Hacker News Reader

Comment by MK999 | Hacker News Reader

Do you altogether reject the concept/existence of paid protesters?

This sort of leap into flamewar territory is equivalent to trolling. Please don't do it on HN.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13616169 and marked it off-topic.

I reject the encroachment of post-truth tactics into further areas of discourse. If and when real evidence of paid protest is submitted, it can be discussed freely.

I would consider hired protesters in the same class of scumminess as what I assume you're referring to by post-truth tactics, and I see no more evidence being presented from their side.

> I would consider hired protesters in the same class of scumminess

If we're bringing hypotheticals into the discussion, I also can't stand train bandits. They make me so mad.

The original claims are as hypothetical at this point - that's what I'm saying. Do poor working conditions sometimes exist? Yes. But so do disgruntled employees. Do hired protesters exist? Yes. I've had 2 employers get protested and on both occasions I've walked up to the protesters and asked them for more details on their quarrel than "SHAME ON <ENTITY NAME>" and they haven't been able to give me any. Yes, there's no evidence given that they're hired protesters, but it's not like these writings have much more substance behind them either. None of it's worth much consideration as-is.

I agree that the original claims can't be taken as absolute truth either without further proof.

The claim of paid protest only happens to be more suspect because of Trump's recent pattern of writing off dissent as inauthentic when in aggregate it's clearly grassroots and sincere. The link between Musk and Trump reinforces this, but it may be only a coincidence. It's context worth noting but it's not absolute proof that Musk is lying.

> I see no more evidence being presented from their side.

UAW cannot possibly prove that they didn't pay that guy, and that guy can't possibly prove he wasn't paid.

You can't logically expect them to provide proofs.

I'm not talking about proof of not being paid - I'm talking about proof of the original claims, or at least more detail than you see in the sources here. When stuff like this gets picked up and shared on popular websites because of one disgruntled employee, I'm inclined to dismiss it similarly.

Fair enough.

Seriously? Did you not watch the Trump campaign or what he's done in office at all? Have you not seen the reports from the press briefings in which his advisors go on TV and claim things that are demonstrably false?

Yes I did, but I don't know what point you're taking issue with in my comment.

I reject the prominence that most people place on them. I reject the idea that they're as common as some people want to make it seem. And I reject the use of them as an excuse while offering no evidence at all that it happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com