Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrMan | Hacker News Reader

Most recently ones shot by 17 y.o. militia kid

You mean the 17 y.o. kid chased by an angry mob? The one who shot three people attacking him?[1] Your comment is ambiguous as to whom you are referring, but based on the evidence, I don't think the 17 y.o. kid was the radicalized one. I've also seen no evidence that any of the people involved are/were particularly active on social media (although the one who lived allegedly told his friend he wishes he emptied his entire gun into the 17 y.o.).[2] I also haven't seen any evidence that the 17 y.o. was in a militia (he apparently worked as a life guard), but maybe there is some.

This sort of proves my point, though: social media has "radicalized" people into believing claims that lack a factual basis and serve a particular narrative. But this is mostly perpetrated by members of the traditional press, not ordinary social media users. If anything, social media has only radicalized people by privileging members of the traditional press at the expense of the random people, no matter how crazy they are.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ro8hkfBDVw&bpctr=1600132912

[2] https://mobile.twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1299086141329563...

Are we really citing alt right collaborator Andy Ngo, who has already been exposed for spreading misinformation?

> Are we really citing alt right collaborator Andy Ngo, who has already been exposed for spreading misinformation?

The only "Alt-Right" collaborator I know of is a Joe Biden supporter who perpetrated the Charlottesville massacre.[1] Of course, you could try to refute any of the evidence Ngo supplied in his tweets, but since you have nothing yourself, it's much easier to call him names, slander him and generally resort to FUD tactics, ad hominem and guilt by association. If you could actually refute anything Andy Ngo reported (and for all I know, maybe there's plenty), then go ahead and do it. It would be irrelevant to the particular claims I was citing, but at least it would be informative. What you've given us so far is an over-the-top innuendo narrative that is so sleazy even your average MLM salesperson would cringe.

[1]https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-mag...

> incoherent whataboutism blaming Joe Biden for nazi attacks

yeah dude, tell me more about this alleged "slander" of Ngo, no dude he's a grifter, that's not "FUD", that's old news and not really controversial.

Refute it then.

Yeah, sure, I just need to first finish debunking the allegations that Hillary is an blue iguana and then deal with the guy claiming the moon is not vegan.

Thank you for admitting you are not able to refute it. I didn't really know who Andy Ngo was before, but now I think he might be a credible journalist (of color, too) who did his research and provided evidence, something that is not well liked by idiots across the political spectrum.

Why was he there with a gun and why was the gun loaded with lethal rounds?

Because there was a _riot_ there and he was protecting property and giving medical help (including to the rioters). Much of Kenosha is burned to the ground.

Aren't the police there for protecting property?

It seems to me that carrying a rifle with the intent to apply medical assistance is a military occupation, not a civilian one.

It turns out the kid himself has some thoughts on this.[1] (I'm linking to Noir's summary not because I agree with him on gun rights or whatever else, but just because he has a concise and factual argument, using the kid's own words from before the fact to cast light on intent and his state of mind, as well as the chaotic events later where he was being chased by a mob and shot at.) I think the boy made a very unfortunate decision to go out there, but the actions of the mob are self-evident justification for why he was carrying a weapon. If he wasn't, he likely would be dead or severely injured today.

He pretty clearly extinguishes a dumpster fire that several rioters were pushing toward a set of gas pumps. This enraged the mob, leading them to chase him and even start shooting at or around him. He only fired when he was cornered (whether surrounded by the mob or even literally on his back on the ground), and only at those who were actually attacking him.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE&t=307s&bpctr=160...

> Aren't the police there for protecting property?

Kenosha has a democrat mayor, so no. Police had to stay well out of the way, and was frobidden from using any kind of force. Just watch the videos of what transpired. Don't rely on misleading, "fiery but mostly peaceful" CNN edits - watch the whole thing just this once. Watch the interview with Kyle before the events, taken by a journalist embedded with the protesters, as well. Your question indicates you've been quite severely gaslit. Bet you don't even know how many people got shot in CHAZ.

I would not go to that area unarmed at that time. The guy Kyle shot in the arm was pointing a Glock pistol at his head at that moment (you can see it on videos from several angles), and later said his only regret was that he didn't kill him.

Why was the victim with his bicep shot wielding a gun with "lethal rounds"?

In self-defense. In both cases, the kid was running away from them when they attacked.

That was self defense, tho. He wasn't there to start trouble, and his life literally was in danger thanks to, you've guessed it, social media radicalization of the rioters. Kid will walk, and will make millions from defamation settlements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com