8 ms·

There is interest in OSINT but my comment could be misconstrued as supportive of or normalizing LE practises so that upsets a very vocal interest group on the I

There is interest in OSINT but my comment could be misconstrued as supportive of or normalizing LE practises so that upsets a very vocal interest group on the Internet.

mmm_grayons 6y ago
I mean, I don't think even the internet nut-jobs support torching police cars... Edit: Ouch, looks like quite a few people here do. Do y'all really think that's the best way to effect social and political change? A minority of Americans screaming louder and using terrorism to vent their spleens won't solve the issue. In a democracy, everyone must focus on getting more people to vote for different policies to effect change.
- def8cefe 6y ago
  Oh they do. I'm from the Toronto area and I remember quite well the G20 riots of 2010. People were applauding the arson of TPS cruisers on the Internet. There are almost 7 billion people on this planet and at least a third of them have Internet access. Any fringe opinion a person could have has been expressed at least once.
- dx87 6y ago
  Depending on the reason for protest, police cars and government buildings are some of the only things it makes sense to burn down IMO. With the recent protests against police and government racism, for example, I'd understand them burning things belonging to the people oppressing them rather than stores and businesses that provide jobs and services for people in the area.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    I mean people are torching stuff in entirely different cities. It's not like they're torching chauvin's car then going home. Still illegal, but I guess I could understand the process behind that. Burning some cop car in Atlanta, what? That's just mob rage.
    - malnourish 6y ago
      I think that dismisses the very real impact long term systemic racism has had. Additionally, a black man was just (allegedly, charges have been filed) murdered by the police after a a police officer shot him in the back and another stood on his shoulders while he was dying. There is justifiable outrage. I do not condone wanton destruction and arson, but disruptive protests work in a way that peaceful ones alone do not.
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        No, they don't. They discredit the legitimate point that many state actors wantonly use excessive force in the minds of most Americans. Nobody will listen to proposals while he's worried about his things being destroyed. Nobody is going to vote for reform under the threat of having his business burned or his neighborhood terrorized. Using violence to achieve a political aim is terrorism, and will never achieve long-term social change. All it will do is prompt a backlash and close most Americans' minds to what is otherwise a legitimate grievance.
        eveningcoffee 6y ago
        Sure it will when you use enough of it. Remember October revolution, Cultural revolution. You first have to eliminate your direct political opponents. Then you eliminate your allied but potential political opponents. Then you eliminate your possible political opponents from the general population. One of such systems collapsed but the other is still flourishing.
        mixmastamyk 6y ago
        There's a list out there of dozens of things the protests have accomplished. Fear of rioting was a factor.
        jtbayly 6y ago
        What is this list? I guess I can think of a few things—tearing down a statue or two, getting a few people killed, destroying a few businesses, getting a few product names changed. And getting a couple people charged rightly and a couple probably charged wrongly. Getting one city to get rid of police. Ok. I’m not sold.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  No, but they _are_ shooting LEOs https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-right-boogaloo-boys-linked-to-killing-of-california-lawmen-other-violence https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-righ...
  - zaroth 6y ago
    We've seen quite a few police shot, some of them killed, in just the last couple weeks. Mostly premeditated murder and attempted premeditated murder.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  Oh hell I personally know people who openly and in in-person conversations support torching police cars.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  I think if and when the time comes for civil unrest, if LEO continues to go Hong Kong in America, targets for destruction should be the tools of the enemy, not local business.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Many people who are not "internet nut-jobs" support violent protest when necessary. we've had many years of "voting to effect change" already, and it hasn't worked! Recall the four boxes of democracy: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. If you get to the ammo box, you can damn well bet there's going to be violence. In this particular case, I do find some of the violence justified, and I think it has more effect than a simple non-violent protest would. We get to see exactly how police respond when a few thousand dollars worth of property is being damaged versus when they have someone's life in their hands. The police are digging themselves into a hole here, and it's glorious. That said, we aren't at the point where violence against people is a legitimate form of protest. In self defense, sure, but protesters should not, at this point, be attacking people. Burn down all the Targets, police stations, and cop cars you want. Let it be the cops who do all the violence against people. That's what's actually going to get peoples' attention.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    Something tells me you wouldn't support this were it your business being burned. They're gonna run into some roof Koreans, get shot, then more people will get mad even though it's completely justifiable to defend one's property with lethal force from an angry mob.
