Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Well, I’ll never be donating again.

I’m more concerned about parler being banned or that “hang pence” was trending, but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing.

I’m against all rioting (all year it feels like) and what happened Jan 6 was horrifying.

You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers.

banning / arresting / killing all the leaders and then banning their other platforms will make people scared and ready to fight.

View on HN

> who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing.

“we”?

He also called the insurrectionists “patriots”, and said that he “loved them”, while they were holding the capital building, looting, causing damage, and parading confederate flags through the halls. Just FYI. As like another thing to consider.

It’s sort of surprising how you didn’t mention that yourself. It was literally in the same tweet. I guess it must have slipped your mind.

Not everyone thinks that hatred is a moral obligation. It's okay to show compassion to people that you think are making a mistake.

Which part was the mistake? Breaking in, looting, parading the confederate flag, killing a cop, insurrection?

Blind partisan hatred is a mistake.

Besides that, the people responsible for violent crimes will very likely be prosecuted and harshly punished. The message "go home peacefully" is irrelevant for those people and is probably intended for everyone else. Looting is bad, but it's "jail time" bad and not "undying hatred" bad. It's okay to show some compassion to looters while telling them to change their behavior.

This is how you de-escalate, you relate.

Standard practice[1]:

1. Actively Listen

2. Build Empathy & Rapport (recognize each others mindset)

3. Exert Influence & Change

It's also likely, he wasn't 100% aware of the circumstances.

Coming out and saying, "I abandon you, you traitors" wouldn't help. Imagine if there were hostages or more bombs! Saying it in a nice way could defuse the situation. Damning it while they are still at or in the building is not a good idea.

In a later video Trump said "they'll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" and "we need Law and Order". So, I don't think it's a fair characterization given the context.

[1] https://www.inc.com/thomas-koulopoulos/how-to-negotiate-usin...

You're giving the president here way more leeway than is necessary.

The leave in peace video clearly had a subtext (he mentioned the election being stolen no less than 3 times in the video) and was not aimed at subduing the crowd at all. Furthermore, the later video where he said that the trespassers would be prosecuted is clearly scripted/edited (from the monotone and cuts in the filming), and likely happened because of some strong-arming (how else did he go from "we will never concede" to admitting defeat in a single day?)

My best guess as to what happened there was that Mitch McConnell (or someone else) figured that he could whip enough votes to impeach & convict if need be and Trump, facing potential consequences, reluctantly decided to play ball.

Just commenting to clarify that "hang Pence" trending was associated with folks sharing and retweeting videos of people chanting hang pence at the capitol. It was NOT an incitement to violence and to hang Pence. If anything, it was actually a condemnation of those calling to hang Pence.

Agreed.

It doesn't sound like the platforms that profit off of our collective division want to do anything to defuse tension.

I'm baffled at how far these companies will go to keep people viewing ads.

Something needs to disempower the newsfeed-driven media companies before the violence snowballs.

Things will only get better when we start trying to find common ground. These media platforms are designed to ensure that doesn't happen.

>You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers.

this. this is why the deplatforming of a single political leader is confusing.

if trump can calm down the fringe elements, that's what he needs to do. gagging him from ever reaching that base is counter productive.

one day..we will all be looking back at these events and scratch our heads. this course of action makes no sense. its all very strange and surreal. irrational.

> if trump can calm down the fringe elements, that's what he needs to do.

On what basis do you think Trump has the interest in calming the fringe elements? And if he did have the motivation, on what basis do you think he would be successful?

>On what basis do you think Trump has the interest in calming the fringe elements?

You are aware he said for everyone to go home and he condemned the violence? https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trump-condemns-vio...

> "if trump can calm down the fringe elements, that's what he needs to do."

Trump has never given any indication that he would do this if he could. He's had plenty of opportunities to call out bad behavior and has been at best equivocal when's he's gestured in that direction.

You're right, that it is strange and surreal.

Yes, after four years of the Trump administration, this is what we'll scratch our heads about. This is what will seem strange and surreal and irrational. Absolutely.

> banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing

He read that, in the usual monotone he reserves for words he doesn't believe for a second. Did you actually believe he was sincere?

That's not really up for you specifically to decide. He said it though.

I'm not sure of this, but I have a hypothesis that you're misunderstanding the Trump phenomenon.

Here's the idea to consider: Trump was sincere! Trump is basically always sincere. Even when he contradicts himself in a matter of minutes. He is a master bullshitter who grew up going to Normal Vincent Peale's church. His entire life is built on the idea that it's all a stage, all a game. The RESULT of that is: he's extremely practiced at coming up with stories and convincing himself. In other words, self-deception. He knows he's bullshitting, but he doesn't think a reality beyond bullshitting exists. He believes what he says all the time. That's why he doesn't give the normal tells that indicate shifty lying and deception. Unlike the other politicians who are obviously being calculating and withholding their real thoughts, Trump is transparent. He's saying exactly what he actually thinks, and even when it is complete oxymoronic, he experiences no cognitive dissonance. He's not really lying in the normal sense, he's delusional.

Check out https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/91612...

Trump is the ultimate self-deceiver. That's why his followers find him so appealing. He's authentic in that you can tell he really does say what he thinks and doesn't hold back. It's just that his mind is so constantly focused on whatever will get people to like him and otherwise what serves his interest, the content of his beliefs is similar to what it would be if he were consciously being deceptive. But if he were concerned about his stories being consistent and believable in content, he'd get all nervous and seem more like a liar. He's able to talk with sincerity because he doesn't care if his stories make sense, even as bullshit he still believes them for himself, at least enough to say the things in earnest.

Of course, I don't really know, but this would explain part of how it's possible for so many people to have still seen him as honest despite the plainly factually wrong things that come out of him.

> but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing.

This is not all he said, nor does this capture the key context.

The argument is simple: the risk of allowing Trump to continue to have access to Facebook and Twitter outweighs the benefit.

I would like to point out that the president has an unmatched ability to put out information, independent of social media, including: whitehouse.gov, press releases, press briefings, and the major television networks.

I don’t have a ball in this match other than the one that wants to continue to raise my daughter without civil unrest. How are you so certain of the benefit of this action?

Where did I say I was certain?

> You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers.

Please explain what about Trump's history suggests that he will be convinced?

I understand a respect, even some degree of zeal, for principles such as freedom of speech. But these do not exist in a vacuum. And, practically, the degree of the president's ability to speak to an audience is unparalleled.

In short, there are larger concerns here besides the general principle of free speech in the abstract. We should be discussing the consequences of incitement, falsehood, provocation, threats, disinformation, insults, and so on.

Up until Trump, societal norms, by and large, kept presidential speech within sensible bounds. [1] Trump has ignored those norms.

[1] Of course, there was plenty of deceipt, lying, cover-ups, rhetoric, and so on. But by any measure, Trump has blown the door off civility and credibility.

I'm am genuinely hoping for well-written counter-arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com