16 ms·

>The Capitol Attack Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? S

>The Capitol Attack Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk? Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."

8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
idk how to tell you this in a way you'll listen to but doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.
- purec 6y ago
  You can't use "good intentions" to justify horrific actions.
  - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
    ya man what they did to that target was an atrocity lol someone call the hague
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    The idea that you can do so is pretty fundamental in politics. It's how the federal government justified the US Civil War, for example, and how the Founding Fathers justified a lot of things that tend to get glossed over in grade school history books. The debate ultimately hinges on sympathies. For someone who wholeheartedly supports BLM, the riots might be regarded as something that was regrettable, but also understandable. In the words of Martin Luther King, "A riot is the language of the unheard." The observation also works in the direction of the Capitol insurrection. The rioters were there because they believed that their opinion on the election was not being heard. Deciding which group had more grounds to be angry is left as an exercise for the reader.
- a-posteriori 6y ago
  Violence is categorically bad, regardless of what the intentions are. Referring to violence as "doing things" purposely avoids recognizing this.
  - bananabreakfast 6y ago
    The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Agreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.
      - loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive peaceful: 1. free from disturbance; tranquil. 2. not involving war or violence.
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        The protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)
- trident5000 6y ago
  You do realize that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and bad right? I cant believe how naive this statement is.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Golly it's just so hard to know who to trust. The crowds protesting racial injustice and police brutality? Or the literal, self identifying nazis, white supremacists, and cultish conspiracy theorists trying to kill political leaders. Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective. edit: to the below, really, no. There's no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis, your group is, at best, nazi adjacent. Nazis are the hyperbolic euphemism of peak historical immorality. It is preposterous that anyone feels they're making a good faith argument throwing whatabout comparisons when the starting point is nazis.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views. Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.
      - multjoy 6y ago
        The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?
        trident5000 6y ago
        Continuing to prove my point. "wide brushes of their opposing views" Thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi because you saw a a guy with a t-shirt is something stupid people do.
- RobRivera 6y ago
  from my point of view, the jedi are evil
- pjc50 6y ago
  Hacker news seems to really struggle with this, partly because there are still Trump supporters here somehow.
  - chillingeffect 6y ago
    > somehow Computing has long been an interplay of curious, light-hearted hacker types and business/military types. e.g. Woz/Yannes/Stoll/Stallman and Jobs/DARPA/Musk/Thiel. I don't think the values of skill, sacrifice, daring, and greed (sorry if that offends anyone) that roughly underlie HN are effective filters to remove Trump values. In fact, they move the needle toward the business/military side. HN appreciates the fun hacks, but, by design, amplifies the business side.
- refurb 6y ago
  “The ends justify the means”?
- imgabe 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure the guy burning down someone's small business and looting television sets was doing it with the intention that it would stop police brutality.
- seneca 6y ago
  > doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad. "Things are justified because I support them or unjustified because I don't support them". This is how children and narcissists think. Reality is that a lot of arguments are really this with a layer or two of post-hoc justification though. I can't tell if this post was meant as a joke, but if it wasn't it's either impressively self-aware or completely and utterly lacking self-awareness.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Pfhreak 6y ago
> Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months This sentence fragment appears deliberately vague and it assumes the conclusion. Compare, for example, "The Capitol Attack" vs "Right Wing Violence in America". One references a specific event with specific actors, the other is a vague non-specific description of a phenomena that may or may not exist. I'd encourage you to be more specific -- which instances of fires and looting do you feel were not adequately described as attacks? Who is failing to describe them, again, specifically. Right now, this does not read like you are interested in discussing this in good faith.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  What about CHAZ/CHOP? -Armed protestors took over government buildings and city blocks -Promoted/condoned/excused by government officials -Lots of violence and murder
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct... And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with? In my experience it was umbrellas and loud voices. And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time.
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      >Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct Isn't the east precinct a government building? >And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with? Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/ >And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time. How many people were shot within the protest zone by occupants of CHAZ versus police over that time? By my count, it seems 5:0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone#Shootings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone...
