21 ms·
Make America Hate Again
- dongslol 10y agoI agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. These are labels. No one really knows what "hate" means anymore, but because people are emotional, they see the word, recall what they think of Trump, and think, "yeah, that's hateful!" This is a problem for two reasons. First, while Fred is probably a smart, intellectually rigorous guy, many people aren't. Most people who shout "that's hateful" or "that's racist" don't actually have a repository of comprehensive thought behind it. This is partly why Trump won in the first place. People everywhere would say, "You support Trump! You're racist!" or "Trump has a position involving race! He's racist!" This is not an argument, but once you introduce this vitriolic adjective into the room, everyone worries about their ideas being placed into this odious category, and discussion becomes stifled. People become sick of this, and vote Trump just to fuck with everyone. The second reason is that using labels convinces no one who isn't already on your side. Fred knows this, and this post is targeted at those people. This is virtue signaling: taking a "brave stance" on a position that people already agree with you on. Some virtue signaling is necessary; leaders should speak out; but generally this type of lazy rhetoric, combined with the incentive of popularity over truth, divides us more than any policy. I'm glad he's donating money, but he writes that he's "done keeping his mouth shut," and for that to be a courageous act he has to (like everyone else) do more than hurl labels.
- Jonnax 10y agoCalling something/someone racist works on the principle that it's an undesired trait in society. However Trump's supporters either believe that other races/religions are inferior or believe their concerns are more important and ignore it. So what can someone do if they want to combat inequality/injustice/etc? It's not like their opponents are arguing with an open mind.
- hueving 10y agoOr they don't believe they are being racist? Closing borders to some Muslim dominated countries while leaving them open to the largest Muslim countries in the world does give the impression that maybe it's not about being Muslim and it's more about nations.
- mjmsmith 10y agoNations without Trump hotels.
- kyrre 10y agodo you really believe this? honest question.
- mjmsmith 10y agoBelieve what? I stated an easily verifiable fact.
- ashark 10y agoIt's also not very relevant since there's bound to be a strong relation between being relatively stable and prosperous (to say nothing of free, mind) and having trump hotels. I'm no fan of him, but I also don't like "my side" using weak attacks.
- mjmsmith 10y agoThe notion that refugees from these seven countries represent a particularly grave threat is nonsense, so we're left to speculate on the real motives. Forty years ago, Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust. Trump still owns properties all over the world. Since he hasn't released his taxes, we have no idea how much money he owes and to whom. It's not at all unreasonable to assume that his decisions will at the very least be affected by his substantial holdings.
- soneca 10y ago"People become sick of this, and vote Trump just to fuck with everyone." This is extremely superficial, arrogant, even offensive to people who voted for Trump. And that is the reason why Trump won IMO. Opposition couldnt understand (not even recognize) the legitimate and valid thoughtful reasons people had to vote for Trump.
- dongslol 10y agoI'm talking here about the alt-right, e.g. Milo Yiannopoulos' crowd, who self-profess that this was partly why they voted for Trump. People for whom this election was largely cultural, and saw Trump as a "fuck you" to the safe-space, microaggression, language-policing left. I know they have real concerns, like economic pain, threats to their way of life, and concerns about mass immigration—concerns which, by the way, I argued in the grandparent that the left counters with labels. "Your concerns aren't real; you're just xenophobic." But I think the cultural stuff was a big part of it. I realize they don't represent all Trump supporters, and never said they did.
- spangry 10y agoI hope (what I have come to term) 'the authoritarian left' realise that this is basically what the military might call 'blow-back'. If you're going to stage a cultural revolution you should at least get that there will be some form of counter-revolution at some point. And if your revolution is concerned with things that don't concern the the rest of the populace (and in fact sounds like complete gibberish to them), best of luck with that fight...
- josefresco 10y agoAnecdotally, the people I know personally who voted for Trump did so because they "didn't like Hillary" which I translate as "just to fuck with everyone". They knew who they were "supposed" to vote for, and rejected that. They didn't once repeat any of Trumps proposed policies or justify their choice based on public positions. They were given a choice between two flavors of politicians, and picked the one they liked (or the the one they didn't, not like)
- emperorcezar 10y agoThis is a great way for one to stick their head in the sand and not have to fight the evil in the world. The Nazis weren't defeated by pussyfooting around, and the same applies this time around.
