Then how do you suggest we pay for roads?
Wow! Really? Through the free flow of goods and services. As a driver of a vehicle I choose to buy fuel. Part of the cost of the fuel is a tax. That tax, which I freely chose to pay, goes to the creation and maintenance of our roads.
I am not an anarchist. I too believe there is a place for government. But the way our country was set up was to do just those things for society that would benefit all of society and not just one group or another. Sadly, as our country has aged, it has moved further and further away from this guiding principle.
[doublepost=1518650543][/doublepost]
He didn't say "no person on the political left has ever tried to hurt people on the right", nor did he say "The left doesn't riot or try to stop people from speaking"*. He said: The left doesn't often shoot, blow up, or drive cars into the people they disagree with. The right does. Like, a lot (emphasis mine). Nothing about the left not rioting, nothing about hunting republicans, and the key word is in bold.
*No one, right, left, or centre, can stop freedom of speech since there is no general freedom of speech. No one has the right to say what they want, when they want, where they want. The only freedom most (all?) Westerners enjoy is that the government won't unreasonably restrict people's expression. If a non-government person is not allowing you to speak your mind, that is not stopping your freedom of speech. That's just being a dick.
So, I was reacting to his statement. He made an assertion regarding the actions of the Right without any examples. I responded to his assertion with two examples of violence done by the Left as counter to his assertion. You have done no better defending his point than he.
The fact that the Left will riot to stop an invited speaker at a college supported by tax payer money makes it governmental. The Left doesn't need to attend the speech. I am fine with them peacefully protesting the speech, but committing acts of violence upon their fellow citizens as well as destroying government property goes beyond the pale. As a fellow citizen I would hope you too would be against these fascist tactics.
[doublepost=1518652084][/doublepost]
In that case specifically, the issue is that they're flagged in YouTube's restricted mode. So are 90% of my videos. They're not political, controversial or sexual. Just silly bits of harmless fictional comedy. I couldn't even tell you why they've been caught in YouTube's algorithm, but there you have it.
Am I being oppressed? Should I sue?
It's literally a piece of code not working well.
Restricted mode is off by default, by the way. It's mostly designed to protect kids. It's probably working well in this case, blocking a video that discusses murder.
You are being far to generous to YouTube. "A bit of code." I informed you that YouTube was contacted about it but refused to correct the issue. Along with over 20 videos from that site. A video can be put on the restricted list by reason of a complaining viewer. But once shown the bias nature of the complaint it should have been corrected but it was not.
As to your other point, public libraries have the Restricted view on, therefore limiting access to the public at large.
Finally, it is not a videos that discusses murder but instead the biblical injunction against murder. And I hardly think 9 year olds are coming across these videos as they are more than likely watching funny cat or dog videos. But if they did see it, it would be no different than what they might hear at church here in America. Spend 5 minutes watching it. Tell me what in it would is outside YouTube's guidelines.
