3 ms·

> 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

> 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...
- hackuser 10y ago
  I think you greatly underestimate the power of norms and normalization, specifically with regard to Trump. It's a democracy. People see Kalanick act and will follow; and politicians will follow their constituents.
  - concinds 10y ago
    I hope you're right, honestly. The cynic in me just sees Trump going on with terrible policies for the next 4 or even 8 years. Regardless of Kalanick's impact, there's too much hand-wringing and not enough people studying how to influence public opinion, how to run a successful movement that won't peter out, and how to organize from the grassroots.

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...

hackuser 10y ago
I think you greatly underestimate the power of norms and normalization, specifically with regard to Trump. It's a democracy. People see Kalanick act and will follow; and politicians will follow their constituents.
- concinds 10y ago
  I hope you're right, honestly. The cynic in me just sees Trump going on with terrible policies for the next 4 or even 8 years. Regardless of Kalanick's impact, there's too much hand-wringing and not enough people studying how to influence public opinion, how to run a successful movement that won't peter out, and how to organize from the grassroots.