dylan-m 6y ago
- The BLM movement is, while poorly framed and easily co-opted by other people, about genuine problems with policing in the United States. Problems that are backed up with verifiable facts rather than scummy used car salesmen and the Inventor of Email™. - The BLM movement, while the source of many large large scale protests (several of which turned into riots and outstayed their welcome) never, at any point, even pretended to stage a coup or murder a member of the Capitol Police.
- trident5000 6y ago
  What are the verifiable facts again? Do you have alternative statistics because they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying. The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. I hate to be stone cold but that's my understanding of what unfolded. We witnessed something similar in 2015.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    > they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view
    - trident5000 6y ago
      "You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s" what is the context of this joke Im not following. I stated a fact (FBI statistics) and then an opinion. Are we allowed to do that on the internet?
      - hanniabu 6y ago
        The context of that joke is that you, just like him, stated a claim with no source.
tareqak 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg > Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001,[5] his final day in office.[6][7] She was charged, served some of her time (16 years of 58 years is 27.586%), and then a president pardoned her.
- mooseburger 6y ago
  Doesn't appear to be a pardon, which involves the conviction being expunged. Commuting a sentence means more like "you have been punished enough, but we were right to punish you". A pardon is "we were wrong to punish you".
  - tareqak 6y ago
    Oh sorry, you are correct. The president commuted her sentence. I got confused with pardons today.
prions 6y ago
Nice to see Trump/Russia talking points being copied almost word-for-word on hackernews.
- deepspace 6y ago
  And getting up-voted too. I thought the BLM=Looters talking point was debunked a long time ago, given that BLM protests took place mainly in the daytime, while the looting was done by thugs, at night, after the protesters went home. So it is very strange to see that narrative being taken at face value here.
  - refurb 6y ago
    So you’re able to clearly separate out the bad actors from BLM, but apparently not with Trump supporters?
    - dmix 6y ago
      ‘Even the bad actors aren’t really that bad because they support a cause I see as valuable’ seems to be the primary excuse floating around on here. All political violence should be treated equally. I also think that all races/genders/etc should be treated equally but even that has become taboo in progressive circles. Which is probably using the same sort of mental gymnastics that justifies some violence but not vilifies others.
      - bilbo0s 6y ago
        I also think that all races/genders/etc should be treated equally but even that has become taboo in progressive circles. Problem is, it's always been taboo in conservative circles as well. That is the great problem of our day. All these political ideologues espouse beliefs contrary to the good of large numbers of people in our society. They give speeches about how it's not "us" but the other side who are the bad guys, but then they all send their pet terrorists out to riot, loot, and in the case of the capitol attackers gather intel to hand over to our nation's adversaries. These political extremists are simply bad people all the way around. No matter what way you look at it.
exmicrosoldier 6y ago
Thank you for the first legitimate critique of the Black Lives Matter organization that I've seen. I don't think it invalidates all of the points of the platform of BLM, but it does make me question the sanity and legitimacy of the organization's leadership.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  I don't mean this unkindly, but your information diet has incredibly serious problems if you haven't come across any legitimate criticisms of the BLM org in the past. As someone whose pet issue has been police and justice system violence for a really, really long time, I really wish BLM wasn't the organization/movement representing this particular struggle[1]. The 2020 iteration is a little more connected to reality and a little less hateful than the 2015 one, so I'd count myself as a supporter in a way that I didn't in 2015, but if you've not come across _any_ valid criticism of them before now, I suggest sitting down and taking a hard look at your media diet. By far the scariest facet of the modern moment to me is all the people sneering at Trumpists detachment from reality while happily wallowing in their own post-truth bubble. The average person has always been horribly un- and misinformed, but the shift in the last couple of years in my white-collar, coastal social group legitimately terrifies me. [1] Though I'm well-aware that getting attention and support is probably the most important part of driving social change, and they've obviously done very well there.
  - exmicrosoldier 6y ago
    I would appreciate any pointers at good news sources you recommend.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      Thank you for the courteous response to a comment that could easily have been taken as an insult! I don't think it's about individually high-quality sources as much as it is about how you take in information. Don't consider yourself to understand an issue until you've heard a compelling argument on both sides, or have thoroughly convinced yourself that you've adequately searched through diverse enough fora. Don't read anything, from Alex Jones's Facebook page to the frontpage of the NYT, without spot-checking sources, reading studies, etc. There's no filter that ensures that journalists are the best humanity has to offer: just like all humans, plenty of them are incompetent or dishonest, and beyond that groupthink exists in cultures that get as insular and self-aggrandizing as journalism's. Correctly combine a variety of low-quality signals and you can get a really high-quality signal. That being said, some general recommendations for individual sources are (in ascending order of obscurity) The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Marginal Revolution (economist Tyler Cowen's blog). I find they do a better job than most of: 1) representing different opinions intellectually honestly 2) being thorough in their reasoning and analysis and/or 3) being fairly high-quality
