Comment by Aurornis

Comment by Aurornis 16 hours ago

41 replies

> I dont want to worry about a white van pulling up in front of my house because I said something sarcastic online.

I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening, and then openly prefer a place they describe as “a lil dangerous” and “a degree of lawlessness”

This is the kind of thinking that happens when you build your entire worldview around exaggerated headlines and online fear mongering. When you go somewhere that isn’t in the headlines all of the time, you have to build your worldview around what you see and the vibes you sense instead of the fear mongering headlines. When a place described with words like dangerous and lawless starts to sound like the safer alternative than a country that is demonstrably safer, you’re probably getting too much of your information from internet sources designed to trigger your senses of fear and rage for engagement.

Every time there’s an anecdote with cognitive dissonance like this (describing the lawless, “lil dangerous” place as feeling safer) it comes down to getting perceptions of one community through vibes and the other community through news headlines. In this case, the description of the US as a technocratic police state where people get thrown into a white van for sarcastic online comments versus seeing some cops at a local bar one time.

ok_dad 15 hours ago

> I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening

Oh, but it is. Lots of people are getting picked up for online speech, the government is letting "their guys" off the hook for open crimes, and it's escalating to talking openly about imprisoning the other party.

We're there, it's fascism happening openly, and America isn't what it never was anyways.

  • derektank 13 hours ago

    No US citizen has had a federal law enforcement abduct them for making a sarcastic comment online (unless it was a legal threat, which has never been tolerated).

    The US residents and visa holders who it has happened to, such as Mahmoud Khalil, are largely out of detention and, in his case, in a position to file a tort claim against the government of $20M dollars.

    The current administration is a threat to the rule of law and I have no doubt they wish they were not subject to it. But they are, they have not attempted an auto-golpe, and people harmed by the administration continue to have the ability to seek redress through the courts. We are a little over a year away from midterm elections, which will almost certainly bring congressional impediments to executive power as well, at the very least in the form of investigations.

    We in a dangerous period in US history, but it is not unprecedented, and the outcome is not yet determined. We are not in a fascist dictatorship today and, fortune willing, we might not yet ever be.

    • Arainach 13 hours ago

      "It's illegal and you can press charges" doesn't save you from being grabbed by a white van. It doesn't save you from being shipped to a prison in another country and the Trump Administration telling the courts "tough, we're not bringing them back". It doesn't save you from the cops "accidentally" killing or maiming you.

      We are absolutely living under fascism right now.

    • anigbrowl 7 hours ago

      They absolutely have attempted an auto-golpe, that's what January 6 was. they're now doing a more subtle one by simply dismantling as much institutional infrastructure as possible, often backed by the clapping and barking of MAGA-hat wearing seals.

TechDebtDevin 16 hours ago

Ive been a resident of two countries and am a citzen of the USA. 2 years Norway. 3 years Bahamas. Along with a lot of work in Europe and Asia. So Ive witnessed a wide spectrum of governments, and have been detained by all of these governments at some point for reasons Im not going to speak on.

Maybe its because im a citizen of the USA and they have the ultimate power over me, but i felt the most terrified when under their custody. Hell in the Bahamas the officials took me to Burger King (in handcuffs lol). To be clear im not a criminal I just have a wierd line of work that people question.

crooked-v 13 hours ago

The president of the US personally threatened to illegally take away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship because he doesn't like her. That seems more 'lawless' to me than some third-world countries.

  • anjel 7 hours ago

    Because he sorely needed to troll the public's attention away from l'affair Epstein. Why is this tactic still so non-obvious??

  • giardini 13 hours ago

    But it's BS! He's blustering, merely provoking opponents into chasing a figment of their imagination!

    And so, here you are, wasting time responding to BS, when your time and thoughts could be more usefully employed elsewhere.

    • VBprogrammer 12 hours ago

      You make it sound like some 4D chess ploy to "own the libs". Everything I've seen is that it's just a natural consequence of electing an 80 year old half senile grandpa to arguably the most important role in the world.

