Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistermann | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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

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

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.

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?

> 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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com