Hacker News Reader

Comment by brightball | Hacker News Reader

Seems like that should read 'speak up for the innocent'.

I only say that because the word 'hate' gets thrown around a lot where it's neither accurate nor appropriate. Hate is an obsession level feeling that consumes a person. When people throw around the word, they lessen its meaning which causes people to dismiss it (and the person using it) when they hear it.

Certainly, in the case of a lynching, using the word would be more appropriate so don't take my comment as direct at you in particular but more at just the overall internet's use of the word.

View on HN

This is so wrong. See, it did not matter whether or not the person was innocent. What mattered was that you don't take the law into your own hands.

And that person did speak up, but only after two people were already killed without any form of due process.

According to the story it mattered that somebody stood up and DECLARED his innocence. If the mob was just up for killing black people (aka - hate) there would be no reason for that to stop them. The mob was out for what they perceived as some deranged form of justice.

It's totally indefensible on all counts regardless. My comment was only around the use of the word "hate".

I see no reason why hate is not an appropriate term for that animating force which is compelling a mob towards vigilante action against a perceived wrongdoer -- a perception certainly rooted in racial bias. In order to get to the point where a lynching is possible, a person who cares about justice, law, order etc must convince themselves of the victim's guilt beyond all doubt. If the victim is already nearly subhuman to you, it's much easier to convince yourself that there's no moral risk in making the wrong judgment.

Just think about it from your own perspective: how certain would you have to be of someone else's guilt before you would feel comfortable attending their impromptu execution? If some neighbor came to you and said "we're gonna kill this guy, I heard he raped someone," you certainly would pass on that, if not stand up against it.

If we take away the hatred, what you appear to be saying here is that lynchings are well-meaning attempts at justice, which are inappropriately realized. This is silly, at least, to anyone familiar with the history of lynchings.

> 'speak up for the innocent'

i labored over the words i ended up with.. i thought about something similar to your suggestion

but innocence is a loaded word that is associated with justice, and even if the others were guilty this is anything but justice

> 'speak up for the innocent'.

That actually surprised me.

They were so angry and willing kill, yet as soon as someone said the person was innocent, he was left alone - even though he was black (and supposedly targeted for that reason alone).

To me this means the story is more about rape than about race. (At least this story.)

Obviously it's not for a mob to decide guilt - but still, it really surprised me that that was their motivation. I always assumed it was racism.

Did you read the whole article? Sure sounds like racism to me. The lynching wasn't just about rape. It was about rape allegedly committed by black boys against a white woman.

> Did you read the whole article?

No, about 1/3 to 1/2.

I agree that racism was a huge part, I doubt they would have lynched a white person.

But despite that, them stopping after hearing a declaration that the black person was innocent just amazes me, it doesn't fit into my understanding of lynching which I always associated with just simple hate, i.e. "grab any handy black person and kill them".

May be the fact that they had already killed 2 boys was part of it ?

The article also mentions how many black families had fled the town and how they were ready to get another teenager. That's how the "grab anyone" part works. And it's definetly racism.

agree on frustration with the inaccurate use of the word "hate". i have little/no tolerance for my kids saying "i hate you" or "i hate this/that", and have explained they have never truly experienced hatred. i also have little tolerance for putting down others for cognitive ability (real, perceived, or in jest).

so in my house "hate" is the "h word", "stupid" is the "s word", and "can't" is the "c word." i imagine this may lead to a slightly amusing mixup down the road, but meh, the limit of my concern with "worse words" is making sure they know that it's in appropriate in some settings and that it will impact how others view them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com