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

951–960 of 983 posts

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

#951

Post by camelite »

TomSwirly wrote: post #848
lliamander wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You clearly aren't familiar with the actual history of the splc. Even the name is a bit of a scam, chosen for it's adjacency to Martin Luther Kings civil rights organisation, the SCLC. The founder is a direct marketing hall of famer.

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

#952

Post by camelite »

sudosysgen wrote: post #583
phonypc wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've even seen an explicitly racist post here, despite having dead comments turned on, maybe excepting obvious trolling or spam. Implicitly racist posts are usually downvoted. I have seen downvoted replies that nonsensically infer racism in a post. I suspect that's how I would describe what you're thinking of.

Because they're not explicitly racist. It's dogwhistling, or talking points, which almost always indicates racism. Someone saying that black communities should be more policed by dogwhistling that disproportionate crime warrants "assertion of police presence and predictive policing" by willfully misinterpreting statistics is racist, even if it doesn't explicitly say that black people should be harassed by police.

Does it bother you that some of the people most in favor of increased police presence in crime ridden communities are themselves black. Is it more likely that they are racist too, or that their material concerns for their safety are more legitimate than your racism dog whistle detector?

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

#953

Post by BuckRogers »

thu2111 wrote: post #911
BuckRogers wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave him a chance because my cousin is one of these "anarcho-capitalism" guys (which is a contradiction, anarchy means lack of a control system or gov't, and capitalism is a power structure) and loved Molyneux. I've always been more of a fan of Richard Wolff and his project, Democracy at Work.[0] But a less serious intellectual than Dr. Wolff (of Yale, Harvard, Stanford), Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Project has m…

Anarcho-capitalists don't see capitalism as a power structure though. They see it as something natural that emerges organically, without it being imposed on top. They argue that, for example, markets appear in failed states, they emerge even when the states try to suppress them (black markets), and they're a natural outcome of different skills and needs. So it's not a power structure any more than say, mountains are…

That’s an interesting point, my only immediate thought is that markets and capitalism are two entirely separate entities. Capitalism gets a lot in free credit (no pun intended) riding off the coat tails of market economics.

In short, capitalism is paying others to do your work, but paying them less then the value they produce. Not an attractive proposition since it always trends towards Foxconn without a mechanism to counteract it such as a union.

A market can exist without that, bartering is all you need there.

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

#954

Post by zapnuk »

noxer wrote: post #923
zapnuk wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disgusting to see racism, transphobia, misogyny, and general hate speech spread by Molyneux and others be normalized as 'opinions'. They aren't interested in discourse, they only want to spread their garbage while cowordly hiding behind a dated concept of free (hate) speech. Molyneux especially dodges every debate where his oposition is somewhat knowledgeable.

There is no need to "normalized as 'opinions'" because these are opinions already. People have them about everything and whether wrong or right doesn't matter it's their opinions and they have (should have) the right to express them as long as they do that in a manner that makes listening voluntary. The concept applies to people who think the earth is flat and the concept applies to people who think trans people have…

All words are made up, and hate speech is an established term that you can look up in any relevant dictionary.

> It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery.

That's literally exactly what Molyneux and others do. Instead of directly advocating for violence they say things like: 'Whites and non-whites would be better of in their own ethnostates'. Now how do we get there? Well the same people also say that the current political system is corrupt to the core, where ((them)) (a jewish conspiracy) will hold the 'white man' down. Consequently some of their viewers take the matter in their own hands and express violence towards immigrants, most often any kind of brown poeple. Examples include the Canada mosque or the Christchurch perpetrator. Real world examples there hate speech led to vile acts.

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

#955

Post by kypro »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #544
vmchale wrote: post #527

Good riddance!

Yeah. By his own admission, Richard Spencer wants the creation of a white ethnostate in America [1]. A lot of debates featuring this person were going on in college campuses across the country after the 2016 election moved the Overton window enough for people like him to get an audience. I was not born white, and there is no way I can become racially white. So from a purely self-interested point of view, I'm glad tha…

Meanwhile, I could name serval black activists (some on YouTube) who advocate for Black separatist movements inside the US who have had no, to very little push back from these companies.

Personally I don't really mind people advocating for the creation of a state based on what they perceive as insurmountable ethnic and cultural differences. I think it would be hard to argue peaceful separatist movements have been a force for evil in the world -- quite the opposite in fact.

The only threat from separatists movement in the US -- whether that is the creation of Native American states, European States, or an African State -- would be whether the path to creating such a state is violent. So I struggle on the whole to say, no, Native Americans cannot have their own state. Likewise, if Europeans feel their culture or ethnic group is at threat then I am fine with them advocating for a peaceful separatist movement.

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

#956

Post by 0xy »

kstrauser wrote: post #890
0xy wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just checking, but you know the standard for "consistent" is not "at least one far left extremist group was banned" right? That is absolutely not the definition of consistent, so I have no idea why you've tried to square this circle. Consistent means proportional enforcement without political bias, which has clearly never been a priority for reddit. After all, reddit has repeatedly targeted right-leaning subs with sh…

I don’t know. Which left-leaning subs, specifically, have violated the Reddit ToS in the same way that the_donald and the various “clown world” subs did and were not treated the same?

