Subject: I think I might have a siezure
Author:
Posted on: 2015-05-06 02:21:00 UTC
I have just witnessed an ad that was of a spaztic windows xp window flashing red and blue and with a backwards apple logo saying a free iPhone can be mine...
My one question is: Does the virus come in orange?
So, lesson learned- I said an offensive word but didn't know it was offensive and sparked an argument. I'm sorry, now I know, and won't do it again. We don't need a heated debate; isn't the PPC about having fun?
We're a community, right?
Unfortunately, I don't think that there's a proper synonym for American!spastic. It seems to be a much more extreme version of "twitchy," and we use it to signify that something spasms a lot (like me when I'm cold). I do know that Britain has much worse connotations for the word, but I think it has completely different meanings on either side of the pond.
... I think I lost track of what I was saying. Regardless, let's all make like Crush 40 and live and learn. (I am so sorry)
Please do not use the word sp*stic. It does not mean what you think it does, and is extremely insulting over here.
I find it so interesting how we have taken the exact same word, applied similar context, and yet have vastly differing reactions to it.
Now, perhaps I'm just a dumb American, but to me, spastic is just acting in a rapid, clumsy manner. Arms flailing about, tripping over things, is the image that comes to mind. It's not just being clumsy, but the extreme speed at which it occurs. That, or extreme hyperactivity. Kid hopped up on way too much caffeine, for instance. A rather silly image, that has come to be used as a minor insult, usually for self deprecation. Very similar to nerd, in that respect. Was somewhat offensive, now not even the tiniest bit offensive, even to the perpetually offended.
However, in the UK, it is one of the most insulting words possible. For fellow dumb Americans, note how Scape felt the need to self-censor, even when using the word to say don't use it again. Over there, it is second only to retard in terms of insulting for disabled folks, and with very similar meaning.
To put this in proper context for both sides, I am going to apply the same treatment to another word that offends everybody, the word that I would never use outside of discussing the word itself, and even then would seek to avoid: nigger. I sat for a solid two minutes steeling myself before I wrote that word. That is how offensive it is in my culture. Even now, I am contemplating scrapping this entire analogy, but it is the only word I can think of that is heavy enough to shock people into thinking about this.
So. Let's say that there is a culture that uses the word nigger. In that context, it is a word used for black people. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, it is even used as the color black itself, in very specific contexts. They use nigger as greetings, use it in products, have it used on the television all the time. How angry would you be if you saw this culture? You would be furious! No, that word does not mean what you think it does! Stop using it, now and forever!
"But why? It's not offensive! Our definition is not yours! Why should we be offended for you?"
And here is the rub. It is not offensive to them. Not at all. But for us, it is. So, who is in the right? Should the other culture censor the word in recognition of a definition they do not share, or should we just accept that it means something else over there and leave them alone? I, personally, while feeling uncomfortable, would say they have the right to their definition. The word is not inherently offensive. String those letters together, not every living thing is repulsed by the sound. What makes a word offensive is the context and definition we give it. I would even accept it's use on, say, a posting board if used by those people. That does not mean I would cringe any less, and would probably contemplate telling them that they should stop using it for my emotional state. But I would not, because respecting differing cultures is important, and if we can make more words less offensive, the better.
Now, if you excuse me, I have to wash my mouth out with soap.
I think i qualify as "dumb american"
It's not dumbness as much as cultural selfcentredness, methinks. But, anyway, I think it'd be better for everyone to assume people make honest mistakes (as opposed to being deliberately insulting).
I think its also being culturally self-centered to think it is offensive. From what research I did, it appears that it did not really become a derogatory term until the early 80s in the UK, when it had been used to mean hyperactive, etc., and ultimately uncool since the early 50s in the US. And my question is why should one interpretation be forced to control? Why should the offensive definition be forced over the unoffensive one?
You not being able to say a given word is incredibly minor in the English language, which has a dozen synonyms for everything. Someone being offended by a given word has a far bigger impact and longer-lasting effect. So, given that we have goals in our Constitution about, y'know, getting on with each other - isn't it better to take the minor trouble to avoid upsetting someone?
hS
Primum non nocere - first, do no harm. Using another word instead of an insulting one - especially in the case where you have other synonyms and the word is obscure anyway - is preferred to hurting other people who might find it offensive.
