White nationalists tend to delete their own videos when they think it will become evidence. Luckily people saved a lot of footage from Charlottesville and hopefully it will be the same for the videos from the Capitol.
If it's distributed some way through the internet the cat's already out of the bag.
Actually, it's more like those who are guilty like deleting their own recordings, messages and pictures off of social media after the event is broadcasted all over the world, including the Proud Boys, BLM, Antifa and Patriot Prayer.
A user noted there is a 'similar archive' for both events. Another user noted both groups delete self-incriminating evidence. The user I replied to fired off a response I thought would have been appropriate if someone in the thread had said something like "antifa rioters are just as bad" or "just as much incriminating evidence was probably deleted after the George Floyd protests." I think a key thing is I didn't read "similar archive" to mean "an archive of illegal activity by non-police", I took it to mean "an archive of all the stuff that happened that people would want to delete." In the case of the George Floyd protests, often police brutality deleted by PDs, their supporters, etc.
I'm not intending some 'both sides' equivocation here. I'm saying I didn't see the people I replied to further up the thread as making that equivocation, I saw them as saying: People who record themselves doing something incriminating will probably delete it after, both groups contain people. My goal was to say: hey, take a beat. We don't need a flamewar over this yet. Reading now, I can see how someone could read that to mean I am sympathetic to the notion that the BLM protests or George Floyd protests included groups of criminals or people behaving criminally in a way that is comparable to yesterday's events, so let me make it clear in bold point type that I do NOT.
It is possible those users did intend to draw that equivocation, which I think would be completely wrong of them. I am not remotely attempting to defend the actions of the rioters yesterday or to in any way characterize the George Floyd protests or BLM protests at large as remotely comparable or equivocal to the riots yesterday. I am not parroting a 'both sides' talking point.
I am reiterating this a lot, because I got a lot of hatemail for this comment. The only thing I am saying is: Most human beings who record themselves doing something they afterwards find dumb or incriminating will be likely to delete it. A user pointing out that two different political factions contain human beings subject to common human behaviors does not necessarily justify a political flamewar. I understand why that was read differently by some users, so in hindsight I should have just downvoted the flamebait and moved on as usual.
That was posted 40 minutes before your comment, as the very first comment. Yeah, it’s a different thread. Still hard to miss as context for a good-faith interpretation of the comment you’re replying to. Which I believe we do do here.
I'm not intending some 'both sides' equivocation here. I'm saying I didn't see the people I replied to further up the thread as making that equivocation, I saw them as saying: People who record themselves doing something incriminating will probably delete it after. My goal was to say: hey, take a beat. We don't need a flamewar over this yet. Reading now, I can see how someone could read that to mean I am sympathetic to the notion that the BLM protests or George Floyd protests included groups of criminals or people behaving criminally in a way that is comparable to yesterday's events, so let me make it clear in bold point type that I do NOT.
It is possible those users did intend to draw that equivocation, which I think would be completely wrong of them. I am not remotely attempting to defend the actions of the rioters yesterday or to in any way characterize the George Floyd protests or BLM protests at large as remotely comparable or equivocal to the riots yesterday. I am not parroting a 'both sides' talking point.
I am reiterating this a lot, because I got a lot of hatemail for this comment. The only thing I am saying is: Most human beings who record themselves doing something they afterwards find dumb or incriminating will be likely to delete it. A user pointing out that two different political factions contain human beings subject to common human behaviors does not necessarily justify a political flamewar. I understand why that was read differently by some users, so in hindsight I should have just downvoted the flamebait and moved on as usual.
Of course our wise political leaders in congress took that as an opportunity to dunk on Trump as a weak leader who is hiding in a bunker. Many of the same politicians that fled the Capitol today.
I’m so tired of folks excusing their preferred rioting marauders while condemning their counterpart’s. They both suck. This is happening because our cities have let it happen - violent political tantrums have been normalized.
Many remain unaware that four city blocks of Seattle were occupied for a month by gunmen with assault rifles [0][1][2], or that those self-identified antifa gunmen shot and killed an unarmed black kid [3], or that antifa Twitter celebrated the killing and their shooter's "beautiful shot placement" [4] until it turned out they'd murdered a black kid instead of imaginary white supremacists. Note the now-deleted tweet's many likes and retweets.
