The gun-fondlers have now found a more appropriate venue for their videos


YouTube is cracking down, and banning all those macho gun-flogging videos that have apparently been so popular with the more violent segment of society. So the poor gun exhibitionists have had to find a venue that will tolerate them.

They have. It’s called PornHub.

I can’t imagine a more appropriate choice. Not to disparage the harmless people who just like to show off their primary and secondary sexual characteristics in action, but gun-nuts do at least have something in common with obsessive and unrealistic displays of penises in ecstasy.

Comments

  1. StonedRanger says

    Dumbest idea ever. How is this eroding their gun rights? They don’t have any legal right to post their videos anywhere, much less youtube. Youtube is entirely within their rights to not allow those videos. Dear gun nuts, while you may have the right to video whatever you want, no one is obligated to let you post your videos anywhere. This is not abrogating your rights, or losing your rights in any way, shape, or form. Im a gun owner and I don’t get this attitude of other gun owners. 2nd amendment just says you can have em. It doesn’t address any of the other crap you seem to think it does. Don’t these people know how to read ffs? Please feel free to post your gun videos to youporn, pornhub or any other site that will allow you to. Id sure like to see some married guys explaining to their wives why they are on porn sites. Shakin my head at how stupid some people can be.

  2. Porivil Sorrens says

    While I’m glad that youtube is doing something, this really feels like a little feelgood bandaid measure, given that they totally still host open nazis/white supremacists.

  3. erichoug says

    Why do I always get the feeling that PZ is kinda sex negative? At least when it comes to the areas that traditionally upset most prudes, like porn, exhibitionism and sex outside of a committed relationship.

  4. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I think a good argument can be made that a person does have the “right” to post more or less any video that they want with any service that is regulated under the common carrier laws. Should Youtube or similar websites be regulated under the common carrier laws? I think that interesting arguments can be made. Similar interesting arguments can be made that the government should achieve the same result with their monopoly break-or-regulating powers.

    I find it concerning that we’re willing to pretend that these giant corporations should be allowed free reign, without any government oversight, when it suits our immediate political needs. We’re digging our own proverbial grave.

  5. says

    erichoug, PZ is against sex where the participants aren’t equal partners. What you’re describing isn’t consensual sex activity.

  6. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    porn, exhibitionism and sex outside of a committed relationship.

    […] sex where the participants aren’t equal partners. What you’re describing isn’t consensual sex activity.

    What? Really? Only sex in a (monogamous) long-term relationship can be consensual!? I think you need to clarify your position.

  7. consciousness razor says

    EnlightenmentLiberal:
    Are you saying this amounts to discrimination against gun-fondlers? That’s my only guess. If not that, then what are these “interesting arguments” that can be made, which you haven’t yet made? What exactly do you find “concerning” about it?

    Do you find it concerning that youtube doesn’t want to publish porn, for instance? Should people have a right to post that on youtube, even if youtube doesn’t want it? Why or why not?

    Shouldn’t they have to consent, with regard to which things they want their services to support and which things they don’t want to support? Why should you be able to tell them that they’re not allowed to do that, if it isn’t in any reasonable sense a form of discrimination or something of that sort?

  8. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I think that mega-corporations should not have “consent” in the same way that people do, just like they shouldn’t have religious liberty rights, free speech rights, etc. In short, my political philosophy is that people have rights, and as people group together into larger groups, they should be regulated by society for the good of society, and the amount of permissible regulation increases as the size of the group increases and the power of the group increases.

    Are you familiar with the Comstock laws?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws
    In the United States, it used to be a crime to send straight-up sex ed material through the mail.

    The mail service should be regulated as a common carrier, which means that they should not get to discriminate in any way regarding the lawful content that they must transmit, whether it’s (legal) Nazi propaganda, porn, or sex ed material. That is the “cost” of being a monopoly and being regulated as a common carrier.

    I would be similarly aghast at any ISP who tried to ban distribution of certain content on their network.

    It seems not much of a stretch to apply similar legal reasoning to the monopoly that is Youtube (“monopoly” as a measure of market-share).