Your opinion seems to be that it doesn't matter if something's a derogatory slur that causes hardship, people shouldn't be offended by it if someone else - anyone else - is not. They're entitled to their right to use whatever words they want without any kind of responsibility.
As far as I'm concerned, that is a pile of crap visible from space.
I mean a whole country, a separate culture. One dude, or a small collection of people does not a culture make. Nor am I saying it should not be made known why it is offensive for people. However, I say, what gives you the right to say, "No. That's wrong. Stop doing that," when over there, it causes them absolutely no harm?
What I want is for those contexts to loose their offensive meaning, for everybody. I want words to be used in less offensive contexts, rather then outright banned. I want our definition of the term to spread, so that even the people with the syndrome can stop being offended by the word.
See, I see where you lot are coming from, and why the word is super offensive for you, but for me, it's like saying that calling somebody chipper is offensive. It just... Isn't. And yet, for you, it is. I respect that, but hope it can change so that it is not anymore.
There are going to be situations like this, no matter how much you try. One group will find a word completely inoffensive; another group will feel as though it's a personal attack. It's an inevitable result of living in a world where different cultures often communicate, and for obvious reasons it's very common on the Internet.
I don't think we can solve this problem either by banning all words that are offensive to someone hearing them. Nor can we solve it by allowing all words that are not offensive to the person speaking them. Neither one works because by the nature of different cultures, people will simply not be able to keep track of every word that every culture they come in contact with would consider offensive.
And yet it is a problem. So let's look at our goals: Neither side intends an insult, and our goal is to communicate clearly.
Both sides have to compromise here. If you are in the group that uses a word like "spastic" as a neutral descriptive term, and you discover that some people see it as an insult, you put it in your mental dictionary of things not to say to those particular people. On the other hand, if you are in the group that sees "spastic" as an ablist slur, when you hear someone using it, you need to look at the context and see what that person's intent might be, asking them directly if you are unsure, and take their intended message into account.
If they did not mean it as a slur, then you can either let it pass, or you can inform them how you see that particular word--and I do mean inform, with the intent to educate rather than shame, because no one should have to be ashamed of an insult that was never intended to be one.
The critical point here is that both sides need to listen to each other. If they don't, unintended insults can turn into intended insults.
I'm autistic. I suck at social skills and I find, a lot of the time, that I've said something that insulted someone unintentionally. If they tell me that I have hurt them, I add it to my mental file of things not to say and go on. But I need to be told. It's just so frustrating when people keep it to themselves, expecting me to understand without being told that they have been insulted, and becoming angrier and angrier. If there's no communication, there can be no understanding. If you're not willing to try to understand the other person's perspective, then you will forever be butting heads and insulting each other by accident.
I don't know of any words or phrases which are acceptable in the UK but insulting or offensive in the US. I'm sure there are some, but I don't personally know what they are.
So if I were to use one - let's imagine the word 'mardy' is a heinous insult over there (it's a Northern dialect term for 'grumpy', for the record) - and one of our American Boarders said they were offended by it, do you know what I'd do?
The answer is 'do my best to stop using it on the Board'. Not 'argue that people shouldn't be offended by it because it's not offensive to me'. I think the second approach is entirely backwards: it's saying 'my right to say a word supersedes the right of people not to see offensive words on the Board'.
And yeah, that goes for things that aren't simply words and phrases. If I say that the Boarder Summertide is 'overreacting', and Summertide replies with a huge rant about how she's spent her entire life being told she overreacts - then I'll stop saying that about her, even when it's objectively true, because it offends her and I'm... not here to offend people.
hS
My original intent was to look at and discuss how it is that we could take the same word and have some people look at it as the most minor poke possible, and another the most ablest phrase possible. However, at the time, I just came out of a class where we were discussing words and their power. In the class, it was hammered in how much words only mean what you let them mean. Which then got me thinking, "Why should we assign this horrid connotation to this word? Especially when there is a much less offensive version out there. Why can't we all use the less offensive one?" This became translated into, "I have the right to say what I want, your feelings be darned!" which was not what I meant to say. It is what I said, I will not try and claim you all misunderstood, but it was not what I meant. An error of communication on my part.
