9 ms·
White nationalists tend to delete their own videos when they think it will become evidence. Luckily people saved a lot of footage from Charlottesville and hopef
by Raed667 6y ago
White nationalists tend to delete their own videos when they think it will become evidence. Luckily people saved a lot of footage from Charlottesville and hopefully it will be the same for the videos from the Capitol.
- rvz 6y agoWell its both sides of the political spectrum; not just limited to one side. Actually, it's more like those who are guilty like deleting their own recordings, messages and pictures off of social media after the event is broadcasted all over the world, including the Proud Boys, BLM, Antifa and Patriot Prayer.
- jeffbee 6y agoYes, that time Antifa stormed the US capitol, they erased their tracks so thoroughly that virtually all Americans are still unaware that it ever happened!
- mustacheemperor 6y agoNobody above equivocated antifa to today’s rioters in any way except to the shared human tendency to delete self-incriminating evidence. Please don’t do this here.
- zorpner 6y agoLiterally Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) asserted that today's rioters were antifa, a few hours ago. Please stop spreading disinformation.
- polka_haunts_us 6y agoWhich of the above users is Matt Gaetz exactly?
- zorpner 6y agoIt appears the user I was responding to added the word "above" to their comment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mustacheemperor 6y agoApologies, you must have seen my comment in the 90 seconds - 3 minutes between my post and my edit. I replied to another user to explain in, hopefully adequate enough detail, that I did not in any means attempt to equivocate yesterday's rioters to antifa, BLM protestors, or the participants of the George Floyd protests. My only intention was to maybe prevent a flamewar from erupting in these comments.
- js2 6y ago"both sides"
- mustacheemperor 6y agoI absolutely reject the 'both sides' characterization of American politics and so I will post the same reply I made to another user to attempt to clarify what I meant above. Because I absolutely, 100%, do not intend to equivocate the rioters with the George Floyd protestors and I am easy enough to dox that should be real-life verifiable (one reason I feel obliged to clarify my point here, so I remain on the right side of history). A user noted there is a 'similar archive' for both events. Another user noted both groups delete self-incriminating evidence. The user I replied to fired off a response I thought would have been appropriate if someone in the thread had said something like "antifa rioters are just as bad" or "just as much incriminating evidence was probably deleted after the George Floyd protests." I think a key thing is I didn't read "similar archive" to mean "an archive of illegal activity by non-police", I took it to mean "an archive of all the stuff that happened that people would want to delete." In the case of the George Floyd protests, often police brutality deleted by PDs, their supporters, etc. I'm not intending some 'both sides' equivocation here. I'm saying I didn't see the people I replied to further up the thread as making that equivocation, I saw them as saying: People who record themselves doing something incriminating will probably delete it after, both groups contain people. My goal was to say: hey, take a beat. We don't need a flamewar over this yet. Reading now, I can see how someone could read that to mean I am sympathetic to the notion that the BLM protests or George Floyd protests included groups of criminals or people behaving criminally in a way that is comparable to yesterday's events, so let me make it clear in bold point type that I do NOT. It is possible those users did intend to draw that equivocation, which I think would be completely wrong of them. I am not remotely attempting to defend the actions of the rioters yesterday or to in any way characterize the George Floyd protests or BLM protests at large as remotely comparable or equivocal to the riots yesterday. I am not parroting a 'both sides' talking point. I am reiterating this a lot, because I got a lot of hatemail for this comment. The only thing I am saying is: Most human beings who record themselves doing something they afterwards find dumb or incriminating will be likely to delete it. A user pointing out that two different political factions contain human beings subject to common human behaviors does not necessarily justify a political flamewar. I understand why that was read differently by some users, so in hindsight I should have just downvoted the flamebait and moved on as usual.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoTop comment (“above”) currently reads “ Similar archive of clips + streams from the George Floyd protests”. That was posted 40 minutes before your comment, as the very first comment. Yeah, it’s a different thread. Still hard to miss as context for a good-faith interpretation of the comment you’re replying to. Which I believe we do do here.
- mustacheemperor 6y agoI was responding with that context. A user noted there is a 'similar archive' for both events. Another user noted both groups delete self-incriminating evidence. The user I replied to fired off a response I thought would have been appropriate if someone in the thread had actually said anything remotely like "antifa rioters are just as bad" or "just as much incriminating evidence was probably deleted after the George Floyd protests." I think a key thing is I didn't read "similar archive" to mean "an archive of illegal activity by non-police", I took it to mean "an archive of all the stuff that happened that people would want to delete." In the case of the George Floyd protests, often police brutality deleted by PDs, their supporters, etc. I'm not intending some 'both sides' equivocation here. I'm saying I didn't see the people I replied to further up the thread as making that equivocation, I saw them as saying: People who record themselves doing something incriminating will probably delete it after. My goal was to say: hey, take a beat. We don't need a flamewar over this yet. Reading now, I can see how someone could read that to mean I am sympathetic to the notion that the BLM protests or George Floyd protests included groups of criminals or people behaving criminally in a way that is comparable to yesterday's events, so let me make it clear in bold point type that I do NOT. It is possible those users did intend to draw that equivocation, which I think would be completely wrong of them. I am not remotely attempting to defend the actions of the rioters yesterday or to in any way characterize the George Floyd protests or BLM protests at large as remotely comparable or equivocal to the riots yesterday. I am not parroting a 'both sides' talking point. I am reiterating this a lot, because I got a lot of hatemail for this comment. The only thing I am saying is: Most human beings who record themselves doing something they afterwards find dumb or incriminating will be likely to delete it. A user pointing out that two different political factions contain human beings subject to common human behaviors does not necessarily justify a political flamewar. I understand why that was read differently by some users, so in hindsight I should have just downvoted the flamebait and moved on as usual.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nostromo 6y agoThey got pretty close to doing exactly that at the White House. It was clear that was their aim, the White House just has better security. Of course our wise political leaders in congress took that as an opportunity to dunk on Trump as a weak leader who is hiding in a bunker. Many of the same politicians that fled the Capitol today. I’m so tired of folks excusing their preferred rioting marauders while condemning their counterpart’s. They both suck. This is happening because our cities have let it happen - violent political tantrums have been normalized.
