Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 394 posts

Re: Trump

#221

Post by internaut »

pj_mukh wrote: post #199
putaside wrote: post #173

Terrible Godwin flamebait. Not disappointed, merely amused and surprised. If you can not make a statement about a politician without invoking Hitler and dictatorship, you should really reconsider speaking up. Indirectly you are calling Trump voters Nazi's. That is pretty damaging to debate and to democracy. First calling Trump right, then portraying him as a mastermind capable of murdering millions of people, is jugg…

I don't understand this "You called me nazi-like so your arguments are invalid" argument. Clearly, in some situations the comparison is apt. Situations in which a potential leader is using the fear of the "other" to gain power is textbook Nazi and/or fascist behavior.

> Situations in which a potential leader is using the fear of the "other" to gain power is textbook Nazi and/or fascist behavior.

That would make everybody Nazis forever. Different groups have different outgroups.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

Re: Trump

#222

Post by pj_mukh »

tzs wrote: post #220

> But Trump is wrong about the more important part: how to fix these problems. Many of his proposals, such as they are, are so wrong they’re difficult to even respond to. P. J. O'Rourke had an interesting take on those wrong proposals: "I have a little announcement to make ... I'm voting for Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to th…

P.J O'Rourke is the best. Its sad more conservatives don't listen to proud conservative voices like him. As an avowed progressive, I would gladly talk about a compromise with him. Also, he's hilarious.

Re: Trump

#223

Post by davidw »

mikeash wrote: post #205
trcollinson wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I guess the real question is, were the other candidates actually compelling? And more compelling? If so, how were they compelling? I think it's a poor argument to say a big chunk of voters basically said "fuck it" to the whole process. What they did say was, well the other candidates are offering us anything compelling to vote for them with; Mr. Trump is. Now, again, maybe the compelling arguments Mr. Trump is giv…

The others weren't compelling, but at least most of them weren't completely nuts. Sure, the Republican primary electorate found Trump compelling, and that's why they won. And that's what scares me. I don't think they necessarily should have found any of the others compelling (what an awful field of candidates, I mean, seriously, what happened there?) but that's beside the point.

I'm a bit worried about what will happen if he loses and does not accept it.

Re: Trump

#224

Post by ethanhunt_ »

mej10 wrote: post #219
clevernickname wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean that it is "literally racist" for a non-white person to claim a white police officer, judge, etc. treated them unfairly because of their race?

Whenever there is no evidence to support their claim and they haven't taken steps to prove otherwise, yes.

There is evidence to support the claim. The judge released information that he wasn't supposed to (judge reversed the release later), and he set the first court day on the day of the GOP convention. There's a few other things too.

How is that no evidence? That is evidence to support the claim. Is it proof? Is it enough to condemn the judge? I don't know, but it is false to say that Trump came out of nowhere with this and has no evidence.

Re: Trump

#226

Post by throwanem »

mikeash wrote: post #209
throwanem wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, I'm calling the ignorance and insecurity a cancer that needs to be killed. This by you is better? It's not the people who need killing, it's just their perception of the world and their deeply held beliefs. Who, having once heard you explain this, could possibly not start heeding what you have to say?

Yeah, if people's perception and deeply held beliefs involve ignorance and insecurity then I think that needs to go. Americans need to stop being such cowards, and they need to stop embracing anti-intellectualism. The fact that cowardice and anti-intellectualism are deeply held beliefs by many doesn't change what I think of them. I don't really know what else you'd expect. Do you think I should embrace this stuff?

I think you should either come up with a way to put your argument across that doesn't come across as contemptuous and dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree with you, or give up imagining that by continuing to speak in this fashion you're actually helping bring about the outcome you prefer.

Re: Trump

#227

Post by tzs »

athinggoingon wrote: post #115

> Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees. He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal im…

> Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

This is completely irrelevant, because most the judge's rulings that Trump is upset about occurred before Trump flip flopped on immigration from his former support for a path to citizenship to his current opposition.

Re: Trump

#228

Post by throwanem »

splawn wrote: post #218
throwanem wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...he said, because the claim that it's not possible to be racist against white people had actually won over anybody ever.

So rather than pointing out how Im wrong (as I even requested), you construct a strawman argument? I didn't claim that... its fine if you disagree with me, but be honest in your discussion. Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.

Is that not where you're coming from? Because it sure sounds like that's where you're coming from.

Re: Trump

#229

Post by liberte82 »

clevernickname wrote: post #198
mikeash wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the potential win in November that's scary, it's the fact that Trump won (is guaranteed to win?) the nomination. If God descended from heaven and snapped his fingers and declared, "This November, you shall decide between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," then I wouldn't find it particularly surprising or worrying that ~50% of the electorate would support Trump. But the fact that people chose him out of a wi…

Who exactly were the establishment Republican candidates supposed to appeal to? Trump didn't attract enthusiastic supporters across party lines because they were apathetic jokesters. He may sound insane to you, but to a very large "silent majority" he is the first voice of sanity in a long time.

I'm yet to see any evidence that this "silent majority" actually comprises a majority.

Re: Trump

#230

Post by kbenson »

throwanem wrote: post #212
outlace wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.

I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy f…

> I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race.

If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum.

If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset.

I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well.

Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.

Post reply on HN