4 ms·

This comment is starting to turn gray for me, which means that it’s being downvoted. I don’t know much about this topic, but all of the factual content mention

by csa 9mo ago

This comment is starting to turn gray for me, which means that it’s being downvoted. I don’t know much about this topic, but all of the factual content mentioned above seems to be true. Can anyone who disagrees with ‘rayiner here explain why they downvoted? Is it just an unpleasant observation? Is it a disagreement with his conclusion in the last few sentences? Is it just a downvote against the commenter (iirc, he tends to make conservative talking points)? Something else? I genuinely want to know, as this seems like it would be an important set of talking points around immigration as a whole that any policy maker would want to consider.

TimorousBestie 9mo ago
From the guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
- csa 9mo ago
  Thank you. I’m very familiar with the guidelines. I’ve think I can play my OG card on this one. I added substantial commentary that makes it more than a “why the down votes?” type of comment. ‘rayiner gets beat on here a bit due to what appears to be his conservative stances on some issues. While I don’t agree with many of the things ‘rayiner says, we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water if we’re going to have meaningful discussions here — especially ones that are intellectually stimulating. IMHO, one of the reasons we (in the US) are where we are politically is precisely because we ignore, or downvote, or denigrate views from the opposing side (whichever side that is). It’s not really prudent to blithely downvote a considered and articulate comment without commentary just because you disagree with it or dislike the implications. In the case of hacker news, this type of behavior is antithetical to the goals of the site — intellectually stimulating content. So, while I appreciate your citation of the rules (which may itself be a middlebrow dismissal), I stick by my original comment, and I look forward to anyone who could reply to it.
  - lovich 9mo ago
    For me it’s because he’s having to go back to the fucking 1970s in reference to Silicon Valley companies instead of what any modern day person thinks of, to refute their point. As a piece of historical information, or if we were discussing that time period, cool. The discussion wasn’t about that.
    - csa 9mo ago
      Useful feedback. Thank you.
      - lovich 9mo ago
        For more useful feedback, this is the sort of commentary that means I’m disregarding the posters views going forward. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642131 > But the whole argument is disingenuous. The article is about mass immigration. Silicon Valley’s success has fuck all to do with the millions of immigrants that come in every year illegally or through family reunification. He snuck in “family reunification” in a discussion about mass emigration and conflated it with illegal immigration in scope. I went through the family reunification process. It was a benefit extended to me by the government as a citizen, and I’m native born before the jingoists join in. You have to sign up to take care of said family’s welfare until the point that they have made enough payments into the system that they are no longer a burden. I remember having to calculate it for my spouse during the citizenship application for them a decade after the green card application. I legitimately detest this person and their views over this, their attempt to lump in all forms of immigration with violating the law, and now you know why they get comments grayed out whenever enough people hear their dog whistles.
        rayiner 9mo ago
        I am also here on someone else’s H1B. I wasn’t even a citizen until high school. It doesn’t matter, it has nothing to do with the aggregate effects of immigration on the country. I’m sure you’re a highly intelligent person. You should be able to separate yourself from the analysis. Even more than that—we should be skeptical of conclusions that flatter our own personal narratives. Family reunification is a broken feature of our immigration system. It’s why a handful of skilled immigrants from my home country have begotten massive enclaves of poorly educated and poorly assimilated immigrants in places like Queens. They're transmission vectors for home-country culture. The New York Times did a great podcast that covers the broken promises of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and how family reunification was a major loophole in it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...

by csa 9mo ago

TimorousBestie 9mo ago

From the guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

csa 9mo ago
Thank you. I’m very familiar with the guidelines. I’ve think I can play my OG card on this one. I added substantial commentary that makes it more than a “why the down votes?” type of comment. ‘rayiner gets beat on here a bit due to what appears to be his conservative stances on some issues. While I don’t agree with many of the things ‘rayiner says, we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water if we’re going to have meaningful discussions here — especially ones that are intellectually stimulating. IMHO, one of the reasons we (in the US) are where we are politically is precisely because we ignore, or downvote, or denigrate views from the opposing side (whichever side that is). It’s not really prudent to blithely downvote a considered and articulate comment without commentary just because you disagree with it or dislike the implications. In the case of hacker news, this type of behavior is antithetical to the goals of the site — intellectually stimulating content. So, while I appreciate your citation of the rules (which may itself be a middlebrow dismissal), I stick by my original comment, and I look forward to anyone who could reply to it.
- lovich 9mo ago
  For me it’s because he’s having to go back to the fucking 1970s in reference to Silicon Valley companies instead of what any modern day person thinks of, to refute their point. As a piece of historical information, or if we were discussing that time period, cool. The discussion wasn’t about that.
  - csa 9mo ago
    Useful feedback. Thank you.
    - lovich 9mo ago
      For more useful feedback, this is the sort of commentary that means I’m disregarding the posters views going forward. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642131 > But the whole argument is disingenuous. The article is about mass immigration. Silicon Valley’s success has fuck all to do with the millions of immigrants that come in every year illegally or through family reunification. He snuck in “family reunification” in a discussion about mass emigration and conflated it with illegal immigration in scope. I went through the family reunification process. It was a benefit extended to me by the government as a citizen, and I’m native born before the jingoists join in. You have to sign up to take care of said family’s welfare until the point that they have made enough payments into the system that they are no longer a burden. I remember having to calculate it for my spouse during the citizenship application for them a decade after the green card application. I legitimately detest this person and their views over this, their attempt to lump in all forms of immigration with violating the law, and now you know why they get comments grayed out whenever enough people hear their dog whistles.
      - rayiner 9mo ago
        I am also here on someone else’s H1B. I wasn’t even a citizen until high school. It doesn’t matter, it has nothing to do with the aggregate effects of immigration on the country. I’m sure you’re a highly intelligent person. You should be able to separate yourself from the analysis. Even more than that—we should be skeptical of conclusions that flatter our own personal narratives. Family reunification is a broken feature of our immigration system. It’s why a handful of skilled immigrants from my home country have begotten massive enclaves of poorly educated and poorly assimilated immigrants in places like Queens. They're transmission vectors for home-country culture. The New York Times did a great podcast that covers the broken promises of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and how family reunification was a major loophole in it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...