  9. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS: Admittingly, I do see a distinct difference between a common carrier like an ISP, and a mere hosting service like Youtube.

  10. consciousness razor says

    In short, my political philosophy is that people have rights, and as people group together into larger groups, they should be regulated by society for the good of society, and the amount of permissible regulation increases as the size of the group increases and the power of the group increases.

    I have a right not to be murdered by some gun-wielding asshole. What are you trying to protect that’s more important than that?

    I want to understand how you think this is supposed to work in general. CNN has a big market share. So I will put a check in that box. Now, imagine people put all sorts of vile shit in their comments sections. (I know, difficult to picture that, but try anyway.) It may even be stuff that isn’t so vile (like erotic fan fiction or whatever), but CNN simply doesn’t want it there, since it inhibits their ability to provide the services they intended to provide (and most of their audience want/expect). So … what you’re telling me is that they can’t moderate their comments sections, since people have a right to do whatever they want with the website? Because of what? Because CNN isn’t a natural person?

    That doesn’t explain it to me. Why can’t CNN do this? (Can FTB not rightfully have control over its content either, since it is not a person?) Why is it politically/socially wrong for them to do so, hence the reason why we need some laws to ensure it doesn’t happen? Shouldn’t you have to demonstrate that it causes some kind of harm, that it’s dangerous, or at least have something that’s approaching a standard like that?

  11. Rich Woods says

    gun-flogging

    Is that anything like bishop-bashing?

    No, hang on, my mistake. Bishop-bashing is much less likely to hurt anyone with the climactic discharge.

  12. consciousness razor says

    Hey, don’t bash the bishops. If you’ve got two of them, they can give you a serious advantage over the knights, especially in more open positions.

  13. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To consciousness razor
    I thought I explained myself clearly enough. Let me try again.

    It’s a matter of economic regulations to ensure that very large company with monopoly marketshare does not (wrongly) censor discourse, such as what happened with the Comstock laws. This is doubly-true when the company in particular actually has true monopoly power in terms of alternative choices of consumes, such as many ISPs in America.

    It might be going too far for something like Youtube, because while Youtube has monopoly marketshare, it does not have exclusive access to consumers like many ISPs. In other words, most consumers do not have a choice of ISPs because they often only have one real ISP option (often due to perverse government regulations that grant such monopolies), and therefore the ISP should be regulated as a common carrier, and therefore the ISP should not be permitted to discriminate based on legal content in any way. However, due to the nature of the internet, Youtube does not have this same monopolistic control over consumers, and therefore it may be going too far to suggest the same sort of rules that require the company to adopt a content-neutrality policy like net neutrality would for ISPs.

    I have a right not to be murdered by some gun-wielding asshole.

    And that right does not abridge the right of someone else to use their ISP to post gun-nut videos on the internet, as required by common carrier rules (e.g. as required by net neutrality), and the ISP should be regulated as a common carrier.

    CNN […] FreeThoughtBlogs [etc]

    Is CNN a monopoly? Is FreeThoughtBlogs a monopoly? Clearly no. Thus, what I said doesn’t apply. Come on good sir – at least pretend to read what I have written and engage with what I have actually written.

    Also, please stop being an apologist for the capitalist pigs and a laissez-faire approach to government regulation of mega-corporations. In other threads, when I call myself a card-carrying Marxist, I damn well meant it.

  14. John Morales says

    I see the funny side too — obs, what Tabby wrote @1 and what PZ wrote.
    PornHub is for porn.

    EnlightenmentLiberal:

    It’s a matter of economic regulations to ensure that very large company with monopoly marketshare does not (wrongly) censor discourse, such as what happened with the Comstock laws.

    So, you consider videos that show people how to manufacture or modify guns and their accessories to be discourse — since otherwise your claim would not be applicable.

    Right?

  15. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Yes. Just like I consider sex ed material to be discourse (ala the Comstock laws), and I would even extend that to transport of all legal goods, such as actual contraceptive devices (also the Comstock laws). This is what it should mean to be a common carrier IMAO, and this is what net neutrality IMAO also should require. This is IMAO the heart of net neutrality.

