FBI Agents Visit Anti-ICE Protester: "Your name was brought up."(kenklippenstein.com)
kenklippenstein.com
FBI Agents Visit Anti-ICE Protester: "Your name was brought up."
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/video-fbi-agents-visit-anti-ice-protester
185 comments
You may not care about politics, but politics cares about you.
You should! We shouldn't let ourselves be dragged silently into the dark times. In my opinion, it's our obligation to try to understand the landscape and to make sure that everyone — across the different political beliefs — is well off... Only then do you get a system that rewards merit, instead of whatever the heck you want to call what is being dropped on us.
“Not caring” means you are privileged enough that you could look away for a long time. Politics definitely cared about you though.
[deleted]
The hour is fucking late now. Do it while you still can. People too busy pumping the stock market to see they are losing their right.
Well, let's see. There were 7 million people at No Kings. I don't think one-on-one FBI visits is a scalable tactic to try to reduce the numbers.
So maybe this particular visit was not just about "chilling effect"?
So maybe this particular visit was not just about "chilling effect"?
Don't you think that a few hundred instances of articles like this could have a chilling effect?
If you keep reading articles over a few months about different people being visited/interviewed by the FBI, you'll at some point have the thought "can they somehow find out about me?".
It's Panopticon-lite, give the impression they might be able to see you even if there's no realistic capacity to watch everyone at once and you'll feel a little more paranoid, that's a chilling effect.
Now couple that with the friend of the administration Larry Ellison's quote about "if we watch every citizen they'll be in their best behaviour", and you get to a political project of control.
If you keep reading articles over a few months about different people being visited/interviewed by the FBI, you'll at some point have the thought "can they somehow find out about me?".
It's Panopticon-lite, give the impression they might be able to see you even if there's no realistic capacity to watch everyone at once and you'll feel a little more paranoid, that's a chilling effect.
Now couple that with the friend of the administration Larry Ellison's quote about "if we watch every citizen they'll be in their best behaviour", and you get to a political project of control.
No, magas are too stupid to understand this. Obviously this won't affect magas. But it might bring a bit more attention to those in the middle.
It could not have a chilling affect on the next day's No Kings protest, except on that individual and maybe others he told about it that day.
But now the story is out, which can have a chilling affect on many people considering attending future No Kings or similar protests.
But now the story is out, which can have a chilling affect on many people considering attending future No Kings or similar protests.
How many people do you think need FBI visits to chill those 7 million? All of them?
[deleted]
When federal agents, such as the FBI, attempt to question you, it is strongly advised that you do not talk to them without a lawyer present. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees you the right to remain silent and to have an attorney. There were several instances in this account where Serafini's answers could be used to paint his involvement as not so innocent.
>When federal agents, such as the FBI, attempt to question you, it is strongly advised that you do not talk to them without a lawyer present.
Yes. This. James Duane lays out[0] why this is so important. I strongly encourage everyone resident in the US to view this video as it makes (IMHO) a very strong case for never talking to the police -- they are not (at least in their official capacities) your friends.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Yes. This. James Duane lays out[0] why this is so important. I strongly encourage everyone resident in the US to view this video as it makes (IMHO) a very strong case for never talking to the police -- they are not (at least in their official capacities) your friends.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
> When federal agents, such as the FBI, attempt to question you, it is strongly advised that you do not talk to them without a lawyer present.
Good advice but it should be any law enforcement…not just federal agents.
“I don’t answer questions without my attorney present. Leave me your card and I will have my lawyer contact you” are powerful words.
Good advice but it should be any law enforcement…not just federal agents.
“I don’t answer questions without my attorney present. Leave me your card and I will have my lawyer contact you” are powerful words.
[deleted]
Shame the constitution only matters when Trump or his cronies say it does. The American justice system has been broken and the cause came from within.
this is factually not accurate, trump's actions are constantly getting legally challenged and blocked
Just not by SCOTUS (cf. the shadow docket which has not gone against Trump since May).
