4 ms·
So? Were they conducting "unlawful" civil disobedience when raided?
by DanAtC 2y ago
So? Were they conducting "unlawful" civil disobedience when raided?
- ranger_danger 2y ago[flagged]
- DanAtC 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoPlease don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It only makes everything worse. It also discredits your position, which isn't in your interest. See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... for past attempts to persuade commenters about this dynamic. It usually doesn't help, but there's a chance it might. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DanAtC 2y ago[flagged]
- gpm 2y agoTelling someone advocating for the warrant-less probable cause-less kidnapping of dissidents by authorities to fuck off does nothing to discredit their position. It does discredit this sites reputation for you to claim otherwise in your role as moderator though.
- dang 2y agoIt seems to me that what you're responding to here is the injustice and outrage of police raiding a Quaker meeting. That's fine, but it's not a response to the argument I was making. (Which I can understand, in a way, because I didn't spell it out—I only linked to it.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ranger_danger 2y agoIf you're referring to me, I absolutely was not advocating for that, I explicitly said nothing about it on purpose.
- gpm 2y agoUltimately I was referring to your comment, in the context of criticizing the comment criticizing the comment responding to your comment. Some nuance and charity that I would normally apply if responding directly to your comment naturally got lost with the indirection. To respond more directly to it, "reasonable suspicion" is a term of art in the law, and it's a term that explicitly refers to a lower standard of proof than probable cause, which is the term of art describing the standard of proof required to enter a house and arrest someone like this. It's not the case that police routinely arrest people on just this lower standard of proof (they're prohibited from doing so). Interpreted charitably your comment was merely using the term in a non-artful way, to refer to the different higher standard of probable cause. However given the context of the thread, article, and the current US government's recent actions, I don't think the comment dang responded to interpreted your comment that way - rather I think they interpreted it as you advocating for the government arresting people under this (unlawful, lower) standard. I don't think the comment Dang responded to strongly rebuking your comment under this interpretation weakened their argument - it's an interpretation that is out of line enough that a strong rebuke is the effective response. Hence why I objected to that part of Dang's reasoning in telling them off.
- ranger_danger 2y agoI'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but I did not feel like dang's comment was rebuking mine at all.
- gpm 2y agoDang's comment was rebuking the comment rebuking yours..
- asacrowflies 2y agoHave to agree with others that a resounding NO or fuck off is well within the rights and reasonable discourse of the stuff said so often on this site.
- dang 2y agoSince everyone always feels that they are within their rights and reasonable, and that the problem is the wrongness and unreasonableness of others, this principle doesn't help very much. In fact, it's actually a recipe for the container destroying itself.
- ranger_danger 2y agoI wonder if those people would also argue it doesn't violate the "be kind" rule. Maybe adding empathy to that list could help. I think the ability to look at things from other people's perspectives and ascribe to the idea that one may very well be wrong... shows a lot more intelligence than the alternative.
- asacrowflies 2y agoSo basically the "middle ground fallacy" distilled to its purest form as the overarching moderation guidelines for this website? I have been a hackernews reader for almost 15 years and I remember when this very much was not the case. The main goal was TRUTH and CURIOSITY. now the main goal seems to be coddling the most inane and lukewarm minds imaginable. More concerned "politeness" and "civility" They argue that 1+1=5 while I say no FUCK OFF 1+1=2 then the moderator says now now let's be civil here and meet in the middle at 1+1=3 ....no ..fuck off... 1+1=2 And when it comes to REAL engineering or geopolitics or medicine or government policy with people's lives on the line ...the TRUTH matters more than being polite.
- dang 2y agoThat's not close to accurate. It was never ok for HN users to tell each other to fuck off, and the purpose of the site is just the same as it always was. As for truth: people telling each other to fuck off does nothing in service of truth. I recommend this old pg quote to you: Comments should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=pg%20colleagues%20cooperating&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- stop50 2y agoLike the (as far has i know) 4 People who have been charged with the same crime: shooting an guy down in florida. And i mean the same crime was on HN here a few months ago.
- more_corn 2y agoPlanning one, hence the conspiracy charges. Seems pretty Orwellian to me though.
- penguin_booze 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle: not having evidence is not a justification for not taking action.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ImJamal 2y agoAre police only allowed to arrest a rapist when he is raping? Are they only allowed to arrest a murderer in the middle of a murder?