Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 325 posts

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#221

Post by Fellshard »

cochne wrote: post #118

I am surprised to see this on the front page of Hacker News. The article makes claims which are completely unsubstantiated. There is no audio/video evidence, and there is no other source (that I could find) corroborating the story, or even mentioning these phrases. From another comment here: https://twitter.com/alex_zee/status/1302284883625046016?s=21 IPC does not exist either.

In a similar way that there are claims that 'Antifa does not exist; it's just an idea.'

Lack of formal organization does not imply lack of existence. Self-identification with a group creates grassroots organizations, with different characteristics than a top-down group, but equally existent.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#222

Post by watwut »

gridlockd wrote: post #175
coldpie wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. You don't start a negotiation from the middle. Also, most of the actual policy changes would be local. The support of the general population matters much less than the support of those who are impacted. The politicians and leaders need to work out the details and compromises. The point of these protests is that one side has not been listened to, and it is getting people killed, and we're sick of it.

> You don't start a negotiation from the middle. I agree, but you also shouldn't completely discredit yourself before negotiation has started. What do you even bring to the table? The end of protests? Protests are only being tolerated because of presumed public support, which has been dwindling due to some ugly scenes. > The politicians and leaders need to work out the details and compromises. The politicians only ne…

MLK absolutely did not stayed within overton window. He was hated.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#223

Post by hairofadog »

abduhl wrote: post #183
sammorrowdrums wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phrasing is misleading. BLM isn't responsible. A veteran sympathetic to the cause went on a shooting spree granted, but I don't know how you get from that to "BLM was responsible"

You cannot on one hand claim that BLM is an organic, grass roots, and completely headless organization while at the same time disclaiming someone as a member of the supposed unorganized organization composed entirely of people who self identify as BLM members.

A couple of data points to look at – and I would argue these are the things at the heart of the conflict – are whether the organization officially supports an particular action, and then whether it’s mainstream members casually support it. I think you’d have a hard time finding a supporter of Black Lives Matter who would go on record as supporting the shootings in Dallas, however it's fairly easy to find support for extrajudicial killings of black Americans.

As numerous people have stated, it's not clear-cut. I support Black Lives Matter and protests supporting them; I also condemn rioting and property destruction, as I think it hurts the cause and innocent bystanders (like small business owners). I'm in favor of having a police department, however I think policing in America is fundamentally unjust and needs serious reform.

There will always be murder, unfortunately, just as there will always be dingalings from all points of the political spectrum running around telling people in public spaces “You can't film here!” We have to condemn those actions regardless of whether it's coming from someone whose political ideology we agree with.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#224

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #82
sneak wrote: post #32

It makes me sad that an institution I used to like and respect, reason.com, seems more and more often to subscribe to the standard (and, taken uncritically, untrue) set pieces of the standard American culture war. This one, in particular, that “antifa is a violent mob that is super hypocritical”, and also aliasing “antifa” and “blm” as coterminous. The truth is very different, but I fear that many in their libertaria…

Libertarians generally, but Reason specifically, have historically been critical of police and rioters. I don’t think the staff at Reason “aliases” antifa/BLM, having listened to their editors podcast as all this has happened.

I think this article bolsters his point that Reason is trending toward authoritarian efforts.

A quick look-up of the article's author shows her media appearances tend to be on authoritarian media outlets. She also has some history of trying to raise hostility against reform movements (eg: MeNeither's support of sex predators).

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#225

Post by kombucha111 »

Fellshard wrote: post #211
landryraccoon wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only one data point but I was in Portland this week trying to get away from smoke and it was all peaceful. The protestors I saw looked like kids and older folks out in for a rally. Some were wearing bright vests for visibility, probably from cars. All in all it didn’t seem too wild to me and I’m sure I didn’t see all the protests, again this is just one guy walking down the street. I never felt unsafe for wha…

And what happens once night falls?

A small minority get violent and the cops prematurely declare a riot? Portland is not the war zone the media claims it is.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#226

Post by formercoder »

threatofrain wrote: post #172
formercoder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve found that most people I speak to can’t accept that most issues are complex shades of gray. It’s all our team or their team based on whatever news channel they subscribe to. No one takes time to dig below the surface and think for themselves.

