That's you in the context that douchebag is no different than fascist in the context you have used.

But are you missing additional context when people use the word fascist by taking that approach to it? It does seem lots of other context around the word fascist exists than for you to use it to call people douchbags, eh?

If you want to control the 'improper use of the word racist and fascist, or whatever' how is your process working?

Wasn't he already making tons of money? Do you think he will make more or less money by losing his contracts with Disney and no longer receiving a preferred cut from youtube?

LOL, he has over 53 MM fans, I think he'll make it. Meanwhile, the PC police just created around 53 MM more anti-PC criminals.

To be clear, in this context, by "everyone" we mean "people who pay money to have racial slurs displayed"?

Lol, love watching the PC lolice pile on my new fav anti-PC criminal!

That didn't answer my question but no matter. Didn't mean to post here. Carry on

Aren't you the guy who brought him up and has been talking about him? I don't care about him or his let's play channel, or whatever he does. I just don't know why you'd think paying someone to write racial slurs on a banner for you wouldn't be frowned upon.

But the satire doesn't contain a firm fact to laugh at ourselves about and there is not a physical space here in which to make a pile.

Is the random uncontrollable conflation of racism, xenophobia, bigotry, Islamophobia, and similar* dispositions and behaviors really that easy to exaggerate?

And have you factored dog whistles in as an original source of confusion in these* areas?

Luckily since they do it to there will be 53 m created for the other side.

You getting banned again will make me laugh even more

Foldn, do you honestly believe stuff like this or are you exaggerating for effect?

foldn, I was striking yesterday and in the mood to argue, No reason to just leave hanging from my point when it looks like we disconnected. What do you think about approaching the information environment related with 'calling **** racist' factoring in confusion and acrimony behaviors like dog whistles?

My goal as usual in investigating is to find more complete views, not to win or lose anything.

memo: We can also discuss this **** without trying to one up one another.

Yeah, because their audience is uninformed people who hate liberals and think that these nobodies that get trotted out in outrage porn youtubes are emblematic of a movement. And all of that is the fault of liberals who have nothing to do with the nobodies in the youtubes but who criticize the racist beliefs of the right wing. It's quite a little scam that you've fallen for.

This is FoldN's MO. Just rewrite the whole liberal agenda into destroying Pewtiepie.

If Larry Wilmore had paid someone at fivr to hold up a sign that said "Kill all white people," FoldN would be outraged. "How dare he do such a thing! He's racist! And not in the natural way--he's REVERSE racist, which is worse because it goes backwards. Look at how many Trump voters he's creating!"

The whole point of this outrage porn on the far right is that they can't win arguments. They don't even try anymore. Look at the Lord's posting itf. That guy is literally scared to post a specific argument or actually engage. Everything is about tone now. And only the tone of liberals because they should know better.

A whole range of narratives that are hedged in on a sort of underlying wager that if you stop believing them, all the money, guns, your precious, whatever will magically disappear.

Meanwhile actual people and actual stuff is being disappeared by few that live by selling that wager with marketing that makes it sound like a 'commun sensey' and 'rrrrrational' investment in truthiness. It's an information product scam. The 'Alabamafication' of America.

I do a lot of work in the online video space for classes taught in a flipped classroom style. So I went on a project a while ago to try and study the humour and appeal of top youtubers, pewdiepie among them. His appeal is pretty understandable and there are a couple comedy mannerisms I've partially stolen. He does feed the sort of "it's okay to be totally apathetic about things" mentality that is very prevalent these days though, I object that to that more than I object to using slurs in a "absurdity of our system" type video.

You sound sound a lot like the people who accuse Sharpton, BLM, etc of being nothing but race baiters. You have a point of view, and it's probably correct to a degree, and you're probably wrong about some of it too. Whatever the case, you ignore the crowds of supporters at your own risk in democracy.

Nah, you're wrong. My hatred of PC abuse is non-partisan. As is my defense of free expression. Lol at you.

I can take it or leave it.

Who knows how many millions hate the sort of PC BS you defend, but you can see the thumbs up and read the comments defending PDP from the PC lolice, who ain't making any friends there.

There are points to be made about where the line is or should be, but outrage and overreaction to clear jokes has predictable effects. Satire is one of the best defenses against overbearing nannies. My expedition into the world of millenial youtubers has been a riot, and it's renewed my faith in the next generation.

No. Al Sharpton & BLM have an argument. People may disagree with it. But they can express an argument.

The "anti-SJWs" have no argument. That's the point.

Millions of people listen to Michael Savage. I ignore them too. It would be dumb and counterproductive NOT to ignore them.

Hahaha says you.

Until their guy wins.

Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again? Yes, I can see evidence of a backlash. However, I don't see much evidence that this is a backlash against something new or politically significant. You think the size of the backlash maybe indicates that it does, but as we've already gone over, there are many other explanations for this increased size (if even that is real) as well, such as increased party polarization, the rise of social media, and so on.

You point to some phenomena - outrage at leftist illiberalism and intolerance. You say this outrage is evidence of increased intolerance and illiberalism among the left. However, this outrage could also be the result of social media, cable news, polarization, Cold War ending, etc. Thus, if you want me to prefer your explanation - that the left is getting more illiberal - then at minimum show me that the left is getting more illiberal. What you point to here, the size of outrage against the left, is just a repeat of what you are trying to explain in the first place.

The bolded is obviously false, since that is exactly the expectation of most American Christians. I think what you are missing here is that liberal principles of government can be justified from many directions, not just secular Enlightenment rationality. For instance, this is from the Second Vatican Council:
Now, this is clearly a liberal principle. But this right of religious freedom is grounded in a religious conception of humans as having dignity because they are creations of God that is not accepted by atheists. You see similar kinds of religious justifications for other liberal principles. In fact, John Locke, one of the foundational thinkers of liberalism, himself grounded human rights on an explicitly religious basis (this is why his conception of freedom of religion didn't include atheists as he thought they would be illiberal).

I think the difference in how we approach these issues is that I think that liberal principles can be justified within many different worldviews, including the leftist ones you are criticizing. So, instead of getting people who adopt those worldviews to completely reject them in favor of Enlightenment rationality, I think it is better to show the utility and compatibility of liberal principles with the values they already accept.

But I have shown you lots of evidence of the left moving towards illiberalism. You just reject and dismiss it. It's just fringe, not representative, you say. Okay.

Meanwhile, we're immersed in another smothering wave of PC 2.0 with all the abusers of it that you also dismiss (likely because you rarely argue with them about anything substantial, because you largely agree with them), and it's clear as day to anyone who's felt the overwhelming frustration of such attempted thought control how Trump has been able to seize upon that sentiment to get away with saying some of the worst things.

The rest of your post on liberalism is great, and I'd like to get into it later, how Christianity has evolved through liberal ideas to become much less of an authoritarian backards religion. It's still a far cry from being liberal though. Please.