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

311–320 of 983 posts

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

#311

Post by erichocean »

bitcurious wrote: post #273
erichocean wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What, should these people build their own consumer credit company too? Why would racist Whites stop there? Pretty soon they'll want to build their own governments: literal White nationalism. Republicans are already talking about secession in a positive light… To protect minorities, the 2nd Amendment has to be gutted as much as possible before that kind of thing happens, even if we must seriously bend the existing C…

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. The main point seems to be that in absence of rule of law and due process, armed revolution will come, so let's subvert the rule of law to prevent that? What am I missing?

> What am I missing?

No laws or "due process" are being broken when Gab—a social network created to host as much hate speech as possible—is denied access to Visa's financial network.

I'm not suggesting we "subvert the rule of law", I'm suggesting we use the existing laws (and pass new ones when needed, like Biden wants to do) to disarm racist Whites before they attempt to kill vulnerable minorities.

Literally yesterday there was a racist White couple in St. Louis [0] pointing guns at peaceful protestors—safeties off, fingers on the trigger. Under Biden's proposed legislation, they could easily be given a (well-deserved) hate crime misdemeanor and then have their guns taken away. That's "due process" and "the rule of law" at work.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/us/st-louis-couple-protest-fi...

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

#312

Post by Darmody »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #107
jacquesm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apparently they're going to ban a large number of subs on Monday and frame it as an anti-racism initiative" Frame it? It is an anti-racism initiative. It may have side effects as well but that is the main driver.

They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.

If they do they will be called racists and white supremacists.

And I'm the crazy one when I say social media is only banning right wingers.

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

#313

Post by Daishiman »

50ckpuppet wrote: post #293
rickbutton wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A purge of white supremacists sounds great to me.

sounds great to me to until I turned my brain on and realized that if you can purge one ideology, you can justify purging any other ideology.

The German state has been banning and imprisoning sympathizers of white supremacist groups for a few decades by now. I'm not seeing a mass censorship of non-hate-based ideologies there.

I'm not seeing the slippery slope. To say that purging one ideology is the same as all means that you see no difference between hateful supremacist positions and any other types of ideas. Which is ridiculous.

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

#314

Post by alexryan »

rickbutton wrote: post #285
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.

I suspect that many genuinely kind hearted people think they are doing the right thing by silencing the speech of those whom they find repulsive but have never stopped to ask themselves “Why are the oligarchs on my side?” Project Dragonfly is alive and well and unfolding before our very eyes. This is how democracy dies.

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

#315

Post by snowwrestler »

steveeq1 wrote: post #305
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…

Ok, what if this person were a thug and he advocates for a "thug life" (as an arbitrary example, a gangsta rapper)? And let's say he committed a lot of crime and physical harm to other people? Would you issue the same behavior towards him? Would you be very vocal about it?

What is your theory, that no one has ever declined to do business with a rapper? You might want to do some fact checking on that.

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

#316

Post by TravHatesMe »

rjohnk wrote: post #251
ars wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?

If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.

I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?

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

#317

Post by Daishiman »

disposekinetics wrote: post #299
sweetheart wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is they are not approaching the left's extremists with the same fervor This is a false equivalence. The worst of the alt-right are far, far worse than the worst of the extreme left (antifa, maybe? Though there is no alt-left). Good riddance to them, I say. If you want to lead the KKK, and advocate for a white ethnostate, I won't lose any sleep when you can't post videos trying to convince others of the s…

[flagged]

Remind me when was the last time that an organized revolutionary Marxist movement openly defied the US government in its own soil.

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

#318

Post by logarhythmic »

renewiltord wrote: post #238
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an increasingly cynical view to expose given that the people who decide to do that just get blacklisted by the financial elite. https://twitter.com/TheEbonyMaw/status/1277120076186112000 , https://reclaimthenet.org/gab-andrew-torba-visa-blacklisted-...

It's like everything about ads and tracking: your business model is not my problem. Some businesses are just unviable. Compete or die.

Come on... It's not so simple

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

#320

Post by happytoexplain »

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…

Agreed. There is much to reasonably debate about where lines are drawn in regards to which private platforms are de facto public squares, if any, and which are not; and what speech is a reasonable cause for being banned from such a platform, and what speech is not. But the fact that there is such a significant amount of hateful, violence-loving speech, and that it is continuously growing, simply overshadows the topic. I'll happily debate those subtleties all day, once we're not driving cars into groups of each other over identity politics, accusing people who are trying to vote of fraud while intimidating them with guns in person, threatening each other with civil war, gleefully mocking victims of politically motivated violence, and, most of all, once we no longer have a US president who encourages all of that hatred.
Post reply on HN