    - SauciestGNU 6y ago
      It's actually not justifiable to protect property with lethal force, and doing so is unlawful in many jurisdictions. Protecting the life of yourself and others is a justifiable reason to use lethal force. I'm trying to be charitable here, so I will ask you to reflect on the reasons why you think protecting replaceable (or even irreplaceable) property is worth extinguishing a human life.
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        I'm aware that most states don't allow for it, though in Texas, my home state, that's somewhat in question and may be allowed[0][1] under certain circumstances. Regardless of the current legal situation, I believe all states ought to allow deadly force to defend or recapture property. In light of your magnanimous question (inquiring after the views of another is called conversation, not charity), here's my rationale as to why one is justified in using lethal force to defend property. Let's take an extreme case: Say I'm an immigrant from a third-world nation who arrives in America at a young age. I spend my life working to build a successful small business. I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into it. Now, someone comes along, full of "justified anger" and ready to burn it down. By doing this, he is destroying a huge portion of my life. While this is less severe than murder, it's on the same spectrum of evil; one is destroying another's entire life, the other, only part of another's life. Therefore, a man is justified in any amount of force necessary to protect his property. I'm aware this isn't a common way to view, but I'm happy to answer more questions and defend it further. I don't believe life has any absolute importance over property because property represents a part of another life. While a person represents more life than a thing in most cases, a thief or arsonist forfeits his rights by committing crimes against another. [0]: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3161145627178569736 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=316114562717856...
- nkurz 6y ago
  > Ouch, looks like quite a few people here do. Do y'all really think that's the best way to effect social and political change? If it makes you feel a little better about the world, I downvoted you because I thought you were wrong that no one supports this, not at all because I support burning police cars. I've definitely seen lots of support online that accepts the destruction of police (aka public) property as a legitimate (or at least expected) form of protest, and am surprised that you haven't. So yes, there are supporters, but possibly not quite as many as it would first appear.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    I read one article in Jacobin, an interview with an individual who rationalized it: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/frances-fox-piven-protests-movement-racial-justice https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/frances-fox-piven-protests-mo... However, I haven't really seen others support it, aside from the obvious lunatics on television (many of whom simply want to grab free stuff). I'm not sure which sites I'd have needed to frequent to see such support, but I'm always looking to expand my knowledge base, so would appreciate a few recommendations.
    - nkurz 6y ago
      > would appreciate a few recommendations I'm reluctant to give my best recommendation, because it's a fragile community, but hopefully this thread is far enough along that it doesn't have a lot of traffic at this point. Currently, the discussion at http://slatestarcodex.com http://slatestarcodex.com is the best that I've found on the internet for hearing intelligent views from people I otherwise disagree with. The "open threads" are very long, and contain a lot (50%?) of dross, but there are also a lot of gems within them. Post-Floyd, I was surprised by how many people whose opinions I generally respect were at least conditionally supportive of burning the police precinct office in Minneapolis. If you are interested in this question, you could pose it there. It would be considered "culture war", and thus only acceptable in the "fractional" open threads. That is, the ones that end with ".25", ".5", or ".75". To reduce visibility, these aren't officially listed on the front page, but are available from the Recent Posts or from the Archives link. Create an account, post the question there in as fair and open-ended a manner as you can, and I think you'd get good responses.
dvtrn 6y ago
I’m gonna be the controversial voice who says anyone who misconstrues that specific previous comment as being supportive or normalizing unethical law enforcement practices probably is probably misconstruing willfully and intentionally.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
For better or worse, those practices are already normalized. Average analyst at most FIs has good Google-fu skills and would likely be able to connect the dots as described in the article. I think you are right about HN bias in this area. Heavens know I don't like it the same way I don't like cop porn. That said, it is hard to argue with your point.

