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

321–330 of 983 posts

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

#321

Post by Avamander »

ars wrote: post #192
dogma1138 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...

> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?

Yes. The rule basically says that you can't be racist towards white people.

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

#322

Post by basch »

ur-whale wrote: post #54
evanlivingston wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps there is an association between strongly supporting principles of free markets and problematic ethics.

Aka, I'll hitch my political wagon to any passing train as long as it gets me there.

Or freedoms to be bad. Freedoms to say bad things, freedoms to lie, freedoms to pollute the environment, freedoms to sell harmful things. They all share a "for my benefit, the collateral damage inflicted on others be damned" element.

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

#323

Post by Tiltowait-- »

grenoire wrote: post #178
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.

Damn, I never actually heard this being spoken about on reddit. It's interesting, I'm not from the US and I find it curious that these situations arise. I can understand and empathise with (as a 'person of colour' as it's called over there) the arguments of both sides, but deep down I find this kind of 'positive segregation' morally wrong.

>Damn, I never actually heard this being spoken about on reddit.

That's pretty much the whole idea of censorship.

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

#324

Post by steveeq1 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #315
steveeq1 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, what if this person were a thug and he advocates for a "thug life" (as an arbitrary example, a gangsta rapper)? And let's say he committed a lot of crime and physical harm to other people? Would you issue the same behavior towards him? Would you be very vocal about it?

What is your theory, that no one has ever declined to do business with a rapper? You might want to do some fact checking on that.

"No one has ever"? I doubt "ever", but the BLM crowd rarely does.

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

#325

Post by memimo »

opnitro wrote: post #232
pingpongchef wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 belie…

If you're asking how people can hold contradictory ideas... then I'd invite you do some self reflection. You probably hold some. We all do. Striving towards clarity of thought takes a while. As for white supremacists in specific, let's take David Duke and Richard Spencer for example. (As you agreed above they were white supremacists) Both of these people claim to believe in science and reason, yet also believe in the…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

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

#326

Post by lukifer »

s9w wrote: post #204

"hate speech" is a made up word and neither illegal or "bad". You're applauding a rebranded social score and a secondary justice system.

I can form a trivial argument for why almost any hot-button political opinion is "hate speech", even through the most charitable definition of "advocating violence or diminishing essential human dignity".

- Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe women are "less-than".

- Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you believe pre-birth infants are "less-than".

- Pro-War: You don't respect the sacrifices of American troop or those who died on 9/11, because you believe privileged Westerners are "less-than".

- Anti-War: You don't respect the lives of civilians who die in drone strikes, because you believe Muslims are "less-than".

Lately, I've been cross-referencing the language of dehumanization with how uncontroversial it is to express an opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "necessary evils". And perhaps they were (I've heard the arguments and I'm aware of the historical complexity); yet most Americans suffer little consternation to disregard the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, in a way that would be horrifying if it was (a) present day, and/or (b) the actions of some out-group rather than our own heroic Nazi-fighting forces.

All that said: I think it's also pretty naive to pretend that emotionally inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. Lately I've been thinking about a different category: while "hate speech" is shunned in most corners of polite society, our moral tribes largely tolerate (if not encourage) "fear speech": "[Trump / Antifa] is coming to get you". Each side's fear exacerbates the other in a positive feedback loop, akin to the Cycle of Violence.

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

#327

Post by evanlivingston »

vageli wrote: post #292
evanlivingston wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand, can you clarify?

How can you non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people? Further, how can you maintain non-aggression if the group you are attempting to disenfranchise resists your attempts to disenfranchise them (which would make clear that your attempt to do so is counter to their wishes, and thus aggressive). If you try to do something to someone, and they tell you to stop or try to get you to stop, continuing to do the thi…

Ah, got it. Point taken. I believe what you say is true, but I think the aggression can often be so obscured as to not be visible. Systematically hiring 10% less people of of color, or passing over a resume with a funny sounding name isn't overtly aggressive, but over the course of centuries it becomes quite oppressive. Combine a nuanced action like that with a thousand other nuanced behaviors and you end up with a group of people who are disenfranchised, yet any specific claim they make sounds trite, any specific protest they makes seems out of line with an individual nuanced behavior.

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

#328

Post by happytoexplain »

steveeq1 wrote: post #305
cjslep wrote: post #254

When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer. For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and…

Ok, what if this person were a thug and he advocates for a "thug life" (as an arbitrary example, a gangsta rapper)? And let's say he committed a lot of crime and physical harm to other people? Would you issue the same behavior towards him? Would you be very vocal about it?

On the surface, this seems like a silly example - it doesn't compare in practice. However, if you honestly, in good faith, think that it does, you absolutely should make an effort to form that argument.

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

#330

Post by neylonbill »

roenxi wrote: post #117
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is coordinated. Remember when Alex Jones got banned from literally everything on the same day? The reddit bans wave was leaked in advance. The more actors involved in a coordinated action the harder it is to keep a secret. Original leak: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hh1pjd/redd...

This sort of multiple-headlines-in-one-day undermines the argument for bans. In the Alex Jones case in particular it appeared he was being selected for a broader community image rather than actions on specific platforms. Private companies can't (mechanically, not legally) determine who has a moral right to speak. If we had a magic method for figuring that out it'd have been a feature of politics since at least the Ro…

I love Robert's Rules of Order! I'd love to see someone build video meeting software that implemented it somehow. Or does that exist? A brief search was fruitless.
Post reply on HN