9 ms·

Kalanick and Musk are basically the only two remaining adults in SV. Musk basically said on twitter, "I'll go and talk to the guy". Everyone else is more concer

Kalanick and Musk are basically the only two remaining adults in SV. Musk basically said on twitter, "I'll go and talk to the guy". Everyone else is more concerned with political correctness and virtue signaling. Hundred thousand bombs dropped into five countries on that list -- not a goddamn peep from anybody. 2150 people killed by drones -- same. Iraqi refugees banned for half a year -- no one has even heard of it. Cuban refugees banned permanently -- okie dokie. But god forbid anyone gets stopped on the border, no sir, we can't have that.

babesh 10y ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168950/Rudy-Giuliani-says-Donald-Trump-wanted-Muslin-ban.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168950/Rudy-Giulian... No, they are protecting their interests even in the face of discrimination. And guess what, those bombs are continuing to be dropped and Trump wants more bombs dropped. http://time.com/4644036/donald-trump-russia-syria-joint-strikes/ http://time.com/4644036/donald-trump-russia-syria-joint-stri...
oh_sigh 10y ago
Tim Cook also said that it is better to have a seat at the table than the alternative.
agumonkey 10y ago
It's hard to understand what Musk thinks here. He believes he can influence or correct Trump's policies ? weird.
- general_ai 10y ago
  Has there been any case in recent history (20 years) in which a president has changed anything of any consequence due to mass protest? Musk is on the _advisory board_. It could be that this advisory board is a farce, or it could be that Trump would actually listen to a fellow "billionaire playboy philanthropist". One thing is pretty clear to me: Trump is not going to give a shit about either the liberal press (or in fact press in general), or liberal intelligentsia protesting in the street, especially if both demonize and disparage him no matter what he does, and refuse dialogue.
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    I agree with all you wrote. Hence the confusion. The only thing that might be a lever to control Trump is Musk global fame as an US visionary in Space and Cars, plus the Gigafactory (which is very much Trump-ish in gigantism) with its US jobs feel. Other than that ..
    - general_ai 10y ago
      Trump is 70 years old and he's currently the most powerful man in the world. He won't be "controlled" by anyone. But he likely will listen to the advice of people he respects.
      - agumonkey 10y ago
        Nah man I think he is not. He cannot flip the U.S into a farce like that. The amount of absurdly ridiculous news all over is devaluing the whole nation at light speed. I don't think he will last. I hope not. ---- He just fired a justice head for disagreeing. Apparently his assistant is showing tweets at press conferences.. This is unreal, I have no words.
        general_ai 10y ago
        What's so "unreal" about firing an Obama appointee for blatant insubordination? Obama fired all of Dubya's people too, a Bush fired all of Clinton's people likewise. She was just keeping the chair warm for Sessions anyway. This is what's baffling to me. _Everything_ Trump does is interpreted in the most bizarre and paranoid way possible. I eagerly await the H1B order later this week. Once it is signed, HN will all of a sudden proclaim its unending love for H1B abuse in a paroxysm of cognitive dissonance.
        agumonkey 10y ago
        She's a an ex head of Justice, you don't act like that with people who were in charge of your country's pillar. She is knowledgeable, and competent; even if it's 80% defiance, you know she's not the average rebel. Trump just acts like a child removing everything that gets in its way just because he can. I agree with you that he's seen through a biased lens, because he smells like tragedy. His past and now present actions and ideas are mostly void. Now people question the reason he didn't ban all muslim countries because he has business interests there (to be proven though). He has no regards, no diplomacy, no sense of balance. Lots of people say he's a 5yo, I tend to agree.
tunesmith 10y ago
I'm really tired of the "virtue signaling" meme. Yeah, there are some people out there that don't really care about their cause and only want to look good. But really, the vast majority of protesters out there are not in that category. They are alarmed, they know they only have partial information but that's part of what they are alarmed about, they know they don't have a lot of power to do anything other than "call their representatives", and still just want to do something. Nonviolent protest is an effective tool. There are academic studies done on it [1] and how it is actually more effective than violent protest - it has real efficacy. It's not merely "virtue signaling". [1] https://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent/dp/0231156820/ https://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent...
ubernostrum 10y ago
A serious question: do people who leave comments like yours, and the even shorter ones that are literally just the words "virtue signalling", really believe that doing so presents a devastating critique which will convince others of the error of their ways and change their minds? Or is it something you do to demonstrate your affiliation with a particular set of beliefs and positions? Does this phrase have empirical content to you, in that there are theoretically people/positions you could disagree with which you would not use it to describe? Or is it something you will say to/about anyone who you dislike or disagree with, as a way to show that you and they are members of different tribes with different values?
- general_ai 10y ago
  Nah, a serious question wouldn't presuppose a particular answer. I think you've made up your mind long before you asked it. But I'll oblige anyway. Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it. Their main purpose is similar to that of a Facebook "like", to communicate adherence to a shared set of beliefs, not to change anything per se. Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. These days you have to constantly and proactively reaffirm your adherence to the latest groupthink. This is further exacerbated by a rather severe level of hypocrisy demonstrated by those within the currently active protest group. When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. Why? Because that wouldn't signal virtue to the socio-political group in question. People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it. Why is this a bad thing? Are you allowing for the possibility that it's easier to eventually sway outsiders if one first builds momentum with a significant group of like-minded people? Isn't it in fact very common to start by getting like-minded people to agree on a shared platform of ideas and actions, and then move toward convincing outsiders of the correctness of that shared platform? Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. "Coastal elites" is a term lacking empirical content. However, the majority of Americans who voted did not vote for Donald Trump, and there is no evidence to support your assertion that a majority of Americans in general are in favor of the immigration order; if by "coastal elites" you mean "people of generally socially-liberal political leanings who live in major urban areas", you are in fact contradicting yourself since evidence suggests such people are the majority of Americans. You are hopefully aware that the American electoral system is designed to disproportionately represent minority populations, which is why the popular-vote winner did not get elected President. When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. I have yet to see an assertion of "same or worse things" being presented which A) holds up to scrutiny of the "same or worse" assertion and B) was not protested/condemned. For example, many socially-liberal people expressed condemnation of Obama's immigration and foreign policy stances, expressing regret because they hoped he would break from socially-conservative approaches. Do you ignore this fact? People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests. If "people on the right" "don't seem to care much about protests", what is the Tea Party and its large rallies? What is the NRA and its mobilization of people? Why are there so many protests at Planned Parenthood locations, to the extent that those locations routinely need to implement strict security policies to ensure safe access to facilities? Additionally, are all of those groups just "virtue signalling"? Do you equally condemn them, or do you only bring out such comments when a group you disagree with is protesting? In other words: do you have a coherent position here, or are you simply engaging in the very practices you condemn?
angry-hacker 10y ago
Don't forget wiretapping the whole world - - a move that would have made your every dictator jealous. You, Americans, really are crazy sometimes. And you voted for him twice.
- andrewmcwatters 10y ago
  A lot of people love Obama because of his personality, not because of his policies.
jaynos 10y ago
>Cuban refugees banned permanently -- okie dokie. That's not what Obama did [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama...
azernik 10y ago
I'm willing to cut Musk a lot more slack because, through SpaceX, he's uniquely dependent on good relationships with the government.
makomk 10y ago
Some of the celebrities who've been using those bombed Syrians to attack Trump did speak up before - in support of the bombing. J. K. Rowling, in particular, was quite vocal in insisting that anyone who claimed that politicians who supported to bomb them were morally in the wrong or that voters should hold those who did responsible was supporting evil misogynistic harassment because someone might take such language as justification to harass MPs, some of whom were women.