- selllikesybok 10y agoLabels are extemely useful and important. You do not cede ground on framing. Even if all you can do is fight to a standstill, it is better than not fighting. Call it what it is. Everywhere you see it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- concinds 10y agoHow many times will this need to be explained? Calling Trump racist or a Nazi isn't effective. It's preaching to the choir. You don't convince his supporters, and you alienate the moderates that believe Trump is moderate like them. This is deliberate. Trump deliberately made himself the motte-and-bailey candidate, so both moderates and extremists feel Trump is on their side. He's done that through double-messages and lying, so that the moderates came to believe that Trump was lying on his extreme proposals, and the extremists believed Trump was lying on his moderate proposals. Even his VP choice served that goal. By calling Trump names, you're setting yourself up to be seen as unfairly strawmanning him, therefore reducing your credibility among the people you most want to convince. You're also setting yourself up to be seen as slyly using words as emotional hand-grenades ("nazi! bigot!") to shut down discourse, rather than actually believing these labels. Through that, you cede the moral high ground, not because you're manipulative, but because your target audience believes you are. Hillary Clinton paid consultants millions to help her convince the public, and even that didn't work. Throwing around labels it hopeless. Regardless of whether you honestly believe those labels, they don't work anymore. Go on at your peril. I don't know what the solution is. Wider involvement in the political process, repeal of the Electoral College, and redistricting all seem like better ideas. And then, propose a positive vision, not just criticism of the other side. Edit: I'll be clearer: you're right. Do you want to be right, or do you want to win?
- selllikesybok 10y agoSo glad you spent the time policing me, rather than, perhaps, changing the mind of someone you disagree with.
- akerro 10y agoCompletely agree, I would go even further, protesters like Antifa who made most mess in many cities and guys like those: http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragge... work hard for Trump to be reelected.
- golemotron 10y agoHuman beings will never learn: we empower what we attempt to suppress.
- mikeash 10y agoWhile we're banning these other words, can we also ban "virtue signaling"? It basically means "you are being insincere" and is just as unproductive.
- tluyben2 10y agoNever heard about that as maybe not a native English speaker. What is it?
- mikeash 10y agoThe Wikipedia article seems good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling The short version is, it's when someone acts in a "moral" fashion not because they truly believe it, but because they want others to see them as virtuous. Imagine someone attending a protest purely so that their friends can see them protesting, or donating to charity just so they can tell everyone that they donated.
- pluma 10y agoOne minor nitpick: in social media the criticism generally applies mostly to mere statements, especially statements of support or outrage over any given emotionally loaded issue. Attending a protest or donating to charity is relatively risky and expensive in comparison to just feigning outrage, retweeting slogans or changing your avatar.
- fpig 10y agoYeah virtue signaling is mostly a Facebook/Twitter thing.
- pluma 10y agoYouTube too. Just pick any Sargon of Akkad video at random, it's almost guaranteed to be about either "virtue signalling", "moral busybodies" (i.e. the people mostly engaging in virtue signalling) or "cultural Marxism".
- derrickdirge 10y ago>Some virtue signaling is necessary; leaders should speak out; Surely Fred Wilson is considered a leader within certain communities.
- CaptainZapp 10y agoI agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. I totally disagree. How else do you want to describe the contents (and spirit) of this executive order? I think getting into mealy mouthed wiesel words and euphemisms for something that's clearly hateful and bigoted and racist helps no one.
- jazzyk 10y agoYou know that Obama de facto stopped - or at least severely limited - Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011. There was no outright ban, but the flow of Iraqis slowed significantly. Would you call it a hateful act as well?
- yongjik 10y agoUsing Obama's "Iraq refugees ban" to justify Trump's action was a weak argument anyway, but the time window for the argument's viability has passed hours ago. Now you will have to find out cases when Obama ordered government officers to ignore court order. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord... > Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents defied the orders of federal judges regarding Donald Trump’s travel bans on Sunday, according to members of Congress and attorneys who rallied protests around the country in support of detained refugees and travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries.
- 762236 10y agoHe donated real money, so I think it a stretch to call virtue signaling.
- dongslol 10y agoYeah, that was the part I later maybe wished I could retract. I do think saying "it's time to act, people" and then actually acting is underrated.
- fridsun 10y agoAll nouns are labels. Labeling in an argument goes all the ways and there is no guarantee whatsoever the parties involved have the same recognition of the labels. That we even have enough common understanding to create a language is due to a special human ability to understand each other without precise language, thus labels. The problem is not using labels, but people who intentionally mess with said ability to understand and then plant the blame on labels.
- sdenton4 10y agoHe is doing more than buying labels: he's giving 20k a month to the aclu, and apparently working on discontinuing Breitbart's access to his company's platform. I've been working for a while now on having concrete, one to one conversations about race with strangers. Some key principles in this work are to call people in, not out, focus on personal experiences, and build out from shared values. It's hard. But I grew up in St Louis, which is a deeply, deeply racist town, where I was told from a young age that we lived in a colorblind society, and that I should stay away from the black parts of town of I valued my life. Ignoring racism doesn't make it go away. Ignoring white nationalists, and giving them more acceptable labels doesn't make them go away, and doesn't make their hated any softer. These labels are still useful and relevant, and removing words useful for discussing the worst offenses, and providing a rock bottom which most people are happy to distance themselves from. White silence enables white violence.
