their attitudes and opinion of you, hateful or otherwise, expressed publicly or not. They are just words.
Moreover by censoring those words you are not addressing the real issue of prejudice but sweeping it under the carpet. It is precisely BECAUSE people are free to say what they think that you and I can have some chance to know what they think. We are better off hearing these attitudes in open public forums that meeting their consequences in the dark shadows of interpersonal relations. If you are going to vilify something, target the concept being expressed not the expression. Ideas not words.
Didn't your mom ever tell you 'sticks and stones may brake your bones, but names will never harm you?' You can generalize on this and see that names, attitudes rumors or even lies can harm us only when other people allow themselves to be influenced by what may be unjustified opinion or simply incorrect information. Defamation is a valid concern, and it may be cause for compensation in extreme cases but not for censorship. Preventing defamation, is not possible without imposing on free speech.
@skepticoz Your NOT allowed to yell or call people names. Thats a law. Do that at work and see what happens. Most people don't know this and they put up with it.
We have freedom from as well as freedom to. The former is more important if you think about it.
@kennegun "Your NOT allowed to yell or call people names. Thats a law."
WHO"S Law? It's not a law here on the Internet. I can yell and call anybody any damn thing I like. And being a law doesn't make something fair or just. My criticism is addressed to the ethics of the issue, not the legality.
"Do that at work and see what happens."
You're being factious. Obviously we have extra obligations in a contractual situation such as employment. It's a controlled environment we agree to enter.
Freedom from WHAT? Not free speech we don't. Not in regards to public discourse. What we have (or should have), is freedom from censorship. I may not agree with anything you say, but I will fight till my last breath for your right to say it. As for anything I might say, you are entitled to be offended. You are just not entitled to NOT be offended.
"The former is more important if you think about it."
@skepticoz. Verbal abuse. You don't have the right to that. I don't ever recall from my original comment telling her she couldn't say those things. I simply stated that its logical to say its hate speech. And Youtube has a right to remove it. She does not own Youtube, like wise she signed a agreement with youtube as well. Youtube has control of its content.
@kennegun "Verbal abuse. You don't have the right to that."
I don't? Well you coulda fooled me. Once again sticks and stones and I'm addressing what's ethical not what's legal. 'Verbal abuse' is practically an oxymoron if the insult is coming from somebody I don't personally know. What somebody I don't know or care about, says should not have the capacity to do any psychological damage. I do admit I sometimes feel hurt and offended, but I realize that is the price we must pay for free speech.
@kennegun "I don't ever recall from my original comment telling her she couldn't say those things. I simply stated that its logical to say its hate speech."
Well... I can't say I care much for this label of 'hate speech'. I consider hate (and love), to be personal emotions that we must take personal responsibility for. You are not required to hate something just because somebody else does. It's like the charge of 'inciting violence'. Since when are ones words responsible for another's violence?
"She does not own Youtube, like wise she signed a agreement with youtube as well. Youtube has control of its content."
That's fair enough, but we would all be better off if youtube stayed right out of value added judgments about the content and refrained from censorship of it at all. Again, we are talking at cross purposes if you are addressing legalities an I am addressing the ethics. Free speech is far to precious, for private enterprise to deserve having subjective, biasing control over it.
@kennegun Yup! Got that. It's a good point too. But in the context of this discussion (given that it's a public medium, where a video has been removed) it isn't a reasonable comparison to invoke a controlled environment, in which we enter by a limited conscious, bargain, as an analogy to a public medium such a this. There's just no grounds for censoring anything as 'hate speech', because nobody can tell you what to hate and hate is only contagious (I assume you are immune) among bigoted idiots.
@skepticoz Most don't care to hear peoples attitudes and idiotic prejudices. If its important .. write a book. people will decide to read it ..if they choose, and refute it if they choose, or agree with it if they choose, or write to counter it if they choose.
If you believe in Jehovah, write a book about it, DON'T come knocking on my door preaching. That way it gives me a choice of getting on with my life or getting involved with idiotic arguments.
"Most don't care to hear peoples attitudes and idiotic prejudices."
True. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to express those attitudes and idiotic prejudices. Moreover, it's BECAUSE they can do so, that those attitudes and prejudices can be addressed and criticized publicly. I will go a long way out of my own way, to listen to somebody I may disagree with, if only to say I have given their POV a fair hearing. I can only criticize them to the extent I have bothered to hear them.
Or publish a youtube video, or make comments in discussion fora, or use any publicly accessible medium to say what ever you wish. Why should book publication be the only medium where free speech is protected?
"...people will decide to read it ..if they choose, and refute it if they choose, or agree with it if they choose, or write to counter it if they choose."
Precisely. And the same is true of any publicly accessible media. Especially here.
"If you believe in Jehovah, write a book about it, DON'T come knocking on my door preaching."
Who's talking about knocking on your door? Is that how you got here? As it happens I agree with you. My doorstep is not a place of public discourse. You are entitled not to be interrupted by anybody who's 'important message' you have no interest in.
"That way it gives me a choice of getting on with my life or getting involved with idiotic arguments."
@kennegun "This is Youtube's doorstep and it has the right to remove anything it wants"
Er... No I don't think thats a reasonable comparison. Youtube provide a public media for conveying information. In the doorstep analogy, I am not interrupting the CEO during an important meeting to convey my information or to get in antibody's face with my message nor to bias the public discourse about any issue being discussed. The reason for the doorstep analogy was to compare something entirely different.
@kennegun "This is not about me. Its about Youtube removing this lady's video."
Precisely. That's why I called you out on the doorstep thing in the first place. This is a PUBLIC space not your doorstep. Youtube removing a video from this public space, is a service to nobody. It might be convenient to you or I, if we happen to disagree with the message, but that is a minuscule benefit at a HUGE cost to free speech, which is absolutely priceless. We need neutral publishers, NOT censorship.
@kennegun "You have ownership of a book. You don't have ownership of Youtube."
The principal is exactly the same. You own the manuscript and the copyright (information). You don't own the publishing company, the printing press or the distribution chains and bookstores through which the information will pass. If you do own a publishing house, then you have the same ethical responsibility to maintain free speech and journalistic integrity etc. Youtube is in just the same place as the publisher.
@kennegun "I want to express myself by yelling "FIRE !!" in a crowded theatre."
And you're entitled to do so, which is fortunate as in the advent of a REAL fire, others in the theater may be interested to know this. Just because the boy who cried 'wolf', was a liar, doesn't mean there are no such things as wolves. There are consequences of our actions, including the information we convey to others. We have to face those consequences, not eliminate the opportunity convey the information itself.
@kennegun "But you can't yell fire if there is no fire.
NO! You CAN yell fire (even if there isn't one).
"You could, but you would get charged."
Right
"According to you that shouldn't be the case .. right?"
NO! You would and should be charged. As I said there are consequences and we should face them.
Censorship (imposed censorship), would be where we were not allowed to yell fire at all. The responsibility to not do something stupid like that rightfully relies on US censoring ourselves.
