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

YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 983 posts

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#221

Post by pingpongchef »

opnitro wrote: post #182
pingpongchef wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for clarifying. However they don't prove your case, and I'll explain why. Arguing that a conspiracy exists to harm a group is not evidence that this group is superior. It simply does not follow. Yes, I can see how this view might be shared by white supremacists but it simply does not follow from this statement alone. And for the record, I myself don't find his argument compelling. The second statement goes…

"“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff." Yeah he's a white supremacist. White supremacy (and associated Fascism), tend to believe in contradictory narratives about their…

If white supremacists can believe contradictory ideas and still be white supremacists, then how are we to determine who is and isn't? By this logic there's no evidence you could give me to prove you're not a white supremacist since contradictions. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but I hope you see how untenable such a line of thinking is.

Also, I do understand the possibility that someone could claim to believe one thing and not actually believe it. It simply requires a higher burden of proof.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#222

Post by syshum »

stillbourne wrote: post #59
syshum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Free Speech is not limited to the 1st amendment. The concept of Free Expression exist outside of the US Constitution If society does not have respect for Free Expression (a…

>>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make >I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Would disagree with your statement https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

I am not sure why you believe that case refutes my statements in any way.

Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law)

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#223

Post by mempko »

anticonformist wrote: post #96
ra1n85 wrote: post #13

Twitch and Reddit enacted bans simultaneously: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-tru... https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-accoun... Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this.

The public square is owned by private companies and they're enforcing anti-first amendment principles. One can't even argue that these banned people can move to another platform if they're all coordinating. Leftist extremists are effecting public banishment of their rightist extremist opponents. It wouldn't be as bad if leftist extremists were getting banned at the same time. The problem is that leftist extremists ha…

but isn't the world of "private property" what the right wants? This kind of world, where there are no longer any public squares, but everything held in private is the world the right asks for. This is the kind of world we end up with. The irony should not be lost on them right?

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#224

Post by castlecrasher2 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #150
anticonformist wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public square is owned by private companies and they're enforcing anti-first amendment principles. One can't even argue that these banned people can move to another platform if they're all coordinating. Leftist extremists are effecting public banishment of their rightist extremist opponents. It wouldn't be as bad if leftist extremists were getting banned at the same time. The problem is that leftist extremists ha…

People get regularly banned for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and many other kinds of hate, whether their profiles say 'D' or 'R' or something else. If many of their profiles tend to say 'R' or otherwise have similar political views, that's not an indication of bias on the part of platforms.

/r/politics not being banned completely invalidates your point

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#225

Post by erichocean »

devmunchies wrote: post #155
renewiltord wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a free society. If you don't like someone else's house party, build your own. thedonald.win is one such thing.

it's not a free society. there are lots of laws and regulations in place. Saying this is a free country is a useless platitude. Gab (twitter alternative) was just blacklisted by Visa last week. There is no recourse. What, should these people build their own consumer credit company too? https://news.gab.com/2020/06/19/gab-blacklisted-by-visa/

> What, should these people build their own consumer credit company too?

Why would racist Whites stop there? Pretty soon they'll want to build their own governments: literal White nationalism. Republicans are already talking about secession in a positive light…

To protect minorities, the 2nd Amendment has to be gutted as much as possible before that kind of thing happens, even if we must seriously bend the existing Civil Rights legislation to do so (Republicans can't stand up to the NRA, even if they wanted to).

Biden has the right kinds of policy ideas, but he needs to go further. https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

> Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#226

Post by devmunchies »

stillbourne wrote: post #7

You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree t…

> Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation? Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate.

Hey if you don't like it, build your own hacker news.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#227

Post by etherael »

fault_lines wrote: post #206
etherael wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane." Is it 'racist' to scream at people because whites have a lower distribution of fast twitch muscle fibers than blacks and thus the results and distributions of champions in sports where this is essential heavily favour blacks? Is this a comment on the "inferiority" of a specific race, or an observation of material reality? W…

You should revise your original statement from "he didn't say those things" to "he said those things, but I agree with them". Thanks.

I don't agree with them, I don't believe that a statistically observed difference in a particular trait according to racial phenotypes implies that racial phenotype is "inferior" or "superior" to begin with. And it turns out that just as I originally said, he didn't say them.

To clarify, what exactly is it that you disagree with, that the statistical observation in question exists, or that if it does exist, it doesn't necessarily imply that the racial phenotype in question must be "superior" or "inferior"?

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#228

Post by john-shaffer »

sweetheart wrote: post #164
chrisco255 wrote: post #22

It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is left with the world. Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range of opinions tha…

>The problem is they are not approaching the left's extremists with the same fervor This is a false equivalence. The worst of the alt-right are far, far worse than the worst of the extreme left (antifa, maybe? Though there is no alt-left). Good riddance to them, I say. If you want to lead the KKK, and advocate for a white ethnostate, I won't lose any sleep when you can't post videos trying to convince others of the s…

> The worst of the alt-right are far, far worse than the worst of the extreme left (antifa, maybe? Though there is no alt-left).

There are people that support Stalin and Mao, which is just bad as supporting Hitler.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#229

Post by Animats »

"Videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status."

Not for suggesting a group be attacked. Not "hate". For expressing an opinion on a political subject. Prohibiting that is scary. This is not a good thing, and we will probably regret it in a few years.

Trump would like to shut down criticism of himself, and has tried. Black Lives Matter might be muzzled for inciting to riot. This can backfire, badly.

"Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where ... all the children are above average."

Post reply on HN