- trav4225 10y agoAgreed. Words like "hate", "bigot", and "racist" have become little more than modern-day Newspeak. They are labels applied to people, not terms descriptive of them. Personally, when I read words like bigot/racist/etc., I instantly associate it with myself and my demographic, as a label that names us, not as a descriptor. I know that I personally meet none of the classical definitions of those words, but I also recognize that, in modern parlance, I "am" those things. It's pretty messed up.
- metafunctor 10y agoI know what "hate" means. I know what bigotry is, and I know what racism means. Don't you?
- chronicy6 10y agoI know what those words mean too. That's why I voted for Trump in San Francisco.
- metafunctor 10y agoWould you care to elaborate, because I don't understand. Usually people would like the society in general to have less bigotry, hatred, and racism. Do you think Trump will help us get there, and how?
- ThomPete 10y agoWell first you need to establish that Trump are actually doing those things. This is the primary issues once you actually dig into things he might just as well just be nationalist which means occupied with US citizens not world citizens. From the perspective of a nationalist the extreme measures Trump have taken are simply to secure the country. From the perspective of a globalist he is destroying the very foundation of the global society. None of those are wrong, they are just different perspectives equally valid.
- notahacker 10y agoIf one wanted to assess the relative merits of the respective perspectives, one could consider whether the list of nations affected and unaffected corresponded with evidence of relative security risks, what the opinions of people tasked with securing the country were on its likely efficacy, and of course whether Trump's circle discussed the order with those responsible for executing it in order to ensure it was clear and enforceable or purposely kept the vaguely worded text of the order from them until they were required to implement it, with the inevitable result of confusion, a legal challenge and people whose right to enter the country changed in mid-flight. And timed the announcement for Holocaust Memorial Day. Then one could also take into account many of his critics aren't remotely globalist and some of them have invested significant political effort into trying to destroy the very foundation of global organisations like the EU. I think based on the above no reasonable person could conclude the argument his primary focus was security has as much merit as the argument his primary focus was to cause maximum chaos to upset liberals, enthuse the elements of his base most excited by anti-Muslim gesture politics and test the loyalties of his colleagues in Congress and border agencies.
- TorKlingberg 10y agoFor people outside the US, I believe it is perfectly fine to donate to ACLU, but do check if there is an equivalent organization in your country. For example in the UK there is Liberty (https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/). Threats to human rights are a global problem after all.
- corford 10y agoCan confirm. I'm a UK citizen with no US bank account but donate monthly to the ACLU (payment is taken off a UK credit card).
- exodust 10y agoCome on, this isn't the place to drive recruitment for donations. The ACLU just received a huge chunk of change. There are plenty of worthwhile causes starved for funds that would love the bank balance of ACLU. Fishing for open wallets while emotions are high and human rights trending. Just an online take of the city street recruitment, like the Greenpeace people extending their hand for an unwanted handshake from 50 metres away. Cross the road to avoid, and there's another one on the other side.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- te_chris 10y agoJust saw this got momentarily flagged into oblivion. The dark forces seem to be gathering. I applaud this effort by leaders in our community to stand up and not just let this awful bigotry slide by.
- TorKlingberg 10y agoIt keeps getting flagged and vouched back and forth.
- zzleeper 10y agoThere is a very aggressive set of users that keep flagging politics here. At this point I don't know if they are Trump supporters, or if they just hate anything but tech on HN.
- grzm 10y agoif they just hate anything but tech on HN. There have been plenty of political submissions on HN over the past couple of days. There's been plenty of political discussion on HN over the past couple of days. If people are starting to flag political submissions, it may be because there's a limit of how many political submissions there should be. There's a meaningful difference between "anything but tech" (which is a straw man, anyway, as there are plenty of other submissions that aren't tech yet aren't politics) and having so many political submissions and subsequent discussions that end up covering the same ground without any meaningful discourse.
- cperciva 10y agoI vouched it and it went back onto the front page, but it got promptly flagged away again. :-(
- metafunctor 10y agoYep. Sadly, it seems HN may be getting overrun by Trump apologists. Where's the next good place to be after HN gets gaslighted to not knowing the meaning of words?
- shaqbert 10y agoWhy don't get is why there is so little discussion of systematic governance system shortcomings in the US. Gerrymandering, a primary system empowering extreme positions, the role of money in politics, the extreme level of noise and lack of signal in the media, house and senate rules enabling obstructionism, lack of clarity in the constitution (e.g. senate being able to stall a supreme court judge for a year), etc. As a general rule of thumb, money and power don't mix all that well ...
- kalleboo 10y agoThose are certainly the most interesting discussions, but they both require great nuance (which the US political climate has long ago rejected) and great consensus (since the flaws are in the very constitution where the amendments are by design difficult to push through). As a non-American, I've always thought the best path forward was to focus on states rights. Progressive states along the coasts could should the way forward, and the rest of the country would eventually catch up (imagine the EU if Sweden had to wait on countries like Poland and Italy to implement their desired policies?). But there's a massive medial focus on federal politics (the executive branch President in particular), and everyone wants to save everyone else in the nation from their perceived oppressions...