Incidentally. When we are given a chance to obey a law (a fair, ethical law), such as not disturbing the peace, not causing public panic (or whatever we might expect to be charged with for yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater) and if we blow that chance, then we can expect to be CHARGED, not charged, convicted, sentenced and executed. The consequence is limited by our constitutional and human rights. When youtube take down videos, they act as judge, jury and hangman. Free free speech is hung.
I must thank you though kennegun. You have inspired me to mirror a video (watch?v=Xi34wL4KIfo) I just found on this issue and I am also contemplating writing a little song regarding free speech, thought police and hate crime (I know those weren't your words). I'd be interested to know what you thought of the video if you care to watch it. Cheers Skep.
@kennegun NOT ONLY focusing on islamic muslim crimes that are 100% true compared to other religions that take RESPONSIBILITY for their crimes such as the pope about the crusades while no high imam takes responsibility for theirs IS hate speech, including hate speech against ateists and other political groups since your specificly targeting and defending a death cult group called islam.
thus its like saying THE MAJORITY of terrorist who are muslims are correct since its a belief like mein kampf
@kissemurra12 1st, no one but individuals can take responsibility for their actions or causality. ie Pope can't take responsibility for the crimes of other christians except his own. 2nd, islam doesn't have one figurehead like that of the catholic church to make such irrelevant statements; there are 100s of thousands of imams of varying beliefs of their interpretation of their religion; some do make hate speech others do not.
and like nazism, not all nazis might have been bad, but their indoctrination and belief in following mein kampf(like the koran) shows that they are indeed bad since they are following a belief.
the lars vilks cartoon showed this properly, even when lars drew jesus as a pedophile and moses as pig, how many jews and christians compared to muslims in WESTERN countries reacted and burnt RANDOM cars just for the shit of it? let alone muslim non-democratic countries ;)
@kissemurra12 3rd, Labeling over 1 billion people of various cultures, languages, and degrees of belief as "they" is a sign of complete ignorance/bigotry. 4th, just because I criticize your point of view, doesn't mean I endorse the point of view of your perceived enemy. 5th, Nazism, was/is a political ideology, if you adhere to that ideology you are a Nazi if you didn't you are not. Religion is a belief; is open to interpretation, omission and varying degrees of adherence.
@kissemurra12 6th, The protest over the cartoons was carried out by a fraction of a fraction of the muslim population; since muslims number over a billion, if all resorted to violence, it would be similar to ww3. -Human beings will protest over whatever they perceive to be their grievance. 7th, deaths caused by state sponsored terrorism ie against Vietnam, Iraq and afghanistan to name a few far out number that carried out by individuals.
@kennegun actually it was a gigantic majority who supported it, hence why there are 44undemocratic states. thats why the majority supports it like mecca proves that no NON muslim cant enter it. so yes, thats why there are sharia law in england, that the majority supports it. and even if they didnt, thats just worse! then it proves that even with a small group of them, then it means you only need a small percente to have such death cult to influence the west.Actually before you critize-
@kennegun the west, since USA is not only the western country, thats 1 country. europe is still countries;) it proves that yes teh non-democratic muslim countries supports its dictatorship due to its in their muslim belief that sharia law shall rule either by descendents of the pig prophet mohammed or the kalifs that are learned.
@kissemurra12 8th, Before we criticize the NON-DEMOCRATIC muslim countries, lets try getting a true democracy here in the west; not one run by crony capitalists; not one that favors profit over people or the environment; not one that supports a military industrial complex by perpetuating war and instability in foreign countries and sowing the seeds of revenge; not one that siphons the wealth of our neighbors to feed the insatiable appetite of our consumer driven suicidal civilization.
@UnoRaza - It sure sounds rebellious, exciting and impressive when you put it that way. Gosh! I'll pretend I'm not teaching this unit to my (public school, middle-class, middle-American) students right now.
@UnoRaza - I teach this topic in Grade 7 Science, but in my school, they also teach rhetoric and logical fallacies in Debate (Grade 11-12) and AP English (Grade 11-12). It is a small school in West Virginia, and not quite as rural or as low-income as is average for the state, but it certainly isn't wealthy or urban. Many of my kids are farm kids, but more live in the suburban part of town.
@Kirinin1 Here middle school is separate from secondary or HS.
Ironically, these lying tools for weaving sophistries are used everywhere else like law, politics, business marketing/sales, and last, but not least our lovely so-called 'news' media.
As a teacher you're very lucky to not only be in a semi-rural school, but to have retained freedom over your curriculum as well.
As these tools can double or triple studying efficiency, it does raise a RED FLAG as 2 why they were dropped.
@UnoRaza - Usually it's separate here, too. It's just a tiny community, so the middle and high school are joined. It causes us no end of headaches re: funding issues. Teaching logical thinking is part of the WV curriculum, so it's the teacher's issue if they don't have a unit on that topic. To be fair, it's my (unfounded!) belief that most science teachers sort of consider it to be part of their curriculum already, in everything they present... but I think a formal study is worthwhile.
@Kirinin1 Teaching logical thinking is one thing, but teaching them to see through 'talking heads' and would go over like a lead balloon around here. Do you have to tip toe around that or do you tell 'like it is'.
Do you actually expose them to the Latin with examples?
(No problem finding examples, but which do you use?)
Consider adding "meta-communications" to their vocab as half of the manipulations are with rolling eyes or well timed chuckles and the effect is almost subconscious.
@UnoRaza - It'd go over like a lead balloon here, too. It's difficult for me to present these fallacies without using examples from the news, where they're rampant, but I have to. It's not just that their parents might get upset: it's that they've been so indoctrinated to like/dislike this or that network or politician that mentioning the 'wrong' one would definitely cause them to shut down.
I do use the Latin names where those are the better-known names, like Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
It is not ok to attack Islam .But is very ok to attack Christianity.And yeah try to criticize Christianity youtube will not ban your video, but try to criticize Islam you will ged ban.
could you relate to me just one fact or incident as an example by which I might understand just something of your conclusory allegation? And for example, in January of 07, a Democratic Congress took over the reins of government, proposing and passing stimulus packages which increased the national debt tenfold.
Are you kidding me? There is no Republican or Democratic Parties, they are exactly the same. Both parties have and are destroying the economy. This woman is sitting right along side of the individuals who are taking your liberties away from you. DO not trust what she says, she is a liar and a product of mainstream media.
These tough RW chickenhawks sure like to play the victim, don't they?
"I'm being picked on, all I was calling for is GENOCIDE, how's that violate standards? YouTube is just LIBRUL, and you HATE Conservatives* ! It's the Holocaust all over again, when are you going to drag us off to the camps? Yadda, Yadda, Yadda." It's the same BS whenever a far-RW doesn't get everything they want.
Inappropriate is that grey area word that leaves all the choices up to Youtube. You could put naked midgit tossing on here, would be ok, but something about Islam maybe not. I have seen videos on this topic, not the tossing, on here. If you dont like the terms of use, dont use the site. Everyplace that has rules, always has a grey area, get over it.
