This should definitely not be downvoted. I hope this collection ends up at archive.org for future historians.

Yeah why downvote this? Ppl buying minimal amounts of marijuana (and other selectively enforced misdemeanors) are doing real time while members of a violent mob walk free. And not only are they all on camera, but there may even be SIGINT collection devices that have their phone ID info.

I don’t usually engage in politics on HN, but I think this goes beyond politics. How are we not supposed to be angry, after watching ppl be gassed and shot with rubber bullets, about how the Capitol Police responded 6 Jan? This is much bigger than politics.

I was looking for datasets. Thanks for this. Not sure why anyone downvoted a data source.

I don't think that's what they're down voting.

What is it?

Is downvoting to censor comments something that should be against the guidelines or not?

So you downvoted it because the word terror might upset other people?

This is a post about an attack that killed at least 5 people.

Words have power [1]. The power to help and the power to harm. And in the age of social media, that power is magnified more than ever before [2]. So while the intent of the comment may have been to improve our shared world, that doesn't give a warrant to do more harm. We all need to chip in to ensure our words are precise and devoid of language that might upset, frighten, or harm others in our community.

And one more thing- which I'm sure doesn't apply to you- the idea that past harm justifies new harm is the same beliefs that justified the rise of a certain dictator in a certain central european power behaved in the 1930s/40s.

Let's work together make this community one that everyone wants to participate in!

1. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6324786/amp

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonescalante/2020/08/03/rese...

If you believe a word is causing harm and are asking people not to use it, you should at least articulate the kind of harm you're talking about, who is being harmed, and maybe suggest some alternative wording.

Explaining exactly how something like t*rr*r causes people harm is a form of victim blaming. It isn't the requirement of harmed peoples to explain how they are harmed, it is our responsibility to listen, believe, and change our harmful behavior.

Is it really so hard to just use a different word? Or is your conservative view on language more important than people's wellbeing?

That said, an alternative word suggested by experts is "anti-social political action."

To be clear we're talking about the word not the act - asking is not victim blaming, it's asking for clarity as to what you're talking about.

"And one more thing- which I'm sure doesn't apply to you- the idea that past harm justifies new harm is the same beliefs that justified the rise of a certain dictator in a certain central european power behaved in the 1930s/40s."

Those words are too vague. People were led to believe that the core of their government was being defrauded. Were they harmed? Did some of them go on to harm?

(I didn't see your flagged comment. Currently mine is at -3.)

Are you being sarcastic? I do not think I get what you are trying to say, sarcasm or no sarcasm.

"terror attack"