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

961–970 of 983 posts

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

#961

Post by zapnuk »

mantap wrote: post #864
zapnuk wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without discrimination there wouldn't need to be LGBT Pride to begin with. White-nationalism was tried and didn't work to say the least. Content creators, like the ones banned, advocate for a world of 50-200 years ago. They are conservatives. Limiting their reach is anything BUT conservatism by definition. Also, there are plenty of conservatives content creators who user lies and deception to spread their dated belie…

White nationalists are the canary in the coal mine. Sure, nobody cares about the canary itself. But everyone should care why the canary died, because it has implications for us all. What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.

Well if the canary develops into a monkey who convinces the most single minded people to do stupid stuff you might as well get rid of them and get a new canary - which is basically what happened here.

> What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.

White nationalists kill and social media websites share some part of the blame. To say that the more pressing issue is that they police which ideas are acceptable is laughable when you consider the great extend they allow for extreme views. There are literally still holocaust denies still allowed on their platforms.

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

#962

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #948
dionidium wrote: post #947

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we need a blanket rule against state prohibition of speech is that human beings cannot be trusted to decide which speech is off limits. It's obvious to you that white supremacy makes the list, but it is just as obvious to religious fundamentalists that heretical speech should make the list (we're talking about your eternal soul, after all). There is no workable rule that can't be exploited or extended. And…

I do not support laws banning white supremacist speech, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

[deleted]

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

#963

Post by dionidium »

tptacek wrote: post #948
dionidium wrote: post #947

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we need a blanket rule against state prohibition of speech is that human beings cannot be trusted to decide which speech is off limits. It's obvious to you that white supremacy makes the list, but it is just as obvious to religious fundamentalists that heretical speech should make the list (we're talking about your eternal soul, after all). There is no workable rule that can't be exploited or extended. And…

I do not support laws banning white supremacist speech, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

Your framing of Ely's justification for the 1st Amendment did not make it clear that you wouldn't support banning speech you find particularly egregious. I'm happy to have been wrong.

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

#964

Post by _-david-_ »

carapace wrote: post #946
_-david-_ wrote: post #936

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavs where taken as slaves and is where the word slave derives from.

We capitalize "Slavs". (FWIW, Slavic culture didn't originate with the enslaved Slavs.)

Then we should also capitalize White as well as Black.

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

#965

Post by carapace »

_-david-_ wrote: post #964
carapace wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We capitalize "Slavs". (FWIW, Slavic culture didn't originate with the enslaved Slavs.)

Then we should also capitalize White as well as Black.

That doesn't make sense. There is no one "White" culture, so when you capitalize the word in the context of United States of America it refers to the KKK et. al., not to mainstream American culture, which developed in waves of lots of different cultures (not all of which are European-derived.) E.g. the Irish. Treated like shit when they first got here, now we have St. Patrick's Day parades. And so we have Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and so on. They kept their cultures.

Now when we talk about African-Americans you gotta remember that Africa is a huge continent, not a single nation or culture. The people who were kidnapped, beaten, chained, subjected to the horrors of the Middle Passage, then treated like subhumans for hundreds of years, they came from many different cultures, they were forcibly prevented from carrying those with them, and so they have formed a new culture, native to the soil of this continent. That's why it's appropriate to capitalize the word "Black" when referring to Black American culture: it's a proper noun.

When you speak of "white people" in America, you're generally referring to the whole American mainstream culture, which is neither genetically nor culturally Caucasian exclusively. The word "White" capitalized as a proper noun refers to a specific complex of "White supremacist" culture.

In sum:

Black - African American

white - Mainstream American (includes everybody: The fictional character Steven Quincy Urkel could be called "white" in this sense.)

White - racist American subculture

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

#966

Post by tptacek »

dionidium wrote: post #963
tptacek wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not support laws banning white supremacist speech, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

Your framing of Ely's justification for the 1st Amendment did not make it clear that you wouldn't support banning speech you find particularly egregious. I'm happy to have been wrong.

Ely wouldn't either. The point is that 1A protects the political process, not a natural right we have to express ourselves; thus the distinction between government and social suppression of speech.