Anytime she wants to debate i woul smash her into the ground. she is sad and starved for attention. ONly smart relative to getting her disgusting voice heard. Which isnt really smart
Finally someone gets called out on this. Everytime I tell someone that Fox News uses logical fallacies, they don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I guess the average conservative is just that ignorant...maybe that's why they are so easily led.
Darwin - thanks for the vid. She is very well spoken and right on target. You are probably the one who should excuse himself from YouTube for your misapplication of logical criticism.
your an idiot and a politcial whore!!1 the black man had it right on the factor and your blood boiled. hahah dumb ass truth will rise above damage control!!!
Little girl - what do you understand by 'Insurgent Sympathizer". I presume you have no idea what the word insurgency means. It in point of fact simply means 'resistance'. They are patriots Miss Wong, PATRIOTS desperately trying to defend themselves and those they love from the sick marauding murdering invaders from the United States of Decadence. Got it sugar? Now sit down.
I've noticed Michelle Malkin and George Bush have a quality. They are both evil, but are too likeable to have. Michelle Malkin in the sexy, cute asian babe way, and Bush is just basically a white Dave Chappelle with Adolf Hitler tendencies. The Neo Cons sure can pick em boy!
They will flag Michelle Malkin because of their left wing Socialist/Leninist, Anarchist, pro communist agenda that spews their hate for America every day.
you're funny...you're a babe so we let you complaining, you're very nice...taking YouTube so seriously!!! you're nothing, even if you were the president of some lousy country Youtube's free to kick out you vids...just manage to live with it! (^-^o)
Poor conservatives, always victimized. Ironically its those weak liberals victimizing them. Theirs no doubt their is a threat out their, but your the last group to defend us. Conservatives = emotional, you know, acting out, embarrassing America with hair brain responses. If you wonder why you not embraced remember the Iraq war. Its all yours.
"A more recent pejorative usage variant of "dhimmi" and "dhimmitude" divorces the words from the historical context of jihad and applies them to situations where non-Muslims in the West are allegedly championing Islamic causes above others'; "dhimmi" is synonymous with "Quisling" within this context. See, for example, the site Dhimmi Watch."
I seen the response to this video and it is WEAK. The rebutal to this video "it's a free service, your videos are going to get deleted occassionalLy". Really? I thought liberalism is for free speech? Good job Michele. There is so much pent up frustration from conservatives out here because the liberal media keeps saying that they are speaking for us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here's one subhuman-CONFIRMATION BIAS, GROUP THINK.
Muslims take the thousand or so different translation on The Bible as dilutions, but the Koran still advises all Moslems to read The Old and New Testaments. Throat slitters=Murderers, not Muslims. Fucking idiots, liberals/conservatives/bears are killing freedom. HOO HAW
I think all videos that incite some kind of hate are flagged. If you look at the holocaust denial videos they are flagged. Almost all skin head videos are flagged too. So why is she bitching about her hate-filled video being flagged???
I don't agree much with Michelle, but I think it's a huge injustice that her videos, or any other conservative videos have been yanked off of youtube. The fact is, this is America and all viewpoints have a right to be heard in all venues, so that's what I have to say.
Um, this video is obviously done in a sardonic tone, much like your silly sound effect - which by its nature is used to ridicule Malkin. You should have just done a video response.
This 'show' is an absolute disgrace-I couldnt comment on Her videos as comments have been disabled-Which is the best way 4 those behind this crap 2 shield viewers from the obvious fact that she is pushing a conservatist agenda-Which is fair enough-But if she's going to pick apart 'Liberals' she should at least leave herself open for the same treatment.God she pisses me off
We should permanently ban all speech that has any consevative tone, or is not liberalal or socialist by nature. Also, having an asian American woman speek in a manner not consistent with our liberal democrat agenda only hinders us from saying that republicans are all wealthy white men. We must silence her immediately.
They can ban her because Hot Air is a Fox front. The untention was to take Fox propaganda to the internet using young T & A to sell neocon ideas to the masses. TownHall, Hot Air, Our Country and a bunch of other neocon Chicks count on the absolute and total stupidity of sex driven male users to flock to these videos and be turned by these Tokyo Roses. Uh, DIDN'T WORK DID IT !
Refer to an outspoken liberal as "young T & A" and you'll be called a sexist pig.
Refer to an outspoken conservative as "young T & A" and you'll be lauded.
(my now common disclaimer: I'm a gay atheist, so feel free to bash me because I won't lock-step with the "pity me, I'm not white/male/christian/straight crowd.")
This is a great comedy video, she should be listed under the comedy section. Also, notice how in her orginal video she posted she banned comments...freak. I think I should make a video saying "White people against small-eyed crap bashing other religions" lol. If she could dish out the hate, she better be able to take it.
she is the same idiot who said John Kerry shot himself, and also the moron who posted the names and phone numbers of people who disagreed with her on her website.
They didn't disagree with her, they sent her racist (and ironic) hatemail. It says on her site that if you email her, your info can be posted.... Perfectly fair.
And these logical fallacies don't make sense. Good job throwing out argument vocabulary, but it isn't relevant to the material. Why are Muslims allowed to censor this video because it has Muhammad in it but all that other crap on YT is still up?
No, actually, there's a difference between an accidental infliction of a wound on yourself and the intentional infliction of that wound. But hey, I'm just a fascist.
(congrats on the Godwin invocation!) I win by default.
An error or flaw in the logic of an argument - as per the errors and flaws that Malkin laces each and every one of her pronouncements with. She is lazy and sloppy.
It would also appear that the content of this video has flown directly over your head.
Typically, words have meanings, and when you flash "strawman" across the screen, you expect, you know, Michelle Malkin to be involved in the Strawman Fallacy, but this avant-garde flick sure breaks that convention!
The fact that she claims the ONLY people that would be offended by her video are suicide bombers and insurgent sympathisers - or that the ONLY people breaking YouTube terms are jihadists...
Furthermore she misrepresents the Youtube management team and overstates / misrepresents their argument (as stated in the email she reads out) by using ridicule.
And lastly, this video is ALL about Malkin - and just as she misrepresents herself and the work she has posted at Youtube, so this video misrepresents itself in the same way as Malkin - reducing serious news to a gameshow.
Ooo, good save! Wish I had thought of that in school. "I said 'true' instead of 'false'? LoL I was just kiddin', teach! Every time I got it wrong, it was just for fun."
Well done ! Michelle was banned because she posted two videos complaining about a video removal and in the second said she was going to post the banned video again in defiance of the YT team. Users agree to follow YT guildlines so she banned herself.
The left is so afraid that her logic will "infect" them, that they have to supress her free speech rights be removing/limiting access to conservative content. If the left is really secure in their support of jihadist beliefs, then Michelle Malkin posting anti-Jihadist videos shouldn't be strong enough to shake your jihadist beliefs.
owned ^^
Guffrus 6 months ago
Fallacies could be essential to social life, because they are a form of expression and managing in social competition.