babesh 10y ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168950/Rudy-Giuliani-says-Donald-Trump-wanted-Muslin-ban.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168950/Rudy-Giulian... No, they are protecting their interests even in the face of discrimination. And guess what, those bombs are continuing to be dropped and Trump wants more bombs dropped. http://time.com/4644036/donald-trump-russia-syria-joint-strikes/ http://time.com/4644036/donald-trump-russia-syria-joint-stri...

oh_sigh 10y ago

Tim Cook also said that it is better to have a seat at the table than the alternative.

agumonkey 10y ago

It's hard to understand what Musk thinks here. He believes he can influence or correct Trump's policies ? weird.

general_ai 10y ago
Has there been any case in recent history (20 years) in which a president has changed anything of any consequence due to mass protest? Musk is on the _advisory board_. It could be that this advisory board is a farce, or it could be that Trump would actually listen to a fellow "billionaire playboy philanthropist". One thing is pretty clear to me: Trump is not going to give a shit about either the liberal press (or in fact press in general), or liberal intelligentsia protesting in the street, especially if both demonize and disparage him no matter what he does, and refuse dialogue.
- agumonkey 10y ago
  I agree with all you wrote. Hence the confusion. The only thing that might be a lever to control Trump is Musk global fame as an US visionary in Space and Cars, plus the Gigafactory (which is very much Trump-ish in gigantism) with its US jobs feel. Other than that ..
  - general_ai 10y ago
    Trump is 70 years old and he's currently the most powerful man in the world. He won't be "controlled" by anyone. But he likely will listen to the advice of people he respects.
    - agumonkey 10y ago
      Nah man I think he is not. He cannot flip the U.S into a farce like that. The amount of absurdly ridiculous news all over is devaluing the whole nation at light speed. I don't think he will last. I hope not. ---- He just fired a justice head for disagreeing. Apparently his assistant is showing tweets at press conferences.. This is unreal, I have no words.
      - general_ai 10y ago
        What's so "unreal" about firing an Obama appointee for blatant insubordination? Obama fired all of Dubya's people too, a Bush fired all of Clinton's people likewise. She was just keeping the chair warm for Sessions anyway. This is what's baffling to me. _Everything_ Trump does is interpreted in the most bizarre and paranoid way possible. I eagerly await the H1B order later this week. Once it is signed, HN will all of a sudden proclaim its unending love for H1B abuse in a paroxysm of cognitive dissonance.
        agumonkey 10y ago
        She's a an ex head of Justice, you don't act like that with people who were in charge of your country's pillar. She is knowledgeable, and competent; even if it's 80% defiance, you know she's not the average rebel. Trump just acts like a child removing everything that gets in its way just because he can. I agree with you that he's seen through a biased lens, because he smells like tragedy. His past and now present actions and ideas are mostly void. Now people question the reason he didn't ban all muslim countries because he has business interests there (to be proven though). He has no regards, no diplomacy, no sense of balance. Lots of people say he's a 5yo, I tend to agree.

