Youtuber Shirrako's account allegedly banned for killing a feminist NPC in RDR2 - Sensationalist Headlines

they're pixels on a screen, ingsocite britcuck

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/208785/37086026-28eb-48ba-abbc-05e5e46240ab/Capture.PNG Ban this vile filth. Its obviously against the rules of youtube.

murdering people = okay murdering feminists = not okay I mean, clearly, feminism isn't being applied here because equality has gone out the window in your own world view

You understand that anything can be twisted to be "against the rules" when you're the one in charge, right? Here we are trying to debate if what youtube did was correct or not, and you're just shoving youtube's rules in our face. None of the videos he made fall under that category, in my opinion, because he's not trying to do social commentary - he's filming himself bullying the character in-game he finds most annoying, by his own admission. Remember this guy? He too had a lot of moral qualms against a lot of things, and either wrote "fair rules" or twisted others to get what he wanted. Where did that get us?

Once again people can't tell the difference between reality and videogames.

You have to realize though, virtually all rules in social media platforms are up to any interpretation. They deliberately make them to be applied to any video that exists in some form, regardless of context. what the fuck is "SENSATIONAL" content after all? Literally anything could be that. They also don't apply them with any consistency. Look at the millions of childrens videos spamming the website up. They don't bat an eye at it, in fact monetize it, while pro-LGBT content is getting demonetized and sometimes even hidden. If you talk about suicide you're basically fucked. They don't care about the rules and enforcing them correctly. Twitter is a billion times worse with this.

Please explain how murdering the Adoring Fan isn't offensive. He's being singled out, and there's a running theme there as well. Is it misandry? Or is it just a game?

Where's the outrage that the game gives you the freedom to do this in the first place? Do you think no one at Rockstar anticipated that they would put this character in and people would use the freedom that the game gives them to kill her? As cringy as it is to try and cash in on own-the-libs RDR2 feminist ownage videos there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Wow, hats off to you, this is one of the most asinine, dumb posts I've seen on FP in years. Like, how do you even begin to equate violence in a game to violence in real life? There's no track record for violence against women here, because the woman doesn't even exist, she's literally an npc in a video game. I kill people all the time in games, men and women, animals too, probably in the millions after 20+ years of playing games as a hobby, does that make me an animal abuser and a murderous psychopath? No, no it doesn't. People need to stop being personally offended by everything. It's gotten so bad nowadays where you can't do things in a video game without people calling you out for it. It's a fucking game, it's not real, let people play it how they want and stop demonizing them for it. Sure it was in poor taste, but come the fuck on, if he did this to any other npc nobody would give a shit, but just because it's a feminist npc everyone loses their shit and he's a woman hating misogynist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo https://youtu.be/N1kWhFvMMts on youtube no less, the first one being on there since 2006 Obviously they can't remove literally all content, but there are very good examples of them very poorly maintaining their rules. As I've said, endless fake childrens content.

When do we get a YouTube competitor?

I think so man, and that's not good for anyone. If you start overvaluing small shitty things like these, you lose focus on what's really important (and honestly, this issue itself is only important if it sets precedent). Personally, I feel the channel was flagged to oblivion by the usual suspects. Youtube might reverse it, I dunno.

Though the difference is that in that video everybody is getting "cleaned". Furries, gays, fan-fiction writers, avid video-game players, conspiracy theorists, basement dwellers, et.c. Whereas Shirrako specifically targeted a female character for her sex and political stance. I personally wouldn't ban him for it, though it's pretty fucking tasteless and stupid. But in the end Youtube is a privately owned company and they're quick to clean up content that negatively affects their websites public image. What'd probably rile a whole lot more feathers is if someone made a compilation of hunting down, murdering and torturing black NPC in RDR2 and naming it something transparent like "Cleaning RDR2 of jiggaboos".

https://youtu.be/e0xcPoH3plM

Though that Borat scene isn't racist, the brilliant satire is Sasha Baron Cohen playing along as a character to expose dumb racist hicks being dumb racist hicks. And to want it removed one would have to either be a dumb racist hick or just plain fucking stupid.

https://twitter.com/ShirrakoGaming/status/1060248839448416256 Little update from Shirrako on the emails he received from Youtube. Seems this was the channel's first strike. A little bit much to ban his entire account and delete thousands of videos, no?

