Cigars International Youtube Channel Terminated

[seacaptain]

Jeez folks, if you don't like YouTube, don't go there. Same with other websites that offend you. Better yet, start something similar, with your own set of rules. Perhaps you can become a billionaire or, lose the entire investment. Go ahead ... take the risk. Seriously, I'll be pulling for your success.

Or, existing business could stop discriminating against people they disagree with. As brian64 mentioned above, if youtube tried this BS on a protected class, they'd find out real quick what their limits are.
This whole "start your own business" is a great idea, IF you remove ALL protected classes. If you're not willing to do that, then people criticizing youtube have a legitimate complaint when they discriminate against certain classes of people.

 

[woodsroad]

Or, existing business could stop discriminating against people they disagree with

Sorry, but I'm of the mind that a private enterprise is free to pick and choose with whom they conduct business. That would include YouTube, The Red Hen and the wedding cake bakers. Otherwise, you are leaving it up to the government to decide the who,what when where and how of how a business operates. Sure , they do a good bit of it now, but you really want to add more? As a small business owner myself, the government already knows exactly who I do business with, how much I am paid, and how much of my hard-earned money they are letting me keep. I also serve as an involuntary tax collection agent. I certainly don't need them telling me who I have to do business with.

 

[aldecaker]

Woods, I don't think the issue is with businesses being able to pick and choose who they do business with. I think it's more about having a virtual list of people you can choose reject, and a virtual list of people you can't choose to reject. In my mind, equality and protected classes are not compatible concepts.

 

[mso489]

I've sympathized with individuals on either side of the issue of local, state, or federal statutes, laws, and regulations. My canary in the coal mine (warning sign) is when I or others begin to speak or act in ways strange to themselves in order to placate authorities at some level. We all do a lot of that just being socialized to civilization. Most of high school is a boot camp to force people to observe social norms, their own natures be damned. So deciding these situations is always a balance, hopefully done with a lot of delicacy so as not to screw-yank each citizen into an intimidated knot. As long as we all feel resistant and somewhat resentful, there's hope. I'm a big proponent of public schools, possibly because I was lucky enough to attend really good ones, but a recommendation for home schooling is that people don't get compromised so much so young, except of course by their parents. C'est la vie. Some parents are much worse than public schools, alas.

 

[warren]

It's akin to owning a newspaper. Why do it if you aren't going to air your own beliefs. If one starts a company and the goal is money and social engineering, or simply appealing to specific groups ... well, it's a business model which, in today's market, is proving wildly successful. The young folks, and many older, love their social causes. Many companies tout their social agenda these days to appeal to specific audiences/demographics. One person's discrimination is another's "right to association." If you are not part of the target audience, find another product to use. But, the very idea that a company must pander to everyone and not offend is anathema to me.
YouTube is selling a product and the "right to refuse service" varies around the world. So far they've stayed on the right side of the various laws. We are not talking about "heating oil", water, electricity, and the like, basic needs, usually government regulated.
I know we've had members here who are/were offended by the "no politics" rule. Members get tossed now and then, some are warned and muzzled. They can be offended, silently though, and stay or, they can move on. We all have the right to offend and to be offended Being discriminating and choosing not to use services or products which offend you is a good kind of discrimination. But, expecting all companies to meet your needs or desires is going to make you feel the victim when one, you may value, fails to cater to you.

 

[aldecaker]

"But, the very idea that a company must pander to everyone and not offend is anathema to me."
Exactly. Which is why all this bullshit about Red Hen vs. No Gay Cakes just kills me. If you want the right to dish out some lumps, then be prepared to take some lumps without whining about it. Good for the goose and good for the gander, I say. I just draw the line with, "you can toss this person out of your shop no problem, but if you toss that person out you're getting sued for discrimination". And if we want to pretend that that's not going on, then we're being somewhere between disingenuous and outright liars.

 

[aldecaker]

And for the record, I am not offended by the "no politics" rule. I am annoyed that anything vaguely controversial is often mislabed as "politics" to force it to fit into the "no politics" rule. As always, anyone who finds this place overly objectionable can feel free to go inhabit another forum.

