Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

731–740 of 983 posts

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

#731
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…

I've never seen them IRL. I wonder how prevalent the Klan actually is.

And herein lies the problem: Having pushed the purveyors of "unacceptable ideology" (whatever that may be, decided by whomever) into the black market, we now have made confronting it (by letting our value judgments stand to reason, which they will, if we let them) much more difficult. People behave as though they are completely powerless to stop bad thoughts from following the utterance of particular words in a particular order, which to me is as fundamentally insane as the idea that you can stop murder by simply banning murder, or that you can stop people from using drugs by simply banning drugs.

The central problem is that people are lazy as hell. The answer to this problem and indeed, most problems we face in society, is building and maintaining stronger communities, and encouraging critical thought and an educated and participatory citizenry. But this is incredibly hard, and is incompatible with most forms of grift which people have set up to enrich themselves. In the end, however, this is really a description of all of human history. It will always be the case that building and maintaining a "good" society is incredibly hard work, which most people reflexively don't want to do (in the same way that most people don't want to do the dishes, or take the shopping cart back to the shopping cart corral at the grocery store).

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

#732

Christ, spez is getting hammered in the announcements. I mean seriously, he's basically saying it's alright to be discriminatory against the "majority", whatever that means. Dude doesn't even clarify what that means, just skirts around the question. Lot of people are wondering why r/BlackPeopleTwitter or r/politics haven't been banned despite blatant racism or calls to violence. People are pretty pissed at spez, to s…

One thing you have to understand is that hatred of whites by blacks is fundamentally different from hatred of blacks by whites, because hatred of whites by blacks is justified. I call it the Neither Wolf Nor Dog rule.

Anyway, Reddit's policies explicitly say they will not punish "reverse racism":

> Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.

> 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.

As a society we've decided it's perfectly legitimate to hate people based on the color of their skin -- when their skin color has been unfairly privileged for 400 years. The shoe has to be on the other foot for a while before things balance out karmically.

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

#733

You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree t…

> Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation? Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate. Hey if you don't like it, build your own hacker news.

Except in this case its not moderators of the site removing my content, its just people who can't think for themselves slapping the down button on any contrary opinion while saying they support contrary opinions except the contrary opinions that they support of full of hate speech and parroted fascist dog whistles while trying to squash any semblance of reasonable discourse.

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

#735
post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding was that someone would prevent me from owning private property or acquiring capital? You got this the other way around. Private property needs force to be upheld. The sacralization of private property is so deeply ingrained that people actually prefer the KKK to even thinking about limiting it. It's so dogmatic that it's depressing.

> You got this the other way around. Private property needs force to be upheld. I don't follow this at all, but I'm willing to listen? How does private property require any more force to uphold compared to any other possible system? Even anarchy, if you want it to stay anarchy requires force if you have defectors.

Private property implies ownership. The moment you assume ownership, you have to be ready to defend your claim against a counter claimant. How you defend this claim depends on where (and when) you live, but almost uniformly requires force - either directly (violence) or indirectly (court systems and police, aka violence by proxy).

If there is no concept of private property, the need to defend ownership ceases. If no one owns anything, there can be no claims - and counter claims. Like a happy family where your brother's meal is also yours, and vice versa - depending on how hungry you are.

For the record, I don't support the latter stance and believe Marxism is catastrophically ignorant of innate human tendencies. But as an ideology, it is worth exploring to reexamine our own relationship with and understanding of private property.

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

#736
post #672
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.

Everyone who voted for Trump is a far right enabler if not far right themselves. That captures a large portion of the electorate, anyway.

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

#737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

Can this be because your group of "white nationalists" is getting very big and possibly includes a good number of innocent people? Someone wrote something really interesting here somewhere a couple of days ago: every time a non-racist says something not correct enough or God forbid even wrong (e.g. on twitter), they are ejected into the other camp. Eventually the other camp's grown from a fringe phenomenon to being n…

This is a thread topic about white nationalists being banned from YouTube. It has 700+ comments, many of them in defense of the banned. Which of the banned people being defended are not actually white supremacists, but innocents caught in a too-broad dragnet?

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

#738
I don't think people would have a problem with this if the political public squares (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc) - and that IS what they are - applied these policy changes to everyone equally.

What's happened is we've already gone over the edge. Racism has been redefined to only be effectively possible by white people in the West. The intention of this change is racist in itself.

Putting aside freedom of speech, what people likely have a problem with is all the OTHER racists on YouTube NOT getting banned and instead being PROPPED UP.

These bans are political, not civil justice. If these racists were A) a real problem, and B) not singled out as a faction among multiple other racist factions, then people might believe this is fair.

To those that contend that criteria A has been met: The modern rise of white supremacists in the West is being spurred by racist politics; it's almost as if they want to corner these people into extremist ideas.

I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism, and that's by understanding the root causes of it and addressing them.

These bans are a farce, and meant to consolidate far-leftist power - not liberal power.

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

#739
Chess channel agadmator was taken down by a YouTube bot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8

He speculates the bot detected phrases like "white will always be better here...", etc., then goes on to say that in his ~1800 uploads "it's pretty much black and white to the death in every video".

He appealed, but was immediately rejected by the automated appeals system. The channel was restored when further responses and feedback from subscribers eventually got a human in the loop at YouTube.

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

#740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen practically this same post on /Pol/ and I really appreciate NOT having it on HN.

> “[There will be a promise of] all kinds of goodies and paradise on earth to destabilize your economy, to eliminate the principle of free-market competition, and to put a big brother government in Washington, D.C., with benevolent dictators who’ll promise lots of things. Never mind if the promises are fulfilled or not.” Yuri Bezmenov is almost prophetic, given that he was speaking of our current era in the early 80s…

The decline of the US was not triggered by "marxists". It was triggered by a disastrous, two decade long war in Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by an economic catastrophe where the culprits went completely unpunished.

Unironically, the decline of the US is being caused by wanton neoliberal capitalism. Marxism didn't lead to a $6 trillion war and trillion dollar bailouts.

The reason I dislike seeing posts like this on HN is because they completely absolve the neoliberals of their guilt and paint an imaginary fall guy as the culprit. It's precisely what Wall Street and the military-industrial complex want.

Post reply on HN