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

371–380 of 776 posts

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

#371

Post by razakel »

DanBC wrote: post #203
naasking wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines. You're right, you can't because the anti-vaxx movement is as old as vaccines themselves. Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism. > I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yianno…

> Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism. It's useful to read the entire thing. https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-... But imagine a doctor that merely says "Don't get vaccines, they cause autism" but doesn't falsify any data. That doctor is probably going to be erased from the…

>But imagine a doctor that merely says "Don't get vaccines, they cause autism" but doesn't falsify any data. That doctor is probably going to be erased from the English register.

No, but they would likely be censured.

A doctor has to spectacularly screw up to get struck off. It's not done lightly. One obstetrician accidentally decapitated a baby during birth and kept her licence.

Wakefield faked data, concealed two financial conflicts of interest, and ordered painful, invasive procedures (spinal taps and colonoscopies) on severely autistic children that were not clinically indicated and that he did not have the training to interpret. He even paid children at his son's birthday party for blood samples, then laughed about them crying during a later talk.

That is not the sort of man I want practicing medicine.

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

#372

Post by coldtea »

eropple wrote: post #140
coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? They don't adhere 100% to the established views of the 10% of "good people". Hence, they are, if not dangerous, bad.

"They" out and attack trans people and intentionally-and-maliciously spin up their literally-not-figuratively crazy followers to inundate with death threats the parents of kids who died in school shootings. Where I come from, having a speaker own the results of that sort of thing isn't particularly controversial and I would think that you, specifically you, could find it within you to be better than this.

>"They" out and attack trans people

Do they? This is the video you're perhaps referring to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2oV1QKUMdM and the person in question was commented upon because they were already in the news as a trans activist making a scene in that same campus (to be allowed to the women's toilets). What counts as an "outing" at this point?

You might not like the tone or politics, but this is tame stuff, pumped up into some kind of evily evil monstery, because it doesn't follow the "Bien-pensant" etiquette. Which is the whole shtick of such people -- to give some controversial opinions and not the same-old.

Besides, people have been making fun and attacking all kinds of other people they disagree with -- or just wanna take a shot at -- for ages, without being de-platformed. Does it only matter when it's done from people on the right/conservative side (similarly to how, back in the day, it mattered only when it was done from the left/progressive side)?

The fussy way people are these days, they would run Zappa and Carlin off the stage today, never mind someone like Hunter Thompson...

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

#373

Post by coldtea »

creaghpatr wrote: post #106
coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? They don't adhere 100% to the established views of the 10% of "good people". Hence, they are, if not dangerous, bad.

Well, Milo did write a memoir titled "Dangerous"...

Well, Michael Jackson also had a record of that name, and it one of his tamest and more indifferent, so there's that!

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

#374

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

aeturnum wrote: post #186
cat199 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to create narratives in which blackness is not looked down upon. This is good, needed work. so like: In the Nation of Islam, both God and the devil are human beings. Elijah Muhammad identified the devil as the white man, the Caucasian race. According to Elijah, though the black race is many trillions of years old, the white race began a mere six thousand years ago with Yakub, one of the Black Gods of this time cycl…

Hah, no, I would not say that's the "good" part of the the Nation of Islam. However, just like Christianity has been able to do some amount of "good work" while insisting that "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says"[1], the Nation is not "all bad." I personally would judge its good works to be more crippled by its doctrine than most faith…

That was PART of the apostle Paul's admonition about keeping order in a gathering of the saints, from a wide variety of angles. I think the context is explained by the next verse: If they have questions, let them ask their husbands at home. Ergo: don't disrupt the proceedings with distractions. (And even if you accept this interpretation, you may now commence criticizing Paul for inferring that only women needed to be told this.)

People who look down on Christianity love to bring up this scripture, but do you actually know any significant branches of Christianity that enforce this? I'm a fan of one of the most stringent denominations around, and even we have A LOT of women speakers and ministers in our organization. I honestly don't know any which abides by a literal application of this scripure. I've only ever seen it used as a wedge issue against strict biblical interpretation.

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

#375

Post by smrtinsert »

breakbread wrote: post #251
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.

He's married to a black man...

If someone is married to a woman they can't be a misogynist?

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

#376

Post by Splognosticus »

shaki-dora wrote: post #277
xyz0 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

So someone asks for a nexus between Milo and white supremacists, and someone linking a source with a video of him serenading neo-nazis with their arms stretched out gets voted down? The it’s-about-free-speech-not-alt-right-sympathy shtick really needs some update...

[flagged]

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

#377

Post by microtherion »

holler wrote: post #205
aeturnum wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I could connect Jones or Yiannopolous specifically to anything, just as I couldn't connect, say, Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines. I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yiannopolous has promoted violence against journalists and associated himself with white supremacist movements. Jones has promoted the harassment…

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

Assuming that "Singing Karaoke while Richard Spencer & co throw up Nazi salutes" qualifies as "associating with white supremacists": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLNLPIRS62g

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

#378

Post by maximus1983 »

aeturnum wrote: post #46
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…

> 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…

I like watching a lot of conspiracy theory "documentaries" because it is like science fiction.

Also suppressing information makes it "sexy" it is the same as the Barbra Streisand effect it amplifies it.

Also lets not forget trusted sources aren't that great either. Remember the Iraq War and WMD? We didn't find any.

So I haven't seen any evidence that suppressing these is "healthy". All you are doing is creating a new clergy.

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

#379

Post by Splognosticus »

shehryarrr wrote: post #295
Pimpus wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you seriously just link to Buzzfeed? No further comment.

Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News are very different. Your dismissal is pretty ignorant.

Nah, guys like this just find video evidence kinda inconvenient since it gives up the game.

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

#380

Post by Fellshard »

colordrops wrote: post #266
DtnB wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just one.
Post reply on HN