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

The Making of a YouTube Radical

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#81

Post by mistermann »

lwelyk wrote: post #60
__i___ii____ wrote: post #46

I closed out of the article at the suggestion that the likes of Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin are "radicalizing" anyone. The New York times is such unbelievable garbage.

Joe Rogan and Dave rubin just have casual chats with stefan molyneux on their shows where they give him attention and let him just talk. They just give a platform to a literal white supremacist.

I would be interested in seeing you make a case for him being literally a white supremacist.

A convincing case would be:

1. a specific, authoritative definition of white supremacy

2. an example of a video demonstrating these specific (not approximate) beliefs

Is downvoting a request for evidence for an extraordinary claim (to be clear: this is not an assertion, so you "downvoting to express disagreement" is not valid) consistent with the HN guidelines?

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#82

Post by vore »

coldtea wrote: post #78
vore wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Is that what you wanted me to say? Also, don't flamebait like this.

Sorry, you don't get to label whatever you don't like "flamebait". Or is the statement that '"a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole"' is not flamebait? I've asked a question, and you even went ahead and answered "yes". You could have gone for nuance and made some differentiation, but you seem to consider everyone in the right as bad. (I'm not even right, I'm old-school leftist and p…

If you want to accuse someone of not going for nuance, maybe don't start with the words "conservative/right = bad, and liberal/left = good" in your post?

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#83

Post by coldtea »

low_poly_shiba wrote: post #75
coldtea wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was comparing hard to hard. "Hard left" youtube seem to be great people, whereas "hard right" youtube is utter trash. Or you know, that's a version of "everyone I agree with is good, everyone I disagree with is Hitler".

who's your go-to left equivalent of Jordan Peterson or PrisonPaul or Crowder? site doesn't let me reply but I can't believe you're seriously saying Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul, lol Let's narrow it down to those two. Who's the left Crowder/Prisonpaul if not Hbomb? And if it's Hbomb, how can you deny he's better than those two?

Equally "bad" you mean (and assuming those are bad)? Cause I don't consider e.g. Jordan Peterson bad, or even really that right. Conservative yes (which is another thing). In terms of classic left/right politics (and not the modern fashion of id politics) I'd say he's more or less a social democrat.

That said, for people on the left I follow, I'd mention Slavoj Zizek, Chomsky, Michea, and others (including authors on Counterpunch, NLR, Mother Jones, etc).

I like my leftists old school, regarding class, colonization, imperialism, and such, and don't care about the US obsession with identity politics (in fact I dislike it). I don't think the US has had many real leftists since like the 60s, and surely none in the mainstream.

>site doesn't let me reply but I can't believe you're seriously saying Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul, lol

You should be able to reply, I think it just takes a minute for the link to appear or so. Can always click on the parent comment's date though to go to a reply page iirc.

That said, I didn't say "Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul". I said those are some on the left I personally follow. I'm not sure what "equivalent" means here. Equivalent in what?

If it's about having polarizing opinions or away-of-centre opinions on things, well, all those mentioned have those.

>Let's narrow it down to those two. Who's the left Crowder/Prisonpaul if not Hbomb? And if it's Hbomb, how can you deny he's better than those two?

I wasn't sure who Hbomb is, so I paid a visit. Seems like someone making dumb jokes from what (in the US) passes for a leftist view. I haven't seen much Crowder (only heard about him through the recent fuss) but this Hbomb is not in my eyes any better than Prisonpaul. If anything, he's more grating.

(Also, better in what? Better person? Better opinions? More agreeable? More hipster-likable views?)

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#84

Post by pdkl95 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18
golergka wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a very misleading and dishonest journalism, as many of YouTubers displayed in the final stages have nothing to do with the alt-right.

I'm not a fan of all of those YouTubers, but quite a few of the big ones (i.e. Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson) detest racism, and have openly and many times said that they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons. Someone asked why neo-Nazis were attending one of their conferences, and the speaker (Peterson) said he had no idea and wanted them to leave for being idiots. Doesn't change the fact tha…

It doesn't matter what those people you list personally believe; the fact is their speech and behavior is de facto functioning as an entry point funneling[1] people into fascist beliefs. If that isn't their intention, they really need to stop this kind of behavior.

> they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons

> NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting."

These are not in conflict; your actions can still support fascists unintentionally. When people point out your beliefs are supporting white supremacists, it might be a good idea to correct the problem. Continuing to defend the problematic behavior is when what might have been unintentional support begins to look more like intentional participation.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnmRYRRDbuw

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#85

Post by klogd »

pdkl95 wrote: post #84
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of all of those YouTubers, but quite a few of the big ones (i.e. Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson) detest racism, and have openly and many times said that they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons. Someone asked why neo-Nazis were attending one of their conferences, and the speaker (Peterson) said he had no idea and wanted them to leave for being idiots. Doesn't change the fact tha…

It doesn't matter what those people you list personally believe; the fact is their speech and behavior is de facto functioning as an entry point funneling[1] people into fascist beliefs. If that isn't their intention, they really need to stop this kind of behavior. > they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons > NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting." These are not in conflict;…

>It doesn't matter what those people you list personally believe; the fact is their speech and behavior is de facto functioning as an entry point funneling[1] people into fascist beliefs.