Yes, you are right. If somebody said a term was horribly offensive, and explained why, I would avoid it for the future. And, in this case, I will. It may slip though, just because of how we use it here, but call me out on it if i do accidentally use it. I only wanted to look at why it is offensive, and see if we could possibly loosen some of it's offensive power by not associating it with the negative aspects. However, I see that this is a gradual change that must happen. Blame academia for my ignorance.
Because inevitably if it gets drawn out the odds of me unintentionally offending someone will likely skyrocket. First and foremost, I will start by saying I have absolutely no intention of offending anyone, if I do I am preemptively apologizing. Now on to my point.
I think the real crux of the issue is not the word itself. It is the intent. See it is something that I have noticed clearly in the US. In this current era there is a cultural consensus to treat everything with "kid gloves" so to speak. We are too afraid of offending anyone that it really ascribes more power to the word than it otherwise would have. A perfect example of this is the reaction of a great many people in the United States around the time Djano Unchained was released. There were a great many people up in arms over the repeated use of the N-word in the film. Now for those of you that do not know, that refers to the word "nigger". To provide some more context, it seems to me that the use of that word, in the US at least, is perfectly acceptable for African Americans to use, but often times the moment a, usually European-American, mentions the word, people lose their minds over it. I also remember, how I was terrified in one of my classes years back, and we were reading Huck Finn. The word comes up repeatedly throughout the story, and I had to read it aloud. I was terrified because of the stigma attached to the word. And there is the rub. A word itself only has the meaning which humans give it. I do not think a word itself should be considered offensive. It, in my view, is restricted to the intent. For example returning to the particular word at issue, spastic, has (some evidence suggests) been used to mean hyperactive and the other things World Jumper mentioned previously since the 1950s. I understand that it is considered offensive in the UK, but to that I ask, why should that particular world view be foisted upon everyone else? Frankly if we use words that might be offensive, the overall language that can be used will be limited. There are too many words that are innocuous to one culture, but highly offensive to another. Taking an example going the other way, the word "fag". From what I understand in the British Isles, it is a largely innocuous word for cigarette. But in the US, it has most recently become a highly offensive word for a homosexual, do I think that the use of that word should be banned, because it is offensive? No. Because I think it really does come down the intent. It is clear that the OP had no intention of offending anyone. I think the better approach is to focus on the intent.
Now again I did not intend to offend anyone, and if I did I am sorry. And that is the point. I think the focus should not be on the word itself, but on the intent. To kind of close it let us say that a group of One Eyed, One Horned, Flying Purple People Eaters arrive on Earth. Lets say that a group of people then create the word Smerple to refer to those Purple People Eaters, that word should not be offensive just because it exists, but the offense should only be attached if there is rancor, hatred, derision, etc. attached to that word. And that's where I am going to end, because I can already tell where this would go if I continue. So again, I mean no offense, and I think intent should be the focus. Not the word itself.
All of you, not just EAIUO, He Of All The Vowels:-
"You're finding something I said offensive, and that's making me feel uncomfortable about using language I use all the time regardless of how derogatory it is. Because you're making me uncomfortable in this manner, that makes you the offensive one! And therefore you should apologise to me for being offended by something I said, because the fact that my language is offensive doesn't mean you should be offended by it. That's what freedom of speech means, right? Right?"
To which I can only respond thus:
You're being offensive. Maybe you're not being deliberately offensive, but that doesn't mean the square root of sod-all. Don't be offensive. Don't use offensive language. And for the love of whichever god you hold dear, don't try and justify being offensive on the grounds that not everyone finds what you're saying offensive, because that's about as completely beside the bloody point as it's possible for a thing to be. You're just arguing the toss, and talking a load of it while you're at it. So please: don't bloody do that.
The way I saw it, now part of this is my own world view. I am an ardent supporter of the First Amendment of the United State Constitution. I have even written on it, unpublished, but that's not relevant here, and I see this whole ideology in the US of political correctness as a very real threat to what has been enshrined in the US Constitution. I despise any form of censorship, and to me this is using offensiveness as a shield to censor. And I see the slippery slope that can too easily be crossed.
Now also to me it seemed like you were essentially jumping down the OP's throat. Specifically when you said "it does not mean what you think it means." That's a false statement. In American English is does mean exactly what he thought it meant. So the way I look at both of what you and Huinesoron are saying, is that British English is appropriate and should control. It is like you are saying our interpretation is the only appropriate interpretation. Which, with all due respect I vehemently disagree with. And further as to the derogatory part of your comment, our point is that in American English, it is not derogatory and to my knowledge it never has been. This is again getting to the point that it seems that British English is the only appropriate interpretation.