SCOTUS actually took some of that "constantly being legally challenged and blocked" away when they took away nation-wide injunctions. Even if they're issued by federal judges against nation-wide orders which were given by a nationally-powerful elected official.
> SCOTUS actually took some of that "constantly being legally challenged and blocked" away when they took away nation-wide injunctions.
Arguably, they added to it, since now nation-wide policies are instead being blocked locally by multiple district courts instead of just facing nationwide injunctions in the first place they are litigated.
Arguably, they added to it, since now nation-wide policies are instead being blocked locally by multiple district courts instead of just facing nationwide injunctions in the first place they are litigated.
then why do people keep cooperating? because they're stupid?
Some probably are. Some probably think they're smarter.
I'm guessing most are just scared/intimidated.
I'm guessing most are just scared/intimidated.
Okay… what do you think a lawyer is going to say? Almost mostly, “Answer their questions.”
Another POV is, why assume that this do not cooperate advice, which smart people keep not following, is right? It’s a meme. Are memes important for law and life? They are brain rot.
Another POV is, why assume that this do not cooperate advice, which smart people keep not following, is right? It’s a meme. Are memes important for law and life? They are brain rot.
The advice isn't "don't cooperate", it's "don't cooperate without a lawyer present", and even if the lawyer tells you to answer the question, you're probably still better off with the lawyer present.
But hey, do what you want since you apparently seem to know it's a meme and not advice worth following.
But hey, do what you want since you apparently seem to know it's a meme and not advice worth following.
I've not had that kind of experience in over 30 years. I'm a bit older now, and I would hope that my response would be something similar to:
Me: "Am I under arrest?"
No: "I would like my attorney present before starting this discussion. Please provide me some contact information so we can schedule this."
Yes: "I wish to have my attorney present. I will not be answering any questions or discussing this matter."
Now, I don't know if I'm actually that brave, but I've at least got a plan.
Me: "Am I under arrest?"
No: "I would like my attorney present before starting this discussion. Please provide me some contact information so we can schedule this."
Yes: "I wish to have my attorney present. I will not be answering any questions or discussing this matter."
Now, I don't know if I'm actually that brave, but I've at least got a plan.
Them: ”Have it your way”, handcuffs, car ride to black site, jumpsuit, seat in a military-leased civilian airplane, flight to El Salvador.
At this point, being a martyr as an African American whose ancestors have been on this land longer than the US existed is probably my best contribution to countering this regime. I've always wondered if I would need to put my body on the like the way my grandfather did in New Orleans.
That cannot happen in the US, I'm told, as it has the greatest protections by its God-given Constitution. The most beautiful protections.
Sometimes the second amendment must be put to its real intended use.
Nothing controversial about it. Many states have castle doctrine. People have killed violent intruders including cops and successfully won the case in court.
[deleted]
I'm going to upvote everyone here, but beyond that, I don't really know what to do that I haven't already done.
Call your Respectives, donate where you can, and if you're active on social media: boost the voices you want to hear and let them get the word out.
And of course, keep your eyes peeled for any elections in your area. No matter how minor a position. If you can donate / volunteer for their campaigns, all the better. These situations will need to be fixed bottom up in the long term, so you never know what comptroller today becomes a senate tomorrow.
And of course, keep your eyes peeled for any elections in your area. No matter how minor a position. If you can donate / volunteer for their campaigns, all the better. These situations will need to be fixed bottom up in the long term, so you never know what comptroller today becomes a senate tomorrow.
If you're American, go on strike. Nobody gives a shit about people holding signs and protesting peacefully. If you can't do anything to make the opposition care about you, don't expect them to do anything other than ignore you.
Ok. I'm a contractor. I live in Florida with zero protections. I have three kids. I'm 51 and have had a hell of a time finding work the last few years. I'm pretty scared of doing this, honestly.
I'm not telling you how to live your life. I'm pointing out that peaceful protest is pointless. And a strike without organization is also pointless.
There are no easy answers here. If you want change, expect to fight for it.
There are no easy answers here. If you want change, expect to fight for it.
>peaceful protest is pointless.
This is not true. There are trivially many historical examples.
