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

871–880 of 983 posts

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

#871

Post by zenbane »

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.

You sound like someone who doesn't run in the same circles as those in power. Let me clue you in: a few are genuinely racist, most arent, and some are racist in a way that 10 years ago wasn't considered racist. They are being pushed into a corner by people like you YELLING at the top of your lungs that they are racist and that the riot mob is coming for them. They look at decades long careers and think "They think I was just handed this?" while you attack them as white supremacists. You demand that the institutions they run be dismantled. Insert baby in bath water, it's all got to go, no compromise. You can't name why they are racist or how you are going to be able to fix it (hell you don't even broach what sort of landscape the new institution would exist in). It's all just vitriol and acrimony from the likes of you, and it's tearing this country apart. Stop it. Get constructive and grow up.

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

#872

Post by lowtolerance »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #711
lowtolerance wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The status quo hasn't actually put me in a death camp and gassed me, so it seems to me that if you are to assume all forms of the status quo, and all preservation of the status quo, is inevitably equivalent to Auschwitz, that you have some explaining to do.

This is how you know you have a really weak justification for your beliefs, when you argue against things that have never been said in order to tell yourself yourself that you hold the moral upper hand in an argument. I never insinuated anything like the argument you are countering.

Experience has taught me that people who enter into an argument with disingenuous red herrings such as this one are not interested in a good faith discussion, but I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

My argument isn’t that gassing Jews and conservatism are inherently the same thing, that’s a completely preposterous interpretation of my previous comment. My argument is that fear of losing status is at the core of all of these ideologies, and nowhere is that more explicit than conservatism.

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

#873

Post by thu2111 »

TomSwirly wrote: post #849
thu2111 wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Given I'm British, that'd make me a part of the majority actually. And in the USA that anti-globalism candidate won the last election, so, I guess I'd be in the majority there too (barely).

Obviously you're entitled to your view on the EU, but your attitude is why EU supporters lost in the UK and would lose in other countries in the unlikely event their political systems would ever give them a true choice on the matter. You cannot handle genuine, well reasoned, intelligent and sophisticated criticism of the EU so simply try to suppress it.

That mistake is how the EU's supporters in the UK got their asses kicked, despite having way more resources and the full support of the entire global establishment on their side. They thought all "intelligent, sophisticated" people agreed with them ... because they'd shouted down or suppressed everyone who disagreed. They were then shocked to discover that their arguments were deemed incredibly weak by the large section of the population that hadn't already made up their minds.

That's what happens when you deplatform those you disagree with. They don't go away. They keep refining their arguments where you can't see it, and then if one day you go head to head with them - you lose.

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

#874

Post by Unklejoe »

pjc50 wrote: post #866
patrickaljord wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did a bit more than publishing official statements. They were very vocal about denouncing and shaming anyone doubting those statements including my whole country France was attacked, boycotted and more by these people.

Which specific people and newspaper articles?

Do you not remember the whole "freedom fries" movement?

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

#875

Post by dublin »

dogma1138 wrote: post #448
tptacek wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual terroristic activities are illegal, and Klan members have been prosecuted (and successfully sued) for them. "Hate-mongering" isn't illegal in the US.

If the Klan would’ve been classified as a terrorist organization they would be illegal they haven’t. The Nation of Islam is also classified as a hate group by the SPLC however they aren’t banned under the same laws that protect the KKK. NOI members just like the KKK have been prosecuted in the past for many things, however outside of very limited circumstances there isn’t such thing as guilt by association in the US…

The KKK has not been classified as a terrorist organization for the very simple reason that historically, it was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. (This was even officially acknowledged starting around the time of the Wilson administration, and the KKK had official events at DNC conventions in the 1920s...) Note that the KKK has been replaced by Antifa and BLM in that role in recent years.

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

#876

Post by pjc50 »

Unklejoe wrote: post #874
pjc50 wrote: post #866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which specific people and newspaper articles?

Do you not remember the whole "freedom fries" movement?

I remember the meme. My question is, who exactly is culpable of what here? It was promoted by some Republican representative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842493.stm

Should the media have .. simply chosen not to report it? ""Censor"" mentions of "freedom fries"?

Is the BBC article itself "denouncing and shaming"? Or just the Republican it's quoting?

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

#877

Post by dredmorbius »

vageli wrote: post #258
evanlivingston wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.

> I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. How would you accomplish this non-aggressively, especially if the disenfranchised group resists?