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jjoonathan 6y ago
On one hand we have hooligans using a crowd as cover to get away with property damage. On the other we have hooligans organized for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election. In the case of BLM, the crimes don't reflect on the movement's overall purpose. Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform -- it's an argument for more police presence, if anything. In the case of the capitol riots, not only are the crimes worse (storming the capitol >> property damage), but the criminal acts absolutely do reflect on the movement's agenda. Intimidating congress is a plausible vehicle for obtaining the votes they needed that day to overturn the election. Trump's pre-riot speech emphasized that this was the goal. These factors increase the culpability of platforms and leadership in the capitol riots as compared to BLM.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  What would you call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone if not an attempt at insurrection? Come on, can we have some intellectual honesty here? Both situations sucked, the people involved sucked, their reasoning sucked and they should all go to jail so that sane people can get back to their lives in peace. We are being forced into building absurd logical houses of cards just so we do not concede an inch to the other side. What childish madness.
  - mdavis6890 6y ago
    +1000000 on this. It's all stupid and bad, and we need to stop looking for reasons to excuse it, regardless who is doing it, when or why.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Equating a bunch of dumb activists taking over six city blocks to an attempt to overturn the election of POTUS is "intellectual honesty"? Look, I'll agree that everyone involved with both CHAZ and the Capitol Riots needs to go to jail. That includes Donald Trump, though. He was the one trying an end-run around the US electoral process in order to hold on to power for four more years.
    - 6y ago
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
The magnitude of threatening the lives of national leadership is different from the property damage of the BLM movements. The implications of each are different, too. Both are bad things.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Do citizens lives matter less than politicians lives?
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Of course not. But institutions matter, and shutting down a governing body through threats of violence has consequences far beyond just the immediate politician's lives.
    - j_walter 6y ago
      Shutting down a judicial governing body through nightly attacks for month should also have consequences...but it didn't. I literally watched it happen for months on end with little repercussions by local law enforcement (because they were restricted by the mayor). What happens when you take over multiple city blocks for a few weeks and don't allow any government agencies to do their jobs? That should also have reprecussions...but it didn't.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        It sounds like you are talking about the federal judiciary in Portland? Being specific helps readers understand how to address your comments.
        esyir 6y ago
        Or the incident at the white House that had the secret service moving trump to a bunker for his safety. Note that left aligned media considered this a good thing. Contrasting this to the reaction to capitol hill does not bode well to me.
julienchastang 6y ago
> Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention. It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-capitol-riot-11610387004 https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca...
- julienchastang 6y ago
  OK, I stand corrected. Apparently, this did really happen [1], but my other comment still holds. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-us-capitol-nov-7-1983-244578 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-u...
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Even if correct it is a moot point. There have been left wing terrorists for a long time now, and most of them get adequate police response, and sometimes even condemnation from other left wing groups. But even if it didn’t that still doesn’t make the leeway right wing terrorists get justified. Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.
    - foolinaround 6y ago
      She was pardoned by Clinton even though some of the incidents she was involved in resulted in deaths. Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?
      - triceratops 6y ago
sevencolors 6y ago
Ah some classic "whataboutism". Nice way to detract from the point that people are directing violence towards politicians. But yes a Target got looted and some fires were set because people are fucking angry about the institutional violence directed towards their communities. Clearly the same thing, yeah?
entropea 6y ago
It's extremely dishonest to compare a QAnon fueled outright 'voter fraud' & child abduction conspiracy that lead to Congress being forcibly entered to legitimate & coherent concerns about policing, race, & the prison system in USA.
tessierashpool 6y ago
Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? This is incendiary and false.
- MrGazzo 6y ago
  What an incredibly helpful comment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway762 6y ago