This is not true. There are trivially many historical examples.
Peaceful protest makes the massive assumption that there is a working press out there that is willing to be sympathetic. Instead, our press seems to be at best complicit and capitulation-minded, at worst collaborative.
For what it's worth, I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I remember quite clearly the way the press treated Occupy Wall Street, pretending that it was just a bunch of random loiterers who didn't have clear demands and goals.
In that case, the media simply made the editorial choice not to go out of their way to engage with the protesters, metaphorically covering their ears and then asking why they couldn't hear anything. Things have only gotten worse in the decades since.
For what it's worth, I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I remember quite clearly the way the press treated Occupy Wall Street, pretending that it was just a bunch of random loiterers who didn't have clear demands and goals.
In that case, the media simply made the editorial choice not to go out of their way to engage with the protesters, metaphorically covering their ears and then asking why they couldn't hear anything. Things have only gotten worse in the decades since.
Name some historical examples where people only protested on the weekend, didn't go on strike, and didn't have a threat of violence or some sort of leverage behind it.
I totally get it and appreciate your words. When I step back I realize I have a lot of privilege and many others face much worse prospects and are much more courageous than I am.
peaceful protest is not pointless, no.
peacefully expressing opposition is enormously powerful.
there is still hope that it will be the path out of this worsening nightmare.
peacefully expressing opposition is enormously powerful.
there is still hope that it will be the path out of this worsening nightmare.
You really think a bunch of people holding signs on the weekend, then going back to work the next day is accomplishing anything? What are you accomplishing?
It doesn't matter how many of you there are if none of you are willing to actually do anything. If I just ignore you, how does it change anything in my life? The only thing you're achieving is making yourselves feel better about accomplishing nothing.
It doesn't matter how many of you there are if none of you are willing to actually do anything. If I just ignore you, how does it change anything in my life? The only thing you're achieving is making yourselves feel better about accomplishing nothing.
yeah, i really think it accomplishes a lot.
at a minimum, it makes it clear to others that they are not alone in thinking this regime is beyond the pale.
people who are able to take other actions like engaging via the judicial system, or peacefully refusing to continue working, are also encouraged by seeing peaceful masses of people agreeing with them.
it actually harms the cause to be dismissive of people who can contribute by simply making their peaceful objection visible.
at a minimum, it makes it clear to others that they are not alone in thinking this regime is beyond the pale.
people who are able to take other actions like engaging via the judicial system, or peacefully refusing to continue working, are also encouraged by seeing peaceful masses of people agreeing with them.
it actually harms the cause to be dismissive of people who can contribute by simply making their peaceful objection visible.
> it actually harms the cause to be dismissive of people who can contribute by simply making their peaceful objection visible
I think it harms the cause to feel better about accomplishing nothing. You've created a morale booster, but you haven't actually achieved anything or put forth any sort of plan to enact any sort of change. Assuming your goal is to make the government function according to written laws, why would the current president give a shit about anything you say when he can just continue to ignore you? If he ignored you before, you holding up a sign isn't going to do anything.
Protests work when there is some sort of threat behind it. Most protests you read about in history aren't a few hours on the weekend, they're ongoing where everybody is already participating in a strike. And many of them have the obvious threat of violence behind them. This "protest on the weekend" shit is pathetic. I'm not going to congratulate you for wasting time while everything continues to get worse. From my perspective you are part of the problem.
I think it harms the cause to feel better about accomplishing nothing. You've created a morale booster, but you haven't actually achieved anything or put forth any sort of plan to enact any sort of change. Assuming your goal is to make the government function according to written laws, why would the current president give a shit about anything you say when he can just continue to ignore you? If he ignored you before, you holding up a sign isn't going to do anything.
Protests work when there is some sort of threat behind it. Most protests you read about in history aren't a few hours on the weekend, they're ongoing where everybody is already participating in a strike. And many of them have the obvious threat of violence behind them. This "protest on the weekend" shit is pathetic. I'm not going to congratulate you for wasting time while everything continues to get worse. From my perspective you are part of the problem.
