Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

971–980 of 983 posts

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

#971

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're such a racist for reporting that. White lives don't mater. Get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for being white, and quit your job to make room for a black person.

This, but coated in syrup so it's more palatable as propaganda.

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

#972

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.

That's not the operative distinction most of us are working with, nor do I think there's much demand for an alternative theory of the case. The conventional distinction, which is more or less a distinction between positive and negative rights, is working quite nicely, sufficiently explains the motivation for the rule, and isn't in search of improvement.

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

#973

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-Ameri…

>That doesn't make sense. There is no one "White" culture,

There is no one "Black" culture either.

>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

And yet if you capitalize Black it doesn't mean black supremacists?

Why do you hold different standards to white and black?

>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.

St. Patrick's Day is not specifically an Irish holiday. It is a Christian holiday which is popular amongst Irish.

>And so we have Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and so on. They kept their cultures.

There are many blacks who kept their cultures as well. Not all blacks were slaves. Many voluntarily migrated to the US.

>Now when we talk about African-Americans you gotta remember that Africa is a huge continent, not a single nation or culture.

You are contradicting yourself. You said "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" and yet you also admit there is no single "Black" 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.

Not all blacks living in the US were slaves.

>That's why it's appropriate to capitalize the word "Black" when referring to Black American culture: it's a proper noun.

But there is no single black culture. You yourself said that white should not be capitalized because there isn't a single culture.

>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.

When I say white people I mean white people. I don't mean anything else. I don't mean culture. If I meant culture I would say culture.

I have never seen anybody saying anything different than I said. Please provide examples of mainstream people using the the phrase differently.

>The word "White" capitalized as a proper noun refers to a specific complex of "White supremacist" culture.

You haven't proven that.

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

#974
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism, as a political movement, was largely extinguished in the US during the 20th century through purges and deplatforming. How many communist organizations do you see, these days? How much reach do they have, compared to the 30s? How much political power do they have, compared to the alt-right, today? Extinguishing that idea into the fringe seems to have worked rather well. As did de-nazification, post WWII. It…

Hardly. Classical communism died out all over the west even in places without McCarthy, because people in the west could see what was really happening in the USSR and other places. The idea of having a revolution to replace the bourgeoise with the workers was tried, people watched, they saw it led to dictatorship and so it just got harder and harder to be an open advocate for that. "Deplatforming" had very little to…

> The idea of having a revolution to replace the bourgeoise with the workers was tried, people watched, they saw it led to dictatorship and so it just got harder and harder to be an open advocate for that.

Your thesis can't be correct, because:

The idea of fascist ethnostates also ended poorly, the last time around - and yet here we are, watching their ideas enjoy a renaissance.

Observing that ideas have been tried, and have failed, clearly does not kill those ideas. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

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

#975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not the operative distinction most of us are working with, nor do I think there's much demand for an alternative theory of the case. The conventional distinction, which is more or less a distinction between positive and negative rights, is working quite nicely, sufficiently explains the motivation for the rule, and isn't in search of improvement.

I think you just wrote "my preferred argument disagrees with yours, and there's no reason for us to consider any other".

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

#976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many examples it’s kind of ridiculous. Jordan Peterson, for example, who isn’t even remotely right. What I mean to say, is that it’s become common for left-leaning media to describe perfectly moderate right positions as “far-right” and “alt-right,” to the point where those terms mean almost nothing to someone who isn’t politically savvy to distinguish.

How Jordan Peterson isn’t even remotely on the right apart from him saying it? Any action leaning on the left for him has some evil Marxist influence for him. Also his theories on “Masculinity“ have nothing to do with classical left and right and are de-facto alt-right.

Any action on the extreme left. Not only that, but also the extreme right.

As a result on one hand he's criticized as a nazi/racist by people on the far left (e.g. you, apparently), and as globalist/socialist by people on the right.

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

#977

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-Ameri…

>That doesn't make sense. There is no one "White" culture, There is no one "Black" culture either. >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 And yet if you capitalize Black it doesn't mean black supremacists? Why do you hold different standards to white and black? >which developed in waves of lots of different cultures…

I feel like I was really clear. We don't agree, obviously, but I don't want to argue about it with you any more, so I'm going to go ahead and let you have the last word.

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

#978

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the operative distinction most of us are working with, nor do I think there's much demand for an alternative theory of the case. The conventional distinction, which is more or less a distinction between positive and negative rights, is working quite nicely, sufficiently explains the motivation for the rule, and isn't in search of improvement.

I think you just wrote "my preferred argument disagrees with yours, and there's no reason for us to consider any other".

I think you more or less wrote, "I don't really like the idea of Free Speech, but I've been told my whole life that it's important, so I'm looking for a way to resolve this dissonance."

The reason I'm not in search of better arguments is that I don't have any dissonance to resolve. (I realize that sounds snarky but I don't actually mean it to be flippant. That's genuinely what it looks like to me. No snark intended!)

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

#979
post #974

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly. Classical communism died out all over the west even in places without McCarthy, because people in the west could see what was really happening in the USSR and other places. The idea of having a revolution to replace the bourgeoise with the workers was tried, people watched, they saw it led to dictatorship and so it just got harder and harder to be an open advocate for that. "Deplatforming" had very little to…

> The idea of having a revolution to replace the bourgeoise with the workers was tried, people watched, they saw it led to dictatorship and so it just got harder and harder to be an open advocate for that. Your thesis can't be correct, because: The idea of fascist ethnostates also ended poorly, the last time around - and yet here we are, watching their ideas enjoy a renaissance. Observing that ideas have been tried,…

Sorry. To be more specific it killed:

1. Marxist terminology and the notion of class war ("proles" and "bourgeoise" are now anachronistic)

2. Marxist economic theory and the goal of replacing capitalism

The dream of overthrowing capitalism lives on in squats and hard-left fringe groups, but it's dead and buried in the mainstream. China's adoption of it put the final nail in that coffin.

The more generalised Marxist theory of dividing the world into oppressors/the oppressed lives on and is seeing a resurgence. With that I agree.

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

#980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but you replied to GP in defense of "denouncing hatred and bigotry" (something they didn't even argue against) without directly addressing a pretty important point, i.e. dehumanization (which they did). Was there another way I should have read your comment with that in mind?

I suppose I am just very weary of a particular style of argument in this debate, which -- in addition to the tactic I called out -- frequently seems to include restating what the other person said as something worse, and then arguing against that restatement. And with all respect, that's what I think is happening here. The person who wrote "Dehumanization is alive and well, even among progressives" was responding to…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN