Plainclothes Surveillance Unit Members Were Embedded Among Jan. 6 Protesters | Hacker News Reader

Plainclothes Surveillance Unit Members Were Embedded Among Jan. 6 Protesters

12ft.io

11 pointswrycoder12 comments

The Waller guy quoted saying that electronic surveillance requires a warrant is incorrect. You don't have an expectation of privacy from video recording in public spaces, and Washington DC is a one-party consent jurisdiction, where the subject of a video/audio recording is not required to provide consent to being recorded.

Many other claims in the article seem questionable (unsurprising given the source), but this was flat out wrong.

There were plainclothes cops in the crowd. So what? The rest of the article is just unfounded accusations. Some people said a goon handing out weapons dressed head to toe in red 'looked like a cop'. The next paragraph dedicated to bigging up some guy's qualifications just so he can rehash the old antifa conspiracy.

This is an article from The Epoch Times, laundered through 12ft.io's proxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

"The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement. ...

The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation, and false claims of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election."

Are you disputing any claims or do you expect ad hominem attacks to be an effective persuasive tool?

I don't necessarily expect it to be an effective persuasive tool. It probably is, but I haven't seen the numbers.

Did you mean, "Are you aware of the ad hominem logical fallacy?" Yep, I'm aware. But since my comment doesn't go to claims, by definition it's not an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem attack: "The Epoch Times has lied many times in the past, therefore this article is all lies."

Not an ad hominem attack: "The Epoch Times has lied many times in the past, and it's good to keep that in mind."

Should we also keep in mind that Adam Schiff is a compulsive liar? The question of embeds is whether they are preventing incidents or inciting them, e.g. the Whitmer case.

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>Not an ad hominem attack: "The Epoch Times has lied many times in the past, and it's good to keep that in mind.

If you can't name "many" such lies (let's start with, say, three?), then you are indeed doing an ad hominem attack.

As I quoted above:

“The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation, and false claims of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election."

Again, you fail to give a single specific example. ALL of their articles have permalinks and are unpaywalled... so point out a few examples that exhibit factual errors.

Yawn.

I pointed you to citations. I’m not investing anything further in this thread.

Lol, interesting seeing the right emote about embeds that go back to WTO protests 30 years ago.

It was great when you were cracking hippies heads, but us? Oh, the privilege.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com