> Nobody gives a shit about people holding signs and protesting peacefully.
Do both. The person in this story clearly was not ignore.
They do in fact care otherwise they wouldn't be so beligerent about it. It takes 3% of the country protesting to get undeniable attention and last weekend was getting close to that threshold. 330m Americans or so, the threshold is around 10m. And this weekend was counted with 7m.
Your voice does matter, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Do both. The person in this story clearly was not ignore.
They do in fact care otherwise they wouldn't be so beligerent about it. It takes 3% of the country protesting to get undeniable attention and last weekend was getting close to that threshold. 330m Americans or so, the threshold is around 10m. And this weekend was counted with 7m.
Your voice does matter, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I don't know, it'd be kind of funny if there weren't any protests, just everyone goes home and plays GTA VI. It's not like the cause of the striking would be unknowable.
As predicted by Orwell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_in_Nineteen_Eighty-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_in_Nineteen_Eighty-...
>When you see the signs, and they’re all made out of a beautiful, beautiful paper. Beautiful, nice, stiff, very expensive paper with beautiful wood handles all the same. All the same color. They come from very expensive printing machines. These are are people that write out their signs in a basement, that believe in something. These are paid anarchists.
-Trump
This man is a child with questionable critical thinking skills. Now we have agents out running around chasing his imagination because he thinks nice paper and printing is hard to come by.
-Trump
This man is a child with questionable critical thinking skills. Now we have agents out running around chasing his imagination because he thinks nice paper and printing is hard to come by.
It's more like an admission that they fund astroturf campaigns themselves.
Or one of the most accomplished liars in history intent on turning one of the most powerful democracies in history into a dictatorship...
Very passive choices of words considering the turning has already happened.
It's Friday, a timely reminder that you have a right to STFU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs
Or for a longer form explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Or for a longer form explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
When you protest against the abuses of Gestapo, the SS will come for you.
What the hell is an "immigration radical"?
Is FBI being instructed that protesting ice is antifa terrorism?
This is super concerning.
Is FBI being instructed that protesting ice is antifa terrorism?
This is super concerning.
> Is FBI being instructed that protesting ice is antifa terrorism?
Yes, both the President and the Attorney General have been doing this openly, and explicitly citing it as the basis for their instructions to federal law enforcement. They have also been prosecuting based on false testimony of federal officers about assaults (and being forced to dismiss a stunningly high number of filed cases on that basis), and still using the numbers from those false claims as basis for asserting a huge spike in assaults on federal offficers, which also is being cited directly as justification for reallocating resources and setting enforcement prioirities.
Yes, both the President and the Attorney General have been doing this openly, and explicitly citing it as the basis for their instructions to federal law enforcement. They have also been prosecuting based on false testimony of federal officers about assaults (and being forced to dismiss a stunningly high number of filed cases on that basis), and still using the numbers from those false claims as basis for asserting a huge spike in assaults on federal offficers, which also is being cited directly as justification for reallocating resources and setting enforcement prioirities.
That’s exactly why they tried to claim there’s a terrorist “Antifa” group: since there’s no such organization or defining principles, there’s a lot of gray area to investigate anyone they find politically incorrect.
Everything that isn't in lock step with the administration is "radical" or a similar verb.
[deleted]
The political part of the FBI has something LIKE a Palantir dashboard that says, here's a list of people you should talk to, every day, and then the FBI civil service has something LIKE a Jira, that tells agents to go talk to these people, and they do.
Is the FBI being "instructed?" Yes. But it gets "instructed" every day, what has changed? (1) Republicans aren't a no-regulation thing, they are a vague regulation thing. The policies and regulations exist, they just make less sense, they're less visionary, less consistent than the ones that Democrats make. (2) There is better alignment between the tools, like a Palantir dashboard that LLM-reads social media posts, and these vague policies. (3) A list of names cuts through the bureaucratic / administrative friction of vague policy.
