Hacker News Reader

Comment by paganel | Hacker News Reader

> France’s current batch of national politicians have consistently advocated for the worst parts of the Directive, and the Macron administration may seek to grab an early win for the country’s media establishment.

Macron is a crook. If any other president from any other civilized country would have sent the military to guard against its citizens' street protests [1] then that president would have been (rightly) called out the worst names, instead Macron is still seen by a large part of the mainstream media as this savior of European civilization and democracy.

[1] http://en.rfi.fr/france/20190320-military-be-deployed-saturd...

View on HN

> If any other president from any other civilized country would have sent the military to guard against its citizens' street protests [1] then that president would have been (rightly) called out the worst names

Burning cars and breaking windows isn’t peaceful protest. If that happened in New York and the mayor and governor didn’t deploy armed guards, up to and including the National Guard, many people would be rightfully furious.

The difference is America, being a federation, has many layers of armed police, from the NYPD to NYPD special ops to the National Guard to the FBI and Marshalls to the Army. France, being more unitary (departments don’t have National Guard analogues), escalates more quickly to deploying its military.

> Burning cars and breaking windows isn’t peaceful protest.

A few people doing that doesn't invalidate a peaceful protest that has lasted months now without doing any major damage (if you exclude Macron's approval ratings, of course).

Of course, when you have a lot of upset people it's easy to have a few problems--specially after months of protesting without the government doing anything major to address people's concerns.

It's also a common tactic from governments to infiltrate into peaceful protests and cause damage and disorders on purpose, to have an excuse to use force against protesters. In Italy it's common practice to send the secret service to attack the Police, and then reply with beating everyone up. Some politicians have even confirmed this practice in the open (Cossiga, for example).

> that doesn't invalidate a peaceful protest

I agree. Peaceful protest with violent elements, and the government deploying force to deter the violent elements, isn’t an oxymoron. The violent elements don’t invalidate the peaceful ones. And the armed response shouldn’t besmudge the government per se.

> It's also a common tactic from governments to infiltrate into peaceful protests and cause damage and disorders on purpose

Need a citation on this being “common.” Would also need some proof of this happening in Paris. Otherwise, we’re going into conspiracy theory land.

Given the violence made France look more inept than any of the demands did, given Paris gave into many of the policy demands, and given France’s fourth estate is reasonably competitive and competent, I’m sceptical of the claim that the looting was a false flag operation.

> Need a citation on this being “common.” Would also need some proof of this happening in Paris. Otherwise, we’re going into conspiracy theory land.

I'm not familiar with the French secret service, but since I've seen proof of this technique being regularly deployed in other countries it would just seem common sense to me to think that the French would do the same.

Cossiga's "confession" is even on Wikipedia (https://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francesco_Cossiga), he said in short: "the best is doing what I used to do when I was interior minister: let them protest, send the Police home and infiltrate protests to make them destroy the city. Then, when they lost the public opinion's approval, beat them up until they can't walk and the protest is over."

I think it's just normal business.

> I've seen proof of this technique being regularly deployed in other countries it would just seem common sense to me to think that the French would do the same

Italy has well-known corruption and mafia problems. Its press is less free than [1] and political system quite different from France’s. Even then, its frequency of violent protests is much higher than that of false flag operations.

Globally, there are more examples of peaceful protests becoming violent than of false flag operations. One’s prior should default to the former while being wary of the latter.

[1] https://rsf.org/en/ranking

> Globally, there are more examples of peaceful protests becoming violent than of false flag operations.

Not saying anything about France, but what was your prior that led into determining this? Your prior shouldn't be just as questionable as the problem you're using it for.

France has many levels of police, too. Most countries have similar federations as in your US example. In France, the CRS is a reserve force of the national police who specialize in crowd and riot control. If you've ever been to a sporting event in Paris (or a train station during one) you'll see dozens of CRS there keeping order. And they're not the actual military.

