YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech • Hacker News Board

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

#911

Post by thu2111 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

BuckRogers wrote: post #790

Edd314159 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to listen to Stefan Molyneux about 10 years ago because he had some interesting views on free market economics. Now I look him up on Wikipedia and find out he's turned into a white nationalist. What the hell happened?

I gave him a chance because my cousin is one of these "anarcho-capitalism" guys (which is a contradiction, anarchy means lack of a control system or gov't, and capitalism is a power structure) and loved Molyneux. I've always been more of a fan of Richard Wolff and his project, Democracy at Work.[0] But a less serious intellectual than Dr. Wolff (of Yale, Harvard, Stanford), Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Project has m…

Anarcho-capitalists don't see capitalism as a power structure though. They see it as something natural that emerges organically, without it being imposed on top. They argue that, for example, markets appear in failed states, they emerge even when the states try to suppress them (black markets), and they're a natural outcome of different skills and needs. So it's not a power structure any more than say, mountains are a power structure, even though some people can exploit mountains pretty effectively to gain advantage.

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

#912

Post by thu2111 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #881

thu2111 wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how did you define "white nationalism"? HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU…

Fairly sure I could write a comment about how egregiously bad the handling of the financial crisis was in Greece by the EU, or the failings of the Common Agricultural Policy, without getting downvoted to -4. (I used to consider myself a "cautious/mild euroskeptic" up until the referendum, at which point I've become a hard-remainer)

Try it. Though for some reason Greece seems to be considered legitimate criticism by some EU supporters, perhaps because this "criticism" is in reality a demand for the EU to have done more, rather than less.

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

#913

Post by iratewizard » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

zapnuk wrote: post #854

DarthGhandi wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen dozens of instances of serious racial violence by blm activists recorded in the last few weeks and cheered on by thousands of YouTube videos demanding even more, surely that counts as "enabling terrorists"? Hate crimes units across the country are investigating racially motivated attacks spurring entirely from blm. You won't see these people happily wanting a race war being banned though. https://m.youtube.…

The fact that you don't even reference a popular youtube content creators to support your stupid argument shows its value. Also, both last links are from a cherry-picking entertainment and blog sites, not news sites that actually have editors and the desire to check sources.

Because if the 4th branch of government doesn't report it, it didn't happen. Oddly enough, the older white woman who was shot a block from my house Friday night in a random drive-by shooting didn't get reported. The gunshot and scream must have been faked.

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

#914

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #445

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…

> 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". Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929

> tptacek shared some interesting research

No, he didn’t. He shared the subjective impression which led him to stop the research, but not the results, or even the methodology used to classify content.

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

#915

Post by lliamander » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #809

chrisdirkis wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. That's... not what happened? He's explicitly stated that he deleted his blog due to the fact that the NYT are planning on doxxing him in a story about SSC. He's fine with the stor…

I do disagree, there was a lot of discussion about this on SSC prior to Scott shutting it down. If you just read what's on the site now, you're missing most of the important background information. In particular, the "reporter" at the NYT was clearly looking to get SSC cancelled, so Scott self-cancelled before that could happen, on his own terms. I'm ambivalent about his decision, but it was definitely his to make an…

I agree the reporter was trying to get him cancelled (or at least that seems very likely) but I don't think Scott's decision had anything to do with "the world turning its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed". Frankly, regardless of the kind of political discussions on his blog, that kind of exposure would likely ruin his ability to practice medicine. Having the "right" politics matters very little when many of your patients don't.

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

#916

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #519

iron0013 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He made a claim, but he didn’t actually share any of his research or data.

I'm fairly certain he can stand for it. Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that. Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?

> Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems

While in the modern US there is a common (and increasingly strong) correlation on average between political attitudes toward race and gender and the left/right economic axis, there is nothing strongly inherent about that. Racism and sexism on the left are not at all unheard of.

(I don't see any evidence that tptacek is a racist or sexist, I just don't think “hey, he's left-of-American-center, so if he says HN is clear of racism/sexism, it must be the case” is even approximately a reasonable position.)