- strken 10y agoMake sure to check out the comment down the bottom where Fred Wilson says he'll talk to Disqus about killing Breitbart's account, as well as the related discussion. As a non-American with less to lose, while I think the latest move by Trump is contemptible and stupid, a lot of the response to it seem counter-productive. People here (edit: on HN) and elsewhere are doubling down on hatred, both of Trump supporters and of Muslims, without any kind of thought for convincing the other side's decision-makers or wooing independents. That's a dangerous thing to do, especially when you've just lost an election.
- puranjay 10y agoPardon my ignorance - I'm not American and haven't followed this news - but how is everyone conflating it with "muslims"? I mean, my country has some 140M muslims (India), and my neighbors have some 330M muslims. As a layman, I just read the order and I thought "oh, so it's all war torn countries...but what's Iran doing in there?" not "oh, it's all muslim countries"
- kalleboo 10y agoBecause Trump went to election on "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" [0, donaldjtrump.com] The fact that it was implemented as a ban on citizens from the most prominent Muslim-majority countries (as seen by the eyes of the average American voter, who forgot about Saudi Arabia) could be interpreted as a way for Trump to say he kept his pledge while not being instantly impeached for not protecting the Constitution as is the job of the president [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20170130001335/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://web.archive.org/web/20170130001335/https://www.donal...
- puranjay 10y agoSo basically, it's just posturing? Or would the order be removed eventually?
- 10y ago
- hueving 10y agoI flagged this, not because I have issues with the political stance, but because it adds absolutely nothing of substance to discuss. It's just a re-iteration that this administration is "hateful", "racist", "bigoted" and whatever else without anything compelling to convince anyone to change or even strengthen their views. I see nothing useful that can come from wasting discussions on this. I'm already regretting spending the time I have in this comments section, it's a wasteland of blind posturing and inane flaming that I hope others avoid as well.
- kalleboo 10y agoSame here. This is one of those topics where the Hacker News community has no particular insight, and the comments will surely be the same political cesspool as anywhere else (prove me wrong, please!).
- 3pt14159 10y agoIt's because everyone is entitled to their opinion and they haven't necessarily done the work necessary to come to a nuanced understanding of the world. Take a random visitor to HN and ask him or her what they think of the changes in Golang's garbage collector. Most wouldn't know what those changes have been, when they happened, or the outcome of those changes. Even the few that had a beginning of an understanding like me, would know that there are probably important details that are missing from understanding it so we keep our thoughts to ourselves. Then you'll get the like dozen or so guys that really understand it talk about it and the other 99.8% of us get to read and learn. What you think about the person in the Oval Office isn't something that you need academic or professional rigor to have a viewpoint on. It's part celebrity and mixed up with political ideology so people aren't usually shown that they don't actually understand what is going on. Plus, HN is popular in USA, Russia, Israel, Germany, Canada, Japan - each with their own viewpoints and lack of shared cultural understanding.
- sanderjd 10y agoHere's my take: I'm torn between agreeing that these stories don't really belong on HN and thinking that the comments here are the only ones I ever see that still don't immediately devolve into ugly name-calling. I wish I knew of a decent political forum, but I only know of echo-chambers on one side or the other and un-civil cesspools. The politics conversations here aren't great, but they usually have some input from both sides and way less incivility than anywhere else I know of.
- jasonlingx 10y agoTrump campaigned on this. America voted for this. Every nation gets the government it deserves.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tangaroa11 10y agoThe U.S. is clearly geographically stratified (and self stratifying), and the impact factor of certain regions is clearly larger than others with the electoral system. I would take issue with the statement that "America" voted for Trump or his talking points. Priorities vary greatly; just look at local politics. For two extremes, California ballot measures (2016) have included things like legalizing marijuana and promoting bilingual school education; Kansas has ballot measures for things like right to hunt and fish (2016) or exemption from nationally mandated health care plans (2014).
- akerro 10y ago> Every nation gets the government it d̶e̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶s̶ it elects. FTFU
- pg314 10y ago> Every nation gets the government it deserves. That sounds catchy, but isn't true. Think of all the dictators who came to power after a coup (sometimes backed by foreign powers).
- legodt 10y agoFour times, it was America that installed said dictator...
- mikeash 10y agoHow does it make sense to speak about an entire nation deserving anything? I didn't vote for this, but I'm getting it just the same.
- perseusprime11 10y agoThe only way to influence Trump's policy at this time is to be on his side. This may sound weird and very counter to prevailing thought but this may be the only way. Trump already knows he can't win the other side so he will continue to appease his base which will be more detrimental to all of us.
- sanderjd 10y agoIt depends on what you mean by "his side". If you mean the Republican party (which is not really "on his side"), then you're right, they are in the best position to fight him. And they will do so if they hear a groundswell from their constituents that "this is not us". I am cautiously optimistic that this may happen. The condemnation of a number of senators, and probably more importantly, a bunch of Christian organizations, is a good sign.
