YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#981

Post by sumedh » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:26 AM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #962

sumedh wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy" > Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Tru…

> No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy" The fact that presidential advisers, among the US Senators, former diplomats, and foreign advisors, had contact with foreigners is not surprising in the least. I'…

> I'd be happy to discuss any specific contacts that you find to be troublesome, though.

Paul Manafort, why is Trump's campaign manager talking and sharing data with Russian agents?

Roger Stone, again why was he coordinating with Assange to leak those hacked emails?

> After all, the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians

His people did collude with Russia though?

> But this has no bearing on my point about Trump-Russia collusion

How is that a distraction, his people did collude.

> As for the pardons, who can say why Trump does what he does?

You can say that Trump pardoned those people who went to jail for him and did not go against him. Why didnt he pardon Cohen because he went against him.

> almost 90% of Democrats were still convinced of the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians

Again his people did collude with Russia and went to jail and Trump pardoned, his son also met with Russians, are you saying those facts did not happen?

> The Benghazi investigation was undeniably an attempt, in part, to damage Hillary Clinton politically.

Many Republicans believe that Clinton was guilty because of that.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#982

Post by ChrisRR » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 12:36 PM UTC

dazc wrote: post #764

ChrisRR wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So how did Sky News cover the US recent election? I assumed it would have been singing to the same hymn sheet as the rest of the UK media but I am open to the idea I was wrong?

I haven't seen any UK news outlet that attempts to paint trump in a good light, not even sky news

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#983

Post by Grustaf » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

MrMan wrote: post #889

Grustaf wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't want a Ministry of Truth? You want to leave something as important as censorship in the hands of Big Tech? What if a conservative starts a tech company? It could happen.

"What if a conservative starts a tech company" huge if true

You’re right, we can make sure to stop any such attempt early on, before it gets big.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#984

Post by cptskippy » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:37 PM UTC

edbob wrote: post #949

cptskippy wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sho…

> Sorry. I wasn't aware of anything involving Parler's lawyers.

Your first comment was responding to someone talking about AWS, Apple, and Google dropping Parler. The discussion was around the right of lawyers to drop clients, clients being so toxic that no one is willing to represent them, legal counsel as a right, and the ramifications of a client being unable to secure counsel.

No one was talking about mass harassment but you.

> I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions.

You're trying to argue something completely out of context. That 80% of comments you're ignoring are about the topic at hand.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#985

Post by LunaSea » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

sumedh wrote: post #952

LunaSea wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you read that I wrote that both were equivalent? I'm just showing an example where a Presidential candidate pretended to support a movement that had violent elements in it. Said candidate repudiated their support after being elected, lying to his voters in the process.

> I'm just showing an example where a Presidential candidate No that is not the right example, do you have proof that Biden call the violent protestors that they are special and that he loves them like Trump?

Well he absolutely supported a movement that turned violent in many American cities so yes.

In fact he and his running-mate have both played with this support to attract more votes.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#986

Post by Talanes » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

camhart wrote: post #297

Talanes wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Left" side of that chart is generously "Center" and less generously "Leans Right."

Bias measurements are relative to something. It could make sense for you to feel that way, because you and your social circles may generally be more left leaning. What is the definition of "center"? They describe how they come to a bias rating at https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-method... .

Oh, yeah. I definitely don't put any stock in their methodology if it's just a fancy opinion poll.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#987

Post by kombucha111 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:07 PM UTC

bavell wrote: post #945

kombucha111 wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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."

-bavell

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#988

Post by sumedh » Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 12:15 AM UTC

LunaSea wrote: post #985

sumedh wrote: post #952

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just showing an example where a Presidential candidate No that is not the right example, do you have proof that Biden call the violent protestors that they are special and that he loves them like Trump?

Well he absolutely supported a movement that turned violent in many American cities so yes. In fact he and his running-mate have both played with this support to attract more votes.

Why are you not answering the question?

You are literally grasping at straws here. Show us the proof where he said those violent supporters are special and he loves them like what Trump did. Biden has said that he does not support the BLM violence.

Where is the proof that Biden tried to "find" 11,000 votes by putting pressure on election officials.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#989

Post by sumedh » Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 12:19 AM UTC

sholdery wrote: post #958

sumedh wrote: post #953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why wasn't all this evidence shown to the courts. Guliani even said in a court that this not a fraud case, that is what the Trump admin does they lie to people on TV but since they cannot lie in courts they lost the cases. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.

The courts have refused to accept the case. It didn’t have the opportunity to be shown in court.

Many cases did end up in the lower courts and Trump lost. Guliani even said in court that this is not a fraud case even though on TV he says its fraud.

Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected the case because there is nothing there.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#990

Post by rodgerd » Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #933

rodgerd wrote: post #926

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear, that terrorists get to dictate the makeup of the civil service by threatening to murder anyone they don't like?

> So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear, that terrorists get to dictate the makeup of the civil service by threatening to murder anyone they don't like? I'm not convinced that its technically correct to call Bannon a terrorist or call his words a threat. So your hyperbole has estopped your criticism of Bannon's hyperbole. > So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear, My meet in the mi…

> So your hyperbole has estopped your criticism of Bannon's hyperbole.

“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 seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”