Unless we abolish social competition and resort to logic?
mrteemumilto 9 months ago
Well, even though she appears to resort to fallacies, I think they helped her cause.
Maybe fallacies are wrong only if their cause is wrong, and so any law student can destroy their critics on the basis of assumption, that their cause is wrong?
mrteemumilto 9 months ago
Fuck youtube
macroevolve 1 year ago
what's that swanee whistle shit for you annoying cunt?
SupraEdomiteSlayer 1 year ago
This is a weak attempt to Mock her! who is the one appealing to the "Big Brother" Show the video, im sure with all the other conspiracy theories, political bandering, and religious slanders they have on youtube, this one cant be that bad can it! I mean maybe youtube should just SHOW THE BLEEPIN VIDEO!
twotime21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SELF-HATING, WHITEWASHED, PAPER CHASING FOX WHORE, SELLOUT. You are an embarrassment to all Filipinos. You sold your soul.
maylolik 1 year ago
Everything the left says is the absolute truth and fact. They never use rhetoric or lies to promote their interests. Everyone should know that by now.
Guts01 1 year ago
Wow, its becoming really difficult to open your mouth these days without having at least five peer-reviewed references to support whatever yer about to say (is sarcasm a logical fallacy too??).
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't much of what she said merely her opinion of Youtubes stance?? Feel free to rip my fallacy-ridden ineptitude to shreds.....
arklowrockz 1 year ago
@arklowrockz The Issue, is Free speech, if nothing else! As much junk and slander and foolishness, i see on youtube. And yet, they can Ban her videos is amazingly ironic! From people being drowned, secret societies, you name it its on youtube. Funny how this M Malikn video is not allowed. I agree with her. Free speech show the video!
twotime21 1 year ago
Are you a Republican? You sound like one. All for one, but none for them and so on...
GUITAR4165GOD 1 year ago
ONLY focusing on Islamic crimes (even if they're 100% true) and ignoring, omitting or understating crimes committed by any or all of the other religions can be considered hate speech since you're specifically targeting a particular group.
Its like me saying that the ONLY problem with the world is that too many South East Asian women are hookers. Although it might be true that some SE Asian woman are indeed hookers, I can't only focus on them and ignore hookers in other parts of the world. ; )
kennegun 1 year ago 5
@kennegun hookers are not killing people. Islam does.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz hookers ARE killing ppl. : spread of HIV. Africa alone some populations are decimated. But, thats not really my point.
Islam is just a religion. It does not do anything. ppl kill ppl. If you want statistics, the western countries has killed more ppl in the last few hundred years then muslims ever have. READ some history b4 making shoot from the hip comments.
kennegun 1 year ago 2
@kennegun
BOLLOKS! Why don't people grow the fuck up and take responsibility for their own actions and attitudes. Since when is criticism however vehement or strident a 'hate crime'. Since when is hatred (a personal emotion at most) a crime? What a load of utter shit. Nobody can tell either you or I what we must love or hate, nor should they attempt to censor what we think or say. You can say what ever you like about South East Asian women. I don't give a fuck, because I don't have to agree.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz If you read carefully you would know I wrote hate speech, NOT hate crime. You have all the right to hate as long as you keep it to yourself, but when you express it in the form of discrimination, degradation or defamation, you are violating other peoples rights.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "If you read carefully you would know I wrote hate speech,"
I understood what you said. I meant to say 'hate speech' but i was thinking of the words 'thought crime' at the time and confounded the two. What I should have said is:
"Since when is criticism however vehement or strident 'hate speech'. "
What you are attempting to police here is 'thought crime'. You are supposing the ideas or attitudes one holds are or should be predisposed to censorship.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz
"You have all the right to hate as long as you keep it to yourself, but when you express it in the form of discrimination, degradation or defamation, you are violating other peoples rights."
Here we get down to the matter of expression. ANY form of censorship in my opinion, is a violation of free speech. It is complete bollocks, to suggest somebody can violate your rights with their attitudes and opinion of you, hateful or otherwise, expressed publicly or not. They are just words.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Moreover by censoring those words you are not addressing the real issue of prejudice but sweeping it under the carpet. It is precisely BECAUSE people are free to say what they think that you and I can have some chance to know what they think. We are better off hearing these attitudes in open public forums that meeting their consequences in the dark shadows of interpersonal relations. If you are going to vilify something, target the concept being expressed not the expression. Ideas not words.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Didn't your mom ever tell you 'sticks and stones may brake your bones, but names will never harm you?' You can generalize on this and see that names, attitudes rumors or even lies can harm us only when other people allow themselves to be influenced by what may be unjustified opinion or simply incorrect information. Defamation is a valid concern, and it may be cause for compensation in extreme cases but not for censorship. Preventing defamation, is not possible without imposing on free speech.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz Your NOT allowed to yell or call people names. Thats a law. Do that at work and see what happens. Most people don't know this and they put up with it.
We have freedom from as well as freedom to. The former is more important if you think about it.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "Your NOT allowed to yell or call people names. Thats a law."
WHO"S Law? It's not a law here on the Internet. I can yell and call anybody any damn thing I like. And being a law doesn't make something fair or just. My criticism is addressed to the ethics of the issue, not the legality.
"Do that at work and see what happens."
You're being factious. Obviously we have extra obligations in a contractual situation such as employment. It's a controlled environment we agree to enter.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"We have freedom from as well as freedom to. "
Freedom from WHAT? Not free speech we don't. Not in regards to public discourse. What we have (or should have), is freedom from censorship. I may not agree with anything you say, but I will fight till my last breath for your right to say it. As for anything I might say, you are entitled to be offended. You are just not entitled to NOT be offended.
"The former is more important if you think about it."
I don't think you appreciate free speech.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz. Verbal abuse. You don't have the right to that. I don't ever recall from my original comment telling her she couldn't say those things. I simply stated that its logical to say its hate speech. And Youtube has a right to remove it. She does not own Youtube, like wise she signed a agreement with youtube as well. Youtube has control of its content.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "Verbal abuse. You don't have the right to that."
I don't? Well you coulda fooled me. Once again sticks and stones and I'm addressing what's ethical not what's legal. 'Verbal abuse' is practically an oxymoron if the insult is coming from somebody I don't personally know. What somebody I don't know or care about, says should not have the capacity to do any psychological damage. I do admit I sometimes feel hurt and offended, but I realize that is the price we must pay for free speech.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@kennegun "I don't ever recall from my original comment telling her she couldn't say those things. I simply stated that its logical to say its hate speech."
Well... I can't say I care much for this label of 'hate speech'. I consider hate (and love), to be personal emotions that we must take personal responsibility for. You are not required to hate something just because somebody else does. It's like the charge of 'inciting violence'. Since when are ones words responsible for another's violence?
skepticoz 1 year ago
"She does not own Youtube, like wise she signed a agreement with youtube as well. Youtube has control of its content."
