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

A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#111

Post by pessimizer »

vkou wrote: post #67
pessimizer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the people he shot were under the impression that they were trying to stop an active shooter. I'm still unaware of that. Do you have a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Second... At this point in time, shots had been fired, Rittenhouse shot and killed a man, and was identified by the crowd as an active shooter. Huber was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, when he was shot and killed. This happened in front of Grosskreutz, who at this point had every reason to believe that Rittenhouse was an active shooter (And was then shot and injure…

I thought you were saying that he was initially chased and attacked because the (first) person he shot thought he was an active shooter.

You're saying that after he was an active shooter, people were chasing him because they thought he was an active shooter? If so, I don't think that no one knows this, I think no one cares.

-----

edit: The statement you made was "the people [Rittenhouse] shot were under the impression that they were trying to stop an active shooter." I asked for a reference. You begin and end the reply to that request by saying that the first person he shot wasn't under the impression he was an active shooter.

My problem is the deception. I am a proud left-winger, and I think Quillette is trash. I'm disturbed that people are intentionally trying to cloud the facts about issues to score political points. When you say that the people Rittenhouse shot were under the impression that he was an active shooter, and somebody looks that up and finds out that it is untrue, they'll think that people who hold the same opinions as you are liars. That affects me, and the things that I believe in.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#112

Post by pyuser583 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #71
pyuser583 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

So when a child is raped (which definitely happened, by definition) we should avoid talking about it because it might hurt the case of the person accused of the crime? The justice system assumes innocence until proven guilty. The court of public opinion need hold no such lofty ideal. Nor should it.

Sorry I had the age wrong.

There should be a presumption of innocence in the sense that the public should assume the accused is innocent until evidence is publicly shared that suggests their guilt.

So far the only evidence shared with the public is a confession. Confessions are notoriously unreliability.

There will be more evidence. DNA tests are being done as we speak.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#113

Post by YourFriend87 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #79
YourFriend87 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I think it's misleading to say that "men can't have babies" is taboo. What you're actually referring to is a semantic argument about gender identity, and the one-sentence version just omits that context so it can "look" objectively true.

No post body was provided.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#114

Post by hprotagonist »

tptacek wrote: post #26
hprotagonist wrote: post #3

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as po…

Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing them? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and accept the punishment. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a person for their crimes or a Chris…

personalism shot/chaser: bonhoeffer’s “on folly”.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#115

Post by int_19h »

jagger27 wrote: post #84
mensetmanusman wrote: post #56

Thank you for posting this. It’s good to be reminded that even people who think they are smart fall into the exact herd behavior built-in to human psychology.

Except it’s wrong and you fell for it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-residential-schools-...

The article you've linked to claims:

"some journalists — in Canada and abroad — mistakenly called the unmarked graves being located "mass graves," inadvertently invoking the horrors of the Holocaust. But the vast majority, following the lead of Indigenous spokespeople, got it right"

The problem with this is that it's impossible to verify - who are "some journalists", and who is the "vast majority"? But anyway, if you google for "215 children bodies found", you'll find that claim plastered all over the Net. First-page search results include CBC itself, BBC, NPR, CNN etc. So this is, at best, misleading.

The other statement that made me go hmph is:

"Denialists, to be clear, do not deny the existence of residential schools or even some of the harms of the IRS system. Rather, they seek to downplay or distort basic IRS facts and question the validity of ongoing research to shake public confidence and undermine truth and reconciliation efforts. "

It is unclear which "basic facts" they claim to be distorted. The article admits that it's not the existence of schools or the abuse that happened in them in general. I've read some of the denialist articles, and the only claims regarding facts of the matter can find there are that no bodies - indeed, no graves! - have actually been verified in this one particular case. That claim is easy to verify.

The article seems to be claiming, in essence, that any skepticism in this regard is inherently wrong, regardless of facts or lack thereof.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#116

Post by happytoexplain »

YourFriend87 wrote: post #105
idiotsecant wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's hard to believe that, given he only said one was wrong, you think he might have meant the others were wrong as well. You should try to rephrase your question to get at your eventual point, rather than try to lead people.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#117

Post by vuln »

munk-a wrote: post #76
baryphonic wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like total post-hoc reasoning like the debunked "violent video games cause real-life violence." Ultimately Officer Smith chose to take his own life; no one made that choice for him. He may have been appalled or traumatized or whatever, but ultimately he's the one who did it. Doesn't make it any less tragic, but it's extremely tenuous absent additional evidence to lay blame at anyone but he himself. If ther…

Sorry, I had omitted sourcing in my original comment but here: > Dr. Jonathan Arden, the former Chief Medical Examiner of the District of Columbia was hired by Smith's widow as part of her lawsuit to have her husband's suicide ruled "in the line of duty". His report stated that the "acute, precipitating event that caused the death of Officer Smith was his occupational exposure to the traumatic events he suffered on J…

She hired an expert to get the ruling “line of duty” because it changes and increases his life insurance payouts. It also gives her access to survivors benefits and a slew of other things like part of his pension.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#118

Post by seoaeu »

jtbayly wrote: post #85
seoaeu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Perhaps they didn't know”?! You think the tribes knew about the atrocities and were ok with them?

What atrocities, exactly? You’re begging the question. One of the main atrocities we are talking about is forcing the children to adopt European culture. If you’re simply saying that some bad things happened at these boarding schools… we’ll, yeah. That’s a known reality in all boarding schools. Doesn’t make it ok. But many many people knew about those sorts of things and cared and also didn’t think the solution was t…

Stories recounting cruel physical and sexual abuse are only a google search away. Of thousands of children being disappeared. Of being woken in the middle of the night to dig graves.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#120

Post by AinderS »

jagger27 wrote: post #84
mensetmanusman wrote: post #56

Thank you for posting this. It’s good to be reminded that even people who think they are smart fall into the exact herd behavior built-in to human psychology.

Except it’s wrong and you fell for it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-residential-schools-...

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I am skeptical, you are mistrustful, he is a denialist.
Post reply on HN