I think the two choices might be a false dichotomy. I'd make a video like this, saying that he shouldn't be censored but leave it at that, don't mirror his video. That way I'm advocating free speech without spreading what I perceive to be lies. I'd even go as fare as to say that what he said were lies but it's still his right to say it.
So I'd support the reinstatement of the original video rather than propagate it myself.
Dude mirror the vid, if the guy is chatting BS, then what is the ratio of ppl getting'swayed' by him, an watching his vid and realising what BS he chats. surely more ppl will realise thats he's arguement is wroung. Besides the topic wether religion is right or wroung is very controversial, and we need to get more ppl thinking about this topic, mirroring this vid respects free speach aswell.
That's how your video strategies should be if you want to get the point across. I watched his most recent video and I don't agree with everything he says. We all have different opinions and views and we're not going to agree with everything unless one is really naive.
Telling people not to help him is certainly more satisfying, BUT I think free speech is paramount for a free and thinking society. I say this that even though I'm a black man, I would fight to allow a KKK member to express himself, as long as he did not incite violence or some other crime. It's THAT important.
So, ASSUMING that the DMCAs are false, then the right thing to do is to help him.
However, if they are properly filed claims, then the right thing to do is to hinder him.
Brock's DMCAs look like they've actully come from the copyright holder. So I refuse to mirror his vid unless he proves they're false, and has sent a counter-notice. I'd rather support the people that have been hit with a spate of false DMCA's and flagging such as the user godinventedmusic (who I disagree with on an ideological level) who's been hit with numerous DMCAs.
Good question, and it's even more complicated than the way you expressed it. I don't have a problem supporting his free speech because I ultimately think he harms his cause more than he helps it. He may, as most apologists do, reinforce the beliefs of those who already agree with him, but I think he also reinforces his opposition, and believe his dishonesty is transparent to those on the fence, at least to those who are honestly seeking answers.
That being said if for example I owned a newspaper in the 1920's, and had foresight to see the damage Hitler's speech would cause I certainly wouldn't assist him in spreading his message by publishing it. I guess it ultimately depends on how much real damage I was convinced the speech could cause. I would never support the government stifling free speech, but we're talking about youtube here.
I wanted to add that this is under the assumption the DMCA claims against him are false. If they are legit I support copyright owners right to have their work protected, and given Brock's history I have little doubt he will continue to plagiarize.
There is always a third option, which is to do nothing at all. That would be my choice, since Brock does not deserve our respect; being the intellectually dishonest plagiarist and manipulator that he is. It helps no one to bend over backwards to take the ethical high-ground with someone who has demonstrated that he has no intention of reciprocating. Regardless of your action, Brock's response will be the same: that of contempt and misinformation.
I would do neither. Because I cant trust Brock as far as I can throw him and thats not very far. He is a bullshit artist, he lies, that is what strawmanning is. Its a combination of distorting, bullshitting, and bearing false witness. So until evidence is given to show that the DMCA is false, I cant trust him.
Now does Brock deserve it? YES! He plagiarized comic book scenes. I am sure if the comic book makers knew they wouldnt be fine with it. Especially when they are of "the secular world". But simply becuase hed deser4ve it because of that, doesnt mean you should support him being false DZMZCaed, it just makes it easier to push him aside and have no guilt.
First, it is the responsibility of every viewer to evaluate claims made in videos for themselves. If they fall for his stupid sh*t, it's their own damn fault.
You could also elect to do nothing.
Or publicly deplore the alleged "false" DMCAs but NOT mirror him, as you've done in this video, for example.
Cynic that I am, I wouldn't put it above the Fundies to DMCA each other then "let" the YouTube atheists come "rescue" them, mirror their vids, etc...
I think you should mirror his video. While this may increase the attention he gets I don't think that this will lead to more people being persuaded to his position. The views stand or fall on their own merits. In this sense I think we are better off in having people like the atheist antidote on Youtube because then it will be easier to argue against him. So while he will get more views that also means there will be more people able to eviscerate his arguments.
