4 ms·

Most people in the US don't know how good they have it and what it means to be under a true abusive and police state.

mikeash 10y ago
I think a big chunk of Americans almost want it to be a police state, so they have something to fight against. It makes me think of Sam Altman's recent article about Trump. He said he was taking some risk by writing that, and some commenters here praised his bravery in taking a public stand on this. It's ridiculous. Bravery would be a prominent techie taking a stand for Trump. He's not going to suffer any consequences for publishing that. Nobody's going to knock on his door and haul him off at 3AM, or deny him entrance into any organizations, or even shoot him dirty looks on the street.
- meric 10y ago
  I got some really bad looks in my office building when some people overheard me telling a colleague I rather Clinton lose than Trump lose, due to her preference for fighting wars. One person looked at me like if they could kill me, he would, like I was some enemy. A lot of anti-Trump people accuse Trump supporters of bigotry and exclusion, but I think that's projection on their part. No, I don't feel comfortable writing this comment. For the record, I don't like Clinton or Trump. But it's better for the rest of the world for Clinton to lose.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    > I think that's projection on their part I'm sorry, what? You can certainly call it prejudice. There's plenty of trump supporters who aren't bigots, but there's also a lot of them who are, and Trump's campaign has been majorly based on demagoguery, bigotism and xenophobia. If you're voicing/implying support for someone whose campaign is built on racism, don't be surprised if you're getting dirty looks. As for dirty looks, that's what they are. You're accusing "the other side" of projection when you yourself are interpreting a look as "I want to kill you". Jeez. Edit: > But it's better for the rest of the world for Clinton to lose. I appreciate the conendrum the US is facing in this election cycle, but if you're going to make decisions based on their worldwide implications, you should ask around in the rest of the world. Clinton is an inconsequential establishment politician; Trump is a loose cannon who "won't rule out using nukes in Europe". As someone living in said Europe, I really wonder how you got to that conclusion.
    - meric 10y ago
      They are both very egoistic and unsuitable as presidents. One of them has a strong history of deliberate action fanning the flames of war which has led to the current refugee situation in Europe, notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced, the other talks about building walls and keeping people out of the country, instead of interfering with people out of the country, plus some BS talk about nukes and Mexicans. Guaranteed warmonger or probable asshole? I choose the latter. But really, they are both horrible choices so in the end it doesn't mean much to have the 'better' one win. Why do people have strong emotional responses to people having different preferences? And you weren't with me to see that look. It was incredibly hostile. No I don't think he literally wanted to kill me, but he had the same look as a person who would. (From movies)
  - arcticbull 10y ago
    That depends which part, after all Trump would be fine detonating a nuclear warhead in Europe because 'it's a big place.' So probably not for Europe ;)
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'm not at all surprised. I'm sure there are communities where this sort of statement would be welcomed, but the tech community is pretty strongly anti-Trump. I completely disagree with your opinion on this, but I don't think you should be put in a situation where you feel uncomfortable with people knowing your opinion.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > * I rather Clinton lose than Trump lose, due to her preference for fighting wars* Trump publicly stated his support for the Iraq war during an interview in 2002. He's since backpedaled claiming that he was against it "before it started" but all indications are that he was, at most, neutral on the war before it started (being against the war after it starts is kind of irrelevant). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/donald-trump-confronted-with-past-support-for-iraq-war https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/donald-trump... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-w... > A lot of anti-Trump people accuse Trump supporters of bigotry and exclusion, but I think that's projection on their part. A lot of Trump supporters are really good at ignoring the obvious terrible things about Trump and his campaign and latching onto the one or two things they like about him. You can't honestly claim that there is no bigotry or exclusion in Trump's campaigning. He's called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. He's called for building a huge wall along the Mexican border and deporting 11 million immigrants. Plus, you know, the "rapists and murderers" comment about Mexicans entering the US. If you think that Trump is the better candidate in spite of his obvious shortcomings, you should have the honesty to say so, rather than pretend his shortcomings aren't real.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    Pretty sure South Korea and the countries within missile range of North Korea would disagree with you. Also, when trump completely fucks the US economy, the rest of us will get fucked no matter how much we do or don't care about your neck of the woods.
- unprepare 10y ago
  Are you suggesting if he had come out as pro-trump he would have someone knocking on his door at 3am to haul him off?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    No, I'm suggesting that's what a "police state" looks like.