- jlebrech 10y agosurely there's a technical solution that doesn't discriminate. say checkpoints and better public transport.
- Corristowolf 10y agoObama was the one who implemented the visa ban for 7 islamic countries. Trump is just continuing the policy and added a LGBTQ clause. The left is blowing this out of proportion, just because it's Trump. They had no problem with airstrikes everyday that Obama was in office. I wish the press could be more objective. Every country has a right to deny access to people from other countries. Same with all the islamic middle eastern countries banning people from Israel. It's a political game, and every country has that right. For you to travel to another country, it's a privilege not a right. "In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation." Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20170130005111/http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170130005111/http://www.cnn.co...
- ChefDenominator 10y agoExactly. The left is going to end up being extinct, and it has no clue why. Obama oversees war for every day of his two terms, and we hear nothing, because, I guess, bombing people isn't hateful. Trump takes office, continues the policies of Obama, and he's hateful. It's the left that is prejudice in assuming that those in the middle and the right can't see through this. I see zero effort to change strategy or tactic, so we can all look forward to a second term of Trump.
- jbi 10y agoCould you bring up a source for your first statement? Obama stopped the refugee programm for Iraqi citizens for 6 months - it never affected people with valid green cards or dual passports.
- csears 10y agoObama barred access to the Visa Waiver Program for "High Risk" countries. This was not an outright ban on immigration, it just eliminated access to a "fast lane" for people who needed to visit the US for 90 days or less. Source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/...
- 0xFFC 10y agoIranian here, I do completely respect his decision , although I am 100% against his decision. The only point I don't get is how Trump is not same Trump before election, He talked about banning Muslim (I was born in Muslim family , although I am not Muslim and I am atheist , I want to clear things out that I am not against ordinary people.), But he literally banned people from countries which have not participated in any terroristic act (Iran for example) whatsoever. I don't get the hypocrisy! He talked about Suadi Arabia (Iran is like France in comparison to Suadi Arabia, especially the new generation, which most of them are agnostic/atheist/nihilist , in comparison to Suadi Arabia which most of them have sympathy for ISIS, as far as I remember there was poll on the internet from one of the well-known firms, which claimed ~70% of people for Suadi Arabia do respect ISIS). But guess what? Iran was, but Suadi Arabia wasn't. People of America, Don't you get it? This is same old. I was literally in love with Bernie Sanders. But didn't you see how corrupted DNC rigged the primary against an outsider? We all are slaves to this system. We in Iran are slaves of our brutal dictator supreme leader. You, people of America, slaves of your complex network of politicians and media networks and etc. Actually, Trump campaign did have good points too (from an outsider perspective). He did want to distance himself from Suadi Arabia, or he did want to leave middle east. But I think that's not going to happen, because all of them was simple lie. P.S. Pardon My English, I am working on it ;) , and I have 1 year to improve it more and more. P.S. I was one of the "so-called" elite students which did have plan to immigrate to US in 2018. But I think I will go somewhere else .
- Clubber 10y ago>But guess what? Iran was, but Suadi Arabia wasn't. There are the stated reasons why the US government thinks a certain way and there are the real reasons. Saudi Arabia is a big one. I suspect the real reasons is we have oil deals with Saudi Arabia and Iran has oil deals with Russia. Also Iran nationalized US interests in the late 70s with the revolution. The US punished Cuba for the same thing for 50 years (plus the missile crisis). The US isn't altruistic like they want people to believe, the US works aggressively for their own best interests. If they can paint an altruistic face on it, they will. The US is still can't let go of the cold war mentality, probably justified with Putin. Iran and Saudi Arabia fit into that mentality. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two powers in the middle east: one is traditionally an ally, one is our adversary's ally. It's a natural law of geopolitic that the victors of a major conflict split into at least minor adversaries. The victors are the only ones who can threaten each others power and security. We saw this play out after WWII. Dan Carlin just released an episode where he explores this. I haven't gotten through it yet, but it's very good. http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/ http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-o...
- masterponomo 10y agoIn the 1990's in Gwinnett County, GA, you could not enroll your child in school unless he/she had a Social Security number. Non-citizens (including illegal aliens) were exempt from this rule. I considered declaring my children non-citizens as a minor protest, but really didn't care to make an issue of it. Would today's hysterics classify that 1990's policy as hatred, bigotry, and racism agains the (then) largely white, legal citizens of the county? Or would it simply be selective enforcement of the law? The fact is, the executive branch always practices selective enforcement, and the range of emphasis on some policies can vary wildly from one administration to another, and seemingly arbitrary exceptions can be made. In my opinion, Trump is delivering the revised emphasis on immigration that he promised during the campaign, and so far is doing so entirely within the law. People are free to react as they will, but I do hope they learn to recognize selective enforcement in all its glory, as a concept separate and distinct from the over-emotional labels now being applied to it.