There is interest in OSINT but my comment could be misconstrued as supportive of or normalizing LE practises so that upsets a very vocal interest group on the Internet.

mmm_grayons 6y ago

I mean, I don't think even the internet nut-jobs support torching police cars... Edit: Ouch, looks like quite a few people here do. Do y'all really think that's the best way to effect social and political change? A minority of Americans screaming louder and using terrorism to vent their spleens won't solve the issue. In a democracy, everyone must focus on getting more people to vote for different policies to effect change.

def8cefe 6y ago
Oh they do. I'm from the Toronto area and I remember quite well the G20 riots of 2010. People were applauding the arson of TPS cruisers on the Internet. There are almost 7 billion people on this planet and at least a third of them have Internet access. Any fringe opinion a person could have has been expressed at least once.
dx87 6y ago
Depending on the reason for protest, police cars and government buildings are some of the only things it makes sense to burn down IMO. With the recent protests against police and government racism, for example, I'd understand them burning things belonging to the people oppressing them rather than stores and businesses that provide jobs and services for people in the area.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  I mean people are torching stuff in entirely different cities. It's not like they're torching chauvin's car then going home. Still illegal, but I guess I could understand the process behind that. Burning some cop car in Atlanta, what? That's just mob rage.
  - malnourish 6y ago
    I think that dismisses the very real impact long term systemic racism has had. Additionally, a black man was just (allegedly, charges have been filed) murdered by the police after a a police officer shot him in the back and another stood on his shoulders while he was dying. There is justifiable outrage. I do not condone wanton destruction and arson, but disruptive protests work in a way that peaceful ones alone do not.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      No, they don't. They discredit the legitimate point that many state actors wantonly use excessive force in the minds of most Americans. Nobody will listen to proposals while he's worried about his things being destroyed. Nobody is going to vote for reform under the threat of having his business burned or his neighborhood terrorized. Using violence to achieve a political aim is terrorism, and will never achieve long-term social change. All it will do is prompt a backlash and close most Americans' minds to what is otherwise a legitimate grievance.
      - eveningcoffee 6y ago
        Sure it will when you use enough of it. Remember October revolution, Cultural revolution. You first have to eliminate your direct political opponents. Then you eliminate your allied but potential political opponents. Then you eliminate your possible political opponents from the general population. One of such systems collapsed but the other is still flourishing.
      - mixmastamyk 6y ago
        There's a list out there of dozens of things the protests have accomplished. Fear of rioting was a factor.
        jtbayly 6y ago
        What is this list? I guess I can think of a few things—tearing down a statue or two, getting a few people killed, destroying a few businesses, getting a few product names changed. And getting a couple people charged rightly and a couple probably charged wrongly. Getting one city to get rid of police. Ok. I’m not sold.
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
No, but they _are_ shooting LEOs https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-right-boogaloo-boys-linked-to-killing-of-california-lawmen-other-violence https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-righ...
- zaroth 6y ago
  We've seen quite a few police shot, some of them killed, in just the last couple weeks. Mostly premeditated murder and attempted premeditated murder.
TallGuyShort 6y ago
Oh hell I personally know people who openly and in in-person conversations support torching police cars.
unethical_ban 6y ago
I think if and when the time comes for civil unrest, if LEO continues to go Hong Kong in America, targets for destruction should be the tools of the enemy, not local business.
pmiller2 6y ago
Many people who are not "internet nut-jobs" support violent protest when necessary. we've had many years of "voting to effect change" already, and it hasn't worked! Recall the four boxes of democracy: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. If you get to the ammo box, you can damn well bet there's going to be violence. In this particular case, I do find some of the violence justified, and I think it has more effect than a simple non-violent protest would. We get to see exactly how police respond when a few thousand dollars worth of property is being damaged versus when they have someone's life in their hands. The police are digging themselves into a hole here, and it's glorious. That said, we aren't at the point where violence against people is a legitimate form of protest. In self defense, sure, but protesters should not, at this point, be attacking people. Burn down all the Targets, police stations, and cop cars you want. Let it be the cops who do all the violence against people. That's what's actually going to get peoples' attention.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  Something tells me you wouldn't support this were it your business being burned. They're gonna run into some roof Koreans, get shot, then more people will get mad even though it's completely justifiable to defend one's property with lethal force from an angry mob.
