Hacker News Reader

Comment by skitout | Hacker News Reader

They indeed sometimes destroyed some properties

But you cannot blame them for the violence in the protest they co-organized. People are free to attend the protest, and they cannot control them. They never called for violence against police. And most protest now in France have some people fighting with the police.

The same way you can see firefighters throwing stuff (including petanque ball) to police during firefighers protest. But you cannot blame the firefigheter union for this.

View on HN

If it happens once it's accident, if it happens constantly, its their responsibility if not starting a protest at all would prevent the violence

And if they put their label on it it's their responsibility.

Just because someone is a catalyst, I don't see how it logically and necessarily follows that 100% of the causal responsibility falls on them.

This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

Maybe the masses are upset and this is a sign of things to come, that should be listened to.

Myself, I'm a peaceful guy, if every protest I called (assuming I'm a "leader" of cause $INSERT_CAUSE_HERE ) resulted in violence, I would not call any more protests because that would go against my personal values. So it's hard to believe a group is peaceful if every time they have a protest it turns into a riot.

Would you be okay with being jailed for destruction of property because of a protest you organised that was co-opted by bad actors?

Then you could not organize any "leftist" protest in France :-) Note that they do destroy stuff, they just don't call violence against people. And definitely don't turn in riot every time

So now the state can silence you by simply sending plainclothes cops to start riots in all your protests

Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

> Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

Technically, it "is on" whoever objectively plays a role in the underlying causality.

You "may" be referring to your perception of what is going on, as opposed to what is actually going on (which is unreachable).

>> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

> No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

Except I have the ability to describe the various ways in which it is (at least plausibly) objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts, whereas you have a much harder problem: proving that you can actually read my mind (or, are omniscient).

> Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

Yeah, they "accidentally" carried swords, firebombs and molotov cocktails to a protest. It was an honest mistake, right? I mean, those are normal things people carry around on a daily basis, aren't they?

So should we apply the same thinking with police constantly inciting violence at protests ? At this point anytime there's a major protest in France, I consider it a win if no one in the crowd lost an eye, hand or worse, their life, from the grenades thrown by police.

So we should forbid firefighter and farmer's union ? And all leftist union ? And we should forbid any protest where people using black block technique could agree with ?

I think as long as most of the protests don't end up in violence and shop lootings they could stay.

That’s not how protests work though, is it?

What do you say to evidence that plainclothes police officers are tasked with infiltrating protests and stirring up shit?

In France, in most of the cases you don't need police officer for it, some people are willing to donage bank or fight with the police (especially after police overreacting, or being violent for free)

The fact is you don't know how will end up protest... And even when a protest end up damaging 1 mac donalds and 2 banks, most people are pacific protester... The question is how do you handle this in a democracy ?

If we'd implement what you says, you'd just found a way to systematically prevent protests. Doesnt work.

Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.

> Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.

Oh, come on, as if that were a thing so common that there had been a specific word for it for nearly 200 years.

The responsibility is 100% on the police. They're the ones who are systematically coming armed to 100% of protests, they're the one gouging people eyes out, pushing people in rivers, causing limbs to be amputated, they're the ones who murdered my 80 yo neighbor during a protest. The ratio of police vs protestors injuries is about 1 vs 10.

Protesting for the survival of the planet we're all living on is not a crime it's a necessity to not go extinct.

That's not a good assessment at all. Because no one holds the government or its police to that standard.

Do you know how many problems in America regarding human rights stem from qualified immunity? Don't let that BS keep spreading.

If some Neo-nazis co-organize a protest, and it becomes violent, do you blame the neo-nazis?

Just wondering if your reasoning is based on logic or political sides.

Depend which kind of Neo-Nazi organization (they are illegal in France and most of them in France do like to punch people and say it), and co-organized with whom, and depend on what is saying these Neo-Nazi

But for sure I do blame Neo-Nazi for being Neo-Nazi !

What about just regular fascists then? Do you blame fascists for violence, perhaps caused by communists?

A significant majority (67%) of the currently active low ranking French police force (not counting the retirees) vote, or at least declare they intend to, for one the parties that has historically been as right wing as one can be.

Taking that into account, one could have reasons to believe cops wouldn’t be as tough on protesting fascists, and that protesting fascists wouldn’t be as violent towards cops.

Though I’d be curious to see wether or not facts support this hunch.

Fighting back against totalitarianism by doing away with freedom of association and assembly. Cute.

No better than the gang laws we have here in the US. It seems Jefferson's rule about 200 years or so between revolutions was right after all.

If the Neo-nazis is protesting something like workers rights, I would probably turn a blind eye. My reasoning is based on ACTIONS

Reply on news.ycombinator.com