Why the attack on our cameraman was no surprise | Hacker News Reader

Why the attack on our cameraman was no surprise

bbc.com

66 pointssmacktoward46 comments

Words have consequences, indeed. This is a very light form of radicalization or "stochastic terrorism": point a finger at people and declare them the enemy often enough, from a position of power, and someone will attack them.

Interesting, must be what conservatives feel like every time they tune into the grammys, Oscars, Twitter, Comedy Central or the View.

Nobody's calling for violence in those places. Don't what-about this.

I guess you've never been on Twitter?

https://coed.com/2019/01/22/snl-writer-sarah-beattie-blowjob...

Or...how many times has Trump and his supporters been referred to as Nazis...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79TRDRPGx34

Like that time Samantha Bee called a stage 4 brain cancer Trump supporter out for sporting a "Nazi haircut" after chemo:

http://outsetnetwork.com/2017/03/09/samantha-bee-mocks-contr...

Followed by endless calls to punch Nazis.

This is just three lazy examples. There's hundreds of examples like this in pop media.

So, there's kind of a point here; it's nonsensical to say that the call to "punch Nazis" isn't a call to violence. But this is why I put "from a position of power" in my original statement. The President declaring someone an enemy is very different from some randos on Twitter declaring someone an enemy. It's rather like the Chinese Army declaring Tianmen Square Man to be "confrontational" by standing in front of the tank.

(Anybody going to make the free speech defence for those people you cited?)

I'm not really expecting anyone on the right to realise that if they want to call for civility they need to police their side, starting from the top; but that's the best way to stop this escalating.

You think academia, the tech industry and mainstream media have no power? They have manipulated narratives to the point that people have supported unjust wars and unnecessary riots.

Saying "fake news is the enemy of the people" is not controversial. It's quite true. No calling out a Washington-area circle jerk that perpetuates false B.S. is not the same as Tianeman Square.

It's criticism. The President has every right to criticize his critics as his critics do him. Freedom of speech works both ways.

That's not what the parent comment said.

> point a finger at people and declare them the enemy often enough, from a position of power, and someone will attack them.

The point is that there is no explicit£ call for violence, yet just the same it breeds hatred that inevitably results* in violence.

At an anti-Trump rally Madonna said she "thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House".

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/entertainment/madonna-whi...

Then she would become the “materiel girl”.

Hmm, perhaps you missed this?

https://youtu.be/07-VvcsrUIE

I don’t know what to do about the escalation of rhetoric and action in this country. But let’s not pretend it’s one-sided.

You can’t seriously be equating the two

I don't, but in all fairness I did watch the clip cited above, and at the end there was a "and we will punch people in the face" comment to which the crowd raised an already frenzied jeer to an even higher level. I am sorry, but I reject a call to violence on both ends, and I don't see the above comment as only figurative, since there has been punching on both sides of the political fence.

Speaking as a non American, reading this thread, theres obviously a tremendous amount of division here.

What I would like to ask though, is this the America you want projecting to the outside world? The BBC is British, are they also fake news? If so, what reasonable means are there for the rest of the world to get this news.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, is that international, and domestic news are distinct. People are obviously more emotionally invested in domestic journalism. For me this is international news, it isn't fake news, in the same way as that natural disaster isn't fake news. These people aren't competing for my votes, I'm not paying their wages.

>66 points

>[flagged]

That just means the flags outweighed the points, as many of those as there were.

> Well last night that violence unfolded in El Paso. Ron was unhurt. It wasn't life-threatening, but it was aggressive and violent. But what about the next time? Or the time after that?

This is the same shit you see from "Antifa" on the left, and it's abhorrent regardless of the source. To pretend that both sides aren't getting increasingly violent is to reject reality. This isn't a false equivalency situation; both left and right are being pushed into division.

And it's the media that's doing it.

I'd suggest the BBC are more balanced than most, so I'd suggest your comment here is close to being cut out false equivalency with a side of whataboutism as you can have on a topic that's talking about violence at Trump rallies specifically.

This article is about mindless violence towards the media that's displayed and documented at Trumps rallys. It's not about antifa.

I don't know what media outlet is to Antifa, that is Fox News to the Right. But I'd welcome a discussion on what we can do to encourage a more fair and balanced media and what we do to hold drunken louts like the gentleman in the article for abhorrent violence.

