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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#991

Post by DangitBobby »

dragonwriter wrote: post #969
DangitBobby wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> He is not claiming that they were not Trump supporters, he is saying that they did not scale the walls. That's an impressive attempt to rescue the statement, but he didn't say “No Trump supporter scaled the walls”, he said “No one who scaled the walls was a Trump supporter.” While in a formal logic sense, of no one scaled the walls the latter would be true, it's not something anyone basically familiar with spoken E…

This is the original statement: "Believe me, Trump people were not scaling the wall. So there's nothing to it that he incited anything."

I have to say, if you don't recognize the ambiguity it contains, you don't have a strong grasp on the language or you were not reading what was written. He's either saying that they weren't Trump people or that they weren't scaling the walls. It's not obvious which one he means.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#992

Post by matchbok »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #102
univalent wrote: post #17

Should have banned him after the 'heads on pikes' comment. Late as usual.

And should Maxine Waters have been banned after she exhorted her followers to harass Republicans? "Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." What kind of civilized person would advocate…

[flagged]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#993

Post by xenoph0n »

tempestn wrote: post #704
jansan wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Jake Angeli carried a spear. I honestly cannot tell if you are being sarcastic here.

He literally was carrying a spear with a flag tied to it. And if you're implying that a spear isn't a real weapon, the officer who died was beaten with a flag and a fire extinguisher, so I'd say a spear is dangerous enough.

You people really are just staggeringly dishonest.

You know very well that "armed attack" or "armed insurrection" in relation to attacks on the government refers to people with guns. (i.e. people intending to engage government forces in armed conflict)

FFS if they'd shown up with muskets dressed as revolutionary war soldiers people like you would be saying it was a "gun wielding attack" or something.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#994

Post by xenoph0n »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #507
o-__-o wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, and DC was also on fire, nearly burned down by reckless protesters in May! Maybe we should have a larger police presence in our nations capitol to prevent all these insurrections?

Left wing protests always follow a long worn script that doesn't include murdering police officers.

[flagged]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#995

Post by xenoph0n »

markdown wrote: post #425
AaronFriel wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My god, bonfires?

I heard that those black people had the audacity to burn WHITE(!!) fluffy confectionery over those bonfires!!

how about when they had the audacity to rob, murder and loot across the country throughout 2020?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#996

Post by xenoph0n »

TheGRS wrote: post #444
o-__-o wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly think a mass of armed people stormed the capitol then you too have fallen prey to lies. What I’m saying is both actions didn’t end with a good look and they both should be condemned Edit: I seemed to have touched a nerve. I was rewatching video from people storming the capitol. They were not armed and they were all milling about without a plan. Even the lady that was shot was unarmed Edit2: I think we ar…

Whoa are you arguing that armed people DIDN'T storm the capitol? They were indeed armed and yes it was televised. Your inability to see what's in front of you willingly doesn't cause rest of us to be blind.

Almost no one involved was armed you utter shill. I guess BLM protests were "violent protests" because some of the people there were violent?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#997

Post by the_only_law »

xenoph0n wrote: post #996
TheGRS wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa are you arguing that armed people DIDN'T storm the capitol? They were indeed armed and yes it was televised. Your inability to see what's in front of you willingly doesn't cause rest of us to be blind.

Almost no one involved was armed you utter shill. I guess BLM protests were "violent protests" because some of the people there were violent?

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#998

Post by osgovernment »

malwrar wrote: post #865
osgovernment wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is precisely what IPFS and ETH domains are for: https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/websites-on-ipfs/link-a-domain/#... I don't want this to sound wrong, but I perceive most of the people complaining about censorship to be hypocrites. They'd be the first to censor if they were in charge of these platforms. They are some of the first to ban in moderated communities like reddit. The reason they're upset is because they ar…

> I don't want this to sound wrong, but I perceive most of the people complaining about censorship to be hypocrites. They'd be the first to censor if they were in charge of these platforms. > The reason they're upset is because they are not in control. Do you notice how that starts me, as someone who is firmly anti-censorship, off on the defensive as you seem to view me as an insincere or stupid bad guy? > I think in…

> Do you notice how that starts me, as someone who is firmly anti-censorship, off on the defensive as you seem to view me as an insincere or stupid bad guy?

Please note that I said most, not all of people are like that. I am anti-censorship too. I'm not offended by the idea that Twitter is a business and is allowed to choose who they conduct business with. I at least understand if you want to make something anti-censorship, then you need to plan ahead to make it difficult to censor.

This means if I create a platform for free speech, that I'm not going to put all my eggs into one basket and hope for the best. No where did Twitter ever claim to be the platform of anti-censorship.

I believe being anti-censorship is more of an ideology that requires action. As a Linux user, I'd personally find it odd to see someone claim to be anti-censorship while using Windows or Mac. Both of which IMO are built on the centralization of ideas, and limit expression to proprietary platforms.

I think the idea of anti-censorship is great, but that it is something that needs built through software and tools by people that believe in the concept, not by having the government regulate companies to force it into being.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#999

Post by TheGRS »

koheripbal wrote: post #947
TheGRS wrote: post #930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lon…

There was no silence around it. The images were shown very readily and commented on openly. "Silence" apparently is a very squishy term, the media showed images of violence and unrest during the summer just as much as they did with the capitol siege.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#1000

Post by chordalkeyboard »

greesil wrote: post #966
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #931

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Capitol Police handled the situation weirdly and it got out of hand. I'm not sure why they let protestors across barriers and declined assistance from neighboring agencies. Some people read a conspiracy into these events. I just know this wasn't even close to the first time people were upset at congress and demonstrated inside forbidden areas. Nor was it the first time large peaceful demonstrations were marred…

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.

> the intent to overturn an election with force by disrupting a critical vote on the election that was in progress.

what is the evidence of this intent?

Post reply on HN