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

House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 486 posts

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#301

Post by zimzam »

Zpalmtree wrote: post #165
minikites wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think his rhetoric against undocumented immigrants is racist?

Last time I checked "undocumented" immigrants aren't a race, and they also broke the law. It's not racist to attack people breaking the law.

This claim cain only be made by somebody ignorant of the history of racism: racism almost always lives with a non-racist pretext. Here are a couple of examples, though many more exist:

Lynchings were instigated by an accusation of a crime - the perpetrators could claim they weren't racist, they were just keeping their communities safe! [1]

Japanese internment too had a non-racist pretext: people of Japanese descent were claimed to be disloyal citizens with greater allegiance to Japan (even after being born in the USA or becoming naturalized) than the USA. [2]

We know that the debate about undocumented immigrants isn't about to Europeans who overstay their tourist visas or Canadians sneaking across the border: it is about a single ethnic group (hispanic) who have come across the Mexican border. This means that 'undocumented' can easily be a euphemism for 'hispanic', allowing people to shift racist statements into ostensibly non-racist ones. While not all discussions of undocumented immigrants are racist, some certainly are a form of dog whistle [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics#United_St...

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#302

Post by saboot »

adamrezich wrote: post #290
saboot wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't been paying attention. Yes, pepe was fine, and yes many people who post it do so with no ill intent. But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas. That deserves to have light shown on it.

Does it? What does it prove? Why does shining the spotlight on self-proclaimed Internet racists actually accomplish? Especially seeing as how much of the racism seems to mostly be in service of attention-seeking? What do you get out of proving that self-proclaimed racists [do x], as a small subset of people who [do x]?

Not self proclaimed internet racists, we're talking about white nationalists and race segregationists like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor discussing Pepe as a way to "speak truth to power".

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#303

Post by gozur88 »

mozumder wrote: post #225
danso wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. There are various different reasons why (and when) her email was requested by investigators. If I'm not mistaken, the existence of Clinton's private server was alluded to when Guccifer 1.0 hacked Sidney Blumenthal's emails, which included memos to her private address: http://www.thesmokinggun.co…

> Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. No, it didn't. It's still her private email account. They can request nicely to see them, but they can't forcibly see them without a warrant.

This is wrong, as a matter of law. It doesn't matter who set up the email account - any emails you generate as part of official business are official records. They're government property.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#304

Post by throwaway2016b »

learc83 wrote: post #283
throwaway2016b wrote: post #195

Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member that the corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century equivalent of accusations of communism. https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He wa…

You know who else eulogized Robert Byrd? The NAACP. He was a repentant former racist who spent the later years of his life apologizing for his past.

You say that as if the media sycophants would not be trumpeting such a connection 24/7 if Trump had one. That is my point. It does not matter if he claimed to have repented (you know, after filibustering the Civil Rights act of 1964), they would have spun it against him anyway. The fact that they haven't even mentioned Byrd is proof of bias.

edit for dang: Thank you for Correcting The Record. If you're going mark accusations of racism as off-topic, you should have done so a little further up-thread.

I'll give you props for not leaving an article like this flagged and dead for once. Too big to sweep under the rug?

>In case it's a concern: we don't care what your specific ideology is.

"We just cannot allow Donald Trump to become president. It would destroy this country." -- Paul Graham.

"I am contributing to both vote.org and voteplz.org, and probably two other get-out-the-vote non-profits. There are different approaches to this problem and I'm not sure which will work best, but unlike many for-profit startups it's non zero-sum–we have a long, long way to go to 100% voter turnout, and all the organizations working on this share the same fundamental goal. This feels like the most important US presidential election I've ever witnessed, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure we're all involved. -- Sam Altman

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#305

Post by dang »

colemickens wrote: post #194

What's wrong with HRC calling white supremacists and nationalists deplorable? (edit: I'll proudly take downvotes for calling a spade a spade.)

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536064 and marked it off-topic.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#306

Post by metiscus »

psyklic wrote: post #276
School-Cotton wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not discussing who you should vote for. I am discussing whether Hillary Clinton is a corrupt person. Those are two different questions. If Trump[1] is even worse, then sure, vote for Hillary. But that doesn't mean that she's good or that people have to like her. As an aside: if that were the argument Hillary fans had been making the whole time: "Yeah, we know Hillary is bad and corrupt, but at least she's way be…

This reads very presumptuously. The FBI stated she was reckless yet did nothing illegal. Reckless neither implies bad nor corrupt.

Here is the thing. When you are cleared onto a classified project or given access to classified data, you sign several documents in which you accept responsibility for safeguarding our national security by protecting that information. If an employee of Lockheed Martin engaged in similar behavior, e.g. making references to SCI information outside of a SCIF, with only properly cleared personnel they could go to prison. Regardless of the markings she caused SCI information to be transmitted in the clear which shows a certain level of disregard for the policies that are in place to protect us and it would appear that she did so for her own convenience (if you assume the most pure motives). The reader will have to decide if this behavior, while adjudicated as reckless but not criminal is a simple instance of poor judgement by her handlers or indicative of deeper issues with the candidate.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#307

Post by dang »

throwaway2016b wrote: post #195

Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member that the corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century equivalent of accusations of communism. https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He wa…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536456 and marked it off-topic.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#308

Post by imron »

saboot wrote: post #271
imron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> huh? It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr... Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog . In seriousness. Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes. All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint T…

You haven't been paying attention. Yes, pepe was fine, and yes many people who post it do so with no ill intent. But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas. That deserves to have light shown on it.

> But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas

You mean like the prominent white supremacists quoted in the article linked to by that expose?

Who later turned out to be a couple of trolls making up stuff for shits and giggles to see what sort of ridiculous things they could make journalists write? (http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/heres-how-two-twitter-pran...)

Giving credibility to that just makes you look foolish.

> using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas

I await Hillary Clinton's expose on Mickey Mouse

https://www.google.com/search?q=mickey+mouse+nazi&tbm=isch

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#309

Post by dang »

peteretep wrote: post #32

> Citation needed if you're > going to "correct the record." This is not Reddit, and it is not a place for accusing people of being paid shills. Please desist.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536062 and marked it off-topic.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#310

Post by dang »

throwaway2016b wrote: post #304
learc83 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know who else eulogized Robert Byrd? The NAACP. He was a repentant former racist who spent the later years of his life apologizing for his past.

You say that as if the media sycophants would not be trumpeting such a connection 24/7 if Trump had one. That is my point. It does not matter if he claimed to have repented (you know, after filibustering the Civil Rights act of 1964), they would have spun it against him anyway. The fact that they haven't even mentioned Byrd is proof of bias. edit for dang: Thank you for Correcting The Record. If you're going mark acc…

Please stop using HN for political rants—it's not the kind of discussion we want here.

I know this is a particularly politicized thread, but your many comments still stand out as particularly ideologically driven.

(In case it's a concern: we don't care what your specific ideology is. We just care about not pushing HN off a cliff.)

Post reply on HN