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

161–169 of 169 posts

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#161

Post by dang »

lwelyk wrote: post #94
mistermann wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stefan Molyneux? Are you serious? Here's a video from him where he says he can't "argue with the facts" about white nationalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWYFU7OMw58&feature=youtu.be... Here are choice quotes with sources: “The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014 "Screaming 'racism…

Please don't do ideological flamewar on HN. By the time people start hauling in wheelbarrows of pre-existing quotes like this, intellectual curiosity is long lost.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#162

Post by [deleted] »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #115
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?

NYT is not a left wing outlet. Left-wing mass media, produced by a large capitalist conglomerate, if you think carefully is an oxymoron.

[deleted]

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#163

Post by gamechangr »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #115
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?

NYT is not a left wing outlet. Left-wing mass media, produced by a large capitalist conglomerate, if you think carefully is an oxymoron.

Ummm...NYT is not bi-partisan?

Would you consider New York to be left wing? I would.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#164

Post by gamechangr »

oh_sigh wrote: post #39
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in those states that have already voted to do so, with a mandate from their constituents. Except for those conservatives.

Notice how none of the heartbeat abortion laws actually set the punishment as the same punishment for murder. So clearly those people do not see elective abortion as equivalent to killing an already-born human.

"clearly"... isn't as clear as it may first appear.

For Example: Plenty of Americans wanted to legalize gay marriages in every state, but proposition 8 lost.

My point: People could very well think that abortion ia the equivalent to killing an already born human, but getting a law to pass takes a majority and I think it's fair to say that America is pretty divided on the issue. To get anything to pass, there will be compromises.

Maybe conservatives feel stronger than the language of the laws that are being passed. Maybe not, but it's anything but clear.

It's easier to say that small extreme groups are exaggerating and then act stunned when trump wins the election. My entire social circle was stunned when he won, because they assumed they knew where conservatives stood.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#165

Post by mistermann »

dang wrote: post #160
mistermann wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Please keep these wretched ideological flamewars off HN. Think of it as an experiment in not having literally every internet forum burn with the same rage. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hi Dang,

I doubt you have the time or any remaining patience to care, and I can hardly blame you, but I would like to point out what I think is an important point: while this discussion may seem like just another ideological disagreement, if you look at my participation in it I hope you could see that I was approaching it from an epistemological perspective, not (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150162) an ideological perspective.

I have a theory that a large percentage of seemingly ideological disagreements (same set of facts, but difference of opinion) are in fact rooted in epistemological problems of perception. This is why my counterpart was unable to provide evidence for what he (genuinely, and with good intentions) believed were facts.

My intentions were not malicious (I think this is observably plausible based on my words and tone, or at least I hope so) in the conversation - I wasn't trying to score a "win" for "my side", I was genuinely trying to see if it is possible to get someone who believes something not-absolutely-factual to examine the foundation of those beliefs. "Defending" Stefan Molyneux was probably not the wisest place to do such a thing, but it is almost always topics related to "-isms" where these sorts of cognitive behaviors manifest themselves, so it is almost always going to look "obviously stupid" to have chosen the specific subject when taking such experimental stands.

Personally, I wish more people would try (if no one ever does anything, how will the problem stop getting worse) to figure out what is going on with the increasing polarization of opinions between people and try to figure out a way to fix it. But at the end of the day, even if I am completely correct in this theory, perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it (although, among all the downvotes and flags, one person maintained objectivity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20148991), and expecting HN mods to tolerate the messiness is a bit much to ask.

So, my sincere apologies, I will try to refrain/minimize such behavior going forward. But at the same time, I think it is fair to point out that in such disagreements, it takes two to tango, and perhaps the person holding the popular but technically not-objectively-correct position might be deserving of a warning as well. To me, dishonesty is a much more toxic and harmful behavior than disagreement.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#166

Post by dang »

mistermann wrote: post #165
dang wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please keep these wretched ideological flamewars off HN. Think of it as an experiment in not having literally every internet forum burn with the same rage. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hi Dang, I doubt you have the time or any remaining patience to care, and I can hardly blame you, but I would like to point out what I think is an important point: while this discussion may seem like just another ideological disagreement, if you look at my participation in it I hope you could see that I was approaching it from an epistemological perspective, not ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150162 ) an id…

I believe you. But I think the mistake is here:

> if it is possible to get someone who believes something not-absolutely-factual to examine the foundation of those beliefs.

That's extremely unlikely to happen, especially on the internet, and you can do a lot of damage in the process—especially if the way you go about it isn't obviously distinguishable from simply arguing the opposite side.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#167

Post by mistermann »

dang wrote: post #166
mistermann wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Dang, I doubt you have the time or any remaining patience to care, and I can hardly blame you, but I would like to point out what I think is an important point: while this discussion may seem like just another ideological disagreement, if you look at my participation in it I hope you could see that I was approaching it from an epistemological perspective, not ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150162 ) an id…

I believe you. But I think the mistake is here: > if it is possible to get someone who believes something not-absolutely-factual to examine the foundation of those beliefs. That's extremely unlikely to happen, especially on the internet, and you can do a lot of damage in the process—especially if the way you go about it isn't obviously distinguishable from simply arguing the opposite side.

> That's extremely unlikely to happen, especially on the internet

True, and perhaps "common sense", but I think questioning common sense now and then isn't a bad idea.

My theory was, when you find yourself in a situation like this, if you remain cordial and repetitively bring the conversation back to the same question over and over, eventually it will be ~impossible for them to not realize what is happening. I now realize I executed poorly on this until the very end, where it may have suddenly become easily distinguishable that I wasn't just arguing and what was actually going on, but by then it was too late.

As always, I will work on improving my behavior, but my sense is that this general problem continues to grow, here and elsewhere. Censorship has an upper bound of effectiveness, something lower average quality communities are grappling with now. I worry that kicking the can down the road might ultimately not be a good idea.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#168

Post by oh_sigh »

gamechangr wrote: post #164
oh_sigh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice how none of the heartbeat abortion laws actually set the punishment as the same punishment for murder. So clearly those people do not see elective abortion as equivalent to killing an already-born human.

"clearly"... isn't as clear as it may first appear. For Example: Plenty of Americans wanted to legalize gay marriages in every state, but proposition 8 lost. My point: People could very well think that abortion ia the equivalent to killing an already born human, but getting a law to pass takes a majority and I think it's fair to say that America is pretty divided on the issue. To get anything to pass, there will be c…

Prop 8 passed because more people voted for it than against it.

If conservatives control the government, and they all believe abortion is murder and should be punished as such - then they can pass a law declaring that.

If conservatives control the government, and they still can't get an abortion=murder law passed, and need to form a coalition with other conservatives who simply hate abortion but don't think it is murder, then I think that goes to my point that not all conservatives believe abortion is murder.

Re: The Making of a YouTube Radical

#169

Post by busymom0 »

rjf72 wrote: post #79

This article just included Milton Friedman in a collage that seems to imply he was a conspiratorial, racist, misogynist? For those who might not know who he was, here is is Wiki entry. [1] He's a nobel prize winning economist and more or less critical reading to understand the logic behind much of our current economic processes, without casting judgement on the rightness or wrongness of said systems. He died 13 years…

That along with them including Philip DeFranco (even though he's not mentioned in the article) made me lose interest in whatever they were trying to say through the article. I don't want to get on a political debate here on HN but Phil is more left leaning or at least that's the impression almost entirety of his audience gets from watching his videos.

I honestly think that this article is more about trying to take down independent but huge following journalists/creators than it's about shining light on radicalization. This could be because of these independent creators are taking away too much of these huge media company/newspaper's profits.

Post reply on HN