Earlier quoted context omitted.
A purge of white supremacists sounds great to me.
sounds great to me to until I turned my brain on and realized that if you can purge one ideology, you can justify purging any other ideology.
YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
361–370 of 983 posts
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#362When 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…
Any thoughts on why the Klan hasn't yet been banned outright?
Both in text & traditional interpretation, that gives them the right to speak & assemble – but not do other non-communicative actions that would be criminal no matter the motivations.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#363I haven't watched Stefan in a long time, is he now producing content in the same register as David Duke & Richard Spencer ? It did not seem to be the case a few years ago.
I used to listen to Stefan Molyneux about 10 years ago because he had some interesting views on free market economics. Now I look him up on Wikipedia and find out he's turned into a white nationalist. What the hell happened?
I heard bits and pieces over the years since that gave me the same reaction - what the hell happened. Although in retrospect the seeds were probably there even back then.
One thing that came out later was him emotionally explaining to the camera that the problem with the world is that women choose assholes to date. Another was his violent fantasy about what he'd do to his mother. That these kinds of outbursts didn't lose him his audience pretty much tells you all you need to know.
It's a shame, as there were a few pieces that stuck with me from when I watched it that I think made me a better person.
It was the first time I'd personally been exposed to ideas (mainly because I was young) like never hit children, it's OK to cut contact with an abusive family, that circumcision on babies is wrong and that you should structure your life to spend a great deal of time with your children if you want to be a parent. They've all pretty much stuck with me until today.
Plus a bunch of interesting in theory libertarian stuff, although I'm so far away from many of his positions it's almost comical (I'm the kind of person that wants high income and capital gains taxes and 100% inheritance taxes to fund a basic income), I find it a good diff on current society.
It's a shame, because if he had progressed towards cuddly-bear Molyneux instead of I-want-to-run-a-cult Molyneux, I think he could have been a positive force instead of the target of what is a pretty well justified ban today.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's bizarre to me that this is an opinion people have unironicaly. Conservatism is not equivalent to Nazism. For society to actually function there needs to be a healthy tension between the status quo and possible reform
Edit: also, it’s equally amazing and horrifying to me that anyone could think a middle-ground between white supremacy and racial equality is “healthy”.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that policy is not even talking about racism, however defined; it's talking about hate. Hate is hate, no matter who it's directed to. Prejudice is prejudice.
Except it's apparently fine to hate the haters. Dehumanization is alive and well, even among progressives.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#366Earlier 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…
Of course not, no one is claiming they are the ultimate arbiters of morality.
But they do have the right to decide who can use their platform (as long as they don’t discriminate against protected groups). The broader public can then judge them positively or negatively for these decisions.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#367Earlier 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?
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
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
> empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality. "empathy," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share my empathy. "social unity," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share our opinions. The non-aggression principle is the only ethically consistent one. As soon as you advocate for violence to be used, your ot…
This is just depressing, man. > Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others. Some people are are not in positions to "assert" their rights. Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of indivi…
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I believe that what he is trying to say is that, even though the lyrics are about killing people, selling drugs and so, nobody bans their music and they have the right to express themselves.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any thoughts on why the Klan hasn't yet been banned outright?
In the USA, the reason is the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Both in text & traditional interpretation, that gives them the right to speak & assemble – but not do other non-communicative actions that would be criminal no matter the motivations.