tunesmith 10y ago

I'm really tired of the "virtue signaling" meme. Yeah, there are some people out there that don't really care about their cause and only want to look good. But really, the vast majority of protesters out there are not in that category. They are alarmed, they know they only have partial information but that's part of what they are alarmed about, they know they don't have a lot of power to do anything other than "call their representatives", and still just want to do something. Nonviolent protest is an effective tool. There are academic studies done on it [1] and how it is actually more effective than violent protest - it has real efficacy. It's not merely "virtue signaling". [1] https://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent/dp/0231156820/ https://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent...

ubernostrum 10y ago

A serious question: do people who leave comments like yours, and the even shorter ones that are literally just the words "virtue signalling", really believe that doing so presents a devastating critique which will convince others of the error of their ways and change their minds? Or is it something you do to demonstrate your affiliation with a particular set of beliefs and positions? Does this phrase have empirical content to you, in that there are theoretically people/positions you could disagree with which you would not use it to describe? Or is it something you will say to/about anyone who you dislike or disagree with, as a way to show that you and they are members of different tribes with different values?

general_ai 10y ago
Nah, a serious question wouldn't presuppose a particular answer. I think you've made up your mind long before you asked it. But I'll oblige anyway. Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it. Their main purpose is similar to that of a Facebook "like", to communicate adherence to a shared set of beliefs, not to change anything per se. Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. These days you have to constantly and proactively reaffirm your adherence to the latest groupthink. This is further exacerbated by a rather severe level of hypocrisy demonstrated by those within the currently active protest group. When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. Why? Because that wouldn't signal virtue to the socio-political group in question. People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it. Why is this a bad thing? Are you allowing for the possibility that it's easier to eventually sway outsiders if one first builds momentum with a significant group of like-minded people? Isn't it in fact very common to start by getting like-minded people to agree on a shared platform of ideas and actions, and then move toward convincing outsiders of the correctness of that shared platform? Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. "Coastal elites" is a term lacking empirical content. However, the majority of Americans who voted did not vote for Donald Trump, and there is no evidence to support your assertion that a majority of Americans in general are in favor of the immigration order; if by "coastal elites" you mean "people of generally socially-liberal political leanings who live in major urban areas", you are in fact contradicting yourself since evidence suggests such people are the majority of Americans. You are hopefully aware that the American electoral system is designed to disproportionately represent minority populations, which is why the popular-vote winner did not get elected President. When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. I have yet to see an assertion of "same or worse things" being presented which A) holds up to scrutiny of the "same or worse" assertion and B) was not protested/condemned. For example, many socially-liberal people expressed condemnation of Obama's immigration and foreign policy stances, expressing regret because they hoped he would break from socially-conservative approaches. Do you ignore this fact? People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests. If "people on the right" "don't seem to care much about protests", what is the Tea Party and its large rallies? What is the NRA and its mobilization of people? Why are there so many protests at Planned Parenthood locations, to the extent that those locations routinely need to implement strict security policies to ensure safe access to facilities? Additionally, are all of those groups just "virtue signalling"? Do you equally condemn them, or do you only bring out such comments when a group you disagree with is protesting? In other words: do you have a coherent position here, or are you simply engaging in the very practices you condemn?

angry-hacker 10y ago

Don't forget wiretapping the whole world - - a move that would have made your every dictator jealous. You, Americans, really are crazy sometimes. And you voted for him twice.

andrewmcwatters 10y ago
A lot of people love Obama because of his personality, not because of his policies.

jaynos 10y ago

>Cuban refugees banned permanently -- okie dokie. That's not what Obama did [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama...

azernik 10y ago

I'm willing to cut Musk a lot more slack because, through SpaceX, he's uniquely dependent on good relationships with the government.

makomk 10y ago

Some of the celebrities who've been using those bombed Syrians to attack Trump did speak up before - in support of the bombing. J. K. Rowling, in particular, was quite vocal in insisting that anyone who claimed that politicians who supported to bomb them were morally in the wrong or that voters should hold those who did responsible was supporting evil misogynistic harassment because someone might take such language as justification to harass MPs, some of whom were women.