Frankly for me I take Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," to its logical extreme. Someone could come up with the most offensive thing in the universe for someone like me and repeatedly use with all the hatred there could be, and I still would not argue that they should stop using it. Because to me, that's what Freedom of Speech means. This may well be irreconcilable between us, because the European and American views on free speech are different. The US has interpreted our Freedom of Speech to be incredibly broad, much more so than what European Courts have done with their respective free speech provisions. And that's where the real divide seems to come from here.
I know that at least French Courts, and I believe the ECJ have both held that offensive language can be restricted, no such ruling would survive the US Supreme Court. Perhaps that helps show where my arguments are coming from.
"I see this whole ideology in the US of political correctness as a very real threat to what has been enshrined in the US Constitution."
That is a thing that has come out of the hole in your face without evident irony.
Talk amongst yourselves.
There are clearly problems, recently both the government and people seem to have lost track of a great many things. I will admit I had a very visceral reaction without fully thinking it through. I do apologize for that. I am going to reiterate my non-visceral point, that I had a problem with.
You stated that the word the OP used did not mean what he thought it did. My real point is that in American English it means exactly what he thought it meant. And to me it seemed like you were implying that British English is the only proper English. Which caused me to get visceral and go way off on a tangent. A tangent admittedly not well conceived.
You're is buying into right-wing pap that keeps you pinned to the frelling floor, and mine is getting excitable because of it.
First and foremost, I do not belong to the right wing political philosophy. I am actually an Independent with some Libertarian Leanings. Second pap? As in "reading matter or entertainment that is worthless or lacking in substance?" In other words it seems you are equating a "Right Wing", though I prefer the term Conservative Ideology to garbage? I am not offended, but really? Discounting an entire ideology just because you do not agree with it? That seems more than a little provincial. I think it is inappropriate and also more than a little passive aggressive. I get it, you don't much care for Conservative Ideology, but that does not make it any less valuable.
If you want to get into a political debate, that's fine, but this does not seem like the time or place to do so.
Libertarian leanings are basically social right wing - they're on the opposite of left-wing ideologies such as socialism, social democracy, communism and whatnot.
There are different kinds of it. I do not subscribe to the Libertarian Party in the US. In the US Libertarian Leanings also constitute small government. And that is were I fall in in. I am not in any one party.
Each party has a very large platform. I take from all major groups. What I take from Libertarian is also what I predominately take from Conservatives. When in doubt, small government. This is also a Libertarian Perspective. That's all I take from them. My theory of Constitutional Interpretation is also Conservative. Social Policies on the other hand are a full mix for me. Generally I am more in line with US Democrats, though I think several of our social policies need considerable work. Unlike Libertarians I do not want to dismantle them. Environmentally I am more of a Moderate Liberal.
So a better way to describe it would be an Independent who defaults to Small Government unless I think there is good reason for large government.
Free Speech, as it is understood in most democracies today, isn't "I can say whatever I want and you can't do anything." It's "I can say 90% of what I want and the government won't shut me up." The US Constitution (its applicability to this discussion is a whole other cup of tea - under what sort of laws does this community operate?) does not apply to private people. That's why you can sue people for libel - most states, the US included, recognise that Free Speech has limits.
And while it is true you can sue for slander and libel, a very few of them ever succeed. I am using this as perspective. The OP said they were American, I am saying that under controlling US Doctrine, the OP's applicable law, that is not reason for censorship. It seems my point got buried.
Let me rephrase to what I was trying to say prior to going off on a pseudo-legalese analysis. My real issue was the comment that Scape made saying that "it does not mean what you think it means." Which is a false statement. In the US where both the OP and I are from the context the word was used is not only acceptable, but is the controlling definition of that word. It almost seemed to me that Scape was suggesting that the British Interpretation is the appropriate interpretation. I have a very fundamental disagreement with that.
