Two Sides, Same Coin text

Thunderf00t: South Park vs Islam THUNDERFOOT MIRROR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcN8SWVCe0

Cimbolic: Re South Park vs Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEG8bBqUFRU

(not exactly relevant) Thunderf00t: South Park vs Islam II (Viacom's Revenge)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWaZVMBw1E

Thunderf00t: 'Death Threats' from 'Moderate Muslims'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOcHJCEZ3KQ

DawahFilms: Thunderf00t vs Islam & Humanity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRvHeMCLmk

Sarahon06: Dawahfilms: Science is not dogmatic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emWLuS2Gcl4

DawahFilms: Death Threats & The Oh So Scary Muslim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lej7reDiJXA

Cimbolic: Re Death Threats & The Oh So Scary Muslim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4281wo1d9BU


Problem:
part 1. Free speech violated
part 2. Polarization.
part 3. Political and polarized response defeating the purpose of itself.


Two Sides, Same Coin, part 1: A Summary of the Recent South Park Censorship Ramificaitons


Comedy Central (whatever that means, since it's hard to tell from such
a category what went on) in some way, in some form, censored Matt and
Trey. Now, that sounds rather bland and boring. The expression of this
censorship was the addition of bleeps to the South Park episode 201.

It seems rather antagonizingly detailed, to point out that it's "Comedy
Central, whatever that means", however, I point it out for the same
reason that confederalsocialist pointed out - this being an analogy
that might be only accessible for anarchists, so I apologize for
the specificity - that property is intersubjective consensus, along
with pointing out the rather invalid concept of countries and the like.
He re-boxes them - since it is easier to explain things and less
convoluted - at times, but unboxes them when there is confusion
about "who owns what". I think this is one of those time of "who owns
what" in regard to a few things. Accordingly, this is part of our
(and by our I mean those who are participating in this discussion
about Islam in reference to Moderates, Extremists, the Ideology,
and South Park), our discussion.

I will preface this next statement with the thought that,
BiteHunter, I do not mean this to be a humiliation to you.
Now, who is BiteHunter? Essentially, BiteHunter is a stalker.
And what does this matter? Because I intend to analogize
his behavior with me to two things: pwning, and Muslims.

He has this theory about me, which has in many respects,
truth to it. However, it is mostly twisted out of proportion.
Likewise, I'm not clear as to what his thoughts are about me.
But, to give you a jist of what they are, and I might be
mistaken about this - according to BiteHunter, I'm a multi-level
marking Jew who takes every chance he can to make money off
of others and promote promiscuity. My response to this might
seem strange. I don't take offense to the labels - at all.
And if they were true, I'd have no problem with him saying it.
The problem is, those aren't true, or if some of them were,
they are no longer true. But, he keeps saying them, over and
over. It is this part that I analogize with religion: the
repition of thoughts, the repitition of self-convinced
dogma, to reference the eloquent video that Sarahon made.

The response to South Park having been censored by Comedy
Central - and to note here again that that is an almost
nebulous term - has followed a predictable path. Even
if the news reporter who we saw from freedom0fspeech
hadn't suggested that we all "take arms" and make
slanderous videos of Muhammad, it would only have been
a matter of time before it happened. Such memes are
infamous of the internet, especially YouTube, and it has
gotten a name for itself that currently escaps my mind.

The aroused sentiment around this issue has been particularly
emotional, and has come to the point of being rather black
and white. Thunderf00t, who has been a popularizer of memes
through the conflict with VenomFangX (basically in that way
making a name for himself), also has views with which I disagree,
which thus turns my mind a bit from patriotic agreement with
him all the time, to being a bit more cautious. I refer to
the conflict between him and Dan Brown (not the novelist),
since I am, quite heavily, both against schooling and for homeschooling,
in large part, though I also recognize the dangers of
homeschooling, and would like to make for more discussion on
that. Perhaps I'll make another video about it.

The reponse to this aroused sentiment, particularly from
Cimbolic, has been that Thunderf00t has "bought in" to
what the terrists what - conflict and war, and likewise,
in another video, that satire for the sake of spite,
to say, "Hey you, you can't beat down on me - here in
America, we believe in free speech, bitch!" That to say
that is to create unnecessary enemies, that it would turn
away the moderate Muslims, who are just as against the
extremists as those of us who are for free speech,
perhaps zealously, though perhaps not dogmatically
(again, a reference to Sarahon's video), would then
side with the "terrorists" and we would end up with
a war. And who wants that?