- aksss 6y agoThis. Our media spends years affirming that rioting is an acceptable reaction to feeling disenfranchised and here we are. I condemn it (all rioters) but can’t say I’m surprised.
- kenjackson 6y agoArrest all of the ones who illegal stepped foot on federal grounds. Antifa, Trumpets, BLM, Girl Scouts. All of them.
- newguy1234 6y agoAnd where are we going to get all these jail cells exactly?
- kenjackson 6y agoWe can deal with that issue when we get there.
- dariusj18 6y agoWe've not shied away from chain link cages before, why start now?
- cafard 6y agoShoot, there's a big Antifa monument right behind the executive compound! It is a monument to the 1st Division of the United States Army, whose service in North Africa and Sicily contributed to the fall of the original fascist regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Division_Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Division_Monument
- neartheplain 6y agoLet's not make light of terrorists who have killed people. Many remain unaware that four city blocks of Seattle were occupied for a month by gunmen with assault rifles [0][1][2], or that those self-identified antifa gunmen shot and killed an unarmed black kid [3], or that antifa Twitter celebrated the killing and their shooter's "beautiful shot placement" [4] until it turned out they'd murdered a black kid instead of imaginary white supremacists. Note the now-deleted tweet's many likes and retweets. The murdered kid's name was Antonio Mays Jr., and despite or perhaps because of [5] the many antifa eyewitnesses to the shooting, his killer remains at large. That's just CHAZ/CHOP. I haven't even mentioned Michael Reinoehl, Matthew Dolloff, Jesse Taggart, and others. For some reason these incidents rapidly slipped from public view, or were never a focus at all. Fortunately the relevant livestreams, tweets, and video clips have all been archived. Many of the original sources for the CHAZ/CHOP shootings are now unavailable. I encourage everyone to use tools like youtube-dl and archive-dot-is. Even if a clip, tweet, or stream doesn't seem to embarrass its owner or violate a platform's TOS, it may always get deleted for some other reason. If you want to refer to it later, always archive. [0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/chop-shooting-seattle-defund-police https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/chop-shooting-seattle-defu... [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/after-early-morning-shooting-in-chop-occupied-area-returns-to-its-new-normal/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/after-early-mornin... [2] https://www.the-sun.com/news/980814/heavily-armed-leftist-gun-club-seattle-chaz/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/980814/heavily-armed-leftist-gu... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/seattle-protests-CHOP-CHAZ-autonomous-zone.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/seattle-protests-CHOP-... [4] https://archive.is/D0fZs https://archive.is/D0fZs [5] https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1282703884721348609 https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1282703884721348609
- standardUser 6y agoPeople might be a lot more sympathetic to factual criticism of left wing political violence if mainstream Republican politicians didn't frequently lie about it, up to and including politicians today who are claiming that Antifa was responsible for the attack on the US Capitol. When so many loud (and often elected) voices say Antifa or BLM have "burned cities down" or other such outright fabrications, it's hard to take the genuine criticism seriously.
- giantDinosaur 6y agoI'm curious: who wouldn't delete their own videos if they thought they'd become evidence? Is that not a common strategy? Not sure how many people would like to end up in court just for the headlines.
- Jare 6y agoTrump?
- raxxorrax 6y agoWhy delete all these valuable promotions?
- input_sh 6y agoI wouldn't upload them in the first place.
- Raed667 6y agoBecause they also simultaneously tend to use them as propaganda.
- r00fus 6y agoHow about they don't do acts that will get video'd when you know it will become evidence? If it's distributed some way through the internet the cat's already out of the bag.
- bluntfang 6y agoseriously. cops just turn their cameras off
- vixen99 6y agoAm I correct in thinking that the Democratics have hitherto been against facial recognition software? If so, will they be changing their minds?
- mmcclure 6y agoThey shouldn't need to, a lot of these folks are posting these selfies and such to a certain social media site that requires government-issued ID.
- derekdahmer 6y agoWhat social media site requires an ID?
- gonzo41 6y agoNot really against facial recognition, also the cats out of the bag really, but more want there to be effective rules around it's use and for there to be some evidentiary standard used with it. Identifying criminals after the crime with FR is totally fine. using fuzzy facial matches for strict liability infringement policing / revenue raising is not ok. It's a space that's due for some sensible legislation.
- raxxorrax 6y agoBut why spend money on it when it doesn't solve problems with crime? Don't come back crying when crime statistics don't match your ideals and please pay for it yourself. There will be millions getting sunk in infrastructure for something politicians try to sell their voters for years: the perception of safety. To me, this seems just dumb. Install a camera in your home, it will probably scare burglars, but I wouldn't expect much for broad deployment in public spaces. For violent crime it will do nothing, analogous to stronger sentences not working. There will be countless security firms that will sell you the gadgets. But at that point you already became a victim in my opinion.
- sparkling 6y agoI saw plenty of black/latino people on the videos, don't really think the events today were about race
- ant6n 6y agoAfter all, the noose on display outside of the capital is a symbol it diversity. /s
- tpoacher 6y agoAgreed, but, so far these videos seem to be of the opposite intent (i.e. "evidence" that the protests were "peaceful" before media "misrepresents" them).