4 ms·

Jacobin is not a quality of journalism that should be getting posted on here. Breitbart wouldn't be allowed on the front page either. They regularly call for e

by anm89 4y ago

Jacobin is not a quality of journalism that should be getting posted on here. Breitbart wouldn't be allowed on the front page either. They regularly call for extrajudicial confiscation of property of certain people by class. History is clear that this is equivalent to calling for extrajudicial killing of people by class (they are going to defend their property)

the_only_law 4y ago
> Jacobin is not a quality of journalism that should be getting posted on here. Breitbart wouldn't be allowed on the front page either. You're a bit late, infamous tabloids are front page material now.
skinnymuch 4y ago
Equivocating alt-right like Breitbart with Jacobin is a stretch. Can you link to a specific situation at Jacobin’s that you find to be too extreme to be not quality journalism and that should not allow it on HN? The west takes from all sorts of people all the time. In and outside their borders. The world continues without the killing of people [by class].
- SR2Z 4y ago
  Jacobin is equally, if not more, stupid than Breitbart. The only advantage it has is that it's less hateful.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Perhaps give some examples? Or anything more than what you wrote. So there can be more substance.
- tsanaly 4y ago
srean 4y ago
All that may well be true [I am not familiar with Jacobin or Breitbart] but that by itself does not nullify the posted article. Smells ad hominem. > History is clear that this is equivalent to calling for extrajudicial killing of people I dont follow. What's the equivalence. @ncmncm @AnimalMuppet Thanks for clearing it up for me.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Probably just because the Jacobins got blamed for excesses of the French Revolution. But the Jacobin leadership of the time went down right behind the royals.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > > History is clear that this is equivalent to calling for extrajudicial killing of people > I dont follow. What's the equivalence. I'm not saying that anm89 was right to reject the article based on the source, but what they were saying here was, I thought, pretty clear. People who have property will often defend that property against extrajudicial taking (that is, theft). To take their property then means physical force against them. If you're going to succeed in taking it, that often will require killing them. And, historically, the mob has gone from "take their property" to "kill them" somewhat regularly.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    If we're keeping score, takings by the "haves" from the "have nots", violently where opposed, happen millions of times every day. Events where "have nots" take significantly from "haves", violent or no, are rare enough to be noted in history books.
    - srean 4y ago
      Good point.

by anm89 4y ago

the_only_law 4y ago

> Jacobin is not a quality of journalism that should be getting posted on here. Breitbart wouldn't be allowed on the front page either. You're a bit late, infamous tabloids are front page material now.

skinnymuch 4y ago

Equivocating alt-right like Breitbart with Jacobin is a stretch. Can you link to a specific situation at Jacobin’s that you find to be too extreme to be not quality journalism and that should not allow it on HN? The west takes from all sorts of people all the time. In and outside their borders. The world continues without the killing of people [by class].

SR2Z 4y ago
Jacobin is equally, if not more, stupid than Breitbart. The only advantage it has is that it's less hateful.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Perhaps give some examples? Or anything more than what you wrote. So there can be more substance.
tsanaly 4y ago

srean 4y ago

All that may well be true [I am not familiar with Jacobin or Breitbart] but that by itself does not nullify the posted article. Smells ad hominem. > History is clear that this is equivalent to calling for extrajudicial killing of people I dont follow. What's the equivalence. @ncmncm @AnimalMuppet Thanks for clearing it up for me.

ncmncm 4y ago
Probably just because the Jacobins got blamed for excesses of the French Revolution. But the Jacobin leadership of the time went down right behind the royals.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> > History is clear that this is equivalent to calling for extrajudicial killing of people > I dont follow. What's the equivalence. I'm not saying that anm89 was right to reject the article based on the source, but what they were saying here was, I thought, pretty clear. People who have property will often defend that property against extrajudicial taking (that is, theft). To take their property then means physical force against them. If you're going to succeed in taking it, that often will require killing them. And, historically, the mob has gone from "take their property" to "kill them" somewhat regularly.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  If we're keeping score, takings by the "haves" from the "have nots", violently where opposed, happen millions of times every day. Events where "have nots" take significantly from "haves", violent or no, are rare enough to be noted in history books.
  - srean 4y ago
    Good point.