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

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#131

Post by 0815test »

username90 wrote: post #127
lwelyk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What word would you prefer I use? I was trying to avoid painting the right wiht that brush by using it, but I'll not use that term then. The guy in the article watched a lot of Stefan molyneux videos and he's a white supremacist. That's what the article was about, that's why I brought up white supremacists. You go down that youtube rabbit hole and you just get the "race realists" eventually. That's the topic of the a…

I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't there a huge difference between "race realists" and "white supremacists"? Isn't a "race realist" someone who argues that there are significant genetic differences between races while a "white supremacist" is someone who argues that whites should rule over the other races?

The word "significant" is doing a heck of a lot of work there. Statistically significant? Maybe, but even if that were the case, the actual, plausible consequences are really subtle - they're there of course, but most "race realists" like to talk about other things - go figure! "Significant" in an everyday sense? No way - that's so wildly implausible (keep in mind, we're only talking about what the innate difference might be, after screening out all of the environmentally-caused divergence!) that one can safely say that people who argue that this is what's going on, really are just parroting white-supremacist memes. I.e. they might not be white supremacists themselves, but they're ideologically-possessed memebots who are spreading a white-supremacist memetic infection.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#133

Post by razius »

username90 wrote: post #127
lwelyk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What word would you prefer I use? I was trying to avoid painting the right wiht that brush by using it, but I'll not use that term then. The guy in the article watched a lot of Stefan molyneux videos and he's a white supremacist. That's what the article was about, that's why I brought up white supremacists. You go down that youtube rabbit hole and you just get the "race realists" eventually. That's the topic of the a…

I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't there a huge difference between "race realists" and "white supremacists"? Isn't a "race realist" someone who argues that there are significant genetic differences between races while a "white supremacist" is someone who argues that whites should rule over the other races?

Yes, you are right. This is just a re-definition of language so that you can't talk about it without being labeled a white supremacists.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#135

Post by lwelyk »

username90 wrote: post #127
lwelyk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What word would you prefer I use? I was trying to avoid painting the right wiht that brush by using it, but I'll not use that term then. The guy in the article watched a lot of Stefan molyneux videos and he's a white supremacist. That's what the article was about, that's why I brought up white supremacists. You go down that youtube rabbit hole and you just get the "race realists" eventually. That's the topic of the a…

I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't there a huge difference between "race realists" and "white supremacists"? Isn't a "race realist" someone who argues that there are significant genetic differences between races while a "white supremacist" is someone who argues that whites should rule over the other races?

Barely a difference . Race realism is the same thing, sugar-coated to avoid openly admitting your racism and belief that some races are inherently superior .

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#136

Post by lwelyk »

razius wrote: post #133
username90 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't there a huge difference between "race realists" and "white supremacists"? Isn't a "race realist" someone who argues that there are significant genetic differences between races while a "white supremacist" is someone who argues that whites should rule over the other races?

Yes, you are right. This is just a re-definition of language so that you can't talk about it without being labeled a white supremacists.

Correct, believing some races are inherently superior does get you labeled a white supremacist because there's functionally not much of a difference between the two.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#137

Post by teddyh »

krapp wrote: post #59
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…

> I think the problem here is that they support some policies which white supremacists, as a group, also like supporting. Just because two groups can agree on something doesn't mean those groups are allies. I'm probably going to bleed karma for this, but whatever - I think Trump's campaign had the same problem. I don't believe he's explicitly a white supremacist or that he wanted the support of neo-nazis, if for no o…

Why is this a problem? Is it everyone’s duty to deny “white supremacists” in all things, to make sure you have absolutely nothing in common? If they tended to shave, would it then be the duty of every right-thinking man to grow a beard?

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#138

Post by Grue3 »

lwelyk wrote: post #56
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.

I just scrolled down the screenshot section where it showed the videos he watched in one time period, are you really trying to say Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, thunderf00t and a lady complaining about "cuckservatives" aren't "far right" or conspiracy theorists?

What's wrong with thunderf00t? I only remember him for anti-creationist videos and exposing Solar Roadways. It seems he's anti-conspiracy theorist if anything.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#139

Post by coldtea »

lwelyk wrote: post #111
coldtea wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I feel people are being disingenuous when they say Paul Joseph Watson is a conspiracy theorist by association. I've watched several of his own videos on his YouTube channel. Where are the conspiracy theories?

I found these in about 10 minutes. Don't act like being part of a conspiracy theory website makes calling you a conspiracy theorist is some sort of disingenuous leap. Like the point of the website is spreading conspiracy theories. A lot of the prison planet blog was deleted it seems, I guess due to his and alex jones' fallout, but here are your links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifIAlft47bM https://www.infowars.c…

So, the kind of "conspiracy" you meant is speculation there is a cover up of a politician's ill health condition in the first video? That has been done time and again by all kinds of politicians and leaders, from the time of El Cid... If that's a "conspiracy theory", then sure, every journalist alluding to something not documented at the time, is a conspiracy theorist. I expected more aliens, illuminati, and lizard people.

The second is merely reporting, on a well known topic of public discussion. A document was requested, it appeared, and there were people raising questions about certain aspects. Should they not be reported? Where's the conspiracy part?

The others I'll give you are conspiracy theory material (though several of those kind of conspiracies (government conspiring, ordering executions, and so on), that a naive US person thinks "can never happen", have been found -- by courts and later evidence -- true in Europe time and again, just ask in Italy, Spain, France, Greece, etc. E.g:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#Officia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis

That said, those are from like 10 years ago or more? I'm familiar with his YouTube stuff and I don't see much conspiracy stuff there.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#140

Post by mistermann »

TomMckenny wrote: post #129
mistermann wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. As I pointed out, there are many definitions of the word, your link documents one of them . Would you minding explaining the relevance of that link to my question? Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant when he used the word "crazy" in the the video linked above, and also that he is advocating sterilizi…

> Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant... It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death. >There are many different meanings for that word, could you provide clarity on which meaning you are…

I'm going to reply to this a bit later today, would like to hear your thoughts on it....just putting this here in case this flows off your screen due to other discussion.
Post reply on HN