I think that we should help him out. That's the cost of freedom of speech as well as the price of integrity.
BUT : to be really fair, we don't need to give him more visibility than he had on his own channel. Imagine that everyone mirrors his video, you + ZOMGitsCris+ the Peach + dprjones + ThunderfOOt,etc... It would be free publicity for him and his propaganda...
CONCLUSION : I think that if 1 person like dprjones or Thunderf00t mirrors him, others don't need to...
"I meant it at the time" you are just awful!! :) I feel so abused!
I don't like Brock... I actually make no apologies there. I was pretty put off by the way he AND geerup both used a guilt trip tactic to get atheists to mirror their videos.
Whether the dmca's filed against Brock are real or not, he can't really fight them because he knows he plagiarized.
My option, is probably not the best one... I'm just ignoring him like I always have. I don't watch him and don't care.
I don't fear speech. In the long run reason wins. You can't protect people from bad speech so do everything you can to ensure that the free exchange of ideas is a priority and a fundamental principle that we hold sacrosanct.
Those who would only protect speech that they find worthy don't believe in the principle of free speech.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire.
You already did it. You made this video. That is enough. The purpose of "mirroring" was to get the word out that he was being false DCMAed right? Well, this video already communicated that message correct? Therefore your moral obligation is finished.
People who watch his videos can think for themselves. So I guess it doesn't really matter what the content is because people will eventually believe whatever they want, regardless of what videos they see first.
I did see a video that accused BL, TAA, of plagiarizing books verbatim without giving credit. Sure FREE speech includes not telling the truth, but it does NOT include quoting someone else's text without giving credit. Free Speech and Theft are not the same thing. .....ta
@LordCustos3 But should this commentary be in support of him or against him? You haven't answered the dilemma, you've merely made it take a different form.
I'm a member o the ACLU and I struggle constantly with the type of people who's "free speech" has been impinged upon, even the most vile of opinions. That the ACLU supported Fred Phelps was vile and hideous to me, but that is the price of the Constitution we live in and I have learned to have to take the bad withthe good.
The thing to take into consideration with TAA is the fact that the DMCAs may not be false.
With Geerup on the other hand, they are more than likely false, if I had to guess.
The DMCA has a legitimate purpose after all. Taking that into consideration I would error on the side of the DMCA being correct with TAA, and false with Geerup.
He is in this case because if that's not true, then it's a far easier question. Should a plagiarist be convicted of plagiarism isn't a hard one to answer.
Instead of merely cloning his vid....or making a video denouncing him; take the vid he wants mirrored and splice in your own commentary and annotations....so that BOTH of you have your 1st amendment rights upheld....and whatever nonsense he spouts in said vid can be countered.
Thats what I did with Geerup's vid and it seems to work out fine.
I would just ignore him. That's a happy middle ground. He's a well known and thoroughly documented plagiarist. This is, even if we liberally grant him the benefit of the doubt, roughly 50/50 that his DMCAs are legit.
well with Brock I'm just not sure if the DMCA against him is legit or not he is a known plagiarist so, i mean i would defend the DMCA and defend Fair Use and fight against false DMCA but if Brock broke the rules and this is the fair reaction then I'd stand by, how ever ya if it is False ya I'd fight against his DMCA
Not that I'm a video-kinda guy but... I would probably keep still and give him a mention in the next video, something in the line: "ow yeah, and Brock and Geerup just got dmca'd".
I don't like it, but that's what I would do, it is freedom of speech here... even though they never do the same for atheists... That would be my dillemma I guess.
Can maybe gamble that they will still say: "And the atheists community remained silent" or something like that. That's probably in store next.
The issue is with Brock is that he steals his information from other people. I think there is a particularly high chance that those DMCAs could be legit as there has been someone informing the publishing companies about Brock.
Anyway, I'm of a similar opinion as you: I'm not getting involved. I would, if he'd earned my respect, fight on his behalf despite my not agreeing with him, but Brock is a douche. While I support his right to free speech, it'll have to be in spirit rather than in deed.
