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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#461

Post by youeseh »

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #320
dane-pgp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. "They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seri…

A channel called Innuendo Studios chronicles this tactic and many others in a series called The Alt-Right Playbook [1]. I found it enormously helpful to understand the mentality and tactics of a group that kind of doesn't make any sense. [1] The Alt-Right Playbook: Control the Conversation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM

Those are great points in the video - I've seen them employed by people who care more about winning than the truth irrespective of political affiliation.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#462

Post by Thorentis »

thereare5lights wrote: post #421
Thorentis wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians have been making false claims about the opposing party for centuries. Suddenly now Big Tech decides they have the right to pick and choose which lies will be allowed and which won't be? Pathetic.

False equivalence. Big Tech has always removed content that could imminently incite violence.

How do you determine which speech incites violence? Posts about the BLM movement increased the likelihood of a small minority of people engaging in looting. The majority of protesters did not loot. Just like the majority of Trump supporters did not storm Capitol Hill. If individuals will react to information with violence, that is on them. Big Tech is not the moral or behavioral conscience of the nation.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#463

Post by 8note »

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…

For the people who did not storm the capitol building, sure, but a lot of jurisdictions have laws where everyone involved is responsible for the worst that the group does, so getaway drivers don't get off Scott free if one of their mates murders somebody during a robbery.

If there was somebody armed during this crime, they should all be held responsible for it

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#464

Post by tenpies »

bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

> At some point the lies need to stop.

Imagine that all the news agencies actually spread the lie. Imagine that for the next 4 years of Biden's presidency, they would talk non-stop about election fraud, how he's illegitimate, and how there needs to be an investigation. Imagine that the opposition party appointed a special investigator who's sole mission was to take down Biden by uncovering fraud.

Now imagine that after 4 years, it turned out that all the evidence for fraud was actually based on lies, opposition research, or fabricated dossiers. The investigation found some other issues - but nothing that could take down Biden. Turns out they tarnished the presidency for four years for no good reason. You think apologies would be in order right?

Yet that's exactly what the Russian collusion narrative was. A lie. A four year lie perpetrated by the Liberal media, the Democrats - including very prominent leaders who openly lied to people's faces - as well as some members of the intelligence agencies.

So why didn't those lies need to stop? How would Democrats react if they had to deal with 4 years of fraud investigations, #Resistance, #NotMyPresident?

And let me be clear, I think these will be remarkably similar events in a way that's going to look almost comical in hindsight.

Imagine the outrage Democrats would have had if instead of being investigated, the courts had simply dismissed the Russian collusion narrative? If they marched, looted, and rioted with the courts entertaining the investigation, how bad would it have gotten if the Republicans of 2016 acted like the Democrats of 2020?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#465

Post by root_axis »

zdragnar wrote: post #187
dieortin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like “getting caught in the moment” and assaulting the Capitol is something completely reasonable that anyone in that situation might do.

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…

In both cases rioting and looting are unacceptable and the rioters should be arrested, but the BLM protests are based on legitimate political grievances while the Trump protests are based on a total fabrication and manifested as a literal attack on the foundation of our democratic intuitions. The philosophy behind the election fraud narrative is utterly unredeemable and should be condemned on its face.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#466

Post by 8note »

ryandrake wrote: post #344
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…

> I am just explaining the psychology of how people can get swept up in the fervor of crowds. So, “Whoopsie! I accidentally entered the Capitol through that broken window and got peer pressured right into the Senate?”

People do get dumb in mobs, so that could be true

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#467

Post by [deleted] »

throwawaysea wrote: post #69
kumarvvr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would argue that reasonable people be reasonable. Of course, 1% of trump voters may be giving the 99% a bad name.

This is very true. Tens of thousands of Trump supporters showed up to DC this last week, attending one of several fully-legal, fully-permitted protests. Almost all events and participants were peaceful. A few hundred walked into the capitol complex, and I am guessing most did not initially plan to do so but got caught up in the moment, following those in front of them. Of those few hundred, an even smaller group was…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#468

Post by karlshea »

tenpies wrote: post #464
bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

> At some point the lies need to stop. Imagine that all the news agencies actually spread the lie. Imagine that for the next 4 years of Biden's presidency, they would talk non-stop about election fraud, how he's illegitimate, and how there needs to be an investigation. Imagine that the opposition party appointed a special investigator who's sole mission was to take down Biden by uncovering fraud. Now imagine that aft…

> How would Democrats react if they had to deal with 4 years of fraud investigations, #Resistance, #NotMyPresident?

I'm sorry, did you not live through the entire Obama presidency?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#469

Post by antifreeze0 »

kingofpandora wrote: post #430
antifreeze0 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN ran with the Russia collusion story for almost 4 years straight. However when it was found out that Biden is meeting with Chinese companies or Hunters laptop they are extremely silent.

So ... They are biased but not lying?

The investigation found nothing. A producer on CNN event admitted it was fake and that they are doing it for views. https://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/Video-shows-CNN-...

Seems like they are lying wouldn’t you say?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#470

Post by antifreeze0 »

threeseed wrote: post #454
antifreeze0 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN ran with the Russia collusion story for almost 4 years straight. However when it was found out that Biden is meeting with Chinese companies or Hunters laptop they are extremely silent.

Hunter Biden is not running for President nor part of the Biden administration. So what he does in his spare time is frankly irrelevant.

The fact his father is meeting with Chinese companies through him is at the very least something that should be investigated and reported on, don’t you think?
Post reply on HN