Hacker News Reader

Comment by moate | Hacker News Reader

Because he did not actually provide a statement condemning the riot that took place and said several things that are being interpreted (by both his followers and his opposition) as supporting the behavior.

(Please try not to read this in a condescending way): There is a difference between "You need to leave the capital building immediately. You are breaking the law and this will not be tolerated" (an approximation of the message many officials offered). and "Please go home. You are loved and you are special to this movement" (approximation of Trump's statement)

View on HN

FWIW, one "difference" between the two statements is that the former is the kind of thing that makes people more angry and the latter is the kind of thing that might actually make someone feel heard enough to go home; it just isn't somehow as obvious to me--a stark leftist, btw, who is downright socialist--that this is somehow finally the thing Trump said which should be blocked.

Are there any other HN folks out there who are confused by this?

If I recall watching it, he asked everyone to go home and peacefully.

It seems the real issue is he won’t accept fraud didn’t happen and people are conflating that with calls to violence.

Doesn’t feel genuine or real.

There has to be people reading this thinking WTF too.

I agree, I'm confused. He's urging against violence, but standing by his claims of fraud. But people are claiming that's not what he's "really" saying. OK.. so I can basically say the same thing about anyone saying anything. Who decides what he "really" means?

Just so I won't be downvoted, I'm not a fan of Trump.

I think the point is that after his supporters broke the law and stormed the capitol, interrupting a constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of power, he told them:

> "Remember this day forever!"

Thus approving of the actions that already occurred and telling them that the crimes that they committed would be justified by history looking back at what they have done. It in no way deescalates the risk of future conflicts.

That's honestly just an interpretation of it. He could just mean "remember this day of protest against the establishment". Everyone just reads everything he says with their own biases.

I don't think that's inherently wrong, just let's not ban people based on our own biases.

All of the intepretations of the events that happened yesterday could be equally uncharitably interpreted of BLM with the riots, violence, and protests across the country. I mean, they forcefully took over an entire city zone at one point.

Well that is the cleverness of most trump statements, toe the line, give a nod to your side, but also retain deniability. If you don't start interpreting, you get into a trap in which you will be outfoxed by anyone who can toe lines enough to not blatantly incriminate themselves.

As for BLM, personally I was never very sympathetic to the portions of protests/riots that caused violence.

Dog whistles work because they proved the fig leaf of plausible deniability. Trump's presidency has been a series of dog whistles. Why would it have stopped just because he lost an election?

We've had a full two months for election irregularities to be litigated in the courts, and scrutinized in the court of public opinion. The only results that bubbled to the top were the same oft-repeated grand claims, without much of anything backing them up. If there were substantive arguments to be made, Trump's legal team has failed to present them. At this point two months later, the "fraud" narrative is nothing more than a rallying cry. So yes, continuing to push the fake fraud claim is direct incitement of that mob.

Why were Trump's supporters protesting?

Why did they shove police officers and tear down barricades, break windows and smash doors?

Why did they illegally enter government buildings?

The answer to all of these is a mistaken belief that the election was not legitimate, due to President Trump's claims without evidence that there was widespread fraud. Their actions were made believing that the election was being stolen. Their actions were justified by that belief. You cannot reinforce the reasons why they are there with any genuine belief that it will inspire peace and retreat!

You're the not only one. He was using simple persuasion to encourage them to go home peacefully.

"I understand why you're unhappy but it's time to return home peacefully" is much more persuasive than "You are flat out wrong and it's time to return home peacefully". It's negotiation 101: validate the other's feelings if you want to persuade, even if you don't agree with those feelings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com