Shirrako got banned on YouTube for a RDR2 gameplay video

[baldgye]

Where does it lead?

Don't worry, we have our answers!

 

[zzz_pt]

I like Rockstar games, not because I think they promote violence, or the players who play their games are violent / promote violence. I like to play thir games because the option to be violent (in the game) is there but I have the option to do otherwise.

If Rockstar starts to make games where you can't kill certain people because they're feminists/women/black/asian/latino, etc. I won't buy the game. Not because I want to kill them, but because I want the option to be there. That's what makes their games great.

They already took the option to kill children, despite the fact the game being rated for adults (I guess streaming would be tough because a large % of people watching YT or Twitch are not adults). In RDR2 I've only seen 2 kids. One of them disappeared after a certain quest. But I would prefer to see the world populated with families, children, mothers and fathers going around their buisness with their children, etc. And I would prefer to have the option to kill them but get a huge penalty for it. I wouldn't do it, but it would bring more to the game and make it better IMO.

But on the other hand, I know R* has to make some compromises and I'm OK with the line being drawn with children.

I watched the original video by Shirrako and I actually found it funny. It was very short and I didn't care about the title. Am I the only one who thought, at least once, that the character was being annoying after 3 minutes at the tailor trying to choose a new outfit? I can understand why some people would kill or punch the woman just to shop in peace, independently of her being feminist or not. If it was some other character shouting a repetitive 3 word sentence I'd think the same. I didn't touch her though. But I did find her annoying when I used to go to the tailor (i bought everything I wanted so I don't have to go back there ^^).

 

[Grandea GTR]

"Beating Up Chinese Man"

"Deporting A Mexican"

If this doesn't scream clickbait to you guys, I don't know what does then.

Either way, this topic is a complete mess, and to put further evidence with it, I present you this:

Spoiler: image

Not only is some random "rise up gamers" thing sparking up, but Keemstar got in on this!

 

[MatskiMonk]

If this doesn't scream clickbait to you guys, I don't know what does then.

"Beating Up Chinese Man"

"Deporting A Mexican"

You won't believe what happened when I beat up a Chinese Man

People in your area are earning $17,000 per day using this one easy to trick to deport Mexicans.

 

[eran0004]

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.

So by not watching videos like this you get some kind of warranty that makes you immune to any acts of real life violence, discrimination or oppressive legislation caused by people whose negative attitudes towards a specific group of people are encouraged and reinforced by messages like the one in the video and its comment section?

You seem to believe that the issue is that people might be offended by the video, but that’s not the issue at all. It’s much more problematic than that, and that’s also the whole reason why there are community codes of conduct in the first place.

 

[Auditore]

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.

Oh youtube already does that,there isn't a conspiracy about political correctness on that site.

I like Rockstar games, not because I think they promote violence, or the players who play their games are violent / promote violence. I like to play thir games because the option to be violent (in the game) is there but I have the option to do otherwise.

If Rockstar starts to make games where you can't kill certain people because they're feminists/women/black/asian/latino, etc. I won't buy the game. Not because I want to kill them, but because I want the option to be there. That's what makes their games great.

They already took the option to kill children, despite the fact the game being rated for adults (I guess streaming would be tough because a large % of people watching YT or Twitch are not adults). In RDR2 I've only seen 2 kids. One of them disappeared after a certain quest. But I would prefer to see the world populated with families, children, mothers and fathers going around their buisness with their children, etc. And I would prefer to have the option to kill them but get a huge penalty for it. I wouldn't do it, but it would bring more to the game and make it better IMO.

But on the other hand, I know R* has to make some compromises and I'm OK with the line being drawn with children.

I watched the original video by Shirrako and I actually found it funny. It was very short and I didn't care about the title. Am I the only one who thought, at least once, that the character was being annoying after 3 minutes at the tailor trying to choose a new outfit? I can understand why some people would kill or punch the woman just to shop in peace, independently of her being feminist or not. If it was some other character shouting a repetitive 3 word sentence I'd think the same. I didn't touch her though. But I did find her annoying when I used to go to the tailor (i bought everything I wanted so I don't have to go back there ^^).

