5 ms·

No the tweet is flatly wrong and xenophobic. https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote > Who cannot vote? > Non-citizens, including pe

No the tweet is flatly wrong and xenophobic. https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote > Who cannot vote? > Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents, cannot vote in federal, state, and most local elections. But even if it wasn’t wrong, the idea behind it is un-American. A country founded on the principle of no taxation without representation which taxes people within its borders while allowing them no voice in that taxation.

davidmurdoch 2y ago
I'm not interested in debating politics, so I won't remark on that. Ignoring the fact that laws don't prevent people from committing crimes... but by this logic would you say the law itself is xenophobic?
- deadlydose 2y ago
  > I'm not interested in debating politics > would you say the law itself.. Well, you're asking a question that, in a vacuum, isn't political but since it can be considered controversial, and I think you know this, it becomes political. So did you want to debate politics or not?
  - davidmurdoch 2y ago
    I was just trying to understand your perspective on laws that forbid allowing non-citizens to vote. I guess I realized I wasn't aware of American citizens who believe non-citizens should be legally allowed to vote in federal elections, and my question about xenophobia was, in retrospect, intended to explore that.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Any law that prevents taxpayers voting is inconsistent with the principle of no taxation without representation. If that law is founded on the basis of excluding "outsiders" because they are outsiders then that's texbook xenophobia. What you might want to explore is whether "no taxation without representation" is a core US axiom, whether "outsiders" should pay taxes, etc.
      - davidmurdoch 2y ago
        Tangentially related: My father tried to fight taxes on the grounds that they're unconstitutional. He went to prison for 3 years (in part) because of it. > Any law that prevents taxpayers voting is inconsistent with the principle of no taxation without representation. That sentence would have been a great response to Mike's tweet. Thanks for letting me explore some thoughts with you without spiraling into divisive language.
        defrost 2y ago
        The entire notion of standard passports and border checking (other than "travel permits" within kingdoms) arose after the Constitution of the United States was ratified .. and that specific document isn't the be all to all reference for citizen | government contracts, even the US founders recognised it was "adequate for (their) present" and would require constant attention and fine tuning. https://www.passporthealthusa.com/passports-and-visas/blog/2018-4-the-worlds-first-official-passport/ https://www.passporthealthusa.com/passports-and-visas/blog/2...
        cherry_tree 2y ago
        [flagged]
        davidmurdoch 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        Personal attacks aren't allowed here, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- remram 2y ago
  You're not interested in debating politics, so you comment on a political tweet from an elected representative, and then post a link here?
  - davidmurdoch 2y ago
    The title is about being blocked by the guy who created this platform, not politics. That's what this thread is about. Political discourse is against HN guidelines, after all. If you want to debate politics here go ahead, I just don't want to, and don't have a strong position on these particular matters either way.
- cherry_tree 2y ago
  By defending the stance of someone actively engaging in political conversation you are engaging in political conversation. The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making. This is in itself a political statement. And it’s an incorrect statement. You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political? What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest.
  - davidmurdoch 2y ago
    > By defending the stance of someone actively engaging in political conversation you are engaging in political conversation. I didn't defend anyone's stance. And obviously, interjecting into a "conversation" (if we can call one person hurling insults at another a conversation?) is joining the conversation, no matter what its about, but I changed the subject when I called out Paul for twisting Mike's words and then insulting him; I told them to be nicer (in a ironically condescending way, yes). If Mike's tweet said something like: > iPhone owners don't do reviews of Android phones. Non-iPhone owners shouldn't review Android phones. ... And Paul came by and said: > That's not true. iPhone owners who also own Android can review those phones. How can you be a tech reviewer and not know that? And then I said: > You should learn to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Would you say I'm now engaging in a technical review conversation? Or am I just being condescending while (pretending) to correct the behavior of someone with 2M followers? --- > The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making. Again, no, there is no implication of right or wrong doing because I criticized a guy for insulting someone else; I'm sorry you have that impression (or maybe you just want to argue with someone, which is fine, I just don't want to talk politics). That said, I think there _is_ a genuine/valid point to what Mike said -- admitting that ideas contrary to your own have merit does not mean you agree with them, rather, it's a mark of intellectual honesty and maturity. Even communism and anarchy have merit, but I don't agree with those ideologies either. (dang it, cherry_tree, you've got me talking about politics! cut it out!) > This is in itself a political statement.. And it’s an incorrect statement. Was Mike precise in his choice of words? No. Technically correct (the best kind of correct!)? Also, no. But incorrect in the _context_ of the whole Tweet? Absolutely not. American citizens (who aren't citizens of another country) don't vote in those foreign elections (well, some probably have before, but not at the same magnitude Mike is worried about). If you and Paul don't think that's what Mike originally meant then you have a problem parsing English language. > You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political? No, I didn't defend anyone. I'd say I criticized Paul for his pedantry. And I didn't think random Internet strangers would back me up on anything. I also didn't think anyone would want to debate citizen/non-citizen voting rights with me over this either. But life can full of fun surprises! > What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest. No, it isn't. It really just feels like you are projecting some disdain you have towards some group of people onto me, who you don't know. --- Anyway, the whole point of posting about this to HN was because I thought there was some humorous irony to it. I feel no ill-contempt towards Paul, Mike, you, or anyone else here. It's been fun (just stop trying to pull me into hot-topic politics please).