  Is it? https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2020/06/protests-blm-mo https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2020/06/protests-blm-mo... - "Violence Has Been An Important Tool For Protests" https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-ar https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-ar... - "The Double Standard of the American Riot" https://time.com/5849679/history-protest-debate/ https://time.com/5849679/history-protest-debate/ - "History Shows the Problem With Focusing on Whether a Protest Is Nonviolent" https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote... - "In Defense of Destroying Property" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/if-vio https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/if-vio... - "If Violence Isn't the Way To End Racism In America, Then What Is?" https://qz.com/1863651/violence-and-extreme-actions-shouldnt https://qz.com/1863651/violence-and-extreme-actions-shouldnt... - "Why Extreme Actions Shouldn’t Delegitimize A Protest" Here's the now VP-elect fundraising for the rioters' bail fund: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643 https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643
root_axis 6y ago
This is a disingenuous false equivalence. Local protests that turn violent based on political grievances regarding police violence are not the same as storming the nation's capitol with the goal of overturning a democratic election.
m0llusk 6y ago
That is an utterly false comparison. Black Lives Matter is more of a slogan than an organization or a movement. Many if not most of the BLM related protests were peaceful. There were many events such as police making a show of taking the knee in front of protesters that have no comparison. Where in the capitol actions did police take the knee as a show of empathy? And there was a great deal of push back against BLM related protests. Near me in Oakland, California the discount grocery store that serves a mostly black and largely poor neighborhood was ransacked and this caused a huge uproar and major social upheaval. There was considerable resistance against the rioting at that time. But all we heard from the right was a wretched flow of lies. Democrats do nothing to stop violence they said, even when police were hurting from attempts to bring peace. And then the same lovers of political theater cheered on an attack on the capitol.
efwfwef 6y ago
Every time I hear this kind of rhetoric there's a person who's a fascist and racist behind these words. BLM is a movement that is extremely easy to follow, as long as you're not a racist. Same with antifa.
matchbok 6y ago
Such a lazy, and hateful attack. Your post doesn't belong here. We're talking about terrorism here, and your first reaction is: "But what about BLM?!?" They have nothing to do with each other. Your assumption is that people didn't condemn the violence this summer. They did. You just choose to ignore it so you can keep your political nonsense. Get a grip.
- cltby 6y ago
  Any rational definition of terrorism (lives lost, property damage, etc) would implicate BLM/Antifa orders of magnitude more than the Capitol rioters.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
btamadio 6y ago
BLM is fighting to end police violence against the Black community. Antifa is fighting to stop white supremacists from gaining power in the streets and in government. The people who attacked the Capitol were fighting to end democracy and keep an unelected would-be dictator in power. Do you see the difference?
tw04 6y ago
>Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk? Blessing? The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned. >Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients." And served 15 years in prison for it with a 58 YEAR sentence. Clinton faced plenty of criticism for the pardon too. That being said, are you suggesting someone who has served their time should... permanently be ostracized by society? Prison is meant to punish not reform? If you're suggesting she's still supporting violence, provide the evidence. Her book seems to indicate she has a different world view after spending time in prison. Literally the outcome we SHOULD want from people being arrested and imprisoned.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  > Prison is meant to punish not reform? slightly off-topic but I don't think a 58-year sentence will reform anyone more than a 10-year sentence would. The entire American prison system is built around punishing our prisoners.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I think you hit diminishing returns even before 10 years. Unless you have a reason to believe that if let out they would immediately do harm I would cap it at 5 for the very worst offenders.
    - jackson1442 6y ago
      Absolutely, I figured the argument would stand stronger with 10 years as, even if you're of the mindset that prison works, 10 years is obviously more than enough for the "rehabilitation." If anything, prison seems to breed more resentment for the system that put them there in the first place. I really think the entire prison system needs to be rethought from the ground up though. It doesn't make sense that excons carry this weight with them throughout their life, failing background checks. If someone's been released from prison, they should be done with their punishment. Period.
VoodooJuJu 6y ago
It's pretty clear what's going on. The mass-media elite who dictate the prevailing narrative are telling the masses that it's good to support BLM and Antifa, while it's bad to support the others. Simple as that. "It's only bad if it's not my group doing it". There is nothing more disgusting than a person who applies ideals and values selectively like this, who doesn't commit to the ideals themselves (gleaned from a related comment which I love [1]): "I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in the middle East. Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn't like. Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported. This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!"). I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred. When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476
erichocean 6y ago
The search term you are looking for is "repressive tolerance". Old concept, newly applied.

