Shirrako got banned on YouTube for a RDR2 gameplay video

[mustafur]

So long as the dead guy wasn't a feminist

He was a male, so yes.

 

[mustafur]

wouldn’t both of them be for views and money?

No, because it would be flagged.

Where as Youtube red originals have been paid money before the video even gets released.

 

[Northstar]

Seems his account has been reactivated as he just uploaded a video an hour ago. So yeah, all this fuss over nothing!

Kill a feminist in a video game for a joke - Banned.
Film a dead body hanging in a suicide forest for views and money - YouTube Red Original movie

There's quite a few videos of Aokigahara on Youtube, including some with bodies. There aren't many glamorizing killing feminists on the other hand.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There's quite a few videos of Aokigahara on Youtube, including some with bodies. There aren't many glamorizing killing feminists on the other hand.

You realize you're conflating real people with videogame characters right?

 

[ImaRobot]

No, because it would be flagged.

Where as Youtube red originals have been paid money before the video even gets released.

Yes, but aren’t both uploaded with the intention of views and money?

Regardless I doubt “Dumb Japanese person found dead in the forest, what a stupid ass” would have sit well either had he chose to be specific.

You realize you're conflating real people with videogame characters right?

If it was a cartoon instead would the ideology change? Or does it being virtual change the message?

I think there’s more harm in specifically targeting something and choosing to degenerate any entire demographic, whether it be digital or not is more of an issue than someone stumbling across a dead body in a forest. Not to say Logan Paul isn’t a terrible piece of **** in his own way. Both seem pretty bad. Lesser of two evils?

 

[Northstar]

You realize you're conflating real people with videogame characters right?

I'm not the one that brought it up, so I'm not sure why you're asking me.

If it was a cartoon instead would the ideology change? Or does it being virtual change the message?

It apparently makes it worse!

The high seas of political correctness can be difficult to navigate these days, even for such venerable media giants as the New York Times. Yesterday they published a cartoon short that shows Donald Trump in a gay relationship with Vladimir Putin. They hold hands, ride a pony together, do a little nipple twisting, kiss, and a closeup of some tonsil hockey. Now obviously, especially since the series of shorts are entitled "Trump Bites" this is an attempt at mockery of the Leader of the Free World. Being gay is bad right otherwise why use it to mock the President? After all, they only way these "jokes" work is if being gay is a punchline. Trump is submitting to a gay relationship with another man and that's funny because it's gay. That's the only way it works IMO. Their intent was to shame and embarrass a man by projecting him as being in a submissive, gay relationship.

But being gay isn't bad is it? It shouldn't be the subject of mockery and ridicule should it? I've known this since I watched an episode of All in the Family when Archie found out his gay, macho football player friend Steve was gay but apparently, 47 years later, the NY Times hasn't figure out that being gay is ok and it's not a tool in the arsenal to shame and ridicule people. Perhaps this goes beyond an issue of political correctness and ventures into outright homophobia on the part of the NY Times.

Damn search bar!

 

[mustafur]

I think there is more harm in people getting Butthurt about things that are not real.

What is the difference between the Red dead video and this:

 

[Northstar]

What is the difference between the Red dead video and this:

You mean besides the title and overall presentation?

 

[ImaRobot]

I think there is more harm in people getting Butthurt about things that are not real.

What is the difference between the Red dead video and this:

Can I ask a question. What do you feel was the intent, or message, behind both Logan Paul’s video and this?

I’m a bit confused as to how it’s not ok to stumble across a dead body and monetize it but it’s ok to degenerate a whole demographic and monetize it? Is it because of the video behind it? If it was text would that make better in both cases? I would imagine one would sound worse than the other if that was the case.

 

[mustafur]

Yes because it's on a video game, no violence has happened because video game violence isn't real.

It's ok to be like Hitler on a Video game, because video game violence isn't real. Everything you do inside of a video game isn't real.

Not hard to understand.

 

[Northstar]

Yes because it's on a video game, no violence has happened because video game violence isn't real.

It's ok to be like Hitler on a Video game, because video game violence isn't real. Everything you do inside of a video game isn't real.

Not hard to understand.

Was there violence in Logan Paul's video?