    • thisisit 12 hours ago

      How long will this "Nothing to see move on. He's just blustering" excuse is going to be used before people realize that this guy will try that even if it is illegal? With the what has happened to immigration and birthright citizen it doesn't seem far fetched. And it is frankly insulting to tell people that they are wasting time when they express real concern.

      • giardini 12 hours ago

        thisisit says: "...this guy will try that even if it is illegal..."

        How will he "try that"? He hasn't done anything illegal and, if he does, his own staff and the courts will prevent him from doing it.

        thisisit says: "With the what has happened to immigration..."

        They've slowed illegals entering the country and they've begun to move immigrants out of the country. How is this a problem?

        I never cared much for birthright citizenship other than for offspring of slavery but arguing about it hardly seems a good argument for or against Trump.

    • hobs 7 hours ago

      Its the president of the united states, the place where they live. This argument has been used a thousand times against things Trump eventually did, stop making it.

TechDebtDevin 16 hours ago

I also have spent 6 months in a USA jail for what ultimately resulted in my pleading to a misdemeanor, and never was a crime. My world view is likely a lot different than yours, and the white vans do exist. They are here RIGHT NOW.

  • Aurornis 15 hours ago

    > and the white vans do exist. They are here RIGHT NOW.

    The comment was that white vans would take them away for posting something sarcastic online

    • noah_buddy 15 hours ago

      I think your mistake is believing that the development of infrastructure for one purpose will be cleanly stopped at a well-demarcated point once the original purpose is served.

      When you build the infrastructure for squads of goons to kidnap people, then pour gasoline on the fire by massively increasing their funding, suddenly, a whole lot more people become “deportable.”

    • Arainach 15 hours ago

      We have the government revoking visas for writing articles critical of Israel, and we have white vans grabbing people who the administration alleged no longer have valid visas. This is all happening right now.

    • TechDebtDevin 14 hours ago

      I was jailed on a bullsh*t "hate speech" statute, because I said the f slur to a cop (who turned out to be gay, my PI proved this wasn't even true in my civil suit, but that didn't matter, they stuck me with this, along with some other cop related bs (said I coughed on him and tried to give him covid, assault on a police officer) This was the government trying to ruin my life because I hurt a cops feelings. You clearly haven't dealt with authorities much.

      In my state there is no intent required, so if a word can have multiple meanings in different contexts, the government gets to decide how you intended to use that word and what meaning you meant. So sorry, you're so wrong. There isn't much difference from what i said to this very annoying cop, and what a lot of people say online. Also, this never would have happened if I had said it to a regular person and not a cop.

      edit: So yes, I literally was jailed and forced to admit to a hate speech crime (alford plea) because of something I said to a cop. And you think this is all in my head??

      • giardini 13 hours ago

        "In my state there is no intent required, so if a word can have multiple meanings in different contexts, the government gets to decide how you intended to use that word and what meaning you meant. "

        By "my state" do you mean one of the United States of America? Or are you speaking of somwhere outside the USA?

      • ashdksnndck 14 hours ago

        If I understand the story, sounds like you got prosecuted for assault with a hate crime enhancement.

        What do you think happens in the Dominican Republic if you call a cop that? It says more about you and the US that you thought you’d get away with it. I doubt there is any country in the world where personally offending a cop like that might not result in the cop abusing their power over you.

        • ImPostingOnHN 9 hours ago

          > It says more about you and the US that you thought you’d get away with it.

          "Get away" with free speech against a police state? Are you serious?

      • pjc50 14 hours ago

        Ah yes, the UK does this kind of thing with Section 5 Public Order act making it basically illegal to swear in front of cops.

        Not quite the same thing as just saying something online, although the US has now developed special police for that. From the part of ""free speech"".

  • [removed] 15 hours ago
    [deleted]
jfengel 15 hours ago

I am manifestly certain it won't happen to me. I tick just about every box: straight, white, male, native-born US, healthy, moderately well off.

But I see it happening to others and that makes me upset. And my intention to fight that might some day make me a target, but that's not the core of it. The core is that it shouldn't happen to anyone.

yupitsme123 16 hours ago

I agree with everything that you said but it's a "better the devil you know" type of situation.

The vibe that many people have in the US is that things are constantly in flux and that we have less and less control over our lives and environments. Anything could happen.

