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

651–660 of 983 posts

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

#651

Post by zo1 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #617
zo1 wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the crux of it and why a lot of people logically follow the middle ground such as All Lives Matter and would do so more of it weren't so viciously attacked. As soon as you get into this messy game of "but they did that to this group" and "those others did that only after this group did that thing", etc you're in a spaghetti mess and there is no way of untangling it. We're witnessing an entirely new oppressed…

The middle ground is not logical. That is fallacious reasoning. It may very well be the the most extreme option is correct. It's not often the case, but you can arrive to those conclusions using non-fallacious reasoning.

I'm not advocating or promoting the middle. What I'm saying is that it is logical to take the position I mentioned in the sense that it's the only way to be fair to everyone. That's because the alternative requires you to undo the passage of time or have perfect knowledge of every detail of history (because if you take shortcuts and generalize you're being unfair to innocent bystanders that were never involved).

Two wrongs don't make a right. And redefining one of those "wrongs" to be right because it's fixing the first wrong is a mess and people rationally (guess that's a better word for you? I'm not referring to logic in the inductive reasoning sense) see the inconsistency.

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

#652

Post by rovolo »

TravHatesMe wrote: post #316
rjohnk wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

An '-ism' is an ideology which is used for organizing the world. The big difference is whether it's an individual ideology or a systemic ideology.

1 person renting out property = a rentier. Private ownership of land = capitalism.

1 person not hiring women = a misogynist. Companies not offering parental leave and assuming the primary caregiver is the mother = sexism.

Zuckerberg saying "young people are just smarter" = a bigot. Focusing on algorithms in software interviews which new-grads will have an easier time solving = ageism.

It's very common to call a prejudiced or discriminatory individual a "-ist" because the individual is subscribing to an ideology. But, that's emphasizing the individual rather than the society. If you only look at individual people as racist, they feel like isolated cases which don't have good solutions. Furthermore, you're absolving people who aren't explicitly discriminatory but who are still supporting systemic discrimination.

- This company will hire anyone who's qualified, but they're full of ivy-league graduates because they rely heavily on campus recruiters. Even though they aren't prejudiced when hiring, they are classist because they cater to high-class people.

- This bank will offer a mortgage to anyone with a steady paycheck and a safe-investment property. However, due to red-lining and racial covenants, Black people weren't able to purchase safe-investment homes so they didn't get good mortgages.

Granted, it's an uphill etymological battle because the individual usage is so common. When people argue for the systemic definition, they're arguing that we should focus on processes rather than individuals.

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

#653

Post by jimclegg »

syshum wrote: post #247
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?

Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism

Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition:

"The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."

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

#654

Post by GrayTextIsTruth »

danudey wrote: post #604
GrayTextIsTruth wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> white supremacists most are actually white separatists, but labelled "supremacist". Its not about hating other cultures, but about preserving your own, like how Native Americans have exclusive spiritual rituals that outsiders are not allowed to attend. Imagine calling jews who want to have their own country in Israel "jewish supremacists". Your post used the words "supremacists", "hate", "nazi", "racist", and "toxi…

Keep telling yourself that, but it's all just a veneer over the same toxic, exclusionary, and racist bullshit. > Imagine calling jews who want to have their own country in Israel "jewish supremacists". Jews wanted to have their own country because of thousands of years of persecution by basically everyone, everywhere, after they were driven out of their own home. When that happens to white people, I'll accept your ar…

> Jews wanted to have their own country because of thousands of years of persecution by basically everyone, everywhere

which would never have happened if they had been separatists in the first place. it took thousands of years to figure it out.

But you're saying that after persecution its no longer "toxic, exclusionary, and racist bullshit"? That illogical and steeped in slave morality. persecution is not a currency.

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

#655

Post by skinkestek »

pjc50 wrote: post #551
empath75 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

Not exactly .. people will come out to defend "free speech". But somehow the cause in question is nearly always far right.

partly because we mostly agree about the rest of it so then there's no need to remind people about free speech.

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

#656

Post by Barrin92 »

contrapunter wrote: post #482
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…

Important to recognise that Stefan Molyneux is not far-right, whether or not the far-right are encouraged by his YT channel deletion. I would classify him as an atheist/libertarian.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014

“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.” —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015

“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.” —Stefan Molyneux describes the Holocaust in YouTube video, Migratory Patterns of Predatory Immigrants, March 20, 2016

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

#657

Post by AgentME »

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.

if you can justify one argument, then you can justify any argument, so all arguments are wrong

This is total slippery slope. Zooming out to the point that you ignore all the specifics isn't useful.

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

#658

Post by noarchy »

contrapunter wrote: post #482
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…

Important to recognise that Stefan Molyneux is not far-right, whether or not the far-right are encouraged by his YT channel deletion. I would classify him as an atheist/libertarian.

Is Stef still claiming to be an atheist? It seemed like he was making up with Christianity in recent years. Just the same, while he used to be an outright anarchist, he went all-in for Trump.

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

#659

Post by [deleted] »

sudosysgen wrote: post #583
phonypc wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've even seen an explicitly racist post here, despite having dead comments turned on, maybe excepting obvious trolling or spam. Implicitly racist posts are usually downvoted. I have seen downvoted replies that nonsensically infer racism in a post. I suspect that's how I would describe what you're thinking of.

Because they're not explicitly racist. It's dogwhistling, or talking points, which almost always indicates racism. Someone saying that black communities should be more policed by dogwhistling that disproportionate crime warrants "assertion of police presence and predictive policing" by willfully misinterpreting statistics is racist, even if it doesn't explicitly say that black people should be harassed by police.

[deleted]

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

#660

Post by slg »

zo1 wrote: post #561
slg wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you care to point to something that backs up that claim? I can't find any mention on that subreddit about anything relating to Youtube or Twitch bans. https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+site%3Areddit.com%2F... https://www.google.com/search?q=twitch+site%3Areddit.com%2Fr...

Posts about it have been flying for about a day or two now. Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/DeclineIntoCensorship/comments/hh1s...

That seems to be exclusively about Reddit. How does this show coordination?
Post reply on HN