Hacker News Reader

Comment by Judgmentality | Hacker News Reader

Clean or not, people need to be held accountable for their actions. I mean if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, right? These are supposed to be public servants (although that's obviously not the case).

So no, I still don't feel bad about it, even if that cop needs the job to feed his family. Maybe they should fight the system that doesn't support their citizens in need (people with health problems, people who don't have money for food, people who don't have homes) instead of being willing participants against those fighting for a better government that actually serves the needs of its people?

View on HN

> I mean if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, right?

You can't use that line on groups of people you don't like while also wanting privacy for groups of people you do like.

I agree with your premise of equality - that you can't have it both ways. My point was if the government uses that power against its people, the people should be able to use that power against their government.

However in this case it's actually different, as police officers are meant to be public servants.

I disagree. People paid by the public must be accountable to the public and all their (paid) actions should not be private. (Exceptions may apply to this general rule, though they are debatable)

Yes, but you haven’t said whether you think this means that the names, photos and home addresses of all police should be made public.

Just because someone does public work doesn’t mean they should be denied a private life.

What do you suggest to do here? Either you allow the oppressors to beat people and stay anonymous, not get punished or you create a community trying to deanonymize them with all the consequences.

“not get punished”

Are you saying the goal of de-anonymizing is to punish the police?

Earlier it seemed like you were interested in trials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862054

If you can be sure that the protestors are all trying to make a better government for everyone, then I’d agree.

But that’s never the case. There is always a mixture of people with good motivations, people who just want to get into a fight. This is just as true for the protestors as it is for the police.

If it was so clear what was right, then it would be simple to overthrow the government since the vast majority of people would be in agreement.

This is about accountability, not right vs wrong. The courts can decide that (in theory, anyway).

Does accountability mean retaliation to you?

I already made it clear it's about greater transparency so people can be held accountable by the courts.

Whether or not the court system is about retaliation is a completely separate debate.

I'm exiting this thread as you've shown no interest in listening to anyone that has disagreed with you.

Exit whenever you like. This is not about ‘disagreement’, it’s about understanding distinctions.

Doxxing doesn’t equate to transparency or holding people accountable in court, and it certainly can mean retaliation.

That brings us back to my original point - if you believe in accountability you don’t necessarily believe in doxxing cops. It’s not that clean.

So you believe the police should police themselves?

Honestly I'd prefer vigilante justice over that.

Dox the cops, 100%. I'd rather a cop be hurt unfairly in the line of duty than a protester fighting for what he believes in. This country was founded on overthrowing tyrrany. If the cops don't accept the risks of the job then they can quit. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, not lower or even equal. The government (and police) should fear the people, not the other way around.

So no. It is that clean.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862215

Nobody said anything about the police policing themselves. That doesn’t mean the only alternative is doxxing. That is a false dichotomy.

It’s only ‘clean’ if you can only see two options, and think there are no alternatives.

The police need to be held accountable, full stop. The police need to be held to a higher standard than the people, full stop. Even if that means an angry mob it's still preferable to no accountability.

It's clean because the police should be held to higher standards than the public, and they can quit if they don't want that responsibility.

Again, a false dichotomy.

Now it’s “angry mob” vs “no police accountability”.

Nobody else is talking about either of these.

You're right - it's just you baiting people into this false dichotomy to make it seem like people are anti-police. I was just calling your bluff. I'll take an angry mob over lack of police accountability, and the police cannot police themselves so the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers.

I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob.

Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.

I’m not baiting people into anything, and you aren’t calling any bluff. You are free to engage in this dialog without using false dichotomies if you choose.

As to making people “seem like they are anti-police”, why would I need to do that? I don’t think people have a problem with being seen as anti-police. Is there something wrong with being anti-police? It seems like an entirely valid position to hold.

Being anti-police as an institution doesn’t automatically mean being in favor of mob violence against individuals. You can be strongly against a structure, without hating the individuals who occupy the role.

It is possible to want to hold the police accountable without believing that the only way to do this is to dehumanize them, or to doxx them.

All you have done here is double down on an extremist position.

“The police” is a very large and diverse group of people. You have said you feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.

You have said that you are willing to completely dehumanize all police, and support violence of any kind against all of them and the killing of innocent people in the name of your cause, which is an unspecified ‘accountability’.

You are therefore a politically violent extremist, or at the very least someone who supports politically violent extremism if such a distinction can be made.

Whatever you say dude. You're obviously trying to label everyone that disagrees with you as a violent extremist - you end every one of your comments like that. I don't know why you'd do that and I don't care it's just obvious and that's why everyone is downvoting you.

I’m labelling you a violent extremist, because you said you don’t care if innocent people die as a result of your cause. I’m not sure why you think I’m labeling anyone else.

Can you find one other comment where I have labeled anyone anything? It should be very easy if I end every one of my comments like that.

Nobody else here has said they don’t care about innocent people dying. That is only you.

Again, you're clearly baiting. I said I don't care about police dying, not people. The police can quit whenever they want.

You keep twisting what people say only to respond with gotchas and try to wear down your opponents.

There is no twisting going on here. No gotchas.

You are saying that you don’t care about police dying.

I could point out that police are people, so what you are doing here is to dehumanize anyone who you consider to be police.

However, I accept that you wouldn’t recognize that argument, because you then go on to say, that they can quit whenever they want.

I.e. they can avoid being killed by simply making the choice not to be Police.

This is the very definition of political violence - threatening the lives of people who support institutions you don’t like.

Again with the twisting of words. I'm not threatening anyone or advocating for violence, I'm saying I choose the people over the police.

“I'd prefer vigilante justice over that.”

“I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob.”

“Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.”

“the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers”

Seems pretty clear what you are advocating. You don’t have to say things like this if they aren’t what you mean.

Yep - I stand by all that because I choose the public over the police. I don't care what happens to the police doesn't mean I want anything bad to happen, it means I don't care. If I say I don't care about you it doesn't mean I wish you harm it means I'm indifferent.

I choose to help the people, not the police.

Those are not statements of indifference. They are statements that advocate violence. Let’s consider an example:

“the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers”

Advocating methods that knowingly include harming the innocent is advocating violence.

You are clearly advocating violence.

Why not just admit it?

I'm not advocating violence. You're seeing what you want to see.

I note that you haven’t addressed the evidence I presented, but have instead resorted to gaslighting.

Sure I did! Just read my previous comments. No need for us to be repetitive here :)

You didn’t address this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874243

I think it’s reasonable to assume you won’t, because if you could have without resorting to denial and gaslighting, you would have done.

Like I said, I'm indifferent towards the police. I don't care what happens to them. That doesn't mean I want bad things to happen to them.

As I said before and you never addressed: if I say I don't care about you, does that mean I'm advocating violence against you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com