 

[woodsroad]

In my mind, equality and protected classes are not compatible concepts.

Of course.

 

[aldecaker]

Are you agreeing, or commenting on my skewed state of mind? I'm actually being sincere, for once.

 

[woodsroad]

Oh, no. I agree with your statement. Once you start designating select classes for exceptional treatment (good or bad), you enter the slippery slope. Effective efforts must be made to ensure that any given class is not treated in a lesser manner than any other group.

 

[georged]

My take? It's unfortunate---tragic really---that the Internet is so clogged with pipe and tobacco discussion that people must go to sites like this one to argue about politics and other unresolvable subjects.
There's simply nowhere else to do it, though. I definitely understand.

 

[sablebrush52]

In my mind, equality and protected classes are not compatible concepts.

They're not entirely incompatible, either. Freedom has been expressed as the right to say no, but there are a lot of conflicting "no"s out there, many of which also conflict with Constitutional protections. It would be great if we could just self govern without statutes, but that notion proved to be a mess after the Og and Erg cave tribes massacred each other over that woolly mammoth pelt. People are flawed, complex, and often seemingly paradoxical. So are our "solutions".
Youtube can do what it wants within Constitutional limits. You can boycott youtube, or start a competing service, or just post your own stuff however you want to, at least until your ISP decides to slow or block your access, and/or charge you extra fees for the privilege of expressing ideas with which they disagree, which they are now allowed to do.

 

[aldecaker]

"Youtube can do what it wants within Constitutional limits."
It can. No argument there, certainly. We're just passing judgement on how crappy or not it is for them to do so.
"My take? It's unfortunate---tragic really---that the Internet is so clogged with pipe and tobacco discussion that people must go to sites like this one to argue about politics and other unresolvable subjects.
There's simply nowhere else to do it, though. I definitely understand."
Yeah, it's real tragedy, George. My heart aches for how much it must upset the delicate balance of your life. We'll all fuck off now so everyone can go back to talking about you.

 

[seacaptain]

Sorry, but I'm of the mind that a private enterprise is free to pick and choose with whom they conduct business. That would include YouTube, The Red Hen and the wedding cake bakers. Otherwise, you are leaving it up to the government to decide the who,what when where and how of how a business operates. Sure , they do a good bit of it now, but you really want to add more?

My preference would be to go back to the days where property rights and freedom of association were protected Constitutional principles. Those days are long gone though. We've decided as a society that private business are "public" and subject to all manner of interference from government as to who they can choose to associate with or do business with.
That being the case, if class x gets protected from "public" business discrimination, then why is my "class" any less important? Because the mob says so? I thought we were against creating second class citizens.
I just want consistency. Either protect no one or protect everyone equally.

 

[seacaptain]

And for the record, I am not offended by the "no politics" rule. I am annoyed that anything vaguely controversial is often mislabed as "politics" to force it to fit into the "no politics" rule.

Exactly. It seems like a lot of people get discussions about policies and politics confused.

 

[dmcmtk]

mso489, a very good comment.
Unfortunately, it seems the days of a CIVIL SOCIETY, where people can politely agree to disagree, are fast disappearing, or maybe they already have......

 

[georged]

All those dead and dying pipe forums. The why being obvious. You'd think people would look upon all that digital carnage and say, "Not here, dammit!"
But... no.
:crying:

 

[sablebrush52]

Unfortunately, it seems the days of a CIVIL SOCIETY, where people can politely agree to disagree, are fast disappearing, or maybe they already have......

I'm not sure that ever existed. In the 19th century, members of Congress used to cane, knife, and shoot each other over differences.
True, people didn't swear on radio, TV, or in movies. And people dressed up for public hangings, and beheadings, so there was that.

 

[dmcmtk]

I'm not sure that ever existed. In the 19th century, members of Congress used to cane, knife, and shoot each other over differences.

Sure, but we would hope in the 21st century, perhaps naively, that the idea of a civil society would evolve...and be concerned, no matter where one may stand on a paticular issue, when it appears to be devolving.

 

[woodsroad]

And people dressed up for public hangings, and beheadings, so there was that.

People don't dress up for anything anymore. Maybe if I wore I tie more often they'd bring back public executions.