The simplest means is to deny that the means are aggressive. Deny the discrimination, claim responses are justified, dehumanise the group, reject any peaceful protestor as a disrespectful "son of a bitch" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/09/22...), nonpeaceful resistance "thugs" (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-minneapolis-protesters-th...) even where that represents a small minority, agents provocateurs, or responses to violence or entrapment.

Restrict access to institutions of power such as legislatures, the church, banks and financial institutions, civil service, the military, lower or higher education, business, the ballot box.

Use selection criteria which are impersonal but demonstrably discriminate against the class.

Locate polluting industry in neighbourhoods inhabited by the group. Especially contaminants (lead, mercury, asbestos, etc.) with long term cognitive and behavioural health effects.

Encourage (and prosecute) drugs trade and use in the group's ccommunities. Differentiate in prosecution and sentencing between "their" and "our" drugs.

Establish wholly separate "segregation schools" for the privileged group. Ensure that the privileged poor have scholarship access, but the disenfranchised group does not.

Create exclusions based on redlining, restrictive covenants, actuarial risk, AI, or other mechanisms reducing access to assets, insurance, business financing, and other opportunity-enhancing resources, often "objective" and "based in data".

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

#878

Post by stillbourne »

syshum wrote: post #858
stillbourne wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 statem…

>>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... Yes rating limiting here is annoying and counter productive. I have been rate limited many times. However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right? >You said you agreed with everything I sai…

> However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right?

No, I do not advocate censorship, I advocate that the freedom of expression of the owner of a venue supersedes the expression of those who use that venue and that it is the right of the owner to moderate the content of his venue so as to not appear to advocate the messages of those users of that venue to express messages that the owner may consider detrimental to the operation of his venue.

Here is an analogy, let's say I operate a concert hall. In addition to hosting musicians and the occasional art exhibit I will occasionally host political rallies for those willing to pay the fees. As a venue operator I don't have a selection bias favoring any party as long as the guests will pay the charges to use my venue. All they need to do is sign my contract that was written up by the lawyer to protect my assets. One day a request is made to rent out my venue. Under the false pretense of a political rally it turns out that its actually a white supremacist speaker spreading a message I do not endorse. As an operator of that venue do I not have a right that supersedes the rights of the those who intend to spread a message of hate to cancel the contract they signed that says I can terminate the relationship at will? I don't want to be seen as advocating that message. Do I not have the right to my own freedom of expression as the operator of my own property? Does the owner not have the right to dissent by termination?

This is not censorship it is content moderation. There is a difference. The problem here is not the owner exercising his free speech as the operator of a venue to decline the use of his platform to spread hate speech. The problem is those who insist that universal toleration should be enforced regardless of the message or the wishes of the owner of any given platform. I have the legal right to terminate service of anyone who would use my venue to spread a message contrary to my intended audience or that violates my personal creed. That too is freedom of speech. That is why I bring up Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) as it shows that as an owner of a venue I am entitled to my freedom of expression and that my rights as the operator are not superseded by the users of my venue. If I don't want to advocate a message it is my right to dissent by not providing a platform to a message I don't agree with.

Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy.

-Herbert Marcuse

"For whom heteronomy has become autonomy." Isn't that the what many of these people are getting deplatformed for? What is closer to heteronomy than white supremacy?

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

#879

Post by pjc50 »

rayiner wrote: post #626
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

Wait? We have a a “rep” on Twitter? HN is like one of the most civil places on the Internet insofar as ones where any debate of substance happens.

Mention sexism in tech and it'll get flagged off the front page almost immediately, because that's one of the issues where the third rail is too close to HN's own posters that substantial debate is impossible.

Also, civility is not the same as not having abhorrent ideas written up in nice language.

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

#880

Post by mensetmanusman »

rickbutton wrote: post #629
chrischattin wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think crappy ideas (like white supremacy) should be fought with better ideas (like treating everyone equally regardless of their race). Censoring/deplatforming will not have the effect you think it will. Nor is it ethically palpable.

This kind of half-measure response is exactly why white supremacy continues to thrive in America. You cannot argue with a white supremacist on reasonable ground, their world view is intrinsically incorrect, and I am convinced that you cannot convince a white supremacist they are wrong through debate. > Nor is it ethically palpable. Do not ascribe your ethics onto me. I think it is extremely ethical to deny white supr…

Germany has a strong handed approach and white supremacy continues to thrive in Germany.
Post reply on HN