761–770 of 799 posts
ACAB
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Preventing others from interfering should count, no? Sure, but that's not what you asked. I believe the other three will be charged and convicted. At least that what I hope will happen.
>> I believe the other three will be charged and convicted. At least that what I hope will happen. Sadly, "belief and hope" hasn't worked for entire swaths of the population. If "belief and hope" worked, we could just "hope" there wont be riots and everything would be merry. In reality, every two months something horrible happens happens and gets on the news. It probably happens much more than that and isn't on the n…
Any time a person is killed or treated wrongly is terrible and police should be held accountable. But I believe it is more to do with rotten people than it is a rotten system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote "Government says one thing so we're compliant, and then does another when it suits it". I never said people don't have the ability to change how the government enforces compliance, simply that they are the ones who do. Many people have died at the hands of other rioters as a result of the protests. I'm not saying that people needed to loose their eyes, but they were…
Who exactly are these "many people"? I haven't been able to find a source on this. When I checked yesterday, three protesters had been killed by people unrelated to the protest, and two people had been shot by some people driving around in a car (cannot work out how/whether that is related to the riots). There's a lot of energy being put into making this sound like it's more violent than it is, again, so that you agr…
> I'd hope that you would agree that the Government cannot unilaterally execute people, and that just sitting there while it does so is... completely immoral.
No of course I don't want the government executing people. But the death of George Floyd was the result of actions from one man, not of the entire government. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any member of the government that didn't see an issue with what happened.
[0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-gun-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange to see wild narratives on HN about police racism and violence that have no basis in reality.
> wild narratives on HN about police racism and violence You can see cops wilding out here From reddit: Please share this firing something at innocent person on their porch: https://streamable.com/u2jzoo cop appearing to be enjoying himself today: https://v.redd.it/jjclrdzp8x151 cop shooting something at guy for saying "fuck you": https://v.redd.it/zepg0b43ly151 cops breaking supplies for peaceful protestors: https:/…
Copying lists of videos is not an attempt at meaningful discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A man is murdered on the street by police and basically the system worked as it should. Fuck you.
Police officers are humans, believe it or not. Some of them are bad and that will always be true. Regarding your unnecessary insult at the end: Grow up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gotta love a three-hour old account trying to convince people that police racism and violence isn't real. Are we twitter now @dang? The astroturfing hasn't been subtle lately.
We've banned that account for breaking the site guidelines. But why are you breaking them yourself? Insinuations about astroturfing without evidence are not allowed, for reasons I've explained extensively (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... ). And obviously you shouldn't be responding like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23386438 . Doing that helps nothing; it only makes…
I understand that for controversial topics many people have deeply held beliefs and so experience a strong emotional reaction if they are questioned. It is easier to dismiss someone as a "troll" rather than examining why they hold these beliefs.
This was admittedly my lowest quality comment, but it is hard to see what was objectionable about the previous three comments, which were almost instantly flagged. The statistical evidence points to a very small role for racial bias in explaining differences in the use of deadly force by the police. What's wrong with pointing that out when it is directly relevant to the discussion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've banned that account for breaking the site guidelines. But why are you breaking them yourself? Insinuations about astroturfing without evidence are not allowed, for reasons I've explained extensively (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... ). And obviously you shouldn't be responding like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23386438 . Doing that helps nothing; it only makes…
How did I break site guidelines? The comment I was replying to made wildly exaggerated claims about police violence and racism. I am simply trying to improve the quality of discussion by focusing on what the evidence actually allows us to conclude. I understand that for controversial topics many people have deeply held beliefs and so experience a strong emotional reaction if they are questioned. It is easier to dismi…
We should expect police to us less use violence and improve their crowd management and deescalation skills. The increasing militarization of police is a trend that must be reversed. However, we should not neglect the other side of the equation either. This article is, in large part, about just that. The article points out that many protests in the U.S. went smoothly through the practice of police and protest organize…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In his defense, all technology is an instrument of political and ideological battle. If the site admins really want to enforce that guideline, then we should not be discussing current events here.
You might be misreading that guideline. It's not trying to exclude political discussion—only one form of it. Technological and political topics overlap ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... ). That's why politics has never been excluded from HN (other than an experiment we once briefly tried and quickly rolled back). Maybe your formulation of that overlap is the right one, maybe others are…
>And if you know a better way for HN moderation to relate to political topics, I'd really like to know what it is.
I would point out the /r/AskHistorians and /r/PoliticalDiscussion communities, which are surprisingly civil (at least for reddit). The latter community has guidelines for what makes a successful submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/wiki/posts . Both are mainly question driven, which I find refreshing. When we are reading news articles or research, the discussion can be extra reactionary and hyper-focused on the source and author, minor gaps in a study's coverage, or the specific circumstances of the story.