Well, something that would improve HN for me is if you changed your username to something less disturbing to read. If everyone had names like that, the site would be ridiculous and unusable. I don't know what you were thinking. I'm not against swearing, in movies or real life, but there is a limit, and you seem to have crossed it there, totally unnecessarily. Apologies if the name is highly significant to you, but it isn't to anyone else, it's just something I'd rather not read. Thanks.

You were nothing less than polite in your remarks. I appreciate your (edit:) candour, you have absolutely nothing to apologise for.

My handle is significant to me, and AFAIK there's no way to change your handle on HN. Though being honest, even if I were given the chance, I probably wouldn't change it.

I'm unsure if there's a mechanic to block some one on HN but if it does, I'd recommend you use it in this instance. Apologies that I can't be of any further help.

We can change usernames if people email hn@ycombinator.com and request it.

Out of interest, why is there a limit? And what is that limit?

Also, would you change your username if I requested you to do so? (Perhaps I had a bad experience in the past which makes the word “Adam“ something I‘d rather not read)

Indymedia is a news outlet popular with the left. It's a long time since I read it, but I don't think they're anything like as loose with the facts as Fox News.

http://www.indymedia.org/

Have you seen how the media treated the MAGA kid? They painted a false narrative and all of Hollywood and Twitter joined in unison to dox and character assassinate a high school kid who literally just stood there as he was getting harassed, called all sorts of names and having a drum shoved in his face.

But God forbid the kid smirk to ease the tension. What do we do to hold media accountable for painting false narratives and stoking the fires of tension, intentionally for hits and ratings?

There's an argument to be made that the "kid" in question did what he did completely knowingly. Nobody would knowingly wear a MAGA hat into a space like that unless they knew they wanted to cause trouble

You should really check out what happened since you're clearly still on the false narrative.

So saying the kid "knowingly wore a controversial hat" is a false narrative?

Was he forced to wear the hat to the event?

Was there someone behind him at gunpoint forcing him to wear the hat?

Strange times when the woke left is arguing that someone deserved it because of what they were wearing...

The Covington case was naked woke hysteria, there is no way around it. Particularly because even after the details came out, people were still doubling down and making excuses for everyone else there.

The hat is the official merch of your current sitting president. The way it's treated as an overt symbol of hate is insane, and only makes stunts like "it's ok to be white" all the more poignant. Clearly it's not ok in the eyes of some, and vice versa, having colored skin can excuse harassment and racism.

> The hat is the official merch of your current sitting president. The way it's treated as an overt symbol of hate is insane

Why? Hatred (as in the speech the cameraman was filming) is the overt policy of the President.

The emperor isn't naked, he just has a really bad hat - but we have to point out what we see, no matter how many people are wanting to intimidate us into not seeing it.

I've been unable to find a transcription of his speech. What hatred was he espousing?

Indeed. They'd gone to protest outside an abortion clinic, ie harass vulnerable women. They weren't expecting the counterprotestors they got.

A good summary of this faux concern: https://www.salon.com/2019/01/22/defenders-of-the-maga-hat-y...

This article is complete partisan spin that spills a lot of ink mentioning completely orthogonal criticisms of people and events entirely unrelated to the event that occurred at The Lincoln Memorial...not an abortion clinic.

Here's the 1.5 hour recording of the event so you don't have to sit through some selectively edited hack job:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-pFMZaw5f0

This is an accurate and concise summary of the incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkpPaiUF8s

Basically: the kid was entirely blameless, preyed upon by a racist native activist specifically because he was wearing a MAGA hat.

Into the Lincoln Memorial? They have every right to protest in D.C. along with every other group that's ever done it for the past 200 years.

> This article is about mindless violence towards the media that's displayed and documented at Trumps rallys. It's not about antifa.

This is a single instance and it makes headlines. Antifa on the other hand have had dozens of large scale riots and targeted attacks but corporate media avoids painting them in a bad light. They're simply "protesters" rather than a mob.

> I don't know what media outlet is to Antifa, that is Fox News to the Right.

CNN is easily the most far-left news show. There's hundreds of videos on YouTube of the hoaxes, lies and biased news they've broadcast.