And you are actually not fully correct about the US Constitution not applying to private individuals. I forget the name off the top of my head, but there was a case involving the Elks Lodge Organization, where in the US Supreme Court extended the 14th Amendment (Race Discrimination) to apply to a private organization. There was also Sullivan v. NY Times case which on the libel end, makes it very difficult for a private party to succeed in a libel claim due to Freedom of Speech and Press Claim. The US's protections are far more broad than the EU. Here the trend has been along the lines of "You can say what you want unless it fits into one of very few narrow exceptions."
And that gets back to the point where I think the analysis should be on intent not the word itself. My over-saturated brain turned off its filter and I had a poorly thought out visceral reaction. For that I do apologize.
The point is that Scape is right and the word has additional meanings - ie, not what you think it means; in this case, it's offensive. In our current case, it doesn't really matter which definition is 'appropriate', since we're not arguing about the meaning of the word, we're arguing whether it's acceptable to use it.
Maybe an example will help: suppose I'll come and tell you that you're a son of a bitch. You'd be offended, right? The fact that in Hebrew it is also used as a compliment is irrelevant; you'd still be offended and you'd probably ask that I will apologise, no? Free speech isn't free beer, 'do whatever you want'. Having a right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to offend other people, and other people can and will tell you to stop it. Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say.
Anyway, dealing with the US legal system (which is, admittedly, very different from the Israeli system to which I am used), you're missing Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985) which basically says that no, you can't slander people, even if you're not malicious.
I hope I didn't miss anything in here, I tend to lose myself in my argumentation process.
First I actually would not be offended. Words do not offend me, I cannot conceive a situation where I would be actually offended. There are multiple forms of liable. There is libel against private persons, which as a rule is easier to prove. Though the trend in the past 15-20 years has also made that more difficult to prove. Then there is public figures or public controversies which is Sullivan v. Time which do require actual malice are virtually impossible to prove. The recent trend has extended this to private parties. Especially if the Media is one of the parties. If the Media is involved it is virtually impossible to recover for defamation. Defamation itself is a very complicated issue that includes exceptions to exceptions and so on. I do concede that if it a defamation suit between to private individuals the odds of recovery are much greater. But here is the main way it works. Sullivan's Actual Malice standard only must apply to public individuals, but subsequent trends have indicated that without malice it can get difficult to prove damages. Further Defamation itself is an intentional tort. That means that it requires intent to defame. In order to prove the cause of action there must be a materially false statement of fact made about the party seeking to recover. Even under the basic definition of Defamation, there are massive exceptions. For example: opinions will not be defamation (see virtually every case involving tabloids, there is a reason most suits against tabloids occur in the UK, much easier to prove their equivalent cause of action), further, truth is also an absolute defense. And if the defendant can prove there was no intent to cause harm, most courts will also dismiss. In the US there are dozens of Supreme Court decisions that support virtually every possible interpretation. There is a reason most lawyers in the US get paid very well. The majority trend that I have seen looking through the Court's precedents since Sullivan is that it is very hard to succeed on a defamation claim unless the plaintiff can prove either actual malice or willful disregard of the truth of the fact asserted. It seems that the exceptions in this case have swallowed the rule. That is the trend that I have seen in recent years. Though that does not take into account that there are 50 different States that are allowed some degree of wiggle room on what Defamation is and how to prove it.
1) Assuming people won't get offended when you say something offensive is detached from reality. People do get offended and assuming otherwise is simply wishful thinking.
2) My point isn't that it's easy to get damages via a defamation suit in the States. My point is that, even in the States, the freedom of speech isn't absolute. Aside from legal limitations, there are social limitations - for example, try shouting that God doesn't exist in a church in Alabama; I'm pretty sure you'll get chased out.
As an aside, can you please use line-breaks? Your posts are large blocks of text and it makes them harder to understand.
Is basically making Strawman Political Arguments with myself. So I am going to go back to the point I really tried to make. I agree with what World Jumper was saying.
I got out of line, because I had artificially created straw arguments that were not there. And arguing with a strawman never goes well. For that I do apologize and am ready to move beyond this.
First, some background:
The term "Mary Sue" is considered a misogynist slur by some groups. I don't think you were around when we were pretty much flat-out told by one of them to stop using it for that reason; I'm guessing not. We decided to keep it on the grounds that we'd never used it that way and indeed had never even considered that it could be used that way, considering we're always talking about fictional characters when we use it, never real women. Plus, we have a wiki that carefully explains what we do mean to avoid confusion.