> Burning cars and breaking windows isn’t peaceful protest.

Neither is burning people alive in Caracas, but that doesn't stop Macron from supporting the riots in Venezuela.

I mean they deployed the National Guard in Baltimore after the first day of Freddie Gray protests. There was some burning and looting going on, so it got labeled a 'riot', but honestly what's been going on in Paris has probably been worse.

In Europe it's normal to use the military for a variety of reasons.

Specially since military draft was made voluntary, in Italy the military are used to walk around at train stations, help out in case of protests, etc.

Actually, in Italy we have two institutions that are seen as "police": Police and Carabinieri. Carabinieri are exactly the same, but they're part of the military.

As for:

> Macron is still seen by a large part of the mainstream media as this savior of European civilization and democracy

The media is usually biased towards left-wing ideology, with a globalist spin. Since Macron embodies both those ideals, it's easy to see why he gets helped by the media.

I have no idea why the French would think that a banker who married his high-school teacher would be one of them. He definitely turned out NOT to be on the side of the average French citizen.

I checked with a French friend, in France (like in Germany) it is illegal to send military forces to do any kind of police like duties. However, under the "terror fighting" emergencies still active, military forces are on French streets.

The line between police and military in France is a bit blurry, given that the two national police forces - police nationale and gendarmerie nationale - are themselves part of the French military.

Hell, the Paris fire department is an Army unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Fire_Brigade

Police Nationale is not part of the military. And fire department and Gendarmerie Nationale being army units has more to do with historical/organizational/governance reasons, than with a military-specific purpose. GN core mission is one of police, pretty similar to PN. Nothing related with the main army corps.

What does his personal life have to do with the point you’re making? Why is it that right wingers want it both ways - Tucker Carlson thinks it’s not a big deal and presumably you don’t too until the male involved grows up and actually holds power.

> What does his personal life have to do with the point you’re making?

For the leader of a country, character is important.

If I was French it would definitely worry me that my president dated his 40-year-old high school teacher when he was 16, and married a woman 25 years older than him. Not the average Frenchman--which was my point.

> Why is it that right wingers want it both ways - Tucker Carlson thinks it’s not a big deal and presumably you don’t too until the male involved grows up and actually holds power.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you spell out what about it worries you?

As for Carlson: https://jezebel.com/tucker-carlson-seems-to-have-a-lot-of-fu...

> Can you spell out what about it worries you?

Nothing worries me, really. I'm Italian and live in Poland, I care very little about France and what happens over there. I also care very little what other people do, and only comment on Macron because he's a public figure. I just think it's extremely creepy, and wonder how he managed to get elected despite that aspect of his personal life, and the fact that he's a banker. Politicians are regularly attacked (or at least judged) by what they do in their personal lives. They're public figures and represent the country, after all.

> As for Carlson: https://jezebel.com/tucker-carlson-seems-to-have-a-lot-of-fu.

Thanks for the link, and I don't know that publication, but the articles next to that are "How to Write a Condolence Note" and "How to Select the Right Therapist for You"..?

I’m not saying it’s normal, but women having agency means a man can’t run a country all of a sudden? He’s somehow weak or compromised?

> I’m not saying it’s normal

Right. That's why I said it's weird that French people didn't have a problem with it, since most politicians get attacked for what they do in their personal life.

> but women having agency means a man can’t run a country all of a sudden? He’s somehow weak or compromised?

I never said that..? He's a Rothschild banker who married his high school teacher who's 25 years older than him. As he's not the typical Frenchman, it's weird to me that French people voted for him because "he's one of us".

I think I explained my opinion pretty clearly. You don't have to agree with it, though :-)

People don't vote for someone just because "he's one of us". There are plenty of other good valid reasons for that.

And no. Most politicians don't get attacked for their personal, private life. Those who are make the headlines, sure.

But most politicians are decent and focused enough on their life and work not to bother each other with unrelated, petty matters.