- attaboyjon 10y agoIf you read the article linked by the AVC author you will think otherwise. https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-tr...
- zzleeper 10y agoAre you implying that asking for SSN was being racist against white people? More likely than not, they just wanted everyone to have a SSN so they required it for kids. But non-residents cannot have SSNs (even if legally there), so they had to make an exemption for them. In a way, you can argue the opposite. By making sure that kids have SSNs, they get access to credit and much more, while those without SSNs get stuck in a limbo.
- masterponomo 10y agoNo. I am asking those hysterical about recent events to tell me why one form of selective enforcement is accepted as a matter of course, while another is not. I am using this example to show that selective enforcement of laws is not automatically hatred/bigotry/racism, but may be a matter of different policy goals. BTW, aliens can get ITIN's which are similar to SSN's except they are used only for tax matters. That is another abuse of citizens, if you care to be rigorous. Citizens are required to obtain a number and to supply it as a condition of receiving a benefit. In effect, the dreaded "show me your papers" which is posited as an abuse of power if used against a suspected illegal alien standing on the street is an entry requirement for a born citizen to walk through the door of kindergarten--but not for any non-citizen.
- attaboyjon 10y agoIf you feel that the tone of this post overstates how bad Trump's order is, I suggest you read the article linked to in the original author's post. It goes into much more detail and gives you a better idea on why what Trump is doing is so bad - https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-tr...
- jhoechtl 10y agoAs an European I - somehow - welcome this new sort of policy. It reads to me as "we concentrate primarily on ourselves". Which I think is a good attitude. I hope this sort of thinking becomes more widespread. Sort of an anti-globalization movement. We have and always will have globalization. In cyber-space. The open source community is an incredible example for how that works. But please concentrate globalisation to remain virtual instead of bazillion goods being transported all over the planet and contributing to pollution. This is also true for long-termn workforce movements. Come, see, go, leave no traces. Thank you!
- philfrasty 10y ago„...bazillion goods being transported all over the planet and contributing to pollution...“ This seems to be oversimplified. A massive global supply-chain might still produce less polution than carrying around lots of small quantities of goods locally from producer to endconsumer.
- gonvaled 10y ago> Come, see, go, leave no traces. Thank you! Utterly disgusting, to another European with a completely opposite view. People are more important than goods, services and capital. People should be able to travel and settle down wherever they choose. The only bad effects of globalization are the ones deriving from the power that corporations and wealthy individuals have of gaming the tax system.
- Shivetya 10y agoCATO has a nice five point list as to why Congress should act. https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repeal-trumps-immigrant-refugee-ban https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repea... however not all actions asking for caution are hate related, let alone bigotry or such. You can portray them that way if you like but that is you. lastly, why is this on HN?
- logandavis 10y agoThe reason this is more HN-relevant than your average article on pure American politics is the top comment. Someone suggested to a well-known VC that he could do something about the fact that software he invests in powers the comments on Breitbart, and he said "on it". Something like 5% of Breitbart visits currently come through Disqus. Removing Disqus integration from Breitbart would be a remarkable use of tech industry tools for political activism. Of course, the fourth Google hit for "Fred Wilson Disqus" is now a post on right-wing reddit clone Voat entitled "F*#%^t Venture Capitalist Fred Wilson who owns Disqus threatening to pull comments from Breitbart website" [0]. So that's a real thing, apparently. [0] https://voat.co/v/whatever/1603591 https://voat.co/v/whatever/1603591
- humanrebar 10y ago> Removing Disqus integration from Breitbart would be a remarkable use of tech industry tools for political activism. I'm not sure more fracturing of American political discourse would be a beneficial form of 'activism'.
- cronjobber 10y agoActual fracturing wouldn't necessarily be in his interest, but I guess we can assume that's not the goal anyway. The goal would have to be silencing the social media presence of the right, a return to the status quo ante of public discourse.
- fridsun 10y ago> The goal would have to be silencing the social media presence of the right *the alt-right Or, less euphemistically, the neo-Nazi.
- humanrebar 10y agoI'll reference the other thread about 'racism'; I don't know what 'alt-right' even means, so I don't know how to have an opinion about it.
- beat 10y agoRegardless of how one feels about the order itself, the fact is, courts are ordering it temporarily suspended, and the Trump administration is ignoring court orders. Legislators are going to airports to see that travelers arriving in their district and being detained are allowed access to counsel, and they're not allowed to meet with the detainees. This is a constitutional crisis. This is not about the right or wrong of the travel ban, not anymore. This is about the Executive branch simply ignoring the Judicial and Legislative branches, and ruling by decree. This is a breakdown of the rule of law. Within the week, we will see judges order the arrest of Customs/TSA agents, and possibly Trump administration officials, for contempt of court. Will the US Marshals enforce those warrants? Or will they obey Trump's orders and stand down? If the administration does not stand down, I expect to see elected legislators, and possibly judges, being arrested within the next few weeks. Are you okay with that? Again, it's not about the right or wrong of the travel ban. It's about whether the president obeys the courts, as required by the Constitution.
