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

941–950 of 983 posts

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

#941

Post by phs318u »

skinkestek wrote: post #537
empath75 wrote: post #523

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.

>People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. ...and they will be voted down quickly. > And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down. Examples please :-) The closest thing I can come up with is when I kind of reliably get downvoted every time I say I'd support a ban on nazis but that seems to be die hard free speech people, not nazis.

I'm sorry but this very discussion contains the reverse of what you're saying. In a post suggesting that SM isn't racist, he's only concerned for the welfare of black children, I posted a link clearly highlighting the many instances of SM's racism. My post got downvoted, the parent didn't.

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

#942

Post by sagichmal »

nbardy wrote: post #435
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.

Racism is racism no matter what direction it's pointing. You don't need to have experienced hundred's of years of prejudice to experience racism. Racism is treating someone differently because of their race. It is wrong full stop, no matter the status of the perpetrator or the victim.

This is a valid but narrow definition of racism. It's not really useful when speaking at a cultural level.

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

#943

Post by klyrs »

thu2111 wrote: post #873
TomSwirly wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 matt…

> And in the USA that anti-globalism candidate won the last election, so, I guess I'd be in the majority there too (barely).

Trump soundly lost the popular vote. Read up on the electoral college if you're curious; it's a doozy

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

#944

Post by dang »

krageon wrote: post #860
rayiner wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HN is pretty well known to be a cesspool of terrible far-right ideas. What's more, they're not mocked or booed off but enabled. You don't endear yourself to the general public by doing so.

Everyone with a strong political commitment sees HN as dominated by the opposite politics to their own. This is an illusion. For everyone saying what you're saying, someone else is saying this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632. Both statements are false; it's just a large enough and chaotic enough dataset that you can find examples of anything—and the ones you dislike the most will be the ones you remember the most (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

For sure terrible comments appear. The false part is to say that they're representative of the community—they're not. Commenters with opposite views notice opposite examples, claim those are the representative ones, and are just as wrong. I've mentioned just one counterexample chosen at random, but could as easily link to 50, and another 50 on your side.

Most such posts get downvoted and/or flagged, though it takes a while for the immune system to work. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23686864

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

#945

Post by chrisdirkis »

lliamander wrote: post #909
chrisdirkis wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read SSC for a while now, and check in with the community every so often. Before the takedown, there was talk about the reporter writing an article, with the general consensus being "nervous but optimistic". I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary. I'm sad that the blog is down. "Categories are for man" is an essay/l…

> I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary. Here's an example of the NYT providing anonymity to a therapist with a political blog in 2015: https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144 Here's the NYT protecting the anonymity of female gamers to protect them from harassment (on the same day that Scott took down his bl…

I am well aware that the NYT has been inconsistent at best with their anonymity standards. Definitely undermines that policy.

Still don't think that construes sufficient evidence to claim that this current situation is intended to cancel Scott, or that the NYT's policy is to cancel people who post politically. I don't think Scott was against an article being written about SSC, only that it will contain his name. I'm happy if you think that it can be pieced together from his previous statements, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence presented here.

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

#946

Post by carapace »

_-david-_ wrote: post #936
carapace wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "various whites" specifically?

Slavs where taken as slaves and is where the word slave derives from.

We capitalize "Slavs".

(FWIW, Slavic culture didn't originate with the enslaved Slavs.)

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

#947

Post by dionidium »

tptacek wrote: post #821
rayiner wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required p…

In Democracy and Distrust, Ely says rules like the First Amendment are important because they secure the channels of democracy; in his framing, it's important that the government not suppress speech because doing so prevents the people from governing. It's not because speech is an intrinsic or natural right, which is an idea he argues against. That made sense to me when I read it. The idea of a universal principle of…

The reason we need a blanket rule against state prohibition of speech is that human beings cannot be trusted to decide which speech is off limits. It's obvious to you that white supremacy makes the list, but it is just as obvious to religious fundamentalists that heretical speech should make the list (we're talking about your eternal soul, after all).

There is no workable rule that can't be exploited or extended. And it's not enough to invoke the Slippery Slope fallacy in response, because even if we could all decide today on the perfect list of topics to prohibit (we can't, but even if I grant you that absurdity), politics and governance absolutely does operate incrementally and no line would long remain static, especially a line that's so easily moved as one defining acceptable speech.

It's just simply not a workable idea. The only thing you can do is make a rule that prohibits the prohibition of speech and then let people fight it out in public, over and over and over and over, just like you and I are doing here.

And to be clear: YouTube (and other private actors) banning speech they don't like is a totally legitimate part of that conversation.

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

#948

Post by tptacek »

dionidium wrote: post #947
tptacek wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Democracy and Distrust, Ely says rules like the First Amendment are important because they secure the channels of democracy; in his framing, it's important that the government not suppress speech because doing so prevents the people from governing. It's not because speech is an intrinsic or natural right, which is an idea he argues against. That made sense to me when I read it. The idea of a universal principle of…

The reason we need a blanket rule against state prohibition of speech is that human beings cannot be trusted to decide which speech is off limits. It's obvious to you that white supremacy makes the list, but it is just as obvious to religious fundamentalists that heretical speech should make the list (we're talking about your eternal soul, after all). There is no workable rule that can't be exploited or extended. And…

I do not support laws banning white supremacist speech, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

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

#949

Post by AlexandrB »

gambiting wrote: post #844
AlexandrB wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ugh, sorry. I shouldn't assume intent like that :(

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

#950

Post by camelite »

zozbot234 wrote: post #9

Keep in mind that YT had been funneling viewers towards extreme, bizarre, fringe videos for a long time - including quite a bit of hateful content. This is something of their own doing.

I think that's been pretty much debunked.
Post reply on HN