The intial problem with that I had with Cimbolic taking
issue with this was that it sounded almost akin to
"censor yourself, lest the you provoke the Muslims",
which does not sound exactly dissimilar to to Comedy
Central censoring Matt and Trey; except, of course,
that it would be voluntary censorship.

This then enters the realm of the defense of free speech,
regardless of the consequences; that people should and
ought be free to say as they wish. The Muhammad cartoon
exemplify this thought, along with, of course, showing
some roots of racism which might, if we weren't having
this conversation, go unnoticed, or even encouraged,
similarly to how things become patriotism and nationalism,
which lets in the roots of racism and bigotry for that
the differences become part of the ideological cannon.
Namely, polarization.

I apologize for the rather formal stoke of this style.
I have been watching the results of what people have
been saying, and considering what I would say in response
to Cimbolic... eh, you. I want to finish with saying
two things, and neither of those is anything close
to what might be considered a death threat.
This video, I hope, looks unfinished. I intend this to be
part of an ongoing conversation. That's the first part.
The second part is that I think this is the advantage
of YouTube, that instead of polarized politicism
dominating our thought structures, instead of sound
bite memes being passed around every 4 years or so,
that YouTube, in the same way that it has essentially
been one of the keys to the destruction of religion,
at least in some part, is likewise the same destruction
of polarization. That we can talk things over and
think about things. That there isn't this presumption
of action, or people wishing that there were others
like them, or being unable to see actionable things
come about.

This is YouTube, and though it has its
flaws (which could be said to be similar to how
many of us might have seen TJ for a while - that
the reason people watch him was that he was the
first guy and so rode that lucky wave), though
it has its flaws, we're all here, and we're having
a conversation here. So, so far YouTube has been
the video medium in which we talk - doesn't always
have to be; maybe a new one will come along (I hope)
or YouTube will improve.

But what I'm focusing on is this: YouTube started,
what, about 5 years ago? Damn! Look at what's happened!




(second video)

Two Sides, Same Coin, part 2: Dogmatic Free Speech?

In regard to the retaliation or fighting spirit that
both "sides" have engendered, I find this to be
unfortunate on basically all accounts. Thunderf00t
was extremely general in his video, and probably
too general. Cimbolic, you said that your reaction
was outrage. Perhaps my reaction might be explainatory
to you. My reaction - and it can even be seen in the comments'
section (if you're able to weed through that broken mess) -
that my reaction was that of elation of that of Thunderf00t
having done us a service.

This stuff, and I've been reflecting on the VenomFangX issue
for a while, and it's made me ponder whether VenomFangX might
have been somewhat of a victim of the "early days" of YouTube,
has had me wondering a little about ... well, emotional reaction.
Why it is that certain videos are popular, why it is we have
elections, and what we mean by free speech. I made a series
of videos on Viddler, the other side that I and perhaps a
few others have mentioned. AJComix (you might or might not
know about him) was on the site briefly, and tattooskin72
commented that he didn't like the format of the site.
My main gripe with YouTube, all along, has been a combination
of being unable to make long Quick Captures, as well as
being seen by too many people... when I want to make shitty vlogs.
Viddler solves both of these problems nicely, in my opinion.

However, and I now reference again the YouTuber named BiteHunter,
and ask that those who watch me do not pester him (then again,
I recall that his channel got suspended), in that some conversation
we had is, I think, relevant to the free speech issue. He and I
have gone back and forth talking, often coming to yelling, and
he has said that I was hindering his speech, slandering him,
and making him unwelcome; that I was using hate speech.

The relevance of this is that I think this type of polarization
is similar to that of the political talks on TV, going all the
more, all the time, to extremizing the other side, so that you,
instead of them, get into office, by any means necessary.
And it doesn't have to be about getting into office. It could
be about cultural bigotry and fear of the unknown, especially
if the unknown relies on scriptures for their actions -
i.e. not thinking for oneself.

Again, I'm going to reference that YouTube has been here for
about 5 or so years. At this next point, I'm going to reference
The Communist Manifesto, out of context, whose context would
make this statement rather ironic, but the thought of which
I find interesting:
"And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages,
with their miserable highways, required centuries,
the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years."

The reference is that capitalism made possible in a few
years what the Middle Ages could only dream of doing
over decades, though I may have this off. My comment
about it is that YouTube, which the high connectivity
that it uses and has, along with the ideological break
that you can interact with this person on the screen,
has made possible in a few years - such as 5 -
what was impossible for TV to do in perhaps 100, maybe
50.

