Hacker News Reader

Comment by Natsu | Hacker News Reader

Eh, I've seen almost all of those things on the front page of Reddit, too.

Just recently, on the front page of reddit, I've seen a headline saying to cut off a cop's dick because he tasered someone (I believe it said 'take his badge and his manhood'), ACAB types have been threatening to kill cops, Reddit has doxxed the wrong people for major crimes, etc.

It's particularly ironic because the original justification for the quarantine (which was then edited) was for threatening violence against cops, specifically due to wanting to protect some lawmakers who fled from a vote on cap & trade from arrest.

Looking back, that really seems inconsistent with the number of front page ACAB posts threatening violence I've seen on the front page this month. I mean, either it's okay to threaten violence or not, pick one.

Then again, maybe they did, because they edited that out of the quarantine reason for r/T_D.

View on HN

"Take his badge and gun" is the typical expression.

That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-tripping with weapons.

Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace.

One is defending yourself against bullying by standing up to it with comparable force. The other is bullying.

Is there nothing people like you won't "both side"?

> That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-tripping with weapons.

That’s quite the convenient stretch. Pretty impressive how some people are amazing at reading subtext where non exists as long as it plays into their narrative.

> Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace.

I mean... police going after law makers isn’t exactly peaceful. But again, whatever fits your narrative is true and everything else is fakenews(TM).

> Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace.

So by that logic it was wrong for Twitter to sensor the President’s tweet regarding using force to stop vandals destroying monuments.

Well, but those rioters were protesting police violence, who get called to deal with people who react violently to their presence due to the history of other police reacting violently to other people they were arresting acting violently who...

Wait, wasn't this the whole theme of the song "We didn't start the fire"?

1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing.

2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following:

>Having been well after the events or the deaths of the figures commemorated >During periods of economic decline or uncertainty >Following periods agitation for civil rights, particularly by black Americans, and the subsequent spasm of anti-black violence or political jostling

In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response.

I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence.

> 1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing.

They don’t have to be the same thing. It’s illegal activity and we shouldn’t have to wait for a person to be physically injured to stop a mob of maniacs.

> 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following:

It doesn’t matter if it’s a statue of Krusty the Clown. You can’t destroy public or private property just because you feel it shouldn’t exist.

This is why we have police. To enforce the rules that we as a society have agreed to live by.

The alternative is a bunch of vigilantes beating the rioters. I can assure you that nobody wants that.

> In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response. I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence.

Then get public opinion to agree with you and have the city, State, or Federal government to get rid of them. Your misguided feelings, no matter how strong, do not supersede all others just because they’re not yelling loudly.

People have been trying to get the City, State, and federal government to acknowledge system racism for CENTURIES.

It doesn't work.

Protests and destruction may work.

You are showing that you are more committed to order than to justice, because it benefits you.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Why are conservatives so hell bent on equating violence against inanimate objects (property, monuments) with violence against other humans?

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Many people depend on their businesses to provide for their livelihoods. They may be put on the streets if their business is burnt down during a riot. Will you be there to help them pay to rebuild or to help them rehome themselves?

In this case I think manhood means his gun, not his junk, but maybe I'm just getting old.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com