Talk:Count Dankula

Bad Moderation of Article
The article states:

''Meechan claimed the video was a prank on his girlfriend; the judge called it "grossly offensive and contained menacing, anti-Semitic and racist material" and questioned whether his girlfriend would have seen it, as she didn't subscribe to the YouTube channel it was posted on''

In re: the bolded section - This is obviously a truly absurd argument from the judge. Meechan’s girlfriend lived with him at the time of the incident and still lives with him today. The notion that she was unlikely to have seen the video because she didn’t subscribe to his YouTube channel is utterly fatuous. She didn’t need to subscribe to his YouTube channel! If Meechan wanted her to see the video he could’ve simply shown it to her on his phone.

I made an edit to point this out. It was stupidly reversed. Twice.

The fact that the judge resorted to such terrible arguments is a clear indication that (A) he has no idea how the internet works, to the point of not even being aware that one can access a YouTube video from any device, and that one needn’t be subscribed to a channel to view its content, and (B) that this was likely a politically motivated prosecution and the judge was just grasping at straws and trying to bolster his case by throwing as much mud as possible at the wall in the hope that some of it would stick. This is relevant to Meechan’s case and thus deserves to pointed out in the article.

Unfortunately, the moderator, Rockford The Roe, reversed my edit twice without explanation. Either he didn’t understand the implications of my edit or (more likely) he doesn’t want the article to include any information which might indicate that Meechan’s conviction was unsound. This is bad moderating. He should either explain himself or allow me to make the edit.
 * Edited to correct the moderator’s name from CosmicDebris to Rockford The Roe. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 80.192.130.177 / talk

More Stupid, Biased Moderation
In response to my latest edit, moderator GrammarCommie wrote:

''Stop. Just stop. Your argument is predicated on the idea that a legal professional doesn't know the law. While not out of the realm of conception, it does need to be proven. Also this is a stupid hill to die on.)''

He wrote this to justify reversing my edit. It is a stupid argument, for two reasons:

1) Not everything a judge says is a legal argument. When the judge said that he “questioned whether Meechan’s girlfriend would’ve likely seen the video because she didn’t subscribe to his YouTube channel”, he wasn’t making a “legal” argument. There’s no statute or precedent in Scottish Law defining the difference between a YouTube user and a YouTube subscriber.  His argument was based purely on his personal opinion that Meechan’s girlfriend, as a non-subscriber, wouldn’t have seen his content. And this personal opinion is, in turn, based on him knowing absolutely fuck all about how YouTube works. The fact that this judge is a legal professional means nothing when we’re considering arguments based, not on the law, but on his boomer understanding of YouTube.

So saying I need to prove this judge doesn’t know the law is absurd. I just need to prove he doesn’t know YouTube, and his statement is so idiotic that it does this for me!

Here’s an analogy. Imagine there was a similar case involving Twitter. During the summing up, the judge said that defendant X was a white suprematist because he’d retweeted white supremacist materials, and he wouldn’t have done so if he didn’t agree with them. Now, everyone who uses Twitter knows that retweets don’t necessarily equal endorsements. This is just one of the unwritten rules of Twitter. If I pointed out that the judge’s argument was invalid, and that he clearly has no real understanding of how Twitter is actually used in the real world, would you still say ''Your argument is predicated on the idea that a legal professional doesn't know the law. While not out of the realm of conception, it does need to be proven''?

Of course not. It would be self-evidently absurd. It would be blindingly obvious that my argument was actually predicated on the idea that the aforementioned legal professional simply didn’t know Twitter.

The same is true here. The judge’s statement was stupid and terrible. It clearly indicates he has no idea how YouTube works. This is relevant to Meechan’s case, and, therefore, to the article. It implies that the judge’s ruling was based on ignorance and further implies that this was a politically motivated prosecution. Why else would a judge resort to such terrible arguments?

2) You May think this is a stupid hill to die on, but it’s my hill. And when I’ve died on it I’ll ask to be reincarnated so I can die on it again. To me, this is a microcosm of everything that makes this site a piece of shit. You have a bunch of moderators who write snarky articles filled with bullshit that are designed to push narratives and give warm fuzzies to any reader who already happens to be sympathetic to their views. These same people hold any attempted corrections to the highest possible standards (even if they have to make those standards up themselves). Meanwhile, any old bullshit which affirms the narrative is included without question. This, to me, is evidence that RationalWiki and Conservapedia have far more in common than either would like to admit, which makes this a hill worth dying on.

I’m going to reinstate my edit. Please address these points before removing it again. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2.98.251.34 / talk
 * Firstly, firstly FIRSTLY, that is not how bias works. Right now, we are both biased, as we have formed different conclusions which we use to evaluate the world. Secondly, YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS. You have claimed the judge was acting due to political pressure. No citation or substantiation. You have claimed malice from me and my colleagues, with no citation or substantiation. Thirdly and finally, if you intend to edit war I'll simply lock the damn article until you're willing to grow the fuck up and substantiate your fucking claims. 00:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Reread the wording of my edit. I wrote:


 * “This was, obviously, an absolutely terrible argument from the judge, because Meechan and his girlfriend live together, so she could’ve easily seen the video on their shared desktop computer, or even on Meechan’s phone.”


