7 ms·

It's really important realize this distinction. Imagine a newspaper printing a letter to the editor from a person whose words have previously incited a riot.

It's really important realize this distinction. Imagine a newspaper printing a letter to the editor from a person whose words have previously incited a riot. I find it surprising that they enabled the account again at all after the 6th.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wp381640 6y ago
In the terrorism of the 60s through to the 90s a common demand in hostage situations was to have a letter read out in the media. The PFLP would do it, the Red Army Brigades, even the Unabomber demanded his manifesto be printed They needed to take hostages to get published because most media wouldn't air their messaging because of their support of violence In the modern age they'd all have free platforms and likely amplification.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- marshmellman 6y ago
  If they had a platform, wouldn’t they then not need to resort to violence to get their message heard? It seems like those are examples of censorship driving individuals to violence.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    You also can't rule out that if they had a platform, they'd use it to incite others to resort to violence on their behalf. For example, the Unabomber's manifesto expresses his belief that violence was necessary to provoke revolution against the technological society. The Unabomber's bombings were the "pre-violence" required to get his ideas out there, of which of which a violent revolution was one.
    - marshmellman 6y ago
      Agreed. It doesn’t seem obvious to me whether or not censoring results in less violence in the parent’s examples. Maybe it is obvious to those more well read on them.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ipsocannibal 6y ago
    Censorship driving people to violence in this case is much like a girl being pretty driving a goon to rape. The cause of the act in both cases is the perpetrators warped sense of ownership. Specifically ownership of other's thoughts, body, and time. They would feel entitled to that ownership whether met with resistence or not. In this case censorship seems reasonable otherwise you end up tacitly fostering the perpetrators view of ownership with your submission.
    - thefucnjosh 6y ago
      Given Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.
      - dang 6y ago
        Your account has been using the site primarily (exclusively even?) for political and ideological battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, regardless of which politics or ideology they're battling for (see [1] for more explanation). We have to, because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation, not smiting enemies. I've therefore banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
bra-ket 6y ago
mainstream media printed front page articles inciting BLM riots for months. Why the double standard?
- lixtra 6y ago
  You should at least give an example to such a claim.
  - lodi 6y ago
    https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178... "[Looting] also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories. So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free." "Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police. It gets to the very root of the way those three things are interconnected. And also it provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be. And I think that's a part of it that doesn't really get talked about — that riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory." "But there's also another factor, which is anti-Blackness and contempt for poor people who want to live a better life, which looting immediately provides. One thing about looting is it freaks people out. But in terms of potential crimes that people can commit against the state, it's basically nonviolent. You're mass shoplifting. Most stores are insured; it's just hurting insurance companies on some level. It's just money. It's just property. It's not actually hurting any people."
    - ABeeSea 6y ago
      What newspaper or website was that article on the “front page” of? The “code switch” podcast on NPR isn’t front page of anything.
hrbf 6y ago
I believe they did so to fire a warning shot, to be able to argue later that they were not banning immediately. I bet they knew that guy wouldn’t be able to keep his thumbs in his pockets – and that’s 100% on him.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
The NYT published Osama Bin Laden's Letter to America after 9/11 and it is still a very important piece of history. It gives real insight into the thoughts of someone overseas who's seen the policy outcomes of American foreign policy that most Americans at the time were totally unaware of and why it provoked them into taking drastic (and horrible, terrible, wrong) measures. People aren't stupid. They can read and understand and make their own decisions about stuff.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wp381640 6y ago

In the terrorism of the 60s through to the 90s a common demand in hostage situations was to have a letter read out in the media. The PFLP would do it, the Red Army Brigades, even the Unabomber demanded his manifesto be printed They needed to take hostages to get published because most media wouldn't air their messaging because of their support of violence In the modern age they'd all have free platforms and likely amplification.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
marshmellman 6y ago
If they had a platform, wouldn’t they then not need to resort to violence to get their message heard? It seems like those are examples of censorship driving individuals to violence.
- phs318u 6y ago
  You also can't rule out that if they had a platform, they'd use it to incite others to resort to violence on their behalf. For example, the Unabomber's manifesto expresses his belief that violence was necessary to provoke revolution against the technological society. The Unabomber's bombings were the "pre-violence" required to get his ideas out there, of which of which a violent revolution was one.
  - marshmellman 6y ago
    Agreed. It doesn’t seem obvious to me whether or not censoring results in less violence in the parent’s examples. Maybe it is obvious to those more well read on them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ipsocannibal 6y ago
  Censorship driving people to violence in this case is much like a girl being pretty driving a goon to rape. The cause of the act in both cases is the perpetrators warped sense of ownership. Specifically ownership of other's thoughts, body, and time. They would feel entitled to that ownership whether met with resistence or not. In this case censorship seems reasonable otherwise you end up tacitly fostering the perpetrators view of ownership with your submission.
  - thefucnjosh 6y ago
    Given Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.
    - dang 6y ago
      Your account has been using the site primarily (exclusively even?) for political and ideological battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, regardless of which politics or ideology they're battling for (see [1] for more explanation). We have to, because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation, not smiting enemies. I've therefore banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

bra-ket 6y ago

mainstream media printed front page articles inciting BLM riots for months. Why the double standard?

lixtra 6y ago
You should at least give an example to such a claim.
- lodi 6y ago
  https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178... "[Looting] also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories. So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free." "Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police. It gets to the very root of the way those three things are interconnected. And also it provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be. And I think that's a part of it that doesn't really get talked about — that riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory." "But there's also another factor, which is anti-Blackness and contempt for poor people who want to live a better life, which looting immediately provides. One thing about looting is it freaks people out. But in terms of potential crimes that people can commit against the state, it's basically nonviolent. You're mass shoplifting. Most stores are insured; it's just hurting insurance companies on some level. It's just money. It's just property. It's not actually hurting any people."
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    What newspaper or website was that article on the “front page” of? The “code switch” podcast on NPR isn’t front page of anything.

hrbf 6y ago

I believe they did so to fire a warning shot, to be able to argue later that they were not banning immediately. I bet they knew that guy wouldn’t be able to keep his thumbs in his pockets – and that’s 100% on him.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

The NYT published Osama Bin Laden's Letter to America after 9/11 and it is still a very important piece of history. It gives real insight into the thoughts of someone overseas who's seen the policy outcomes of American foreign policy that most Americans at the time were totally unaware of and why it provoked them into taking drastic (and horrible, terrible, wrong) measures. People aren't stupid. They can read and understand and make their own decisions about stuff.