Comment by beaner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by beaner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Examples are everywhere, you just have to not be in a bubble and be open to seeing it. I could keep going but you tell me, do you need more?

AOC: "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable." [-1]

Slate: "Non-violence is an important tool for protests, but so is violence" [0]

Vox: "Riots are destructive, dangerous, and scary — but can lead to serious social reforms" [1]

Pelosi: "we welcome the presence of these activists" vs "our election was hijacked" [2]

"CNN Promoted Charged Leftist Rioter Who Masqueraded As Reporter Despite No Credentials, Urged Assault On Capitol" [3]

Chris Cuomo: "Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful" [4]

Supercut of news media justifying and excusing riots: [5]

Daily beast and salon writer Arthur Chu calling for explicit murder of people he calls Nazis: [6]

Difference in tone & presentation of NYT covering violent riots: [7]

Sally Kohn, USA today writer: "I don't like violent protests but I understand them" [8]

Kamala Harris: "Protests should not let up"

Maxine Waters "If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store... You get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them."

Nancy Pelosi: "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be soon."

Ayanna Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets"

(I would agree that some of the politicians' quotes are a little weak, but in the name of consistency, these are at least worse than some types of language from Trump that would be called out as violence.)

[-1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080

[0] https://twitter.com/slate/status/1268415955937513473?lang=en

[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work

[2] https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/13484392324157521...

[3] https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/cnn-promoted-capitol-r...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAe86my9r7A

[5] https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544

[6] https://twitter.com/Malcolm_fleX48/status/134718628775795917...

[7] https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/13470552229805506...

[8] https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1346927304073744388

More: https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/08/10-times-democrats-urge...

> Examples are everywhere, you just have to not be in a bubble and be open to seeing it. I could keep going but you tell me, do you need more?

If you strip out enough context, you can make any false equivalency you like. For instance: weren't the Allies and Axis in WWII basically the same? After all, they both used guns and bombs to commit violence.

I can't say that I know enough about that part of WWII, but yeah I agree with that statement. Which isn't to say that it applies here. Simply pointing out that stripping out context can lead to false equivalences is lazy, it needs to be shown.

Each of these things certainly has a context that can be gone and read. That's why I included sources rather than not including them. There's also Google.

In addition I'd simply say that whatever your perspective on context is and how it applies to calls to violence and interpretations thereof, that it should be applied equally to all sources from all sides. This doesn't really seem to be what is happening, which is the largest factor in what seems to me a rather clear observation that the newsmedia's portrayal, and those who promote it and give it reach uncritically, are full of shit.

> I can't say that I know enough about that part of WWII, but yeah I agree with that statement. Which isn't to say that it applies here. Simply pointing out that stripping out context can lead to false equivalences is lazy, it needs to be shown.

Well, the key part is that the Axis was centered on the imperial ambitions of a a famous genocidal dictatorship that you've probably heard of. There's pretty much a unanimous consensus that that dictatorship was very, very bad and its allies were not much better.

Regarding the recent violence, here the context:

1. BLM is mainly against the police's pattern disproportionate killing of black people, often unarmed, and racism in general. While there had been looting and rioting, it's worth noting that from the very beginning there's evidence that these protests were actually infiltrated by violent agitators with other aims (e.g. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-man-accused-o... and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...).

2. The capitol attack was literally against the results of a free and fair election, and deliberately attacked some of the actual institutions of American democracy. There's also no evidence of infiltration, though such claims are now being made to deflect blame. And the riots often loudly expressed violent aims (e.g. erecting a literal gallows and chanting "Hang Mike Pence" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capi...).

It's true. And guess which side was antifa.

The Stalinists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

Notice how none of these entirely out of context quotes are encouraging crowds to overthrow the government to overturn an election.

Also, note that when these people use forceful language, they are talking about fighting for their rights to not be murdered by police. When Trump uses violent rhetoric, he is talking entirely about keeping himself in power.

Context matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com