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

531–540 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#531

Post by moultano »

gizmo wrote: post #522
moultano wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> - Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment. This needs a citation, because whenever I've seen people say this, they cite this this essay https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educa…

Moldbug believes that white people are the intellectual superiors of black people. That's supremacy. It's on his blog and in the medium post you linked. He isn't fooling anybody with his explanation of how that belief isn't racist or supremacist.

He also believes that Asians and Jews are on average the intellectual superiors of "white" people, so it's not clear to me how that's "white" supremacy. He's very clear that he separates the scientific question from the moral one. The belief that intelligence is largely genetic is fairly mainstream and supported by a large body of evidence. If he is committed to treating all groups of people with equal respect, that satisfies me.

>>He isn't fooling anybody with ...

What prevents you from taking him at his word about what he believes? Why would you distrust his own explanation of his own opinions? I don't think we're doing civilization any favors by speculating about people's "true" beliefs in order to ostracize them.

Moldbug has said many absurd antidemocratic things, but you don't need to misrepresent them to convey that.

If you want to debate someone seriously, do it like this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-fa...

Re: The 2016 Election

#532

Post by mejari »

gjolund wrote: post #528
mejari wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want her to insert herself into these women's personal choices? Can you imagine the outrage from the right if she tried to convince these women of anything? You're not making any sense, it just sounds like you're looking for an excuse to put down Clinton over a situation she has zero involvement in.

I don't want her to do anything. She is already playing dirty, why stop at convincing a group of women to lie some more for the cause?

So, you're angry at her for not doing something you don't want her to do, but you feel like she would do it, even though she's not doing it. And you're throwing in random accusations of lying. You're reinforcing my thought that you are just trying to find an excuse to be angry.

Re: The 2016 Election

#533

Post by Waterluvian »

kybernetikos wrote: post #477
darksaints wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction being made isn't valid vs invalid, but rather perspective vs opinion. An incorrect opinion does not invalidate the perspective that helped form it, and the perspective is still worth understanding if you want an actual solution to a problem instead of just the self-righteous satisfaction of being right.

I'm completely in favour of understanding why people think what they do - apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to persuade them of anything different if you don't start from a position of sympathy. In order to give you the opportunity of gaining a position of sympathy with me; one of the reasons I was asking about 'validity' is that it sounds formal and logical, but it doesn't seem to be being used in a f…

Thanks for the comments. Yes, this deserves more explanation.

I mean "valid" essentially as a truism. It's a valid perspective because people are able to hold that perspective.

What makes it important to point out, in my opinion, is that it doesn't matter how irrational or ugly or wrong that perspective is, it can't simply be dismissed because it is such. That makes us incapable of fostering an environment in which all parties can grow their perspectives.

My wife's pregnant and she often has incredibly irrational fears. She will even point out that she has no logical underpinning for feeling a certain way. But she does feel that way. Her perspective, no matter what doctors tell her, is that there's so many things that may go wrong. And that's valid. Instead of, "well, if you know it makes no sense to feel that way, then stop feeling that way, right?" we work to understand what might be causing it and use what levers and knobs in life we have to eliminate those fears.

If we dismiss certain perspectives as being an invalid state for one to be in, we close doors on addressing it.

I'm not really much of a writer or persuasive voice, so I hope you're able to pick up what I'm trying to convey. Heck, maybe I'm just using words wrongly. I've been known to cromulate that from time to time.

Re: The 2016 Election

#534

Post by ocdtrekkie »

odonnellryan wrote: post #457
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically impossible to select a President you 100% agree with, unless you're voting for yourself.

True, but presidents (on average) get a remarkable percentage of their policies passed in some form. Maybe you don't support 90% of what Donald or Hillary say, but you have to be careful: it's almost guaranteed that at least something of that 90% is going to happen. Also, there are varying degrees of agree-ability. I do not agree with many of Hillary's policies, but there aren't any that I would take a firm stance ag…

But for these people that are still supporting Trump, they consider that avoiding 90% of Hillary's platform worth the cost of Trump. Bear in mind, when Nate Silver pointed out that Trump would win if only men could vote, women (a small number, mind you) were tweeting they'd gladly give up their right to vote if it got Trump elected.