Generally, the French don't seem to care all that much about what their politicians do in their private lives.

Well. He is seen as right-wing in france (i.e close to the money). Average older citizen do like people who will protect their rent system and who seems to add stability, that's why they voted for him. Wheras most of my non-economically challenged younger friends prefer a bit of chaos and a high-ish inflation, and did not.

He is currently considered left-wing when compared to neonazis and white separatists, though. A lot of people (including neonazis and white separatists) currently think of the left-right continuum as being extreme left (think racism, sexism, and homophobia are really bad) -> center (don't care about politics) -> extreme right (think racism, sexism, and homophobia are really good.)

Being somewhere in between entails only thinking some of those things are really good, or only thinking some of those things are really bad, or thinking all of those things are only a little good, or thinking all of those things are only a little bad.

If you judge people based on policy or economics, neither Macron nor massive media corporations are on the left.

The percentage of the population who is a neo-Nazi and let alone white separatists is negligible. Why is everyone obsessed with them nowadays?

And why are you including me in that group (since you said only neo-Nazis believe Macron is left-wing).

That's extremely weird.

since you said only neo-Nazis believe Macron is left-wing

Pessimizer neither said or even implied that.

> The media is usually biased towards left-wing ideology, with a globalist spin. Since Macron embodies both those ideals, it's easy to see why he gets helped by the media.

Ahahah, the good joke.

Most medias, everywhere world-wide are owned by billionars and follow the media-line of their owner. These guys are of course, conservative, right side, sometimes liberal .... but definitively not "left".

Qualifying guys like Ruppert Murdoch, Bloomberg, Dassault or Bollore (in France) of "left" ( or the medias they own ) is as idiotic as calling Trump a communist.

> I have no idea why the French would think that a banker who married his high-school teacher would be one of them. He definitely turned out NOT to be on the side of the average French citizen.

Maybe because the other choice was the daughter of a old extreme right dynasty from a party funded by old nazis and negationists. Maybe.

> Ahahah, the good joke.

Mmm... Can you explain the media in the US are so much against Trump--with the majority of journalists still pushing for fake news about Russian bots and government intervention even after official investigations are closed, and with some of them even crying live when the Muller investigation conclusions came out?

Or, can you explain why most major news outlets in the States are categorized as biased towards left-wing causes on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com?

> Maybe because the other choice was the daughter of a old extreme right dynasty from a party funded by old nazis and negationists. Maybe.

I have no idea if that's true, but one shouldn't be punished for what his/her parents did (unless you're in North Korea I guess).

Being against Trump doesn't make them leftists.

Yes I think it kind of does. And a few other things.

Then you didn't understand Trump. Neither your own politics.

He's using one camp against an other to distract everyone from his own business. He always did it this way.

> with the majority of journalists still pushing for fake news about Russian bots and government intervention even after official investigations are closed

The official investigation confirmed—and charged specific Russian actors for—the “Russian bots and government intervention”. Even the AG Trump chose during, and for the rather transparent purpose of whitewashing, the investigation has highlighted that in his summary, stating: “The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. [...] The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.” [0]

> with some of them even crying live when the Muller investigation conclusions came out?

Arguably Mueller investigation conclusions have not “come out” in any meaningful sense, only a self-serving summary by a Trump loyalist who has a long history of opposing Presidential accountability to the law (not just for Trump.)

> Or, can you explain why most major news outlets in the States are categorized as biased towards left-wing causes on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com?

Can you provide any basis for believing the site you cite is a reliable neutral arbiter?

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/read-mueller-key-fin...

If you genuinely care about what's true or not, look up the largest newspapers by circulation for a couple of European countries. I've only done it for Germany and the UK; in both cases the market is dominated by conservative publications, particularly right wing tabloids.

Purely on that basis, the media as consumed has a bias for being conservative and also pretty dumb (as tabloids tend to be).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com