5 ms·

HackerNews loves to pat itself on the back about what a great community it is, but when it comes to politics (and other specific topics) the bullying and one-si

HackerNews loves to pat itself on the back about what a great community it is, but when it comes to politics (and other specific topics) the bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet. But this is exactly why half of America is in utter shock about what's happening: their discussion circles involve one "side", and the other isn't acceptable.

freehunter 10y ago
90% of what Trump and his supporters are saying truly is not acceptable, you're right. Banning people based on their religion, canceling visas that have already been granted, firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, discriminating against LGBTQ folks, destroying access to women's health care, those are all completely unacceptable ideas. It doesn't matter that some people believe in them, some people believe that black people should drink from different water fountains than white people. We shouldn't entertain those ideas even for a second, we shouldn't legitimize them. Conservatives are completely accepted around here. What isn't accepted is authoritarianism, bigotry, sexism/racism, and hate. Being a conservative does not mean you have to be a bigot, and being a bigot does not make you a conservative. There are plenty of conservatives who would agree with that. If you believe that you should have more rights than someone else purely because of the color of your skin or the god you worship, you've gone well beyond the label of "conservative", you are an authoritarian and no one should be forced to listen to you.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  "Banning people based on their religion, ..." The ban is based upon country. Muslims in general aren't being banned, otherwise travelers from countries such as Indonesia would be affected. They aren't. "...canceling visas that have already been granted, ..." If the visa has been granted to somebody from a country to which the immigration halt is applied, or otherwise is now subject to additional background checks that were not applied when the visa was granted, then the United States Government certainly has the right to revoke or otherwise suspend the visa. This may be rude and it may be inconvenient, but it's hardly a violation of human rights. It certainly isn't unconstitutional. "...firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, ..." That oft-quoted "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" comes to mind here. What constitutes "reasonable"? If your boss tells you to do something, you do it. Or you resign. Or you get fired. What if your boss told you to do something illegal? At the time, your options are identical: do what you were told, resign, or get fired. In due time, if you chose one of the latter options and your boss truly was breaking the law, you will be revealed to have taken the superior moral position. We have yet to see if that is the case anywhere. If it turns out that way, it will harm Trump. I suspect, however, that if the appropriate courts rule in Trump's favor we will either not hear of it at all or it will be dismissed as judicial activism. "... discriminating against LGBTQ folks, ..." The White House affirmed today (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-protections-lgbt-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-p...) that LGBTQ protections enacted under the Obama Administration will stay in place. "...destroying access to women's health care, ..." Citation needed.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    What they've done versus what they have said they wanted to do is not the same. The trouble is, what they have said they wanted to do is really, really awful. Sure Trump himself isn't repealing LGBTQ protections, but the Republicans really want to, and aren't shy about it. And you're calling the Attorney General a terrorist? For saying that she didn't think the EO was legally defensible? Something that AGs do all the time, because they're legal professionals and cannot defend something they know is indefensible? It literally happens all the time. AGs very commonly refuse to defend against laws they don't think, in their legal opinion, will stand up to a successful legal challenge. Do a Google search for "attorney general refuses to defend law" and you'll see just how often it happens. Usually they don't get fired for it, because that's their job. It's not like Trump asked her opinion on it, something he really probably should have done. Oh and no, the government does not have the right to revoke already-granted visas and green cards. The courts have issued a stay on that particular piece, because it's clearly unconstitutional. And one of the first EOs Trump signed blocked funding for any healthcare provider who talked about abortion, anywhere across the world. Which is following one of the promises made by Republicans, to make sure Planned Parenthood (one of the largest women's healthcare providers in the nation) gets defunded. This is the last I will debate any specific things you want to call out. My point wasn't to argue line-by-line but rather that these beliefs are not conservative, they're authoritarian. And that's not okay. No one is attacking conservatives, they're attacking fascists. Unfortunately, fascists have started calling themselves conservatives, something conservatives really should push back against. So here I am, pushing back. Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that. Conservatism has nothing to do with banning muslims, building a wall, or regulating people's sex lives. Those are authoritarian values.
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      You know, I was starting to address your first two paragraphs, then my eye went to your last one: "Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that." If you've already convinced yourself that I'm a fascist, then you've shut down the conversation. Nothing I can possibly say can change your thinking, because even if I'm redeemable as a person it will be because I have rejected my irredeemable position, which is apparently fascism. Which is unlikely, because you've assessed me as incapable of observing reality. And this, in a nutshell, is why Trump won.
- egopulsus 10y ago
  This comment precisely exemplifies what it's parent describes. One-sided self-righteous talking-point drivel. None of your points in the second sentence are based in reality. NONE. No one was banned by religion, green card holders and those with valid visas were let in. Trump came out last night and explicitly said he wants to protect lgbt -- he is the most pro-gay President let alone Republican in history yet the false narrative from the leftist media is contrarian. I completely agree with the parent comment. Every single time I've seen a dissenting opinion on this site it is flagged (greys out the comment) into oblivion and downvoted to the bottom. You're throwing out labels and name calling while reciting the same made-up garbage that led your party to lose, and will lead it to lose in 4 more year as well. The left is NOT liberal, remember that. Classical Liberalism is dead, replaced by a faux-culture war fighting, race-baiting, self-righteous, entitled, and massively misguided maintstream media-driven movement that has completely gone off the rails.
anigbrowl 10y ago
When the other side is proposing to reduce the liberties of those it disagrees with, you're darn right it's not acceptable. It's not like conservatives are forced to get abortions, change gender, become homosexual, or have a different religion, but they complain mightily about other people who want to do such things for themselves, while conservatives present themselves as victims of...well, I'm not too clear on exactly how they've been victimized. the bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet Really? I read a lot of conservative forums and have done for years. I'd quickly be banned from HN if I were to start cutting and pasting the sort of personal attacks that are considered kek-worthy there.
- tropo 10y ago
  "not like conservatives are forced to get abortions" What if the conservative hasn't been born yet? Maybe they wouldn't want to be aborted. Do they get a choice, or should we reduce their liberties and victimize them? See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved, but for only one person is the issue literally a matter of life and death. The fact that such a person can't live alone is no different than the fact that some elderly and paralyzed people can't live alone. The unborn have brain waves; with that you normally are not allowed to euthanize a person. To the conservative, you are asking them to stand aside while a murder happens, and then you essentially say "It's not like conservatives are forced to commit murder".
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > What if the conservative hasn't been born yet? What if they haven't been conceived yet? > See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved That's only true if you believe that a fetus is a person. That's the actual point of contention here: it's not when life begins, it's when personhood begins. Most people who are pro-choice don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person (if only because it is not, and cannot be, self-aware), and thus it cannot have any natural rights of a person. Most people who are pro-life believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and thus all natural rights apply, including the right to life.
tim333 10y ago
>bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet. There are much worse places than HN.