Is the FBI being "instructed?" Yes. But it gets "instructed" every day, what has changed? (1) Republicans aren't a no-regulation thing, they are a vague regulation thing. The policies and regulations exist, they just make less sense, they're less visionary, less consistent than the ones that Democrats make. (2) There is better alignment between the tools, like a Palantir dashboard that LLM-reads social media posts, and these vague policies. (3) A list of names cuts through the bureaucratic / administrative friction of vague policy.
If protesting ICE is anti-fascist, what does that make ICE? Sending the FBI to the homes of law-abiding citizens who happen to be planning to protest against government actions... What's that? More Americans need to start asking themselves questions like these.
I'm in Canada, but what's going on South of the border has become highly concerning. It's starting to feel like Belgium up here.
I'm in Canada, but what's going on South of the border has become highly concerning. It's starting to feel like Belgium up here.
There is no such thing as antifa
There is, but it's an adjective, not a noun.
Sure there is but it's not an organisation.
>> There is no such thing as antifa
That's like saying there is no such thing as communism. There is such a thing as communism, it is an ideology, not an organization. The Communist Party USA is an organization, not an ideology.
You can fill in the rest.
That's like saying there is no such thing as communism. There is such a thing as communism, it is an ideology, not an organization. The Communist Party USA is an organization, not an ideology.
You can fill in the rest.
Anti-fascism exists, similarly as communism.
Antifa, in the US context, is used to describe an organization that doesn't exist. People were protesting various causes, but very vocal right-wing extremists started using that label to imply there is an organization which they can blame for alleged violence.
Antifa, in the US context, is used to describe an organization that doesn't exist. People were protesting various causes, but very vocal right-wing extremists started using that label to imply there is an organization which they can blame for alleged violence.
[deleted]
> What the hell is an "immigration radical"?
There are people who think that every person on the planet should be able to immigrate to the US (or other first world countries). This is a radical position as it couldn't possibly work.
(I don't know about this person, I'm not saying it's widespread, just saying what a radical is.)
There are people who think that every person on the planet should be able to immigrate to the US (or other first world countries). This is a radical position as it couldn't possibly work.
(I don't know about this person, I'm not saying it's widespread, just saying what a radical is.)
> as it couldn't possibly work
This isn't what makes a position radical. It's radical for being far different to the current norm.
This isn't what makes a position radical. It's radical for being far different to the current norm.
> What the hell is an "immigration radical"?
Probably something similar to those “domestic terrorist” parents who were investigated by the DOJ for speaking out at school board meetings in 2021?
Probably something similar to those “domestic terrorist” parents who were investigated by the DOJ for speaking out at school board meetings in 2021?
I grew up in communist Poland before the fall of the wall in 1989 is just one story among many from this year that sounds like an echo of what my parent's told me they had to grow up with.
That so many Americans, in the self proclaimed land of the free, voted for this reality under the delusion they were against "socialism" is the most historically illiterate thing ever.
That so many Americans, in the self proclaimed land of the free, voted for this reality under the delusion they were against "socialism" is the most historically illiterate thing ever.
Look at the places in the US that are favoring Trump and correlate that with the places that have the worst school systems in that country. Also have a look at which party dominated the politics in those areas in the last couple of decades and how they treated their respective school systems. There is a pattern there that is, in a way, self-supporting.
The continuation to that pattern is a ballroom putsch.
Do we ever learn why these posts get censored or is it just going to keep fuelling conspiracies? Unless fuelling conspiracies is actually less bad for the offender because there _is_ a conspiracy!
- Some people will flag any political content they see, believing all political content to be off-topic.
- Some people support the current regime and will flag any content they consider anti-establishment.
- Hacker News is designed so that it takes very few flags to stick, so as to aggressively filter signal from noise, for as greedy a definition of "noise" as possible.
There's no conspiracy here, it's just Hacker News being Hacker News. If you want to be able to discuss these things freely, find another platform. Otherwise just accept that any "political" content will very likely be flagged at some point.
- Some people support the current regime and will flag any content they consider anti-establishment.
- Hacker News is designed so that it takes very few flags to stick, so as to aggressively filter signal from noise, for as greedy a definition of "noise" as possible.
