4 ms·
Right now there are three comments here. One denying the agency of drivers who kill people, one describing protests as "terrorizing" and celebrating the legaliz
by hnbad 6y ago
Right now there are three comments here. One denying the agency of drivers who kill people, one describing protests as "terrorizing" and celebrating the legalization of manslaughter, and one describing Democrat mayors as "leftists" (which they are not by any stretch of the imagination) and implying the mayor of Portland isn't allowing the police to "handle downtown riots" (which is easily disproven by watching even a few seconds of the videos of protests in that city) while asserting that drivers who crashed cars into protestors are justified in believing they would be "pulled from their vehicle and possibly killed" (a thing that hasn't happened) and that SF and Portland are "lawless" cities.
If you don't hear the dogwhistles, maybe you've just gone deaf from the constant exposure. But even without those it should be obvious that there are three things going on here:
1) People are blatantly and knowingly lying about what happened at the various protests over the past year to create a boogeyman to justify the deliberate attacks on protestors using cars (which prior to the Unite the Right rally was exclusively seen as an Islamist terrorist tactic).
2) People are conflating different scenarios involving drivers running over protestors ("innocent" drivers taking a "wrong turn" and being confronted by an "angry mob" and panicking; police officers intentionally crashing through a group of people rather than backing off and taking a detour as a show of force; white supremacists intentionally crashing cars into groups of people as an act of terrorism; etc).
3) People are creating a false narrative of "leftist" officials conspiring with criminals while "concerned citizens" flee the chaos as the police stands idly by doing nothing (suggesting the solution to the "lawlessness" is more enforcement, cracking down harder on protestors, further radicalizing them rather than addressing the underlying injustices that caused the unrests in the first place).
Note that this isn't a matter of opinion. These claims are factually wrong. These lies are knowingly spread. Describing protests where the police routinely shot out protestors' eyes, literally covered parts of the city in tear gas for weeks and arrested and attacked clearly identifiable professional journalists including TV camera teams, as "lawlessness" is not just a misunderstanding, it's a call for violence.
- KozmoNau7 6y agoEverything in this post is factually correct, and it is presumably getting downvoted for ideological reasons.
- egberts1 6y agohis conclusion is merely asserting that all three claims are wrong after asserting in his opening that these 3 claims are true. which leads me to think he’s being purposely disingenuous.
- hnbad 6y agoThe three users in question are at best parroting white supremacist demagoguery. Their comments still exist and are unflagged. Instead of dealing with them, HN (either a number of users or one of its moderators) has decided that the problem is the article, not the comments, and flagged that as, I presume, irrelevant and off-topic. We walk away from this patting ourselves on the back, congratulating each other for keeping out politics and embracing a diversity of opinion. Meanwhile users like these will continue injecting casual remarks and "inaccuracies" (like calling Democrat officials who stand by as the police enacts disproportionate violence on protestors and journalists "leftist" to suggest an allegiance that doesn't exist and contradicts what has actually happened) to slowly dismantle any notion of observable reality. You can tolerate these lies and allow them to spread and infect everything. Or you can call them out for what they are and prevent them from spreading. Time and again HN choses the former by citing the unscientific horseshoe "theory" and celebrating dispassion as "enlightened centrism". But why do I even bother elaborating. I don't need more than five letters to summarize my point.