freehunter 10y ago

90% of what Trump and his supporters are saying truly is not acceptable, you're right. Banning people based on their religion, canceling visas that have already been granted, firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, discriminating against LGBTQ folks, destroying access to women's health care, those are all completely unacceptable ideas. It doesn't matter that some people believe in them, some people believe that black people should drink from different water fountains than white people. We shouldn't entertain those ideas even for a second, we shouldn't legitimize them. Conservatives are completely accepted around here. What isn't accepted is authoritarianism, bigotry, sexism/racism, and hate. Being a conservative does not mean you have to be a bigot, and being a bigot does not make you a conservative. There are plenty of conservatives who would agree with that. If you believe that you should have more rights than someone else purely because of the color of your skin or the god you worship, you've gone well beyond the label of "conservative", you are an authoritarian and no one should be forced to listen to you.

MrZongle2 10y ago
"Banning people based on their religion, ..." The ban is based upon country. Muslims in general aren't being banned, otherwise travelers from countries such as Indonesia would be affected. They aren't. "...canceling visas that have already been granted, ..." If the visa has been granted to somebody from a country to which the immigration halt is applied, or otherwise is now subject to additional background checks that were not applied when the visa was granted, then the United States Government certainly has the right to revoke or otherwise suspend the visa. This may be rude and it may be inconvenient, but it's hardly a violation of human rights. It certainly isn't unconstitutional. "...firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, ..." That oft-quoted "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" comes to mind here. What constitutes "reasonable"? If your boss tells you to do something, you do it. Or you resign. Or you get fired. What if your boss told you to do something illegal? At the time, your options are identical: do what you were told, resign, or get fired. In due time, if you chose one of the latter options and your boss truly was breaking the law, you will be revealed to have taken the superior moral position. We have yet to see if that is the case anywhere. If it turns out that way, it will harm Trump. I suspect, however, that if the appropriate courts rule in Trump's favor we will either not hear of it at all or it will be dismissed as judicial activism. "... discriminating against LGBTQ folks, ..." The White House affirmed today (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-protections-lgbt-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-p...) that LGBTQ protections enacted under the Obama Administration will stay in place. "...destroying access to women's health care, ..." Citation needed.
- freehunter 10y ago
  What they've done versus what they have said they wanted to do is not the same. The trouble is, what they have said they wanted to do is really, really awful. Sure Trump himself isn't repealing LGBTQ protections, but the Republicans really want to, and aren't shy about it. And you're calling the Attorney General a terrorist? For saying that she didn't think the EO was legally defensible? Something that AGs do all the time, because they're legal professionals and cannot defend something they know is indefensible? It literally happens all the time. AGs very commonly refuse to defend against laws they don't think, in their legal opinion, will stand up to a successful legal challenge. Do a Google search for "attorney general refuses to defend law" and you'll see just how often it happens. Usually they don't get fired for it, because that's their job. It's not like Trump asked her opinion on it, something he really probably should have done. Oh and no, the government does not have the right to revoke already-granted visas and green cards. The courts have issued a stay on that particular piece, because it's clearly unconstitutional. And one of the first EOs Trump signed blocked funding for any healthcare provider who talked about abortion, anywhere across the world. Which is following one of the promises made by Republicans, to make sure Planned Parenthood (one of the largest women's healthcare providers in the nation) gets defunded. This is the last I will debate any specific things you want to call out. My point wasn't to argue line-by-line but rather that these beliefs are not conservative, they're authoritarian. And that's not okay. No one is attacking conservatives, they're attacking fascists. Unfortunately, fascists have started calling themselves conservatives, something conservatives really should push back against. So here I am, pushing back. Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that. Conservatism has nothing to do with banning muslims, building a wall, or regulating people's sex lives. Those are authoritarian values.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    You know, I was starting to address your first two paragraphs, then my eye went to your last one: "Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that." If you've already convinced yourself that I'm a fascist, then you've shut down the conversation. Nothing I can possibly say can change your thinking, because even if I'm redeemable as a person it will be because I have rejected my irredeemable position, which is apparently fascism. Which is unlikely, because you've assessed me as incapable of observing reality. And this, in a nutshell, is why Trump won.
egopulsus 10y ago
This comment precisely exemplifies what it's parent describes. One-sided self-righteous talking-point drivel. None of your points in the second sentence are based in reality. NONE. No one was banned by religion, green card holders and those with valid visas were let in. Trump came out last night and explicitly said he wants to protect lgbt -- he is the most pro-gay President let alone Republican in history yet the false narrative from the leftist media is contrarian. I completely agree with the parent comment. Every single time I've seen a dissenting opinion on this site it is flagged (greys out the comment) into oblivion and downvoted to the bottom. You're throwing out labels and name calling while reciting the same made-up garbage that led your party to lose, and will lead it to lose in 4 more year as well. The left is NOT liberal, remember that. Classical Liberalism is dead, replaced by a faux-culture war fighting, race-baiting, self-righteous, entitled, and massively misguided maintstream media-driven movement that has completely gone off the rails.

anigbrowl 10y ago

When the other side is proposing to reduce the liberties of those it disagrees with, you're darn right it's not acceptable. It's not like conservatives are forced to get abortions, change gender, become homosexual, or have a different religion, but they complain mightily about other people who want to do such things for themselves, while conservatives present themselves as victims of...well, I'm not too clear on exactly how they've been victimized. the bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet Really? I read a lot of conservative forums and have done for years. I'd quickly be banned from HN if I were to start cutting and pasting the sort of personal attacks that are considered kek-worthy there.

tropo 10y ago
"not like conservatives are forced to get abortions" What if the conservative hasn't been born yet? Maybe they wouldn't want to be aborted. Do they get a choice, or should we reduce their liberties and victimize them? See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved, but for only one person is the issue literally a matter of life and death. The fact that such a person can't live alone is no different than the fact that some elderly and paralyzed people can't live alone. The unborn have brain waves; with that you normally are not allowed to euthanize a person. To the conservative, you are asking them to stand aside while a murder happens, and then you essentially say "It's not like conservatives are forced to commit murder".
- int_19h 10y ago
  > What if the conservative hasn't been born yet? What if they haven't been conceived yet? > See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved That's only true if you believe that a fetus is a person. That's the actual point of contention here: it's not when life begins, it's when personhood begins. Most people who are pro-choice don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person (if only because it is not, and cannot be, self-aware), and thus it cannot have any natural rights of a person. Most people who are pro-life believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and thus all natural rights apply, including the right to life.

tim333 10y ago

>bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet. There are much worse places than HN.