Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#251

Post by tjr225 »

donatj wrote: post #160
dboreham wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're pissed off due to whatever in their psychology. However, they're choosing to resort to violence due to lies being spread by Fox News et al. Other people were rioting due to truth about police actions. While all rioting is to be condemned, there isn't some symmetry between a scenario driven by lies and one driven by truth.

MLK said that violence was the language of the unheard. The silenced will turn to violence. That's not surprising in the least.

This is absurd. You must know it to be so.

They are angry because they lost and they are being told that they didn't lose. If you can be told that anything you don't like is the case then you will always be "unheard."

MLK didn't make this statement so that anyone who was unhappy could justify violence.

You can't just live in unreality and pretend you're a victim. Either you can't see it for some reason or you do see it and you're pretending you don't.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#252

Post by wilsynet »

o-__-o wrote: post #215
AaronFriel wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly believe that DC was BURNING, then I think you have fallen prey to those lies.

If you truly think a mass of armed people stormed the capitol then you too have fallen prey to lies. What I’m saying is both actions didn’t end with a good look and they both should be condemned Edit: I seemed to have touched a nerve. I was rewatching video from people storming the capitol. They were not armed and they were all milling about without a plan. Even the lady that was shot was unarmed Edit2: I think we ar…

There’s still stuff coming out about this.

1) Bombs were left during the invasion. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-50k-reward-pipe-bombs-capit...

2) Weapons were recovered. https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/13-arrested-5-weapons-reco...

That’s weapons recovered. How many more were carrying?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#253

Post by vharuck »

donatj wrote: post #160
dboreham wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're pissed off due to whatever in their psychology. However, they're choosing to resort to violence due to lies being spread by Fox News et al. Other people were rioting due to truth about police actions. While all rioting is to be condemned, there isn't some symmetry between a scenario driven by lies and one driven by truth.

MLK said that violence was the language of the unheard. The silenced will turn to violence. That's not surprising in the least.

In the case of Tuesday's attack on the Capitol, the crowd thought they were unheard because a group of Republicans and right-wing conspiracy nuts have told them so. They were being heard for the last four years, with a Republican President and Senate. But some Republicans, including Trump, had invested so much in the underdog victim persona they lied to keep it up.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#254

Post by mech422 »

afuchs wrote: post #232
mech422 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it. However, you can evict me from the property and charge me with trespassing, which is closer to whats happening here.. edit: Hell, you can even infringe my 2nd amendment rights and ban me from having a gun on your property! Also, I'm not sure 'private' pr…

There are instances where such freedoms are granted to individuals while on private property. However, it is limited to specific circumstances and only when a specific jurisdiction's laws require it. Quickly looking this up brings me to the supreme court ruling, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1], which involved laws that were specific to the state of California. Notably, the applicability of this ruling was nar…

Hmm - must have been pretty hard to narrow, since its seems to specifically target shopping centers ?

edit: I seem to remember my son's class not being able to petition in front of a grocery store in California like 20 years ago...Wonder if it had been narrowed by then?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#255

Post by sumedh »

S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left.

Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise?

What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#256

Post by redflame8 »

maroonblazer wrote: post #217
zdragnar wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people are trying to rationalize the polarization of our society, focusing exclusively on the ends and ignoring the means. Remember NPR's puff piece justifying looting? Or (I think) CNN's reporter standing in front of a burning building while saying that the BLM protests were mostly peaceful? (They were, but the not-peaceful bits were downplayed in an obviously biased way). There was another interview I saw…

False equivalence. Looting commercial districts (while objectionable) is not the same as falsely claiming a federal election was stolen and looting the Capital.

What does CHAZ stand for again? Remind me

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#257

Post by vladTheInhaler »

ianai wrote: post #112
Spivak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean we’re talking about 75 million voters and likely about 150 million people in total if everyone was surveyed. The idea that you can say anything meaningful about all Tump or Biden supporters is basically zero. We’re necessarily talking about an absolutely insane and unhinged group of people. It doesn’t mean that you can go around encouraging and feeding that level of crazy and not expect bad things to happen.

No, there’s no reason to think the sample size which votes is an unbiased reflection of the total sample. It’s very explicitly self selecting. Interesting area to consider though.

It's one of the most insidious problems with political polling - people who feel alienated and disconnected from society are seemingly less likely to respond to surveys so they inherently go undercounted. Kind of like the dark matter of the political world - we can tell that it's there, because we feel the effects, but we can't observe it directly.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#258

Post by qwerty456127 »

Never heard of him (I'm from Europe and generally uninterested in politics), now I'm really curious about what did he actually say in his podcast and in fact am listening to it already. I seriously wonder how much generally pro-dem or apolitical people are going to find themselves Trump-curious or even Trump-sympathizing after all these bans and removals. I have almost no doubt there is going to be such effect, the only question is the scale. This is so obvious it almost seems a trap, like if president Trump himself had secretly ordered to ban him.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#259

Post by o-__-o »

wilsynet wrote: post #252
o-__-o wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly think a mass of armed people stormed the capitol then you too have fallen prey to lies. What I’m saying is both actions didn’t end with a good look and they both should be condemned Edit: I seemed to have touched a nerve. I was rewatching video from people storming the capitol. They were not armed and they were all milling about without a plan. Even the lady that was shot was unarmed Edit2: I think we ar…

There’s still stuff coming out about this. 1) Bombs were left during the invasion. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-50k-reward-pipe-bombs-capit... 2) Weapons were recovered. https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/13-arrested-5-weapons-reco... That’s weapons recovered. How many more were carrying?

So because some people at the entire rally were armed means everyone storming the capitol was also armed? I’ve heard that very same bad statistics argument used as to why trump lost the election.

Causation != correlation. I did not see any overt firearms or weapons on the people storming the capitol building. It will be hard, because it goes against your beliefs.. but I challenge you to find those armed people in the various live streams that captured the event.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#260

Post by AaronFriel »

o-__-o wrote: post #235
AaronFriel wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched armed people storm the capitol with my eyes, as did many millions of Americans glued to their TVs and monitors that day.

Give me a time stamp. I JUST rewatched the livestream as people streamed in, it’s for a project I am working on. I did not see anyone armed. Maybe some were armed but it was not clear and irrefutable. Edit: https://youtu.be/OiaWd5gVDvg

Just one example.

https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347011413101998080?s=1...

Post reply on HN