Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#911

Post by dang »

antifreeze0 wrote: post #394
e40 wrote: post #21

The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population of people that only hear these lies, day in and day out? They're going to react just like they did on 1/6.

And CNN always tells the truth, right?

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Please don't create accounts to do that with.

Yes, the rules are the same regardless of which side an account is battling for. There's nothing worse for HN than accounts which have abandoned curiosity and entered here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#912

Post by cptskippy »

edbob wrote: post #450
cptskippy wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. We're entitled to an attorney when defending ourselves from criminal prosecution, but where does it say we're entitled to legal counsel at any other time? At the end of the day Law Firms are businesses, and again these are just businesses protecting their own self interests. If they end up needing legal c…

Legal rights are distinct from ideals and principles. "Freedom of speech", for example, is primarily an ideal. It has some encoding in law because it is such a valuable ideal, but no one should conflate the two and think that the ideal of "freedom of speech" doesn't apply unless the law says so. The law is not an ideal. Access to legal representation is similarly an ideal that can't be reduced to its partial encoding…

Do you believe that the idea of legal representation as a basic human right applies in the absence of pending litigation?

Does corporate personhood extend to the idea of legal representation?

Does the right to legal representation mandate that any legal firm be compelled to provide counsel to any client who demands it?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#913

Post by cptskippy »

edbob wrote: post #432
NineStarPoint wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have reason to believe that it’s harassment that is stopping these people from getting legal counsel? Many of these people, Trump especially, have shown that they refuse to listen to legal council and will lie for no good reason at all, then throw their legal council under the bus if it seems like it will advantage them. There are many good reasons lawyers might not want to touch the current situation with a t…

I'll give a few quick links, but a quick search turns up dozens and I think you're competent enough to search for yourself. You have public statements of "Yes, going after Trump’s law firms is fair game" and then you have the expected harassment and law firms pulling out en masse. Maybe the client's toxicity is a factor, but that should be the only factor. [0] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/1…

If we start compelling lawyers to provide legal counsel to clients, what protections do we afford those lawyers? In several cases over the last election, Judges threatened lawyers with sanctions and loss of right to practice for bringing forth clearly baseless lawsuits and wasting the court's time.

If we affirm that the right to legal counsel is a human right and that corporations also receive that right, how do we protect lawyers from clients which ignore legal counsel and file frivolous that can threaten the lawyer's right to practice law?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#914

Post by uniqueid »

dragonwriter wrote: post #910
uniqueid wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder to characterize voters. For example, Democratic leadership is full of corporatocrats. So, strictly speaking, Democratic voters support corporatocracy. But it's more accurate to say that most Democratic voters support corporatocracy unwittingly, or collaterally. That is what I would say about Republican voters and fascism, also.

> Democratic leadership is full of corporatists. No, its full of corporatocrats [0]. Corporatism [1] is a political position (Wikipedia calls it an “ideology”, but it may be better to be viewed as a facet of ideology found in lots of very different ideologies; e.g., fascism includes corporatism as a component), but its not one that is particularly popular among Democrats, either in leadership or the base, neoliberal…

Thank you! I struggled to find an appropriate word there. I was originally thinking of Democrats who supported Bloomberg, but 'oligarchical' and 'oligarchic' seemed clunky. Then I committed the worst sin of letting my words choose my meaning, and switched to 'corporatists'... oops. Yes, let's go ahead an make it 'corporatocrats' and 'corporatocracy'

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#915

Post by cgrealy »

manigandham wrote: post #611
cgrealy wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Only in the US" is only what matters when discussing US politics. And only in the US would someone be so insular as to make such a statement :) The US is still the largest economy in the world. As much as the rest of us would love to turn a blind eye when they elect an incompetent sociopath, unfortunately, we have to deal with his bullshit.

We're not discussing foreign policy but domestic politics and media as they are within the US . How the rest of the world judges them isn't relevant, and would be the same as someone in the US talking about how things are going in Zimbabwe as they look to us here. The rest of the world is not a single monolithic group either so I don't see the point of your sweeping generalizations.

> How the rest of the world judges them isn't relevant, and would be the same as someone in the US talking about how things are going in Zimbabwe as they look to us here.

Nonsense. Of course, people’s opinion of internal politics is relevant. If it wasn’t, we’d still have apartheid in South Africa, for example.

And no, the rest of the world is not a single monolithic group, but the vast majority of it (especially in comparable western democracies) thinks trump is a laughing stock.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#916

Post by tanseydavid »

fogihujy wrote: post #339
S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? I know that I personally don’t have enough knowledge and experience to know what’s right for all people at all times. Life can be complicated. Let’s have some compassion folks. As an EU citizen, I feel this is pretty much a no-brainer. Politics based on compromises between parties, rather than single-party majorities, slows the political process down and it definit…

Thank you for mentioning that this situation 'slows the political process down' while also speaking of the end-result as one that 'kinda works'.

When viewed from a dispassionate distance I feel that the desire for 'political expedience' is a major factor in the extreme polarization of US politics today.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#917

Post by 0xB31B1B »

kypro wrote: post #717
0xB31B1B wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as I'm aware Rittenhouse was acting within his legal rights. Here is a really good summary from someone with two degress in criminal justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAz851P8p4 The fact you used the "carried a weapon across state lines" line suggests that you may be consuming biased reports. It's not a crime to carry a weapoon across state lines. He also lived right on the state line and worked in Ken…

"The fact you used the "carried a weapon across state lines" line suggests that you may be consuming biased reports."

No, its clear. He was not defending his home or his business, he traveled 90 minutes by car to play soldier. It was not his neighborhood that was "under attack" and this wasn't self defense. He was not going about his life when someone threatened him, he went on a mission. He entered a dangerous area with a gun with full knowledge of the range of outcomes.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#918

Post by dang »

Mashimo wrote: post #781
dang wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What does it mean if a username is green? I thought he was some kind of mod / admin, because it stands out.

Yikes, that's a bit scary - I've added that to the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#919

Post by chordalkeyboard »

PenguinCoder wrote: post #905
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"? Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.

How in the hell do you get "someone more scientific" than Dr. Fauci, "an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984"[0] . Seriously, do you even pay attention to what you regurgitate? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

> How in the hell do you get "someone more scientific" than Dr. Fauci

By putting politics over science.

> "an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984"

His resume means no one in the professional world is more scientific? He couldn't have possibly put politics over science because he has degrees and a job?

> Seriously, do you even pay attention to what you regurgitate?

I'm not sure why you're so confident but its entirely possible for scientists to play politics.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#920

Post by chordalkeyboard »

LarvaFX wrote: post #805
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"? Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.

So this is just an example where this ridiculous "meet in the middle" between far-right extremists and center-right democrates leads to. Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike. Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view? How would you assess this?

> Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike.

Right, and he politicized the response to COVID-19 and we don't care if he used to be awesome, we want someone who will put evidence over politics.

> Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view?

Probably someone who would be more evidence oriented. I don't have a short list.

> How would you assess this?

By comparing their public statements and actions with those of other physicians, immunologists, and the evidence.

Post reply on HN