8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago

idk how to tell you this in a way you'll listen to but doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.

purec 6y ago
You can't use "good intentions" to justify horrific actions.
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
  ya man what they did to that target was an atrocity lol someone call the hague
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  The idea that you can do so is pretty fundamental in politics. It's how the federal government justified the US Civil War, for example, and how the Founding Fathers justified a lot of things that tend to get glossed over in grade school history books. The debate ultimately hinges on sympathies. For someone who wholeheartedly supports BLM, the riots might be regarded as something that was regrettable, but also understandable. In the words of Martin Luther King, "A riot is the language of the unheard." The observation also works in the direction of the Capitol insurrection. The rioters were there because they believed that their opinion on the election was not being heard. Deciding which group had more grounds to be angry is left as an exercise for the reader.
a-posteriori 6y ago
Violence is categorically bad, regardless of what the intentions are. Referring to violence as "doing things" purposely avoids recognizing this.
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Agreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      >"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive peaceful: 1. free from disturbance; tranquil. 2. not involving war or violence.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        The protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)
trident5000 6y ago
You do realize that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and bad right? I cant believe how naive this statement is.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Golly it's just so hard to know who to trust. The crowds protesting racial injustice and police brutality? Or the literal, self identifying nazis, white supremacists, and cultish conspiracy theorists trying to kill political leaders. Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective. edit: to the below, really, no. There's no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis, your group is, at best, nazi adjacent. Nazis are the hyperbolic euphemism of peak historical immorality. It is preposterous that anyone feels they're making a good faith argument throwing whatabout comparisons when the starting point is nazis.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views. Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.
    - multjoy 6y ago
      The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?
      - trident5000 6y ago
        Continuing to prove my point. "wide brushes of their opposing views" Thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi because you saw a a guy with a t-shirt is something stupid people do.
RobRivera 6y ago
from my point of view, the jedi are evil
pjc50 6y ago
Hacker news seems to really struggle with this, partly because there are still Trump supporters here somehow.
- chillingeffect 6y ago
  > somehow Computing has long been an interplay of curious, light-hearted hacker types and business/military types. e.g. Woz/Yannes/Stoll/Stallman and Jobs/DARPA/Musk/Thiel. I don't think the values of skill, sacrifice, daring, and greed (sorry if that offends anyone) that roughly underlie HN are effective filters to remove Trump values. In fact, they move the needle toward the business/military side. HN appreciates the fun hacks, but, by design, amplifies the business side.
refurb 6y ago
“The ends justify the means”?
imgabe 6y ago
Yeah, I'm sure the guy burning down someone's small business and looting television sets was doing it with the intention that it would stop police brutality.
seneca 6y ago
> doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad. "Things are justified because I support them or unjustified because I don't support them". This is how children and narcissists think. Reality is that a lot of arguments are really this with a layer or two of post-hoc justification though. I can't tell if this post was meant as a joke, but if it wasn't it's either impressively self-aware or completely and utterly lacking self-awareness.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Pfhreak 6y ago

> Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months This sentence fragment appears deliberately vague and it assumes the conclusion. Compare, for example, "The Capitol Attack" vs "Right Wing Violence in America". One references a specific event with specific actors, the other is a vague non-specific description of a phenomena that may or may not exist. I'd encourage you to be more specific -- which instances of fires and looting do you feel were not adequately described as attacks? Who is failing to describe them, again, specifically. Right now, this does not read like you are interested in discussing this in good faith.

loveistheanswer 6y ago
What about CHAZ/CHOP? -Armed protestors took over government buildings and city blocks -Promoted/condoned/excused by government officials -Lots of violence and murder
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct... And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with? In my experience it was umbrellas and loud voices. And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    >Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct Isn't the east precinct a government building? >And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with? Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/ >And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time. How many people were shot within the protest zone by occupants of CHAZ versus police over that time? By my count, it seems 5:0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone#Shootings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone...

dylan-m 6y ago

- The BLM movement is, while poorly framed and easily co-opted by other people, about genuine problems with policing in the United States. Problems that are backed up with verifiable facts rather than scummy used car salesmen and the Inventor of Email™. - The BLM movement, while the source of many large large scale protests (several of which turned into riots and outstayed their welcome) never, at any point, even pretended to stage a coup or murder a member of the Capitol Police.

