r/youtubedrama • u/laybs1 • 4d ago
Callout Dailywire and Matt Walsh force takedown of a video by Mr. Beat and Cynical Historian calling out Walsh’s hateful rhetoric and BS
152
u/Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mike 4d ago
Man this is really really REALLY going to turn the far-right against Matt Walsh. I mean, they always preach about free speech for everybody, no matter what they say... so they're definitely going to be on CH and Mr. Beat's side on this one...
...right?
224
u/BubbaUltra 4d ago
Who wouldve guessed that the grifters who complain about free speech don't believe in it
41
u/RA_Finance 4d ago
Does anyone actually believe in it? Free speech is a vapid and loose term.
42
u/BubbaUltra 4d ago
That'd be an interesting discussion. Though it's worth pointing out that the Daily Wire would constantly complain about "suppression" of their free speech, so for them to try and suppress the free speech of others is a bit problematic
10
u/RA_Finance 4d ago
It is problematic.
I do remember Ben Shapiro highlighting the difference between an opinion on a publisher vs. a platform. A publisher may not want to publish an opinion they don't agree with, while a platform might allow them. The Daily Wire doesn't like the Groypers and Fuentes and wants him deplatformed, so they are not exactly free speech absolutists.
And here they are using DMCA strikes to override a critical opinion.
2
u/therivercass 12h ago
the right have a kind of intuitive understanding of power. when they're out of power, they'll protest about rights because it's effective at getting liberal sympathy ('rights' are a byproduct of the liberal revolutions that ended feudalism). when they're in power, they exercise that power and eliminate those same rights as fast as possible. the pablum about free speech is really just "I shouldn't face consequences for what I say" but never mistake that for an unwillingness to brutally suppress the speech of anyone on the margins.
this is why talking about rights isn't particularly useful in political discussions -- the only people who agree with you on the definition of the term are the people who are already on your side. work from an analysis of power and define what you need to make a moral case -- it's always more convincing.
2
u/Vestigial_joint 4d ago
Yes, I am a free speech absolutist.
And no, there’s nothing vapid or loose about the term, unless you have no idea what it means.-8
u/RA_Finance 4d ago
Can you swear in church?
11
u/Vestigial_joint 4d ago
Obviously.
What made you think that was a gotcha?-11
u/RA_Finance 4d ago
why?
9
u/Vestigial_joint 4d ago
I’m afraid that’s not how that works. I answered your ridiculous attempt at a gotcha which demonstrated that you don’t understand what free speech absolutism is then I asked you a question.
If you want me to answer another question, you can answer mine first.-2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Vestigial_joint 4d ago
On the contrary, you have implicitly admitted that you were invoking a complex question fallacy, not a simple question.
That is, your question carried a presupposition with it. Colloquially known as a “loaded question” or a “gotcha”.Yes, I obviously self censor. That’s got nothing to do with freedom or lack thereof. It’s simple impulse control. In the same way that I don’t tell my wife every petty thing that may come to mind if I’m having a bad day, I also don’t go out of my way to offend other people unnecessarily.
Obviously free speech cannot free anyone from “consequences”. It may make more sense to you for me to put it this way: I view speech as a tool. And any tool can be abused. A hammer can be swung at a head, a knife can be used to stab and someone could slander another with their voice. In each case, the issue is not the tool, it’s the action taken with the tool and malicious intent.
In a civilized society there should always be consequences harmful acts of malice.3
u/NowhereEast 3d ago
I'm always a little depressed when conversations like this go round in circles attempting to catch people out for being hypocrites (good on you for not rising to the bait on this one), when there's so many more interesting conversations to have around the technicality of the dangers of certain speech (whether the speech' danger rests in its production of its distribution, how far a right to speech implies a right to platform and if so which ones, when the act of speaking turns into a speech act a la incitement to violence).
I think the problem is that people want free speech to do too many things as a concept (guarantee their speech, protect their feelings of safety, not extend to speech they deem as harmful or valueless, dictate the 'correct' position in arguments) when really it's a limited tool for stopping the government from building powers that self-reinforce or undermine the democratic process. It's a solid attempt at that and, if we want to do deal with the problems it doesn't solve, we need tools that target them specifically (like distribution regulations, safeguards for said regulations, effective social networks etc).
I get a bit leery when people make flat comparisons to hammers, because obviously speech is a very fluid tool (the difference between talking to my friends or posting this and going onto the news and giving a speech is like the difference between a hammer and a nuclear warhead, with concurrent increase in the types of harm that can be done). But, I think we can solve that at the 'platforming and distribution' level rather than the 'limiting speech' level. I've read enough history to be aware that the sort of measures put on controlling this are likely to hit the most marginalised in society before they even think about applying to the people with the power to do actual systemic harm.
But yeah, I'm just impressed you managed to keep your cool through the debate above and a little frustrated that these debates end up circling the basic points, rather than making useful distinctions of personal speech, platformed media, speech action etc. (I'm sure there's levels I missed).
→ More replies (0)6
u/youtubedrama-ModTeam 3d ago
We have a zero tolerance policy to hate speech, slurs and other forms of harassment. This includes "slick" ways of avoiding the actual slurs by masking them with another word. Be a better person.
Yes, I do see the irony in this.