But, in any case, his own description seems to repeatedly focus on explicit misogynistic or white supremacists content, so even were we to take it as gospel it is perfectly consistent with HN being filled with the kind of urbane circumlocution that is frequently used to provide a thin veneer of not-all-that-plausible-in-aggregate deniability over bigoted attitudes.

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

#917

Post by phonypc » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #903

phonypc wrote: post #901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trolls can be ignored. Bad ideas can be expressed in good faith.

In neither case are we obligated to tolerate them.

Depends what you mean by "we" "obligated" and "tolerate". Users certainly aren't legally or morally obligated to engage with content they find objectionable. HN, reddit, youtube etc. can legally remove whatever content they see fit, but I'd argue, being largely platforms for expression, they're morally obligated to tolerate objectionable speech.

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

#918

Post by alistairSH » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #609

sixstringtheory wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to divert. Allow me to try to summarize: You: Gab can't use Visa (A) for reasons, it's not reasonable to suggest that (B) a competitor be built Gab: we can kick you off (A') for reasons, you can always spin up a Gab instance to run yourself (B') What is the difference between A and A', and B and B'?

not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the criticality of services and availability of alternatives? Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-wall-mart. How about a gas station in the middle of a des…

Instead of arguing criticality, can we reframe in terms of human rights? Political speech and life/health are generally considered basic human rights. Driving in the desert is not, so I don't see it as a valid comparison.

I find it hard to view Twitter as critical to expression of political speech, when other platforms exist... literal soapbox in a park is available, plus Gab, Facebook, mailing flyers, printing booklets, etc.

Access to food is certainly critical to ones life/health, so the government should play some role in ensuring reasonable access. However, the bar for intervention should be high. Is there no grocer at the next town over? No farmer's market? No Amazon Fresh? No ability to grow your own food? If none of those are viable options, then yes, the government likely should intervene in some way.

As noted above, driving (let alone driving in the desert) is not a basic right, so I could not in good faith argue for government intervention in the gasoline/fuel market.

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

#919

Post by genoapol » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

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.

"For Africans to be considered reverse racists, they would have to rob Europeans to the point of poverty/death, enslave them for 400+ years, attempt multiple genocides and mass executions of the European people, deprive Europeans of education and economic equity for centuries based on skin color, engage in state assisted terrorism, THEN continue to promote hatred and acts of violence against them on Reddit."

Nothing promoting discrimination against white people in that quote, just replaced the word black/African with European in a summary of history. Not sure how you missed this simple role reversal exercise.

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

#920

Post by erichocean » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #915

erichocean wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do disagree, there was a lot of discussion about this on SSC prior to Scott shutting it down. If you just read what's on the site now, you're missing most of the important background information. In particular, the "reporter" at the NYT was clearly looking to get SSC cancelled, so Scott self-cancelled before that could happen, on his own terms. I'm ambivalent about his decision, but it was definitely his to make an…

I agree the reporter was trying to get him cancelled (or at least that seems very likely) but I don't think Scott's decision had anything to do with "the world turning its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed". Frankly, regardless of the kind of political discussions on his blog, that kind of exposure would likely ruin his ability to practice medicine. Having the "right" politics matters very little when many…

Scott has spoken many times on SSC that his concern is with his employer—i.e. he's afraid of getting fired for the contents of his blog, and perhaps what he himself has written in the past. That's why he uses a pseudonym online—he's not afraid of his patients, at least, not primarily.

Obviously, if Scott is fired from where he works, he can't continue to treat his current patients—so that's where the harm to "his ability to practice and treat his patients" come in.

He didn't lay all of that out explicitly in his farewell post on SSC, but it's fully consistent with what he wrote—if you're aware of the history of his employment concerns and the likely result of the NYT article sending a bunch of low-info culture warriors after him personally as a result.

People can disagree about his motives, of course. For me, the above is most consistent with everything Scott's written previously, as well as the final farewell post.