Comment by tessierashpool | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tessierashpool | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

the conservative claim to being "silenced" is a reflection of privilege. for instance, the icon here is Peter Thiel, a billionaire who complains about being victimized because people tell him he's in the wrong.

you will and should face ostracism and other consequences for saying, believing, and doing things that people find abhorrent or evil. free speech means you're free to believe those things, and everybody else is free to call you evil, and coordinate accordingly.

conservatism in the United States has enabled the murder of countless children, both through the NRA's fanaticism re assault weapons, and through the weird effective impunity police have re criminal prosecution, even after killing children. conservatism in the US has enabled the destruction of the environment. the Trump campaign and presidency have seen a rapid escalation of hate crimes, and after Charlottesville the president explicitly defended the white supremacists in attendance.

there is so much blood on the hands of the conservative movement. so much racism. so much sexism. so much fear-mongering and rabble-rousing. how could you possibly expect to do that kind of thing without facing CRITICISM? how could you possibly be the victims here?

This is the exact type of commentary the article is talking. This conservative strawman you’ve built is far from average. In this absurd, inflammatory commentary replace the conservative boogeyman with a Muslim boogeyman or a gay boogeyman and realize you’re using the exact same type of rhetoric as the people you despise

is it absurd to claim that the NRA's refusal to compromise re assault weapons has led to the death of many kids in American schools? what is the absurd part here? how many kids can a gay person be alleged to have killed just by being gay? there is no conservative boogeyman in my post. I am referring to the practical effects of policy decisions.

> is it absurd to claim that the NRA's refusal to compromise re assault weapons has led to the death of many kids in American schools?

Honestly I think it is, although if I were having a discussion with a coworker I would couch it in slightly different terms, because many of my coworkers aren't very familiar with guns. e.g. defining assault weapons (varies depending on locale), asking why they are concerned about this like bayonet lugs, are they aware of anyone who has been killed by a bayonet charge in the US since the Civil War, what's wrong with barrel shrouds, etc

> is it absurd to claim that the NRA's refusal to compromise re assault weapons has led to the death of many kids in American schools?

Given that the definition of an "assault weapon" has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of a firearm, and everything to do with the shape of its grip, the presence of collapsing stocks, etc. I'd say yes it is pretty absurd. For example this [1] rifle is exactly the same in caliber, capability, and general functionality as the infamous AR-15 yet is not targeted by even the most restrictive States' definitions of assault weapons. Heck, even liberal publications are catching on to the fact that "assault weapons" are a red herring: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault...

> what is the absurd part here? how many kids can a gay person be alleged to have killed just by being gay?

Pick a more relevant liberal policy: How many people have been killed by prisoners on parole? Should all politicians who support reduced prison sentences and earlier parole, as well as individuals who support those policies, be held responsible for the crimes that parolees and released prisoners commit crimes? This number is much greater than the number of school shootings.

That fact should not be used as justification to ostracize, or otherwise take actions against people who believe in more lenient parole and less prison time - and people who support conservative policies should get the same respect.

[1] https://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/e/6/637956_ts.jpg

Can you really call it a “boogeyman” when conservatives have supported and enacted things into law that have been actively harmful to the other groups? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a majority gay government try to deny straight couples fundamental rights, for instance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com