Considering that, I could understand wanting to go somewhere where there's a known quantity of danger and a known set of rules for avoiding it.

TechDebtDevin 16 hours ago

tbh its wild you assumed my world view was curated by headlines. You probably have had the softest, easiest life and have never put your neck on the line in a way that might result in you being locked in a cage by a government official, so you welcome the white vans, because you don't take enough risk in life for it to ever matter to you.

Wild, and offensive. How do you like it when people make assumptions about you?

  • Aurornis 15 hours ago

    > tbh its wild you assumed my world view was curated by headlines. You probably have had the softest, easiest life and have never put your neck on the line

    Ironic to make a comment about making assumptions and then go on to make some wild ad hominem assumptions.

    The news headlines I was referring to was the article we’re in the comment section discussing.

hughesjj 15 hours ago

> I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening

I mean, the "white van pulling up in front of a house" is happening on the daily now [1], the current administration has claimed they can suspend habeus corpus [2], they pick up US citizens and legal immigrants in these things [3], and they allegedly deny entry because of political reasons the administration doesn't like [4] (+allegedly [5]).

I don't think the fear of getting disappeared by an administration is unfounded, nor do I think we need to see documented evidence of exactly that particular circumstance happening before we're allowed to worry about it.

I also think the "lil dangerous" part is ironic, given most of these "other" places aren't particularly dangerous, nor is the US particularly safe as-is. "lil dangerous" and "degree of lawlessness" are apt descriptions of the United States, and has been for my entire lifetime.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=masked+ice+raids&udm=2 [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-habeas-corpus-... [3] https://abc7chicago.com/post/george-retes-disabled-vet-us-ci... [4] https://apnews.com/article/immigration-detainees-students-oz... [5] https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/18/australian-deported-o...

potato3732842 8 hours ago

It's a different kind of lawlessness.

I have little worry about some muggers and slumlords creating substandard construction and some restaurant paying off the inspector. I greatly worry about the HN demographics (rich white collar people, generally) voting for solutions to those problems that are worse than the problems while not solving the problems, something they do all over the US.

nkrisc 14 hours ago

I mean, the president did just threaten to (somehow) revoke the citizenship of a celebrity who disagreed with him online. Based on what we've seen already, what's to stop them from dubiously claiming to have revoked someone's (natural born) citizenship and then deport them to somewhere before anyone has time to argue anything before a judge?

There was a time I would have agreed with you, but now it doesn't seem that implausible anymore.

majormajor 16 hours ago

The current state of the US is not that the secret police would come dissapear you for being sarcastic online, but the un-secret heavily-armed SWAT police could certainly show up if your sarcasm pissed off the wrong person.

That ain't great.

Do you feel like the trend of policing in the US is going in the direction of:

1) less heavily harmed, more accountable, more community-involved personal treatment

or

2) more heavily armed, anonymous, opaque large bureaucracies answering only to distant executives?

And which of those directions does the product in the linked article point?

  • gilfoy 13 hours ago

    And who exactly is this happening to? Who are the wrong people? Who are they swatting?

    We all know exactly what is going down with immigration, but vaguely alluding to that instead of just saying it while pretending any given person is in danger would be dishonest.

    It’s always like this though. Vague blurry imagery of perceived threats, no details.

leptons 14 hours ago

>I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening

Trump very recently suggested he would revoke Rosie O'Donnell's US citizenship, a natural born US citizen, because of things she's said that's (rightly) critical of him. I have no doubt he will try to do it, and SCOTUS probably won't stop him. This is political retaliation, and it's absolutely abhorrent.

That's where we are. I have no doubt the "white vans" are coming for people who speak out against the tyranny this administration is foisting upon us. I have no doubt that this very comment may even be used against me someday, as ridiculous as that may sound to you right now.

jrm4 14 hours ago

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted so hard, it's a good point.

I'm not thrilled with where we are and I'm very cautious, but as a Black man in America the net difference in my fear and concern over my own government/police right now, as opposed to e.g. during Biden or Obama, isn't huge.

doctorpangloss 15 hours ago

While I don’t think you should be downvoted… brother, maybe the headlines aren’t being exaggerated.