601–610 of 645 posts
Is it possible for us to put aside the edgelord screeching over censorship and instead talk rationally about content distribution regulations, required public APIs, and using the Post Office for things like email/videos/blogs/PGP keys/etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you: let us not leave anything important out. Many young men were following Rittenhouse, yelling things like "Get him" and "Beat him up". I sensed a lot of dangerous emotions in the videos, in the sound of the voices and the movements of the bodies. Some say that those yelling "get him" merely wanted to makes sure than Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes ea…
>Since Rittenhouse was walking down the middle of a wide brightly-lit street towards a line of cops, it is probably not the case that those yelling "stop him" merely wanted to make sure that Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes earlier of Rosenbaum). Considering that these were protest against the police , it's not reasonable to assume that the people present had any fai…
That is the second time in 7 seconds that Huber's skateboard gets very close to Rittenhouse's head. Here is the first time:
https://youtu.be/1i7xSigmrfw?t=27114
-- after which Huber retrieves his skateboard from the ground, which action is inconsistent with your hypothesis that Huber's goal was to grab Rittenhouse's gun in the second interaction and the skateboard was just inconveniently in his hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CNN directly includes this fact: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon... > "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun ... that he fired," Chirafisi said. "Right," Grosskreutz responded. I always find it funny how 99% of the time when people claim "the mainstream media is too biased to cover this", if you look at the corresponding article it is 100% covered.
People don't base this opinion on a single article but on the coverage of the situation holistically as it evolves. Most of the 'bombshell' revelations in this trial have been available on the internet since the week of the shooting. The number of videos and images that show that it wasn't until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on him aiming at his head that he was shot is overwhelming and yet…
It really puts a different perspective on the entire thing, especially if you notice at the end of the video he was moving toward law enforcement the whole time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying we should suppress the truth because we’re worried the woke mob won’t like it? One solution: Open, transparent justice and cities enforce laws for rioters instead of letting them throw city burning temper tantrums.
> Are you saying we should suppress the truth because we’re worried the woke mob won’t like it? Yes, because right-wingers have never committed violence when they got the outcome they didn't like./s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason that no one makes an issue of it is because he did not kill anyone and is therefore not the one on trial. If he had killed someone it is perfectly reasonable to bring this up. (Also as far as I know he did not illegally travel there or am I misunderstanding? )
He lied to the cops, had an expired CCL and was seen carrying on camera. There are quite a few crimes that could have been charged based on what is known.
At the very least. Not just carrying.
The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.
I think this depends on how you consider a "conspiracy" to be organized. If a conspiracy is a bunch of humans making explicit decisions about each of these incidents, it's laughable. However, if the "conspiracy" is in fact a bunch of automated tools created by a bunch of humans who all have similar biases in the same ideological direction (biases which happen to be ascendant on elite college campuses and/or in the Ba…
The conspiracy theorists just don't know about bad automated decisions made in the other direction because it's suppressed in their echo chamber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have a justice system if there are crimes like that. >So most people aren't feeling much sympathy for the fact that he died. The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.
Some leftists literally threw parties to celebrate the fact that Rush Limbaugh died from lung cancer. Where was the outrage then? People who think someone is worthless will celebrate their death regardless of their criminal record.
Source?
>Where was the outrage then?
You seemed to have been pretty outraged.
The title says independent live stream while this thread makes it clear it's right wingers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though. Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively pre…
That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain these details. And sorry for thinking you were trolling. I definitely regret chiming in. I don't like arguing on the internet, I genuinely haven't followed the case, and I was getting hit by more replies than I expected (that were leveling weird things against me based on the few words I said). My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is e…
There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).
The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.
i wonder whether Google/etc have already done A/B testing on how frequently and how visibly they need to have "repeated failure of automated tools" for the populace to get used to that idea instead of censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this depends on how you consider a "conspiracy" to be organized. If a conspiracy is a bunch of humans making explicit decisions about each of these incidents, it's laughable. However, if the "conspiracy" is in fact a bunch of automated tools created by a bunch of humans who all have similar biases in the same ideological direction (biases which happen to be ascendant on elite college campuses and/or in the Ba…
>However, if the "conspiracy" is in fact a bunch of automated tools created by a bunch of humans who all have similar biases in the same ideological direction (biases which happen to be ascendant on elite college campuses and/or in the Bay Area), then this is a fairly reasonable belief. The conspiracy theorists just don't know about bad automated decisions made in the other direction because it's suppressed in their…