ChapoTrapHouse regularly called for violence and was never deranked, shadowbanned or had comments stealth edited by the CEO, for example.

There are dozens of affiliated subreddits just there.

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

#957

Post by skinkestek »

pjc50 wrote: post #879
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.

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.

I've another explanation:

different groups of people flags those for different reasons.

- some flag them because they want to keep all politics out of HN

- some just don't like people arguing

- some flag them because of that guy who invariably will bring out JD as an example that sexism goes the other way too (or to say that it mostly goes the other way even)

- some flag them because from their point of view it looks like women have an easier life in IT in men. (This is not generally correct, but to someone who realizes that there are serious KPIs, bonuses and pats on the back to be had for recruiting women in certain companies it might easily look that way. The flip side being they are often treated like decoration instead of like engineers.)

There are some really big issues to tackle in this space but so many people are so busy accusing the other side while simultaneously shutting their ears that I too will soon start flagging them. I'll also admit to having been part of this problem (the shouting part of it before.)

- someone who was always well liked with everyone but is slowly admitting that the other side had some valid points as well.

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

#958

Post by FriendlyNormie »

tptacek wrote: post #159
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is coordinated. Remember when Alex Jones got banned from literally everything on the same day? The reddit bans wave was leaked in advance. The more actors involved in a coordinated action the harder it is to keep a secret. Original leak: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hh1pjd/redd...

Alex Jones lent a camera crew to Wolfgang Halbig when he travelled to Newtown, CT to harass the parents of the first graders murdered in the Sandy Hook shooting. Years and years from now those sites you're referring to will still bear the shame of not having banned him earlier.

No post body was provided.

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

#959

Post by noxer »

zapnuk wrote: post #954
noxer wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need to "normalized as 'opinions'" because these are opinions already. People have them about everything and whether wrong or right doesn't matter it's their opinions and they have (should have) the right to express them as long as they do that in a manner that makes listening voluntary. The concept applies to people who think the earth is flat and the concept applies to people who think trans people have…

All words are made up, and hate speech is an established term that you can look up in any relevant dictionary. > It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing…

Hate speech may be in a dictionary but its not well enough defined to decide whether or not someone actually broke any law. Is commonly used when people disagree but no law was broken. Also the definition often includes some form of "call for violence" but its almost always used to describe something where no call for violence happened. Its kinda like when people use the term "robbery" for "theft" to make it sound worse, with the difference that robbery/theft is well defined and "hate speech" is not. But it clearly sounds worse than the "offending speech" that it probably was.

As I stated above I never listened to anything what this Molyneux said, I do not share or defend his opinions I defend everyone right to express their opinions. Also your quote is prime example of flawed logic. There is zero call for violence in 'Whites and non-whites would be better of in their own ethnostates'. It's not even close to my example about how a call for violence can be formulated as opinion. >"how do we get there?" Peacefully maybe? Maybe not? Maybe its just a really stupid idea and there is no reason to find a way to get there? But anyway there is no call for violence anywhere in the expressed opinion. We could "solve" the wolds poverty problem through mass murdering, that doesn't mean, when I express my opinion to fight poverty, its now a call for violence right? Even if you don't see a peaceful way its still not a call for violence.

>Well the same people also say that the current political system is corrupt to the core[...] That is expressing an opinion.

>Consequently some of their viewers take the matter in their own hands and express violence[...] Consequently? Really? Sneaky false cause logical fallacy you got there. If there is no "call for action" you can not claim the action to be a result of it. People who did something happened to read something many other read too, not people who read something did something because of what they read. Some people are just sh*t to other people and they may justify that with whatever they read and interpret that however they want and even truly believe they do the right thing but is not a cause of what they found to justify it. If millions of people read the Quran and a tiny percentage of them feel the need to kill people because the Quran told them to, don't you think the people are probably the problem and if there would be no Quran they would use whatever there is to justify their killings anyway. And BTW the Quran does in fact contain calls for action but is not banned on the platforms that ban simple expressions of opinions.

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

#960

Post by zapnuk »

noxer wrote: post #959
zapnuk wrote: post #954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All words are made up, and hate speech is an established term that you can look up in any relevant dictionary. > It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing…

Hate speech may be in a dictionary but its not well enough defined to decide whether or not someone actually broke any law. Is commonly used when people disagree but no law was broken. Also the definition often includes some form of "call for violence" but its almost always used to describe something where no call for violence happened. Its kinda like when people use the term "robbery" for "theft" to make it sound wo…

> Hate speech may be in a dictionary but its not well enough defined to decide whether or not someone actually broke any law

In many countries it IS defined in such a way.

>"how do we get there?" Peacefully maybe? Maybe not? Maybe its just a really stupid idea and there is no reason to find a way to get there? But anyway there is no call for violence anywhere in the expressed opinion.

If you argue against every option but violence, you indicate your support indirectly.

> Consequently? Really?

Yes. The radicalization patterns are well documented and it starts with self proclaimed intellectuals who use lies to lead viewers down a certain path that leads to even more extreme views.

Same holds for Muslim extremists. And while we don't ban the Quran, we DO ban or investigate some religious groups. Now, this is in some ways more easy because they often meet in real life.

Post reply on HN