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

511–520 of 983 posts

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

#511

Post by rickbutton »

MockObject wrote: post #491
rickbutton wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I said. Do not put words into my digital mouth. I said, silence -is- complicity with white supremacy. If you, after all of the injustices demonstrated in enormous detail over the last 400 years, are still silent when white supremacists continue to oppress the oppressed, you are complicit in white supremacy.

> That's not what I said. Do not put words into my digital mouth. So white supremacists should be purged, but those who are complicit with them should not?

We are talking about two different things. I claimed that purging white supremacists from platforms is a good thing. I also claimed that silence is complicity. These are orthogonal. I am not a decision maker for one of these platforms, and don't feel the need to draw a specific line in the sand. Your attempt at a "gotcha" is fruitless, I'm afraid.

Let me turn it around, do you think that white supremacists deserve a platform?

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

#512

Post by bleah1000 »

cogman10 wrote: post #452
FiloSottile wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're missing it, but yeah, reverse racism is not a thing. The concept of racism is meaningful in the historical and societal context of systemic oppression. A black person saying "all white people are bad" is not feeding into and exploiting hundreds of years of prejudice stacked against an under-privileged group. Edit: a black person in the US, different cultures are different contexts.

A black person saying "all white people are bad" is a bad thing, but ultimately not a societal problem. The issue is the power dynamic. After years of institutional racism, institutions are racist (shocking!). That's the issue. There are far more white people in power and any one of them being racist has a much wider and more devastating effect on PoC.

I find this statement oddly racist/xenophobic. White people aren't the majority in every country. It seems like you are implying white people are superior to all others, and have control over every country on earth. What if someone from Africa made the same statement, wouldn't that be an issue?

I think it's better to err on the side of disparaging someone based on an immutable characteristic is a bad thing, regardless of who says it.

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

#513

Post by type0 »

api wrote: post #339
disposekinetics wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How many people have revolutionary Marxists murdered in the USA in the last 25-50 years? I'm sure if you dig you could find one, maybe two. If you dig into far right ideologues involved in murders and shootings you will find hundreds and hundreds. I am not a fan of revolutionary Marxism, but in terms of actual danger to people I don't see them as nearly as much of a risk. They also have far less funding than the extr…

Not so sure about the US of A, but in Germany there was RAF, it is widely known. Just because it isn't big in US doesn't mean it's harmless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

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

#514

Post by skinkestek »

vageli wrote: post #354
evanlivingston wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is one lovely comment thread were two people learned something (ok, at least three -I learned something as well), instead of fighting with words.

Thanks people, I had a rough day on HN today and you put a smime on my face :-)

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

#515

Post by empath75 »

at_a_remove wrote: post #333
empath75 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

parler supports free speech, tho, right? except they're banning liberals: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...

Perhaps that is what it might take for the people who are receiving a taste of their own medicine to stand up for free speech. I doubt it, but it is nice to remind them that they don't have a leg to stand on.

No because they don’t want to be on Parler, they’re just proving a point.

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

#516

Post by danudey »

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…

Conservatism has a place in society. Racism, bigotry, hate, and white supremacy do not.

The fact is that American "conservatism" now is so run through with hate and vitriol and othering that no one can tell where one starts and the other begins.

The logical fallacy that this is a "slippery slope" is ridiculous, and the number of people who are crying about losing the "freedom" to attack, incite, and threaten others is astonishing. The number one terrorist threat in the US right now is right-wing militant groups, condoning threats and violence towards anyone who thinks different than them.

It's pretty clear to most that deplatforming people with hateful, violent, and dangerous messages is less of a threat to society than allowing them to keep spreading their vile hate. This isn't some arbitrary thought experiment or a white-room theorycrafting; people are dying because of this kind of hate.

Conservatives who distance themselves from hate and bigotry and violence are fine, and I can live with those people, but the American far-right are a blight on society and private corporations are within their rights (and, I would say, responsibilities) to actually enforce their own policies against these people.

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

#517

Post by rickbutton »

chrischattin wrote: post #492
rickbutton wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't argue in good faith with someone who believes that white supremacists should continue to have a platform. I hope you do some research and look back on this comment with shame. White supremacists do not deserve a platform, flat out. Disagreeing with this is explicitly agreeing with white supremacy.

You don't have to agree with someone to think it's wrong to censor them.

Do you think it is correct or incorrect to deplatform white supremacists? Do you think white supremacists deserve a platform?

Edit: I've asked variants of this question several times in this thread, all without response. I can safely assume that those who won't freely answer this question are (attempting) to hide their bias.

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

#518

Post by Ghjklov »

genoapol wrote: post #500
Avamander wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

It's just racism dude. Not even white, just tired of the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their actions against white people based sole on their skin color and what they've committed against their people. You're doing the same thing. In the end it's just the tribal, racialist bullshit I'm freaking tired of. It never ends, because we keep justifying evildoing whenever it benefits our side at the given time. If we keep doing this, we have no right to complain when some other group does it to us at some other point in the future.

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

#519

Post by skinkestek »

iron0013 wrote: post #483
skinkestek wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929

He made a claim, but he didn’t actually share any of his research or data.

I'm fairly certain he can stand for it.

Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that.

Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?

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

#520

Post by rayiner »

snowwrestler wrote: post #508
rayiner wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required p…

It's up to the people who run Reddit. If they want to wipe out some subreddits, who is to say they can't? Any mechanism you can imagine to prevent them from doing so would have the effect of forcing speech upon them. A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's sho…

I’m not saying they can’t, I’m saying they shouldn’t. I disagree that reddit can be analogized to serial television media for these purposes.
Post reply on HN