7 ms·
This isn't about "messaging" or "optics". Kalanick is playing a double game, collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously
by panarky 10y ago
This isn't about "messaging" or "optics".
Kalanick is playing a double game, collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to be seen as moral.
This is too transparent and Kalanick got caught trying to play both sides.
If he believes the Muslim ban and other policies of hate are immoral, he should loudly and publicly resign his position on the president's economic advisory group.
But if Kalanick continues to collaborate, then we know where he stands and we're free to delete Uber and use Lyft instead.
- srtjstjsj 10y agoIf he disagrees with the President, why should he (and why should anyone want him to) stop speaking into the President's ear?
- panarky 10y agoCollaborating with the administration legitimizes and normalizes their policies of hate. This does far more damage than any marginal benefit from "speaking into the president's ear". I'm sure it's good for Uber to be on Trump's team, but don't pretend you're "standing up for what's right".
- sirclueless 10y agoAhh yes, the advisory board with other fringe right-wingers such as Elon Musk, Satya Nadella, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sheryl Sandberg. How could he possibly be so two-faced as to throw his hat in with these marginal characters?
- panarky 10y agoYou're misinformed. Nobody from Microsoft, Google, Apple or Facebook are in this group. https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-additional-members-of-presidents-strategic-and-policy-forum-8aa8822eced9 https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-addit...
- hackinthebochs 10y agoThis sort of thinking is so tragically misguided. If the only sane people who might potentially have Trump's ear turn away from this role, then the only people advising Trump are the extremely dangerous group he currently has! This is the far bigger danger then appearing to "legitimize" him (as if someone who was elected president needs any more legitimacy). The good he could do as an adviser is orders of magnitude greater than what he could do by turning down the role in fear of adding legitimacy.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoNormally I would agree, because that's true in most cases. But we're past that here. The Germans went with it, and I'm sure some thought at the start that going along would let them do some good. Look how that turned out. No, it's not okay to just do business as usual here and try to nudge things a bit with policy suggestions. It's time for much more active responses.
- hackinthebochs 10y agoMaybe that's true, but not being on an economic advisory board isn't the kind of "active response" you're talking about.
- hueving 10y agoAh, Godwin's Law. I hope when you reflect back on these times in a year or so you realize how childish it was to compare stopping some Muslims from some unstable countries (not even the big Muslim countries) with literally exterminating Jewish people and blaming them for all of the country's problems.
- DanBC 10y ago> from some unstable countries Like Mo Farrah, an olympic gold medal winning athlete and British citizen?
- llukas 10y agoIf you did pay attention at school then you'd know that extermination was final step of pretty long process of de-humanizing Jewish people. Its not like they put them into prison camps overnight. First they couldn't attend university, then they couldn't own a shop later they couldn't get a passport. Propaganda people had much work to do to allow it happen. We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear.
- inverse_pi 10y agoSo you think by agreeing to be on Trump's advisory board, Uber agrees with the immigration ban? I guess GM, Tesla, Disney, etc are probably pretending to "stand up for what's right" too , right?
- tiles 10y agoWe know exactly one thing: Uber (and none of the companies you list) disagree with the ban enough to threaten to drop out of the advisory board.
- madeofpalk 10y agoI guess there's two ways you can look at it if you're given the chance to advise a President you disagree with: - Disagree out of principle. Someone else will step up to fill your stop. - Agree and provide your POV of policy. A 'worse person' won't replace you (immediately).
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> Collaborating with the administration legitimizes and normalizes their policies of hate. So it's just like in the last 8 years, but now it's OK to publicly oppose it? I call that an improvement.
- aseipp 10y agoAll Travis has gotta do is just, uhhh, disrupt all of that, uhhh -- disruption going on? The stuff with the judiciary branch, and whatnot. To be clear, I don't mean to be incredibly condescending, but: Do you actually think the POTUS or someone like Steve Bannon actually gives a shit what a nerd who owns an app actually thinks, in light of everything happening right now? I'm being serious. Fundamentally, "nerd who owns app" is all someone like Travis Kalanick is, in this situation. He is not some magical negotiator or politician because he accepted a position with the administration on the Policy Forum. I don't know why to expect him to be anything more than just a soundboard/printed name. Why would I? Because he and Trump are business men? And if he IS anything more than "nerd who owns app" -- why would he want to be associated with what appears to be a completely unhinged administration? People do not look at someone like Condoleezza Rice and think "I bet she tried real hard, talkin 'em down. Good show." This idea "good ol' Travis or Elon" can just talk him down off the wire seems to be nothing but a dream, rooted in some fantasy, as far as I can tell. Maybe all the shit going down is bad for them. But if it isn't - why would they stop it?