trident5000 6y ago
What are the verifiable facts again? Do you have alternative statistics because they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying. The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. I hate to be stone cold but that's my understanding of what unfolded. We witnessed something similar in 2015.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  > they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view
  - trident5000 6y ago
    "You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s" what is the context of this joke Im not following. I stated a fact (FBI statistics) and then an opinion. Are we allowed to do that on the internet?
    - hanniabu 6y ago
      The context of that joke is that you, just like him, stated a claim with no source.

tareqak 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg > Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001,[5] his final day in office.[6][7] She was charged, served some of her time (16 years of 58 years is 27.586%), and then a president pardoned her.

mooseburger 6y ago
Doesn't appear to be a pardon, which involves the conviction being expunged. Commuting a sentence means more like "you have been punished enough, but we were right to punish you". A pardon is "we were wrong to punish you".
- tareqak 6y ago
  Oh sorry, you are correct. The president commuted her sentence. I got confused with pardons today.

prions 6y ago

Nice to see Trump/Russia talking points being copied almost word-for-word on hackernews.

deepspace 6y ago
And getting up-voted too. I thought the BLM=Looters talking point was debunked a long time ago, given that BLM protests took place mainly in the daytime, while the looting was done by thugs, at night, after the protesters went home. So it is very strange to see that narrative being taken at face value here.
- refurb 6y ago
  So you’re able to clearly separate out the bad actors from BLM, but apparently not with Trump supporters?
  - dmix 6y ago
    ‘Even the bad actors aren’t really that bad because they support a cause I see as valuable’ seems to be the primary excuse floating around on here. All political violence should be treated equally. I also think that all races/genders/etc should be treated equally but even that has become taboo in progressive circles. Which is probably using the same sort of mental gymnastics that justifies some violence but not vilifies others.
    - bilbo0s 6y ago
      I also think that all races/genders/etc should be treated equally but even that has become taboo in progressive circles. Problem is, it's always been taboo in conservative circles as well. That is the great problem of our day. All these political ideologues espouse beliefs contrary to the good of large numbers of people in our society. They give speeches about how it's not "us" but the other side who are the bad guys, but then they all send their pet terrorists out to riot, loot, and in the case of the capitol attackers gather intel to hand over to our nation's adversaries. These political extremists are simply bad people all the way around. No matter what way you look at it.

exmicrosoldier 6y ago

Thank you for the first legitimate critique of the Black Lives Matter organization that I've seen. I don't think it invalidates all of the points of the platform of BLM, but it does make me question the sanity and legitimacy of the organization's leadership.

wutbrodo 6y ago
I don't mean this unkindly, but your information diet has incredibly serious problems if you haven't come across any legitimate criticisms of the BLM org in the past. As someone whose pet issue has been police and justice system violence for a really, really long time, I really wish BLM wasn't the organization/movement representing this particular struggle[1]. The 2020 iteration is a little more connected to reality and a little less hateful than the 2015 one, so I'd count myself as a supporter in a way that I didn't in 2015, but if you've not come across _any_ valid criticism of them before now, I suggest sitting down and taking a hard look at your media diet. By far the scariest facet of the modern moment to me is all the people sneering at Trumpists detachment from reality while happily wallowing in their own post-truth bubble. The average person has always been horribly un- and misinformed, but the shift in the last couple of years in my white-collar, coastal social group legitimately terrifies me. [1] Though I'm well-aware that getting attention and support is probably the most important part of driving social change, and they've obviously done very well there.
- exmicrosoldier 6y ago
  I would appreciate any pointers at good news sources you recommend.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    Thank you for the courteous response to a comment that could easily have been taken as an insult! I don't think it's about individually high-quality sources as much as it is about how you take in information. Don't consider yourself to understand an issue until you've heard a compelling argument on both sides, or have thoroughly convinced yourself that you've adequately searched through diverse enough fora. Don't read anything, from Alex Jones's Facebook page to the frontpage of the NYT, without spot-checking sources, reading studies, etc. There's no filter that ensures that journalists are the best humanity has to offer: just like all humans, plenty of them are incompetent or dishonest, and beyond that groupthink exists in cultures that get as insular and self-aggrandizing as journalism's. Correctly combine a variety of low-quality signals and you can get a really high-quality signal. That being said, some general recommendations for individual sources are (in ascending order of obscurity) The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Marginal Revolution (economist Tyler Cowen's blog). I find they do a better job than most of: 1) representing different opinions intellectually honestly 2) being thorough in their reasoning and analysis and/or 3) being fairly high-quality

