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

Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#71

Post by urda »

dreyfan wrote: post #69
urda wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, self defense is a right no matter what isle of the political spectrum you land on. Arguing otherwise here, means you A) didn't follow the case or B) are arguing in bad faith. BOTH of these options do not make for a good look on yourself.

So, next time a police officer draws a weapon on someone, and that someone lawfully exercises their right to self-defense while exercising their right to bear arms, we're all 100% on the same page that it's okay, yeah?

https://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shoot...

Literally yes? Can you drop the strawman and whataboutism in an attempt to derail things and maybe focus on the discussion at hand?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#72

Post by dreyfan »

urda wrote: post #71
dreyfan wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, next time a police officer draws a weapon on someone, and that someone lawfully exercises their right to self-defense while exercising their right to bear arms, we're all 100% on the same page that it's okay, yeah?

https://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shoot... Literally yes? Can you drop the strawman and whataboutism in an attempt to derail things and maybe focus on the discussion at hand?

How the fuck is this a strawman? It's a massive courtcase that says it's okay to show up to places where you probably shouldn't have a gun, and if anyone else feels threatened and attempts to stop you, you're 100% okay to murder them to protect yourself.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#73

Post by dudul »

siva7 wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

So if you get assaulted in Germany you're supposed to just let them beat you up without making a move?

Aren't there any acceptable scenarios were lethal self defense can be applied?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#74

Post by urda »

dreyfan wrote: post #72
urda wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shoot... Literally yes? Can you drop the strawman and whataboutism in an attempt to derail things and maybe focus on the discussion at hand?

How the fuck is this a strawman? It's a massive courtcase that says it's okay to show up to places where you probably shouldn't have a gun, and if anyone else feels threatened and attempts to stop you, you're 100% okay to murder them to protect yourself.

> How the fuck is this a strawman?

Annnnnd we're done here. You never wanted a discussion you just thought you had a "got them" moment, which never occurred.

You can be civil when you get called out in the future thanks.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#75

Post by slibhb »

The funny thing about social media companies censoring is how they keep making the case for free speech over and over again without realizing it.

Mill:

> First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

The last point is the least obvious. Pro-Rittenhouse views were "held in the manner of a prejudice" by those who had them because they were censored. When those views aren't censored and there's a healthy back-and-forth, moderacy tends to prevail.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#76

Post by dannyr »

neartheplain wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enough to be sick of it. This is not how you run a civilized society. The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons. But please ignore me, and ignore the future consequences as well, this isn't going to solve anything.

I agree that events leading up to the shooting were problematic. If respected media commentators had not glorified riots or villianized the justified police shooting of Jacob Blake, or if the Mayor of Kenosha had requested further National Guard in advance of the second night of riots, or if the police had not abandoned downtown Kenosha to a mob armed with rifles and handguns, none of this would have happened. The im…

You conveniently omitted George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Philando Castle.

The riots were not glorified. It was the outcome of the unjustified violence against African Americans.

"threaten to kill a kid defending local homes and businesses"

Rittenhouse is the one who is armed. People might not have attacked him if he's not brandishing a firearm.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#77

Post by TimeBearingDown »

jacquesm wrote: post #30
umvi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process

Quoted post unavailable.

As the adage in the concealed carry community goes, “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”.

At that point, when your life is threatened, act, and look to ensure the involvement of medics and the law once you are safe.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#78

Post by Nursie »

School-Cotton wrote: post #51
siva7 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

The German definition of self-defense (“Notwehr”) sounds quite comprehensive to me: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html What makes you think the case would’ve been adjudicated differently in Germany? Edit: to be clear, certainly bringing a gun to a protest at all is illegal in Germany, so he could presumably be prosecuted for that, but it's not at all clear why he'd have been guilty of murder .

In the UK, aside from guns being highly regulated, taking the gun to a protest would be taken as a sign of intent to use it and the rest of the events would be interpreted in that light.

Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#79

Post by cm2187 »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #58

Orgs like Facebook who use "Independent Fact Checkers" need to reveal their sources otherwise there's no reason to believe the "Independent Fact Checkers" aren't Facebook employees making arbitrary or even ideological rulings on what is true and what is false.

Don't think they are facebook employees but fact checking orgs are pretty much all political activists.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#80

Post by siva7 »

Benjammer wrote: post #43
siva7 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

Are you not allowed to shoot someone in Germany if they fire a gun into the air and then point it at you? What about if someone is swinging a blunt object violently at your head? Is there just not such a thing as "self defense" in Germany? I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?

Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives because you were carrying a weapon and that is why they pointed a weapon at you in the first place. There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.
Post reply on HN