Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your proposal for how Fox News should be handled, given they "lie every single day"? Should Fox News have their licenses removed, and be taken off the air & internet?

Just so everyone knows, this is the type of stuff that aired of Foxnews days before the riot: https://youtu.be/oV97eEFJ4xI A rallying call like that simply doesn’t work on Democrats, but god does it work on Republicans. I just don’t see any of this dying down at all, and the Republicans are always prepared to tap into this demo around election time (in two years time at the mid terms). They live for this. Banning the…

The video has been removed.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then, you should be using the link that says "flag" instead.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why this is downvoted?

Not downvoting, just observing: Likely the opinionated and unprovable claim (that his can not happen to democrats), stated as an absolute fact.

It’s inferable if you look at micro-timeline of modern American history.

Sanders coalition is about the only grassroots group that came from the left and was swiftly rejected (twice).

The grass roots movements of the tea party took the Obama era super majority away, and fortified a Trump outsider run.

The boots on the ground every-man on the left is harder to rally, and thus far have not shown any ability to even dominate their own party (their platforms don’t even get taken up by the broader party, just parroted). Plus, if it were possible, there would be a voice in the mainstream media stoking this contingent (as in business has identified an obvious market).

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#594
post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am just explaining the psychology of how people can get swept up in the fervor of crowds. So, “Whoopsie! I accidentally entered the Capitol through that broken window and got peer pressured right into the Senate?”

People do get dumb in mobs, so that could be true

Alcohol makes some people aggressive. The right solution, for those people, is to not drink alcohol. And "but I was drunk" is not considered a valid defense.

Maybe the same standard should be applied to people who decide to join a mob, if we're assuming they're not dumb already before joining one.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm still not buying it. As you said, the actual changes Trump offered were but a pittance. And, the economy, well, that was actually Obama's economy he inherited and then destroyed with his tax cuts.

I'd gladly take Jeb Bush over Trump. Not that I'd actually vote for either one, but, at least Bush seemed competent.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most interesting things cable news networks do is compile clips of their competitors caught in acts of hypocrisy, self-contradiction, breathless hyperbole and blatant lying. They can all do this to each other because they are all guilty of it. Cable news is a tower of partisan propaganda.

Sorry, but no. CNN, MSNBC, etc are far from perfect, but let's not pretend that "both sides are as bad as each other". Fox (to say nothing of the absolute swamp that is OANN or Newsmax) are an order of magnitude worse than the so called "left" channels (only in the US would CNN be considered a left wing news channel). The reason that CNN, etc are "biased" against Trump is because reality is bisaed against Trump. He's…

Brilliant summary. Let's not pretend it isn't. Everybody would agree that it was cogent, persuasive and utterly compelling. Good to be know what world outside the US thinks and I like the cherry on top: 'reality is biased against Trump'.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#597
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And killed a police officer. By beating him to death. With American flags and a fire extinguisher. They were still beating him long after he was down.

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?

“As soon as they hit the fence line, the fight was on,” Sund said. “Violent confrontations from the start. They came with riot helmets, gas masks, shields, pepper spray, fireworks, climbing gear — climbing gear! — explosives, metal pipes, baseball bats. I have never seen anything like it in 30 years of events in Washington.”

Seems like the mob was pretty well armed.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so everyone knows, this is the type of stuff that aired of Foxnews days before the riot: https://youtu.be/oV97eEFJ4xI A rallying call like that simply doesn’t work on Democrats, but god does it work on Republicans. I just don’t see any of this dying down at all, and the Republicans are always prepared to tap into this demo around election time (in two years time at the mid terms). They live for this. Banning the…

Do you have any evidence that this madness can’t happen to “our side?

I don’t have any evidence, I have conclusions on behavioral patterns.

The Democrats lack physical presence. It’s been an ongoing issue for us for a very long time. We had extreme issues with getting our youth vote out, getting our minority votes out. It literally took a black President to get that demo to show up, and for some reason they stopped showing up right after he was gone (for Hilary). The kids don’t turn out at all for decades now. Many could argue if we didn’t literally send out mail in ballots, the turn out would have been lower. Republicans don’t have this problem, so no, I don’t think a warcry works on the Democrats because we have been very weak on physical presence for decades now.

But in terms of madness, of course, all mobs are susceptible to this. Virtual turn out on the left is disproportionately high. The #metoo and BLM movements are clear examples of this. But again, the physical presence is lacking. The riots last summer were a blip and not coordinated, and led to zero legislation. I’ll concede #metoo inevitably entered into madness territory.

The Republican tea-party people have been practicing for years protesting in DC, and they have their physical turnout covered in almost every election.

If anything, I envy the right-wing’s ability to rally, and do not fear rally-calls on the left because we can barely show up for an election.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#599
post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sedition is not a right I've been seeing lots of people write things like this very recently. But honestly, when did you start using the word "sedition" and when did the word acquire emotional weight to you, as a dastardly crime? When and how do you think other people got familiar with the word? If I'm being honest, my association with the word sedition before pretty recently was almost entirely a very dim memory of…

It hasn't been used in normal conversation before recently because we haven't had a significant political movement and officers of the US government who were engaged in acts worthy of the term.

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask though, because it was obvious.

Is sedition illegal? Should it be? When did the consensus arise, if it did? The historical laws against sedition are not generally presented in a good light, in school, from what I can tell.

I'm not questioning whether the attack on the Capitol was problematic, but why sedition is the go-to term. I feel like there's an echo of the awkward term "collusion" that eventually allowed people to say there was nobody charged with collusion.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#600
post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"? I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist. “So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.” > last summer Sure…

First off, thank you for providing your sources. I wasn't aware of Giuliani's speech before you posted. Now, on to your points. > But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection. It's not just the reduction of the NYC police budget that I am referring to as insurrection. It's the post-George-Floyd rioting, and the extreme comments made by certain leaders of these movements…

There is a categorical difference between looting your local big box store and attempting to overturn the results of a national democratic election through violence. Did you see the videos of the crowds shouting “hang mike pence” at the capital? The elected democratic mayors of the cities begged the crowds and the police to deescalate violence, and they sent help when called. The elected president of the US escalated conflict, was pleased when he heard initial reports of the capital being breeched, and he refused to send in the national guard to disperse protestors. The first back up that showed up to protect the capital police arrived despite trump, who had told the national guard to stand down. The call came from one of Mitch McConnell’s staffers who knew some folks in the justice department. These aren’t remotely equivalent situations. In BLM, the elected leaders made tough choices, suffered, and worked to end the conflict. Does it not reach you that the maga protests as a violent movement matter because (1) they have express the support of the president and the political power that entails and (2) they are quit literally a coup attempt, however farsical and unrealistic, aimed at the core democratic functioning of our governance structure? And (3) these weren’t isolated instances, similar events happened at like 6 state houses, earlier this year a right wing militia planned to kidnap the governor of Michigan.

The power matters, burning down the government is different than burning down a Wendy’s.

Post reply on HN