Shirrako got banned on YouTube for a RDR2 gameplay video

[ImaRobot]

Yes, I'd say they could do whatever they want. Saying, writing, or playing a game that does something violent isn't violent nor it is an issue. No one is getting hurt. If someone acts on it, then it's a different issue. If they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, that's also an issue. If you don't like that sort of content, it's pretty easy to avoid it. Pretty much all forms of media now have some sort of warning or description on them, it's up to the individual to get informed on what the media is about before watching, reading, or playing it.

Bottom line is, it goes back to people taking responsibility for themselves. If you don't want to watch digital feminists get beat up, then don't watch it. If you do, more power to you.

While true, the discussion seem to start about if it was correct to ban him or not since there are worse videos out there. Very much like you said, it's just someone having to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

It was so easy for me to avoid to the point that I didn't even know it was a thing until it was posted here. This being the place it is, I'm much more comfortable expressing my opinion on it and confronting it, because I know the people here are much more open than any of the social media outlets that you'll find it at.

 

[Joey D]

While true, the discussion seem to start about if it was correct to ban him or not since there are worse videos out there. Very much like you said, it's just someone having to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

It was so easy for me to avoid to the point that I didn't even know it was a thing until it was posted here. This being the place it is, I'm much more comfortable expressing my opinion on it and confronting it, because I know the people here are much more open than any of the social media outlets that you'll find it at.

Oh, I agree, the discussion did start like that. Now, at least in my opinion, it's verging on the "please think of the children" idea that some people shout about violent games in general. I'm sure most of the people on GTP are gamers and know the trouble developers face when it comes to content that's violent, sexual, etc. The more talk that occurs about this, the greater the chance laws get passed that ban this sort of content altogether and that's not something I want. I mean, there are even posts that claim Rockstar is responsible for letting this happen in the game.

I'm not a fan of that kind of censorship and would prefer people to just self-censor.

Plus, I think I'd rather someone do violent things in a video game instead of going out and causing real harm to a real person. I believe there are even studies to suggest allowing people to take violent tendencies out in a virtual world make them less likely to do it in real life. I'm not sure how accurate these are, but I'd wager there's something to that.

As for the original point of the thread. I agree with YouTube banning the video/account. It is a private company and it can do as it wishes regardless if it's hypocritical or not. Also, given how Google is under fire for various things right now that are sexist and racist, I can see why they would want to pull videos like that, if only for PR purposes.

 

[Auditore]

So he uploaded a video about deporting a Mexican?What a great human being that Shirrako.....i can watch GT Sport content somewhere else this guy could be called "4chan Youtube Channel" and i wouldn't blink twice

 

[Snorevette]

Yes, I'd say they could do whatever they want. Saying, writing, or playing a game that does something violent isn't violent nor it is an issue. No one is getting hurt. If someone acts on it, then it's a different issue. If they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, that's also an issue. If you don't like that sort of content, it's pretty easy to avoid it. Pretty much all forms of media now have some sort of warning or description on them, it's up to the individual to get informed on what the media is about before watching, reading, or playing it.

Bottom line is, it goes back to people taking responsibility for themselves. If you don't want to watch digital feminists get beat up, then don't watch it. If you do, more power to you.

It's not all about personal responsibility though. Like you said, it's a different issue if someone actually acts on it; it doesn't matter how many 'epic feminist gets owned' or 'mexican gets deported just like trump lol' videos I righteously refuse to watch, there is always going to be the distinct possibility of someone acting on it. That's the problem with just saying 'don't watch it then' - it's not the content itself I care about, it's the message it sends to the audience as a whole.

Oh, I agree, the discussion did start like that. Now, at least in my opinion, it's verging on the "please think of the children" idea that some people shout about violent games in general. I'm sure most of the people on GTP are gamers and know the trouble developers face when it comes to content that's violent, sexual, etc. The more talk that occurs about this, the greater the chance laws get passed that ban this sort of content altogether and that's not something I want. I mean, there are even posts that claim Rockstar is responsible for letting this happen in the game.

I'm not a fan of that kind of censorship and would prefer people to just self-censor.

