6 ms·

There used to be a guy on Twitter/Facebook/other social media who kept harping about how the system was rigged....

by forgingahead 6y ago

mhh__ 6y ago
Who?
- thebigspacefuck 6y ago
  tealronaldcrumpet or something like that
  - breckenedge 6y ago
    The name rhymed with Pump and Dump?
- all2 6y ago
  Some orange guy. Everyone said he was bad. He's gone now. Not really sure where he went.
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
> used to
suyash 6y ago
After he is gone, it's going to get much worse on social media, this just the start
kibwen 6y ago
Yeah, real funny that guy, if only someone would put him in a position of ultimate power I'm sure he'd un-rig the system real quick, and definitely not spend four years with his thumb up his ass laughing with his rich buddies at the gullible rubes who appointed him.
- convery 6y ago
  Ehh.. Being blocked by congress and federal judges at every turn doesn't really seem like a position of 'ultimate power'..
- forgingahead 6y ago
  I've heard this criticism a lot, including the opposite accusation that he was a dictator/fascist/autocrat. We'll never know whether the situation was as you described, a big con to absorb the real middle-class frustrations of large segments of the population, or whether he was too naive to properly appreciate how corrupt the system is, and how the odds were stacked against him implementing any change. *Edit, in any case, the US Presidency is not a "position of ultimate power".
  - kibwen 6y ago
    > whether he was too naive to properly appreciate how corrupt the system is Oh, there's no question that he was naive, but you're betraying your own naivete here. Who do you think rigged the system in the first place, if not Donald Trump and his ilk? Was he merely naive when he signed off an a trillion-dollar tax break for the wealthy and an ongoing tax increase for everyone but the wealthy? What else could anyone have expected from hiring the fox to guard the henhouse?
    - forgingahead 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you're referring to - the tax break that was passed objectively saved regular folks money. • The double-digit percentage decreases in average tax liability started with a 12.5% drop for people making $15,000 to $20,000 a year. Double-digit percentage reductions in liability continued for people making $25,000 to $30,000 (down 11.2%) through $100,000 to $200,000 (down 10.96%). • Taxpayers making between $40,000 and $50,000 a year had the largest fall in average tax liability, a 14.5% drop, while high-end households making between $250,000 and $500,000 had the second largest decrease, with a 14.4% liability reduction. • Taxpayers making at least $1 million had a 4.3% decrease in average tax liability. Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-american-workers-saved-during-the-first-year-after-trumps-tax-reform-2020-03-03 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-american-...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dang 6y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- forgingahead 6y ago
  @dang, I appreciate all your work moderating here, I'm sure it's pretty thankless at the best of times, but you do keep this place one of the best places on the internet for technical discussion. So thank you for that. That being said, I disagree with the assessment of my comment. Those of us (and there were many) who warned about this escalating when Trump was censored and deplatformed were downvoted and flagged at the time, amidst lots of crowing and victory clapping from people who fully believed the censorship only applied to one individual and was acceptable. We've seen in the past 2 weeks a huge escalation - the British Socialist pages on FB, other left-leaning sites, and now of course watering holes related to WallStreetBets. We're fortunate to see this history happen in real time, so hopefully we can course-correct, as our forebears did, but without the longer timeline and through much more horrible circumstances. Facebook used its power unilaterally to shut down yet another group of people. Whether we agree with the opinions of that group or not is not the point - the fact that this can happen, is happening, and is being supported by large swathes of people who should be more aware of where this path leads us, is very worrying. Reminding people that just a few weeks ago, when concern about the Trump censorship was resoundingly dismissed, that that was the same as the censorship of other groups today, is important. I'll continue to do that, because we need to deviate from this path we as a collective seem to be walking down. Respectfully,
  - dang 6y ago
    If you had posted this explanation in the first place then it wouldn't have been flamebait. The problem with what you did post is that it was snarky and unsubstantive, as well as a partisan provocation. Certainly that breaks the site guidelines—more than one of them, in fact. It's fascinating to me how common it is that people's second comment (e.g. after a moderation reply) will give a detailed substantive expression of what they actually meant. I think we all assume that what's in our mind will come across in our comments, but actually it doesn't come across by itself—it needs to be formulated explicitly, as you did in your later reply. If you don't share it explicitly, but only give a quick pointer to it, people will fill that in with what's in their mind, which is a huge range of possible interpretations, many of which are inflammatory or even attacks, whether you meant it that way or not. Commenters will respond to what they perceive you as saying (and feeling, and thinking, and doing), and it's your responsibility to minimize the gap between that and what you actually mean. (I don't mean just you, of course. We all need to do this.) https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

