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

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#661

Post by thu2111 »

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…

[flagged]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#662

Post by Grustaf »

baq wrote: post #658
Grustaf wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only unbiased, truthful sources like CNN should be allowed, right?

and this is how russian psyops win: people either stop believing anything or call for permanent free for all disguised as free speech.

Yes the Russians tricked people into thinking CNN was biased, while all reasonable people know that it's completely neutral.

Just like Komsomolskaya Pravda. People who thought they were biased were clearly indoctrinated by capitalist lies.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#663

Post by arethuza »

adventured wrote: post #401
_y5hn wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anger about what though?

I can explain that one. Stick with me on this dear HN reader, as your gut reaction may be to trigger downvote, but I'm going to actually explain it for real, I'm going to tell you exactly why (I'm not going to filter it for everyone so it feels better or sounds better). Jobs. Opioid deaths. Suicides. Life expectancy. Standards of living. Manufacturing erosion. Lack of a future. Lack of wealth creation. Rural and midd…

As an aside, what you wrote there also sounds an awful like why so many people in the UK supported Brexit and the Remain campaign was so badly handled.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#664

Post by Aerroon »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #616
runawaybottle wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any evidence, I have conclusions on behavioral patterns. The Democrats lack physical presence. It’s been an ongoing issue for us for a very long time. We had extreme issues with getting our youth vote out, getting our minority votes out. It literally took a black President to get that demo to show up, and for some reason they stopped showing up right after he was gone (for Hilary). The kids don’t turn ou…

Young people in general have not been a reliable demographic. Also a quick google search showed that 75% of the Tea Party were 45 or older (back in 2012). My take is that there’s a desperation behind the last 20 years or so. Haven’t you wondered what would cause an entire segment of the population to take a deep dive with thinly-disguised racists and Russian trolls?

If you really think about it, then it feels like "the right" has been losing over the last 20 years. Topics such as religion, abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, marijuana legalization, and police reform have all been going in the favor of "the left". I can't really think of any big issue that "the right" has championed, that they've actually won. They've won political appointments, but not ideological positions.

Even having a balanced budget hasn't worked out for "the right". When they've been in power, the budget deficit hasn't really decreased.

Perhaps this has made "the right" more desperate? Maybe they need to rethink their principles instead?

(I use quotation marks for the sides, because these really aren't issues that fit on a one dimensional scale. A libertarian could fall on the right, but still support "the left" on most of the above issues. Also, this is mostly US specific.)

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#665

Post by weare138 »

perl4ever wrote: post #599
djur wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hasn't been used in normal conversation before recently because we haven't had a significant political movement and officers of the US government who were engaged in acts worthy of the term.

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask though, because it was obvious. Is sedition illegal? Should it be? When did the consensus arise, if it did? The historical laws against sedition are not generally presented in a good light, in school, from what I can tell. I'm not questioning whether the attack on the Capitol was problematic, but why sedition is the go-to term. I feel like there's an echo of the awkward ter…

>Is sedition illegal? Should it be?

How are we defining sedition though? Rebelling against society is one thing. I'm an old punk rocker. Did I break laws I didn't agree with? Yes, repeatedly. But I also accepted that, right or wrong, it was my personal choice, I made those decisions myself and if I faced consequences for it they were my consequences to face, not someone else's. There's a difference between sending a message and killing the messenger. I get the over all point you're making but damn what do we call it? This is way past protesting or rebelling against the government and society. We poked the bear but we didn't burn down the entire forest just to spite the bear.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#666

Post by Noos »

creato wrote: post #482
adventured wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can explain that one. Stick with me on this dear HN reader, as your gut reaction may be to trigger downvote, but I'm going to actually explain it for real, I'm going to tell you exactly why (I'm not going to filter it for everyone so it feels better or sounds better). Jobs. Opioid deaths. Suicides. Life expectancy. Standards of living. Manufacturing erosion. Lack of a future. Lack of wealth creation. Rural and midd…

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. The part that scares me is this: > It's a mistake for the Democrats to obsess over blaming and castigating those people, instead of focusing on convincing them, swaying them, educating them, peeling away voters and ultimately delivering real life improvements (the big part of that) if they truly believe they have a better path to offer for their future. What if there sim…

One of the things I worry a lot about is that the main issue is that there simply are too many people and too little jobs. Like we can only legitimately support a small amount of workers in any field; if we have more it drops earning potential to near nothing, like in most creative or labor fields.

We also simply are too efficient to have multiple of a field any more too. We end up having one department store chain instead of four or five in an area; every market seems to solidify into 2 or 3 companies. Many jobs are virtualized to where those companies hire a fraction of humanity and have weak supply chains.

I think what will happen is just over time we will have less people. People will stop reproducing in sort of an equilibrium until we reach a point where we balance out to the economy's needs. I don't think it will be top down, but people simply cannot afford to have kids in a part time gig economy.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#667

Post by ChrisRR »

e40 wrote: post #21

The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population of people that only hear these lies, day in and day out? They're going to react just like they did on 1/6.

As a brit, Fox news fascinates me. Because every clip of it I watch is so clearly opinion piece propaganda, they don't even pretend like they're reporting the news

Even our "equivalent", the Murdoch owned Sky News channel is nowhere near as bad as Fox news

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#668

Post by berneezy3 »

modo_mario wrote: post #646
berneezy3 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point me to a source on how Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"? I can't name democrats who facilitated ilegal insurrection in regards to this past election, but I can name democrats who facilitated illegal insurrection against their own communities after the George Floyd incident. The democrats who refused to call out rioting and looting (as a separate incid…

> those who called for the short-sighted defunding of police departments in cities with high crime (look up the uptick in shootings and murder in NYC after the city removed $1 billion from the police department) This is facilitating illegal insurrection? And NYC is your example... Surely this could have nothing to do with covid and the whatever else but a 112% increase in shootings must be the consequence of a budget…

It’s a good point, NYPD defunding itself can’t be tied directly to insurrection, but certain factions of the movement can be, as I detail in another response in the parent thread.

To me, the crime is high due to the unfortunate realities of inner city gang culture. Yes, historical factors cannot be ignored, and yes, police misconduct also does exist. Police reform is necessary, but a $1 billion budget cut ignores the reality of urban crime, and seem to cause a greater net amount of deaths, and the victims will unfortunately be mostly black/brown. Listening to a few of the chart-topping, yet violent rap songs should give an unfortunate indication of the current state of gang culture, and why the police provide an imperfect-yet-needed check to gang members.

But on the other hand, why would COVID cause an increase in shootings/murder? I could understand if there was an uptick in robberies, but from the data I’ve seen, the uptick is in shooting and murder.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#669

Post by pmiller2 »

tomp wrote: post #635
weare138 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Censored? I think not: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-h...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#670

Post by Noos »

rorykoehler wrote: post #460
jojobas wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't being Yezhoved out of reality an ultimate case of accountability for anyone political?

No. I want real accountability.

no, people here want to censor the right out of existence. I mean come on, Fox News? Really? The bar suddenly lowers to a point that is indefensible. It's really obvious these days that its one-sided, to the point where I throw up my hands and not expect any fairness.
Post reply on HN