I think the two choices might be a false dichotomy. I'd make a video like this, saying that he shouldn't be censored but leave it at that, don't mirror his video. That way I'm advocating free speech without spreading what I perceive to be lies. I'd even go as fare as to say that what he said were lies but it's still his right to say it.
So I'd support the reinstatement of the original video rather than propagate it myself.
Disthron 1 year ago
Dude mirror the vid, if the guy is chatting BS, then what is the ratio of ppl getting'swayed' by him, an watching his vid and realising what BS he chats. surely more ppl will realise thats he's arguement is wroung. Besides the topic wether religion is right or wroung is very controversial, and we need to get more ppl thinking about this topic, mirroring this vid respects free speach aswell.
techbro1 1 year ago
That's how your video strategies should be if you want to get the point across. I watched his most recent video and I don't agree with everything he says. We all have different opinions and views and we're not going to agree with everything unless one is really naive.
riddlerthemarine 1 year ago
absolutely defend the man i disagree with or dislike
mattygersh 1 year ago
Telling people not to help him is certainly more satisfying, BUT I think free speech is paramount for a free and thinking society. I say this that even though I'm a black man, I would fight to allow a KKK member to express himself, as long as he did not incite violence or some other crime. It's THAT important.
So, ASSUMING that the DMCAs are false, then the right thing to do is to help him.
However, if they are properly filed claims, then the right thing to do is to hinder him.
ikvsabre 1 year ago
Brock's DMCAs look like they've actully come from the copyright holder. So I refuse to mirror his vid unless he proves they're false, and has sent a counter-notice. I'd rather support the people that have been hit with a spate of false DMCA's and flagging such as the user godinventedmusic (who I disagree with on an ideological level) who's been hit with numerous DMCAs.
ShredderIsAlive 2 years ago
Ironically enough, Brock is already doing things that might endanger his current AtheistAntidote2 channel:
His most recent video contains fragments plagarized from a Dinesh d'Souza article from the USA Today.
Okay, sure, it's only 2 or 3 sentences rather than 2 or 3 entire paragraphs...but still....bad (lazy) habits are hard to break.
LordCustos3 2 years ago
My opinion is that:
If you don't support freedom of speech for everyone and all opinions, then you don't support freedom of speech at all.
On the other hand, I do not think that mirroring his video would really be helping him in the way he needs to be helped at this time.
tktt 2 years ago
Good question, and it's even more complicated than the way you expressed it. I don't have a problem supporting his free speech because I ultimately think he harms his cause more than he helps it. He may, as most apologists do, reinforce the beliefs of those who already agree with him, but I think he also reinforces his opposition, and believe his dishonesty is transparent to those on the fence, at least to those who are honestly seeking answers.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
That being said if for example I owned a newspaper in the 1920's, and had foresight to see the damage Hitler's speech would cause I certainly wouldn't assist him in spreading his message by publishing it. I guess it ultimately depends on how much real damage I was convinced the speech could cause. I would never support the government stifling free speech, but we're talking about youtube here.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued...
I wanted to add that this is under the assumption the DMCA claims against him are false. If they are legit I support copyright owners right to have their work protected, and given Brock's history I have little doubt he will continue to plagiarize.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Yeah, I didn't so much get into the question of their legitimacy because that would make the question a lot easier. Interesting thoughts though.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
Looking good BIAM. Interesting that you put so much thought into this.
Yewon2001 2 years ago
There is always a third option, which is to do nothing at all. That would be my choice, since Brock does not deserve our respect; being the intellectually dishonest plagiarist and manipulator that he is. It helps no one to bend over backwards to take the ethical high-ground with someone who has demonstrated that he has no intention of reciprocating. Regardless of your action, Brock's response will be the same: that of contempt and misinformation.
