Hacker News Reader

Comment by LimaBearz | Hacker News Reader

Before this gets too far I’d just like to point out that anyone arguing this is an issue of free speech or “first they came for x, who’s next” is not arguing in good faith..

I’ve noticed a pattern of moving the goal post. The problem here is an insurrection and the loss of 5 American lives. Arguing there is not advantageous, easy, or particularly strong so the goal post moves to free speech leaving what happened at the capitol off the table.

I really enjoy the series on YouTube “the alt right playbook”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM&list=PLJA_jUddXv... This one is applicable here

View on HN

Well, banning all bad people for the sake of all good is how many revolutions started, and resulted in much more deaths and other horrors.

If you want to live in a healthy state, you don't ban people who you disagree with. You integrate them into the system.

How do you integrate people who are hostile to the system and would rather see it destroyed than become part of it?

> would rather see it destroyed than become part of it?

Very very few people want to have the system destroyed. Especially if you don't push people out of the system, like banning these people in social networks.

Trump voters did not want the system destroyed. They believe the election was rigged.

There is enough evidence of election fraud or election abnormalities. Though I believe not enough to change the election outcome.

It should the job of democrats (and everybody) to investigate, convince, and speak transparently about all the issues, in particular, prosecute people responsible for problems, rather than repeating "orange man bad", and radicalise Trump supporters.

This is a rant, so stop reading now if you don't want to be offended.

I'm tired of this election fraud nonsense. 243 years of peaceful transitions ended the other day, and some of us take that personally. Here's the entire issue with this liberal-conservative dichotomy. No matter which one of you nuggetheads won, you would say the election was stolen by the other. Do you people seriously expect the rest of us to sit idly by and watch while you attempt to interrupt the implementation of the Constitutional order because you're butthurt? Many of us took oathes to uphold that Constitution with our lives if necessary. Not those pretend oathes you weekend warriors take before you go out to your range and practice shooting unarmed black kids or whatever. I'm talking about oathes that we fully intend to go to the grave with. You want to interrupt the Constitutional order at the Captiol? Fine. But next time, I'm telling you right now, you'd better be packing something a lot more powerful than some cockamamie story about election fraud.

That goes for the liberals too when your turn comes to relinquish power.

I can't believe that there are people out there who still can't see that this crosses a line. I'm done coddling these political people.

Hillary conceded less than a day after polls closed. A few House members filed complaints during the 2016 electoral count with no Senate support and Biden got the whole counting process over in about a half hour.

I understand the point you’re making, but the both-sides arguments undermine the discussion of a very clear problem we need to deal with as a country: millions of conservatives are comfortable with insurrection when they don’t get their way. They have no interest in democracy. It is paramount we make it clear this is not acceptable and ensure the future of our governmental norms are not disrupted further.

I agree the numbers are (relatively) few, but those very few people are exactly the people we're discussing. How do you integrate them?

We're not talking about Trump voters as a whole. They're welcome to believe they were robbed, the same way many Democrats did in 2000 (hell, in 2016 too). I'm confident the vast majority of them will find a way to live with it.

Trump didn't lose the vote because of fraud, he lost because higher voter participation via mail-in benefitted Biden.

Democrats aren't radicalizing Trump supporters and it's bizarre to claim they are.

You just performed the exact rhetorical trick the OP described. You tried to reduce this to “disagreement.” These actions aren’t about disagreement. They’re about violence and sedition.

Curious why you chose to qualify “lives” with “American”. Does it make the lives somehow more relevant for you? More significant?

I’ve always interpreted it to mean “actionable” or “there’s a shared responsibility in these.” I believe that’s how it is usually intended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com