davidmurdoch 2y ago

I'm not interested in debating politics, so I won't remark on that. Ignoring the fact that laws don't prevent people from committing crimes... but by this logic would you say the law itself is xenophobic?

deadlydose 2y ago
> I'm not interested in debating politics > would you say the law itself.. Well, you're asking a question that, in a vacuum, isn't political but since it can be considered controversial, and I think you know this, it becomes political. So did you want to debate politics or not?
- davidmurdoch 2y ago
  I was just trying to understand your perspective on laws that forbid allowing non-citizens to vote. I guess I realized I wasn't aware of American citizens who believe non-citizens should be legally allowed to vote in federal elections, and my question about xenophobia was, in retrospect, intended to explore that.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Any law that prevents taxpayers voting is inconsistent with the principle of no taxation without representation. If that law is founded on the basis of excluding "outsiders" because they are outsiders then that's texbook xenophobia. What you might want to explore is whether "no taxation without representation" is a core US axiom, whether "outsiders" should pay taxes, etc.
    - davidmurdoch 2y ago
      Tangentially related: My father tried to fight taxes on the grounds that they're unconstitutional. He went to prison for 3 years (in part) because of it. > Any law that prevents taxpayers voting is inconsistent with the principle of no taxation without representation. That sentence would have been a great response to Mike's tweet. Thanks for letting me explore some thoughts with you without spiraling into divisive language.
      - defrost 2y ago
        The entire notion of standard passports and border checking (other than "travel permits" within kingdoms) arose after the Constitution of the United States was ratified .. and that specific document isn't the be all to all reference for citizen | government contracts, even the US founders recognised it was "adequate for (their) present" and would require constant attention and fine tuning. https://www.passporthealthusa.com/passports-and-visas/blog/2018-4-the-worlds-first-official-passport/ https://www.passporthealthusa.com/passports-and-visas/blog/2...
      - cherry_tree 2y ago
        [flagged]
        davidmurdoch 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        Personal attacks aren't allowed here, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
remram 2y ago
You're not interested in debating politics, so you comment on a political tweet from an elected representative, and then post a link here?
- davidmurdoch 2y ago
  The title is about being blocked by the guy who created this platform, not politics. That's what this thread is about. Political discourse is against HN guidelines, after all. If you want to debate politics here go ahead, I just don't want to, and don't have a strong position on these particular matters either way.
cherry_tree 2y ago
By defending the stance of someone actively engaging in political conversation you are engaging in political conversation. The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making. This is in itself a political statement. And it’s an incorrect statement. You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political? What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest.
- davidmurdoch 2y ago
  > By defending the stance of someone actively engaging in political conversation you are engaging in political conversation. I didn't defend anyone's stance. And obviously, interjecting into a "conversation" (if we can call one person hurling insults at another a conversation?) is joining the conversation, no matter what its about, but I changed the subject when I called out Paul for twisting Mike's words and then insulting him; I told them to be nicer (in a ironically condescending way, yes). If Mike's tweet said something like: > iPhone owners don't do reviews of Android phones. Non-iPhone owners shouldn't review Android phones. ... And Paul came by and said: > That's not true. iPhone owners who also own Android can review those phones. How can you be a tech reviewer and not know that? And then I said: > You should learn to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Would you say I'm now engaging in a technical review conversation? Or am I just being condescending while (pretending) to correct the behavior of someone with 2M followers? --- > The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making. Again, no, there is no implication of right or wrong doing because I criticized a guy for insulting someone else; I'm sorry you have that impression (or maybe you just want to argue with someone, which is fine, I just don't want to talk politics). That said, I think there _is_ a genuine/valid point to what Mike said -- admitting that ideas contrary to your own have merit does not mean you agree with them, rather, it's a mark of intellectual honesty and maturity. Even communism and anarchy have merit, but I don't agree with those ideologies either. (dang it, cherry_tree, you've got me talking about politics! cut it out!) > This is in itself a political statement.. And it’s an incorrect statement. Was Mike precise in his choice of words? No. Technically correct (the best kind of correct!)? Also, no. But incorrect in the _context_ of the whole Tweet? Absolutely not. American citizens (who aren't citizens of another country) don't vote in those foreign elections (well, some probably have before, but not at the same magnitude Mike is worried about). If you and Paul don't think that's what Mike originally meant then you have a problem parsing English language. > You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political? No, I didn't defend anyone. I'd say I criticized Paul for his pedantry. And I didn't think random Internet strangers would back me up on anything. I also didn't think anyone would want to debate citizen/non-citizen voting rights with me over this either. But life can full of fun surprises! > What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest. No, it isn't. It really just feels like you are projecting some disdain you have towards some group of people onto me, who you don't know. --- Anyway, the whole point of posting about this to HN was because I thought there was some humorous irony to it. I feel no ill-contempt towards Paul, Mike, you, or anyone else here. It's been fun (just stop trying to pull me into hot-topic politics please).