Vinifera7 2 years ago
I would do neither. Because I cant trust Brock as far as I can throw him and thats not very far. He is a bullshit artist, he lies, that is what strawmanning is. Its a combination of distorting, bullshitting, and bearing false witness. So until evidence is given to show that the DMCA is false, I cant trust him.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Now does Brock deserve it? YES! He plagiarized comic book scenes. I am sure if the comic book makers knew they wouldnt be fine with it. Especially when they are of "the secular world". But simply becuase hed deser4ve it because of that, doesnt mean you should support him being false DZMZCaed, it just makes it easier to push him aside and have no guilt.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
First, it is the responsibility of every viewer to evaluate claims made in videos for themselves. If they fall for his stupid sh*t, it's their own damn fault.
You could also elect to do nothing.
Or publicly deplore the alleged "false" DMCAs but NOT mirror him, as you've done in this video, for example.
Cynic that I am, I wouldn't put it above the Fundies to DMCA each other then "let" the YouTube atheists come "rescue" them, mirror their vids, etc...
Let the Xtians "mirror" their brother.
JJR93 2 years ago
I think you should mirror his video. While this may increase the attention he gets I don't think that this will lead to more people being persuaded to his position. The views stand or fall on their own merits. In this sense I think we are better off in having people like the atheist antidote on Youtube because then it will be easier to argue against him. So while he will get more views that also means there will be more people able to eviscerate his arguments.
HopeOfSisyphus 2 years ago
BornInAsphodelMeadow: He really doesn't like Broccoli.
kff 2 years ago
The cc translator is hilarious.
Your final words transcribed as follows:
"As always i have organized a meadow and hopefully will see more Richard nixon"
1stCainite 2 years ago
Help him out or not?
I think that we should help him out. That's the cost of freedom of speech as well as the price of integrity.
BUT : to be really fair, we don't need to give him more visibility than he had on his own channel. Imagine that everyone mirrors his video, you + ZOMGitsCris+ the Peach + dprjones + ThunderfOOt,etc... It would be free publicity for him and his propaganda...
CONCLUSION : I think that if 1 person like dprjones or Thunderf00t mirrors him, others don't need to...
RaychSeldon33 2 years ago
"I meant it at the time" you are just awful!! :) I feel so abused!
I don't like Brock... I actually make no apologies there. I was pretty put off by the way he AND geerup both used a guilt trip tactic to get atheists to mirror their videos.
Whether the dmca's filed against Brock are real or not, he can't really fight them because he knows he plagiarized.
My option, is probably not the best one... I'm just ignoring him like I always have. I don't watch him and don't care.
tattooskin72 2 years ago 4
I don't fear speech. In the long run reason wins. You can't protect people from bad speech so do everything you can to ensure that the free exchange of ideas is a priority and a fundamental principle that we hold sacrosanct.
Those who would only protect speech that they find worthy don't believe in the principle of free speech.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire.
Excuse me but where's dilemma?
awatson945 2 years ago
The answer to bad speech is good speech. The cost of free speech to anyone is a cost to everyone.
awatson945 2 years ago
He probably did have copyrighted material, as his..."original speeches" were stolen from others.
Razgriz515 2 years ago
THERE YOU ARE!!!
I thought you died! D:
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
Go on skype moar.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
March break begins today for me sir, I certainly shall do so! Possibly we could even conspire sometime and take over the world this week?
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
We'll see, I do have school, but on wednesday, it ends at 1pm. We may be able to work something out.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
Glorious!
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
You already did it. You made this video. That is enough. The purpose of "mirroring" was to get the word out that he was being false DCMAed right? Well, this video already communicated that message correct? Therefore your moral obligation is finished.
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
Don't upload his video. He IS having his freedom taken away but he isn't adding anything using his videos. He's just spewing bullshit.
dudejohnny 2 years ago
@dudejohnny
I disagree with myself.
People who watch his videos can think for themselves. So I guess it doesn't really matter what the content is because people will eventually believe whatever they want, regardless of what videos they see first.