You have to understand that that is how some people feel about Hillary. That losing their own vote forever, for their entire gender, would be worth it to them to keep her out of office.

Re: The 2016 Election

#535

Post by therealdrag0 »

sysk wrote: post #475
sparky_z wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The constant fake smiling, cold and calculated question answering, passive aggressiveness, etc. In short, the traits of a great manipulator. Aren't those, pretty much by definition, the traits of a poor manipulator? A great manipulator wouldn't seem so false. Let me put it this way: How natural do you think you would seem if you were spending hours of every day in front of dozens of cameras, knowing that the slight…

> Aren't those, pretty much by definition, the traits of a poor manipulator? A great manipulator wouldn't seem so false. This is a good point and it baffles me to be honest. I said "great" manipulator because it seems to be working so far. Great manipulators don't necessarily need to be great with everyone all the time. Or maybe she intentionally wants us to think she's a poor manipulator so that we trust her more? B…

Or she's gotten to where she is because she's effective at her job and the people working with her see this. It kinda reminds me of myself; I have zero charisma, but I impress the people I work with and I advance.

Re: The 2016 Election

#536

Post by xir78 »

postcarnival wrote: post #285
xorgar831 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear. The extreme political tactics by the GOP lead to the scenario we have today, and Trump is building off of what the GOP laid the groundwork for over the past 40-50 years.

lot of accusations but maybe there are reasons that half the country believes in what he's saying? we've had more terrorist attacks, more foreign policy disasters, and more cultural and racial unrest in the past few years than in modern times yet you shut down the conversation by attributing it to "fear" as if people don't have a right to be fearful... nice

There are no more than in past decades, and if it really was the case then you'd take a stay calm and approach vs trying to panic an entire country.

Re: The 2016 Election

#537

Post by gjolund »

DanBC wrote: post #497
gjolund wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter?

Yes. Someone bragging outside a work environment about who they support is fine. Someone bragging inside a work environment is less fine. Someone bragging about supporting Trump, in front of Mexican colleagues is even less fine.

Thanks for making my point for me.

That is called discrimination btw.

Re: The 2016 Election

#538

Post by xir78 »

postcarnival wrote: post #285
xorgar831 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear. The extreme political tactics by the GOP lead to the scenario we have today, and Trump is building off of what the GOP laid the groundwork for over the past 40-50 years.

lot of accusations but maybe there are reasons that half the country believes in what he's saying? we've had more terrorist attacks, more foreign policy disasters, and more cultural and racial unrest in the past few years than in modern times yet you shut down the conversation by attributing it to "fear" as if people don't have a right to be fearful... nice

There are no more than in past decades, and if it really was the case then you'd take a stay calm and approach vs trying to panic an entire country.

Re: The 2016 Election

#539

Post by r_smart »

Locke1689 wrote: post #527
r_smart wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated This is a myth. [0] >with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, >I'm not trying to be coy I can assure you no one is about to accuse you of that :) [1] [0]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-... [1]: https:/…

Link [0] States that they're not lower-income, not that they're educated.

Indeed. How does education and income correlate though? We're talking about millions of people here, not a handful, so the chances of it being a bunch of above median high school drop-outs seems exceedingly unlikely, no?

Re: The 2016 Election

#540

Post by Torgo »

chris11 wrote: post #453
551199 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary Clinton's 'friend and mentor' was KKK member Robert Byrd.[0] Using the same logic all democrats are now x. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4wo9nqWrwE

Right, and if we were talking about people with Hillary's or Robert Byrd's record then I would decide that they weren't racist. Hillary's record has shown a strong commitment to civil rights activism. Robert Byrd did do some horrible things, but he changed and apologized. The NAACP actually honored him after his death. Supporting the the KKK would prevent me from voting for any politician. But Robert Byrd actually ch…

The judge was a member of a group affiliated with La Raza, it was not because he "was Mexican."
Post reply on HN