Hacker News Reader

Comment by uncoder0 | Hacker News Reader

You are correct the video all the platforms are using to justify the bans explicitly asked people to go home. Previously he had urged them to be peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident.

edit: Leaving my comment intact as there are people who have replied. VBProgrammer pointed out that a portion of my statement is not true. This morning the DC police revealed two officers were hospitalized with injuries and one was described as having serious injuries while 12 others suffered other injuries.

View on HN

Then doubling down on the narrative that drives these people, one that is directly opposed to peaceful transfer of power: the illegitimacy of the election results. That's an incredibly dangerous message from the President of the United States, he's telling them to go home in one sentence and riling them up in the other, that encourages further insurrection around his persona.

Facebook is in the right not to allow that spark when whole situation is a powder keg.

This really reminds me of Antony's "Friends, romans, countrymen..." speech that is ostensibly peaceful and respectful but is actually riling up the crowd.

People are reacting negatively to this comment (and rightly so) because your representation of what was said in the video does not match the tone, or underlying message delivered by said video.

The video was the equivalent of watching a kid, who has been rightly verbally disciplined by a parent, and who has been told they must apologize to their sibling/friend/whatever, so that kid says "Ok ok I'm SORRY", but immediately starts to rationalize/explain away why they were still right.

> explicitly asked people to go home

The words were said, but the sentiment and subsequent message told the viewer the opposite. "Go home" ... "but you're loved/special and I understand you, wink wink". The equivalent of "SORRY" ... "(but I'm really not sorry...)".

Others have already reacted to the comment about "peaceful" behavior and injuries, and those comments reflect my thoughts, so I won't expand on them here.

That's false. At least 14 officers hurt. See for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/d-c-mayor-issues-order-extending-...

That's disingenuous.

Only 2 officers required hospitalization. For comparison, there were many hospitalizations every single night of the 90-ish day Antifa seige of the Oregon federal courthouse.

In Oregon, Antifa were blasting officers with fireworks, going after them with hammers, polearms, shields, etc. We didn't see that in DC either. Instead we find the police generally getting along with the overwhelming majority of protesters.

Even 9 guns is nothing worth mentioning statistically. If those people had been interested in causing serious harm, almost all of them could have shown up with AR-15s. Hundreds of thousands of people with AR-15s could easily overpower any troops that could have been sent into the area. The fact that we didn't see this once again plays against the media's claims of a coup attempt.

They brought bombs and a cooler full of molotov cocktails. This was a planned violent activity

>peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident.

At least one Capitol police officer is dead. Beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.

Many of the folks arrested had cable ties similar to those used by police to "handcuff" people. One insurrectionist was found with materials to make molotov cocktails.

Destroying and stealing is not "peaceful", it's just not "violent against people".

It is, in the new 2020 definition.

I’m sorry and I’m being serious.

Why is he banned then?

He's no longer useful to them for generating traffic and user data.

Because the above post is a misrepresentation of what was said.

Because the entire attack on Capitol yesterday can be tied directly to the speech he has made just before it. Just because no police/staff were harmed doesn't make it ok - after all, destruction of federal property and buildings carries a potential 10 year imprisonment penalty.

So not only he's encouraging criminal actions, but after these actions occurs he tells these criminals that he loves them. And yes, tells them to go home - great, but that's not a redeeming factor here.

So......is it still not clear why he's banned?

Fact check: Several police officers were harmed/treated for injuries. The crowd used chemical weapons (pepper/bear spray) on officers at several different times during the riot. No less than 2 improvised explosives were recovered from the scene. Please don't give into the "peaceful" narrative.

https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...

Ok, yeah, my mistake for just repeating a stupid comment then. Thanks for correcting it.

Some of them were also armed with assault rifles, others with blunt weapons like baseball bats. And they were stupid enough to get filmed on camera and partly even incriminated themselves afterwards by admitting the crime and providing their real names in front of the camera. It's pretty crazy, if you think about it.

His commentary on election fraud is seen as fueling the riot. Paraphrasing, the video comes across as: "you should go home. You're special and I love you. This is a fraudulent, illegitimate election and america is being stolen from you"

It's like people who start sentences with "no offense, but"

His speech condone their actions at first and then asks them to be calm and go home. You can't have it both ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com