 

[ImaRobot]

Yes because it's on a video game, no violence has happened because video game violence isn't real.

It's ok to be like Hitler on a Video game, because video game violence isn't real. Everything you do inside of a video game isn't real.

Not hard to understand.

Honestly In my opinion it’s more about the intent and message that this video is portraying rather than what is actually depicted in the video.

So if you happened to read both of these in text, from two different books. One From Logan Paul stumbling upon a body and the other written by Shirrako detailing acts against feminist, I’m wondering if the opinions would still be the same. I myself see more issue with the message than the actual video.

 

[mustafur]

Honestly In my opinion it’s more about the intent and message that this video is portraying rather than what is actually depicted in the video.

So if you happened to read both of these in text, from two different books. One From Logan Paul stumbling upon a body and the other written by Shirrako detailing acts against feminist, I’m wondering if the opinions would still be the same. I myself see more issue with the message than the actual video.

But how do you work out the intent from being serious to a joke, when it isn't real violence?

 

[ryzno]

is this not promoting violence??

He's definitely promoting violence. Especially with the very negative titles that he gave the videos.

It is a game based on killing people...
The game itself promotes violence...
How do you even get the idea he is telling people, Hey do this in real life!!
This is as stupid as everyone who said Trump is the reason some idiot decided to mail useless bombs. He might have idolized him. What about people "in love" with celebrities and threatening their families?
Some people are delusional, maybe we need to bring back insane asylums?

 

[mustafur]

Was there violence in Logan Paul's video?

Apart from the violence used for said person to die(in real life might I add) No.

 

[Northstar]

Apart from the violence used for said person to die(in real life might I add) No.

So it didn't show the actual death?

 

[mustafur]

You mean besides the title and overall presentation?

Killing Minorities, Muslims, Gays, etc is ok under the title Cleaning the Streets?

But killing Feminists isn't because the title says feminists?

Do you not see the problem?

So it didn't show the actual death?

No, I didn't say any violence was used in said film, but I didn't exactly say there ever was so whats your point?

 

[mustafur]

delete.

 

[ImaRobot]

But how do you work out the intent from being serious to a joke, when it isn't real violence?

I don’t know, how did you? Is it only when something is violent that the intent/message is honest?

 

[mustafur]

I don’t know, how did you?

Because going by what he has done in the rest of his channel it makes the most sense.

 

[Northstar]

Killing Minorities, Muslims, Gays, etc is ok under the title Cleaning the Streets?

But killing Feminists isn't because the title says feminists?

Do you not see the problem?

Yes, the title matters because someone is far less likely to see "cleaning the streets" and think of killing people compared to "feeding annoying feminist to an alligator".

No, I didn't say any violence was used in said film, but I didn't exactly say there ever was so whats your point?

The line of discussion you started was originally a comparison between Shirrako's video and Logan Paul's. When questioned you brought up the violence factor, I apologize if you weren't using Paul's video in comparison anymore.

Kill a feminist in a video game for a joke - Banned.
Film a dead body hanging in a suicide forest for views and money - YouTube Red Original movie

NPC Lives Matter

Edit: He got unbanned

Yes because it's on a video game, no violence has happened because video game violence isn't real.

It's ok to be like Hitler on a Video game, because video game violence isn't real. Everything you do inside of a video game isn't real.

Not hard to understand.

 

[ImaRobot]

Because going by what he has done in the rest of his channel it makes the most sense.

I don’t follow his videos or channel. I was just going off the multiple videos he uploaded about this. He’s made more videos about this subject before?

Whatever the case The viewpoint about how one gets away with it and one doesn’t is pretty moot at this point seeing how both parties in the discussion are both still up posting videos. So at this point, both are making money of questionable morals it seems.

As a side note, I’m wondering why you’ve ignored all of my questions. I was simply wondering if Real violence being involved is the only way to tell if something is honest and if written out instead of being displayed on video, what message would sound worse.

 

[mustafur]

Yes, the title matters because someone is far less likely to see "cleaning the streets" and think of killing people compared to "feeding annoying feminist to an alligator".

People as in you?

The title comes off as more sinister especially after watching what is in said video.

The line of discussion you started was originally a comparison between Shirrako's video and Logan Paul's. When questioned you brought up the violence factor, I apologize if you weren't using Paul's video in comparison anymore.

