Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanw444 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Confused politics isn’t all that unusual; look at Caitlyn Jenner for a concrete example. Add in the usual bad blood between well-armed groups and it certainly happens.

I wish everyone would wait a week for actual reliable info to come out. I wish we weren’t getting a bunch of said info from deeply partisan and untrustworthy fuckwits.

Neither end result would shock me.

According to the latest iteration, his right-wing family said he was left-wing and even neighbors saw him with his roommate.

Freedom of speech is protected. That people are celebrating a man's death, and worse yet, justifying it, is evil but still protected. But what's not protected is the consequences of these actions. I don't want to live, work, etc... next to someone who thinks that it's ok to commit acts of violence against others just because we don't share the same views.

> But what's not protected is the consequences of these actions.

But this is protected in this case.

I can unfriend you on Facebook for saying “I’m not sad he’s dead”. (And to be clear, Kimmel didn’t even go that far.) I can kick you out of my birthday party. I can complain to your employer. They can fire you. (They can fire you for having tattoos, or red hair!)

But the government cannot do these things. That is the entire point of the First Amendment. The FCC can not threaten the license of a broadcaster for protected speech, but we are here anyways.

The FCC s/can/should/ not threaten the license of a broadcaster for protected speech, but we are here anyways.

They absolutely can do it as they've just shown. It's not like they are unable to do it. It's that they shouldn't do it. There's a big difference.

The entire point of the 1st Amendment is to protect the citizens from being thrown in jail or being prosecuted for speaking against the government.

Where do you see that here? The FCC chairman just said that "...broadcasters are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication. They have a license granted by is at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest".

> The entire point of the 1st Amendment is to protect the citizens from being thrown in jail or being prosecuted for speaking against the government.

"[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_...

There is no First Amendment right to an FCC broadcast license.

There is a right not to have it taken away for speech reasons.

To be fair, the new revanchist right calls actual conservatives "left wing". They call libertarians "left wing". They call the shared American values of the past fifty years "left wing". They call straightforward consensus reality "left wing". They basically call anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extended reactionary cinematic universe "left wing". So the only data point there is that his parents are suffering social media psychosis.

Also, non-normative sexual behavior is more indicative of being a Republican ("I have a wide stance!", etc, etc, etc). Democrats just espouse not beating yourself up over it, whereas Republicans seemingly yearn for the closet.

> next to someone who thinks that it's ok to commit acts of violence against others just because we don't share the same views.

But that still only includes a subset of views?

I mean what you are saying is right. But these people were perfectly fine with ignoring or sometimes outright endorsing political violence until one of their own was the target. That does not seem extremely hypocritical?

My bias in these cases is that the simplest answer, same as any mass shooting, is that the killers motivations are a manifestation of mental illness and nothing more. Not always true but typically so; wasnt the trump would be assassin not left for instance? When i was told that i wasnt surprised, not because i think it was more likely of someone on the right, but because i think its mostly random. Eg we have a gun culture, a toxic culture, and a lack of mental health institutions culture. That will only ever produce (among other things) a consistent stream of random acts of violence.

In this particular case i am a little more curious than usual to find out if that holds up here if only because the narrative was so immediately anti left attacks.

Just look at the guy who shot Trump's ear. He had no discernable motive or explicit political leaning at all. And had supposedly been tracking both Trump and Biden. He just did it for attention.

Are you saying there are no conservatives who are attracted to those who identify as trans? Not too long ago you could say the same thing about being conservative and being attracted to the same sex, yet that isn't something be bat an eye at anymore.

I'm saying it's incredibly unlikely.

It's not.

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsessio...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner

Being trans (or being attracted to a trans person) is one of many aspects of that person. Other political positions may outweigh it, and the taboo nature of it may be an appeal (see also: stepsibling roleplay porn).

Ahhh yes, whose entire family is maga and lives in the most conservative state in America

What if I told you I live in the same state, and I know several people of the same age who completely ideologically oppose their MAGA family?

My point isn't really about what is correct or incorrect in this case.

My point is about making it so that you have to actively risk money to push the truth needle in the wrong direction.

Or the right direction, depending on your point of view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com