There's no conspiracy here, it's just Hacker News being Hacker News. If you want to be able to discuss these things freely, find another platform. Otherwise just accept that any "political" content will very likely be flagged at some point.
Everything on this site is political. YC is very much a political entity, they are simply censoring what to an outsider would be YC’s political opposition.
In some cases, certainly, although I suspect most people simply don't care and just want to engage with "technical" content.
It doesn't matter what arguments you make or who you make them too, they aren't going to stop flagging.
It doesn't matter what arguments you make or who you make them too, they aren't going to stop flagging.
> If you want to be able to discuss these things freely, find another platform.
I believe it is productive to continue discussing these topics here.
Hacker News has a reputation as a place where you can have reasonable discussions with smart people in good faith. It is a facade, but tearing down this facade is done by making the attempts at censorship more visible and blatant.
I believe it is productive to continue discussing these topics here.
Hacker News has a reputation as a place where you can have reasonable discussions with smart people in good faith. It is a facade, but tearing down this facade is done by making the attempts at censorship more visible and blatant.
No but there are clearly patterns in what "off topic" stuff gets flagged. Many people work in analytics here. It'd be nice if some number crunching was done.
I can tell you why. There's no conspiracy, not really.
Instead, it's an attitude of "I know what I voted for, and I'd prefer not to be reminded of its negative externalizes, thanks. Also, I'd really prefer it if this sort of news not filter out into the greater consciousness of Hacker News, because it might cause other people to reconsider their support."
One of the biggest lies of HN is that it's a place of open and reasonable debate and discussion. In reality, it is highly curated by the users who have access to the moderation tools in order to shape the conversation. There's no direct coordination or conversations, just a widespread unspoken agreement.
I don't disagree with their decision-making in a vacuum. There's nothing wrong with bias if it's something people are generally aware of, so it can be accounted for. On the other hand, I think that there's a significant moral hazard of a site that pretends to be unbiased but has an unaccountable cabal of users putting their collective thumbs on the scale, and HN very much falls into that camp.
Instead, it's an attitude of "I know what I voted for, and I'd prefer not to be reminded of its negative externalizes, thanks. Also, I'd really prefer it if this sort of news not filter out into the greater consciousness of Hacker News, because it might cause other people to reconsider their support."
One of the biggest lies of HN is that it's a place of open and reasonable debate and discussion. In reality, it is highly curated by the users who have access to the moderation tools in order to shape the conversation. There's no direct coordination or conversations, just a widespread unspoken agreement.
I don't disagree with their decision-making in a vacuum. There's nothing wrong with bias if it's something people are generally aware of, so it can be accounted for. On the other hand, I think that there's a significant moral hazard of a site that pretends to be unbiased but has an unaccountable cabal of users putting their collective thumbs on the scale, and HN very much falls into that camp.
>Instead, it's an attitude of "I know what I voted for, and I'd prefer not to be reminded of its negative externalizes, thanks.
I think you underestimate the amount of racetards and magas, even on this website.
I think you underestimate the amount of racetards and magas, even on this website.
Not technically censored, just off-topic.
It is technically censored. The ostensible reason for it is that the story is off-topic for this forum; because of that, it is censored.
> to suppress or delete as objectionable
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
> to suppress or delete as objectionable
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
I mean, yeah, that’s one of those subjective things. I think freedom of speech topics are pretty closely embedded with tech and entrepreneurship whether we like it or not. But I appreciate if that’s not how moderators see it. As long as that kind of choice moderation made consistently. I feel like I see far more off topic posts live longer. And for sensitive topics, a short explanation might be worth it.
Moderation at scale, even HN scale, is hard!
Moderation at scale, even HN scale, is hard!
> I think freedom of speech topics are pretty closely embedded with tech and entrepreneurship whether we like it or not.
That's a useful fiction, useful until it's not. This post[1] was on the front page briefly today. These people aren't obscure or powerless, they're billionaires, embedded in the current administration, etc.
