7 ms·

> No major revelations of political support They took a kind of strong stance [1] in protesting the recent order that restricted travel from those seven countr

> No major revelations of political support They took a kind of strong stance [1] in protesting the recent order that restricted travel from those seven countries, so that's a political statement (whether or not we agree with it.) Their announcement also included some strawman language, which turned off some people: "This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values." The first sentence was true, the second sentence (while noble and I like it) was a strawman. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/29/lyft-donates-1m-to-the-aclu-condemns-trumps-immigration-actions/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/29/lyft-donates-1m-to-the-acl...

smileysteve 10y ago
great point.
paulddraper 10y ago
A strawman indeed. None of those were used as criteria for the 90-day immigration suspension. The immigration order was flawed enough as it was. It doesn't need a speck of embellishment in order to criticize it.
Griffinsauce 10y ago
Can you explain how it's a strawman? The Muslim ban (as it has been known for a long time) is a ban on people from a particular faith.
- xiangmin 10y ago
  > a ban on people from a particular faith Is it though? For example of Muslim, it does not even affect about 88% of the world's Muslims (Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, others) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
  - baddox 10y ago
    I don't see why the percentage of Muslims in the world is relevant. The internment of Japanese Americans in the 1940s certainly targeted Japanese people despite that being a small percentage of Japanese people in the world.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      The US didn't intern Japanese. They interned Japanese Americans, so that is the scope of discussion. And yes, it would be significant if the US targeted the 99% of the Japanese population vs the 1% most concerning part.
  - sgustard 10y ago
    It's trivial to find stories of people being detained trying to enter from any of those countries. Bangladesh: http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/02/02/bangladeshi-student-detained-us-trump-travel-ban/ http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/02/02/bangladesh... Egypt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/26/u-s-detains-and-nearly-deports-french-jewish-historian/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/26... Nigeria: http://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-4549941/ http://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trump-travel-b...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hueving 10y ago
  That very name is the strawman. The ban doesn't even target the largest Muslim countries.
  - erispoe 10y ago
    Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration, which is a major reason for San Francisco's federal appeal court to suspend it. The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      > The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question. It is precisely the question. What the ban is is much more important that what it purports to be. For example, if it purported to be a ban on terrorists but actually was as ban on Muslims (and I mean, a bonafide ban on all Muslims), would that not matter?
      - baddox 10y ago
        No, that would still be illegal, because a ban on Muslims is illegal. It is illegal to ban Muslims, and it is illegal to intend to ban Muslims. The latter reason is the one provided by the Ninth Circuit.
        paulddraper 10y ago
        > Thoughtcrime, they called it. - George Orwell, 1984
        baddox 10y ago
        I don't see the comparison. One is criminalizing citizens having negative thoughts about an oppressive government. The other is prohibiting rulers from promising to discriminate against a religion and then passing a thinly-veiled bill to do so.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Muslims from Algeria (99% of the population) can enter. Christians from Syria cannot. That's the weirdest Muslim ban I've ever heard of.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    It's almost as if it were a muslim ban as applied by ignorant people... As if!
    - superioritycplx 10y ago
      It's a temporary ban of seven countries that was drafted by the Obama administration.
snowwrestler 10y ago
The 2nd sentence is not a strawman because it does not accuse the Trump administration of doing those things. It expresses a core value.
mi100hael 10y ago
No you misunderstand. When they said "no major revelations of political support," they meant "no revelations of political support that I disagree with."

smileysteve 10y ago

great point.

paulddraper 10y ago

A strawman indeed. None of those were used as criteria for the 90-day immigration suspension. The immigration order was flawed enough as it was. It doesn't need a speck of embellishment in order to criticize it.

Griffinsauce 10y ago

Can you explain how it's a strawman? The Muslim ban (as it has been known for a long time) is a ban on people from a particular faith.

xiangmin 10y ago
> a ban on people from a particular faith Is it though? For example of Muslim, it does not even affect about 88% of the world's Muslims (Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, others) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
- baddox 10y ago
  I don't see why the percentage of Muslims in the world is relevant. The internment of Japanese Americans in the 1940s certainly targeted Japanese people despite that being a small percentage of Japanese people in the world.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    The US didn't intern Japanese. They interned Japanese Americans, so that is the scope of discussion. And yes, it would be significant if the US targeted the 99% of the Japanese population vs the 1% most concerning part.
- sgustard 10y ago
  It's trivial to find stories of people being detained trying to enter from any of those countries. Bangladesh: http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/02/02/bangladeshi-student-detained-us-trump-travel-ban/ http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/02/02/bangladesh... Egypt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/26/u-s-detains-and-nearly-deports-french-jewish-historian/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/26... Nigeria: http://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-4549941/ http://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trump-travel-b...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hueving 10y ago
That very name is the strawman. The ban doesn't even target the largest Muslim countries.
- erispoe 10y ago
  Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration, which is a major reason for San Francisco's federal appeal court to suspend it. The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question. It is precisely the question. What the ban is is much more important that what it purports to be. For example, if it purported to be a ban on terrorists but actually was as ban on Muslims (and I mean, a bonafide ban on all Muslims), would that not matter?
    - baddox 10y ago
      No, that would still be illegal, because a ban on Muslims is illegal. It is illegal to ban Muslims, and it is illegal to intend to ban Muslims. The latter reason is the one provided by the Ninth Circuit.
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        > Thoughtcrime, they called it. - George Orwell, 1984
        baddox 10y ago
        I don't see the comparison. One is criminalizing citizens having negative thoughts about an oppressive government. The other is prohibiting rulers from promising to discriminate against a religion and then passing a thinly-veiled bill to do so.
paulddraper 10y ago
Muslims from Algeria (99% of the population) can enter. Christians from Syria cannot. That's the weirdest Muslim ban I've ever heard of.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  It's almost as if it were a muslim ban as applied by ignorant people... As if!
  - superioritycplx 10y ago
    It's a temporary ban of seven countries that was drafted by the Obama administration.

snowwrestler 10y ago

The 2nd sentence is not a strawman because it does not accuse the Trump administration of doing those things. It expresses a core value.

mi100hael 10y ago

No you misunderstand. When they said "no major revelations of political support," they meant "no revelations of political support that I disagree with."