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jjoonathan 6y ago

On one hand we have hooligans using a crowd as cover to get away with property damage. On the other we have hooligans organized for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election. In the case of BLM, the crimes don't reflect on the movement's overall purpose. Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform -- it's an argument for more police presence, if anything. In the case of the capitol riots, not only are the crimes worse (storming the capitol >> property damage), but the criminal acts absolutely do reflect on the movement's agenda. Intimidating congress is a plausible vehicle for obtaining the votes they needed that day to overturn the election. Trump's pre-riot speech emphasized that this was the goal. These factors increase the culpability of platforms and leadership in the capitol riots as compared to BLM.

zarkov99 6y ago
What would you call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone if not an attempt at insurrection? Come on, can we have some intellectual honesty here? Both situations sucked, the people involved sucked, their reasoning sucked and they should all go to jail so that sane people can get back to their lives in peace. We are being forced into building absurd logical houses of cards just so we do not concede an inch to the other side. What childish madness.
- mdavis6890 6y ago
  +1000000 on this. It's all stupid and bad, and we need to stop looking for reasons to excuse it, regardless who is doing it, when or why.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Equating a bunch of dumb activists taking over six city blocks to an attempt to overturn the election of POTUS is "intellectual honesty"? Look, I'll agree that everyone involved with both CHAZ and the Capitol Riots needs to go to jail. That includes Donald Trump, though. He was the one trying an end-run around the US electoral process in order to hold on to power for four more years.
  - 6y ago

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

The magnitude of threatening the lives of national leadership is different from the property damage of the BLM movements. The implications of each are different, too. Both are bad things.

loveistheanswer 6y ago
Do citizens lives matter less than politicians lives?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Of course not. But institutions matter, and shutting down a governing body through threats of violence has consequences far beyond just the immediate politician's lives.
  - j_walter 6y ago
    Shutting down a judicial governing body through nightly attacks for month should also have consequences...but it didn't. I literally watched it happen for months on end with little repercussions by local law enforcement (because they were restricted by the mayor). What happens when you take over multiple city blocks for a few weeks and don't allow any government agencies to do their jobs? That should also have reprecussions...but it didn't.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      It sounds like you are talking about the federal judiciary in Portland? Being specific helps readers understand how to address your comments.
      - esyir 6y ago
        Or the incident at the white House that had the secret service moving trump to a bunker for his safety. Note that left aligned media considered this a good thing. Contrasting this to the reaction to capitol hill does not bode well to me.

julienchastang 6y ago

> Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention. It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-capitol-riot-11610387004 https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca...

julienchastang 6y ago
OK, I stand corrected. Apparently, this did really happen [1], but my other comment still holds. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-us-capitol-nov-7-1983-244578 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-u...
- runarberg 6y ago
  Even if correct it is a moot point. There have been left wing terrorists for a long time now, and most of them get adequate police response, and sometimes even condemnation from other left wing groups. But even if it didn’t that still doesn’t make the leeway right wing terrorists get justified. Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.
  - foolinaround 6y ago
    She was pardoned by Clinton even though some of the incidents she was involved in resulted in deaths. Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?
    - triceratops 6y ago

sevencolors 6y ago

Ah some classic "whataboutism". Nice way to detract from the point that people are directing violence towards politicians. But yes a Target got looted and some fires were set because people are fucking angry about the institutional violence directed towards their communities. Clearly the same thing, yeah?

entropea 6y ago

It's extremely dishonest to compare a QAnon fueled outright 'voter fraud' & child abduction conspiracy that lead to Congress being forcibly entered to legitimate & coherent concerns about policing, race, & the prison system in USA.

tessierashpool 6y ago

Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? This is incendiary and false.