Plus, I think I'd rather someone do violent things in a video game instead of going out and causing real harm to a real person. I believe there are even studies to suggest allowing people to take violent tendencies out in a virtual world make them less likely to do it in real life. I'm not sure how accurate these are, but I'd wager there's something to that.

As for the original point of the thread. I agree with YouTube banning the video/account. It is a private company and it can do as it wishes regardless if it's hypocritical or not. Also, given how Google is under fire for various things right now that are sexist and racist, I can see why they would want to pull videos like that, if only for PR purposes.

I don't think it's necessarily about violence in videogames as much as it is violence towards a character who happens to exist in a videogame. Like I said, if someone made an animation based solely around beating up feminists and it got taken down from YouTube, I think we would be having a very similar discussion.

I should note that I'm not against the concept of going onto a videogame and beating up a character that the player finds irritating just in general, lord knows Nazeem should know this by now, though I do personally think you have to have a pretty dated worldview to think women's suffrage of all things is annoying (especially since, as far as I'm aware, Arthur goes on record as agreeing with the NPC in question).

 

[huskeR32]

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

You're pointing out the clear line yourself:

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.

How can you simultaneously warn us about a slippery slope, but then confidently declare that if it were any other issue besides feminism, they wouldn't take action?

I'm not sure you understand what "slippery slope" means.

 

[Lord Protector]

So he uploaded a video about deporting a Mexican?What a great human being that Shirrako.....i can watch GT Sport content somewhere else this guy could be called "4chan Youtube Channel" and i wouldn't blink twice

Can’t he just have fun and humour his audience? You actually judge him based on this? Lol

 

[baldgye]

Can’t he just have fun and humour his audience? You actually judge him based on this? Lol

Can't you just watch videos before you use them as the basis of an argument?

 

[Snorevette]

Can’t he just have fun and humour his audience? You actually judge him based on this? Lol

I mean... yes? Who knew that judging someone for their actions was such a horrible, unreasonable thing to do...

 

[Johnnypenso]

How can you simultaneously warn us about a slippery slope, but then confidently declare that if it were any other issue besides feminism, they wouldn't take action?

I'm not sure you understand what "slippery slope" means.

I'm guessing the slippery slope he's referring to would be YT taking down videos in aid of certain causes while ignoring others that are equally valid but not part of their "approved" take down list.

 

[TetsuKobura]

I'm guessing the slippery slope he's referring to would be YT taking down videos in aid of certain causes while ignoring others that are equally valid but not part of their "approved" take down list.

i.e. Logan Paul's many extremely ****** up "shenanigans."

 

[huskeR32]

I'm guessing the slippery slope he's referring to would be YT taking down videos in aid of certain causes while ignoring others that are equally valid but not part of their "approved" take down list.

If YouTube has "certain causes" they're trying to aid, then there's no slippery slope; there's simply a line drawn in the sand.

 

[Lord Protector]

Can't you just watch videos before you use them as the basis of an argument?

I used the thumbnail of the video. I never said anything about the content of the video. Read carefully, then accuse.

 

[ImaRobot]

Oh, I agree, the discussion did start like that. Now, at least in my opinion, it's verging on the "please think of the children" idea that some people shout about violent games in general. I'm sure most of the people on GTP are gamers and know the trouble developers face when it comes to content that's violent, sexual, etc. The more talk that occurs about this, the greater the chance laws get passed that ban this sort of content altogether and that's not something I want. I mean, there are even posts that claim Rockstar is responsible for letting this happen in the game.

I'm not a fan of that kind of censorship and would prefer people to just self-censor.

Plus, I think I'd rather someone do violent things in a video game instead of going out and causing real harm to a real person. I believe there are even studies to suggest allowing people to take violent tendencies out in a virtual world make them less likely to do it in real life. I'm not sure how accurate these are, but I'd wager there's something to that.

As for the original point of the thread. I agree with YouTube banning the video/account. It is a private company and it can do as it wishes regardless if it's hypocritical or not. Also, given how Google is under fire for various things right now that are sexist and racist, I can see why they would want to pull videos like that, if only for PR purposes.

Yeah, how some people here, and all over, can keep implying that blame should be placed on the developers because someone chose to use their product as an output for whatever they choose to do is a bit over the top. It would suck if this gained so much attention that there was new laws set in place, but that, in my opinion, wouldn't be just the fault of those complaining. I believe the user uploading the content in such a way would also be partly responsible for that movement, if it happened. Self-censorship should go both ways, but I'm willing to think that you probably already know that too.

