4 ms·

This inevitably has the effect of normalizing his behavior. At some point, you have to decide if his behavior is so far outside the bounds of acceptable that th

This inevitably has the effect of normalizing his behavior. At some point, you have to decide if his behavior is so far outside the bounds of acceptable that the only option left is to disengage from it.

concinds 10y ago
There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor, and nobody that will now change their mind because he quit. "Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria.
- mjmsmith 10y ago
  The fewer sane people who will work with him, the harder it is to maintain the fiction that the way he's behaving is within any normal frame of reference. It's a cumulative effect. Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes. The "angry mob" is the people who elected him.
  - concinds 10y ago
    Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs. Again, you're proving my point that Kalanick's move is good for the left, bad for America. All that matters is how you prioritize both. Silicon Valley corps not working with POTUS on new jobs and better regulation is a lose-lose for them and for America, and objectively only serves to appease the mob.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs. Why? Because you say so? Because you repeat it?. Because it's an equivalency?
      - concinds 10y ago
        Because both are extremely emotionally-invested, which I think is a reasonable definition of hysteria. What do you disagree with? Trump doesn't match the scholarly definition of fascism.[0] So from my point of view, it's emotional rhetoric, not serious discourse. He's more Sarah Palin than Mussolini. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Fascism#Scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics...
        hackuser 10y ago
        The parent comment creates the facts and therefore the conclusion. Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism; that's another created fact. Interestingly, if you watch clips of Mussolini's behavior, there is a strong resemblance ...
        concinds 10y ago
        >Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism Check the rest of the thread, and most of people tweeting about Kalanick a few days ago. I'm sympathetic to the Resistance crowd, but here, what, practically, does Kalanick's move achieve? What bad Trump policies will be curtailed by this? How many percentage points will Trump's approval rating dip because of this?
    - mjmsmith 10y ago
      Why isn't the fact that the President's base of support is an angry, hysterical mob bad for America? It's odd how the term "left" is so often used in opposition to "America", as if the left isn't just as much America as the right.
      - concinds 10y ago
        On the contrary, I believe the left represents American values better than the right. Should I rephrase that it's good for the left in the short-run, bad for America in the short-run, and good for America in the long-run?
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes. To my mind, incoherent response to a real threat can be "hysteria" - it doesn't imply (as "paranoia" does) that the threat itself isn't real. I would be interested to know if others interpret it differently.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor The parent comment made that up. Kalanick lends him credibility; I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?' > "Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria. In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure.
  - concinds 10y ago
    > I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?' I haven't heard that, honestly. Even so, will this move really hurt Trump? > In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure. True. I meant "normalization" specifically with regards to Trump, not as a sociological concept. WRT Trump, the "normalization" rhetoric poses as a moral imperative but doesn't achieve anything. It's not a strategy. Staying on Trump's advisory team, with every member of that team publicly and directly denouncing Trump's immigration ban (on TV, "open letters" are useless), and forcing Trump to kick them off himself would have been more effective, for example. Why didn't he donate to the ACLU, too? And how will leaving hurt Trump? He's following public opinion, not influencing it. Your "credibility" point can be addressed simply by having everyone on the board disavow Trump, and criticize future anti-immigration moves, but saying that if Trump wants to help the Valley, they'll work with him on those issues specifically. He doesn't kick you off, great, you can influence him on tech issues. He fires you, great, that'll hurt him. All Kalanick did was leave Trump's council, and have Uber, Inc. buy Facebook ads targeting ACLU supporters.[0] Just seems like posturing at this point, not action. [0]: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14441770/uber-aclu-facebook-twitter-ad-targeting http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14441770/uber-aclu-faceboo...
    - 10y ago

concinds 10y ago

There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor, and nobody that will now change their mind because he quit. "Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria.

mjmsmith 10y ago
The fewer sane people who will work with him, the harder it is to maintain the fiction that the way he's behaving is within any normal frame of reference. It's a cumulative effect. Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes. The "angry mob" is the people who elected him.
- concinds 10y ago
  Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs. Again, you're proving my point that Kalanick's move is good for the left, bad for America. All that matters is how you prioritize both. Silicon Valley corps not working with POTUS on new jobs and better regulation is a lose-lose for them and for America, and objectively only serves to appease the mob.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs. Why? Because you say so? Because you repeat it?. Because it's an equivalency?
    - concinds 10y ago
      Because both are extremely emotionally-invested, which I think is a reasonable definition of hysteria. What do you disagree with? Trump doesn't match the scholarly definition of fascism.[0] So from my point of view, it's emotional rhetoric, not serious discourse. He's more Sarah Palin than Mussolini. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Fascism#Scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics...
      - hackuser 10y ago
        The parent comment creates the facts and therefore the conclusion. Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism; that's another created fact. Interestingly, if you watch clips of Mussolini's behavior, there is a strong resemblance ...
        concinds 10y ago
        >Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism Check the rest of the thread, and most of people tweeting about Kalanick a few days ago. I'm sympathetic to the Resistance crowd, but here, what, practically, does Kalanick's move achieve? What bad Trump policies will be curtailed by this? How many percentage points will Trump's approval rating dip because of this?
  - mjmsmith 10y ago
    Why isn't the fact that the President's base of support is an angry, hysterical mob bad for America? It's odd how the term "left" is so often used in opposition to "America", as if the left isn't just as much America as the right.
    - concinds 10y ago
      On the contrary, I believe the left represents American values better than the right. Should I rephrase that it's good for the left in the short-run, bad for America in the short-run, and good for America in the long-run?
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes. To my mind, incoherent response to a real threat can be "hysteria" - it doesn't imply (as "paranoia" does) that the threat itself isn't real. I would be interested to know if others interpret it differently.
hackuser 10y ago
> There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor The parent comment made that up. Kalanick lends him credibility; I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?' > "Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria. In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure.
- concinds 10y ago
  > I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?' I haven't heard that, honestly. Even so, will this move really hurt Trump? > In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure. True. I meant "normalization" specifically with regards to Trump, not as a sociological concept. WRT Trump, the "normalization" rhetoric poses as a moral imperative but doesn't achieve anything. It's not a strategy. Staying on Trump's advisory team, with every member of that team publicly and directly denouncing Trump's immigration ban (on TV, "open letters" are useless), and forcing Trump to kick them off himself would have been more effective, for example. Why didn't he donate to the ACLU, too? And how will leaving hurt Trump? He's following public opinion, not influencing it. Your "credibility" point can be addressed simply by having everyone on the board disavow Trump, and criticize future anti-immigration moves, but saying that if Trump wants to help the Valley, they'll work with him on those issues specifically. He doesn't kick you off, great, you can influence him on tech issues. He fires you, great, that'll hurt him. All Kalanick did was leave Trump's council, and have Uber, Inc. buy Facebook ads targeting ACLU supporters.[0] Just seems like posturing at this point, not action. [0]: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14441770/uber-aclu-facebook-twitter-ad-targeting http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14441770/uber-aclu-faceboo...
  - 10y ago