Upload for freedom of speech.
dudejohnny 2 years ago
A though qeustion; it is like asking if Hitler deserved human rights when he clearly disregarded it, though a little extreme.
MudHut67 2 years ago
There's a perfect quote for this.
"I disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
MarkComrade 2 years ago
I did see a video that accused BL, TAA, of plagiarizing books verbatim without giving credit. Sure FREE speech includes not telling the truth, but it does NOT include quoting someone else's text without giving credit. Free Speech and Theft are not the same thing. .....ta
bjcdrama 2 years ago
The truly amusing thing is that there's almost no Xtians mirroring brocks vid....
It's almost all Atheists who are sticking up for him.
The roaring vaccuum of Christian Fellowship is deafening.
LordCustos3 2 years ago
Comment removed
LordCustos3 2 years ago
@LordCustos3 But should this commentary be in support of him or against him? You haven't answered the dilemma, you've merely made it take a different form.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
It should be in support of his freedom to speak, but every time he tells a blatant lie in the vid, an annotation should "correct" him.
LordCustos3 2 years ago
I'm a member o the ACLU and I struggle constantly with the type of people who's "free speech" has been impinged upon, even the most vile of opinions. That the ACLU supported Fred Phelps was vile and hideous to me, but that is the price of the Constitution we live in and I have learned to have to take the bad withthe good.
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Dilemma indeed
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
The thing to take into consideration with TAA is the fact that the DMCAs may not be false.
With Geerup on the other hand, they are more than likely false, if I had to guess.
The DMCA has a legitimate purpose after all. Taking that into consideration I would error on the side of the DMCA being correct with TAA, and false with Geerup.
MrAmmo 2 years ago
Is someone innocent till proven guilty in the court room of public opinion?
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
He is in this case because if that's not true, then it's a far easier question. Should a plagiarist be convicted of plagiarism isn't a hard one to answer.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
The answer is simple:
Instead of merely cloning his vid....or making a video denouncing him; take the vid he wants mirrored and splice in your own commentary and annotations....so that BOTH of you have your 1st amendment rights upheld....and whatever nonsense he spouts in said vid can be countered.
Thats what I did with Geerup's vid and it seems to work out fine.
LordCustos3 2 years ago
I would just ignore him. That's a happy middle ground. He's a well known and thoroughly documented plagiarist. This is, even if we liberally grant him the benefit of the doubt, roughly 50/50 that his DMCAs are legit.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
well with Brock I'm just not sure if the DMCA against him is legit or not he is a known plagiarist so, i mean i would defend the DMCA and defend Fair Use and fight against false DMCA but if Brock broke the rules and this is the fair reaction then I'd stand by, how ever ya if it is False ya I'd fight against his DMCA
whydid666 2 years ago
Not that I'm a video-kinda guy but... I would probably keep still and give him a mention in the next video, something in the line: "ow yeah, and Brock and Geerup just got dmca'd".
I don't like it, but that's what I would do, it is freedom of speech here... even though they never do the same for atheists... That would be my dillemma I guess.
Can maybe gamble that they will still say: "And the atheists community remained silent" or something like that. That's probably in store next.
Strawedify 2 years ago
The issue is with Brock is that he steals his information from other people. I think there is a particularly high chance that those DMCAs could be legit as there has been someone informing the publishing companies about Brock.
junosden 2 years ago 2
...who are you again? ;)
And let me reiterate my vote for MOHAWK! :D
Anyway, I'm of a similar opinion as you: I'm not getting involved. I would, if he'd earned my respect, fight on his behalf despite my not agreeing with him, but Brock is a douche. While I support his right to free speech, it'll have to be in spirit rather than in deed.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Absolutely. Support freedom of speech even if they are obvious liars like TAA.
1) Nothing propels the momentum of a dialog than meeting the oposing view (in this case lies vs the truth)
2) As much as it pains me, even Republicans (sometimes), have the correct idea and I benefit from listening to it and increase my world view.
Having said that, Brock repulses me beyond words
Good to see you are back!
PT109Boat 2 years ago