- jaredklewis 10y agoI agree that he shouldn't be criticized for staying on, but only if he publicly voices his disagreement in unambiguous terms. If Trump only wants boot lickers, he can fire Kalanick like he did the acting attorney general. Of course, it doesn't look like that is the case. By all appearances Kalanick is mincing words as he tries to balance the affections of the administration and angry users. My guess is that he is just another spineless think-for-himselfer.
- rad88 10y agoWhy would Trump listen to what Kalanick has to say about a policy order that is notionally an urgent response to national security threats from Iranian/Syrian/etc. travelers? With Steve Bannon speaking into the other ear? Bear in mind his strategist is (apparently) deferred to over even Homeland Security officials and DOD commanders when it comes to these matters. The fact is Kalanick is not going to influence Trump on this issue, but by remaining on the advisory team he might secure a sweet (life saving) deal for Uber down the road. The cost? Trump gets to use him as token for proof of legitimacy/economic acumen/America First/etc.
- alphonsegaston 10y agoIt's a real double plus good game he's playing at then, since Uber broke the strike and Kalanick is directly aiding Trump. I guess we're lucky that Uber is so consistently shitty that people saw through them, unlike what happened with Lyft.
- rosser 10y agoWhat about the million dollar donation to the ACLU Lyft made? Does that count for anything?
- alphonsegaston 10y agoSure, but would have been more meaningful if they weren't also breaking the strike and painting Uber as the sole villain.
- madeofpalk 10y agoWhat about the three million dollar donation Uber made? Does that count for anything?
- croon 10y agoThey didn't. It's a $3M "defense fund", however that is managed. It was also afterwards to save face.
- WarmToaster 10y ago"Policies of hate" The destruction of 10s of millions of american jobs was an actual policy of hate and arrogance. A policy stopping immigration from countries with very established terrorist groups isn't "hate". Is a firewall hate against the internet gestalt of human cognition and computer computation?
- NotSammyHagar 10y agoExcept they left out the countries with the most known terrorist activities in the us, that happened to be countries with major trump investments, that would be Saudia Arabia and Egypt.
- WarmToaster 10y agoWe need oil. People like their modern society built on oil. The Saudis have too much leverage over the American political establishment. The proper way to deal with them would be to nuke Mecca but that won't happen.
- NotSammyHagar 10y agoI prefer no nuking of anyone or anything. Move off saudi oil. We've been doing it for years, actually. The latest way to get away is electric cars.
- WarmToaster 10y agoHonestly, Islam was a disaster only surpassed by the Mongols and their sacking of Eurasia. Which helped the position of Europeans who got a rain check for a period of unthinkable slaughter. And then the European assholes killed off millions of their men for nothing other than setting the state for American hyperhegemony.
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> Honestly, Islam was a disaster only surpassed by the Mongols and their sacking of Eurasia. If you knew the history of Christianity, you'd pipe it down with the righteous indignation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_pagan... See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_l... Some of those ante-literam talibans are now worshipped as saints.
- hueving 10y agoThat is how a child would behave. You can't quit and ignore the person in charge. When have you ever heard the advice, "you get what you want by refusing to engage the only people who can do something about it?"
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoThe person in charge is only in charge because we agree to it. Not agreeing -- and refusing to give them your influence -- is the only way bad leaders are ever removed.
- concinds 10y agoThat's preposterous, he's in charge for the next 4 years and nothing (even impeachment) will change that, since he'll just get replaced and his agenda continued. This "legitimacy" and "normalization" talk is just as post-factual as anything Trump ever said. Is Bernie a fascist for saying he would work with the Trump admin on the good parts of his agenda?
- grzm 10y agoIf Trump were replaced by Pence, I think there would be a noticeable difference. The agenda, though perhaps similar, wouldn't be identical, and their personas are significantly different. Just as an exercise, if Pence were president and Trump were VP, do you think we would be hearing as little from Trump as we're currently from Pence? And before you say, well, Pence is the VP, you're right, but I can't imagine Trump taking second seat to anybody, while Pence has.
- mcv 10y agoNo, if he gets replaced, Trump's agenda won't continue. It'll be Mike Pence's agenda that will replace his.
- croon 10y agoOr it's a child in charge, and it's time the parents assert control.
- pfarnsworth 10y agoyou're going to use Lyft, when it's a direct investment of both Peter Thiel and Carl Icahn? Both very, very close associates of Trump and actually helped him win the White House?
- edblarney 10y ago"collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to be seen as moral." So is Musk, and many others. Cook was just at dinner with Ivana a few days ago.
- vvdcect 10y agoI think the hullabaloo around this immigration matter is reasonable. However, it would have been really great if the left had used the same amount of enthusiasm and vigour to protest the killing of innocent muslims civilians[1] by the united states, but i guess it's alright if their party approved of it. [1]https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_int...
- kj01a 10y agoEverything is about optics. What world do you think you live in? EDIT: I don't know what to tell ya, but downvoting doesn't make it less true.