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

691–700 of 983 posts

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

#691

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #385
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. Literal white supremacists and nazis however, do not. Those people should be pushed so far off any platform that their only option left is to be the crazies screaming on Times Square that the end of the world is coming. These people actively contributed to fostering hatred in societies, And no, you will not fight them off with debates. The time it takes you to rebuke a single one…

It reminds of how in China, the CCP keeps around a few minor political parties to maintain the illusion that they aren't running a one party state. Any political parties which threaten the authority of the state are banned. The eight minor parties are like the token conservatives (think people who voted for Evan McMullin to protest Trump). The banned parties are everyone else.

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

#692

Post by [deleted] »

stuaxo wrote: post #672
roenxi wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe"... The "far-right" is becoming a broad term in media usage and will end up in the same place as "racist" where it is a category that catches the views of a good 40% of people. It isn't obvious that wins for the far right is a bad thing. Nobody is going to lose sleep over the Klan b…

While there are probably examples of that, I find it unlikely that the general use of the "far right" would capture 40% of people very unlikely.

[deleted]

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

#693

Post by solzhenitsyn »

logarhythmic wrote: post #674
pb7 wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true. If you're not black, you can instead write them an essay on how white people victimized you or something like that so you can be an honorary black user and be allowed to post.

Lol I can't even tell if you're being satirical or not

If only it was satire. https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/gumxuy/...

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

#694

Post by cogman10 »

bleah1000 wrote: post #512
cogman10 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A black person saying "all white people are bad" is a bad thing, but ultimately not a societal problem. The issue is the power dynamic. After years of institutional racism, institutions are racist (shocking!). That's the issue. There are far more white people in power and any one of them being racist has a much wider and more devastating effect on PoC.

I find this statement oddly racist/xenophobic. White people aren't the majority in every country. It seems like you are implying white people are superior to all others, and have control over every country on earth. What if someone from Africa made the same statement, wouldn't that be an issue? I think it's better to err on the side of disparaging someone based on an immutable characteristic is a bad thing, regardles…

It's more of a US centric opinion. Obviously I can't speak for other countries. However, if you look at the current leadership of the US it is dominated by white males. That's not a statement of superiority. The fact is PoC have gotten a raw deal in the US for decades. They aren't in positions of power due to the effects of long standing racism.

The civil rights movement was barely a generation away.

To be clear, I'm absolutely not saying whites are better than PoC. I'm saying that people in power in the US are typically white and male due to centuries of racism.

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

#695

Post by AgentME »

snowwrestler wrote: post #418
memimo wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

If you (or any reader) are interested in substantive critiques of this book, here are two: https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Her... https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-...

Here's an unusually good video critiquing it too: https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo

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

#696

Post by genoapol »

bitcurious wrote: post #689
genoapol wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In promoting racial discrimination against white people, you’re also displaying a bigoted and reductive view of Africa. The African peoples are more than the slave trade, more than colonialism. Africa is a remarkably diverse and populous continent with a history that exist beyond the impact of whiteness. It saddens me that your reducing to victimhood the whole of African identity is what passes for anti racism.

>In promoting racial discrimination against white people

Not promoting anything of the sort. These are factual observations of history, any student of history feel free to chime in so we can focus on facts over feelings.

>The African peoples are more than the slave trade, more than colonialism.

I agree African history is much more than slavery, but the European invention/export of racist theories/science and the dehumanization of Africans started during the same period (The Renaissance, ~15th-17th century continuing into the 21st century) Africans were enslaved and robbed. This period cannot be ignored in any discussions of the history of racism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

"Scientific racism was common during the period from 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet historically has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races."

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

#698

Post by perl4ever »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #662
perl4ever wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it odd people aren't bringing up the obvious motivation for this. Simply calling it racism seems obtuse. Anywhere race is a topic and anyone can join, but there is no verification of identity, trolls can claim anything. How do you think it feels to be a Black member of a forum and see a White person who is taken in by a White troll pretending to be Black? Conversely, how do you think it feels to be Black and b…

>but there is no verification of identity, trolls can claim anything. They aren't verifying identity, they are verifying skin color and using the information to then discriminate against their users. A person with verified skin tone and not verified identity can dress themselves in all sorts of lies just as trolls do everywhere on the internet. >How do you think it feels to be a Black member of a forum and see a Whit…

>Maybe we should focus on ideas over identity.

I'm not saying it's a good solution in an absolute sense, nor do I have any idea how well it's working.

I'm just saying I think it's obviously motivated by a real and inescapable issue, and I don't think there is a simple and obviously better solution given the constraint that you want to have an online forum where people can acknowledge and discuss things related to racial identity.

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

#699

Post by rickbutton »

lucaspm98 wrote: post #686
rickbutton wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any reasonable person would have agreed that silence isn't an expression of complicity with white supremacy I'll repeat. Silence -is- complicity. Now, the thread is over.

Do you mind explaining that statement, as I’m sure you can understand that at face value it sounds pretty extreme. Actions in silence are more impactful than being loud but doing nothing.

1. Not extreme. 2. No, do your own research.

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

#700

Post by slg »

zo1 wrote: post #678
slg wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to be exclusively about Reddit. How does this show coordination?

You're right. I was more pointing out that "people knew" before hand that a ban was coming, which means other platforms/groups knew about it and so could have prepared for it. If anything that's less of an argument that it's coordinated and more an argument that they're piling on after seeing one platform do it.

Thanks, but in my first comment I described exactly that possible scenario of companies rushing these announcements once they realized a competitor was acting on the issue. Once again, I don't know why so many people are assuming this is coordinated.
Post reply on HN