In fact, it would be the 'incitement to riot' that the parent comment is referring to, that an impartial application of the proposed rule would identify as worthy of banning.
If you keep posting like that we will ban you. I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted some ok comments within recent memory, but the not-ok comments are seriously not ok. No more of this, please.
But yes I could certainly have been less provocative.
You can say that again! And yet the seemingly innocuous mandate of this site—gratification of intellectual curiosity—actually requires us all to work hard at not succumbing to that dynamic. If you think about it (well, when I think about it), two odd things follow from that: (1) this is a rather larger project than it seems; (2) it's actually doable.
And your point about black people in no way justifies the indiscriminate violence perpetrated by the rioters.
The answer is at no point.
Any way, from what I recall 350,000 white men died fighting for the Union, in a civil war to end an institution that had existed since the beginning of human culture, and that continued to be practiced all around the world into the 20th century until imperialist powers ended it.
Ah yes the old "i can only remember 1 event at a time" defense
It could be the fact that George Floyd's death triggered the movement, that his character figured centrally in it, and hashtags of his name were the primary symbol of it.
But instead you take the typical high handed approach of the moral elitist movement.
If you're acting in good faith, maybe consider your news bubble? Try places other than hackernews, it's demographic is upper middle class white men who are completely engaged to capitalism, which makes for some pretty horrific discussions.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
My logic is not perfect by any means but I see a key difference between; 1) BLM was a group of citizens protesting against what is essentially abuse of power/government and they want change. They want legislative action that holds cops accountable. Doesn't matter if you agree with it, but this cause and their right to protest is the most American thing I've seen in a long time. Sure, there are people that took it too far and protesting turned to rioting. But protesting for action and change are patriotic acts.
2) On the other hand, today's events are almost opposite. It's been driven/lead by senior members of government. Using lies and propaganda, conditioning a group of citizen sympathizers over a long period of time to distrust media, distrust opposing "facts" or anyone that disagrees with Trumps agenda. Weaponize this group of people to seize power and considerably fracture our democracy. It's the least patriotic and perhaps treasonous thing I could ever imagine. But they think they are the patriots. It's just so backwards to me.
It seems likely that the entire political spectrum wants cops held accountable. It is a fairly non-partisan issue that corruption of the police is a massive problem. The right wing hates the idea of people not following the rules, and the left is usually suspicious of the police at best.
And you've judging a right to protest about the corruption of the police force as morally American while protesting corruption in the electoral process is somehow unpatriotic. Those are both extremely civic things to be protesting, the equivalence is very strong. Both are core US principles of freedom and self governance.
Also the idea that the right wing protestors are more organised than the left is extremely suspect. The left are stereotypically much more organised and mobilised for protest - left wing politics has a long and proud history of working effectively through mass movements. Protestors are one of the pools the left wing draws its candidates for (there is that wonderfully classic photo of Bernie Sanders being arrested, for example). Trump is a more iconic figurehead but the left has far more effective logistical and advocacy support around protests. BLM protest leaders quite possibly are going to be a part of the next generation of Democrat leadership.
Cue the laugh track!
This is correct to a degree but it is debunked by the President's plain language in his speech prior to the violence at the Capitol where he asked the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically" protest at the Capitol.
It becomes difficult to make the accusation that the violence is incited when it is very explicitly said that the protest should be peaceful.
During the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, members of Congress were confronted in elevators and hallways of the Capitol building by protesters. These protests were also based on unproven accusations and the people were weaponized to seize power as a ploy because they did not have the requisite votes as per the constitutional process. Intimidation and invasion of the building was seen very differently when it came to a lifelong appointment of a Supreme Court justice.
I would argue that the politicians from both parties share blame in allowing the discourse to escalate like this. To condemn only one party for it is not helpful at all.