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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#631

Post by tomp »

markdown wrote: post #414
TearsInTheRain wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course your causes are absolutely required and moral and just but those guys over there with their concerns, those we dont need to protect and claiming they are "violent mobs" is totally justified...

Both the rioting by BLM protestors and the rioting by the Trump/GOP supporters would be moral and just if they were in fact based on truth. I mean, if the Presidency was indeed stolen by election fraud, protests and rioting would be justified. But unlike the BLM protests, they were based on lies. Those lies did real damage, and they haven't stopped, so publishers are cutting ties with them to avoid further crime and…

In his podcast/article “Can We Pull Back From The Brink”, Sam Harris disagrees that BLM movement isn’t based on lies.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#632

Post by phendrenad2 »

triceratops wrote: post #585
phendrenad2 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm so wishing for something tongue-in-cheek is bannable. Got it.

I don't see an answer to the question I asked. All I see is variations of "It's a joke bro, relax!". (And that's 0/4 on HN when I've asked this question) Explain the joke, please! I'm not trying to take those words literally. I'm just looking for a figurative meaning of "heads on pikes" that makes sense in this context. "Fire them" makes no sense at all. So what is it?

So I actually don't think it's a joke, but I also don't think it's a call for literal heads on literal pikes. Just like it's not a call for a literal return to 17th century England. But we're living in a time where any hint of calls for violence will be taken that way, just in case.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#633

Post by itronitron »

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…

Thank you for posting a link to the full text of Trump's speech. Consider this section from the last paragraph...

"the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote"

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#634

Post by jeofken »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #571
runawaybottle wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so everyone knows, this is the type of stuff that aired of Foxnews days before the riot: https://youtu.be/oV97eEFJ4xI A rallying call like that simply doesn’t work on Democrats, but god does it work on Republicans. I just don’t see any of this dying down at all, and the Republicans are always prepared to tap into this demo around election time (in two years time at the mid terms). They live for this. Banning the…

Do you have any evidence that this madness can’t happen to “our side?

[flagged]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#635

Post by tomp »

weare138 wrote: post #368
donatj wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lef…

Please by all means explain how these people were being 'silenced' before that lead to an attempted coup. Back up your claims.

It’s obvious, isn’t it? Mainstream media censored Hunter Biden laptop story. They preemptively claimed that the election was 100% safe, and kept claiming that post election without any proof.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#636

Post by chordalkeyboard »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #629
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will admit that our comments sections sucks ass on these topics Please tell me where on the internet you can get better discussion on these topics than here? This is one of the few places where these things can even be discussed by people with opposing viewpoints without instantaneous flamewar apocalypse.

They can suck ass here and still suck ass way more everywhere else. I concur that HN is pretty much the best place online for these discussions, that I'm aware of, but I also think these discussions are far inferior to what is typical here. There might even be some interesting points being made about the role of technology in all this, but they're being drowned out by the purely political back-and-forth.

Sure, I would agree it sucks ass relative to what we can imagine.

> these discussions are far inferior to what is typical here.

Thats probably true, people here have political opinions and values but they aren't policy wonks. Perhaps there is (or could be) an hn equivalent for pols and wonks and they would have really invigorating discussions about policy and rarely flame each other because they were past that level. Then every so often someone would post something about programming a universal remote controller and they'd flame each other about technical topics and each others' ignorant opinions on how humans and machines interact.

> There might even be some interesting points being made about the role of technology in all this, but they're being drowned out by the purely political back-and-forth.

I'm just happy that people with different viewpoints are learning from each other. People with different viewpoints don't really learn from each other on most other platforms. They basically only learn to emulate the rhetorical jabs that score points.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#637

Post by jansan »

mschuster91 wrote: post #121
Darmody wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.

> Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? In Germany, we have the section §130 StGB in our criminal code: incitement to hatred. While it would be extremely hard if not impossible to get a TV station such as Fox News to be banned here, its hosts/mouthpieces/guests could certainly be sanctioned - up to actual jail time. Also, our core media codex ("Medienstaatsvertrag") binds all broadcasting stations - radi…

Well, CNN's Chris Cuomo said: "Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful."

This led to the legendary response of ramen guy pointing out that the first amendment says exactly that.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#638

Post by Tepix »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #547
enriquto wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point the lies need to stop. So you cannot tell lies on the internet? What happens to religion, then?

God is in a unique position as, by his very nature, is unfalsifiable. The “Democrats are behind the siege” claim, OTOH, is falsifiable. Sure, you could probably pull up some shred of evidence to put a Democrat behind the curtain, but there’s mountains more that put the alt-right behind this.

> God is in a unique position as, by his very nature, is unfalsifiable.

It seems to me that Trump is in the same position if you ask his devotees.

The existance of god is an extraordinary claim with no evidence.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#639

Post by CamperBob2 »

antifreeze0 wrote: post #470
threeseed wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

B...b...b...but Ivanka!

See, isn't this fun?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#640

Post by [deleted] »

fogihujy wrote: post #339
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…

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? I know that I personally don’t have enough knowledge and experience to know what’s right for all people at all times. Life can be complicated. Let’s have some compassion folks. As an EU citizen, I feel this is pretty much a no-brainer. Politics based on compromises between parties, rather than single-party majorities, slows the political process down and it definit…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN