Hacker News Reader

Comment by ufmace | Hacker News Reader

You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous.

At the recent "storming", all of the representatives were evacuated, and nobody was directly threatened. The one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died.

Meanwhile, the media and law enforcement approved of the women's march protestors. They were free to roam around the capitol and physically harass and menace elected representatives suspected of not approving of their side. Including at times cornering them alone in elevators. They bragged about all of this and cheered each other on.

View on HN

I wont fall for this nonsense and I encourage anyone reaching this depth to recognize this as the problem we all have to learn to combat.

These people are far to accustom to being rewarded for this rhetoric and double speak.

As I said before, we must learn to call a spade a spade without being guilt tripped into pretending we can't notice the non-spades.

I say it again sir. This argument is bad faith.

As evidence, I encourage you to re-read your argument. Do you not see the difference of the events that YOU are describing?

> You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous.

This is beyond bad faith, this is an open "fuck you" to anyone that dares participate in this discussion. To shut it down, to make any sort of dialogue impossible.

And you say the left wants to censor, what a laugh.

The only "bad faith" going on here is the left's pathetic attempt to shut down any mention of the political violence that they have been encouraging and celebrating for the last 4 years and the 6 months of nationwide rioting they've cheered on.

You clearly don't understand what a bad faith argument is. Every word you say demonstrates it.

"Yeah but what about" isn't a valid respond under any circumstances, especially not when you are trying to deny that you argue solely in bad faith.

Your state of denial and victimhood complex make any discussion impossible.

The Equal Protection Clause is literally, the legal/ constitutional application of "Whataboutism."

There are many (most) cases whataboutism is merely an excuse or distraction, but here, it's the very basis of the ongoing argument.

That most of the left doesn't even realize this is a big part of the problem.

> nobody was directly threatened

next sentence:

> one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died

the shot heard round the trailer park!

They don't understand what bad faith is.

As if smashing doors and climbing through them while armed guards tell you not to with congress fleeing on the other side is not "directly threatened".

The absurdity of these arguments is astounding. What's worse, they seem to be thinking that they are making sense and that there is some global conspiracy on the left to "silence them".

The rest of the world is standing in awe and shock at the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com