That's fair enough, but we would all be better off if youtube stayed right out of value added judgments about the content and refrained from censorship of it at all. Again, we are talking at cross purposes if you are addressing legalities an I am addressing the ethics. Free speech is far to precious, for private enterprise to deserve having subjective, biasing control over it.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz I was using the workplace as an example to prove a point that freedom of speech has its limits.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun Yup! Got that. It's a good point too. But in the context of this discussion (given that it's a public medium, where a video has been removed) it isn't a reasonable comparison to invoke a controlled environment, in which we enter by a limited conscious, bargain, as an analogy to a public medium such a this. There's just no grounds for censoring anything as 'hate speech', because nobody can tell you what to hate and hate is only contagious (I assume you are immune) among bigoted idiots.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz Most don't care to hear peoples attitudes and idiotic prejudices. If its important .. write a book. people will decide to read it ..if they choose, and refute it if they choose, or agree with it if they choose, or write to counter it if they choose.
If you believe in Jehovah, write a book about it, DON'T come knocking on my door preaching. That way it gives me a choice of getting on with my life or getting involved with idiotic arguments.
kennegun 1 year ago
"Most don't care to hear peoples attitudes and idiotic prejudices."
True. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to express those attitudes and idiotic prejudices. Moreover, it's BECAUSE they can do so, that those attitudes and prejudices can be addressed and criticized publicly. I will go a long way out of my own way, to listen to somebody I may disagree with, if only to say I have given their POV a fair hearing. I can only criticize them to the extent I have bothered to hear them.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz "If its important .. write a book."
Or publish a youtube video, or make comments in discussion fora, or use any publicly accessible medium to say what ever you wish. Why should book publication be the only medium where free speech is protected?
"...people will decide to read it ..if they choose, and refute it if they choose, or agree with it if they choose, or write to counter it if they choose."
Precisely. And the same is true of any publicly accessible media. Especially here.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"If you believe in Jehovah, write a book about it, DON'T come knocking on my door preaching."
Who's talking about knocking on your door? Is that how you got here? As it happens I agree with you. My doorstep is not a place of public discourse. You are entitled not to be interrupted by anybody who's 'important message' you have no interest in.
"That way it gives me a choice of getting on with my life or getting involved with idiotic arguments."
That your right. But this is not your doorstep.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz. This is not about me. Its about Youtube removing this lady's video.
This is Youtube's doorstep and it has the right to remove anything it wants
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "This is Youtube's doorstep and it has the right to remove anything it wants"
Er... No I don't think thats a reasonable comparison. Youtube provide a public media for conveying information. In the doorstep analogy, I am not interrupting the CEO during an important meeting to convey my information or to get in antibody's face with my message nor to bias the public discourse about any issue being discussed. The reason for the doorstep analogy was to compare something entirely different.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@kennegun "This is not about me. Its about Youtube removing this lady's video."
Precisely. That's why I called you out on the doorstep thing in the first place. This is a PUBLIC space not your doorstep. Youtube removing a video from this public space, is a service to nobody. It might be convenient to you or I, if we happen to disagree with the message, but that is a minuscule benefit at a HUGE cost to free speech, which is absolutely priceless. We need neutral publishers, NOT censorship.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz You have ownership of a book. You don't have ownership of Youtube.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "You have ownership of a book. You don't have ownership of Youtube."
The principal is exactly the same. You own the manuscript and the copyright (information). You don't own the publishing company, the printing press or the distribution chains and bookstores through which the information will pass. If you do own a publishing house, then you have the same ethical responsibility to maintain free speech and journalistic integrity etc. Youtube is in just the same place as the publisher.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz I want to express myself by yelling "FIRE !!" in a crowded theatre.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "I want to express myself by yelling "FIRE !!" in a crowded theatre."
And you're entitled to do so, which is fortunate as in the advent of a REAL fire, others in the theater may be interested to know this. Just because the boy who cried 'wolf', was a liar, doesn't mean there are no such things as wolves. There are consequences of our actions, including the information we convey to others. We have to face those consequences, not eliminate the opportunity convey the information itself.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz But you can't yell fire if there is no fire. You could, but you would get charged. According to you that shouldn't be the case .. right?
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "But you can't yell fire if there is no fire.
NO! You CAN yell fire (even if there isn't one).
"You could, but you would get charged."
Right
"According to you that shouldn't be the case .. right?"
NO! You would and should be charged. As I said there are consequences and we should face them.
Censorship (imposed censorship), would be where we were not allowed to yell fire at all. The responsibility to not do something stupid like that rightfully relies on US censoring ourselves.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Incidentally. When we are given a chance to obey a law (a fair, ethical law), such as not disturbing the peace, not causing public panic (or whatever we might expect to be charged with for yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater) and if we blow that chance, then we can expect to be CHARGED, not charged, convicted, sentenced and executed. The consequence is limited by our constitutional and human rights. When youtube take down videos, they act as judge, jury and hangman. Free free speech is hung.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I must thank you though kennegun. You have inspired me to mirror a video (watch?v=Xi34wL4KIfo) I just found on this issue and I am also contemplating writing a little song regarding free speech, thought police and hate crime (I know those weren't your words). I'd be interested to know what you thought of the video if you care to watch it. Cheers Skep.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@kennegun Slippery slope. Not all are islamic-particular comments are hate speech
mrteemumilto 9 months ago
@kennegun NOT ONLY focusing on islamic muslim crimes that are 100% true compared to other religions that take RESPONSIBILITY for their crimes such as the pope about the crusades while no high imam takes responsibility for theirs IS hate speech, including hate speech against ateists and other political groups since your specificly targeting and defending a death cult group called islam.
thus its like saying THE MAJORITY of terrorist who are muslims are correct since its a belief like mein kampf
kissemurra12 2 months ago
@kissemurra12 1st, no one but individuals can take responsibility for their actions or causality. ie Pope can't take responsibility for the crimes of other christians except his own. 2nd, islam doesn't have one figurehead like that of the catholic church to make such irrelevant statements; there are 100s of thousands of imams of varying beliefs of their interpretation of their religion; some do make hate speech others do not.
kennegun 2 months ago
and like nazism, not all nazis might have been bad, but their indoctrination and belief in following mein kampf(like the koran) shows that they are indeed bad since they are following a belief.
the lars vilks cartoon showed this properly, even when lars drew jesus as a pedophile and moses as pig, how many jews and christians compared to muslims in WESTERN countries reacted and burnt RANDOM cars just for the shit of it? let alone muslim non-democratic countries ;)
kissemurra12 2 months ago
@kissemurra12 3rd, Labeling over 1 billion people of various cultures, languages, and degrees of belief as "they" is a sign of complete ignorance/bigotry. 4th, just because I criticize your point of view, doesn't mean I endorse the point of view of your perceived enemy. 5th, Nazism, was/is a political ideology, if you adhere to that ideology you are a Nazi if you didn't you are not. Religion is a belief; is open to interpretation, omission and varying degrees of adherence.
