Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28 • Hacker News Board

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#801

Post by dang » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #781

dang wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't attack another user or post in the flamewar style like this to HN, regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment is. It only makes this place even worse. Note this guideline: " Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. " That's our indirect version of please don't feed the trolls. Other users flagged the comment, and it was rightly flagkilled. That would have happened sooner…

I don't always agree with you, but damnit, do I respect you. Thanks for the work you do, esp. if you aren't getting compensated.

I'm compensated, which I mention because it's relevant to the health of HN. When people aren't paid to do something, they extract compensation in other ways, and that would exercise a distorting influence if it happened here. Being paid is part of what allows us to be relatively neutral. Also, the job can be a little intense, so one needs to remind oneself that one is choosing to do it, and being paid makes that relatively easy.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#802

Post by oh_sigh » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #555

oh_sigh wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I meant that LE is largely not accepting any blame right now. Well, multiple people have been fired and imprisoned. And investigations are on the way to probably arrest and imprison more cops. Mental health is probably a small part of the picture of civilian-on-police violence, unless you consider anyone who considers it a good idea to kill a police officer as intrinsically mentally unhealthy. > If the guns were so…

> Well, multiple people have been fired and imprisoned 1 out of 4 initially involved people has been charged. People who did the initial coverup are still untouched. One chief of police was fired by a mayor. Firing someone for helping with murder or current attack on unarmed civilians is a joke and bringing that up will only make people more angry. (Fired cops often go straight into security jobs) Re. mental illness…

> Turns out it's not about just any people having guns

Yes, apparently the likelihood of someone actually using the gun factors into their fear of guns. They aren't afraid of the mere idea of a gun, they are afraid of being shot by a gun. Not all people who carry guns are equally as likely to shoot you.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#803

Post by oh_sigh » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #698

oh_sigh wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand why US cops are so heavy handed though, right? It may be because they have to deal with a population with 3 guns per capita, where the amount of police killed per year on duty(even disregarding accidents) is more akin to a third world country than anything going on in the EU. > and high level LE people still not accepting any blame I don't know how you get that from OP saying that both sides need to de…

Charming. Cops don’t need to stomp on peoples necks till they asphyxiate to feel safe at work.

I'm not sure who exactly you think is arguing that point.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#804

Post by oh_sigh » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

dingoegret wrote: post #616

oh_sigh wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand why US cops are so heavy handed though, right? It may be because they have to deal with a population with 3 guns per capita, where the amount of police killed per year on duty(even disregarding accidents) is more akin to a third world country than anything going on in the EU. > and high level LE people still not accepting any blame I don't know how you get that from OP saying that both sides need to de…

>where the amount of police killed per year on duty(even disregarding accidents) is more akin to a third world country Police mortality isn't any more exceptionally high in a "third world country" than anywhere else. Your view that bad things = third world country, is simplistic. Your attitude is typical of a certain mindset. It's also boring because now I can tell a lot about you and could guess 100% correctly about…

> now I can tell a lot about you and could guess 100% correctly about any of you derivative political viewpoints.

Well go ahead and guess then, and let's see how accurate you are.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#805

Post by mrcorona » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #360

bradly wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a small suburb of San Diego the protest stopped traffic. Police forced the protesters off and then riots started and two banks were burnt down. Two weeks ago a San Diego police deputy was released from jail after serving only six months after sexually assaulting (why forced oral sex is not rape I’m not sure) 16 women that had called the police for help. He does not have to register as a sexual offender. Protesting…

Stopping traffic risks the lives of people in ambulances so it’s pretty hard to condone that. Make noise, block access to some businesses, etc, but don’t block streets and cause traffic jams that could kill people FFS.

If one person dies in an ambulance (which has never to my knowledge happened in the current protests), you think that is a more important problem to address than 1000 people getting extrajudicially executed by police in 2019?

Concern trolling?

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#806

Post by inetknght » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #799

inetknght wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My reference was to people casually tossing around the word for "people on the right they dislike", when it wasn't really warranted. I'm trying to understand why you think it wasn't really warranted. Perhaps it really isn't warranted. But I also think it's possible you are, like you said below, not seeing a bigger picture. I'll take your next sentence in reverse though. > the model is something more like Venezuela/…

I kind of feel like people here are not reading what I'm actually writing. I think 45 and company are fascists, or fascist-curious or adjacent or something like that. In the past. Say, GHWB, people would call him a fascist because they didn't like some bit of policy. I didn't care for his policies by and large, but I also do not think he was a fascist. Is that clearer?

> I kind of feel like people here are not reading what I'm actually writing.

Perhaps. I think I did read what you wrote. Let me look (again) at your top-level flagged post. I've now vouched for it, by the way.