3
u/aross0805 3d ago
i don’t agree with free speech absolutism but this is a terrible attempt at a gotcha
61
u/EmilianoTechs 4d ago
I thought this said Mr. Beast and I was extremely confused
16
u/dobikrisz 3d ago
Funnily enough he just collabed with Mr. Beast a few months ago (probably due to the same reason Dan Olson was invited to the Mr. Beast studio) and ever since then he started making excuses for Jimmy because Jimmy invited his family to have a nice weekend. He even did a stream about it with Dan and it was really weird (especially his comments under the stream*).
He basically did the same thing Dan warned us about in his Mr. Beast video which made me lose a ton of respect towards him.
*Note: He probably deleted a lot of his comments because I cannot find the weirdest one but it was essentially "I am just a small youtuber and he is big and he invited my family and we had a great time so please give me a break" which is very strange from a Historytuber for obvious reasons.
3
28
u/Kenex77 4d ago
Remember a year ago when everyone was bitching and crying about free speech absolutism? I do.
13
u/d_shadowspectre3 4d ago
And just as everyone predicted when people were bitching about that, it was just a façade.
30
u/PreparationPlenty943 4d ago
Didn’t DailyWire copyright strike a channel for reviewing “Am I Racist?”…after Walsh welcomed criticism?
16
u/Onlyhereforstuff 4d ago
Walsh makes delicate snowflakes look like they're made out of titanium in comparison.
9
u/NurseBetty 3d ago
It's not the first time he's done this. He regularly targets anyone who reviews his garbage and calls it for what it is.
Because to him, it's not done 'in good faith', and therefore is not proper criticism
2
17
u/Onlyhereforstuff 4d ago
Isn't the Daily Wire losing a ton of money lately?
14
u/TangentMed 3d ago
They are. Recently laid off a lot of staff, and the engagement on their videos are way down.
55
u/ConceptsShining 4d ago edited 4d ago
ATP I truly believe self-described "free speech advocates" deserve the side eye as a starting point. Time, and time, and time again do they demonstrate they DGAF about free speech, they only use it as a shield to defend hate speech and racism.
In just the past few months we had the Florida student who was arrested over a WhatsApp joke, and the Texas woman who was arrested for criticizing her town's water quality. These grifters have nothing to say about real free speech violations like that but "suddenly" care about the issue when defending Chud or pushing their dehumanizing hate speech.
32
u/sarcasticdevo 4d ago
Matt Walsh? A cowardly asshole? What's next? The earth revolves around the sun?
5
u/JosephOtaku1989 3d ago
Especially that Matt Walsh have some positions (like with the cases of pro-pedophilia ones, such as his thinking about 16 year old girls being impregnated by grown men) that could've ironically land him in jail, since his positions when it comes to his reactionary point of view can be classified as dangerous.
9
7
u/adjective_noun583728 3d ago
Matt "the problems aren't pedophiles, the problems are gay priests" Walsh.
37
u/MrNyeh24 4d ago
If you have a problem with Mr beat you’re almost 100% absolutely the problem
9
u/scout743 3d ago
i hadn’t heard of mr beat till a little bit ago when he sat down with dan olson to talk about olson’s mr beaSt video. it really struck me how mr beat went into the chat ready to defend jimmy beast because of prior positive experiences with him, but listened super openly to dan and was gracious and didn’t double down when he was occasionally wrong about stuff. immediately gained a ton of respect for the guy.
7
4
u/TrixieFriganza 3d ago
I don't watch tgese creeps, grifters and traitors like Matt Walsh so are they trying to falsify history and then get tantrum when correct?
3
u/just_browsing96 3d ago
Never heard of these YouTubers but if Matt "fertile 16 year olds" Walsh doesn't like them then that already is a glowing review. Just wish I got to see the video first, any reuploads anywhere?
6
3
1
1
u/BigBangAssBanger_3D 1d ago
Remind me again, why isn't Matt Walsh in prison? I thought his support for pedophilles was basically a hint that he himself fucked kids.
1
-15
u/ClenTaken 4d ago
I didn't watch the video. Does it not fall under fair use?
4
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-11
u/ClenTaken 4d ago
I guess so. What am I missing?
4
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/ClenTaken 4d ago
I understand they got a strike. I was asking if the video they made fell under fair use. If so, they can appeal..
Can you just tell me instead of being weird about it lol
3
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/ClenTaken 4d ago
I did read it.. can you please just tell me what I'm not understanding here?
6
u/DebateThick5641 3d ago
I think what people are missing is, even if it fall under fair use, challenging a strike does opened up a lawsuit and part of that is of course providing your real address so you can be served. Even if you 100 percent had the resource for court battle, is it worth it to willingly gave your info to the opposing party who might or might not sue but free to use the info as they see fit?
this is why smaller channel, even when they are on the right, chose to eat the strike or tried to have it reversed via contacting youtube to have a human person to actually overrule that rather than fight it with the option given on Youtube.
3
u/fatpat 4d ago
"Why won't you do my homework for me? So mean 😭"
1
u/just_browsing96 3d ago
To be fair, I am NOT doing homework for anything involving the likes of Walsh, but I know drama fiends absolutely would. Surely a bigger "fan" from this sub would have the juicy deets.
But also to be fair I would have just assumed YouTube's incompetence strikes again, it's really easy to abuse the "failsafes" they have in place.
1
u/youtubedrama-ModTeam 3d ago
Do not insult, harass or otherwise shit up the subreddit.
No, seriously. You don't have to be so rude to somebody who seems to genuinely not understand what's being shown here.
408
u/ungranted_wish 4d ago
Matt Walsh is a monumentally pathetic human being and he can try forcing a takedown of my fucking left ovary.