- humanrebar 10y agoIt's a complex set of events, but America is overdue for some stronger checks on the executive branch. I think it's also fair to say the executive branch has unique power in security affairs that the judicial branch can overstep its authority in. I'm not supporting these actions, here. I might go either way on them, honestly, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about constitutional crises now given all the executive actions that have been largely accepted as normal over the last sixteen years or so.
- beat 10y agoA temporary restraining order in a non-emergency is not overstepping any authority. I see absolutely no reason why this is too important to go through due process.
- humanrebar 10y agoThere's a good point there, but I can also see the merit of letting the commander in chief get the benefit of the doubt, especially since we're not talking about U.S. citizens as far as I can tell.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y agoEvery post of mine on this subject gets downvoted, but here goes. There was a grad student that was detained for 30 hours over the weekend at JFK. The CBP tried to put her on a plane three times, and three times she was taken off the plane because her lawyers intervened. For the whole 30 hours, she was not allowed to see her lawyers. Ultimately they released her. Why? Because fuck you, that's why. Arbitrary decisions by government bureaucrats is the name of the game in US immigration. That's how it has always been, and that's the way Americans like it. When you ask an American, they will tell you that a US visa is not a right, it's a privilege, and they'd like to make sure that you know that you have no rights all the way through.
- grzm 10y agoEvery post of mine on this subject gets downvoted, but here goes. Please don't preface your comments with this. The guidelines explicitly ask you not to. Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nkurz 10y agoEvery post of mine on this subject gets downvoted, but here goes. I suspect that for many people your username calls to mind the KKK, and this leads them to be more critical of your content than they otherwise would be. Sarcastic spellings that include extra K's are commonly associated with right-wing politics, sometimes as endorsement and sometimes as criticism: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-spell-America-as-Amerikka https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-spell-America-as-Am.... Why did you choose the username that you did?
- lallysingh 10y agoJust a quick request: let's not get lost on semantics here. It's a huge field of rabbit holes to get stuck in in usual populations, and discussions derail to garbage pretty quickly. Please don't vent here. We have a chance on this forum for a meaningful discussion, but venting will ruin that.
- gonvaled 10y agoInternal american politics, not of interest. Flagged. When we were discussing the terrorist attacks in France, they were being consistently flagged. I complained about [1] the anglo-centrism of HN and dang replied this: > I'd caution against drawing general conclusions about HN from spot observations about what does/doesn't get flagged. People usually fall prey to cognitive biases when they do so, e.g. thinking that the community is against them somehow. We're all primed to feel that way; the feeling just hops to different things depending on our different identities. > Occam suggests you needn't look for "Anglo bias" as an explanation for why a story gets flagged when the thread includes "We must get rid of Merkel and the refugees" followed by "What do you suggest, gas chambers?" > (Not that there isn't inevitably going to be something like "anglo bias" on an English-language website. But FWIW the moderators here are acutely aware of, and grateful for, and interested in, the international aspects of the community—definitely including the German ones.) Either stop being USA (and UK) -centric, or stop pretending that you are not. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12145481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12145481
- grzm 10y agoInternal american politics, not of interest. Flagged. If you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, flag and move on, as the guidelines ask. Your criticism of HN being US-centric sounds like you believe it's deliberate and curated. For as much as it is so biased, I think it's an understandable consequence of something that falls out of the demographics of the members and their interests. A lot (not all, though likely a plurality) of the members are in the US. While the community isn't entirely tech and start-up focused, there is a large interest in these areas. A lot of interesting tech companies are US-based. Silicon Valley is in the US. Y Combinator, affiliated with HN, is in the SF Bay area. It makes sense that a lot of submissions would also be US-centric, and, unfortunately, what might get flagged. I don't see a large number of members actively arguing that HN doesn't have a lot of US-focussed content. Perhaps the submissions and which get flagged don't completely align with your own interests. And I can understand how that could be frustrating. That's not necessarily because of some cabal actively keeping things focussed on the US. Personally, I think HN has too many political discussions regarding US politics, prompted by the recent US elections. And I'm doing what I can as a member to shape HN just as any other member can. And a lot of the political submissions are getting flagged. People are complaining about that as well. (Look just in this thread!) It's the nature of the demographics and interests of the members. Edit to add: A lot of the HN submission and comment data is available via the HN APIs. I've often thought it would make an interesting study to dig into that data to confirm or disprove perceptions of bias like this (though, in this case, I'm sure there is an unsurprising, strong US-tilt to submissions). If you chose to do so, please share the results on HN. I know I'd be interested!
