YouTube shut down channel because of Read Dead video that shows murder of feminist

Skarjo wrote:

Minty14 wrote:Can we stop pretending that this strawberry float nugget doesn't have a specific agenda/ideology which he is using the popularity of this game to push.

I mean in fairness I don't think anyone is pretending that.

Though when his video is being compared to repeatedly. murdering Trevor in GTA V or the adoring fan in Oblivion, I feel there is some misunderstanding there.

The video is a man constantly harassing a woman for being a feminist (and as I think I said before, let's not forget that she's not a feminist at all by today's standards, she's a suffragette), so he tortures and kills her in amusing ways, whilst spouting off a lot of jokes at her expense. Whether these are tongue in cheek or not, the jokes are pretty much fuelled by hate and are typical of sexist behaviour by men against women. There's a history in our society of women being supressed and abused by men. Of men preventing women from various freedoms and walks of life. As I said before, the women in the video isn't really a feminist, as I don't think anyone today finds the idea of women having the vote to be a particularly feminist ideal.

If you can't see the difference between that and killing the same Canadian or adoring fan over and over again, I'm not sure if you do understand.

As far as I'm aware, in Western society, there hasn't been widespread, systematic supression of Canadians by the patriarchy, nor have they been particularly unkind to blonde, chubby elves. Though I bet they would if they could.

That's why pushing the adoring fan off a mountain or driving Trevor into the path of a truck doesn't really have any context, but feeding a suffragette to a crocodile whilst saying how much you hate feminists or taking a black man to the KKK is absolutely loaded with it.

The Trevor/Canadian thing was really more a dig at Rightey, than an actual comparison. There's obviously no real equivalence between the two.

I just have misread, as I thought it was Rightey making that argument. I did wonder if it had all finally become too much for him living in the cold white north.

But seriously I hate that adoring fan

By Azura, by Azura, by Azura!

TBF I just shot her in the face

Parksey wrote:I just have misread, as I thought it was Rightey making that argument. I did wonder if it had all finally become too much for him living in the cold white north.

You clearly misread my post as well because I never said that killing the adoring fan is the same thing as this, I asked what do people think about it as it's the only other time I can really remember people making tons of videos that depict this sort of behaviour.

I fully agree that this guy is a dick, but the question is whether it's actually harassment/hate speech or just someone being a dick, and as it doesn't actually incite people to act, and doesn't target a specific person I'd say it's the later. Now if this guy was making these videos and sending them to someone and saying "this is what I'm going to do to you", then that is harassment, but again from what I know, that wasn't the case he was just making these stupid videos and posting them online.

So according to wikipedia, hate speech in the UK at least is defined as;

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.


(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.


(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[9]

"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

He could maybe be done under part 1b there, but it sounds like someone would have to file charges against him first and even then the definition of 'person' there could be read to mean a specific person rather than a group. It's also maybe offset by the final paragraph.

Do we have any law bods on here?

I found this NPC in Saint Denis last night, she was quite annoying to be fair. Didn't kill her though, too much heat around.

Rightey wrote:

Parksey wrote:I just have misread, as I thought it was Rightey making that argument. I did wonder if it had all finally become too much for him living in the cold white north.

You clearly misread my post as well because I never said that killing the adoring fan is the same thing as this, I asked what do people think about it as it's the only other time I can really remember people making tons of videos that depict this sort of behaviour.

I fully agree that this guy is a dick, but the question is whether it's actually harassment/hate speech or just someone being a dick, and as it doesn't actually incite people to act, and doesn't target a specific person I'd say it's the later. Now if this guy was making these videos and sending them to someone and saying "this is what I'm going to do to you", then that is harassment, but again from what I know, that wasn't the case he was just making these stupid videos and posting them online.

Would you not consider a series of videos, for example, attacking a Jewish character in game, titled things like "beating up a greedy Jew", to be targeted harassment, just because it's not dedicated to a specific individual?

My gut reaction would be yes, I guess it would be, which means to be logically consistent so should attacking the feminist, but then if we're being consistent, that would also mean that any video specifically about a member of any group, including killing Trevor would also be targeted harassment, which to me really doesn't seem right. But again, if we're being consistent, then it's either all harassment or none of it is.

I know Parksey said it has to do with history, but that's a pretty bad way to define it as it would mean it's perfectly fine to harass you as long as you weren't harassed historically. For example if a person made a bunch of videos titled "100 ways to punch a Yazidi person", would that not be harassment because these people weren't systemically oppressed in the western world?

I just don't understand this logical jump between killing Trevor in GTA and deliberately targeting women and killing them in various ways in RDR.

What's actually similar about them when you break them down? I went through this before, but it's also a very specific target they have chosen - not female NPCs but feminists. These exist in our world and Trevor doesnt. Feminism is an ongoing social struggle between various aspects of society, Trevor isn't. The video is violence directed against feminism, killing Trevor in GTA is not some sort of agenda against Trevors. As I mentioned before, women have been oppressed, abused and restricted by men and society in general, yet I've yet to see a systematic campaign against Trevors.

