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

The 2016 Election

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#231

Post by darksaints »

kybernetikos wrote: post #111
Waterluvian wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. It doesn't mean that their perspective is guaranteed to be rational or free from ugly ideas. But it's a valid perspective.

What does validity mean in this context?

Not gonna put words into someone else's mouth, but here it is from my perspective: We come to the opinions we have based on the experiences we have, and everybody has different experiences. Equally as true is the opinions that don't form due to the experiences we don't have.

One example I have from someone I disagree with. It was a rich kid about to fully take over his father's company via inheritance, who agreed vehemently with trickle down economics. From his perspective, he created jobs (I'd at least agree with that much). The way that he created jobs was by investing resources on new profitable projects that required labor. In his perspective, how could he ever create more jobs by constraining his resources? He couldn't, but that is exactly the point (someone else creates the jobs, not him). He couldn't see the alternative of government enabling new jobs because the entire sum of his life experience portrayed government as a barrier to investment, not as an enabler of opportunity. The simple fact that he never had to rely on the government as an enabler of opportunity blinded him to the possibility that it could use his resources more efficiently than he could.

I'd consider his opinion falsifiable, but his perspective valid. I would never in a million years be able to tell him his perspective was wrong.

Re: The 2016 Election

#232

Post by mc32 »

dnautics wrote: post #140
lotso wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really care about improving the viability of third parties in this country, please do that in local and state elections where it is actually possible to elect third parties. Voting for 3rd parties in Presidential elections is fine, but really doesn't do much really and if you actually dig deep into 3rd party Presidential candidates, they're usually not great either.

This is an incredibly concern trolling argument. There is no right or wrong way to vote for third parties.

I initially was upset at mr Nader, when Gore lost. I got over it and, in retrospect, the blame is fully on Gore. He simply didn't convince enough people with his message. It wasn't Nader's (or anyone else's) responsibility to make Gore more electable, it was Gore's responsibility.

Re: The 2016 Election

#233

Post by lintiness »

darawk wrote: post #151
koolba wrote: post #129

I am officially endorsing Donald Trump for president. I doubt my endorsement, coming from an anonymous commenter on HN, has much weight but I'll put it out here for one reason in particular: As a message to anybody else who's feeling the same but feels that even announcing something like this will cause you to be shamed.

I upvoted your comment because I think it's important, even though I disagree with you. Would you mind explaining your position? I think it might be helpful in furthering people's understanding, although it does run some risk of devolving into an argument.

we don't argue here: trump is evil, clinton must win for the sake of the universe (echo).

Re: The 2016 Election

#234

Post by mejari »

joncalhoun wrote: post #162
mejari wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that. How do you know that?

I believe his point was that you don't know until Thiel actually makes the racist comments himself, so you can't infer that he does.

You also can't infer that he doesn't, which is what the commentor I replied to did.

Re: The 2016 Election

#235

Post by labster »

kapitza wrote: post #188
lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

> That's not how things are done in this country. Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago, begs to differ: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.... in America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them." [1] What's changed…

> 50 years ago, most normal Americans held these same beliefs

Most Americans 50 years ago would be stunned that someone who has been married three times, and who has been caught on tape saying he wants to cheat with other women, is still running for President. That alone would be disqualifying.

Re: The 2016 Election

#236

Post by munificent »

mc32 wrote: post #10

Why would Sam not go for a third party who was less problematic? There are third party candidates available. Is it because they are unlikely to be elected? If so, this thinking keeps on trapping us into voting for the least bad of the bad.

> Is ot because they are unlikely to be elected?

It's more than unlikely. There is effectively zero chance of a third party candidate getting elected president in 2016.

Voting for one is throwing away your vote. Worse than that, it's throwing away an opportunity to indicate your second choice preference.

The US's first-past-the-post electoral system is not great, but voting for a third-party candidate does not at all address that problem. Instead, it plays exactly into the agenda of the two dominant parties by effectively disenfranchising yourself.

If you don't like the US's voting system, great, work to change it. Probably start by pushing for more small scale and local elections to switch to smarter voting systems. That way, citizens can used to them there and the venues are easier to change. Maybe eventually that will percolate all the way up and we can change the Constitution and change how the president is elected.

In the meantime, vote strategically for which of the two options to choose from that is most closely aligned to your interests.

Re: The 2016 Election

#237

Post by pb »

tyre wrote: post #50

It's a slippery slope to not associate with people based on politics. It is also a slippery slope to continue to associate with people because the views they support are those of a politician. David Duke is running for senate. Does that make Holocaust-denial a political issue? There was a time when women having the right to vote was a political issue. Today it is not (though Thiel has raised concerns about what women…

If I believed that Clinton was going to start World War III, and that Trump would stop it, then I would vote for Trump despite all of his nastiness.

In reality, I believe Trump is much more likely to start WWIII, which is yet another reason to be opposed to him, but it is extremely uncharitable to assume that all of his supporters support everything that he does. I think most Republican voters simply believe he's the lessor of two evils. I strongly disagree with them, but respect the democratic process.

Re: The 2016 Election

#238

Post by lintiness »

brianwawok wrote: post #158
rtx wrote: post #75

>unprecedented threat to America Hillary is an unprecedented threat to the world. But I guess Americans are so cut of from the rest of the world, it's hard for them to see things from others perspective. As a citizen of third world please don't unleash Hillary on us.

You would prefer Trump? Why? Serious question.

to all you babies literally wetting yourselves over trump, what the actual fuck do you think he's going to be able to do with two parties that hate him controlling both houses?

Re: The 2016 Election

#239

Post by chris11 »

551199 wrote: post #155
lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0] Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation. Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adam…

Thinking there is a possibility someone is crazy, racist, or sexist is definitely reasonable if that person is stating they agree with a crazy, racist, sexist. I'd wonder if someone was racist if they supported David Duke.

Re: The 2016 Election

#240

Post by sanjeetsuhag »

gkoberger wrote: post #29
lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.

I'm kind of surprised 'Hillbilly Elegy' hasn't come up yet.

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-lives-...

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-orig...

Post reply on HN