That he got banned is fault but his own, and is very much warranted in my opinion. I'm not so bothered by the message but I just believe that, like you said, people are responsible for the things they do. That people want to pretend that he's not, for whatever reason and regardless of the backlash, is odd to me.

I used the thumbnail of the video. I never said anything about the content of the video. Read carefully, then accuse.

Which was completely wrong anyways. Look at carefully, and then accuse. If youre going to talk about a video, and what is within it, maybe you should actually look at the picture and watch it at the same time to make sure what you're saying even remotely lines up with what it's showing.

 

[Snorevette]

I used the thumbnail of the video. I never said anything about the content of the video. Read carefully, then accuse.

Even in the thumbnail you can see that several of the police officers aren't white...

 

[Johnnypenso]

If YouTube has "certain causes" they're trying to aid, then there's no slippery slope; there's simply a line drawn in the sand.

And it's a slippery slope for someone who only wants fair and equal treatment.

 

[Suzumiya]

Pooor Shirrako, won't anyone think of the white people? It's only a joke!

 

[Exorcet]

It wasn't just one video, but several, as shown above and the context is more important than the content.
And like mentoned, I wish YouTube would be more strict.

I don't really disagree on the context being important, but not having watched the original video I'm not seeing any malicious intent. I think enough evidence has come up to make an argument for the content being in bad taste, possibly very bad taste, but not inciting harm or violence.

On Youtube being more strict, I don't see the need, but as a private platform they can do what they want.

there is always going to be the distinct possibility of someone acting on it. That's the problem with just saying 'don't watch it then' - it's not the content itself I care about, it's the message it sends to the audience as a whole.

I feel like "the message" is up for interpretation and the viewer will contribute heavily to what the message ultimately is.

One of the things that sticks out to me for the videos in question is:

though I do personally think you have to have a pretty dated worldview to think women's suffrage of all things is annoying (especially since, as far as I'm aware, Arthur goes on record as agreeing with the NPC in question).

I don't really think many people would find woman's suffrage annoying. This makes the message, for me, more likely to be a joke than anything serious. If anything questionable was done, it was putting feminist in the title increase controversy and generate views.

To be clear I'm not saying that there is no room for malicious intent here, it's just that from what I've seen the motivations are ambiguous.

 

[Brend]

View attachment 778958

Pooor Shirrako, won't anyone think of the white people? It's only a joke!

I personally can’t wait for “White Man Gets Deported” - assuming that particular distinction is no different than the ones he felt the need to use for his other videos?

 

[Suzumiya]

I personally can’t wait for “White Man Gets Deported” - assuming that particular distinction is no different than the ones he felt the need to use for his other videos?

Oh man, you're going to kick him out just for his beliefs? Man, you're so messed up, he didn't do anything to you.

 

[baldgye]

I used the thumbnail of the video. I never said anything about the content of the video. Read carefully, then accuse.

Read carefully

Ok then;

There are thousands of videos like these on YT

I never watched the video.

So you're not actually trying to say that there are other similarly violent videos on YouTube (to the one(s) that got temp banned), you're actually just saying that there are thousands of videos on YouTube with thumbnails you can't properly see?

I used the thumbnail of the video.

This is a lie, you embedded the video.

 

[Snorevette]

I don't really disagree on the context being important, but not having watched the original video I'm not seeing any malicious intent. I think enough evidence has come up to make an argument for the content being in bad taste, possibly very bad taste, but not inciting harm or violence.

On Youtube being more strict, I don't see the need, but as a private platform they can do what they want.

That's fair - I personally think there was definitely a little bit of malicious intent in the original video but it's definitely possible that he was just goofing around... the trouble is, even if something lacks malicious intent, it doesn't mean it cannot have malicious effects. Just look at the comments on his video that @Suzumiya posted; he's either completely clueless or actively trying to appeal to that crowd if he's making these followup videos.

 

[ImaRobot]

I don't really disagree on the context being important, but not having watched the original video I'm not seeing any malicious intent. I think enough evidence has come up to make an argument for the content being in bad taste, possibly very bad taste, but not inciting harm or violence.