Your view would seem to make us all horrible jerkwads in this case, since we've continued using a term that we have been informed is offensive to some. Is that so, or do you think the case with "Mary Sue" is different from the case with "spastic"? If so, how? If not, would your beliefs force you to rethink your involvement with the PPC now that you have this information?
I'm trying to figure out where and how you draw your boundary lines.
~Neshomeh
You might want to tell these guys.
You can check out these posts in the PPC LJ comm, and the discussion in the comments on the second one, where some people from the So Sue Me community showed up to talk.
When you get back, would you care to answer my question? I'm making a serious attempt to understand your point of view. I would appreciate you not brushing me off as though I were lying to you or something.
~Neshomeh
I think you're being intentionally thick. It's obvious why people think the term "Mary Sue" is sexist; they think it's applying a derogatory term to exactly the same kind of power fantasies that get a free pass from men.
The problem is that nobody in the PPC actually does that, and by dragging out this argument you're denigrating the community. A Mary Sue is an anti-feminist character, because a Mary Sue is a bad character, of the kind that is brought up relentlessly as an example of why women shouldn't be writing in X, Y, or Z by sexist dickless wit-vacuums too busy picking bits of Dorito out of their neckbeard to actually think critically.
That's what you're doing, as far as I'm concerned: not thinking critically. And therefore, since this is a serious bloody topic, I will brush you off, because you're not treating it with the gravity it deserves.
And OrangeYoshi wasn't using the word he(?) used as a derogatory term, so how exactly is the situation different?
And, Scapegrace... can you stop being so insulting towards virtually everyone? You've told Nesh she's not thinking critically or viewing the topic as serious, when that's exactly what she's doing; you've told EIEIO he's 'buying into right-wing pap'; you've randomly flamed, uh... I'm not even sure in this post, possibly 'anyone who thinks Mary-Sues are typical of women's writing'.
It's not helping your point at all, it's making me feel very uncomfortable being on the same side of the discussion as you, and it's also pushing very hard against the no-flaming rules of the PPC Community. As far as the actual culture of the PPC Community goes, I think you're way over the line.
So please. Stop attacking people. You can disagree with people - even bluntly - without making it personal about them.
hS
I get far too angry. Disease of the species, I'm afraid; poor anger management's one of the slew of mental health problems I possess. This is, I feel obliged to stress, not an excuse for my behaviour, merely a reason.
Nesh, I'm sorry for attacking you with personal sniping and unwarranted vehemence. It was wrong of me to treat you in so shoddy a manner.
Because that is actually a very good point to raise in this conversation. And my personal answer is three- or fourfold:
1/ I don't use it around the people who are offended by it - or even could potentially be. I've never (I don't think) left a review calling someone's character a Mary-Sue. I use it in stories which, ultimately, are meant for people who already agree with me. ^_~
2/ The presence of that explanation on the Wiki - and in my head - is important to me; it's designed to be the first port of call when the question of whether 'Mary-Sue' is appropriate comes up. In a way, actually, the term itself becomes a teaching tool - we say 'Mary-Sue', Suesette says 'that's offensive!', and I say 'actually, this is what we mean - and this is why the characters we say it about are actually bad'.
3/ In my series designed to be the face of (my idea of) the PPC - Driftwood, the one I posted on Fanfiction.net - I don't use the phrase 'Mary-Sue' at all. I substituted 'Suvian' as a generic, gender-neutral term. It seems to work. I did that deliberately to avoid causing offense.
And the reason for all of the above:
4/ We use 'Mary-Sue' for historical reasons - it's what Jay and Acacia used. We have a department named after them, and no real justification in-universe for changing it. If the offensive word being discussed in this thread was 'alcoholic', and someone was trying to talk about 'Alcoholics Anonymous', then yeah, that would be analogous. But... it's not.
Like I say, this is a hS response. At least one of my reasons doesn't apply to anyone else, and potentially all of the first three don't apply to any given person. But it's what I think.
hS
ah. My appologies.
And dude: install an Adblocker extension on your browser. It will stop ads from being displayed altogether (yes, even the ones on YouTube as well).
I was using a diff. computer that time so i had no access to adblock plus.
...to keep supporting your favorite youtubers!
I am a rather extensive ad-blocker, but I do make a point to donate or disable for sites/personalities I want to support.