by zahlman | 2026-01-27 18:22:31+00:00
1. Of course it's defensible. The people who submit stories about it must think that there is some valid defense, because that's the only thing that justifies submitting the story.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

There's nothing new here, and it wouldn't be interesting if everyone agreed. And all of the case studies are getting abundant TV news coverage.

Further, if one sincerely believes all this rhetoric, and lives in the USA, it would be profoundly irrational to waste time on HN talking about it. Of the people on HN who think this is "fascism", can you identify one who was actually convinced of it by this submission? I'm not convinced there are any who didn't already think the same, say, a year ago. There are any number of more productive things people could do to protect themselves, if they sincerely perceive a credible threat from a supposed fascist regime.

2. Of course it's defensible. I have been defending it. My interlocutors have been assuming the conclusion a priori. I can make posts that consist of nothing but evidenced facts and reasoning, and it at best goes nowhere.

At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46758180 I got a pithy response repeating a propaganda line and moving the goalposts.

At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46767901 I got downvoted to -4 with no responses. If you think any statement I made in that comment is untrue, please highlight it and I will be happy to provide evidence here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46747345 was originally flagged, even though it clearly does not violate any HN guidelines. When I complained about that, I got no attempt to justify the flagging on principles of how HN is supposed to work; I got ad hominems and more references to supposedly outrageous incidents that didn't engage at all with my argument, including false statements (an officer escorting an abandoned child to his front door, even if ignoring someone in the front yard claiming to be a parent, is not "kidnapping").

I even got flagged at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46749406 when I ceded that a shooting doesn't appear justified. I can't even fathom why. Am I not allowed to claim that the facts matter to me? Because they do.

3. Of course it's defensible. Any lawyer on Youtube except LegalEagle will tell you, for free, that in general the actions of ICE have been defensible. Only the Pretti shooting has even been controversial, and there are many people offering justifications, including widely-recognized self-defense expert Andrew Branca.

4. Of course it's defensible. If it were indefensible, I could not possibly have come up with as many words, or as much reasoning, legal theory and research, as I have.

I am not "painting myself as a victim", and there is nothing disingenuous about my complaint. I have clearly been treated unfairly, and I fully understand and have accounted for the perspective of those who disagree with me, and it objectively does not justify the response.