If someone suggests that they think in morally gray manner, doesn't it signal to everyone around them that they're morally suspicious? >"Do you think it's alright that police are getting killed?" > "Well, let's think about the details, as the situation can be complex or even gray..." You might say this is a stupid and sparse example, but well, let's think about it... for many people instinctual morality is their prim…

I’m talking more about making moral judgements without adequate information or analysis. I’m not saying that morality is not absolute.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#227

Post by abduhl »

sammorrowdrums wrote: post #201
abduhl wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot on one hand claim that BLM is an organic, grass roots, and completely headless organization while at the same time disclaiming someone as a member of the supposed unorganized organization composed entirely of people who self identify as BLM members.

That logic isn't correct. Take for counter example Christians, a group of largely self identifying "members of an organisation". It doesn't logically follow that if a self-identifying Christian shoots a lot of people that "Christianity is responsible" either. That lacks nuance, of course groups of individuals that self-identify as part of a group can act as individuals and as a group, and it's often unclear externall…

If you want to draw a parallel to Christianity in this way then we can focus on what the organization does post-crisis.

A self identifying Christian who kills people in the name of Christianity is vocally condemned by other self identifying Christians and many would rush to say that they were mentally ill.

If BLM wants to not be lumped in with extremists then supporters of Black Lives Matter need to vocally and unequivocally condemn extremist and their acts that do not align with a supporter’s views of the group’s objectives. I have never seen a BLM supporter credibly call Micah Xavier Johnson mentally ill or an extremist. Extremist actions by BLM supporters are never condemned but rather excused by pointing to police brutality or institutional racism as being the root cause of the bad actor’s actions. While external forces may shape an extremist, it is the extremist who pulls the trigger. Personal responsibility means something and if the group won’t cast out the extremist then the group condones the actions.

Additionally, there is a key problem with your analogy: Christianity does not purport to be an organic, grass roots, and headless organization. Christianity flows from the church and it has a defined organization. It has spokespeople. It has explicit leadership.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#228

Post by [deleted] »

vidarh wrote: post #215
gridlockd wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't start a negotiation from the middle. I agree, but you also shouldn't completely discredit yourself before negotiation has started. What do you even bring to the table? The end of protests? Protests are only being tolerated because of presumed public support, which has been dwindling due to some ugly scenes. > The politicians and leaders need to work out the details and compromises. The politicians only ne…

MLK was massively vilified during his lifetime. E.g. [1]: > According to an early 1968 Harris Poll, the man whose half-century of martyrdom we celebrate this week died with a public disapproval rating of nearly 75 percent, a figure shocking in its own day and still striking even in today’s highly polarized political climate And [2] > Back in the 1960s, when King was actually leading protests, just 36 percent of white…

[deleted]

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#229

Post by awerawerawrjhui »

krapp wrote: post #178
gridlockd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these sound reasonable, some of them are completely ridiculous. It's probably for the better of the movement that these demands aren't the subject of (sympathetic) news coverage, because they're way outside the overton window of the general population. In fact, republicans/conservatives could hardly get any better support for their claim that BLM supporters are radical marxists.

> In fact, republicans/conservatives could hardly get any better support for their claim that BLM supporters are radical marxists. I've read a lot of lists of demands, and most of them seem reasonable to me, and I suspect more would seem reasonable to the general population than you think. I have yet to encounter the demand that private property be abolished in favor of collective ownership, or much else that conform…

> They're only "Marxist" in the sense that a certain American demographics calls anyone and anything they disagree with "Marxist."

Except for, y'know, the founders of BLM explicitly describing themselves as Marxists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCghDx5qN4s&feature=youtu.be...

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#230

Post by hairofadog »

mStreamTeam wrote: post #198
hairofadog wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with either formercoder’s comment or with filming at protests? I’m failing to understand what point you’re trying to make here.

The previous two comments where about tribalism. I think tribalism has a lot to do with this forgetfulness of inconvenient facts

If your point is that people on both the right and the left are capable of immoral behavior and that we should condemn, I agree with you! I think I missed the point you were trying to make because it appeared that you were only highlighting and correlating heinous acts from one person who supported a position that you disagree with.
Post reply on HN