kennegun 2 months ago
@kissemurra12 6th, The protest over the cartoons was carried out by a fraction of a fraction of the muslim population; since muslims number over a billion, if all resorted to violence, it would be similar to ww3. -Human beings will protest over whatever they perceive to be their grievance. 7th, deaths caused by state sponsored terrorism ie against Vietnam, Iraq and afghanistan to name a few far out number that carried out by individuals.
kennegun 2 months ago
@kennegun actually it was a gigantic majority who supported it, hence why there are 44undemocratic states. thats why the majority supports it like mecca proves that no NON muslim cant enter it. so yes, thats why there are sharia law in england, that the majority supports it. and even if they didnt, thats just worse! then it proves that even with a small group of them, then it means you only need a small percente to have such death cult to influence the west.Actually before you critize-
kissemurra12 2 weeks ago
@kennegun the west, since USA is not only the western country, thats 1 country. europe is still countries;) it proves that yes teh non-democratic muslim countries supports its dictatorship due to its in their muslim belief that sharia law shall rule either by descendents of the pig prophet mohammed or the kalifs that are learned.
kissemurra12 2 weeks ago
@kissemurra12 8th, Before we criticize the NON-DEMOCRATIC muslim countries, lets try getting a true democracy here in the west; not one run by crony capitalists; not one that favors profit over people or the environment; not one that supports a military industrial complex by perpetuating war and instability in foreign countries and sowing the seeds of revenge; not one that siphons the wealth of our neighbors to feed the insatiable appetite of our consumer driven suicidal civilization.
kennegun 2 months ago
If you look at the news coverage you'll see they're filled with these puppies.
Fallacies that suck the masses in and it's no coincidence we're not taught about these in public school.
Hard proof of being dumbed down for control purposes.
UnoRaza 1 year ago 7
@UnoRaza - It sure sounds rebellious, exciting and impressive when you put it that way. Gosh! I'll pretend I'm not teaching this unit to my (public school, middle-class, middle-American) students right now.
Kirinin1 1 year ago
@Kirinin1 Good for you *most* college GRADUATES being sucked into argumentum ad populum and ad hominem fallacies every day!
What state do you teach and is this via social studies? Small school I'd bet.
Liberal arts in middle school; I'd love to hear how this is taught and to what degree in middle school as that's the perfect age.
Have you listened to "The Trivium" by GnosticMedia?
It's GREAT and on point.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
@UnoRaza - I teach this topic in Grade 7 Science, but in my school, they also teach rhetoric and logical fallacies in Debate (Grade 11-12) and AP English (Grade 11-12). It is a small school in West Virginia, and not quite as rural or as low-income as is average for the state, but it certainly isn't wealthy or urban. Many of my kids are farm kids, but more live in the suburban part of town.
Kirinin1 1 year ago
@Kirinin1 Here middle school is separate from secondary or HS.
Ironically, these lying tools for weaving sophistries are used everywhere else like law, politics, business marketing/sales, and last, but not least our lovely so-called 'news' media.
As a teacher you're very lucky to not only be in a semi-rural school, but to have retained freedom over your curriculum as well.
As these tools can double or triple studying efficiency, it does raise a RED FLAG as 2 why they were dropped.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
@UnoRaza - Usually it's separate here, too. It's just a tiny community, so the middle and high school are joined. It causes us no end of headaches re: funding issues. Teaching logical thinking is part of the WV curriculum, so it's the teacher's issue if they don't have a unit on that topic. To be fair, it's my (unfounded!) belief that most science teachers sort of consider it to be part of their curriculum already, in everything they present... but I think a formal study is worthwhile.
Kirinin1 1 year ago
@Kirinin1 Teaching logical thinking is one thing, but teaching them to see through 'talking heads' and would go over like a lead balloon around here. Do you have to tip toe around that or do you tell 'like it is'.
Do you actually expose them to the Latin with examples?
(No problem finding examples, but which do you use?)
Consider adding "meta-communications" to their vocab as half of the manipulations are with rolling eyes or well timed chuckles and the effect is almost subconscious.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
@UnoRaza - It'd go over like a lead balloon here, too. It's difficult for me to present these fallacies without using examples from the news, where they're rampant, but I have to. It's not just that their parents might get upset: it's that they've been so indoctrinated to like/dislike this or that network or politician that mentioning the 'wrong' one would definitely cause them to shut down.
I do use the Latin names where those are the better-known names, like Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
Kirinin1 1 year ago
is this the crazy bitch from fox news?
it is, isn't it?
Zentz29 2 years ago
If we (United States) were not such puppets of Isreal/Jews, perhaps we would not have to worry about terrorist.
999YORK 2 years ago
I'll post your banned video on my website!
Deanzsyclone 2 years ago
mad cute
briannguyen 2 years ago
Luv ya boo....they are violating the 1st ammendment big time.
gqbredrin 2 years ago
go fuck a corpse in the ass <== like nikko belic would say
TheUnknowKING 2 years ago
It is not ok to attack Islam .But is very ok to attack Christianity.And yeah try to criticize Christianity youtube will not ban your video, but try to criticize Islam you will ged ban.
vacredan 2 years ago
@vacredan
- I wonder if that's not to be biased, but simply to avoid provocation of Islam :D
HypnoPants 2 years ago
她吮許多陰莖。
4soundmoney 2 years ago
Republicans should be ashamed to even consider running for president after the extreme devastation they've caused this country!
It just shows the ego's and utter lack of accountability they have.
tonyfears 3 years ago
could you relate to me just one fact or incident as an example by which I might understand just something of your conclusory allegation? And for example, in January of 07, a Democratic Congress took over the reins of government, proposing and passing stimulus packages which increased the national debt tenfold.
phillipgaley 2 years ago
democrats should be ashamed. i.e. barney frank.
MEAGHER79 2 years ago
Are you kidding me? There is no Republican or Democratic Parties, they are exactly the same. Both parties have and are destroying the economy. This woman is sitting right along side of the individuals who are taking your liberties away from you. DO not trust what she says, she is a liar and a product of mainstream media.
quadz05 2 years ago
i heared she was thrown out of a klans meeting..yeah she actually thought she was white..is't it funny
ichida007 3 years ago
she's crazy
imbored77 4 years ago
crazy yes. hot yes.
nystagmus 2 years ago
well spoken
feariis 4 years ago
Chickenhawk. And "chicken****hawk" too. Media Matters exposes her and The White Citizen's Council loves her.
WilliamXShatner 4 years ago
These tough RW chickenhawks sure like to play the victim, don't they?
"I'm being picked on, all I was calling for is GENOCIDE, how's that violate standards? YouTube is just LIBRUL, and you HATE Conservatives* ! It's the Holocaust all over again, when are you going to drag us off to the camps? Yadda, Yadda, Yadda." It's the same BS whenever a far-RW doesn't get everything they want.
SteevK69 4 years ago
Shouldn't it be "You'd think we were posting porn and not simple hate speech without foundation?"
I love hearing bigots cry over their lack of freedom in the same breath that they insult others for just being different!
I'd also love to see her in the middle of a klan rally. Let's see what her "fans" REALLY think of an Asian.