On Youtube being more strict, I don't see the need, but as a private platform they can do what they want.

The reasoning for the ban was odd in general, as lots of things on Youtube spread violence. Even videos of the game that don't have such intentions. I'd think it would be spreading more hate than violence. Much like his next few videos after getting unbanned, specifically mentioning races in the same manner lol.

you're actually just saying that there are thousands of videos on YouTube with thumbnails you can't properly see?

 

[Joey D]

It's not all about personal responsibility though. Like you said, it's a different issue if someone actually acts on it; it doesn't matter how many 'epic feminist gets owned' or 'mexican gets deported just like trump lol' videos I righteously refuse to watch, there is always going to be the distinct possibility of someone acting on it. That's the problem with just saying 'don't watch it then' - it's not the content itself I care about, it's the message it sends to the audience as a whole.

I'm not sure how it's not solely about personal responsibility. You're responsible for your own actions. If you use the video to convince yourself beating up a feminist is right, then that's on you - not the video. It's the same vein as people saying Grand Theft Auto or any other violent video game for that matter is responsible for violence in a given area. It just isn't. I get people are impressionable, but that's on them and no one else (and for minors, the responsibility of their parents and/or caregiver).

Do I like the content posted in the video? Nope, so I'm just going to choose not to watch it just like 99% of the garbage on YouTube.

 

[Grandea GTR]

Honestly, I think he deserved the ban.

Making a video clip of not only punching a feminist, but also killing the feminist in various ways (like taking her to alligators) in the game, as a means for view numbers, or just to spark out something is just absolutely foolish.

The way the video titles are laid out don't help either.

 

[Sage Ages]

All I got out of this was that some attention whore made a tasteless troll video and uploaded it on Youtube and then everyone started whining about "free speech" and "SJWs" when it got removed, regardless of the fact that YT is a privately owned company, and that the video in question was clearly made to piss people off. Is that correct?

Aside from the revelation that YT can control what content is allowed on it's platform (which is nothing new), why do we care about this again?

 

[Snorevette]

I'm not sure how it's not solely about personal responsibility. You're responsible for your own actions. If you use the video to convince yourself beating up a feminist is right, then that's on you - not the video. It's the same vein as people saying Grand Theft Auto or any other violent video game for that matter is responsible for violence in a given area. It just isn't. I get people are impressionable, but that's on them and no one else (and for minors, the responsibility of their parents and/or caregiver).

Do I like the content posted in the video? Nope, so I'm just going to choose not to watch it just like 99% of the garbage on YouTube.

Of course the individual should take the majority of the blame, but to claim that the individual should hold all responsibility is a bit of a farce. You said yourself that people are impressionable; I think if someone is publishing content for a large audience then they need to take that into account, and take at least SOME of the blame if that audience does something as a result of it.

In the case of minors, pushing the blame onto their caregiver(s) is just as dangerous; obviously minors shouldn't have access to whatever they want, but forcing caregivers to monitor whatever their child does online can lead to some pretty major trust issues. Obviously that's a whole different discussion to the one we're having right now, but it does tie into the importance of stronger regulations for sites like YouTube.

 

[TexRex]

I used the thumbnail of the video. I never said anything about the content of the video. Read carefully, then accuse.

I mean...you get that your previous comments are still on display (and can indeed be cited), right?

27M views and still up same for other xxxx videos like that. Tell me how is Shirrako’s video worse than this?

If you “didn’t say that” then you must have the same attitude to the video I linked.

Sure, you specified the thumbnail in at least one other post, but I do believe the two posts I've cited above straddle one of those instances, and in both you simply refer to it as a video with no indication that you have only used the thumbnail as a basis for your argument.

 

[Grandea GTR]

Why do I get the feeling that the general reaction over this is being well-overblown?

 

[huskeR32]

And it's a slippery slope for someone who only wants fair and equal treatment.

If the hypothesis is that other issues besides feminism would not get banned, then where's the slope? Where does it lead?

Does anybody here understand the phrase "slippery slope?"

 

[TS050]

Seeing the true colours of some of the people on this site is genuinely great to see!

He deserved the ban.

And I’m ashamed and embarrassed anyone can think this is all ok.