The game is as open ended as it could be,it allows you to kill feminists but the game will punish you for it.The only people in the game that you can kill without getting a wanted level or negative honor is the KKK and racists you find in towns.Rockstar ain't gonna change,this ain't their fault.

If it was some other character shouting a repetitive 3 word sentence I'd think the same. I didn't touch her though. But I did find her annoying when I used to go to the tailor (i bought everything I wanted so I don't have to go back there ^^).

The problem is that he didn't stop there,he made lots of videos with inflamatory titles all about "the annoying feminist" and when he came back after being banned he doubled down in the worst way possible making videos about deporting mexicans and hitting a chinese man,he's trying to appeal to a certain kind of person.

 

[Johnnypenso]

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?"

The slippery slope might be that some videos get treated differently than others with similar or identical content because they are somehow related to particular social causes.

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.

Who here is advocating violence against women or feminists? We can have a discussion about the principles surrounding the idea of this ban without supporting the content. Don't conflate the two.

 

[TexRex]

The slippery slope might be that some videos get treated differently than others with similar or identical content because they are somehow related to particular social causes.

Uh-huh...it's still YouTube's right to restrict views of any content they choose and in any manner they choose to do so, be it by implementing restrictions based on age, location* or whether users have paid into their service, by removing specific content from the platform or by removing content producers and their content from the platform. There really is no slope, slippery or otherwise.

The sooner people understand this the better, really, and I kind of thought you'd be counted among those who understand it based on similar comments you've made regarding other matters.

*Edit to add.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Uh-huh...it's still YouTube's right to restrict views of any content they choose and in any manner they choose to do so, be it by implementing restrictions based on age, location* or whether users have paid into their service, by removing specific content from the platform or by removing content producers and their content from the platform. There really is no slope, slippery or otherwise.

The sooner people understand this the better, really, and I kind of thought you'd be counted among those who understand it based on similar comments you've made regarding other matters.

*Edit to add.

I didn't say anything about whether YT has a right to do it or not. Strawman.

 

[GT6mebe]

I feel like both sides are missing each others point.

Yes, someone should not have their channel deleted after playing a videogame unless said videogame breaks youtube's policy (which for videogames seems to be nudity/sex). Killing NPCs in a videogame is not an entire reflection of one's character. The framing that a feminist is somehow exempt while every other NPC is up for murder is simply a projection of one's agenda. Shirrako was right to get his channel back. You can play these games however you want.

Also a bunch of you are being disingenuous claiming he's targeting the feminist character when his channel is full of RDR2 NPC shocking moments. Its clearly done for views.

However, and this is where the other side gets it wrong, these videos attract a certain audience. I hope Shirrako sees this.
We all know this audience. We see them in comments. The shut ins, socially reprehensible, morally corrupt, against women and most progressive thoughts and enjoy to act simply for shock value.

Being associated with them and catering to them is not a good look and can certainly be a reflection of ones character. I hope @Shirrako does not get in with these people, and notices how some of his community has changed as soon as this incident happened.

 

[zzz_pt]

Oh youtube already does that,there isn't a conspiracy about political correctness on that site.



The game is as open ended as it could be,it allows you to kill feminists but the game will punish you for it.The only people in the game that you can kill without getting a wanted level or negative honor is the KKK and racists you find in towns.Rockstar ain't gonna change,this ain't their fault.



The problem is that he didn't stop there,he made lots of videos with inflamatory titles all about "the annoying feminist" and when he came back after being banned he doubled down in the worst way possible making videos about deporting mexicans and hitting a chinese man,he's trying to appeal to a certain kind of person.

I didn't make a judgement call on his videos. Just on the one that made the news and I did find it funny because of my own experience in the game. I checked 2 of his other videos posted here and I don't find them entertaining. But I don't think they're promoting violence either.

Also, I know the game punished you for it. And punishes you for killing at least the KKK leader too. I did that yesterday (killed the guy in black and got a "-" on my honor, after antagonizing him and getting a "+" moments before).

 

[TexRex]

I didn't say anything about whether YT has a right to do it or not. Strawman.