> Then I started noticing something I couldn’t ignore. Smart people I respected—especially in cryptocurrency—were casually discussing feudalism. Not as history or provocation, but as serious proposals for organizing society. “Democracy and freedom are incompatible.” “Most people aren’t capable of self-governance.” “Elite overproduction is the problem—we educated too many people above their station.”
> These weren’t fringe cranks. Peter Thiel writing that democracy and freedom are incompatible. Curtis Yarvin publishing blueprints for corporate monarchy. An entire neo-reactionary apparatus in Silicon Valley while I optimized payment systems. And they were explicit: the democratic experiment failed, constitutional constraints prevent necessary action, most people should accept subordinate roles, the intelligent few should rule.
[1] https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-coming-clash-of-civ...
That's a useful fiction, useful until it's not. This post[1] was on the front page briefly today. These people aren't obscure or powerless, they're billionaires, embedded in the current administration, etc.
> Then I started noticing something I couldn’t ignore. Smart people I respected—especially in cryptocurrency—were casually discussing feudalism. Not as history or provocation, but as serious proposals for organizing society. “Democracy and freedom are incompatible.” “Most people aren’t capable of self-governance.” “Elite overproduction is the problem—we educated too many people above their station.”
> These weren’t fringe cranks. Peter Thiel writing that democracy and freedom are incompatible. Curtis Yarvin publishing blueprints for corporate monarchy. An entire neo-reactionary apparatus in Silicon Valley while I optimized payment systems. And they were explicit: the democratic experiment failed, constitutional constraints prevent necessary action, most people should accept subordinate roles, the intelligent few should rule.
[1] https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-coming-clash-of-civ...
Absolutely, but the mods here are great and I trust their opinion.
The panopticon is built on the technology and culture at the center of HN, so hopefully they have sympathy for my not being able to predict that the post would be flagged. I think it's important to understand and discuss the escalating technology-based erosion of our privacy and rights, but I'll guess we'll just do that at the monthly Antifa meetings. /s
The panopticon is built on the technology and culture at the center of HN, so hopefully they have sympathy for my not being able to predict that the post would be flagged. I think it's important to understand and discuss the escalating technology-based erosion of our privacy and rights, but I'll guess we'll just do that at the monthly Antifa meetings. /s
[deleted]
It's against the sites rules.
That is highly debatable. Stories about "politics, or crime" are allowed if "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon"[1]. I'm not sure what to make of the word "interesting" there, but this is clearly a new phenomenon that is deeply concerning and worth discussing.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There's the written rules, and then there's the enforced rules. Political posts might not always be against the rules-as-written, but they're almost always against the rules-as-enforced-by-flagging.
HN moderators will tell you flagging is a user voting phenomenon they have control over, but it's not - I was also told my flags don't count, because mods disabled my flags from counting because I flagged things different from what the mods wanted to be flagged. Flags are not a type of user voting, they are a centralized moderation thing.
HN moderators will tell you flagging is a user voting phenomenon they have control over, but it's not - I was also told my flags don't count, because mods disabled my flags from counting because I flagged things different from what the mods wanted to be flagged. Flags are not a type of user voting, they are a centralized moderation thing.
late correction: they will tell you they have no control over flagging because it's user voting
"The site" should look around and reconsider its self-importance.
An hour long interrogation?
Not a lawyer, but I would advise anyone in a similar situation to exercise their right to tell these goons to fuck off. You always have the right to remain silent.
Not a lawyer, but I would advise anyone in a similar situation to exercise their right to tell these goons to fuck off. You always have the right to remain silent.
I suspect this person was curious what they would ask, I would be too.
But legally I agree with the advice.
But legally I agree with the advice.
mickle00(3)
Vortigaunt(3)
mycodendral(2)
All of this, including the video, is hearsay. That is, it is unauthenticated. Not a single part of the title is confirmed.
Neither us nor the author apparently know whether the men shown were real FBI agents. Con men operate the same way - wave a badge and pretend to be someone.
Neither us nor the author apparently know whether the men shown were real FBI agents. Con men operate the same way - wave a badge and pretend to be someone.
So these FBI imposters knew he went to a protest, where he lives, and want to ask questions? If they were criminals, wouldn't they want something from him?
