undefined | Better HN

0 pointsinsickness7y ago0 comments

> Sorry, do you have an example of a "large media group" "selectively editing" a video

You don't have to look too far to see large media groups selectively editing videos, or at least choosing to not display portions of video that exonerate someone. Nicholas Sandmann, the MAGA-hat wearing teen, was said to be part of a group confronting a Native American protester. When you look at the full video, it was the Native American who was confrontational. He walked over into the middle of the group rather than the group confronting him.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

kadendogthing7y ago· 2 in thread

>When you look at the full video, it was the Native American who was confrontational.

Absolutely false.

This was a group of students who were using their free time to protest the reproductive rights of others, and in the midst of doing this did incredibly racist stuff to a Native American protester who was merely trying to keep balance of peace in these stressful engagements.

There is direct video evidence of students

* Shouting "go back to Africa"

* Doing the tomahawk chop

* Harassing other (even white) groups of women (https://twitter.com/roflinds/status/1087486166939680768)

All in a situation where they greatly outnumbered these people in the first place, and all of them wearing MAGA hats.

Basically your post is either extremely dishonest or ignorant about the actual facts. Not only does all available video evidence most definitely not exonerate the group, it puts them squarely right where people initially pegged them, and on top of all that no point is the Native American being the confrontational one.

insicknessOP7y ago

He walked up to them. They did not walk up to him. Therefore he was being the aggressive one, end of story.

> This was a group of students who were using their free time to protest

Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? Absolutely wrong.

kadendogthing7y ago

>He walked up to them.

That's not aggression. Don't be stupid.

>Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there?

I never said they didn't have the right. Where did I say that? But allow me to help clarify whatever misconceptions you have about what I plainly stated in very few words: It's at best a fundamentally baseless position that has extremely negative consequences for society. At worst its downright an act of evil because you believe you should control other people based on faulty religious grounds.

They were using their free time to support this position. Not really a good look for them.

So I am absolutely correct in totality with my assessment of the situation. And if you think otherwise, allow me to make the claim that you need to evaluate some critical aspects of your perspective on this. If all you can say about what's being said is that it's a disagreement, then you're better of not saying anything at all. It makes you look better.

I noticed you couldn't or simply decided to not address the factual negations to your assumptions. Might want to work on that.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse