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

Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 433 posts

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#81

Post by happytoexplain »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26
abcde666777 wrote: post #20

[flagged]

> it's hard to sympathize with someone like Altman The thing about rights is you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all. If we have a right to life, sympathy isn’t relevant. Awful people can be awful, but if we start compromising their rights then we deface all of our freedoms and security.

>you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all

I know what you mean, of course, but it's just not true in honesty - when pressed, there are no binaries in morality, as romantic and proud as the idea is. "Violence is never the answer" is both true and also irrelevant once a person is asked to consider the existence of his very way of life, his values, his livelihood, his culture, his home, or other resources historically at the center of revolutions.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#82

Post by the_gastropod »

arcfour wrote: post #51
esbranson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"The other side are where all of the bad guys and crazy violent lunatics are. The side I align with is the only sensible one; we would never do anything like that." This sort of thinking causes extremism and division. It only perpetuates more of the thing you don't want! It's also empirically not true: there are crazy people on both sides, but most people are pretty reasonable. If you treat them as if they are, despi…

Nope. Both sides are not equivalent. The political right, in the U.S., has been significantly more violent than the political left for quite some time. And it’s not even close. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#83

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ropetin wrote: post #29
avaer wrote: post #7

In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.

While I 100% do not support violence against Sam Altman, or anyone else for that matter, what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape? And I am genuinely interested in ideas that people think will work, not just trying to be combative.

> what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape?

California has a referendum system. Get signatures for a policy and put it to the voters.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#84

Post by esbranson »

arcfour wrote: post #51
esbranson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"The other side are where all of the bad guys and crazy violent lunatics are. The side I align with is the only sensible one; we would never do anything like that." This sort of thinking causes extremism and division. It only perpetuates more of the thing you don't want! It's also empirically not true: there are crazy people on both sides, but most people are pretty reasonable. If you treat them as if they are, despi…

This is about propaganda regimes, as much as about whataboutisms. Both sides paint the other as violent. Which is more believable. Sad as though the answer may be.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#85

Post by fzeroracer »

tptacek wrote: post #32
achierius wrote: post #8

[flagged]

I have never once seen someone on HN express happiness that someone was killed in a drive-by gang shooting.

I saw this all the time when ICE was doing their business in Minneapolis. That was only a few months ago and it doesn't take too long to dig and find some truly odious posts.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Rekindle8090 wrote: post #67
granzymes wrote: post #10

Political violence is not acceptable in a democracy. Full stop, no "but". That's all that needs to be said on this thread.

[flagged]

> where psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation occurs

You’re describing harm. Violence involves physical force against living things. Delineating there concepts is useful.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#87

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fzeroracer wrote: post #80
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat Not playing at all makes you easier to beat still. Anyone pining for civil war should vacation in a war zone first. It’s difficult to encapsulate the privilege of peace until it’s been lost.

What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti?

> What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti?

Keep pushing your state investigators. Work to flip the House. And keep protesting and disrupting the browncoats.

Alex Pretti did more to stop ICE than anyone e.g. killing an individual ICE agent would do.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#90

Post by esbranson »

the_gastropod wrote: post #82
arcfour wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The other side are where all of the bad guys and crazy violent lunatics are. The side I align with is the only sensible one; we would never do anything like that." This sort of thinking causes extremism and division. It only perpetuates more of the thing you don't want! It's also empirically not true: there are crazy people on both sides, but most people are pretty reasonable. If you treat them as if they are, despi…

Nope. Both sides are not equivalent. The political right, in the U.S., has been significantly more violent than the political left for quite some time. And it’s not even close. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/

> We included individuals whose public exposure occurred between 1948 and 2018.

The times they are a-changin'.

Post reply on HN