If you want to take things deeper, then there's also player agency. I would say that there's something subliminally different about killing your player character than there is about torturing a helpless NPC. There's also about the avatar the player has representing them. Again, this is maybe a little deeper, but Trevor is a Caucasian western male. Hardly a historically repressed group. Like it not, that's just different from deliberately targeting women or black people in a game. It's the way the world is. It's the society we live in and the history we created.

There's no "consistency" in what you claim when you say logic must dictate that killing Trevor is the same. It's a really weird leap of logic.

As is what you said about harassment being limited to just those who have been harassed in a historical content. No-one said that. It's some strange "whataboutery" going on. Whether you were historically harassed as a social group in the western world isn't what you use to determine harrassment, it's something that frames harrassment. It's why such tensions still exist in the world, and why, perhaps, a women viewing the RDR killing videos would view it different to how, say, someone called Trevor would view a video of you killing Trevor in GTA. It's why it's probably easy for you to say "he's being a dick" but if you've been on the receiving end of discriminatory behaviour then you're going to have a different take on it. For what it's worth, you can be both a dick AND discriminatory.

I find it weird you're taking omissions and spinning them out - "there's a historical content for this kind of harassment that is still prevalent today" doesn't mean "all harrassment must have that historical basis".

Saying "a white person tying a black person up and taking him to the KKK" has a historical context that you'd have to be wilfully ignorant to ignore, doesn't mean that you're saying it's perfectly fine to harrass others.

I was saying nothing of situations without historical context. I was explaining how these two videos the guy made - the torture of the feminist and delivering the black guy to the KKK - were absolutely wrapped up in it.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you seem set on trying to downgrade certain levels of harrassment or quantify them against other menial examples.

And also, rules and social norms aren't consistent, as the society that created them isn't consistent too. Things don't always match up or have equivalent examples that fit perfectly across all cases.

To be honest, I sort of just flat out struggle to understand you jumps of logic between certain things, or your attempts to qualify this against other examples. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

Parksey wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Minty14 wrote:Can we stop pretending that this strawberry float nugget doesn't have a specific agenda/ideology which he is using the popularity of this game to push.

I mean in fairness I don't think anyone is pretending that.

Though when his video is being compared to repeatedly. murdering Trevor in GTA V or the adoring fan in Oblivion, I feel there is some misunderstanding there.

The video is a man constantly harassing a woman for being a feminist (and as I think I said before, let's not forget that she's not a feminist at all by today's standards, she's a suffragette), so he tortures and kills her in amusing ways, whilst spouting off a lot of jokes at her expense. Whether these are tongue in cheek or not, the jokes are pretty much fuelled by hate and are typical of sexist behaviour by men against women. There's a history in our society of women being supressed and abused by men. Of men preventing women from various freedoms and walks of life. As I said before, the women in the video isn't really a feminist, as I don't think anyone today finds the idea of women having the vote to be a particularly feminist ideal.

If you can't see the difference between that and killing the same Canadian or adoring fan over and over again, I'm not sure if you do understand.

As far as I'm aware, in Western society, there hasn't been widespread, systematic supression of Canadians by the patriarchy, nor have they been particularly unkind to blonde, chubby elves. Though I bet they would if they could.

That's why pushing the adoring fan off a mountain or driving Trevor into the path of a truck doesn't really have any context, but feeding a suffragette to a crocodile whilst saying how much you hate feminists or taking a black man to the KKK is absolutely loaded with it.

I think I must have been unclear because I agree with you entirely.

I meant that I didn't think anyone was treating this as though it wasn't evidence of the bellend having toxic social views, but you're right, people making references to Trevor and The Adoring Fan would suggest that some people are misunderstanding the point.

Rightey wrote:My gut reaction would be yes, I guess it would be, which means to be logically consistent so should attacking the feminist, but then if we're being consistent, that would also mean that any video specifically about a member of any group, including killing Trevor would also be targeted harassment, which to me really doesn't seem right. But again, if we're being consistent, then it's either all harassment or none of it is.

I know Parksey said it has to do with history, but that's a pretty bad way to define it as it would mean it's perfectly fine to harass you as long as you weren't harassed historically. For example if a person made a bunch of videos titled "100 ways to punch a Yazidi person", would that not be harassment because these people weren't systemically oppressed in the western world?

But this makes no sense, and seems to be a wilful misunderstanding.

Trevor is not presented in game as an 'idiot Canadian', nor is his Canadian heritage relevant to the character, nor are 'idiot Canadians' a group who face social problems. The adoring fan has no real world relevance, nor is he referencing any real-world group.

This character *is* ostensibly a feminist. She has been specifically drawn, acted, scripted and voiced to represent what a feminist looked like in those days. Targeting harassment against that character has specific relevance to the group she is representing, in a way that Trevor, not being a stand-in for Canadians, doesn't.