MrGazzo 6y ago
What an incredibly helpful comment.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway762 6y ago
Is it? https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2020/06/protests-blm-mo https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2020/06/protests-blm-mo... - "Violence Has Been An Important Tool For Protests" https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-ar https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-ar... - "The Double Standard of the American Riot" https://time.com/5849679/history-protest-debate/ https://time.com/5849679/history-protest-debate/ - "History Shows the Problem With Focusing on Whether a Protest Is Nonviolent" https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote... - "In Defense of Destroying Property" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/if-vio https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/if-vio... - "If Violence Isn't the Way To End Racism In America, Then What Is?" https://qz.com/1863651/violence-and-extreme-actions-shouldnt https://qz.com/1863651/violence-and-extreme-actions-shouldnt... - "Why Extreme Actions Shouldn’t Delegitimize A Protest" Here's the now VP-elect fundraising for the rioters' bail fund: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643 https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643

root_axis 6y ago

This is a disingenuous false equivalence. Local protests that turn violent based on political grievances regarding police violence are not the same as storming the nation's capitol with the goal of overturning a democratic election.

m0llusk 6y ago

That is an utterly false comparison. Black Lives Matter is more of a slogan than an organization or a movement. Many if not most of the BLM related protests were peaceful. There were many events such as police making a show of taking the knee in front of protesters that have no comparison. Where in the capitol actions did police take the knee as a show of empathy? And there was a great deal of push back against BLM related protests. Near me in Oakland, California the discount grocery store that serves a mostly black and largely poor neighborhood was ransacked and this caused a huge uproar and major social upheaval. There was considerable resistance against the rioting at that time. But all we heard from the right was a wretched flow of lies. Democrats do nothing to stop violence they said, even when police were hurting from attempts to bring peace. And then the same lovers of political theater cheered on an attack on the capitol.

efwfwef 6y ago

Every time I hear this kind of rhetoric there's a person who's a fascist and racist behind these words. BLM is a movement that is extremely easy to follow, as long as you're not a racist. Same with antifa.

matchbok 6y ago

Such a lazy, and hateful attack. Your post doesn't belong here. We're talking about terrorism here, and your first reaction is: "But what about BLM?!?" They have nothing to do with each other. Your assumption is that people didn't condemn the violence this summer. They did. You just choose to ignore it so you can keep your political nonsense. Get a grip.

cltby 6y ago
Any rational definition of terrorism (lives lost, property damage, etc) would implicate BLM/Antifa orders of magnitude more than the Capitol rioters.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

btamadio 6y ago

BLM is fighting to end police violence against the Black community. Antifa is fighting to stop white supremacists from gaining power in the streets and in government. The people who attacked the Capitol were fighting to end democracy and keep an unelected would-be dictator in power. Do you see the difference?

tw04 6y ago

>Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk? Blessing? The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned. >Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients." And served 15 years in prison for it with a 58 YEAR sentence. Clinton faced plenty of criticism for the pardon too. That being said, are you suggesting someone who has served their time should... permanently be ostracized by society? Prison is meant to punish not reform? If you're suggesting she's still supporting violence, provide the evidence. Her book seems to indicate she has a different world view after spending time in prison. Literally the outcome we SHOULD want from people being arrested and imprisoned.

jackson1442 6y ago
> Prison is meant to punish not reform? slightly off-topic but I don't think a 58-year sentence will reform anyone more than a 10-year sentence would. The entire American prison system is built around punishing our prisoners.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I think you hit diminishing returns even before 10 years. Unless you have a reason to believe that if let out they would immediately do harm I would cap it at 5 for the very worst offenders.
  - jackson1442 6y ago
    Absolutely, I figured the argument would stand stronger with 10 years as, even if you're of the mindset that prison works, 10 years is obviously more than enough for the "rehabilitation." If anything, prison seems to breed more resentment for the system that put them there in the first place. I really think the entire prison system needs to be rethought from the ground up though. It doesn't make sense that excons carry this weight with them throughout their life, failing background checks. If someone's been released from prison, they should be done with their punishment. Period.

VoodooJuJu 6y ago

It's pretty clear what's going on. The mass-media elite who dictate the prevailing narrative are telling the masses that it's good to support BLM and Antifa, while it's bad to support the others. Simple as that. "It's only bad if it's not my group doing it". There is nothing more disgusting than a person who applies ideals and values selectively like this, who doesn't commit to the ideals themselves (gleaned from a related comment which I love [1]): "I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in the middle East. Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn't like. Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported. This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!"). I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred. When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476

erichocean 6y ago

The search term you are looking for is "repressive tolerance". Old concept, newly applied.