  16. John Morales says

    Fine, EL.

    Accordingly, you perforce consider videos that show people how to manufacture or modify nerve agents and their accessories to be discourse.

    Interesting.

  17. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To John Morales
    Do you think that we should ban the sale and distribution of the Anarchist’s Cookbook?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook

    PS: For materials that are actually illegal, and especially for materials that are illegal for nations to possess under international treaty, I might have a different answer. I’d have to think about it. I don’t know offhand.

  18. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I see EL is trying avoid the concept that adults take responsibility for their actions, and try to hide the consequences behind some vague undefined irrationality.
    You own guns. Either take responsibility for their ownership, up to and including any negligent discharges (there are no accidental discharges if you know and responsibly accept the only intrinsically safe gun is an unloaded gun), or showing discharges toward vague targets in an unsafe manner. No responsible gun owner fires a bullet into the air. You have no idea of where it will come down…
    Why should you be be shown showing your irresponsibility as a gun owner? Your firing said gun on camera is likely to be an unsafe act, and in a rational society, a criminal act.
    Your lack of responsibility is showing. Hide it in a polite and civil and civil society.

  19. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You own guns.

    No, I don’t. I’ve been rather clear on this. I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve never fired a gun. I have no plans to ever own a gun. I will probably never own a gun.

  20. blf says

    there are no accidental discharges if you know and responsibly accept the only intrinsically safe gun is an unloaded gun

    No. The only “intrinsically safe gun” is one which has been rendered impossible to fire, forever. For instance, by melting it down.

  21. John Morales says

    EnlightenmentLiberal,

    Do you think that we should ban the sale and distribution of the Anarchist’s Cookbook?

    What? Um… No, it’s a historical relic.

    PS: For materials that are actually illegal, and especially for materials that are illegal for nations to possess under international treaty, I might have a different answer. I’d have to think about it. I don’t know offhand.

    YouTube already has geofilters, so that content could be tied to jurisdictions.

    But that’s not the point, is it. You’ve hit a boundary.

    (Where the rubber of your idealism hits the pavement of pragmatism)

  22. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    No. The only “intrinsically safe gun” is one which has been rendered impossible to fire, forever. For instance, by melting it down.

    Even truer than my statement, which made my point.
    Deputy Barney Fife (Andy Griffith Show deputy, played by Don Knotts) carried his lone bullet in his shirt pocket. Rendered his pistol unable to have an “accidental” discharge during normal carry.

  23. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To John Morales

    What? Um… No, it’s a historical relic.

    I don’t understand your response at all. It’s not a “historical relic”. It contains somewhat detailed instructions on how to make bombs, several illegal drugs, and other such things, and it seems like exactly the sort of thing that you don’t like. Compared to practically all gun-nut videos, I think the Anarchist Cookbook is far more dangerous.

  24. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    But that’s not the point, is it. You’ve hit a boundary.

    (Where the rubber of your idealism hits the pavement of pragmatism)

    Has it? What boundary is that? I’m a little confused. Are you saying that the internet should be censored according to the lowest common denominator? Or that it’s a good thing that companies as a matter of course will censor according to the lowest common denominator? Remember, that lowest common denominator includes China. I think you need to rethink your positions, or at least clarify what you mean to me.

  25. John Morales says

    EnlightenmentLiberal @25, you asked, I answered.

    @26, when I brought up nerve agents, you intimated “I’d have to think about it. I don’t know offhand.” That boundary.

    What you did not do is double-down and maintain your serene trust in the applicability of your adherence to unfettered free speech to that particular case. Admirable.

    So, perhaps do have a think about it.

  26. Ed Seedhouse says

    I definitely think these gun nuts would do the world a big favour by spending more time fucking and jerking off – preferably all day every day. Only if the fucking is fully consensual of course.

    Maybe they should design guns with silencers shaped like vaginas, and of the right size that the gun nuts could fuck their guns. Talk about banging!