So you can rob and murder numerous men in the game, destroying their lives (literally or figuratively) which was a real issue people faced but doing the same thing to a woman NPC is wrong... Why? The main character of RDR2 is not a good person. Why are some horrible acts okay in video games but not others? This can easily be viewed through the lens of "men are viewed as expendable and worthless while women are viewed as valuable and deserving of protection".

lmao. imagine wanting a youtube competitor for someone getting banned for something not even related to this shit and i really don't know how you guys are crying tears for this dude. Sure it's dumb but it's dumb on all sides. I saw the original video and in the comment section he played the card of "wahhhh i was trying to shop in the game and i had to hear this feminist off in the distance saying she deserves the right to vote so I had to beat her up XD" Clearly the lad totally had to make her stop by coming back to kill her over and over for every video /s. And it makes sense that this is the scenario he wanted. If youtube didn't intervene then he gets a shit ton of views from 4channers and the anti-sjw crowd who feel it's their destiny to spout off about how "women are whores and they deserve wide-spread violence" to flock to his videos. And now in this scenario where youtube has intervened he gets to play the victim and go "wahhhh ebil sjw don't like white men " "please jim sterling save me." The dude's an attention seeker. You are playing right into his hand by running to the defense of someone who chose to play with fire and got surprised when they were burned. The dude deserves no tears for an entirely avoidable situation.

The Borat scene is brilliant satire, but, I'd argue that social media / youtube itself doesn't know the difference between genuine hate speech and satire. There are so many blatant jokes on twitter getting people banned right now, its insane, which is where I'm coming at this with.

Someone doing something that they could've not done is not justification for punishment. You could've not posted in this thread but you did. If you get banned for your post, hey, it's your fault! Shouldn't have played with the fire of "sharing things".

Guy's an idiot, and YouTube sucks. This is far from the first time content has been removed with no warning, nor is it the last. YouTube needs to be replaced. Don't make this black and white.

Sorry, it really seemed like his point. It sounded like what he was saying was "if it was a video of KKK members being killed in a game, youtube wouldn't have been upset by it" or something like that. I'm not being dishonest here, or anything

It looks like according to YouTube's rules DOOM gameplay shouldn't be there and neither should a whole lot of those clickbait videos with millions of views but those are still up. Seems to me that they're pretty selective on what videos get taken down for rule violation.

This is an extremely common (and extremely useful) thing for companies everywhere. By making their rules overly broad, they can have their own real standards and rules which they don't have to reveal, justify, or keep consistent. They can ban pretty much anyone because everyone is breaking the rules somehow. They can hide behind a justification of rulebreaking when the real issue is completely hidden.

https://youtu.be/_sXh2VcXmPw https://youtu.be/vwR5Gre7Ivw like, do I need to go on I just don't get how you could possibly enforce this standard if doing bad things in a videogame is banworthy then I'm pretty sure every single streamer who's ever lived is guilty

While I definitely don't think it's anything worth getting banned for, I'd say the reason this could be viewed as a problem isn't just because you're "killing a woman in a video game", rather it's because we're living in an age where there's a growing number of people who unironically think giving women the right to vote was a bad idea. Conflating the suffragettes fighting for their right to vote with "those whiny feminists you see on youtube" is just a really sad reflection of our modern political discourse. It's like if someone uploaded a Martin Luther King speech calling him a whiny SJW.

The problem I have with this standard is that it puts a lot of people who rely on youtube for their income in questionable water people are evil in open world games all the time. What exactly is the line between "just fucking around" and "hateful content"?

What an incredibly close-minded opinion to have. I feel sorry for you. OT: Makes me ashamed to be in this time that we are literally arguing over whether it's ok to kill pixels in a video game.....

Well for one it sounds like the guy wasn't actually banned for this, so I don't think anyone's got anything to worry about yet. But as far as what the line is, I'd say that largely depends on the cultural context, and admittedly subjective interpretation. Hateful ideologies survive in the shadow of doubt. Excuses like "I just think it's interesting" and "I wasn't being serious" lets people feed hate, while keeping plausible deniability. While you can't definitively say the creator of those RDR2 videos is hateful, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone's opinion of woman's suffrage may be affected negatively by associating it to modern feminism.

People thinking things we don't like has always been a necessary consequence of the free exchange of ideas.