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

#967

Post by noxer »

zapnuk wrote: post #960
noxer wrote: post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech may be in a dictionary but its not well enough defined to decide whether or not someone actually broke any law. Is commonly used when people disagree but no law was broken. Also the definition often includes some form of "call for violence" but its almost always used to describe something where no call for violence happened. Its kinda like when people use the term "robbery" for "theft" to make it sound wo…

> Hate speech may be in a dictionary but its not well enough defined to decide whether or not someone actually broke any law In many countries it IS defined in such a way. >"how do we get there?" Peacefully maybe? Maybe not? Maybe its just a really stupid idea and there is no reason to find a way to get there? But anyway there is no call for violence anywhere in the expressed opinion. If you argue against every optio…

>If you argue against every option but violence, you indicate your support indirectly.

Absolutely not. See my example above about solving the worlds poverty problem. I've never heard of a peaceful solution that I think would work. Therefore I would argue against all ideas and uncover their flaws. That doesn't mean I would support a violent solution at all. Also the "implied support" you seem to talk about is not an action or a call to action it's an opinion. Opinions again go under free speech and it still doesn't matter if the opinions is somehow flawed/wrong/offensive to you or someone else.

For example I could express the opinion that earth would be a better place without humans. That's not a call for action/violence even if is almost certainly impossible to find a non-violent way to achieve this.

>[...]who use lies to lead viewers down a certain path[...]

Lies are protected by free speech if they are expressed to voluntary listeners with no relationship between the parties. There is really no difference between expressing a objectively wrong opinion and intentionally expressing something you know is wrong. See flatearther/hollow earther, Alien abduction believers, homeopaths etc. etc. Whether they believe the crap they teach or intentionally lie never mattered. Homeopaths probably causes thousands of death per year and its a billion dollar fraudulent but legal industry that causes real damage to people who practice it but also to tax payers. Ever heard of homeopaths getting banned for hate speech? For lying? For leading "viewers down a certain path that leads to even more extreme views" like abandoning real medicine?

>we DO ban or investigate some religious groups.

We do that with right and left-wing extremest groups too based on real investigations the applicable laws and court rulings which should respect free speech.

Now with all the reasons mentioned why we should not banning opinions, how about telling us why we should? Does removing some ethnostates sympathizer from YouTube really solve a problem? And if so which one?

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

#968

Post by f1refly »

gamblor956 wrote: post #820
fapjacks wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Except for some people, though, right? I have an idea how you feel about the guy refusing to sell (decorate) the gay marriage cake (not trying to be pithy here, just tried to do a bit of footwork before replying). Do you absolve that guy under those "American values and traditions of free speech" as you would a website in this case? For me, second-order consequences are as important as whether or not this particu…

why I feel strongly that any platform which displays in its ToS that users agree that the views expressed on its platform are not the views held by the company, is violating the right of free expression to the users they ban from their platforms for the speech those users express on their platforms. Users don't have a right to free expression on others' platforms. The right to freedom on of speech only extends to one…

> If someone wants to post videos they can host their own video sharing website.

And then google comes and takes your domain away and refuses to give it back

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

#969

Post by lowtolerance »

noxer wrote: post #939
lowtolerance wrote: post #934

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be admitting in plain — though horribly ungrammatical — English that you don’t care about the difference between right and wrong. Why should anyone value the opinion of someone incapable of making simple moral judgements?

You are trying really hard to misunderstand me. Whether something is right or wrong is obviously important but not to deciding whether it should be banned or not because it never should be banned if its an expressed opinion. There are people who openly say that division though zero gives infinite. There are people who openly say the earth is flat. There are people who openly say there is a dude in the sky that will b…

Perhaps the problem is that you aren’t making much of an effort to be well understood? Not to be rude, but your writing is so bad that I’m genuinely struggling to make sense of it.

What you seem to be saying is that morality is subjective, and therefore it should be immune from critical scrutiny. Am I off base?

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

#970

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #966
dionidium wrote: post #963

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your framing of Ely's justification for the 1st Amendment did not make it clear that you wouldn't support banning speech you find particularly egregious. I'm happy to have been wrong.

Ely wouldn't either. The point is that 1A protects the political process, not a natural right we have to express ourselves; thus the distinction between government and social suppression of speech.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN