Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#581
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media has the exact same problem magnified 100 fold, because there is so much more content to cherrypick from. People only see the actions of extremists and attribute that behavior to everyone that doesn't agree with them. Traditional media definitely has flaws, but rejecting them in favor of social media because of it is an absurd and incredibly destructive reaction.

It’s because the masses are trying to partake in serious discourse in a non-serious way. On any given day, two different perspectives agreeing to intellectually consider why the other side is objectively incorrect (as in, not just agreeing they are simply different) is a serious undertaking. If you casually take any topic, every single day, and allow people to do the thought experiment that one argument is more valid…

Well put. This political battle is being fought at the lowest levels of discourse that's barely above animalistic screeching while trying to tangle some of the most complex and nuanced topics; and the results are predictably ridiculous.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can explain that one. Stick with me on this dear HN reader, as your gut reaction may be to trigger downvote, but I'm going to actually explain it for real, I'm going to tell you exactly why (I'm not going to filter it for everyone so it feels better or sounds better). Jobs. Opioid deaths. Suicides. Life expectancy. Standards of living. Manufacturing erosion. Lack of a future. Lack of wealth creation. Rural and midd…

That's a fine theory, but it doesn't explain why the same people voted for him again once Trump neither fixed or took steps to fix any of these issues.

Sure it does. They're not done trying to burn the existing system down, they think Trump is acting against that system, and they reject the other establishment / system candidates (of which there are few regardless in a locked two party system that just practices flipping sides every few years). They also widely believe Trump would have enacted a lot more policies they view favorably if he hadn't been thwarted by the opposition.

And he did take a few steps to fix issues, including on criminal justice reform and eg his executive order on healthcare pricing (how was something like that not in the ACA?). A pittance for sure. However if you're drowning and grasping at straws, those will do. The way the system attacked Trump for four years also makes them believe even more so that he represents the anti-establishment, that he would tear down the existing system.

Trump voters also liked his economy until the pandemic crashed it. They think he was at least partially responsible for it. Wages for the bottom 2/3 were rising at the fastest pace in two decades. That wasn't courtesy of Trump (it was due to a very tight labor market, which would have happened in that term regardless), however as President he gets the credit for it, that's how it always works politically. Absent the pandemic, Trump would have easily sailed to a second term via the electoral college.

Why did Bernie Sanders voters come back and vote for him so voraciously again after he (maybe) lost last time vs Hillary Clinton? Because they reject the Hillary Clinton & Joe Biden status quo, the never-ending cycle of sticking to the types of candidates and policies of the recent past that have failed.

Imagine an alternative election without Trump as a Republican: vote for system status quo conservative candidate (Jeb Bush clones at best, maybe we'll get some more war out of it), or vote for Joe Biden, one of the guys that put us into Iraq & Afghanistan for two decades, represents everything wrong with the past 50 years of American politics (which he was an important part of), is a pure establishment candidate, represents the entrenched political elites, and sponsored the human rights smashing 1990s crime bill. One helluva choice Americans get. Death by this, or death by that. Besides, people largely vote by partisanship (which is how you get prominent Democrat Congresspersons that will say Biden is guilty of sexual assault, and they still support him for President; or how you get his VP calling him a racist one minute and then gleefully joining forces with him and pretending he's not a racist the next minute; that's the nature of being a partisan). The vast majority of voters on each side will stay on their Republican / Democrat side; so if you're a Republican, your choice is Trump or a likely return to something akin to Bush's various terrible policies (the Bush money machine likely would have handed Jeb the Republican nomination in 2016, absent Trump). So as I said, flail it is.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no, no. I literally made an account to comment on how wrong this is. Both sides are biased ignores the little matter of degree. One side is completely unmoored from reality in a way that the other simply isn’t. One side promotes conspiracy theories and lies from the top down. Both sides is a way to make yourself feel smart without critically examining on a deeper level what those biases are, how widely they’re co…

This "reality" thing you're talking about is not singular. Easiest illustration is that Rittenhouse fellow, a brave-ish kid standing for himself in one reality and a cold-blooded murderer in another.

Rittenhouse, an 17 year old, carried a weapon across state lines to engage in militia activities and shot someone. He was not defending his own house or business. He is a bad guy, and what he did was bad. In the modern world, the state has a monopoly on violence, no roving militias are legitimate uses of force.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the full quote: "Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes". Now the generally understood figurative meaning of putting someone's "head on a pike" is "fire them in disgrace". But Bannon's ruled that one…

Hmm so wishing for something tongue-in-cheek is bannable. Got it.

I don't see an answer to the question I asked. All I see is variations of "It's a joke bro, relax!". (And that's 0/4 on HN when I've asked this question)

Explain the joke, please! I'm not trying to take those words literally. I'm just looking for a figurative meaning of "heads on pikes" that makes sense in this context. "Fire them" makes no sense at all. So what is it?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#586
post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that that's the obvious conclusion, and I have give you three very plausible arguments against that. That's fine, obviously we don't have to agree. I do ask that you be a bit more civil though in our discussion.

If you think I'm being uncivil, don't step out into the rest of the comments section, bud. I haven't called you a single name, or done anything, other than express incredulity at your position. I didn't even point out how racist it sounded that you were claiming one side was more prone to violence or less law and order oriented. All I'm saying is that if you're going to disagree with Occam's Razor, given the history…

I'm talking about politeness and courtesy not name calling. Having a discussion and avoiding snarky comments so this forum doesn't devolve into Twitter or Reddit.

"I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you? "

"You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line."

"Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?"

"If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely."

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#587
post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What information do you have that allows you to make that determination? It was a very close election.

The fact that the Senate report itself does not question the outcome of the 2016 election would be a big one. The fact that Russian operation was much smaller that either candidate's political campaigns. Also, just the general lack of evidence that it was a decisive factor.[1] [1] https://time.com/5573537/mueller-report-russia-election-inte...

Neither the Senate report nor the Mueller report attempted to determine whether the Russian operations affected the outcome of the election, as your article indicates:

> [D]id those Russian efforts actually swing the outcome of the 2016 contest? ... Mueller's report does not attempt to answer this politically charged issue.

Indeed, that article explains quite clearly how it's not possible to say with certainty ("nowhere near enough") whether the outcome of the election was changed or not. You can't compare the impact of the stolen DNC and Podesta emails with campaign expenditures.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it enough that all other social media are vividly discussing it? I'm from Europe and slowly getting tired of this. It is not what I come to HN for. Not everyone lives and breathes America.

There's a link under every headline that says "hide". Use it, and you won't see these stories anymore.

I'm aware of this, but I don't want to have to hide half of HN's front page. It wasn't the case until recently.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A broad swathe of unrelated people systematically manipulated into feeling a certain way. This has been going on since Bush 2.0's 8 years of assault on the truth.

I genuinely can't tell which side you're taking about, one, or the other, or both. I feel like there are crazy people everywhere, ranging from the hyper woke to honest to god nazis. But one group decided to storm congress (which I still haven't wrapped my head around, I'm mentally living in the beforefor times) and by supporting the rule of law I must now be on the side that's not that, even if I have to share the bu…

> But one group decided to storm congress (which I still haven't wrapped my head around, I'm mentally living in the beforefor times)

Before 2018?

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1047935416182235136

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#590
post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think I'm being uncivil, don't step out into the rest of the comments section, bud. I haven't called you a single name, or done anything, other than express incredulity at your position. I didn't even point out how racist it sounded that you were claiming one side was more prone to violence or less law and order oriented. All I'm saying is that if you're going to disagree with Occam's Razor, given the history…

I'm talking about politeness and courtesy not name calling. Having a discussion and avoiding snarky comments so this forum doesn't devolve into Twitter or Reddit. "I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you? " "You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line." "Are you actually trying to make that claim…

Okay, well, see ya then. None of those are attacks on you in any way. I'd advise you to grow a thicker skin if you want to participate on the internet.
Post reply on HN