  27. unclefrogy says

    youtube is a very popular web sight for videos of all kinds but it is not a monopoly though it does have a significant market no one is prevented from making or posting videos of anything they want on some other service or making one themselves the cost of entering the market is not prohibitive.
    Youtube as has been noted is not and never was an ISP they are not common carriers they take advantage of common carriers to run their service which they get to control the way they want with the rules and guidlines that they and their market and users agree to.
    no porn nor gun videos.
    it is not like it is hard to find free porn these days I have not looked for gun stuff.
    uncle frogy

  28. consciousness razor says

    Is CNN a monopoly? Is FreeThoughtBlogs a monopoly? Clearly no. Thus, what I said doesn’t apply. Come on good sir – at least pretend to read what I have written and engage with what I have actually written.

    Says the person who didn’t engage with what I wrote. Since the direction you’re trying to drive this conversation seems totally bizarre and irrelevant to me, I’d say this is probably a good sign.

    If it matters so much to you, I would not have objected if you had substituted CNN for a (possibly imaginary) news site that was a monopoly in all relevant respects, then proceeded to consider the points I raised and answer my questions. It would have been just as good as the imaginary near-monopoly that you think youtube has, since they don’t actually have one. And for that matter, FTB is the only place you can get exciting characters like PZ Myers, EnlightenmentLiberal, and consciousness razor — if you wanted to pretend it was some kind of monopolistic social media thing or whatever, then once again, I don’t see why I should care. One of my questions, which you’re failing to engage with, is why its status as a non-person matters here. If I can’t answer the question “should they be able to moderate their content according to X principles,” without first knowing whether they are a legally-constructed entity rather than a person (because your answer would almost always be “yes” for people), and this decision should be totally independent of what X may or may not be, then I have no idea why that’s supposed to be true.

    The more basic question is something like this: what harm does it do? Without at least answering that, you don’t have a reason to make laws prohibiting it. That’s precisely when this game stops. You don’t get to make additional moves after that. It’s already over.

    Are people capable of exercising their first amendment freedoms, if youtube doesn’t allow certain types of content? Yes, they are, without a doubt. So, since it isn’t that, how is anyone supposedly being harmed? And it’s not discriminatory, which is one thing you should definitely worry about in all sorts of cases, without any need to consider the monopolistic character of anything. So what is the harm? It looks like you’ve got nothing. Is that because you have nothing?

    Also, please stop being an apologist for the capitalist pigs and a laissez-faire approach to government regulation of mega-corporations. In other threads, when I call myself a card-carrying Marxist, I damn well meant it.

    If it were a “Marxist” position that we should have regulations purely for the sake of having them, or that we should make arbitrary and harmless things illegal for no coherent reason, then I would be “anti-Marxist.” But that’s not what those words mean. As an apologist for the gun-fondling pigs, you’re not confused about this. I’m fairly sure of that. You’re just bullshitting.

  29. kome says

    This is kind of scary, because it provides more associations between sex and violence in the minds of people who already have tendencies towards misogynist ideologies and supporting rape culture. I hope PornHub comes to their senses and drops the banhammer on those kinds of videos, too.

  30. says

    Kome:

    This is kind of scary, because it provides more associations between sex and violence in the minds of people who already have tendencies towards misogynist ideologies and supporting rape culture. I hope PornHub comes to their senses and drops the banhammer on those kinds of videos, too.

    Quoted for truth.

  31. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To consciousness razor
    I simply brought up that it’s not cut-and-dry for companies like Youtube. Upon further reflection, I am not prepared to argue that we should regulate companies like Youtube under common carrier regulations. However, I think it is cut-and-dry for ISPs, and I am totally prepared to argue for net neutrality w.r.t. all ISPs. Is this still objectionable? If so, I’ll try to answer your questions, but I’m not sure if there’s an actual disagreement.

    PS:
    I am still gravely concerned when you said that we should give legal protections for the “consent” of mega-corps, and implied that mega-corps also should be granted the typical rights of freedom of association.