I think a big chunk of Americans almost want it to be a police state, so they have something to fight against. It makes me think of Sam Altman's recent article about Trump. He said he was taking some risk by writing that, and some commenters here praised his bravery in taking a public stand on this. It's ridiculous. Bravery would be a prominent techie taking a stand for Trump. He's not going to suffer any consequences for publishing that. Nobody's going to knock on his door and haul him off at 3AM, or deny him entrance into any organizations, or even shoot him dirty looks on the street.

meric 10y ago
I got some really bad looks in my office building when some people overheard me telling a colleague I rather Clinton lose than Trump lose, due to her preference for fighting wars. One person looked at me like if they could kill me, he would, like I was some enemy. A lot of anti-Trump people accuse Trump supporters of bigotry and exclusion, but I think that's projection on their part. No, I don't feel comfortable writing this comment. For the record, I don't like Clinton or Trump. But it's better for the rest of the world for Clinton to lose.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  > I think that's projection on their part I'm sorry, what? You can certainly call it prejudice. There's plenty of trump supporters who aren't bigots, but there's also a lot of them who are, and Trump's campaign has been majorly based on demagoguery, bigotism and xenophobia. If you're voicing/implying support for someone whose campaign is built on racism, don't be surprised if you're getting dirty looks. As for dirty looks, that's what they are. You're accusing "the other side" of projection when you yourself are interpreting a look as "I want to kill you". Jeez. Edit: > But it's better for the rest of the world for Clinton to lose. I appreciate the conendrum the US is facing in this election cycle, but if you're going to make decisions based on their worldwide implications, you should ask around in the rest of the world. Clinton is an inconsequential establishment politician; Trump is a loose cannon who "won't rule out using nukes in Europe". As someone living in said Europe, I really wonder how you got to that conclusion.
  - meric 10y ago
    They are both very egoistic and unsuitable as presidents. One of them has a strong history of deliberate action fanning the flames of war which has led to the current refugee situation in Europe, notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced, the other talks about building walls and keeping people out of the country, instead of interfering with people out of the country, plus some BS talk about nukes and Mexicans. Guaranteed warmonger or probable asshole? I choose the latter. But really, they are both horrible choices so in the end it doesn't mean much to have the 'better' one win. Why do people have strong emotional responses to people having different preferences? And you weren't with me to see that look. It was incredibly hostile. No I don't think he literally wanted to kill me, but he had the same look as a person who would. (From movies)
- arcticbull 10y ago
  That depends which part, after all Trump would be fine detonating a nuclear warhead in Europe because 'it's a big place.' So probably not for Europe ;)
- mikeash 10y ago
  I'm not at all surprised. I'm sure there are communities where this sort of statement would be welcomed, but the tech community is pretty strongly anti-Trump. I completely disagree with your opinion on this, but I don't think you should be put in a situation where you feel uncomfortable with people knowing your opinion.
- dpark 10y ago
  > * I rather Clinton lose than Trump lose, due to her preference for fighting wars* Trump publicly stated his support for the Iraq war during an interview in 2002. He's since backpedaled claiming that he was against it "before it started" but all indications are that he was, at most, neutral on the war before it started (being against the war after it starts is kind of irrelevant). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/donald-trump-confronted-with-past-support-for-iraq-war https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/donald-trump... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-w... > A lot of anti-Trump people accuse Trump supporters of bigotry and exclusion, but I think that's projection on their part. A lot of Trump supporters are really good at ignoring the obvious terrible things about Trump and his campaign and latching onto the one or two things they like about him. You can't honestly claim that there is no bigotry or exclusion in Trump's campaigning. He's called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. He's called for building a huge wall along the Mexican border and deporting 11 million immigrants. Plus, you know, the "rapists and murderers" comment about Mexicans entering the US. If you think that Trump is the better candidate in spite of his obvious shortcomings, you should have the honesty to say so, rather than pretend his shortcomings aren't real.
- stephenr 10y ago
  Pretty sure South Korea and the countries within missile range of North Korea would disagree with you. Also, when trump completely fucks the US economy, the rest of us will get fucked no matter how much we do or don't care about your neck of the woods.
unprepare 10y ago
Are you suggesting if he had come out as pro-trump he would have someone knocking on his door at 3am to haul him off?
- mikeash 10y ago
  No, I'm suggesting that's what a "police state" looks like.