871–880 of 1001 posts
We each now know and can remember going forward, if we so choose, how all the people we assign respect to acted when it mattered.
(And we should remember the actual meaningful actions with long term $ impact to the actor. Not get guiled by the arguments skillfully couching intent and rationalizing the actions).
The real problem is that the 2 party system has successfully divided us and put us on teams warring one another over silly things like politicians (and non issues like sex lives over real issues like healthcare, education, prosperity, opportunity, security -- not the war on terror kind, more like the bridges aren't going to fall kind).
Most of what we want are the same things, but we'll never get anywhere hating on each other based on our political team that is essentially the same party once in action. I wish we would go back to the old way of keeping your vote and opinion closer to your chest and surprising the two political parties so they actually need to court the vote again.
I can't wait til the election season is over, it is always a very harsh/rigid time in the US when they are on, people seeing others as lower who aren't in their own party. Disconnect from it and everyone be independent. Don't do work for politicians and blindly support anyone or any party, make them do work for us.
Fundamental principle of democracy is that you have to trust the people to make the right choice. If you can't then you shouldn't have democracy. The argument that the big powerful entities are expected to forcefully shut down the candidate because he/she is deemed not "normal" or morally corrupt is bad for democracy. You need to let people decide that with their vote.
So the last thing we want is businesses start firing their employees for holding different political beliefs. May be there is a red line somewhere, for example, real Nazi party coming in to existence without any pretense whatsoever. It would make sense then if POTUS, businesses and major media openly rebels against it. But outside of those extreme cases where do you draw that line is anyone's guess and convenience. Y-Combinator is doing absolutely the right thing for the current situation, IMO.
PS: I do not endorse any candidates at this point. Above statements are NOT the endorsement for Trump or anyone else. This is what I believe should be the core principles for functional democracy that allows for different opinions.
"Funding Trump, especially at this scale, represents general support of what Trump has said and done." - That's a pretty big logical leap. Would a person who supports Hillary "generally support" flippant top-secret email handling? Let's be logical: I think we can all agree that a person can support a candidate while not supporting every word they speak or action they take.
Thinking there is a lot of good in "what Trump has said and done", that his horribly racist, sexist and insane opinions and ideas are an acceptable price, and that Clinton would be a worse president is a legitimate opinion, but comparing Clinton's reckless behaviour to Trump's reckless statements is not. Forgiving past errors isn't the same as accepting future policies. Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a mi…
Go commit a crime 1/100th of the scale of HRC's and see if the uncaring justice system allows you to get away with it as a "mistake."
Is it SV that causes people to view the world in black and white?
What a surprise, one of the least inclusive industries on the planet is trying to exclude more people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with th…
Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article By OP I assume you mean me, ie: the guy who submitted the article to HN, not the author. First, I'm not out for attention, but thanks for that unprompted attack (dick). I submitted this as it seemed wrong that it kept being censored/flagged off HN. Honestly I expected it to be flagged off again, but hoped at least a few more people would get to s…
When people you know to be both intelligent and courageous seem to be doing something crazy and/or spineless, you should ask yourself what presuppositions you differ on.
You seem to hold the presupposition that people cannot work professionally together if they hold divergent political views. Think carefully about the implications of that viewpoint, and whether it's one that others can be assumed to hold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this seems to be a problem of presidential democracy (voting for 1 man). parliamentary democracy, where people are voting for a party and even specifically for multiple people nominated by the party, is solving this problem.
Right, but how do we get the US to move to a system of proportional voting and power? We're never going to get a president+congress that is controlled by one party to vote and pass new laws / ratify new amendments that change the system such that they'll no longer be in control. And we can't get the current two parties to agree on whether the sun is hot or not, let alone on radically changing the way our democracy wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Following the USA campaign from far away, I hadn't yet heard of similar examples. Could you please elaborate a bit, or just post a link? Thanks in advance!
My assessment is based on (a) personal conversations with scores of strongly left-leaning people, as well as (b) many hundreds left-leaning blog posts, videos, left-leaning podcasts, and the like. Some of this evidence pre-dates Trump's involvement in the election. Tangent, but related: I've noticed a very strong correlation between (a) those that think racism is exclusively "prejudice plus power" and (b) those who c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
>Who's the judge for validity anyway? The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression. To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty. >when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression. There are a lot of slippery words in that s…
I think we are in agreement here.
> Should all views be accepted as equally valid?
> Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.
These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious, and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones you don't like.
The hallmark of a democratic society is to ensure opposing views can be spoken without fear of repercussion.
However, the right to express yourself doesn't mean the right to harass and bully the people expressing the opposing views.
Oppression happens when you bully people just because their view. Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. Oppression happens when you harass their friends/family/relationship just because their view.
If you want to advocate your view and policy, state exactly how great they are and what benefits they bring. If you want to express how terrible the opposing view, state exactly how bad they are. Don't bully the people. Express your opposition to their VIEW, not the individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voter registration is already public in many states (and searchable online). While that doesn't include actual votes, it does include party affiliation which is obviously a strong indicator. Beyond some extreme exceptions, you can't even opt-out of being listed in this publicly searchable database which includes your home address as well. In other words, voting is hardly anonymous even today. And even that doesn't ac…
You don't have to put a political affiliation.