> But I'd welcome a discussion on what we can do to encourage a more fair and balanced media

There needs to be stronger anti-libel and anti-defamation laws. The lawsuits coming from the "MAGA kid" Nick Sandmann should a good barometer of whether or not the corporate media can truly be held accountable for their lies.

My guess at this point is that the media will continue to lose trust from the public because they can't ever be held accountable when they lie.

> Antifa on the other hand have had dozens of large scale riots and targeted attacks

No, they haven't. This is untrue.

>Antifa on the other hand have had dozens of large scale riots and targeted attacks but corporate media avoids painting them in a bad light. They're simply "protesters" rather than a mob.

[citation needed]

>CNN is easily the most far-left news show. There's hundreds of videos on YouTube of the hoaxes, lies and biased news they've broadcast.

And there's videos of the Earth being flat, climate change being a "liberal hoax" and the Sandy Hook massacre being made up

If I might quote from an (at the time) controversial Sony ad "you can't believe everything you read on the internet, that's how World War 1 got started"

>There needs to be stronger anti-libel and anti-defamation laws. The lawsuits coming from the "MAGA kid" Nick Sandmann should a good barometer of whether or not the corporate media can truly be held accountable for their lies.

America is a very litigious society, compared to the rest of the world. I'd love to see the defense for the "MAGA kid" trying to explain that wearing that hat was not a deliberate act

> the corporate media can truly be held accountable for their lies.

Well, the defamation lawsuits eventually worked against Alex Jones.

> CNN is easily the most far-left news show.

Really? CNN has never struck me as particularly left.

You're not wrong; CNN is barely even left, let alone far left. I don't think a viewpoint can seriously be called "far left" without being explicitly opposed to capitalism. The farthest-left viewpoints you're likely to see on any of the mainstream cable news channels, even as objects of incredulity, are criticisms of underregulated capitalism and advocacy for expanded welfare programs.

> This isn't a false equivalency situation; both left and right are being pushed into division.

In this case, it is a false equivalency. At least in terms of Democrat and Republican.

Antifa is a fringe far-left group. They are not Democrats. They do not support Democrats. You don't see mainstream Democratic politicians supporting them.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have embraced the far-right fringe groups. You have the leader of the Republican party calling the press the "enemy of the people" and making jokes about attacking reporters.

This is one of those cases where both sides are not the same.

> Antifa is a fringe far-left group.

Antifa was started by far-left activists, but has support much closer to the center-left than the people that started it because it has a narrow focus that is fairly uncontroversial left of center and has mostly been fairly restrained, both in its methods and in maintaining focus without making Antifa about the extracurricular stances of it's core members.

I like to consider myself fairly far-left (at least as far as the Australian political spectrum goes)

But I still have no idea what "Antifa" actually stand for. Are they against Fascism? If so, I can get behind that. Nazism is a failed experiment and needs to be kept in the dustbin of history

All I know is right-wingers screech about "the left" and "antifa" while trying to defend being awful people

Antifa stands for anti-fascistic action. They don't just oppose fascism from the arm chair, they oppose it with violence where necessary, because they figure fascists use violence too. If not now, then certainly once they gain power, therefore use all means necessary to prevent that.

It's absolutely a case of the end justifying the means, and there's no doubt an anti-democratic aspect to it. It's driven by a fear for fascism and a perceived need to use extreme measures to stop it.

Some people argue that Antifa is itself fascist in a way, and if you consider how fascism uses (and stokes) fear for a common enemy to unite people in support of their ideology, there might be something to it. There's some very slippery slope there.

It seems fairly mainstream for Democrats to think people who advocate for a white ethno state ('the alt right') are everywhere, varying in their degree of support for violence towards the largely imaginary foes (who in reality could be anywhere from center left to center right).

The majority of the country have been polled and consistently agree with the President that the media is intentionally creating a divide and often lie to the people. Conservatives undoubtedly make up more of that number but both political sides clearly think along similar lines in this instance. This isn't a "fringe group" that hate the corporate media.

Subtlety: there are at least two groups who hate each other's corporate media. People at the Presidential rally(+) aren't going to denounce Fox as corporate media.

(+) is this a thing? Did all the other presidents do this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com