2 ms·

Thanks for the link, that's helpful. > Claiming the new Haitian community threatened “the good White residents” of Springfield, Blood Trump members descended o

by rdtsc 2y ago

Thanks for the link, that's helpful. > Claiming the new Haitian community threatened “the good White residents” of Springfield, Blood Trump members descended on the city in August during Springfield’s annual Jazz & Blues festival, marching downtown while displaying guns and waving swastika flags. That's horrible. The city sued them, hopefully they all land in jail for a long time. > “the Blood Tribe made good on those threats,” noting that the city and its residents received at least 33 bomb threats in subsequent weeks That looks like a slam dunk case, hopefully the city judges and prosecutors there have no problem handling it. I saw the mention about Temporary Protected Status of the immigrants at the end. I had no idea that existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_protected_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_protected_status. I'd would think the fact that disgusting group marched there and made bomb threats would make the community and the government protect them even more. The city launched a law suite after all.

tomrod 2y ago
Now ask the question -- if Trump hadn't amplified allegations of this community as illegal immigrants eating dogs and cats, would they have been harassed and threatened? To me, the counterfactual clearly points to no. The Harris/Trump debate gave a set of clear accusations on film, so many that the denizens of the internet made several clever remixes to fight bullies with humor. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > if Trump hadn't amplified allegations of this community as illegal immigrants eating dogs and cats, would they have been harassed and threatened? Agree you're probably right. I never watched that debate, thanks for the clip. I won't watch it further I didn't like either one of them too much. I did like the remix though, I am sure there are plenty of more of those. But it seems that group is being sued and that's hopefully they lose and that'll be the best outcome here.
  - ctrlp 2y ago
    Don't bother joking with serial abusers of good faith on HN. They don't have a sense of irony. It's likely congenital.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomrod 2y ago
      Always helpful to review the guidelines. Thanks for the opportunity to do so [0] > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. This isn't comprehensive, but it is enough to identify what you and I may take for granted from others in the community. If you feel I have abused good faith in my comments, I request you delineate what, exactly, you feel is not in good faith. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - ctrlp 2y ago
        tomrod, you're a serial abuser of the guidelines. You should take some time to think about what you say and do on HN and whether you are adding to the discourse are detracting from it. I think you could adjust your tone on almost all your political comments to be more thoughtful and less combative. It would be less work to point out cases where you observe the spirit of these guidelines than where you violate them. I'm sure you wouldn't wish to be so prejudiced, but you come across as an ideologue. Is that really who you want to be?
        tomrod 2y ago
        Agree to disagree on your general take. Best to you.

by rdtsc 2y ago

tomrod 2y ago

Now ask the question -- if Trump hadn't amplified allegations of this community as illegal immigrants eating dogs and cats, would they have been harassed and threatened? To me, the counterfactual clearly points to no. The Harris/Trump debate gave a set of clear accusations on film, so many that the denizens of the internet made several clever remixes to fight bullies with humor. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA

rdtsc 2y ago
> if Trump hadn't amplified allegations of this community as illegal immigrants eating dogs and cats, would they have been harassed and threatened? Agree you're probably right. I never watched that debate, thanks for the clip. I won't watch it further I didn't like either one of them too much. I did like the remix though, I am sure there are plenty of more of those. But it seems that group is being sued and that's hopefully they lose and that'll be the best outcome here.
- ctrlp 2y ago
  Don't bother joking with serial abusers of good faith on HN. They don't have a sense of irony. It's likely congenital.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Always helpful to review the guidelines. Thanks for the opportunity to do so [0] > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. This isn't comprehensive, but it is enough to identify what you and I may take for granted from others in the community. If you feel I have abused good faith in my comments, I request you delineate what, exactly, you feel is not in good faith. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ctrlp 2y ago
      tomrod, you're a serial abuser of the guidelines. You should take some time to think about what you say and do on HN and whether you are adding to the discourse are detracting from it. I think you could adjust your tone on almost all your political comments to be more thoughtful and less combative. It would be less work to point out cases where you observe the spirit of these guidelines than where you violate them. I'm sure you wouldn't wish to be so prejudiced, but you come across as an ideologue. Is that really who you want to be?
      - tomrod 2y ago
        Agree to disagree on your general take. Best to you.