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

Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

techtransparencyproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 969 posts

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#691

Post by rat87 »

abduhl wrote: post #597
selectodude wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are slow burns. The attack on the capital was a severe jolt to our national psyche. You may not want them to be different, but they are.

I disagree. The things that happened at the Capitol stick out in your mind because they are the most recent thing that happened. Every moment I posted was hailed as "the most important thing to happen in our lifetime" when it occurred. This is one of the big problems with our society now: sensationalism rules and our collective memories are short. It's just hard for me to believe that in fifty years I'll be saying "o…

those dudes who attempted a coup and got pretty close to a hostage situation or even assassinating the Vice President or congressmen

This event made the US seem less like a super stable countries and more like one of those tin pot countries where coups frequently happen. Could it have succeed, probably not even if they did kill the VP but will we see more coup attempts is the real question

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#692

Post by s1artibartfast »

Pfhreak wrote: post #202
loveistheanswer wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive peaceful: 1. free from disturbance; tranquil. 2. not involving war or violence.

Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.

The protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#693

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

exmicrosoldier wrote: post #332
wutbrodo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this unkindly, but your information diet has incredibly serious problems if you haven't come across any legitimate criticisms of the BLM org in the past. As someone whose pet issue has been police and justice system violence for a really, really long time, I really wish BLM wasn't the organization/movement representing this particular struggle[1]. The 2020 iteration is a little more connected to reality…

I would appreciate any pointers at good news sources you recommend.

In addition to wutbrodo, I find that Wikipedia is actually a great starting point to find out more information for yourself.

For example, take the comment that you originally replied to, which asserted "Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients.""

That is obviously a great soundbite that seems tailor made for the "the left ignores the terrorism on their side" argument. But on the Wikipedia page for Susan Rosenberg, you can see what her level of involvement was, see how she was punished (she served 16 years), see what she's been doing since she was released from prison, and follow lots of links to original sources, like the tax return for Thousand Currents.

Snopes is also a great source for stuff like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/. Again, you don't have to agree with the simple "true/false/mixture" checkbox Snopes puts on their stories. Just read the article, which always has tons of well-researched factual info, and make up your mind for yourself.

My main point is that whenever you see some soundbite or statistic on Twitter, Facebook or HN, it was often taken out of context in order to make an argument. It's usually pretty easy to use Wikipedia as a starting point to find out more about that context.

And to be clear, while I obviously have a point of view, my main point is that you shouldn't take anyone's opinions at face value - the Internet actually makes it pretty easy to find original sources.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#694

Post by esyir »

bilbo0s wrote: post #685
esyir wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say that these events have given me some respect for the right wing media. They at least were willing to call these riots and condemm them, which is more than I can say about the reaction to blm. From the left media.

Probably because you have an affinity for them from the outset. Just as those who have respect for left wing media likely had an affinity for liberals from the outset. It's long been my opinion however, that they need to be dealt with. Just as the pet terrorists they control need to be dealt with. I have zero respect for them, and look forward to seeing a lot of these ideological extremist organizations dismantled ov…

Heh, my respect for rw media is generally pretty low. Its just that my previous respect for lw media has been steadily getting shaved away. Probably amplified by the way that I'm exposed to far more of it.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get dismantling of extremists. Rather, I see the opposite, further partisanship where one's extremists are ignored and only the enemy should be criticised. The rapid crystallization of the Pro censorship movement on traditionally free speech supporting circles for their political opponents seems to support this.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#695

Post by titzer »

CivBase wrote: post #672
titzer wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that thing[1] > The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands: > 1. cut Seattle's $409 million police budget by 50 percent, > 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and > 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes. Is that what you meant? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hi…

None of those points take away from it being "a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government". If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified? I certainly don't think so.

> If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified?

I don't think anyone should be screaming to melt down the government or set up their own, but let's be clear there is a difference in both degree and kind from BLM to the Capitol Insurrection: BLM protestors were driven by actual instances of racism--dozens, if not hundreds of people killed by police--and fundamentally wanted accountability for that blatant police misconduct, and Capitol Insurrectionists were driven by nothing more than lies and wanted to assassinate the legislative branch and install a dictator. We both know that "more transparency" and a "more verifiable" election system isn't going to make the crazies go away. They rejected election results outright because there must have been fraud.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#696

Post by hairofadog »

King-Aaron wrote: post #532
sojournerc wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread started with you saddened at folks downplaying the events at the Capitol. I'm much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere. I suppose that's a "what about", but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.

So, there's a few things to unpack here. 1. I don't (personally) agree that the 'black lives matter' protests should be considered as 'terrorism', because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it's not quite the same as 'storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election', which is un…

Thank you; I really appreciated this comment. I’m feeling much the same way, and it’s been in my mind a lot lately. I think the heart of the issue is a failure to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. People look at each thing in isolation and say, “it’s not that big a deal”, but somehow (especially surprising for folks who frequent HN) fail to see the larger patterns.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#698

Post by tomcam »

titzer wrote: post #529
tomcam wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they didn’t. Look at the damage done to Seattle and Portland with the full cooperation of Twitter and Facebook.

I missed the part where BLM advocated overthrowing democracy. At worst they advocated to defund police and held obnoxious signs. And despite the right wing narrative, the people carrying signs and doing sit ins were not the ones rioting and looting, but rather getting their ass beat by police.

The founders of BLM are “trained Marxists“ in their own words. By definition, they advocate overthrowing democracy. That’s what Marxism is all about.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#699

Post by idrios »

eganist wrote: post #652
idrios wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year. Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorist…

> I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year. > Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terro…

Then you're not even trying to see any perspective but your own. "Terrorist" should mean violent, radical extremists. If you're saying that all of the protestors are terrorist then you're either loosening the definition of terrorism to mean anyone who commits a federal crime, or you're saying that all of those people at the rally were ready to start gunning people down.

The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.

It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#700

Post by tomcam »

jiofih wrote: post #630
jonnyone wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people here are unable to distance themselves from their ideological contempt for Trump to be able analyze this with a clear mind. There is not much of a case that Trump "incited" a riot. The fact that this was planned for months only further cements that.

Check your own biases. He was telling a huge crowd that the election was stolen, he would show proof the same day (we are still waiting), and they “will not stand down”. What else is needed to make that case? (non-US person here)

What else is needed to make that case is actually incitement. He did no such thing, although the speech was obviously irresponsible. Here in the States incitement has a strict legal meaning and its conditions are nowhere near satisfied by his speech.
Post reply on HN