Evillerer 4 years ago
to be honest I believe she might be welcomed in a klan meeting.
hellokitty2007 4 years ago
Michelle Malkin is insane
DarkestOne7 4 years ago
Inappropriate is that grey area word that leaves all the choices up to Youtube. You could put naked midgit tossing on here, would be ok, but something about Islam maybe not. I have seen videos on this topic, not the tossing, on here. If you dont like the terms of use, dont use the site. Everyplace that has rules, always has a grey area, get over it.
browncmp 4 years ago
Anytime she wants to debate i woul smash her into the ground. she is sad and starved for attention. ONly smart relative to getting her disgusting voice heard. Which isnt really smart
Drew1234321 4 years ago
WOW u can realy rap ..u just made twista speachless haha...i hate muslims i wish i can kill one
ma1upit2f0ol 4 years ago
what a stupid woman she is- hope she gets some brain some day- pl michelle try get some...
dantestraum 4 years ago
Finally someone gets called out on this. Everytime I tell someone that Fox News uses logical fallacies, they don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I guess the average conservative is just that ignorant...maybe that's why they are so easily led.
evildemocrat 4 years ago
Another atheist liberal from Findland!
socal3377 4 years ago
Darwin - thanks for the vid. She is very well spoken and right on target. You are probably the one who should excuse himself from YouTube for your misapplication of logical criticism.
demohr777 4 years ago
Really now. Care to explain how he has misapplied those logical fallacies? Or do you always make unsubstantiated criticisms.
parismatch 4 years ago
your an idiot and a politcial whore!!1 the black man had it right on the factor and your blood boiled. hahah dumb ass truth will rise above damage control!!!
combie002 4 years ago
Little girl - what do you understand by 'Insurgent Sympathizer". I presume you have no idea what the word insurgency means. It in point of fact simply means 'resistance'. They are patriots Miss Wong, PATRIOTS desperately trying to defend themselves and those they love from the sick marauding murdering invaders from the United States of Decadence. Got it sugar? Now sit down.
768217657862708525 4 years ago
Then why do they kill fellow Iraqis?
zakunster 4 years ago
Do you NOT get that she is deliberately using logical fallacies?
Itzpopalotl 4 years ago 2
bla bla bla do you ever shut up?
1dryspell 4 years ago
you're hot malkin..
rahimatulla 4 years ago
I've noticed Michelle Malkin and George Bush have a quality. They are both evil, but are too likeable to have. Michelle Malkin in the sexy, cute asian babe way, and Bush is just basically a white Dave Chappelle with Adolf Hitler tendencies. The Neo Cons sure can pick em boy!
skawdz101 4 years ago
They will flag Michelle Malkin because of their left wing Socialist/Leninist, Anarchist, pro communist agenda that spews their hate for America every day.
ssgtforce 4 years ago
you're funny...you're a babe so we let you complaining, you're very nice...taking YouTube so seriously!!! you're nothing, even if you were the president of some lousy country Youtube's free to kick out you vids...just manage to live with it! (^-^o)
adechamps100e 4 years ago
Poor conservatives, always victimized. Ironically its those weak liberals victimizing them. Theirs no doubt their is a threat out their, but your the last group to defend us. Conservatives = emotional, you know, acting out, embarrassing America with hair brain responses. If you wonder why you not embraced remember the Iraq war. Its all yours.
mateilly 4 years ago
what the fcuk is dimmy... anyway umm i kind of didn't see how this video is revelant to life but a just cause none the less
cebusnacker 4 years ago
"A more recent pejorative usage variant of "dhimmi" and "dhimmitude" divorces the words from the historical context of jihad and applies them to situations where non-Muslims in the West are allegedly championing Islamic causes above others'; "dhimmi" is synonymous with "Quisling" within this context. See, for example, the site Dhimmi Watch."
FrancescoK 4 years ago
petecezh 4 years ago
They SHOULD post porn on here . I'm way more offended by stupid condemnation from bible thumpers and all the hate speech.
tattypatty 4 years ago
Haha--nice job. Malkin's the biggest ditz I've seen yet. She's even on Fox "News" lately. Hot tho.
vca2006 4 years ago
scsureno13 4 years ago
I seen the response to this video and it is WEAK. The rebutal to this video "it's a free service, your videos are going to get deleted occassionalLy". Really? I thought liberalism is for free speech? Good job Michele. There is so much pent up frustration from conservatives out here because the liberal media keeps saying that they are speaking for us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
kevindixoninc 4 years ago
Wow i just lost 3 minutes of my life.
BrettAlexanderTaylor 4 years ago
YOU SUCK!
kurufen 4 years ago
Nicely done--what a f*cking useless douche
bif28 4 years ago
why aren't you fighting in iraq instead of annoying everyone over here?!
Moniker179 4 years ago
lmao...i hope you've achieved what you wanted.(i'm a democrat by the way.
kesel5588 4 years ago
ATTENTION WHORE!!!!
ctcentralinfo 4 years ago
psycho hose-beast
whiteypowers 4 years ago
Here's one subhuman-CONFIRMATION BIAS, GROUP THINK.
Muslims take the thousand or so different translation on The Bible as dilutions, but the Koran still advises all Moslems to read The Old and New Testaments. Throat slitters=Murderers, not Muslims. Fucking idiots, liberals/conservatives/bears are killing freedom. HOO HAW
slothafur 4 years ago
Michele Malkin is hot!!!!!!!!!!!
cassius66 4 years ago
I think all videos that incite some kind of hate are flagged. If you look at the holocaust denial videos they are flagged. Almost all skin head videos are flagged too. So why is she bitching about her hate-filled video being flagged???
sonofsam70 4 years ago
I don't agree much with Michelle, but I think it's a huge injustice that her videos, or any other conservative videos have been yanked off of youtube. The fact is, this is America and all viewpoints have a right to be heard in all venues, so that's what I have to say.
redgalaxy4 4 years ago
Give them heck, Michelle!!
HamsterDaddy 4 years ago
Somewhat amusingly my wife occasionally has a "you people" moment too.
praxis22 4 years ago
"You'd think we were posting terrorist propoganda"
I haven't seen the video but from what I've seen from you on Fox News it probably is terrorist propoganda.
ezzthemc 4 years ago
Fallacy? She needs a phallus...
laeckerbit 4 years ago
what's the big deal? Almost everybody gets a video deleted every now and then.
HansMenz 5 years ago
liberalism is a mental disorder
rdangelo 5 years ago
Um, this video is obviously done in a sardonic tone, much like your silly sound effect - which by its nature is used to ridicule Malkin. You should have just done a video response.
That being said she kind of has a point.
rpupkin77 5 years ago
Censorship yeah... give us censorship. We need it!
ofpfnk 5 years ago
if any of the uc students gets killed because of her actions i hope she is charged
mmt2853 5 years ago
Get bent, Michelle...You suck.
fungwasher 5 years ago
This 'show' is an absolute disgrace-I couldnt comment on Her videos as comments have been disabled-Which is the best way 4 those behind this crap 2 shield viewers from the obvious fact that she is pushing a conservatist agenda-Which is fair enough-But if she's going to pick apart 'Liberals' she should at least leave herself open for the same treatment.God she pisses me off
SickNick69 5 years ago
We support you Michelle. I wish there were a lot more people like you.