> It's a pity that some on the left in the past have been so ready with the word 'fascism'. It's a serious word describing a serious problem, and it should not be used casually for "people on the right I disagree with". I believe that the word is appropriate to describe this administration.

Let me dissect this a little further.

> It's a pity that some on the left in the past have been so ready with the word 'fascism'

Now after our discussion, it's clear that you're not meaning "past today but in the context of Trump in general". I'd assumed that meaning since in general that's the context I've seen the word used. And indeed, Trumps election is in the past.

> I believe that the word is appropriate to describe this administration.

I don't remember this part being in your comment in my first reply. HN doesn't let me see edits or edit history or that a comment was edited. I'd like to think my memory's good enough to remember what I replied to, and there's also in general a netiquette of calling out substantial edits to messages. If you didn't edit your top level post then you are right; I didn't read it and I'm sorry for the confusion!

Edit to add:

> In the past. Say, GHWB, people would call him a fascist because they didn't like some bit of policy. I didn't care for his policies by and large, but I also do not think he was a fascist.

I was under ten for the entire duration of GHWB's presidency so I don't have that experience to draw upon. My experience is almost solely on reading history books and following politics since around Bush Jr's election with the "hanging chads of Florida" being the most prominent political memory I have other than being in polling lines waiting for my mom to vote.

Indeed, I can see how use of the slur during previous presidencies has significantly watered down its meaning today such that people skip over its use thinking it's political rhetoric.

> Is that clearer?

Yes, thank you!

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#807

Post by davidw » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #806

davidw wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of feel like people here are not reading what I'm actually writing. I think 45 and company are fascists, or fascist-curious or adjacent or something like that. In the past. Say, GHWB, people would call him a fascist because they didn't like some bit of policy. I didn't care for his policies by and large, but I also do not think he was a fascist. Is that clearer?

> I kind of feel like people here are not reading what I'm actually writing. Perhaps. I think I did read what you wrote. Let me look (again) at your top-level flagged post. I've now vouched for it, by the way. > It's a pity that some on the left in the past have been so ready with the word 'fascism'. It's a serious word describing a serious problem, and it should not be used casually for "people on the right I disagr…

I most certainly did include the bit about this administration and the word 'fascist' - that was the whole point! I included the other stuff as a prelude because I feel that the accusation needed a sense of gravity. It's a serious one, but accurate in my opinion.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#808

Post by monoideism » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

therealcamino wrote: post #772

monoideism wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, at least 5. I've seen >50 videos of rioters destroying and looting, maybe 5 of them engaging in violence, and maybe 10 of police engaging in excessive force, so I feel pretty comfortable having established that there's a pattern in those activities. I'd like to see about 4-5 of such videos. The more the merrier. I'm totally open to changing my mind.

There's no point in telling us how many videos you've watched in those categories, because "number of videos someone personally watched in each category" tells us more about that person's viewing preferences than the prevalence of those incidents. For example, here's a twitter thread of 170 (so far) videos of police excessive force. If you watch all of these then your updated statement has a different tone. https://m…

I wasn't providing those numbers to prove "my side", or any side. I was providing them as a benchmark for how many instances of an event became a pattern in my mind.

If you had read the comment carefully instead of rapidly responding with a "rebuttal" based on your ideology, you might have realized that.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#809

Post by iso947 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #762

fooster wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read the full transcript https://public.simonsays.ai/AXqKjRV1Kken/revisionist-history... . But this paragraph summarizes things pretty well: "Let me spell it out for you: underneath the lofty rhetoric of the patriots of New England was a criminal enterprise. A vast smuggling operation, illicitly supplying the residents of the New World with their drug of choice, bohea, that deliciously addictive tea varietal…

thanks for linking the transcript. if true, that certainly changes the narrative, but I don't think it weakens my main point: dumping the tea in the harbor made sense given their objective, both symbolically and practically. and to the extent that it weakens the narrative of noble freedom fighters, it makes the comparison even weirder.

Ok, same people same city. Smuggler John Hancock has his boat confiscated, starts a riot

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#810

Post by leetcrew » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

iso947 wrote: post #809

leetcrew wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for linking the transcript. if true, that certainly changes the narrative, but I don't think it weakens my main point: dumping the tea in the harbor made sense given their objective, both symbolically and practically. and to the extent that it weakens the narrative of noble freedom fighters, it makes the comparison even weirder.

Ok, same people same city. Smuggler John Hancock has his boat confiscated, starts a riot

yeah, that would be a fair comparison. or if you really want to stick with the boston tea party, you might liken it to the police station that got burned down in minneapolis (a symbolically and practically meaningful target).

in general I don't think this is a good rhetorical pattern though. comparing controversial current event A to mythologized account of historical event B seems like an attempt to avoid having to defend A on its own merit. as we've seen here in this thread, it may also rely on an incorrect/embellished understanding of B that introduces some weird implications.