There used to be a guy on Twitter/Facebook/other social media who kept harping about how the system was rigged....

mhh__ 6y ago

Who?

thebigspacefuck 6y ago
tealronaldcrumpet or something like that
- breckenedge 6y ago
  The name rhymed with Pump and Dump?
all2 6y ago
Some orange guy. Everyone said he was bad. He's gone now. Not really sure where he went.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

> used to

suyash 6y ago

After he is gone, it's going to get much worse on social media, this just the start

kibwen 6y ago

Yeah, real funny that guy, if only someone would put him in a position of ultimate power I'm sure he'd un-rig the system real quick, and definitely not spend four years with his thumb up his ass laughing with his rich buddies at the gullible rubes who appointed him.

convery 6y ago
Ehh.. Being blocked by congress and federal judges at every turn doesn't really seem like a position of 'ultimate power'..
forgingahead 6y ago
I've heard this criticism a lot, including the opposite accusation that he was a dictator/fascist/autocrat. We'll never know whether the situation was as you described, a big con to absorb the real middle-class frustrations of large segments of the population, or whether he was too naive to properly appreciate how corrupt the system is, and how the odds were stacked against him implementing any change. *Edit, in any case, the US Presidency is not a "position of ultimate power".
- kibwen 6y ago
  > whether he was too naive to properly appreciate how corrupt the system is Oh, there's no question that he was naive, but you're betraying your own naivete here. Who do you think rigged the system in the first place, if not Donald Trump and his ilk? Was he merely naive when he signed off an a trillion-dollar tax break for the wealthy and an ongoing tax increase for everyone but the wealthy? What else could anyone have expected from hiring the fox to guard the henhouse?
  - forgingahead 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you're referring to - the tax break that was passed objectively saved regular folks money. • The double-digit percentage decreases in average tax liability started with a 12.5% drop for people making $15,000 to $20,000 a year. Double-digit percentage reductions in liability continued for people making $25,000 to $30,000 (down 11.2%) through $100,000 to $200,000 (down 10.96%). • Taxpayers making between $40,000 and $50,000 a year had the largest fall in average tax liability, a 14.5% drop, while high-end households making between $250,000 and $500,000 had the second largest decrease, with a 14.4% liability reduction. • Taxpayers making at least $1 million had a 4.3% decrease in average tax liability. Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-american-workers-saved-during-the-first-year-after-trumps-tax-reform-2020-03-03 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-american-...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dang 6y ago

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

forgingahead 6y ago
@dang, I appreciate all your work moderating here, I'm sure it's pretty thankless at the best of times, but you do keep this place one of the best places on the internet for technical discussion. So thank you for that. That being said, I disagree with the assessment of my comment. Those of us (and there were many) who warned about this escalating when Trump was censored and deplatformed were downvoted and flagged at the time, amidst lots of crowing and victory clapping from people who fully believed the censorship only applied to one individual and was acceptable. We've seen in the past 2 weeks a huge escalation - the British Socialist pages on FB, other left-leaning sites, and now of course watering holes related to WallStreetBets. We're fortunate to see this history happen in real time, so hopefully we can course-correct, as our forebears did, but without the longer timeline and through much more horrible circumstances. Facebook used its power unilaterally to shut down yet another group of people. Whether we agree with the opinions of that group or not is not the point - the fact that this can happen, is happening, and is being supported by large swathes of people who should be more aware of where this path leads us, is very worrying. Reminding people that just a few weeks ago, when concern about the Trump censorship was resoundingly dismissed, that that was the same as the censorship of other groups today, is important. I'll continue to do that, because we need to deviate from this path we as a collective seem to be walking down. Respectfully,
- dang 6y ago
  If you had posted this explanation in the first place then it wouldn't have been flamebait. The problem with what you did post is that it was snarky and unsubstantive, as well as a partisan provocation. Certainly that breaks the site guidelines—more than one of them, in fact. It's fascinating to me how common it is that people's second comment (e.g. after a moderation reply) will give a detailed substantive expression of what they actually meant. I think we all assume that what's in our mind will come across in our comments, but actually it doesn't come across by itself—it needs to be formulated explicitly, as you did in your later reply. If you don't share it explicitly, but only give a quick pointer to it, people will fill that in with what's in their mind, which is a huge range of possible interpretations, many of which are inflammatory or even attacks, whether you meant it that way or not. Commenters will respond to what they perceive you as saying (and feeling, and thinking, and doing), and it's your responsibility to minimize the gap between that and what you actually mean. (I don't mean just you, of course. We all need to do this.) https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...