CharmKatDog 5 years ago
We should permanently ban all speech that has any consevative tone, or is not liberalal or socialist by nature. Also, having an asian American woman speek in a manner not consistent with our liberal democrat agenda only hinders us from saying that republicans are all wealthy white men. We must silence her immediately.
Sincerely,
Karl Marx
smakkkkk 5 years ago
They can ban her because Hot Air is a Fox front. The untention was to take Fox propaganda to the internet using young T & A to sell neocon ideas to the masses. TownHall, Hot Air, Our Country and a bunch of other neocon Chicks count on the absolute and total stupidity of sex driven male users to flock to these videos and be turned by these Tokyo Roses. Uh, DIDN'T WORK DID IT !
Superorchestra 5 years ago
Refer to an outspoken liberal as "young T & A" and you'll be called a sexist pig.
Refer to an outspoken conservative as "young T & A" and you'll be lauded.
(my now common disclaimer: I'm a gay atheist, so feel free to bash me because I won't lock-step with the "pity me, I'm not white/male/christian/straight crowd.")
yogshoggoth1666 5 years ago
Umm propagnda bullshit dilivered by T&A . Whatever.
Superorchestra 5 years ago
Just a few of the logical fallacies Michelle uses in this video alone:
-poisoning the well
-Straw man
-Slippery Slope
And she's a hypocrite. She has consistently been in favor of free speech suppression in times of war.
wog7 5 years ago
If you are a devout Malkinite -
www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=ghzL6KZB7Us
darwinosx 5 years ago
Basically, hyperbolic comparisons of persons or ideas with Hitler or Nazism destroy the legitimacy of the one making the comparison. Good job.
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
Godwin invoked! Mods, you can go ahead and close this thread.
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
Mall-kin doesn't deserve the attention.
Just let her quietly elevate herself to Shirley Phelps Roper status.
PhilMcKrakken 5 years ago
I think Muslims deserve freedom to practice their religion of killing me.
totallyscrewed 5 years ago
I think it's great that they allow retarded children like yourself access to the internet.
wog7 5 years ago
This is a great comedy video, she should be listed under the comedy section. Also, notice how in her orginal video she posted she banned comments...freak. I think I should make a video saying "White people against small-eyed crap bashing other religions" lol. If she could dish out the hate, she better be able to take it.
Lazereye 5 years ago
Wow, you are a racist. Congrats.
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
she is the same idiot who said John Kerry shot himself, and also the moron who posted the names and phone numbers of people who disagreed with her on her website.
She is also where boners go to die....
ThisGuysTrouble 5 years ago
They didn't disagree with her, they sent her racist (and ironic) hatemail. It says on her site that if you email her, your info can be posted.... Perfectly fair.
And these logical fallacies don't make sense. Good job throwing out argument vocabulary, but it isn't relevant to the material. Why are Muslims allowed to censor this video because it has Muhammad in it but all that other crap on YT is still up?
MisterNiceGuy51 5 years ago
No, she said that Kerry's injury was a self-inflicted wound. Way to pay attention.
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
"Self-inflicted wound" is a euphemism for "shooting oneself."
This is the sort of facist wordplay Orwell parodied so well.
wog7 5 years ago
No, actually, there's a difference between an accidental infliction of a wound on yourself and the intentional infliction of that wound. But hey, I'm just a fascist.
(congrats on the Godwin invocation!) I win by default.
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
i think im in love
jonkauffman 5 years ago
hahaha. she sounds like a bittch.
thugmaster 5 years ago
You are an idiot who has no clue what a logical fallacy is.
EvilMongrelMonkey 5 years ago
An error or flaw in the logic of an argument - as per the errors and flaws that Malkin laces each and every one of her pronouncements with. She is lazy and sloppy.
It would also appear that the content of this video has flown directly over your head.
darwinosx 5 years ago
What logical fallacy is MongrelMonkey using kids?
Ad hominem.
wog7 5 years ago
You don't know what argumentum ad hominem is either, so. You know.
Shut up!
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
Um...
Someone has no idea what these fallacies actually are, huh? Kind of embarassing.
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
Care to elaborate?
darwinosx 5 years ago
Typically, words have meanings, and when you flash "strawman" across the screen, you expect, you know, Michelle Malkin to be involved in the Strawman Fallacy, but this avant-garde flick sure breaks that convention!
Purple monkey dishwasher fallacy!
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
The fact that she claims the ONLY people that would be offended by her video are suicide bombers and insurgent sympathisers - or that the ONLY people breaking YouTube terms are jihadists...
darwinosx 5 years ago
Furthermore she misrepresents the Youtube management team and overstates / misrepresents their argument (as stated in the email she reads out) by using ridicule.
darwinosx 5 years ago
And lastly, this video is ALL about Malkin - and just as she misrepresents herself and the work she has posted at Youtube, so this video misrepresents itself in the same way as Malkin - reducing serious news to a gameshow.
darwinosx 5 years ago
Ooo, good save! Wish I had thought of that in school. "I said 'true' instead of 'false'? LoL I was just kiddin', teach! Every time I got it wrong, it was just for fun."
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
Well I can't be blamed for your poor school record - have you thought about going back and re-sitting?
darwinosx 5 years ago
STRAWMAN!
NoumenalSoup 5 years ago
Indeed. Congratulations. Have a sausage.
darwinosx 5 years ago
I hate her, but how can they ban her and have all this white power stuff on here? Someone please explain
tattypatty 5 years ago
It's not "White Power" stuff, as you say, it's conservatism. You sound racist to me.
kevindixoninc 4 years ago
Well done ! Michelle was banned because she posted two videos complaining about a video removal and in the second said she was going to post the banned video again in defiance of the YT team. Users agree to follow YT guildlines so she banned herself.
Superorchestra 5 years ago
love the "Linda Hamilton from Terminator 2" look
mcasey666 5 years ago
i think she just likes the sound of her caucasian voice. shut the f-up
trinizar 5 years ago
So, now Im a Jihadist?? Wow... news to me!
Malkin is a horrible person... For goodness sake, she posted UC students names and phone numbers on her blog for being against the war!
ilikestuff712 5 years ago
The left is so afraid that her logic will "infect" them, that they have to supress her free speech rights be removing/limiting access to conservative content. If the left is really secure in their support of jihadist beliefs, then Michelle Malkin posting anti-Jihadist videos shouldn't be strong enough to shake your jihadist beliefs.
AmazingZeljko 5 years ago
Congratulations on totally missing the point.
darwinosx 5 years ago
I completely understood what was said along with her point. What is your point?
gerry301 5 years ago
The Michelle-sheeps are as bad as "terrorists"... It's like somekind of new-age religion... Just stupid.
Jaquitita 5 years ago