The murdered kid's name was Antonio Mays Jr., and despite or perhaps because of [5] the many antifa eyewitnesses to the shooting, his killer remains at large.
That's just CHAZ/CHOP. I haven't even mentioned Michael Reinoehl, Matthew Dolloff, Jesse Taggart, and others. For some reason these incidents rapidly slipped from public view, or were never a focus at all. Fortunately the relevant livestreams, tweets, and video clips have all been archived.
Many of the original sources for the CHAZ/CHOP shootings are now unavailable. I encourage everyone to use tools like youtube-dl and archive-dot-is. Even if a clip, tweet, or stream doesn't seem to embarrass its owner or violate a platform's TOS, it may always get deleted for some other reason. If you want to refer to it later, always archive.
[0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/chop-shooting-seattle-defu...
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/after-early-mornin...
[2] https://www.the-sun.com/news/980814/heavily-armed-leftist-gu...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/seattle-protests-CHOP-...
[5] https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1282703884721348609
When so many loud (and often elected) voices say Antifa or BLM have "burned cities down" or other such outright fabrications, it's hard to take the genuine criticism seriously.
If you make excuses for these people, engage in hyperbole/exaggeration/dismissal, parrot narratives mindlessly, or gossip on twitter then you are contributing to a system which helps these people, groups, and institutions avoid accountability and makes us all worse off for it. We will never have a stable nation as long as any of these people do not understand the error of their ways. Immediately after this storming of the Capitol I watched liberals parrot narratives saying the "Capitol Police let them in!" and yet [0] we now have stories of how a Capitol Police officer died after trying to defend the Capitol. I watched conservatives make up all kind of rosy views about the storming of the capitol and yet ignored they were prompted by Donald Trump and his obsession with maintaining power. You're all wrong.
[0] https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/08/us-capitol-riots-police-...
At at least one entry point, for whatever reason that narrative appears to have some justification:
https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/134761599861091...
That said, with due respect I would note that I was responding to your apparently 'immediately arriving at a conclusion before the dust had settled' by calling her assessment a parroted narrative, likely before having seen that video.
We can all do better.
Hence my framing it in a very specific way to address that portion of your comment.
I guess what I really mean to say is that someone seeing that video and thinking, "some of those people were let inside by the Capitol Police" is not the most reckless interpretation of a video clip I've seen in the last twelve months, much less in my lifetime.
Now, "I saw that video and therefore it was staged by [Trump/Pelosi/etc.]," is where it becomes reckless and unjustifiable parroting of trending narratives. Let's wait for the investigation, and hope (however naively) that it is thorough and impartial, and that the public receives the full report.
Edited to add: I have never seen an American public so ready to be deceived and weaponized against each other as what we've seen with this last, long cycle of increasing tension (which appears to be far from over). And it's anyone's guess as to who will weaponize that more destructively.
So I think your ultimate point is both timely and important. Thank you for making it.
> Edited to add: I have never seen an American public so ready to be deceived and weaponized against each other as what we've seen with this last, long cycle of increasing tension (which appears to be far from over). And it's anyone's guess as to who will weaponize that more destructively.
Same. These times are very worrisome. I don't really know what to do anymore.
> So I think your ultimate point is both timely and important. Thank you for making it.
Same to you. I appreciate that there's still a place on the internet I can go where I can have discourse with people and not be shouted out of a room. I refuse to believe this is just the status quo going forward and meeting like-minded folks gives me hope.
On the other hand, I'm also (lamentably) aware of how few griefers it takes to turn a great multiplayer environment into something nearly worthless for that large majority of reasonable people.
Because Chaz or whatever it was called was certainly in the news. It's just, unsurprisingly, this is probably going to last for more news cycles than that did
Identifying criminals after the crime with FR is totally fine. using fuzzy facial matches for strict liability infringement policing / revenue raising is not ok.
It's a space that's due for some sensible legislation.
To me, this seems just dumb. Install a camera in your home, it will probably scare burglars, but I wouldn't expect much for broad deployment in public spaces. For violent crime it will do nothing, analogous to stronger sentences not working.
There will be countless security firms that will sell you the gadgets. But at that point you already became a victim in my opinion.
I am not from the US, but I believe your country could solve its issues with equality if you just make the whole thing a giant prison. That is innovative and the future and a blessing AI will grant us.
But no, still not in favor of its use. Democrats, or me at least, aren’t quite as quick to give up their principles.