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

Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

werd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#51

Post by derbOac »

arjie wrote: post #7

The sentences are pretty crazy but what’s with the strange understatement. > One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation) The accurate statement is that he shot and wounded a police officer who he intentionally targeted according to his own testimony (where he claims he did so because he thought the cop was going to shoot his guy…

> But if you joined a protest group where the organizer shoots a policeman and you’ve all got weapons at home and then you tell people to move the material you have at home that indicates you’re part of the group then I think the convictions are pretty accurate.

30 years though? And for moving what material exactly?

I think you can have some kind of rationale for why these people should be prosecuted. I'm not sure that's the issue for many though — the issue is the proportionality of the sentence.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#52

Post by qwery »

like_any_other wrote: post #22
rekabis wrote: post #3

Anyone who values democracy is automatically an anti-fascist. Democracy is _inherently_ anti-fascist.

These are the values of the original antifa that killed and died for democracy by the way: https://web.archive.org/web/20211222183606/https://www.washi...

Labelling (all?) American (Allied?) personnel as "antifa" or even "anti-fascist" is an interesting move. The article doesn't seem to demonstrate what you suggest it does nor does it seem particularly relevant in general. What are you trying to say?

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#53

Post by bit-anarchist »

stillvasals wrote: post #28
FromHoiPolloi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue it was a vassal state, not occupied (per se) at least from the 1950's onwards. Yes, the soviet troops did station in Poland, but the beatings were administered by other Polish citizens.

It still is, it just changed owners.

And who would be the owners? Give names.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#54

Post by Terr_ »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #4

In Poland during the Soviet occupation (1945-1989) people were beaten and jailed for having a copier that would be used for copying magazines and brochures

Nowadays your printer puts secret markings into everything, and Microsoft and Apple can link those to your account and IP address.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#55

Post by Terr_ »

Joker_vD wrote: post #34
Arodex wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a discussion, here it is: >this kind of behavior can't be normalized What happened to the Jan 6 rioters? Ashli Babbitt received military funeral honors for what? Discuss: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” What is the intent of the 2nd amendment? It allows citizen…

> It allows citizens to beat arms, but for what purpose ? To form state-level militia. It even starts with a sunset condition: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." — so arguably, since a well-maintained militia is universally considered in no way necessary (nor sufficient) for state security, the second amendment should have lost its power long time ago.

> To form state-level militia.

Right, to expand on that a bit:

1. When the Second Amendment was written, there was already an active legal framework of "well-regulated militias" through the Articles of Confederation. [0] Every single state was required to run and fund their own militia.

2. The bill of rights was originally (pre-civil-war) purely a set of restrictions on the Federal government, nothing in it bound states. One of its explicit purposes was to preserve state autonomy from the (new, worrisome) federal layer being created.

3. Therefore Second Amendment was (originally) intended to prevent the federal government from sneakily disarming individual states by literally removing their pool of arms and volunteers.

Whether it should still mean the same after many years and other amendments is a much trickier problem, but the idea that it always meant an individual right to arms is a false mythology.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#56

Post by like_any_other »

qwery wrote: post #52
like_any_other wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the values of the original antifa that killed and died for democracy by the way: https://web.archive.org/web/20211222183606/https://www.washi...

Labelling (all?) American (Allied?) personnel as "antifa" or even "anti-fascist" is an interesting move. The article doesn't seem to demonstrate what you suggest it does nor does it seem particularly relevant in general. What are you trying to say?

That, if we accept that logic, we must either say the Allies who fought in WWII didn't value democracy, or we must accept a definition of anti-fascist that is so broad, it easily includes people even many on the right would call Nazis.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#57

Post by armchairhacker »

lux-lux-lux wrote: post #44
armchairhacker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Jan 6 rioters were convicted and given similarly long sentences. Certainly Trump doing something doesn’t make it valid.

> similarly long sentences Enrique Tarrio got 22 years for masterminding an attempt to violently overturn the results of a Presidential election. Daniel Sanchez-Estrada got 30 years for moving some magazines. The median Jan 6 sentence was 10 months. The shortest sentence for a protestor here was 30 years.

Ok, that guy’s sentence is egregious (they all are, as were the Jan 6 ones, but I think he shouldn’t even have jail time).

I have less sympathy towards those who vandalized and the one who shot at police. 100 years is insane, but those acts are blatantly illegal.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#58

Post by bit-anarchist »

Joker_vD wrote: post #34
Arodex wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a discussion, here it is: >this kind of behavior can't be normalized What happened to the Jan 6 rioters? Ashli Babbitt received military funeral honors for what? Discuss: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” What is the intent of the 2nd amendment? It allows citizen…

> It allows citizens to beat arms, but for what purpose ? To form state-level militia. It even starts with a sunset condition: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." — so arguably, since a well-maintained militia is universally considered in no way necessary (nor sufficient) for state security, the second amendment should have lost its power long time ago.

Beg to differ: to the purposes of the idealized free USA, a popular militia was, and still is, the only solution for a free territory of people. A modern organized army as understood today is all about ceding your right as an free individual to become subservient to a large authority.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#59

Post by kbelder »

rekabis wrote: post #3

Anyone who values democracy is automatically an anti-fascist. Democracy is _inherently_ anti-fascist.

>Anyone who values democracy is automatically an anti-fascist.

Sure. None of that has anything to do with Antifa. You can't claim popular support for thuggish behavior by claiming dibs on a name.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#60

Post by Joker_vD »

Terr_ wrote: post #55
Joker_vD wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It allows citizens to beat arms, but for what purpose ? To form state-level militia. It even starts with a sunset condition: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." — so arguably, since a well-maintained militia is universally considered in no way necessary (nor sufficient) for state security, the second amendment should have lost its power long time ago.

> To form state-level militia. Right, to expand on that a bit: 1. When the Second Amendment was written, there was already an active legal framework of "well-regulated militias" through the Articles of Confederation. [0] Every single state was required to run and fund their own militia. 2. The bill of rights was originally (pre-civil-war) purely a set of restrictions on the Federal government, nothing in it bound sta…

> Whether it should still mean the same

If we abstract ourselves from the politics, then yes, of course it should. I mean, the amendment could've simply been "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but it isn't, it contains an intentionally added clarification in it as well.

But the politics being what they are, some things got reinterpreted in rather baffling ways. The commerce clause is one of the most (in)famous examples; several (unchallenged) court judgements that declare that in some circumstances one has to actively invoke the fifth amendment, or else they'll lose its protections (?!) is another. The latter is personally the most baffling to me because not only it defies the very idea of such protections (you have them even if you don't have a decent lawyer) but it gives some marginal legitimacy to one of the insane juristic ideas of "sovereign citizens": if you say the right magic words, you'll get out of jail free, but you have to say them!

Post reply on HN