 * That is the sum total of my edit. Where do I claim the judge was acting due to political pressure? I’ve suggested it here, in the talk page, but where does that appear in the actual edit I made? That’s right. Nowhere.


 * And where, in the actual edit, do I say the moderators here act in bad faith? I mean, you absolutely do act in bad faith. That’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s spent more than ten minutes here. But where do I say that in the edit that I actually made? Ah, that’s right. Nowhere again!


 * I firmly believe the judge was acting under political pressure, and that the mods here are totally shit at their jobs. But since neither of those observations have even the slightest fraction of a bearing on the edit I actually made, I’m under no obligation to back them up.


 * Get it straight: there’s only one claim I need to substantiate, and that’s my claim that the judge’s argument was bad. The judge’s argument was that Meechan’s girlfriend was unlikely to have seen the video because she didn’t subscribe to his YouTube channel. My proof that this is a bad argument is simply this: They live together, so she doesn’t NEED to be subscribed to his channel to see the video. This is so blindingly obvious that it’s hard to understand what further proof could be required.


 * There. Mission accomplished. I’ve proven the only thing I needed to prove to make the statement I actually made. A statement you’ve deleted several times without good reason. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2.98.251.34 / talk
 * Goody for you for thinking so. Congrats, you win jack fucking shit. Also, sign and indent your fucking posts. 00:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supplying yet further evidence that there’s vanishingly little daylight between the mods here and the mods at Conservapedia. I don’t need it, as I’ve already explained, but it’s nice to have it nonetheless. And also thanks for refusing to tackle my objections and just locking the thread like a pussy. That’sa good look. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2.98.251.34 / talk
 * You're literally saying "this argument is bad, and I think the reason that it wasn't thrown out in appeals was because of political pressure." Like, fucking substantiate your shit rather than hurling fucking ad homs like half the morons who brainfart their way through here!! Do I fucking need to write your fucking argument for you? Are you that fucking enfeebled and/or stubborn? 01:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, dumbshit. I was saying “This argument is bad and here’s why it was bad.” That’s it. The only thing I had to do to substantiate my argument was explain why the judge’s argument was bad. I did that. It was bad because one needn’t be signed up to a YouTube channel to see its contents and this is doubly true if, as in this case, you happen to share a fucking bed with the creator! There. Done. Substantiated.


 * Also, calling you a shitty mod isn’t an ad hominem, because it’s not germane to the argument I’m actually making. It’s just an ancillary observation. You shitty, shitty mod.


 * P.S. - I’ve had a look at your personal talk page. Seems a lot of people think you can’t mod for shit. You might want to ponder over why that is. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2.98.251.34 / talk
 * I'm not a mod, you fucking moron. I'm a sysop. Which you would know, if you fucking bothered to read up on shit rather than throwing insults at me because you can't get your fucking way. And your core argument has a fucking unstated premise. If you aren't going to put the legwork in, you aren't going to get the consensus needed for your fucking edits to fucking stick. Gods damn all you fucking moronic parasocial fanclubs who can't fucking reason or discuss worth a fucking shit. 01:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you’re not a terrible mod. You’re a terrible sysop. A thousand pardons Effendi! I’m so dreadfully sorry for saying that you’re shit at the things you don’t do, rather than the things you do. Although, all the available evidence suggests you’d be shit at the things you don’t do as well, were you given the chance to do them.


 * Anyway, my argument contains no unstated premises which need substantiating. So I guess we can add rhetoric and logic to the growing list of things you’re bad at. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2.98.251.34 / talk
 * Oh for fuck's sake, indent and sign your fucking posts like a grown ass adult. 01:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * im sure this little kerfuffle cold have been avoided if the op had actually understood the argument by the judge. part of meechan's defence was that that video was only meant for his girlfriend and maybe a select few. its this argument that is undermined by her not being a subscriber on a platform of mass communication that is youtube.

(UTC)
 * ''But he added: "The accused knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive.


 * "Despite that the accused made a video containing anti-Semitic content and he would have known it was grossly offensive to many Jewish people."


