YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech • Hacker News Board

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

#771

Post by user982 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:18 AM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #756

user982 wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Stephen Molyneux is a single-minded crusader against corporal punishment of children. He cites IQ and demographic statistics as evidence that the high incidents of corporal punishment among African-Americans is harmful to the population. But untangling that ball of wax is a lot harder than calling him a racist and getting on with life isn't it?

It's this benevolent concern for the welfare of black children that underlies his complaint that 'relentless propaganda for "white women with black men" would serve to lower the average IQ of the offspring'?

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

#772

Post by Karunamon » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

gotoeleven wrote: post #57

Edd314159 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why is everyone making surprised pickachu face about white nationalism as our culture encourages black nationalism and every other kind of racial tribalism? The problem isn't the color, the problem is the nationalism.

I'm not convinced that nationalism not based on some intrinsic attribute of its people (like race) is even mostly bad.

1. : loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

This, to me, reads that nations should advocate for their own interests first and have that as their primary concern - which seems pretty reasonable. Much in the same way that we have state and local representatives that advocate for the state and the locality in their respective governments, the higher levels up do the same for their entire citizenry on the global stage.

There's nothing inherently icky or oppressive about this kind of mutual self-interest, and it need not imply any kind of dehumanization. It is, of course, possible to take too far (see: xenophobia), but that strikes me as a problem of implementation and general human failings, not as an intractable problem with the concept that deserves it being compared to objective evil.

If the antonym of nationalism is globalism, I think that mindset has bigger problems.

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

#773

Post by istorical » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:25 AM UTC

golf1052 wrote: post #600

rickbutton wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah it's kind of shocking to see people defend white nationalist speech on private platforms. Of all the marginalized groups out there why does the group that advocates for the discrimination, removal, or even genocide of historically discriminated and murdered people (black people, indigenous people, Jewish people) need defending?

people aren't defending these things. they are defending this 'slippery slope' idea that if you give companies the power and support them in banning content based off of ideological stuff, then you risk that 'bannable' content threshold slowly growing.

it's literally a straw man to imply people are focused on individuals in this situation, they are just worried about precedent and the future.

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

#774

Post by UncleMeat » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:26 AM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #655

pjc50 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly .. people will come out to defend "free speech". But somehow the cause in question is nearly always far right.

partly because we mostly agree about the rest of it so then there's no need to remind people about free speech.

Given the amount of state violence used against left wing protestors over the last month and the number of active political leaders championing that violence... I really don't agree. Leftist speech is silenced with guns. And the free speech supporters sit silent.

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

#775

Post by geronimoe » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

phs318u wrote: post #761

geronimoe wrote: post #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, w…

I read your comment and wrestled with the dilemma of making the effort to rebut vs just down-voting you and walking away. Firstly, your comment contains a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion. "...we've already gone over the edge". What edge? "Racism has been redefined...". Where? By whom? "The intention of this change is racist in itself". Who's intention? The 'racism redefiners'? If they're a large group, how can they…

[flagged]

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

#776

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #774

skinkestek wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

partly because we mostly agree about the rest of it so then there's no need to remind people about free speech.

Given the amount of state violence used against left wing protestors over the last month and the number of active political leaders championing that violence... I really don't agree. Leftist speech is silenced with guns . And the free speech supporters sit silent.

> And the free speech supporters sit silent.

Many of the people who raise objections based on “free speech” every time a private entity declines to actively participate in amplifying right wing speech have been actively cheering the events you describe, and arguing they need to be intensified, not sitting silent.

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

#777

Post by Jon_Lowtek » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #587

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antifa USA 2020 is not the paramilitary wing of a german stalinist party, even if "Antifa in Germany 1931" was one. It is not the same organisation. It is a lifestyle branding sold to left wing youth, like Che Guevara t-shirts. Now there is an organisation in the USA that has recently started to use the Antifa Branding. It's called Torch Network or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Racist_Action but that one, too is…

It might be news to you, but very few of the people who participated in the successful Russian communist revolution of 1917 were knowledgeable about the finer points of Marxism too. You don't really need that many. The rest can be useful idiots. The few knowledgeable people behind the scenes know and exploit this. 6 months before it happened, BTW, Lenin said in a lecture in Zurich that a revolution would not happen i…

You add nothing to your claim that it is the same organization and i will keep refuting that as the nonsense it is.

