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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#971

Post by redis_mlc »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #31
brighton36 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are opinions though. It may be untrue, but you're going to find yourself with a ministry of truth. "Who decides" who gets charged with the crime. These opinions can be entertained. After all, most trump supporters are clearly enraged by democrats.

> 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?

> This guy thinks: "Democrats attacked the capital

If he meant "antifa attacked the Capitol", that appears correct according to the videos I've seen.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#972

Post by greesil »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #967
greesil wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read many an article with words like "hallowed halls" and "sacred ground". It's just a building, and with enough dollars it can be cleaned up and repaired. What I keep coming back to was the intent to overturn an election with force by disrupting a critical vote on the election that was in progress. That's not clutching at pearls, that's a threat to democracy and the rule of law.

You're never going to undo terrorizing congressmen and killing a federal agent. This isn't getting walked back.

Congress seems to be taking it somewhat personally, for some reason that I can't possibly fathom.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#973

Post by perl4ever »

complexmango wrote: post #948
sholdery wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Fauci presumably doesn't have Secret Service protection, does he?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#974

Post by Gibbon1 »

greesil wrote: post #972
Gibbon1 wrote: post #967

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're never going to undo terrorizing congressmen and killing a federal agent. This isn't getting walked back.

Congress seems to be taking it somewhat personally, for some reason that I can't possibly fathom.

It's amazing how many people on HN are falling back on ideology to make sense of what happened.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#976

Post by j8hn »

LarvaFX wrote: post #716
j8hn wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just giving you plausible explanations. But sure it's always easy to say "X" got away with this because of white privilege. I don't think that Mayor Bowser refused to get additional law enforcment because of white privilege.

Well Mayor Bowser tried to get additional law enforcement, but the Whitehouse refused to authorize it. So I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

Here is the text from the tweet that I had previously posted. Mayor Bowser goes on to say in her letter that MPD and their partners are well prepared for the event and didn't need further assistance.

I'm not certain the context of why she begins her statement "To be clear". I looked at her previous tweets from the day and day before and this matter wasn't specifically addressed. The only thing I could think of is that a federal law enforcement authority wanted to get involved and she didn't feel the need?

https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466

"To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway."

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#977

Post by josteink »

root_axis wrote: post #465
zdragnar wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the BLM protests are based on legitimate political grievances

If you can claim the BLM looting, rioting and violence (and murders) which has been ongoing for months are based on "legitimate political grievances", you need to substantiate that.

The right wing fringes can equally claim to have legitimate political grievances with how they have been systematically dismissed, villified and represented in national media for the last four years.

Anything else is going to be a double standard.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#978

Post by josteink »

rorykoehler wrote: post #659
laurent92 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of my friends and myself who became Trump supporters entered this area after feminist issues, investigating them and finding out they were spreading lies on national TV, in a discourse that easily passed thresholds of direct incitation to hate. In national newspapers and TV. Is it time for co-de-escalation? Would one be ready to get rid of men-hating on TV as part of getting rid of political lies? As long as the…

And you wonder why people hate you? Feminism is about equality. BLM is about equality. They are not the people. They are ideas and ideals. The people who do or don't support them should not influence your opinion of the idea itself. If you don't treat people how you want to be treated you are a hypocrite.

> BLM is about equality.

BLM supports violence and looting, if the target of said action is white.

BLM is about black supremacy.

BLM is absolutely not about equality.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#979

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #968
hndudette2 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a numbers game, there's more Dems here (probably 4:1 given the industry demographic) and so you lose the popularity contest on a topic like this which stokes tribal sentiments.

I've banned this account because it's using HN primarily for political argument and that is not what this site is for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. The purpose of this site is intellectual curiosity, which is not compatible with political battle. Some political overlap is fine and inevitable, but when accounts go way beyond "some overlap", we ban them. We have to or else the site will b…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#980

Post by modo_mario »

berneezy3 wrote: post #668
modo_mario wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>But on the other hand, why would COVID cause an increase in shootings/murder?

The related lockdowns and such could play a role. I wasn't putting it forward as the sole factor but to me it seems more likely that this among other things like the police reporting differently because they're mad playing a bigger roll in a bloody 112% increase. That's a whole lot you realise that right?

Which brings me back to some of those questions left unanswered:

How do you tie a bit more than 1% decrease in budget to a 112% increase in shootings?

Do you have any reasonable argument for that?

Why do they spend such a ridiculously insane amount per employee, in total or however which way you want to calculate it?

Can you justify this given the results?

Post reply on HN