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

The smug style in American liberalism

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#251

Post by Nursie »

foldr wrote: post #237
Nursie wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again - please don't think I'm defending the outcomes. The attitude that anyone disagreeing with you is insane is the problem. The fact you call leaving a political union 'insane' is part of the problem. And if the views on restricting migration hadn't been dismissed as insane for years, we might not be here.

But what if a large number of people actually have done something insane? You seem to refuse to accept this as a possibility. To my mind, the view that migration should be severely restricted never was dismissed. The present Conservative government agreed, and imposed all kinds of overly draconian restrictions. (I ended up paying several thousand pounds to get my Canadian husband a visa to live here.) Now the idea th…

Yet net migration figures stayed around 350k, which showed that either the politicians were not really engaging or were ineffective.

I also don't see how you can call the idea of restricting that "mad". Genuinely I don't. I understand you can disagree, I understand you can disagree with the premises it's based on. But how is it "mad"?

Your insistence on only dealing with the conservative government is also puzzling when we're talking about something that goes far further back.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#252

Post by iainmerrick »

talmand wrote: post #248
iainmerrick wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the system is just very inefficient. There's a huge amount of bureaucracy, and not a lot of serious competition between healthcare and insurance providers. It's hard to switch providers and the pricing structures are very confusing. Similar to broadband and mobile phone services, the free market hasn't been able to drive prices down as effectively as it theoretically should. I think it's because t…

It's a feedback loop that started because of government intervention in the free market and it continues simply because of government intervention in the free market. There are many examples of this, such as your broadband and mobile phone markets, and university tuition loans.

Well, hang on now, wouldn't you agree that the free market has sometimes left us stuck with cartels and monopolies? (In the US, look at the railroads and telephone network.) Sometimes you need regulations to break out of those traps.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#253

Post by yummyfajitas »

pron wrote: post #182
yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

This is definitely the preference falsification election. Those who know me on HN know that I'm an outspoken proponent of unorthodox ideas. I'm regularly shouted down, called racist/evil/etc, downmodded and flagged on HN. I also get a steady stream of private emails: "I wouldn't say this publicly cause of the bullies, but that .gov link with all the data does seem to support you. I think you might be right, I need to…

> Apparently in the privacy of a voting booth, people are willing to express their true beliefs. It appears that Trump won because of working-class people in the Rust Belt, who repeatedly got the short end of the stick by the neoliberal policy of both parties. Democrats should have had their backs, but they'd abandoned them, instead, serving the "professional meritocracy". He did not win because of spoiled, well-off…

It appears that Trump won because of...

You missed the point I was making - I was speculating why electoral predictions were wrong, not speculating why Trump won.

I rather hope liberals don't develop empathy for the wealthy Americans who handed the election to Trump. Empathy is truly a destructive force in the world. We feel far more empathy for those close to us, those who look like us, those who are blessed with attractiveness. If we follow our empathy Indians and Chinese will remain poor just to help wealthy white Americans maintain their social status.

Wait, what? I thought you liked to present yourself as a male- and white-supremacist of the long, proud scientific racism tradition.

No, your (and those of other likeminded folks) attacks on me are not representative of how I present myself. They simply represent what you believe to be the easiest attack mode.

I have also expressed a belief that black women are innately "better" than others in certain qualities that I value: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8300225

That particular belief has explicitly motivated more action on my part than any of the beliefs you criticize me for. Does that make me a black female supremacist?

Somehow I suspect you will be unwilling to apply your original logic to this case, and in fact you'll apply some weird reverse logic to support the same conclusion.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#254

Post by MisterBastahrd »

jessaustin wrote: post #142
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to meet a Trump voter who didn't meet that criteria. Just because people don't like to be described in a certain way doesn't mean that it doesn't describe them. Trump didn't win because of any sort of liberal catechism. He won because the media has done a bang up job of scaring the crap out of the average citizen about immigration and terrorism while pimping his brand because he's a perverse curiosity in a s…

This says more about you than about the American public in general. My brother and his wife, and many of the people with whom I work, are not "disgusting misogynistic racist pigs". Actually I know many more Trump voters than disgusting racist pigs. The media really couldn't help it, however. Every president from here on out will be a reality show star. Look for Chris Christie to get a show as soon as he gets booted o…

Nice. You quoted something I didn't say. Twice.

That says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#255

Post by MisterBastahrd »

ams6110 wrote: post #183
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to meet a Trump voter who didn't meet that criteria. Just because people don't like to be described in a certain way doesn't mean that it doesn't describe them. Trump didn't win because of any sort of liberal catechism. He won because the media has done a bang up job of scaring the crap out of the average citizen about immigration and terrorism while pimping his brand because he's a perverse curiosity in a s…

I know some Trump supporters who are neither racist nor homophobic nor misogynistic. I also know Hillary voters who will drop the "N" word talking about blacks. You can't really divine who a person is by who they vote for.

Please point out where I said anything about homophobia, racism, or misogyny.

Wait... you can't. Nevermind.

And yes, I CAN divine what a person is like by who they vote for when the person they voted for is a ridiculous caricature with zero understanding about how any of this works. If you wouldn't go to a faith healer to get treated for a serious medical condition that required surgery, then why in the hell would you go to a completely unqualified, inexperienced buffoon to run the country?