 * Ross Brown, defending, said Meechan had only intended the video to be seen by a small group of friends and to annoy his girlfriend. - from the beeb. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not undermined at all. Meechan and his girlfriend live together. Why would she need to be subscribed to his YouTube channel to see the video if they live together?87.117.204.37 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * why indeed would he require to post to youtube at all if it was only meant for her and a select few? that was his defence. that it was not meant to be on youtube, but was somehow leaked. the judge didnt buy it as he was more than happy to leave it there and milk it for views. they felt that this established meechan either deliberately and knowingly posted a video to youtube what he could reasonably assume was offensive, the purpose of the video by his own admission was to be as offensive as possible, or if not deliberately posted he was happy with such content to remain. why would he post a video to youtube that he claims to have created solely for his girlfriend who does not even subscribe to his channel? as you said, he and his missus live together, she would not need youtube at all to view the video if she was the intended audience. thus he knowingly used youtube to broadcast offensive material. this is what meechan was convicted of. it was not an accident as claimed, and that it was that argument the judge was discounting.


 * it further undermines any defence concerning the content of the video - why it was deemed offence, why it was deemed grossly so, why 'it was just a joke' is not a defence, why the intended audience matters, are all elaborated on in the judgement btw - he knew the video was offensive, it was its point, but was not meant to be broadcast he says. that argument falling, that it was broadcast intentionally, then he is broadcasting what he knows to be offensive content intentionally, a crime under the law of which, again, he was convicted.


 * he might have fared better if he'd relied a free speech argument or argued that it somehow wasnt offensive - doubtful as nothing i have seen meechan say in that regard addresses the comments that the judge made in explaining the ruling. from what i hear about his discord, his absolutist line just sounds like a racist excusing racism. the uk has never had an absolutist approach to free speech. one could argue that laws like the one meechan fell foul of might be overreach or places unwarranted limits on speech, but limits there are in our laws, and as meechan found, the courts will convict if you are in breach of them. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

there is not really much here
its mostly a list of people who are for or against him it wasnt that interesting in the first place. this should be little more than a footnote in another article at best. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is a prime example of some youtube nobody who is most notable as a footnote in other articles documenting internet assholery. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i might slap an afd on it in the morning. cant be bothered to faff around with it right now. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s telling that my edit, which was germane, was reversed umpteen times by a mod who then threw a hissy fit and locked the thread, but your edit, which just called Meechan a ‘shit comedian’ and added nothing wasn’t touched. This place really is lefty Conservapedia.
 * Just gonna mention some stuff in case anyone who has privileges cares enough to change it (fan who sees the barren page and wouldn't mind adding some stuff, I expect this to probably be deleted cuz irrelevant or wrong formatting, I'm using the basic text editor incorrectly probably). ahem: In a video I can't remember (not a Mad Lad AKA wikipedia page/book reading) he said he hasn't talked to Tommy Robinson in 2 years; anybody looking at his twitter account should be wary of the occasional but very NSFW hentai and picture of his testicles; He frequently refers to transgender people who have penises as "traps". He's defended this with (1) having had sex with and (2) no prejudice against them, (3) that they  prefer to be called that way and that he(4) treats them better than women in his shitshow of a discord.Some dude 5 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2020
 * is that the super racist discord that was linked to at least 5 murders or is this a new one? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * wouldn't be surprised, think he said himself he doesn't like it himself anymore. I just remember seeing his twitter talking about it going from your average edgy shitshow to an advanced razor-thin edgy discord

Relevance 0% Dross 100%
Still. utter wank AMassiveGay (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. I'll vote for it to be deleted again the next time it gets nominated. Spud (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleting a YouTube article? You can count on me. GeeJayK (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * i may give it a month or so. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Free speech issue
I'm not a fan of his content or his views but I think the honourable folks here at Rationalwiki need to discuss his conviction and its relevance to free speech issues, the freedom for comedians to make (unfunny) jokes or satire etc. Many right-wingers falsely claim such and such is a free speech issue but I'm not 100% sure this qualifies. At the moment the article just trashes him and barely mentions his conviction and its implications. --78.17.78.45 (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. This article is heavily imbalanced, and any article containing such heavy bias is bound to reflect poorly on the site as a whole. De-legitimizing your platform just to trash someone, whether they deserved it or not, is deleterious to a site's credibility. I would even go so far as to label significant portions of this article as useless dross. 91.115.173.116 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles should be accurate, not balanced. 14:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In its current state, this article is neither. The lens that users have written this article through is far too narrow to describe the factual complexity of the situation. Remember that nothing is ever as it seems on the surface. We are here to make sure the quality of this article is at a passable level, which it currently isn't at. 91.115.173.116 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * there isnt anything to say about free speech. he posted an offensive video on youtube according to uk law. you either think its over reach or you dont. theres nothing to it beyond that. no depth or nuance to any arguments. theres nothing much to say about his conviction. he was convicted, he was fined, and that was it. there are not any implications other than uk based youtubers are not beyond uk law. an article on hate crimes is where implications of such laws are better discussed and this prick might warrant a footnote.
 * we all know its a shit article. no one wants to improve it because theres fuck all to say about him. should have deleted it last time it came up afd. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 21:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 91.115.173.116 (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve nominated the page for deletion. Christopher (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)