Fail Quotes

[Lord T Hawkeye]

"he had better methods of dealing with this guy than a DMCA"

How do you know that wasn't tried?

There's just not enough to go on right now and I'm not a fan of venturing into the land of supposition because you can really create any conclusion you want with a little thought.

As for the vid, yay for taking stuff out of context to smear.  I don't agree with censorship but I can't say I'd ever miss such content.

[AnCap Dave]

Oh they'll sneak that in.  Just watch.

They might, but we're not. That's why it's irrelevant to this particular conversation, and again, I'll point to that little quote I already posted previously about appealing to hypocrisy.

Like I said, I REALLY don't buy the idea that it was done to silence dissent.  The man has had that for decades now.  Why these vids?  Why now?  This whole thing just has "we're not getting the whole story" written all over it.  For all we know, the vids could have contained libel, threats or personal info of people.

Actually, we do know what the videos contained. They were excerpts of Stef's videos where the guy pointed out what he believed was Stef's hypocrisy or points where he believed that he bullied callers. They weren't videos direct harassment towards callers.  There was another channel that apparently was doing that in FreeDomainDamon, but TruShibe was not. Also, again, if harassment was the issue, youtube has a function for that. They didn't need to bring bullshit copyright law in for it, especially when Stef not only has gone on record against IP, but also states that all his video works and what not are free for the public to share.

And that's the other thing, it wasn't Stef himself, it was his employee.  We don't even know if Stef is even aware of the incident.  I mean, the idea that he just woke up one day and said "I think I'll start having my critics censored" just does not add up at all.

So as I said, it could have been an oversight. Well if that's the case, why not just come out and say it already so he can put this all behind him? The fact is, you have a guy representing his brand and doing something that is bringing negative publicity to it. He should address it if he doesn't want that to continue.

[Ibrahim90]

How do you know that wasn't tried?

I don't, but failure at them I don't think, justifies the DMCA'ing, which I'm sure you agree with (confirmed by what you said later). Though from what has been posted by the guy who did it, there's no implication of these measures being attempted (which would simply involve the YT function for it). Hey, if they can demonstrate that less drastic methods were used up, that's fine, and they've had a while now to do so. Even then though, the DMCA was not exactly the right thing to do.

EDIT: actually, wait: If the videos had been flagged, TruShibes would have been notified, and he would almost certainly have made a video on that, or had someone do it in vice of himself. Alternately a PM or a video by Molyneaux/his staff would also have elicited something. Why didn't he do so? did he do so and his vids were taken out? what?

There's just not enough to go on right now and I'm not a fan of venturing into the land of supposition because you can really create any conclusion you want with a little thought.

I agree, don't get me wrong: perhaps there may be clarification. But whatever the motives, the guy working for Molyneux did file a false DMCA on someone he didn't agree with, for a charge he was not guilty of. How do you think this looks to me?

As for the vid, yay for taking stuff out of context to smear.  I don't agree with censorship but I can't say I'd ever miss such content.

just for the record, I didn't post the video because I agree with it or not. I only posted it so people who didn't know here, will know what sort of videos the guy made.

[AnCap Dave]

I didn't post the video because I agree with it or not. I only posted it so people who didn't know here, will know what sort of videos the guy made.

Yeah, agreeing with the video is completely irrelevant.

The fact is, the guy didn't do what the guy who filed the DMCAs claimed he did.

[Ibrahim90]

wait, is truShibes a guy or a girl? I'm keeping an eye on the events, and I realize that some say the owner is a she, others a he.

doesn't matter one way or another, save when writing about they.

[MrBogosity]

Like I said, I REALLY don't buy the idea that it was done to silence dissent.  The man has had that for decades now.  Why these vids?  Why now?  This whole thing just has "we're not getting the whole story" written all over it.  For all we know, the vids could have contained libel, threats or personal info of people.

Even if that were true, that's NOT what a DMCA takedown is. They would have gotten the videos taken down as a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service. A DMCA is SOLELY a copyright claim.

And that's the other thing, it wasn't Stef himself, it was his employee.  We don't even know if Stef is even aware of the incident.  I mean, the idea that he just woke up one day and said "I think I'll start having my critics censored" just does not add up at all.

Possibly, but Stef is ultimately responsible for what his employees do when on the job.

[Travis Retriever]

https://plus.google.com/116593195967885611442/posts/9tRtxc5sGcF

*Is still waiting for someone to address what I posted here (not just the copyright/DMCA thing) publicly on this forum or at least on Google Plus...*

[ArtemisVale]

Can we all just agree that stef has gotten a little crazy lately?

[dallen68]

*Is still waiting for someone to address what I posted here (not just the copyright/DMCA thing) publicly on this forum or at least on Google Plus...*

Unfortunately, you maybe waiting a long time. I don't really follow Stef that closely (his videos are way to long), but what I have seen, from excerpts on other channels and/or people happening to mention what he said at one point or the other, he would appear to be a libertarian of convenience. If you don't know what that is (which you can't because I just made the term up) that would be someone who's anti-statist until whatever you're doing is inconvenient for them.

