You said they were "abnormal" and "trolls" but you dressed it up in the sort of snooty language that HN expects you to dress it up in.

Civil violence is the backstop of literally every societal system. While it would be better if the systems work, civil violence is what happens if they don't and tends to increase until they do.

Our premises are too far apart for it to be productive to discuss this.

You are walking away because someone called you out for saying something and then called you out for lying about saying that same something? That's kinda chickenshit if you ask me.

I'm walking away because there's nothing more to be said. The idea that there has to be a last word in all these threads that satisfies everybody, including random people who weren't even participating, is part of what makes these threads so awful. I'm not going to keep a slapfight going just to entertain you. Deal with it.

Cop out

>Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong.

Hilarious joke, Mr. Fukuyama. You have masked goons running around, detaining and even killing people without probable cause. If the results of the 2026 midterms are not to the liking of the current POTUS, it isn't unthinkable that he would try to overturn them, even by force. Would you be hand-wringing on HN about how violence is always bad, then?

But I digress. Firebombing Sam Altman is very bad; there is a multitude of good points against it, from the moral to the pragmatic. "Violence is fundamentally evil" is just a lazy and evidently false argument that does you a disservice.

> Hilarious joke, Mr. Fukuyama. You have masked goons running around, detaining and even killing people without probable cause. If the results of the 2026 midterms are not to the liking of the current POTUS, it isn't unthinkable that he would try to overturn them, even by force. Would you be hand-wringing on HN about how violence is always bad, then?

Also the official opposition is actually not really interested in representing many discontented people. It sticks to loser issues at are alienating to many except activist base (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/opinion/democrats-senate-...), and seems totally fine with not being competitive in many elections. And it continues to be that way in the dire political environment you describe.

> Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong

I'd love your thoughts on the violence people committed during the following civil uprising: BLM riots, Minneapolis ICE (there are many more instances through history but Ive selected the most recent ones for simplicity).

Where you condemning the actions of people in those threads, encouraging them to have more civil "discussion" or do you think it was the duty of people to take arms against injustice?

If so, how do you corroborate the justification of violence with your current stance?

Thank you.

The violence during the BLM riots was awful. I live adjacent (across the street, at the time) from the Austin neighborhood on the west side of Chicago, and those riots trashed all the grocery stores on the west side, already a food desert. One grocer I know slept on the floor of his store with a shotgun in his hands. I got to watch video footage of another retailer elsewhere beaten in his store in the middle of the night.

The idea that people think that the BLM riots are somehow a mic drop argument for the effectiveness of civil violence is just further illustration of how far apart our premises are.