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

701–710 of 983 posts

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

#701

Post by contrapunter »

Barrin92 wrote: post #656
contrapunter wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to recognise that Stefan Molyneux is not far-right, whether or not the far-right are encouraged by his YT channel deletion. I would classify him as an atheist/libertarian.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi... “The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014 “You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to…

If one man produces 1000+ hours of content then there's always going to be dodgy stuff when stuff is taken out of context.

('If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him' -- Cardinal Richelieu)

Black vs white IQ is an empirical rather than an ideological question, and a question best ignored, character and culture being more important than raw intelligence. However I'm not going to hang a man just because he failed to ignore it.

The fact that Molyneux is anti-Nazi ('overreaction') as well as anti-communist is very simply consistent with his libertarian philosophy.

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

#703

Post by Barrin92 »

contrapunter wrote: post #701
Barrin92 wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi... “The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014 “You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to…

If one man produces 1000+ hours of content then there's always going to be dodgy stuff when stuff is taken out of context. ('If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him' -- Cardinal Richelieu) Black vs white IQ is an empirical rather than an ideological question, and a question best ignored, character and culture being more important than r…

are you actually so far gone you think calling the holocaust an 'overreaction to a Jewish threat' actually makes you an anti-Nazi? Jesus that may be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on this site, congratulations.

And, no it's not normal to casually advocate white supremacy in 1000 hours of recorded conversation. Dude's a full on neo-nazi who calls himself a libertarian, which probably puts him in good company with half of that demographic anyway.

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

#704

Post by [deleted] »

rickbutton wrote: post #539
MockObject wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't supposed to be a "gotcha" at all. Any reasonable person would have agreed that silence isn't an expression of complicity with white supremacy, or of sexual consent, or a love of progressive metal. However, since you insist upon evading the obvious logical conclusion that your own freely-offered premises suggest, there is no turning anything around. This thread is over.

> Any reasonable person would have agreed that silence isn't an expression of complicity with white supremacy I'll repeat. Silence -is- complicity. Now, the thread is over.

[deleted]

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

#705

Post by Grakel »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #697

[flagged]

You're absolutely right. At least society will collapse after the far left finishes removing all of its "offensive" pillars, and we'll start building it again. Absolute freedoms of speech, defense, property, etc.

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

#706

Post by stillbourne »

syshum wrote: post #222
stillbourne wrote: post #59

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. 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)

Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting...

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.

> 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)

You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make.

The facts are that what I said is indisputably correct. You can disagree with it all you like but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. I get that you trying to say that even if there is not a grant by law that companies should enforce free expression. I am saying that no where is that guaranteed or granted. Additionally you stated:

>For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone

If you read the terms and services or the community guidelines you can clearly see how absurd that argument is.

To argue that a platform cannot moderate its own content is to say that the owner of that platform does not have the right to its own freedom of speech. The platform as an entity run by its owners also have the right to free expression and it is their right to moderate content that is contrary to the messages then intend to promote. Furthermore, I believe it makes sense to state that the freedom of the platform to curate its message through moderation supersedes the rights of those users of the platform to use it to make statements.

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

#707

Post by user982 »

skinkestek wrote: post #643
Ghjklov wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's a euphemism for nazi, I hope you don't just assume that it's appropriate to use "white nationalist" to mean "nazi". Just because other people are being stupid doesn't mean we have to. A white nationalist could be from any political faction and could have different ideas for economic policy. A National Socialist is a very specific kind of person.

Totally agree in case there should be any doubt. I prefer to call nazis "nazis". It is short and simple and we can all agree that we don't like them.

But then they reply that "whoever you think are Nazis are not Nazis" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14034920).

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

#708

Post by Tiltowait-- »

Daishiman wrote: post #620
Tiltowait-- wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here ya go: https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/ >Days of Rage is important, because this stuff is forgotten and it shouldn’t be. The 1970s underground wasn’t small. It was hundreds of people becoming urban guerrillas. Bombing buildings: the Pentagon, the Capitol, courthouses, restaurants, corporations. Robbing banks. Assassinating police. People really thought that revolution was imminent, and thought viol…

So, the 70s. Not now. Not now when there's white supremacist separatist movements, "sovereign citizens" and the the admission by the US's government agencies that right-wing white supremacist terror is the most substantial threat to internal stability.

These 70s radicals never went to prison, and today they run our universities. Do you not know about the Long March through the institutions? Where do you think Critical Theory came from?

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

#709

Post by eli_gottlieb »

halostatue wrote: post #465
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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). Nah, there are plenty of people advocating for explicit ethno-separatism on the far left -- just look at Louis Farrakhan and his lefty pals. They just don't have very big YouTube channels. People more-or-less naturally ignore them except when they turn out to protests to hijack an ostensibly…

Louis Farrakhan is not left-leaning. He’s as conservative as they get. He just happens to not be a white supremacist.

Tell that to the Women's March, damnit.

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

#710

Post by pensatoio »

stuaxo wrote: post #672
roenxi wrote: post #579

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"... The "far-right" is becoming a broad term in media usage and will end up in the same place as "racist" where it is a category that catches the views of a good 40% of people. It isn't obvious that wins for the far right is a bad thing. Nobody is going to lose sleep over the Klan b…

While there are probably examples of that, I find it unlikely that the general use of the "far right" would capture 40% of people very unlikely.

There are so many examples it’s kind of ridiculous. Jordan Peterson, for example, who isn’t even remotely right.

What I mean to say, is that it’s become common for left-leaning media to describe perfectly moderate right positions as “far-right” and “alt-right,” to the point where those terms mean almost nothing to someone who isn’t politically savvy to distinguish.

Post reply on HN