- gloverkcn 10y agoWe are having the wrong discussions. I hoped this community could be a place to have the better ones. First, I didn't vote for Tump, and am not a fan. I also am not a fan of Clinton. The brief versions of the points are as follows. - The executive branch has aggregated too much power, and not enough people are talking about the amount of chaos one person can do to the country. - Trump has gone to war with the media, and the media is fighting back by making everything "the worst thing ever". This is going to lead to crisis fatigue. - The country, a significant portion of it, has wanted to break up the calcification that has formed in our government. Due to the machinations of our two party system, Trump was the only option to vote for that on election day. Longer Form: There has been a conversation in this country that the government has ceased listening to, or being concerned with the population at large. There was a study that hit the front page here at least once. There is also a feeling in a significant portion of the population that the country is going the wrong direction. The duopoly that has strangled our elections needs to be broken up. Both parties have ways to try and nudge certain types of candidates through their primaries. Not for conspiratorial reasons, but to try and have the best chance to win the elections. In both parties there were dark horse candidates that broke through, gathering their strength from disenfranchised people who wanted something other than the status quo. If Sanders was president, the right would be losing their minds as bad or worse than the left is. They accused President Obama of being a socialist who wanted to make America the next "insert country that tried socialism and wound up with an autocrat". Sanders is a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist with the outspoken goal of pushing the country to the left. Two parties cannot represent the spectrum of beliefs and preferences that exist within the country, and the things that the two parties agree on (spying, war, trade, giving a pass to wall street) has made the majority of the country feel that they have lost their voice. On election day there were only two choices to pick from. The status quo, and Donald Trump. I know a lot of people who didn't like trump, but voted for him anyway. Trump was a rock they could throw at the government. The best thing I can hope for from the Trump Presidency is that the republican party splits, and the Democrats follow suit. Trump believes in bullying his way through things, and holding nothing back. He's going to use every power that congress has ceded to the executive office to get his way. Trump is the first president in my lifetime who is systematically going through his campaign promises, and doing what he can to force them to fruition. The executive office has far too much power, and needs to be brought into check. We are supposed to have 3 branches of government with checks and balances. The branch that's supposed to pass the laws has two house so that the people's representative's have the most power, as well as an internal check system. Congress gave the executive office the ability to spy on Americans, if those Americans were communicating with foreign targets of interest. President Bush signed an order making it okay to spy on all Americans. The excuse was it wasn't being looked at, or used for domestic issues. President Obama signed in order allowing that data collected without cause or warrant to be passed to all of the other domestic agencies (FBI, DEA, IRS, etc.) This is far too much power for a single person to have. These types of laws need to be discussed and voted upon by our representatives before being put into action. The president is not a King, his word is not law. My opinion is that the media has a bone to pick with Trump, and is highlighting everything he does in the extreme negative. If a democrat had won the media leaning right would be doing the same. We no longer get any context with the our news. We get headlines and highlights, but never any backing information on how things got to that point. The media has been reduced to supporting one side or the other and as a result there is no longer any room to say "I was wrong", "They other side has a good idea", "Let's here the facts and opinions of experts and debate the issue". My concern is our country is too entrenched in the us vs them mentality that the duopoly has caused. We will not be able to make adjustments to fix the issue and our nation will barrel into the same wall that so many nations throughout history have crashed into. How can we break up the political parties to allow for more options during an election? How can rein in the overreaching powers of the executive office? How can we drive more intellectual debate that provides some context on the current issues into the news organizations? Thanks for reading
- andriesm 10y agoCan't wait for this Virtue Signaling circle-jerk to be over. STOP BELIEVING MEDIA LIES. Instead of reading second hand sources, why not ACTUALLY READ what Trump said in his own words, 17 hours ago, right here: “America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.” d- Donald J. Trump - 17 hours ago. source: https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725 https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725
- nkurz 10y ago[posting at the top level as responding to the dead post was not allowed] [...] Instead of reading second hand sources, why not ACTUALLY READ what Trump said in his own words, 17 hours ago, right here: “America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.” https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725 https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725 I disagree with your unnecessarily vulgar phrasing (please don't do that), but vouched for your post because I think focussing on Trump's actual words can be a constructive way of establishing common ground. Presumably, you quote this because you think it shows that Trump is being intentionally misconstrued by the press. I agree --- many people are distorting what Trump actually says in a way that fits the narrative they want to create. What you may not understand is that many people think it's best to ignore Trump's actual words because they are designed to mislead. Since they've already decided that Trump's actions are based on racism rather than an honest desire for national security, Trump's explanations are presumed in advance to be a cover story for this true goals. This is essentially a stalemate, as nothing that Trump can say will serve to persuade those who are prejudiced against him. Where I think the media is being misleading is that they jump straight to this conclusion, rather than building a solid case that might convince those who do not already agree with them. They intentionally conflate their own interpretation of events as being Trump's stated goals. With this in mind, I'd like to focus on what Trump is actually saying. If we take him at his word, is Trump's explanation here reasonable? Is the expressed intent unacceptable, or does it become unacceptable only if we assume the true meaning is contained in inaudible dogwhistles? How do we eliminate the "simple" explanation that Trump believes in what he's doing, and is doing it for the reasons he says he is?