Is this going to include videos that mention "white privilege" (which one could argue alleges superiority of white people) in which white people are asked to "check their privilege" in some way (which one could argue is an attempt to justify exclusion)?
If you can make the case, maybe. I mean, it sounds like a kind of insane case to make to me. Who's being excluded, and from what, merely by having their assumptions challenged in a discussion context?
The groups actually being targetted are ones that tend to advocate for the status of the US as an inherently white nation. Sort of an easier sell to my mind.
https://www.pewhispanic.org/2019/06/03/facts-on-u-s-immigran...
It belongs to them just as much as it does to people whose ancestors planted flags a handful of centuries ago.
How else should the country they were born in, and are citizens of, be referred to? Without making it US specific, as my point is not limited to the US.
And please don't put words in my mouth - I did not 'frame' immigration as an invasion, or as anything else - my statement was as dry as possible. If you can offer a more neutral phrasing that captures the same meaning, I'd be grateful.
Good question, so why are we removing all this content?
Be real, here. What kind of snowflake logic is it that buckets "check your privilege" in with white nationalism?
I will happily allege that people who aren’t racist are superior, and that racists should be discriminated against, segregated, and excluded wherever possible. Is that video permitted?
YouTube is going too far. This will either be the biggest footgun due to unintended blast radius, or will be selectively enforced so that they have an excuse to editorialize and shut down stuff they or their advertisers personally find icky (entirely subjectively) while ignoring other stuff that breaks these rules.
Pretty sure it'll be the latter. Selective enforcement seems to be the name of the game in SV, and IMO that's going to bite them in the ass eventually. (this isn't to say that selective enforcement is avoidable with the ruleset they've chosen, because it's probably not, but instead that policies that minimize the opportunity for selective enforcement should be used)
What if the group is a political party alleging they are morally superior in order to justify "intolerance of intolerance" and "bigotry of bigotry" as a tactic to decry, discriminate, and exclude political opponents?