This comment reads to me like you understand the implications and it makes you uncomfortable so you're deflecting with nonsense. Let's assume they're real FBI agents: what do you think of this action?
This comment reads to me like you understand the implications and it makes you uncomfortable so you're deflecting with nonsense. Let's assume they're real FBI agents: what do you think of this action?
No, no, no, and not necessarily.
Didn't bother, no, no. And why should we assume anything?
No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories.
We need better reporting and part of that is verification.
Didn't bother, no, no. And why should we assume anything?
No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories.
We need better reporting and part of that is verification.
> No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories.
What about this story makes it "BS"? Your comment(s) provide no rebuttals or anything to discredit this story. It doesn't sound like you're a skeptic, more like you'd made your up mind prior to reading the article.
> why should we assume anything
Because discarding something as fake news is not good faith. Believe it not, you can simultaneously be skeptical and engage with the content of the article. The question still stands: what do you think about the FBI going to a protestors house to ask him questions about it?
> We need better reporting and part of that is verification.
He tried reaching out to the FBI but they declined to comment due to the ongoing government shutdown as noted in the article. What level of "verification" would make you happy?
What about this story makes it "BS"? Your comment(s) provide no rebuttals or anything to discredit this story. It doesn't sound like you're a skeptic, more like you'd made your up mind prior to reading the article.
> why should we assume anything
Because discarding something as fake news is not good faith. Believe it not, you can simultaneously be skeptical and engage with the content of the article. The question still stands: what do you think about the FBI going to a protestors house to ask him questions about it?
> We need better reporting and part of that is verification.
He tried reaching out to the FBI but they declined to comment due to the ongoing government shutdown as noted in the article. What level of "verification" would make you happy?
Most stories are BS.
There is no onus upon me to provide "rebuttals or anything".
I am a skeptic.
There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith".
Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual? If so, based on what exactly? "Good faith"?
There is no onus upon me to provide "rebuttals or anything".
I am a skeptic.
There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith".
Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual? If so, based on what exactly? "Good faith"?
> Most stories are BS.
Maybe in your bubble that's true.
> There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith".
You're not answering anything with substance. Yes, it's a convienent strategy to assume everything is fake news when it doesn't fit your narrative. But that's not reality and it's pretty obvious that you're deflecting.
> Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual?
Yes, he's an independent journalist that's reported on some big stories this year already. Given the actions against civil rights we've seen already from this administration, sending FBI agents to ask questions is certainly tame by comparison and very plausible.
Maybe in your bubble that's true.
> There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith".
You're not answering anything with substance. Yes, it's a convienent strategy to assume everything is fake news when it doesn't fit your narrative. But that's not reality and it's pretty obvious that you're deflecting.
> Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual?
Yes, he's an independent journalist that's reported on some big stories this year already. Given the actions against civil rights we've seen already from this administration, sending FBI agents to ask questions is certainly tame by comparison and very plausible.
Yes most stories spread by magas are bullshit. But this is not maga that reported this.
It's unverified BS.
what happened to "The Five W's" in journalism: "Who, what, where, when, and why"?
what happened to "The Five W's" in journalism: "Who, what, where, when, and why"?
I have 0 reason to believe this didn't happen.
People are jumping out of unmarked vehicles with masks on and grabbing people.
We are getting closer every day to violent times.
People are jumping out of unmarked vehicles with masks on and grabbing people.
We are getting closer every day to violent times.
We are getting closer every day to Halloween!8-))
“Never believe that anti-Semites [or in this case, fascist apologists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre[0]
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...
> According to Serafini, the two FBI agents showed him photos of himself at the protest as well as several other protesters — people he knew nothing about.
All this work plus the risk of a charge of impersonating a federal agent... and they didn't ask him for money. Deep grift.
All this work plus the risk of a charge of impersonating a federal agent... and they didn't ask him for money. Deep grift.
That is exactly the chilling effect on speech that the FBI investigating political matters risks creating.
Ugh, I might have to start caring about politics again, this is unacceptable.