Me addressing it:"I'm guessing that much like any of their rules, this will be applied selectively. They don't need to give big media loopholes because the rules never applied to them to begin with."
Crowder's take is meaningless because the rules never applied to the msm to begin with, therefore, he read Tim's information that came straight from the dishonest YouTube dullards.
You seem to be getting defensive. I watch and enjoy Crowder, however, what he said was absolutely meaningless in that instance.
I am not the one defensive. I am politely pointing out, your posts don't give Croder credit for pointing out the effective outcome of Youtube's policy. That is what I am pointing out.
Crowder pointing out the rules effectively don't allow you to connect the dots, which is effectively a brainwashing technique is important to point out, and it wasn't a part of either Tim's analysis nor your posts. Pointing out how the sausage is made gives normies the low down, and the thing to look for. If you don't connect the dots once for those that need it, they can be left uninformed, because they don't want to think about it. You have to give them that reason.
It just seemed defensive to me at first, that's all. I can only explain the same thing so many times though. Crowder gets no credit from me on this one because he pointed out a completely moot point.
If the rules already don't apply to the msm (etc ), the need to point out the potential for a loophole is completely unnecessary and basically redundant. Rules that don't apply don't require a loophole work-around...because they already don't apply to begin with.
Normies already know that the rules are selectively applied. Don't believe me? Look on any video streaming site or traditional social media platform right now. I don't even use Facebook, never have, and still get told all about 70 and 80 year old users bitching about the censorship and bias. If that doesn't fall into a normie category, I don't know what does.
Me addressing it: "I'm guessing that much like any of their rules, this will be applied selectively. They don't need to give big media loopholes because the rules never applied to them to begin with."
Crowder's take is meaningless because the rules never applied to the msm to begin with, therefore, he read Tim's information that came straight from the dishonest YouTube dullards.
You seem to be getting defensive. I watch and enjoy Crowder, however, what he said was absolutely meaningless in that instance.
I am not the one defensive. I am politely pointing out, your posts don't give Croder credit for pointing out the effective outcome of Youtube's policy. That is what I am pointing out.
Crowder pointing out the rules effectively don't allow you to connect the dots, which is effectively a brainwashing technique is important to point out, and it wasn't a part of either Tim's analysis nor your posts. Pointing out how the sausage is made gives normies the low down, and the thing to look for. If you don't connect the dots once for those that need it, they can be left uninformed, because they don't want to think about it. You have to give them that reason.
It just seemed defensive to me at first, that's all. I can only explain the same thing so many times though. Crowder gets no credit from me on this one because he pointed out a completely moot point.
If the rules already don't apply to the msm (etc ), the need to point out the potential for a loophole is completely unnecessary and basically redundant. Rules that don't apply don't require a loophole work-around...because they already don't apply to begin with.
Normies already know that the rules are selectively applied. Don't believe me? Look on any video streaming site or traditional social media platform right now. I don't even use Facebook, never have, and still get told all about 70 and 80 year old users bitching about the censorship and bias. If that doesn't fall into a normie category, I don't know what does.
i guess not normie, but awakened to hat is coming. Those that are asleep to the world around them.
I feel ya.