Now, back to the point about free speech. How it all
started was Comedy Central censoring Muhammad because
of thinly veiled death threats. The response was that
of how to protest. How to make a point that free speech
(the meme that is bound up, unfortunately, or, perhaps,
irrevocably, with nationalism and patriotism, which
I am analogizing to religiousity) was blind to death
threats. That, in a rather black and white type of
thinking, it doesn't matter what happens, we value free
speech. And, then, of course, for the irony of Thunderf00t
to be martyr for free speech, parallelling religious
thought and style, thus 'becoming the enemy'.

DawahFilms, in his Oh So Scary Muslims video, talked
about how - and these are my words here, what might be
called "Americans" - are dogmatically protecting
free speech, even at the risk of the destruction of
one's reputation, financial situation. One's livelihood,
one's life. And, granted, it's easy to see how those
with the reaction of "Oh my God Thunderf00t's generalizing!"
would see his video in terms of as being a Death Threat,
while those with the reaction that I had would see it in
terms of Thunderf00t saying, "You Muslim assholes, be
aware of what we could do!" which would then place me
in the rather ironic category of just about being
a fellow warrior against Islam, to the point of
blindly advocating the government to "press the button"
to send the nukes over to Iraq or whereever it might
be thought to be housing these Muslims. An important
point, too, that I don't really know where "The Muslims"
are and am rather ignorant of the whole thing in regard
to that. I suppose I could mention that I'm horrible
with directions, even in my own locale, but I do still
know where Australia is, and I do consider these two
things to be a different mental graph.

I think it is ironic that I am both rather aggressive
in my attitude about this, as well as open to listening
about it. I wonder, if, perhaps, this would aide in an
overall study of these types of thoughts, akin to
studying a sociopath who is in jail. And, akin, not the same.
So, may the conversation continue.



(third video)

Two Sides, Same Coin, part 3: One Final Note - Extremism

There is a final note that I want to make, in regard to
these quick quips of a series. One thing that was talked
about before and I think could use some more hashing out.
That is ... extremism in all of its forms, whether it
be feminism, anarchy, statism, Christianity, nationalism,
patriotism, Islam, Jewishness, ... and whatever else you
can think of. Communism. Nazism. Y'know.

Anarchy, they're all about chaos.
Feminism, it's all angry females who can't get laid.
Statism, atheists who reject God but use the State in the
same way, though that's more in line with Statheism.
Christianity, fundamental eggheads who couldn't tell
truth if it knocked them up the head.
Atheists, people who deny God and can't face truth,
who must use oh-so-many defenses, ideological defenses,
that forever bars them from our Lord and savior,
be that Allah or Jesus.
Communism, it doesn't work.
Jews, they're money-grubbers.
Nazis, they killed the Jews. I mean, they're money-grubbers,
but that's not a reason to Kill them.
Islam, another religion like Christianity, fundamentalist
idiots.
And again, anarchy, since it's the recent one that I
feel closely aligned to - it's an impossible utopian
ideal that does not deal with reality. People are evil.
The only type of anarchist that you're ever meet is one
who's about to make plans for killing a cop, or burning
down a building.

These are all stereotypes about ideologies. Some of them
may be true, though I'm thinking that most of them aren't.
Not that the statements might apply to some of those
who hold such ideologies - but the thing is, it doesn't
apply to all of them. The tribalism exhibited by us -
us, of all the irony of me to say that - us! The tribalism
that I and many others exhibit may have manifestations
in certain ideologies, but there's also the problem of
people. Which is to say, the problem of me, the problem
of you, and our tendency to polarization. However,
instead of advocating an elimation of talking, lest
we arouse some other likewise sentiment in others,
and have the bigotry that I, we, you, have, come out
and have it react with others' bigotry, ignorance,
and livelihoods, lets have it all out in the open,
and let's talk about it.

I have, likewise, done some experiments with this
in my, as it were, 'personal life', and so I'm aware
of one reaction to this that defeats the point of
trying, which is that of the person saying,
"No, I won't talk." As it is yet an undeveloped thing
in my mind, I don't really have the ability yet to
talk eloqently about it. Mostly, it seems, it relates
to humiliation and insecurity. BiteHunter talked of
feeling humilated that I was with other people, because
he wanted me to be with him, not them. Likewise,
Jen has expressed similar sentiments.

It is, I think, inherently an emotional response.
I, likewise, have said that I am an emotional
idiot. And I am partially wondering if that
might not apply somewhat to the case of
extremism.

We (we being Cimbolic and I) talked about
things like parodying extremism, instead
of particulars like Islam, and I talked with
Bob about doing self-parody. I'm not sure if
I'll end up actually doing such, but I think it's,
nonetheless, and intriguing thought.