  - SauciestGNU 6y ago
    It's actually not justifiable to protect property with lethal force, and doing so is unlawful in many jurisdictions. Protecting the life of yourself and others is a justifiable reason to use lethal force. I'm trying to be charitable here, so I will ask you to reflect on the reasons why you think protecting replaceable (or even irreplaceable) property is worth extinguishing a human life.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      I'm aware that most states don't allow for it, though in Texas, my home state, that's somewhat in question and may be allowed[0][1] under certain circumstances. Regardless of the current legal situation, I believe all states ought to allow deadly force to defend or recapture property. In light of your magnanimous question (inquiring after the views of another is called conversation, not charity), here's my rationale as to why one is justified in using lethal force to defend property. Let's take an extreme case: Say I'm an immigrant from a third-world nation who arrives in America at a young age. I spend my life working to build a successful small business. I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into it. Now, someone comes along, full of "justified anger" and ready to burn it down. By doing this, he is destroying a huge portion of my life. While this is less severe than murder, it's on the same spectrum of evil; one is destroying another's entire life, the other, only part of another's life. Therefore, a man is justified in any amount of force necessary to protect his property. I'm aware this isn't a common way to view, but I'm happy to answer more questions and defend it further. I don't believe life has any absolute importance over property because property represents a part of another life. While a person represents more life than a thing in most cases, a thief or arsonist forfeits his rights by committing crimes against another. [0]: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3161145627178569736 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=316114562717856...
nkurz 6y ago
> Ouch, looks like quite a few people here do. Do y'all really think that's the best way to effect social and political change? If it makes you feel a little better about the world, I downvoted you because I thought you were wrong that no one supports this, not at all because I support burning police cars. I've definitely seen lots of support online that accepts the destruction of police (aka public) property as a legitimate (or at least expected) form of protest, and am surprised that you haven't. So yes, there are supporters, but possibly not quite as many as it would first appear.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  I read one article in Jacobin, an interview with an individual who rationalized it: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/frances-fox-piven-protests-movement-racial-justice https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/frances-fox-piven-protests-mo... However, I haven't really seen others support it, aside from the obvious lunatics on television (many of whom simply want to grab free stuff). I'm not sure which sites I'd have needed to frequent to see such support, but I'm always looking to expand my knowledge base, so would appreciate a few recommendations.
  - nkurz 6y ago
    > would appreciate a few recommendations I'm reluctant to give my best recommendation, because it's a fragile community, but hopefully this thread is far enough along that it doesn't have a lot of traffic at this point. Currently, the discussion at http://slatestarcodex.com http://slatestarcodex.com is the best that I've found on the internet for hearing intelligent views from people I otherwise disagree with. The "open threads" are very long, and contain a lot (50%?) of dross, but there are also a lot of gems within them. Post-Floyd, I was surprised by how many people whose opinions I generally respect were at least conditionally supportive of burning the police precinct office in Minneapolis. If you are interested in this question, you could pose it there. It would be considered "culture war", and thus only acceptable in the "fractional" open threads. That is, the ones that end with ".25", ".5", or ".75". To reduce visibility, these aren't officially listed on the front page, but are available from the Recent Posts or from the Archives link. Create an account, post the question there in as fair and open-ended a manner as you can, and I think you'd get good responses.

dvtrn 6y ago

I’m gonna be the controversial voice who says anyone who misconstrues that specific previous comment as being supportive or normalizing unethical law enforcement practices probably is probably misconstruing willfully and intentionally.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

For better or worse, those practices are already normalized. Average analyst at most FIs has good Google-fu skills and would likely be able to connect the dots as described in the article. I think you are right about HN bias in this area. Heavens know I don't like it the same way I don't like cop porn. That said, it is hard to argue with your point.