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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#941

Post by e40 »

Darmody wrote: post #72
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.

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

I think any media outlet that knowingly lies should be stopped. 3 strikes? 10 strikes? Some system, whereby they will lose the ability to continue if they do what Fox News does.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#942

Post by e40 »

Grustaf wrote: post #656
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.

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

Of course not. Are you trolling?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#943

Post by redis_mlc »

endymi0n wrote: post #502
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.

Also from the original article: "On November 5, 2020, Twitter permanently suspended Bannon after he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded in an episode." It's good they finally pulled the trigger, but considering that Steven Bannon has been constantly putting oil to the fire on every single channel available, that point was very certainly much earlier.

> Twitter permanently suspended Bannon after he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded in an episode."

Actually Bannon didn't. He used a metaphor comparing what could have happened in medieval times.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#944

Post by cptskippy »

edbob wrote: post #937
cptskippy wrote: post #912

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that the idea of legal representation as a basic human right applies in the absence of pending litigation? Does corporate personhood extend to the idea of legal representation? Does the right to legal representation mandate that any legal firm be compelled to provide counsel to any client who demands it?

If someone assaults me or otherwise violates my rights, but I can't file suit to defend my rights, then in practice I essentially don't actually have those rights. This is elementary. Read the PRC's constitution some time and see all the rights that it guarantees, yet no one actually enjoys those rights. They exist on paper only. You continually ask questions that attack positions which no one has suggested. I've had…

You responded to a comment about Parler's legal counsel dropping them and equated it to Civil Death.

Parler is a business, not a person.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#945

Post by bavell »

kombucha111 wrote: post #851
bavell wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you forgot about North Korea? Or Iran? Russia? China? Trump only had 4 years in office, these others are dictators for life and have far more influence to spread evil throughout the world. The "coup" was a joke by any standard, the only reason it became such a big deal is because DC cops allowed the rioters into the Capitol instead of doing their job. I for one would've liked to see tear gas and rubber bullet…

Incompetent criminals are still criminals? Botched crimes don't lead to lenient punishments.

Sure, ignore half of my comment and put words in my mouth (I said nothing about any form of punishment). I'm not defending or excusing Trump's actions, I'm pointing out that there are actually worse people out there and to say otherwise just makes you look like a hyperbolic fool.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#946

Post by wtfiswiththis »

tanseydavid wrote: post #921
avs733 wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to avoid beng taken in by bad faith arguments like this.

Choose any person who is placed in position where they speak on behalf of the Democrat side of the aisle. It is exceedingly difficult to understand your position that this represent a 'bad faith argument'. The comparison is one comparing the role played. It not a comparison of one's opinion of the person playing the role.

Yea well, name a person.

This is a subject with concrete incidents and figures involved. The question is who on the left would be comparable to Bannon.

The subject is not generic nonsense. Talking about generic nonsense is only another non-answer that evades the very specific question. A question that should have names as an answer and nothing else.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#947

Post by koheripbal »

TheGRS wrote: post #930
koheripbal wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then the 99% are doing an awfully bad job at telling their peers they are wrong. That's actually very common these days. The mainstream has no control over the fringe. In a similar vein, when anarchists in Portland tried to burn down the Federal courthouse, there was silence from much of the Democrat political establishment.

The context around a lot of riots from the summer sits in my head pretty heavily. I don't like seeing rioting and vandalism as much as the next person, but I also recognize where it came from. I'm having a tough time reconciling the capitol storming in the same manner. The only similar emotion I have is pity toward people who were clearly lied to and who have insulated themselves from rational thought. To be clear I…

> I also understood the anger last summer and found it difficult to condemn it

No degree of injustice gives people ethical license to destroy the livelihoods of people who had no role in said injustices.

I found the media silence on the violence and destruction over the summer, as a means to further their political objectives, absolutely repugnant.

I equally condemn the Capitol Hill rioters and hope they all face long prison sentences.

Do not allow violence to be partisan. Whether it's attempting to burn down a courthouse in Portland, or trashing the capital building, laws and gov't are all that keep civilization together.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#948

Post by complexmango »

sholdery wrote: post #800
snarfy wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Bannon called for the beheading of Dr Fauci. I'm not sure where you find consensus and compromise there.

Just like Kathy Griffin posed for a photo with a beheaded Trump mask?

Somehow that doesn’t count in the lefty HN echo chamber.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#949

Post by edbob »

cptskippy wrote: post #944
edbob wrote: post #937

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone assaults me or otherwise violates my rights, but I can't file suit to defend my rights, then in practice I essentially don't actually have those rights. This is elementary. Read the PRC's constitution some time and see all the rights that it guarantees, yet no one actually enjoys those rights. They exist on paper only. You continually ask questions that attack positions which no one has suggested. I've had…

You responded to a comment about Parler's legal counsel dropping them and equated it to Civil Death. Parler is a business, not a person.

Sorry. I wasn't aware of anything involving Parler's lawyers. The mass harassment of lawyers (leading to withdrawal) that I'm aware of involved Trump's lawyers. Perhaps they were retained by a corporation (idk), but I would find the question of corporate personhood irrelevant because Trump could just have retained them personally if he needed to.

To be clear, I don't think that the Trump lawsuits had any merit or should have been brought in the first place. But they should absolutely have been allowed to go through the normal legal process so they could be convincingly rebutted. Sending hundreds of threats to law firms should not be a political tactic in a democracy. That does nothing but give ammunition and validity to conspiracy theorists.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#950

Post by erulabs »

DangitBobby wrote: post #603
erulabs wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the vital context. “Democrats are to blame” -is- an opinion, but “No one who scaled the walls of the capital was a Trump supporter” is a statement of fact which can be disproven trivially (literally hundreds of photos of the hats and the shirts and the flags on the people scaling the walls). The lack of -context- irks me far more than any other issue here - particularly when the context is so damning. I…

I believe you've misinterpreted Guliani's words. He is not claiming that they were not Trump supporters, he is saying that they did not scale the walls. By which he means that they did not have to sneak or break in because no one really even tried to stop them. That sentiment seems true on its face. Now whether the blame for that can be placed on Democrats is an entirely separate matter.

Erm, here is a photo of people wearing Trump gear scaling walls. https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/16/03/72/20463283/3/ratio3x2_1...
Post reply on HN