I didn't say you said anything about whether YT has a right to do it or not. Strawman.

You're indicating the presence of a slippery slope regarding the removal of content by an entity that has the right to do so without being compelled to provide any justification whatsoever for that action. That right absent of expectations disagrees with the assertion that there's a slippery slope.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I didn't say you said anything about whether YT has a right to do it or not. Strawman.

You're indicating the presence of a slippery slope regarding the removal of content by an entity that has the right to do so without being compelled to provide any justification whatsoever for that action. That right absent of expectations disagrees with the assertion that there's a slippery slope.

Uh huh.

Uh-huh...it's still YouTube's right to restrict views of any content they choose and in any manner they choose to do so, be it by implementing restrictions based on age, location* or whether users have paid into their service, by removing specific content from the platform or by removing content producers and their content from the platform. There really is no slope, slippery or otherwise.

The sooner people understand this the better, really, and I kind of thought you'd be counted among those who understand it based on similar comments you've made regarding other matters.

*Edit to add.

 

[TexRex]

Uh huh.

So you now acknowledge that I didn't say you said something you didn't say, and thereby withdraw the previous accusation? Great.

 

[ImaRobot]

Yes, someone should not have their channel deleted after playing a videogame unless said videogame breaks youtube's policy (which for videogames seems to be nudity/sex). Killing NPCs in a videogame is not an entire reflection of one's character. The framing that a feminist is somehow exempt while every other NPC is up for murder is simply a projection of one's agenda. Shirrako was right to get his channel back. You can play these games however you want.

The policy goes farther than just Nudity/sex. Way farther. I fell you're just using that to push a point really.

We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view, but we don't permit hate speech.

Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:

• race or ethnic origin
• religion
• disability
• gender
• age
• veteran status
• sexual orientation/gender identity

There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered to be hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but if the primary purpose of the content is to incite hatred against a group of people solely based on their ethnicity, or if the content promotes violence based on any of these core attributes, like religion, it violates our policy.

If anything, it can be seen as a hate message in my opinion. If that's his intent or not, who knows really? We can pretend that he was oblivious to the fact, but really, doing it for multiple more videos and then redoing it as soon as he's unbanned leads me to believe that's not really the truth.

No one is saying that only the Feminist is exempt, did you read the thread? The discussion is about specifically mentioning and going after an individual demographic. No matter what specific demographic he chooses, I still wouldn't think it was in good taste and that a ban would be rightfully deserved. He is the only one responsible for his actions, he wanted a reaction and he got it. That's not to say I'm offended by the video, I just believe you get what you deserve.

Also a bunch of you are being disingenuous claiming he's targeting the feminist character when his channel is full of RDR2 NPC shocking moments. Its clearly done for views.

He is, the video is targeted specifically to the Feminist. Just like his other videos after he was unbanned specifically target a Mexican and Chinese man with the exact same intent. To act like it wasn't about the Feminists, when the video shows that, and is even titled as such, is kind of odd. Yeah you're right, it is done for views, no one has denied that. It was intentionally edgy to get more money and views, but that doesn't change anything of whats being said.

This video is about Feminists, another about a Mexican man, and the other a Chinese man. It's specifically about those. His others are just walkthrough's, but that doesn't change what these videos are intentionally aimed at.

However, and this is where the other side gets it wrong, these videos attract a certain audience. I hope Shirrako sees this.
We all know this audience. We see them in comments. The shut ins, socially reprehensible, morally corrupt, against women and most progressive thoughts and enjoy to act simply for shock value.

Being associated with them and catering to them is not a good look and can certainly be a reflection of ones character. I hope Shirrako does not get in with these people, and notices how some of his community has changed as soon as this incident happened.

Agreed 👍

 

[Joey D]

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.

I still don't agree that the poster or creator of media should be held responsible. It still comes down to the personal decision of the person doing the violent act to actually act on it. It's up to you to separate entertainment for reality too. If you can't, the issue runs deeper and should be addressed by the person or at least pushed toward addressing it from someone close to them.