> The FBI says antifa uses social media to organize, but there’s no specific organization or leadership structure.

To me it looks like a very loose group of "anti-parental-authority" youth on the left fringe, which mostly idiolises fantasy-feelgood-anarchism, mixed with some older anti-klan streams that are special to the USA. You can't just claim that is the continuation of the paramilitary wing of KPD 1931 halfway across the planet, then also claim it is basically Thälmanns KPD, which is basically Stalin himself, because all things loosely related are the same thing. I call bullshit.

Those far fetched stories about how revolutionaries have found themselves abused by some autocratic authoritarian putschists are nice and true, but they do not give any substance to your claim that current Antifa USA is a stalinist organization. Your argument seems to be "all leftist revolution must end in stalinism, therefor they are all stalinists", which is so ridiculous, there should be some Godwins law variant for that.

That democracy you speak of is based on the believe in pluralism, yet you deny the existence of pluralism in the vague field that spans from KPD and Antifa 1931 to todays USA. You somehow completely ignore the 1980s hardcore anarchistic punk scene, 90 years of history, and instead you throw in some "cancel culture" and "maoist culture revolution". You have nothing backing your claim that it is a stalinist organization except matching symbols on anti-capitalist merchandise sold for $5.99 and a generalized red scare.

Now i agree with you on warning about the dangers of totalitarian authoritarianism. On that part we are fine. But you are crying wolves because of a freaking chihuahua! Yes that thing is related to wolves, and it is annoying, but you are the idiot for thinking they are the same. Freedom and Liberalism are not attacked by some rioting teenagers in downtown Seattle. Those who make encryption illegal and want everything on the net monitored by the Ministry for State Security for signs of domestic terrorism, those are the wolves.

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

#778

Post by pnako » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

danudey wrote: post #604

GrayTextIsTruth wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> white supremacists most are actually white separatists, but labelled "supremacist". Its not about hating other cultures, but about preserving your own, like how Native Americans have exclusive spiritual rituals that outsiders are not allowed to attend. Imagine calling jews who want to have their own country in Israel "jewish supremacists". Your post used the words "supremacists", "hate", "nazi", "racist", and "toxi…

Keep telling yourself that, but it's all just a veneer over the same toxic, exclusionary, and racist bullshit. > Imagine calling jews who want to have their own country in Israel "jewish supremacists". Jews wanted to have their own country because of thousands of years of persecution by basically everyone, everywhere, after they were driven out of their own home. When that happens to white people, I'll accept your ar…

>exclusionary

Aren't you arguing for banning them, though? You can't have it both ways.

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

#779

Post by pvg » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #749

tptacek wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic you've provided says nothing about whether we should condemn Alex Jones, so I'm not clear what point you're trying to make. Unless you think we should be slow to condemn people who arrange for the harassment of parents whose children were murdered by a gunman in their elementary school. But that seems like an implausibly villainous thing for anyone on HN to believe.

My point is, he seems to be held to a higher standard than 'mainstream' journalists, despite the fact that these mainstream journalists send signals that they should be taken seriously and he does not. That sticks in my craw.

he seems to be held to a higher standard

He's not. Judith Miller was fired from NYT ending her career as a reporter within a couple of years of her original Iraq reporting. Alex Jones continues to make a living being a repugnant human being.

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

#780

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 2:49 AM UTC

pvg wrote: post #779

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is, he seems to be held to a higher standard than 'mainstream' journalists, despite the fact that these mainstream journalists send signals that they should be taken seriously and he does not. That sticks in my craw.

he seems to be held to a higher standard He's not. Judith Miller was fired from NYT ending her career as a reporter within a couple of years of her original Iraq reporting. Alex Jones continues to make a living being a repugnant human being.

Honestly, you're dignifying this argument. Judith Miller probably believed the story she was selling about Iraqi WMDs, and in the cause itself. She was wrong. Alex Jones deliberately harassed the parents of first graders who had been crowded into a coat closet and shot at close range. This is the moral difference between a negligent doctor and a serial killer.

The distinction is especially material here, because this is the standard-issue message board argument against journalism, or "the mainstream media": that it must be conducted at the highest standards of scrupulous accountability, a standard far higher than any of us hold our own work to (I like to call this "The Djikstra Amnesia Effect"). And if it isn't, its practitioners are no better than Alex Jones.