8 ms·

Did we create a super-villain by ostracizing him for supporting Trump?

• vernie 7y ago
  No, this was this dork's trajectory the whole time.
  • kgraves 7y ago
    From an even wider angle, silicon valley is fuelling this dystopia under the veil of "solving difficult problems".
• cdumler 7y ago
  No, it's just: if you can't provide a solution, there is a lot of money to be made in prolonging the problem. The climate in the U.S. is xenophobic, so there will be dollars to be spent (wasted) on companies who sell technobabble.
  • akatechis 7y ago
    By technobabble do you mean all the tech companies that claim they are "changing the world" by whatever it is they are doing? I've seen so many "content platforms" that claim to be "revolutionizing" or "democratizing" or whatever other buzzword you like, access to data, when in reality, they're doing no such thing.
    • BubRoss 7y ago
      What is your point? That other people are doing it too? This is whataboutism 101.
• Axsuul 7y ago
  Why super-villain? This is a responsible alternative vs. building a monstrous, ugly wall that is a travesty to nature and could potentially save taxpayers billions. We still need to protect our borders but we need to do it in the most non-invasive way with technology.
  • webwielder2 7y ago
    Why do we need to protect our borders? Why not just let people live wherever they can afford?
    • dominotw 7y ago
      seems a bit offtopic flamewar I read a research finding somewhere that there are about 500million ppl who would move to US in very near future if they are allowed to move to USA.
    • paggle 7y ago
      Name one country with better-than-average standard of living that has opened its borders and thrived. There will always be a wall around something nice — either around your house, or your neighborhood, or your country.
      • drewrv 7y ago
        The United States itself had "open borders" for a long period of time. There was mass immigration from Ireland, Italy, and many other places and it worked out quite well for us. Even today, we have "open borders" within the US. People are free to move from from poor (or poorly run) communities to places with more opportunities and it's a win-win. Similarly Europe has 26 countries in the Shengen area. Some of the countries have a "better-than-average standard of living" and they're doing just fine.
        • ThePawnBreak 7y ago
          > The United States itself had "open borders" for a long period of time. There was mass immigration from Ireland, Italy, and many other places and it worked out quite well for us. There was no welfare state back then, and the economic situation was vastly different. Also saying it went "quite well" looks over all of the ethnic tension that took decades to fix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Americans#Discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Americans#Discrimination > Similarly Europe has 26 countries in the Shengen area. Some of the countries have a "better-than-average standard of living" and they're doing just fine. Heard about Brexit? The Romanians are coming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb1AkaKJL08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb1AkaKJL08
• gotoeleven 7y ago
  Maybe this is too off topic for HN, but I'm genuinely curious what is the best argument for why it is bad/racist to enforce immigration laws? I've heard people argue that a wall won't be effective. But some people seem to have the view that immigration laws shouldn't be enforced at all and we should allow people to use whatever loopholes (refugee status, traveling w/ children) there are to get in and then not show up for their court hearing. Im genuinely puzzled that this is so controversial.
  • alkibiades 7y ago
    the argument is mostly that it gives people white guilt to enforce immigration because most of the immigrants are non-white. and the people supporting the unlimited migration don’t have to deal with the consequences themselves it also wins millions of future and current hispanic votes by pandering
  • jobigoud 7y ago
    I'll bite because I'm ambivalent about immigration laws. Why should people that just happen to be born in a third world country live a shitty life with no way out? You can't just say they have to do a revolution in their own country, not everyone is interested in activism, why should this be the fight of their life instead of stuff they actually want to do? You were born in a nice place by sheer luck. It's unfair. I like the idea of a fundamental human right to "mobility". In the grand scheme of things a human being should be able to move anywhere as long as they obey local laws, pay local taxes, etc.
    • vokep 7y ago
      >You were born in a nice place by sheer luck. It's unfair. Yes, thats life? Of course where there is abundance we ought to use it to fix the unfairness. But life is unfair. I think it comes down to where do we actually draw the line of abundance. Some feel we're well past it, enough that we shouldn't even have borders, others feel we aren't even close and ought to be quite selective of who gets to stay.
    • WillPostForFood 7y ago
• anigbrowl 7y ago
  No. I met Thiel a decade ago and he struck me as very reactionary then. While I admire his intellect and he had valid critiques of how government operates at this point in history I felt many of his arguments were facile and self-serving. I've moved quite a bit to the left since then, but that was my contemporaneous impression rather than my current opinion of him.