Stefan Molyneux not to be confused with Peter Molyneux.
YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
351–360 of 983 posts
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is crazy to think that ideas can be extinguished. These purges will serve to further concentrate and radicalize the adherents to these ideologies. edit : I may have been wrong, it seems deplatforming might work. [0] TIL! I had often read that echo chambers exacerbated radicalization but it seems more research has yielded better data to turn over that conclusion. edit1 : it seems like radicalization is more nuanced…
Communism, as a political movement, was largely extinguished in the US during the 20th century through purges and deplatforming. How many communist organizations do you see, these days? How much reach do they have, compared to the 30s? How much political power do they have, compared to the alt-right, today? Extinguishing that idea into the fringe seems to have worked rather well. As did de-nazification, post WWII. It…
Fascism never went away; it was a mortal threat in 1965 when Herbert Marcuse wrote Repressive Tolerance, one of the most influential essays ever written: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/1965MarcuseRepre...
>"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left."
>"The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is extreme danger. I maintain that our society IS in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and "philosophies" can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the "marketplace of ideas" is organized and delimited by those who determine national and the individual interest."
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's missing the forest for the trees... advocating for a "white ethnostate" is not the only thing that makes you a white supremacist and that's the real crux of the comparison. Making the distinction doesn't change the fact that he is rightfully lumped in with them on the basis of being a white supremacist . There is more nuance to Molyneux than David Duke, but he's made his views on the subject pretty clear.
The comment tree was about "white nationalism", which is definitely commonly understood to mean "wants a white ethnostate".
Is it possible that Stefan Molyneux wants one, even though he doesn't actively advocate for it?
Because everything I've heard from him suggests he would love one... which meets your definition squarely.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 g…
That makes a lot of sense. If each (and every) of the actions is nuanced, I can see a group being oppressed without violence and possibly even without aggression if the oppressors believe they are helping the oppressed with their policies. Though of course the nature of the actions is such that there is plausible deniability should motive come into question. Goodness.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were platform hopping, it would be ban, then hop, then ban, then hop. It takes time to hop and move all of your content and followers. This time has not elapsed.
It’s to prevent this, so you don’t have their user base hope to the other platform to express their anger, it also helps when you share the news cycle. This isn’t an opinion for or against this pattern just an observation on why it makes sense.
Sort of a pre-emptive revenge, then.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#356Earlier 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...
>It is coordinated. Is there any evidence of this besides the announcements just happening on the same day? It could be companies waiting to announce these moves on Monday morning after days of seeing Facebook embroiled in controversy for not doing this. Or maybe one company decided to make this move and other companies fast tracked anything they had planned on this so they wouldn't be viewed as ignoring this issue.…
There were several posts predicting this exact outcome yesterday on subreddits drama. The people close to the pulse knew.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is crazy to think that ideas can be extinguished. These purges will serve to further concentrate and radicalize the adherents to these ideologies. edit : I may have been wrong, it seems deplatforming might work. [0] TIL! I had often read that echo chambers exacerbated radicalization but it seems more research has yielded better data to turn over that conclusion. edit1 : it seems like radicalization is more nuanced…
Communism, as a political movement, was largely extinguished in the US during the 20th century through purges and deplatforming. How many communist organizations do you see, these days? How much reach do they have, compared to the 30s? How much political power do they have, compared to the alt-right, today? Extinguishing that idea into the fringe seems to have worked rather well. As did de-nazification, post WWII. It…
I mean the Democrats tried to nominate one for president and have one in congress in New York.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#358Earlier 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 only a matter of time before thedonald.win gets deplatformed by payment and internet service providers for thoughtcrime
yep that's what I'm thinking too.. I'm surprised cloudflare hasn't banned them yet, but I know it's coming.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#359There's a problem here that is too rarely discussed: When we do finally achieve substantial decentralized agency for ideas and media, which cannot be censored, it will be tainted in its roots by the fact that these jackasses are the people who will flock to it first. How can we build a censorship-resistant society where the most creative, peaceful, unifying ideas are the basis of our dialogue?
i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience and time to go through so, in an "open market" it becomes harder to shut down bad ideas with "open debate" (which i would argue we need a way to do, now more than ever) i think until there i…
> i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience and time to go through
I can't help but notice that the inflammation of this kind of content dovetails nicely with the profit motive of the medium in question.
If we were able to open and audit the entirety of the algorithmic decision-making regarding what appears in users' feeds, does any of us doubt that hostilities and insecurities are amplified?
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#360Earlier 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.
According to this post [0] only allowing black people to post was a time limited action. As an Aprils fool joke only black people were allowed to post, which resulted in positive feedback from the community, according to the mods. Now everyone can post again, where as black people can get verified and a special flair (a small visual indication next to their username). Some threads [1] are reserved for verified people…
Your [1] has three standards for three groups of people.
1. black people who can verify and get a flair
2. non-white and non-black people who can verify but don't get a flair
3. white people can ask the moderators for entrance, but it only says they will will "receive further instructions." It's not clear what these further instructions are supposed to be.
This is racist and if a right wing subreddit did it, they would have been banned years ago.