Hacker News Reader

Comment by pc86 | Hacker News Reader

Just to be clear, you are advocating removing government officials by violent means? Please explain the difference between that and domestic terrorism.

To say American elections are "compromised" is both a gross exaggeration and a Dunning-Krugeresque oversimplification. Gerrymandering is absolutely a problem and needs to be dealt with. It's the primary (no pun intended) reason for the polarization of our elected officials. Having a non-partisan commission determine districts would help, but how to appoint those officials is not a solved problem.

View on HN

Well that is easy. If you succeed it is a violent revolution, if you fail it is domestic terrorism. Nothing new here.

You raise an interesting point: How would you differentiate revolution against a fascist government from terrorism?

mlonkibjuyhv has it exactly right, I think.

At their outset, revolutions and [domestic] terrorism are usually indistinguishable. The American Revolution was certainly viewed as terrorism by the Crown, whether they had that word for it or not. History is written by the victors, and to a certain extent the worthiness of your cause is determined decades or centuries later by whether or not you were successful.

That makes sense. In that case, then, is saying something 'is domestic terrorism' the right test of whether it's the right thing to do? It sounds to me like if you used that gauge you'd never overthrow a fascist government.

My comment didn’t advocate for anything; I am not sure where you got that from.

> if those who are elected are physically removed from their rule-setting positions

> you can’t cure fascism by voting

Perhaps advocating was the wrong word but I only see one way to interpret those two statements side-by-side.

It seems common for Americans to read or hear statements, infer an unsaid statement X, and then assume X was the thing explicitly being communicated by the speaker, even though X was never said, which then elevates X higher than any other thing that was actually said. It seems to happen automatically and without conscious decision to do so. I’ve written about it before. You should probably be aware of this habit/bias, because I think you may have just performed it.

https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/

If and when the time comes to take up violence against the state, you may rest assured that I will not be subtly implying it, I will be shouting it loudly.

You are building a strawman, the observation from OP in no way condones any violent attitude. It is a historical fact that authoritarianism in general (monarchies, despots and so on) has only been brought down through violence, the comment you are replying does not advocate or imply that, you are the one reading that.

Malice is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not building a strawman (at least not intentionally!), and I don't mean to imply malice. Believing in violent overthrow of a tyrannical government is a perfectly logical belief, albeit one that will get you in trouble with said government. For most people, there is a point at which they would take up arms against their own government. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

Is there any other way to take the comment in question?

So I did create a strawman, I'm sorry for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com