The Whitest Kids U' Know - I want to kill the president on HackerTube: recommended by 1 Hacker News commenter across 1 month, 2019–2023.
comedy · evergreen
A short Whitest Kids U' Know sketch, with Spanish subtitles, in which a man repeatedly announces he wants to kill the president. It satirizes how speech and threats are policed.
Used as a joke or satire reference in moderation, free-speech and police threads.
“My all time favorite Trevor Moore sketch”
5 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
My all time favorite Trevor Moore sketch: "I want to kill the president". ▶ this video It showcases his wonderful way of speaking, his body language, the use of music to communicate the joke. The world is a less humorous place today.
in “Trevor Moore has died” · View on HN
Your passphrase could be "I want to kill the President of the United States of America" USSS, please refer to: ▶ this video
in “Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules” · View on HN
> Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”. Saying that about the US president who was bankrolling a trillion dollars-plus invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would have put one in jail, interesting to see that when applied to another country is now perfectly ok. Relevant Whitest Kids U' Know sketch [1] [1] ▶ this video
in “Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war” · View on HN
I recommend digging back into TD.W posts from the 4th and 5th; while most content wouldn't pass a strict test of an explicit threat, their clear intent was not to protest or express dissent, but to prevent vote certification from taking place, along with the usual invectives about "helicopter rides" and "Day of the Rope", etc. The line is very tricky, as to what constitutes colorful metaphor, vs. explicit calls to violence. (My favorite satire on this dilemma: ▶ this video ) Regardless, the emotional energy and goals of that community on Jan 6th was extremely clear: to alter the due process of law by threat of force. All that said, I'm quasi-absolutist on free speech issues, for the slippery-slope reasons you describe. Free speech doesn't end at 1A: it's a cultural value as well. Yet, it's also a tall order to enforce that value proactively: if a newspaper is not obligated to print every letter, should Twitter be obligated to let everyone have an account? There's a good argument for a "digital commons", and regulating tech giants as utilities; but the balance between an individual's freedom to share offensive views, and the freedom of service providers to choose to whom they offer service, is extremely murky.
in “Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”” · View on HN
> Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. No doubt, explicit threats or advocacy/conspiracy to violence exist, and should not be tolerated. However, there are countless complicated grey areas subject to interpretation and potential bias. Was Kathy Griffin advocating violence by holding up a mock Trump severed head? Is “Abortion stops a beating heart” a coded message to inspire violence against abortion doctors? What about “Eat the rich” or “The only good billionaire is a dead billionaire”? My favorite edge case is this WKYK sketch, which is clearly satire, yet trivial to indict as an explicit call to unlawful violence: ▶ this video
in “Facebook to ban white nationalist content” · View on HN