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

841–850 of 983 posts

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

#841

Post by tarsinge »

pensatoio wrote: post #710
stuaxo wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How Jordan Peterson isn’t even remotely on the right apart from him saying it? Any action leaning on the left for him has some evil Marxist influence for him. Also his theories on “Masculinity“ have nothing to do with classical left and right and are de-facto alt-right.

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

#842

Post by luckylion »

slg wrote: post #280
luckylion wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have no indication one way or another whether this is coordinated. We shouldn't just assume it is coordinated because it is happening on the same day. Hey, just because two planes flew into the WTC on the same day, we have no indication one way or another whether this is coordinated. We shouldn't just assume it is coordinated because it is happening on the same day. But really, this is obviously coordinated. It'…

Context matters. You analogy isn't applicable because it removes the context for these response. The boycott of Facebook didn't hit critical mass until the end of last week. These companies are taking preemptive action so they don't receive a similar boycott. That is an explanation that doesn't require coordination.

> That is an explanation that doesn't require coordination.

Yes, and it's a huge stretch. That's good for Yoga, but bad for explanations, and it works just as well for 9/11. The simplest, most plausible explanation: they coordinated. Further weight for that explanation? They've coordinated on similar issues before.

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

#843

Post by [deleted] »

lurgburg wrote: post #840
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally have to send a picture of your black skin to the mods of r/BlackPeopleTwitter in order to be added to the country club. Imagine a subreddit forcing people to send pictures of their white skin to the mods. People would be outraged. The only good way to use reddit these days is to unsubscribe from all of the default subreddits and only subscribe to small subreddits dedicated to your hobbies/interests. Eve…

This policy ("send a picture of your black skin") sounds like what they found they needed to do prevent black voices from being drowned out on a site so overwhelming white as reddit. If they'd found white people were capable of recognising that maybe bpt wasn't about them I doubt they'd need that policy.

[deleted]

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

#844

Post by gambiting »

AlexandrB wrote: post #599
gambiting wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it did, he's forgetting that US was incredibly racist towards the Irish, and they are as white as they come. Racism is racism, no matter who does it towards whom.

It’s convenient to omit that the Irish were not considered “white” when they were being discriminated against. They were instead considered their own, distinct race. In most contexts, “white” implicitly meant “normal” and anyone you want to discriminate against got their own, separate label (see also the Jews and the Romani). That’s the crux of the problem.

>>It’s convenient to omit that the Irish were not considered “white” when they were being discriminated against.

That wasn't out of convenience, I honestly didn't know that. But yes, it makes sense that these definitions can become arbitrary when there is a need for that. That is the problem.

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

#845

Post by thu2111 »

tptacek wrote: post #814
skinkestek wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, it's not. It's because people make point-in-time observations about HN and don't see the community working over hours, which is what you have to do, since anyone can make an account and write any comment they want here.

And how did you define "white nationalism"?

HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU institutions or ideologies to be some sort of racist zealotry, although it's utterly mainstream throughout Europe.

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

#846

Post by thu2111 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #682
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.

I did some very small experiments on such a thing a while ago. One was an example of someone being unjustly detained in violation of their rights [1] and another was an actual example of government censorship [2]. The first one was flagged and killed immediately, the second received zero response. On HN, all of the 'free speech' stories I see always pertain to the far-right and/or incredibly vitriolic individuals get…

all of the 'free speech' stories I see always pertain to the far-right and/or incredibly vitriolic individuals getting removed from platforms

That's because getting people shut down, cancelled, censored, is a left wing tactic, so of course it always seems to be the right getting censored. Free speech is a value the right hold and the left do not, systematically so throughout history.

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

#847

Post by thu2111 »

cogman10 wrote: post #417
rayiner wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That protection of speech, mind you, doesn’t just extend to the KKK. There are a lot of things people on HN probably like (pornography, violent video games) that have been protected by exactly the same principles.

The important thing to distinguish is that they protect free speech, not free platforms. People are free to say racist things, produce racist games, setup racist podcasts. What they aren't entitled to is google showing their racist crap, steam carrying their racist games, hacker news keeping their racist comments uncensored. You are free to burn a flag, you can't force someone to watch you burn it. If someone feels h…

They aren't, actually.

I guess "WhitePowerTube" would have been Stormfront? I never visited the site but I remember hearing about it when Google seized their domain name and wouldn't give it back.

There's a nice fantasy about these parts that the deplatforming left somehow created all these platforms and will stop when people they disagree with go away. No. These platforms were mostly created by people committed to free speech, who came under relentless external and internal attacks for years until they bent the knee, and people who try to create alternative platforms are frequently erased from the internet via whatever levers of power those activists can get their hands on. They definitely don't stop and say, well, you created your own website, good for you and best of luck.

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

#848

Post by TomSwirly »

lliamander wrote: post #838
user982 wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here. "The SPLC is a hate group" is considered healthy, valid criticism to you, coming from an account which then said that "hate speech against white people has been normalized in our society for some time now" and linked to The Bell Curve as proof for the superiority of the white race, but referring to them as "racist-adjacent" is unacc…

The comment "The SPLC is a hate group" is not racist. Even if the person who said it is otherwise racist, it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist. Whatever "racist-adjacent" means, clearly it must mean "not actually racist" because if it was racist, I'm sure you would call that.

An outspoken racist falsely attacks one of the great legal defenders of Blacks in America and your argument is, "it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist."

I'm doubtful you will convince anyone with that argument: perhaps not even yourself.

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

#849

Post by TomSwirly »

thu2111 wrote: post #845
tptacek wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. It's because people make point-in-time observations about HN and don't see the community working over hours, which is what you have to do, since anyone can make an account and write any comment they want here.

And how did you define "white nationalism"? HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU…

> aren't supportive of globalism either.

You understand that when you speak of "globalism" this way, you place yourself as a member of a tiny, if vocal, minority.

Hacker News has a lot of sophisticated, intelligent people from all over the world and that's why fringe political beliefs aren't common. I would add that the collegial atmosphere here means people are unsupportive of naked aggression and anger, which also seems to be a common component of fringe political beliefs.

If it's important for you to criticize the EU and have people listen to you, there are plenty of places to go for that.

My personal belief about the EU is that it like all political systems is flawed and could certainly do with constructive criticism, but has managed to deliver a high standard of living, personal rights, some degree of income equality and even happiness to its citizens for decades now and do it better than any other.

This is why I personally left the United States after thirty years to move to Europe.

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

#850

Post by TomSwirly »

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?

Your comment does not appear to prove that Stephen Molyneux is not a racist. Can you explain why you think it does?
Post reply on HN