Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 776 posts

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#261

Post by tathougies »

threeseed wrote: post #210
bartimus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples of Milo making a racist remark? Afaik his criticism is mainly towards certain cultures. Not races.

Given that there is such a high correlation between religion, race and cultural background I don't think it's always possible to say that racism is fine but bigotry and xenophobia aren't. They are all inextricably linked.

In America, there isn't really. For the most part, immigrant groups have adopted a culture completely or substantially different than the one from which their ancestors came.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#262

Post by BickNowstrom »

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #222
BickNowstrom wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has weather weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Con... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-potomac/sex-c... For Mueller, Sandy Hook, and Pizzagate, Alex Jones speculated and reported on these existing conspiracy theories.…

Good ol' insanity defense. Classic. Guess he doesn't invent anything that guy, besides a product line to make him money.

You think Alex Jones is a 100% sane? And no need to guess, all those conspiracy theories discussed on his show had already been talked about by others. The product line is a strawman.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#263

Post by balls187 »

vibrato wrote: post #214
aeturnum wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Farrakhan is a really tough case. First, he's cartoonishly anti-semitic and has been for years. He's as much of a hate monger as any of the other people who were banned and that's enough reason to ban him. That given, he has also materially supported vulnerable populations in a way that few organizations have. He has pushed very hard for black people to be proud of their blackness and to create narratives in…

So you've established that it's desirable for black people to be proud of their blackness. Is it desirable for white people to be proud of their whiteness? If you allow for one of these and not the other, you'd be a racist.

Oh my sweet summer child.

What does being proud to be white mean to you?

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#264

Post by colordrops »

waer34tawer wrote: post #72
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes: - 9/11 was an inside job - The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails - Soy beans are making men docile and feminine. Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has. He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous. My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing t…

One of those there is not like the other. Just because we hear repeatedly that the 9/11 story is fully understood doesn't make it true. There is absolutely nothing far fetched about the idea of a conspiracy around 9/11, whether the the evidence is there or not. The motives are there and there is plenty of evidence of lying and false flags throughout history, including recently in the US. Please read on Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This sort of thing involves human politics and is simply not in the same class as reptilian overlords.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#265

Post by hajile »

naasking wrote: post #130
ggggtez wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the above poster said, and you know it. You say "marginally", "anyone", "mocking". But the people in question aren't anyone, and they aren't just mocking. There are specific cases of them calling on their fans to harass private citizens. Anyone with some semblance of awareness of US law knows free speech is not without limits. No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not.

> No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

That is just an appeal to authority. Once upon a time, that same kind of authority said certain races were sub-human and had few or no rights. The question of whether or not it is a right is completely separate from the current trend of those in power.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#266

Post by colordrops »

DtnB wrote: post #256
colordrops wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if other religions had a sane non violent healthy mythology. Please.

Other religions that have kept their popularity and adherents over the centuries(and much in the past century) have, part, reformed and toned down the significance of these violent mythologies especially in their relevance to doctrine. To assert otherwise seems like arguing in bad faith.

Yes, you are arguing in very bad faith to ignore the millions dead in the middle east in the last 20 years due to sectarian fighting between abrahamic faiths.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#267

Post by tathougies »

ggggtez wrote: post #84
Veen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a group is marginally more likely to suffer violence, anyone mocking them should be denied access to widely used communications platforms? Doesn’t really make sense, does it?

That's not what the above poster said, and you know it. You say "marginally", "anyone", "mocking". But the people in question aren't anyone, and they aren't just mocking. There are specific cases of them calling on their fans to harass private citizens. Anyone with some semblance of awareness of US law knows free speech is not without limits. No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not.

> There are specific cases of them calling on their fans to harass private citizens. Anyone with some semblance of awareness of US law knows free speech is not without limits. No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not.

So will CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post be banned from facebook for setting hundreds of doxxers and activists on a high school kid who smiled in a red hat?

Man, the lack of introspection in this thread is astounding.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#268

Post by asdff »

tjenkinsqs wrote: post #109
jonny_eh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works to remove platforms from people who spread hate and misinformation. https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming...

So will CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. finally be de-platformed for "Weapons of Mass Destruction". This has caused actual destruction in terms of trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's lives and the rise of ISIS with massive destruction in the middle east.

Well in those days we trusted the white house to not blatantly lie to the American people. CNN et al just put Cheney on TV.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#269

Post by munificent »

naasking wrote: post #121
aeturnum wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous…

> They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics. Are they? We have plenty of rigourous evidence supporting the dangers of anti-vaxx, but I've seen little data on Yiannopolous or Watson or even Alex Jones causin…

Alex Jones deserves to be de-platformed and probably put in jail for the trauma his behavior caused to the parents of Sandy Hook victims, if nothing else.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#270

Post by Pimpus »

xyz0 wrote: post #219
holler wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there evidence that Yiannopolus associated himself with white supremacists? because every piece of material I’ve seen has been about free-speech and social-justice, often questioning the said association created by media

"Here's How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled White Nationalism Into The Mainstream" ( https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-h... ) Here's one of many relevant excerpts: > These new emails and documents, however, clearly show that Breitbart does more than tolerate the most hate-filled, racist voices of the alt-right. It thrives on them, fueling and being fueled by some of the most toxic beliefs on the…

Did you seriously just link to Buzzfeed? No further comment.
Post reply on HN