YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#291

Post by viraptor » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:33 AM UTC

o-__-o wrote: post #272

AaronFriel wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One. And you saw this guy on the tv and monitor you were glued to? Or you didn’t see this until after the fact.. on Twitter? Further, staying inline with the thread.. This is how we define “mass armed people storming the capitol”? Contrast to the three blazes that were going on around dc in may. Did those controlled fires mean dc was burning down? I am challenging the narrative. Dc was not burning in may just the sam…

> Give me a time stamp [...] I did not see anyone armed.

> One.

One example is what you asked for. It's not commenting in good faith if you move goalposts like that.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#292

Post by S_A_P » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:33 AM UTC

txru wrote: post #268

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…

To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". Politics is going to be messy. There's a lot of fait-accompli-as-fiat. But while there are two parties, there is no inherent need for the parties to be symmetrical. There is no equivalent person on the left to Giuliani, because he's meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition, while in power. I hear things like this, and I think i…

Maybe there isnt. You could be right, but I was speaking in broad strokes. You cant say there arent bad faith actors on the left. I honestly dont care if there is someone on the left that is equivalently 'bad'. And trying to find those people illustrates my point. Again, I think Rudy G and Steve B are generally wrong and myopic. The point Im trying to make is that just because we differ in political leaning/opinion we cant let media/twitter/social media/ state actors amplify this. I have 5 kids(3 step and 2 natural) and I cant even get them to agree so how the ** do we expect the population in general to get there? We are all different, and not only is that ok its awesome.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#293

Post by ribosometronome » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:33 AM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #273

sumedh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Keith Olbermann perhaps? https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344

In that clip, Olbermann is saying that people who have broken the law should be prosecuted for it.

Steve Bannon was arrested for fraud and, while on bond, used his podcast to call for beheading Fauci and FBI director Wray and putting their heads up on pikes. The both sides-ism doesn't work when one person is suggesting upholding the law and the other routinely suggests killing people who they disagree with politically.

>“Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man... I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games.””

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading...

It's also hard to compare the two as Olbermann is a sports presenter turned Political Opinion show host while Bannon was the head of a news organization, became head of a party's Presidential campaign and then served in the White House. I'm not sure there's any insider who has made anything close to the kind of unsubstantiated rhetoric Bannon has or used their journalistic positions (rather than Opinion show) in the way he has. There are a few podcasts by former Obama staffers but I can't recall any of them ever calling for murder.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#294

Post by donatj » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:33 AM UTC

tjr225 wrote: post #251

donatj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The anger started a long time before they lost the election. If you didn't see it, blame your filter bubble. It started well _before_ the 2016 election.

The anger is what got Trump elected in the first place.

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

No, but it's a reflection of a common symptom, not a justification. Silencing begets violence _because_ it's all that's left.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but when you take the pen away, what are they left with?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#295

Post by bryan_w » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #57

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are opinions though Help me out here, Hacker News. This guy thinks: "Democrats attacked the capital", is an opinion. How do we even talk to this person?

You can't. People making absurdist statements like that and claiming them as "opinions" when someone rebuts them are the principle reason I stopped looking at social media sites (and I barely looked at it before then). If someone says, "The sun didn't rise today" and everyone else points out the sun in the sky, and their reply is "Well, that's, like, your opinion, man", it's safe to ignore them. Don't engage because…

> it's safe to ignore them. Don't engage because they have tacitly admitted to being an unreasonable, delusional individual.

We saw last Wednesday that it's no longer safe to ignore them.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#296

Post by mushbino » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

nelsondev wrote: post #247

throwawaysea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is reasonable - I am just explaining the psychology of how people can get swept up in the fervor of crowds. I am fully in support of arresting all who participated. But my point is that it is not reasonable to conclude that Trump's speech incited people to illegally invade the capitol, commit theft/vandalism, and assault officers. His speech literally had a line saying "peacefully protest". The vast…

On that note, what specifically from Trump’s speech was inciting violence? “March” != “Riot” This is the section about marching to the Capitol. “ And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to dema…

Rudy: "Let's have trial by combat" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5FfcbpVLNo

Trump: The entirety of this speech, but specifically the "fight like hell" part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjYh4tIhVi4

Trump: "Be there, it will be wild": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-t...

This article covers a lot of it too. It's been stoked for a while: https://fortune.com/2021/01/07/trump-speech-capitol-attack-r...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#297

Post by camhart » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:35 AM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #244

camhart wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides have media working for them. Both are bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings The issue is people only ever consuming one side.

The "Left" side of that chart is generously "Center" and less generously "Leans Right."

Bias measurements are relative to something. It could make sense for you to feel that way, because you and your social circles may generally be more left leaning. What is the definition of "center"?

They describe how they come to a bias rating at https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-method....

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#298

Post by im3w1l » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:36 AM UTC

_qwfv wrote: post #51

shripadk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't be. These bans and policies have been going on for a really long time. It is just hitting the US now. It has been happening in India for far too long. Big Tech monopoly has gone unchecked all this while. At least I am happy to see my fellow Indians uninstalling WhatsApp and moving to Signal. The more such alternative services the better. This stronghold of Big Tech on what internet should be has to end and i…

Research actually backs up that deplatforming does reduce audience sizes for an outlet. Which makes sense of you believe that some listeners will simply not have the interest in jumping over to a new platform. Repeat several times and with every platform shift the audience reduces.

Yes. Every time one platform gets banned the right wingers get more and more isolated, more and more relationships become severed, they get more and more lonely. Combined with pandemic quarntines this will be mental tortue and completely destroy them. They simply wont be able to ever come back from this.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#299

Post by wilsynet » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:36 AM UTC

o-__-o wrote: post #259

wilsynet wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t have any beliefs about this. A violent mob invaded the capital. Some of them carried weapons. I’m not claiming they were all armed or that they were filmed using the weapons.

Although they certainly did attack police officers. With flag poles, ladders, fire extinguishers, pepper spray.

I’ll leave it there.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#300

Post by lovecg » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:37 AM UTC

dataminer wrote: post #270

Not a comment on to the ban, but trying to gain perspective on the overall heated environment. I wonder, if there are more than 2 political parties representing different view points in Congress will that help in decreasing polarization?

The argument has been beaten to death so I’m probably not saying anything new to most people here, but two parties is the only stable configuration. In a first-past-the-post system, the smaller parties after the first two will be very quickly eliminated or consolidated (this includes the limiting case of no parties, where everyone is a party of one). On the other hand, if you have one large party it will eventually splinter due to internal discord and a lack of a common enemy.

There have been brief periods in time when there were more than two significant parties in the US. Just after the constitution was written is one — it didn’t take long for parties to be established. Another example was the time period around when the Whig party disintegrated and the Republican party was established. There was the moment in that fallout in 1856 when the Know Nothing party got a few electoral votes, on a platform that is a direct ideological ancestor of Trumpism.