Sounds like "better not let anybody be right-wingers or they may someday turn to fascism!"

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#86

Post by coldtea »

vore wrote: post #82
coldtea wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you don't get to label whatever you don't like "flamebait". Or is the statement that '"a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole"' is not flamebait? I've asked a question, and you even went ahead and answered "yes". You could have gone for nuance and made some differentiation, but you seem to consider everyone in the right as bad. (I'm not even right, I'm old-school leftist and p…

If you want to accuse someone of not going for nuance, maybe don't start with the words "conservative/right = bad, and liberal/left = good" in your post?

Did I miss something? I wrote that to specifically address the lack of nuance in your statement:

"a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content"

Isn't it ironic to accuse me of the lack of nuance that you've shown, and I've called?

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#87

Post by josteink »

runarberg wrote: post #49
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #31

Quick Question: You are worried about right-ring rabbit holes, NYT. If I watched a bunch of NYT, Vox, and other such videos, are you _sure_ I wouldn't be sucked into a Left-wing rabbit hole?

I think there is a fundamental difference though. At some point the far right will start to promote really hateful messages such as anti-gay, anti-jew, anti-woman, etc. At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.

> At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.

Or violence against different thinking individuals.

Think third wave feminists. Antifa. BLM. Berkeley Riots.

Right now, the extreme left is much more dangerous than the extreme right (not to mention the similarly lumped not-so-extreme right), because people like you think they will do no “real” wrongs.

That’s a huge mistake to make.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#88

Post by belorn »

djflutt3rshy wrote: post #57
coldtea wrote: post #44

While there are lots of "far right" channels out there, the majority of of the channels shown as screenshots have nothing to do with the "far right" or conspiracy theories. Looks like their main crime is being conservative.

A far cry from the conservatives of my time, hence the "alt" label. As the article mentions, how much discussion of a balanced budget is there in any of these videos? Do you think someone like former Senator McCain or Romney would be watching these? It's all about race and sex and identity issues.

Here in Sweden we had the national election last year.

I saw exactly zero news articles which covered the budget. Not a single one. Almost every single topic that bubbled up on national news, in debates, and on social media involved identity politics. Immigration, gender, religion, and then some climate on the side. The only political party in Sweden that still talk a bit about taxes is the one furthest on the left, and that mostly because capital tax has been their consistent talking point for about as long as the party has existed.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#89

Post by pacala »

runarberg wrote: post #49
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #31

Quick Question: You are worried about right-ring rabbit holes, NYT. If I watched a bunch of NYT, Vox, and other such videos, are you _sure_ I wouldn't be sucked into a Left-wing rabbit hole?

I think there is a fundamental difference though. At some point the far right will start to promote really hateful messages such as anti-gay, anti-jew, anti-woman, etc. At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.

At the far-left end:

A. Millions murdered based on class: independent farmers [0], intellectuals, defined as anyone wearing glasses [1], entrepreneurs, professionals. Generally anyone perceived as better off than their neighbor was at risk of being labeled 'enemy of the people' by said neighbour and deported overnight into the Gulag [2]. Or executed on the spot.

B. Millions deported based on ethnicity. Entire populations were moved around USSR in the '30s, including Balts, Poles, Romanians, Tatars or Koreans, based simply on their ethnicity, partly as an attempt to forcefully disassociate them from their cultural legacy.

C. Millions murdered due to breakdown of basic economic structures. The great famine of Ukraine in '32/'33, and Mao's great famine of the '59/'63 stand out as marvels of far left ideology implemented by force in the economic sphere.

All in all, an estimated 100 million people lost their lives in the name of far left ideology [6]. It is repugnant to gloss over recent history and pretend there are no hideous monsters to be found.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Democrati...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Uni...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#90

Post by mistermann »

pacala wrote: post #35
minimaxir wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comment from the author (which is getting ratioed): > Hey, writer here. This collage is just a sample from his viewing history. Some far-right, some not. https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1137392725081219073

The choice of the text scrolling over the collage, however, is the author's / NYT's doing. > Caleb Cain was a college dropout looking for direction. He turned to YouTube. > Soon, he was pulled into a far-right universe, watching thousands of videos filled with conspiracy theories, misogyny and racism. > I was brainwashed If some, in the admission of the writer, are not far right / [insert some other libelous term her…

All's fair in love and meme wars, which is what this is. At the end of the day, I think the implicit "one side is using facts and truth, the other is using lies and deceit" narrative is effective, but it also has weakness in that it is a bit lacking in the truth department. I'm not liking the direction these debates are going though.
Post reply on HN