That is your interpretation, i know what violence means and filming it isn't violence, it was a comparison of content youtube deemed(atleast at the time) more acceptable then another I compared to.

 

[mustafur]

I don’t follow his videos or channel. I was just going off the multiple videos he uploaded about this. He’s made more videos about this subject before?

That is the point though isn't it, we judge based on what we know not on what information is available, if he was proven to be a woman basher in real life then yes it would be more sinsister and I guess we would understand intent, but video game actions shouldn't be treated anything like real ones because they are not as such.

Whatever the case The viewpoint about how one gets away with it and one doesn’t is pretty moot at this point seeing how both parties in the discussion are both still up posting videos. So at this point, both are making money of questionable morals it seems.

Pretty much.

 

[ImaRobot]

That is the point though isn't it, we judge based on what we know not on what information is available, if he was proven to be a woman basher in real life then yes it would be more sinsister and I guess we would understand intent, but video game actions shouldn't be treated anything like real ones because they are not as such

That’s very true, but it’s not like we’re talking about one specific video/instance here. However, we don’t know him in real life, all we can do is go off how he portrays himself to the Internet.

So if someone makes multiple racist comments about specific groups in a video game video, that makes it ok, only as long as he’s been comical/less sinister about it in the past? I would imagine that regardless of what the video is showing, the multiple remarks about how he’s perceived something in a game would still be just as bad.

 

[TexRex]

This is as stupid as everyone who said Trump is the reason some idiot decided to mail useless bombs.

I mean...he was bound to be brought up at some point. Frankly, I'm a little surprised it didn't happen sooner.



Glossing over the apparent thrust of the quoted assertion, I'm compelled to note that a fake bomb is most definitely not useless. It may not have the raw, destructive power, but it has power that it shares with its genuine-article counterpart--terror. They simply managed to generate said terror without the added complication of producing actual explosive devices.

Those "useless" bombs had people questioning their decision to speak out against and generally oppose an individual whose words and actions give them cause to do so. The right to protest, so long as it's done appropriately, is one of the things that has consistently made this country a better place--there have even been protests that shook the foundation of the country and paved its path forward--and the response to protest has, at times, been despicable; that response has come from the government and from lone actors alike.

What's more, it's rather terrifying that those devices, destructive as they may not have been, managed to arrive at their intended destinations. What's to say their more destructive counterparts could not have been?

 

[Northstar]

People as in you?

No, it's called using critical thinking to put myself in other people's shoes.

The title comes off as more sinister especially after watching what is in said video.

Of course it comes off as more sinister after watching the video, but if you just see both videos show up on a search result, one looks far worse than the other and it's not the one you posted.

That is your interpretation,

Yes, I know, hence why I apologized if I interpreted it wrong.

Anyways, it's late and this topic will likely be dead by the morning here, so peace out!

 

[samurai8juice]

Hang on a minute. Which one is it? Slippery slope, or clear line being drawn between different types of content? It can't be both.

I thought I was saying the same thing? That it was a slippery slope because they weren't drawing a clear line?

They're masking taking something down because of political reasons with violence, yet they leave up more violent videos with no politics.

They just take things down which they don't like. Okay, likewise, rather than replacing a feminist with a random NPC, replace the feminist with a lawman (or a soldier), and make the same exact videos. Will it get taken down? Not so sure. Anyway, if the ban has been lifted, than what's the fuss over, like Northstar said.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not the one that brought it up, so I'm not sure why you're asking me.



It apparently makes it worse!



Damn search bar!

I don't understand the connection with that link? Am I calling for someone to be banished or prevented from speaking? At any point did I say the cartoon was somehow the same as real life?

 

[eran0004]

Just because you can kill anything in a game doesn’t mean that it’s an okay behaviour. You still need to follow YouTube’s terms if you want to upload your videos there.

Yes because it's on a video game, no violence has happened because video game violence isn't real.

It's ok to be like Hitler on a Video game, because video game violence isn't real. Everything you do inside of a video game isn't real.

Not hard to understand.

It doesn’t have to be real in order to promote violence against a group of people. The issue isn’t that an NPC got hurt, the issue is the message it sends to the audience.