As for the defooing, presuming that it's meaning what I think it does, I can imagine some circumstances where it may be best to cut ties with one's family of origin. Whether or not a psychologist should be advising people to do so in a professional capacity is, however, another matter. Plus, perhaps the issue here isn't the advice, but the fact Stef lied about it.

To the other three things you mentioned, there's really nothing to address.

[Travis Retriever]

A friend of mine posting on Google Plus as Kardflow who +1'ed this:  https://plus.google.com/111185278672504358770/posts/Cw9ask229ww and added the comment regarding ISIS needing to be wiped out.  I even showed him Hawkeye's journal here:  http://lordthawkeye.deviantart.com/journal/A-case-of-a-guilty-conscience-405158014 and he said, "Yeah, I agree with that." While going directly against the statements in it...He's also trying to join the military...but he thinks the death penalty is wrong.  Two wrongs do NOT make a right.

[Travis Retriever]

Alright...I didn't want to have to do this...but oh well.  All the quoted pieces are from Hawkeye, to me, in AIM.  Why he doesn't want to just post the stuff here so we can publicly discuss it is beyond me.

"oh good lord...people, you can't call Stefan a misogynist when he's happily married to a woman and had a daughter with her!"
Um, Dave's brother has a girlfriend, but mainly just for the sex...he's a HUGE woman hater.  So that doesn't work.

"When people are looting your store...yeah, police force kinda sorta is justified.  What's the issue?"
To be fair, I don't know the entire story behind the Ferguson deal, but then, I thought we, as libertarians, didn't approve of police brutality and murder as a principle, not "well this is for the future, this is the now." Especially when Stef and you have said time and time again that the argument against state force is not a conventionalist one nor could it be so.  Also, why is it justified?  You just state that like it's a forgone conclusion that we already agreed on when it's nothing of the sort.
   
"[T]he DMCA, don't have enough info to comment."
That has been covered to death here.  See D's and Shane's posts.
   
"'consistent with best psychological practices.' is vague as hell and since modern psychology doesn't treat statism as a mental illness, that puts them in question with me."
It was a claim STEF made, so take it up with him.  At the very least, it doesn't change the fact that he still lied, and you're defending him and making excuses for him.

[Ibrahim90]

Can we all just agree that stef has gotten a little crazy lately?

I guess

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Alright...I didn't want to have to do this...but oh well.  All the quoted pieces are from Hawkeye, to me, in AIM.  Why he doesn't want to just post the stuff here so we can publicly discuss it is beyond me.

Because it was just me and you talking back and forth.

"oh good lord...people, you can't call Stefan a misogynist when he's happily married to a woman and had a daughter with her!"
Um, Dave's brother has a girlfriend, but mainly just for the sex...he's a HUGE woman hater.  So that doesn't work.

Girlfriend =/= wife with child.
As Jeff Foxworthy said: You don't get married to get sex.  That's like buying a 747 to get free peanuts.  If all you want is peanuts, there's way more cost efficient ways to get them.

"When people are looting your store...yeah, police force kinda sorta is justified.  What's the issue?"
To be fair, I don't know the entire story behind the Ferguson deal, but then, I thought we, as libertarians, didn't approve of police brutality and murder as a principle, not "well this is for the future, this is the now." Especially when Stef and you have said time and time again that the argument against state force is not a conventionalist one nor could it be so.  Also, why is it justified?  You just state that like it's a forgone conclusion that we already agreed on when it's nothing of the sort.

Defending yourself and your property IS justified, what's the big mystery?
We don't approve of the state having a monopoly on it but yeah, if you're in danger, it's hardly hypocritical to call on them when it's your only option.  That's like statists calling us hypocrites for driving on the roads.

"[T]he DMCA, don't have enough info to comment."
That has been covered to death here.  See D's and Shane's posts.

See mine
   

"'consistent with best psychological practices.' is vague as hell and since modern psychology doesn't treat statism as a mental illness, that puts them in question with me."
It was a claim STEF made, so take it up with him.  At the very least, it doesn't change the fact that he still lied, and you're defending him and making excuses for him.

Not making excuses, I just don't care because it's laughably inconsequential and I really don't like the way the statists pat themselves on the back about it.  Ooh, you found an anarchist doing one morally questionable thing.  Great, now you only have to catch us doing a billion more immoral things and you'll be on the same moral ground.  Good luck with that!

[AnCap Dave]

I'm adding the ACLU to fail quotes. I didn't take a picture of it, but I was sent one of their surveys as a representative for Connecticut.

Man, the shit on there had very little to do with actual liberty and more to do with, "Oh, you aren't giving me free stuff? U VIOLATE MUH RIGHTS!"

Most of the questions were vague references to Hobby Lobby.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

Sadly that sounds alot like how the ACLU in Florida is now. At one time there were actually a few LP members on the Florida ACLU Board of Directors and it actually focused on civil liberty issues. Now its back to being a Democrat circle jerk.