Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 983 posts

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#281

Post by vageli »

vkou wrote: post #255
vageli wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is crazy to think that ideas can be extinguished. These purges will serve to further concentrate and radicalize the adherents to these ideologies. edit : I may have been wrong, it seems deplatforming might work. [0] TIL! I had often read that echo chambers exacerbated radicalization but it seems more research has yielded better data to turn over that conclusion. edit1 : it seems like radicalization is more nuanced…

Communism, as a political movement, was largely extinguished in the US during the 20th century through purges and deplatforming. How many communist organizations do you see, these days? How much reach do they have, compared to the 30s? How much political power do they have, compared to the alt-right, today? Extinguishing that idea into the fringe seems to have worked rather well. As did de-nazification, post WWII. It…

Well, given that Communism was outlawed in the US [0], it seems sensible that the membership numbers would decline. Do you think it is sound policy to outlaw ideologies? I don't think that making something illegal is akin to deplatforming.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#282

Post by lowtolerance »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #205
chrisco255 wrote: post #22

It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is left with the world. Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range of opinions tha…

>Conservatism has a place in society. It does. I've also been confidently assured by my conservative friends that conservatism is a very different politics from racism, fascism, and neo-Nazism. I would not really consider the question of whether I myself am a human being or, as Richard Spencer has posited, a "soulless golem", to be a conservative vs liberal fight.

[flagged]

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#283

Post by agoristen »

Edd314159 wrote: post #5
fvdessen wrote: post #3

I haven't watched Stefan in a long time, is he now producing content in the same register as David Duke & Richard Spencer ? It did not seem to be the case a few years ago.

I used to listen to Stefan Molyneux about 10 years ago because he had some interesting views on free market economics. Now I look him up on Wikipedia and find out he's turned into a white nationalist. What the hell happened?

What happened is wikipedia turned into a leftist propaganda outlet.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#284

Post by naasking »

nordsieck wrote: post #249
naasking wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's re…

> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.

> According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression.

Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#285

Post by rickbutton »

cjslep wrote: post #254

When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer. For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and…

100%. If you are still in this thread defending the ability for white supremacists to spew racism and hate on these platforms, then that means that you wish for them to continue relaying their awful message, in which case you are a white supremacist by definition. These awful people do not "add to the discourse" in a meaningful way. Their insane ideas should not be entertained.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#286

Post by fisherjeff »

drewrv wrote: post #24
hartator wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I don't remember Stefan Molyneux saying anything racist. Can someone share an example?

There's a collection of racist quotes from him here: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

“And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff”

Holocaust euphemism alert!

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#287

Post by nordsieck »

rayiner wrote: post #271
nordsieck wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.

What does “academia” have to do with anything?

> What does “academia” have to do with anything?

Well, when people are arguing over the meaning of words - in this case "racism" - it is sometimes useful to reference what the "experts" think. There are entire fields of study within academia dedicated to this topic (often but not always including the word "critical").

Of course, whether or not said people have anything meaningful to say on the topic is not broadly agreed upon.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#288

Post by zozbot234 »

nordsieck wrote: post #249
naasking wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's re…

> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.

But that policy is not even talking about racism, however defined; it's talking about hate. Hate is hate, no matter who it's directed to. Prejudice is prejudice.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#289

Post by slg »

dogma1138 wrote: post #146
slg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is coordinated. Is there any evidence of this besides the announcements just happening on the same day? It could be companies waiting to announce these moves on Monday morning after days of seeing Facebook embroiled in controversy for not doing this. Or maybe one company decided to make this move and other companies fast tracked anything they had planned on this so they wouldn't be viewed as ignoring this issue.…

Coordination doesn’t mean collusion, there are plenty of reasons why to coordinate such as to avoid platform hopping and not having to deal with a bunch of angry people flocking to your platform and to share the news cycle. The likelihood of high profile bans like these not being coordinated is slim.

Collusion has an obvious negative connotation, but any coordination that happens in secret is inherently collusion.

Either way, my request still stands. Is there any evidence to suggest these companies are working together instead of us all just assuming that is the case?

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#290

Post by madballster »

chrisco255 wrote: post #22

It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is left with the world. Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range of opinions tha…

You can't be a free market capitalist and then deny a free capitalist business their own terms and conditions as to whom they choose to do business with.
Post reply on HN