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#256

Post by dkrich »

hash-set wrote: post #187
dkrich wrote: post #168

Bravo. Full disclosure, I voted for HRC. However, I've been saying this to my liberal friends for the entire election cycle. The message from of all of my liberal Facebook friends has been some derivative of: "Hear me out. We know Hillary isn't the best candidate, but you have to vote for Trump. If you don't you're a racist misogynist. Also, if you vote for a third party candidate, you are basically voting for Donald…

I'm just curious how old you are because I lived through the Bill Clinton years and it was appalling how bad the Clintons were. Their legacy from Arkansas all the way up the Pay to Play Clinton Foundation has been completely consistent--to bend and break the law everywhere possible if it is to their benefit to do so and then engage in cover ups, blackmail, and possibly murder to get away with it. They are a modern da…

I'm 35 and I remember the Clinton years well. I'm curious what about my comment led you to believe that I would dismiss their well-documented "missteps" as "tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff." Sure, Bill Clinton was corrupt and a liar. He also happened to be the greatest politician that's ever run for President.

There's plenty of corruption beyond what you cited. Private speeches to Goldman Sachs which HRC refused to release. Debbie Wasserman Schultz' straight-up corruption during the democratic primaries and her subverted attempts to force HRC down democrats' throats. The alleged passing of debate questions to HRC's camp in advance. The list goes on and on. And yet, I firmly believe that those things in and of themselves have little to do with why she lost.

If you lived through the Bill Clinton years then you might remember that his favorability ratings were so high when he left office (after being impeached!) that it was widely believed he could have easily won a third term if he were allowed to run again.

The reality is that most voters don't care about the candidates private lives. Some voters actually held Clinton in higher regard after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Voters are much more drawn to the candidate than the candidate's background or even the issues.

HRC has simply never been an effective politician. Sure, she won a senate race in New York on the heels of her husband's presidency, but beyond that she's had a problem connecting with constituents in both elections. This was exactly the reason she couldn't beat Obama in '08.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#257

Post by foldr »

Nursie wrote: post #251
foldr wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if a large number of people actually have done something insane? You seem to refuse to accept this as a possibility. To my mind, the view that migration should be severely restricted never was dismissed. The present Conservative government agreed, and imposed all kinds of overly draconian restrictions. (I ended up paying several thousand pounds to get my Canadian husband a visa to live here.) Now the idea th…

Yet net migration figures stayed around 350k, which showed that either the politicians were not really engaging or were ineffective. I also don't see how you can call the idea of restricting that "mad". Genuinely I don't. I understand you can disagree, I understand you can disagree with the premises it's based on. But how is it "mad"? Your insistence on only dealing with the conservative government is also puzzling w…

>Yet net migration figures stayed around 350k, which showed that either the politicians were not really engaging or were ineffective.

Which, consulting Wikipedia’s list of countries by net migration, puts us below (amongst many others) Norway, Spain, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. So it’s not exactly an unreasonably large number of immigrants we’re talking about here. (Especially when you consider that our net migration figures are bogus, since international students are wrongly included in them. Around 135,000 non-EU students entered the UK in 2014, for example.)

>I also don't see how you can call the idea of restricting that "mad". Genuinely I don't. I understand you can disagree, I understand you can disagree with the premises it's based on. But how is it "mad"?

We have an aging population and an economy that was just coming out of a recession. It’s not difficult to see why we need more immigrants. They’re young and net contributors to the economy. The idea that we could make things any better by shutting everyone out is, simply, mad. Perhaps in the short term some unemployed British people could switch from being unemployed to doing very badly paid, very menial jobs that are currently being done by Polish people. The net cost to the economy would most likely be far greater than the cost of simply increasing their benefits, though.

>Your insistence on only dealing with the conservative government is also puzzling when we're talking about something that goes far further back.

I don’t think I am insisting on that (?) I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#258

Post by foldr »

aninhumer wrote: post #249
foldr wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People voted in the way that best expressed their beliefs given the choice as presented. That is true of any election, no? >If they'd voted remain, the government wouldn't have said "Oh I guess that was a poorly defined referendum, let's work out a proper plan and have another." they'd have used it as an excuse to ignore the issue. Quite possibly, but I don't see how that is relevant. We seem to be in agreement?

Hmm, I thought the "silly question" was the referendum, but maybe you meant that's the silly answer? I thought you were blaming the public, but if you're primarily blaming the politicians then I agree.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think that it was silly of David Cameron to hold a referendum, and I think it was silly of the British electorate to vote to leave.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#259

Post by andrewvc »

talmand wrote: post #234
andrewvc wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. There's been 8 years of racist conservative commentary about Obama. Trump was leading the racist 'birther' movement charge. Don't act like its a double standard.

I'm forgetting the details; can you explain how the birther movement, no matter how stupid, was about race?

Read this: http://observer.com/2016/09/colin-powell-is-right-birtherism...

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#260

Post by Nursie »

foldr wrote: post #257
Nursie wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet net migration figures stayed around 350k, which showed that either the politicians were not really engaging or were ineffective. I also don't see how you can call the idea of restricting that "mad". Genuinely I don't. I understand you can disagree, I understand you can disagree with the premises it's based on. But how is it "mad"? Your insistence on only dealing with the conservative government is also puzzling w…

>Yet net migration figures stayed around 350k, which showed that either the politicians were not really engaging or were ineffective. Which, consulting Wikipedia’s list of countries by net migration, puts us below (amongst many others) Norway, Spain, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. So it’s not exactly an unreasonably large number of immigrants we’re talking about here. (Especially…

The British people considered it unreasonably large, for whatever reasons. They considered it important enough that after years of being ignored millions voted for UKIP or the Tories.

Again I'm not here to argue merits. What you have there is more justifications for ignoring the views of large sections of the electorate.

The rest of your argument is purely economic, as if that is or should be everything to everyone. And some of those points are arguable. I don't think that warrants calling people who disagree "mad".

>> I don’t think I am insisting on that (?) I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Oh just that I've been trying to make the point that politicians have been at this for decades and you bring up the conservatives as having tried to engage.

I don't think they really did, and by the time they did it was too late. Engagement should have been there from Blair onward.

Post reply on HN