It's also up to private sites to police the content they allow. I agree with YouTube taking the video down since it violated its rules. It took responsibility for what its site had and did something about it. If the poster made their own website to host content, then the ISP or web host could easily take it down if they didn't agree with it. There are several levels of responsibility that are at play.

So by not watching videos like this you get some kind of warranty that makes you immune to any acts of real life violence, discrimination or oppressive legislation caused by people whose negative attitudes towards a specific group of people are encouraged and reinforced by messages like the one in the video and its comment section?

You seem to believe that the issue is that people might be offended by the video, but that’s not the issue at all. It’s much more problematic than that, and that’s also the whole reason why there are community codes of conduct in the first place.

I'm honestly not sure what your point is since I said nothing about immunity. All I said is that it's up to you to choose whether or not to watch the media and it's also up to you whether or not you should act a certain way. Your actions are your own and no one else's.

I'm also not really sure what else there is besides being offended? No one was hurt in the process. I'm curious what you think the bigger issue is. If it's in regards that people might act on it, it goes back to responsibility for yourself and your actions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So you now acknowledge that I didn't say you said something you didn't say, and thereby withdraw the previous accusation? Great.

Uh huh.

 

[TTM]

This Streisand effect gon be gud

 

[wvmgmidget]

I don't think the ability to kill any NPC is wrong or posting the initial video was that bad. Spamminga bunch of similar clickbait videos that goes against a company's policy in an attempt to profit off of said company and complaining that it's a violation of free speech (he's not expressing a legitimate political opinion) to be banned however, is not okay.

With that said, I do believe social media platforms need to do a better job at enforcing their rules across the entire political spectrum.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This Streisand effect gon be gud

What is the Streisand effect? FYI this site doesn't condone the use of textspeak. It's in the AUP.

 

[TTM]

What is the Streisand effect? FYI this site doesn't condone the use of textspeak. It's in the AUP.

https://www.reputationdefender.com/blog/orm/streisand-effect
Here you are.

 

[novcze]

This Streisand effect gon be gud

+6000 subscribers since my last post in this thread

I honestly don't know what people who are doing this superficial outrage think they will achieve ...

 

[CinnamonOD]

What is the Streisand effect?

If you try to censor something off the internet and it actually backfires, making it spread faster that what initially was, streisand effect happens

Like when Beyoncé tried to get this pic off the internet

 

[TTM]

+6000 subscribers since my last post in this thread

I honestly don't know what people who are doing this superficial outrage think they will achieve ...

Congratulations on the subscriber boost!
Hey @Shirrako , a Facebook group I’m on shared an article that featured this madness. Never thought I’d see a GTPLANET member gain popularity on that group. They love you. Anything you wish to say to your new fans, man?

 

[Carbonox]

That’s not what was said. He didn’t say Jordan is promoting it, but more so Wondering why it’s allowing it to be promoted.

Perhaps you and @G.T.Ace (and all the people liking his post) should consider waiting for @Jordan to actually state an opinion on the youtuber first before jumping to ludicrous conclusions.

 

[TTM]

I see the thought police have make their unwelcome entrance here.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Perhaps you and @G.T.Ace (and all the people liking his post) should consider waiting for @Jordan to actually state an opinion on the youtuber first before jumping to ludicrous conclusions.

Which conclusions and what does it have to do with my initial post?

I see the thought police have make their unwelcome entrance here.

Really, that's where you're going now?

 

[Carbonox]

Which conclusions and what does it have to do with my initial post?


Really, that's where you're going now?

This is a conclusion, which has a lot to do with your initial post considering it's contained within that:

You disgust me and that so many here in this community back that filth you spread gives me a bad feeling about this place.
Would like to know if and why @Jordan tolerates you promoting your channel here.

 

[TTM]

Really, that's where you're going now?

Where’s the lie, though?
Also you just oofed, my man. Carbonox just straight up proved it up with facts.

 

[ImaRobot]

Perhaps you and @G.T.Ace (and all the people liking his post) should consider waiting for @Jordan to actually state an opinion on the youtuber first before jumping to ludicrous conclusions.

Why should I? I didn't mention anything, I elaborated the point that was misunderstood. Perhaps you should apply the comment to the correct people.