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

381–390 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#381

Post by pmyteh »

DefaultUserHN wrote: post #377
foldr wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump supporters understands that Mexican and Muslims are not a race. Hence, why they think Trump is not racist. So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better? >Now you're just making up things in your mind about Trump and Trump supporters, and then accusing them of it. I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump.

>So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better? He is not against all immigrants. He is ONLY against ILLEGAL immigrants. He still supports LEGAL immigrants from all over the world. Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism. >I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump. The KKK also…

> Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism.

He expressly called for all Muslims to be barred from the United States. I'm afraid that claiming he's "not against the Islamic religion" is not a fact-based argument.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#382

Post by foldr »

DefaultUserHN wrote: post #377
foldr wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump supporters understands that Mexican and Muslims are not a race. Hence, why they think Trump is not racist. So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better? >Now you're just making up things in your mind about Trump and Trump supporters, and then accusing them of it. I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump.

>So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better? He is not against all immigrants. He is ONLY against ILLEGAL immigrants. He still supports LEGAL immigrants from all over the world. Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism. >I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump. The KKK also…

http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#383

Post by foldr »

zigzigzag wrote: post #371
foldr wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I see, so their plan was for Trump to win the presidency and for the entire EU to collapse before we make a deal. Sure, let's see how that plays out. Third time lucky?

"Let's get out before the EU implodes" was actually a campaigning point, though not one that affected my own decision much. I would be surprised if the EU collapses. But then again, almost everyone was taken by surprise when the USSR disintegrated, and the conventional wisdom was that neither Brexit nor Trump could happen. So we'll see. Suffice it to say that there are structural weaknesses there. Regardless, sometim…

Right, so we are going to have to negotiate while the EU is still in tact. What's the plan for how we do that? What reason does the EU have to give us a good deal?

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#384

Post by iainmerrick »

tropo wrote: post #320
iainmerrick wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 is a good point, but I don't think 1 is correct. I've heard that Cuba has the best doctors, and they often play a crucial role in emergency aid to other countries. For quality of health care overall, the US is just a solid middle ranker when it comes to life expectancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... That's only one metric, of course, but it seems like an important one. It seems lik…

Cuba has people in a different climate, with a different culture, and different inherent susceptibility to disease. If we were to supply Cuba with bacon double cheeseburgers and unlimited soda refills, that life expectancy would not be so hot. Also, give them all desk jobs. Healthcare is better in the USA. We just like to do bad things to ourselves.

Canada, then. They have a very similar culture, and I don't think anyone would call their climate substantially more hospitable. They spend half as much on healthcare and live three years longer. Their approach (publicly funded, free at the point of use) would seem to be much more effective than the US approach.

I mentioned Cuba because I've heard many anecdotes about how skilled and well-trained their doctors are -- they don't have the money and resources for lots of modern drugs and equipment, so they invest in their workforce instead. I'm not saying Cuba is in great shape overall, just that I have heard they have excellent doctors. (I don't have data to back that up, though)

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#385

Post by tnone »

pron wrote: post #347
yummyfajitas wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them... That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. And the motivation for studying evolution i…

> That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is…

Just like a creationist, when you finally stop going around in circles, you end up questioning the motivations of your opponent as a shaming attack, even as you insist they are not your business.

This is what religion looks like.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#386

Post by foldr »

Nursie wrote: post #370
foldr wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation. "Changing the face of the country" just means "there are too many brown people and foreigners here".

I meant it as "building on the greenbelt" and more people living in apartments rather than houses. But if you're determined to see racism everywhere I guess that's up to you.

I asked for an argument against current levels of immigration that was neither based primarily on economic considerations nor racist/xenophobic. I really don't think there is any such argument. Unless you're really saying that people are opposed to immigration because they're worried about houses being built on the greenbelt.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#387

Post by zigzigzag »

foldr wrote: post #383
zigzigzag wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's get out before the EU implodes" was actually a campaigning point, though not one that affected my own decision much. I would be surprised if the EU collapses. But then again, almost everyone was taken by surprise when the USSR disintegrated, and the conventional wisdom was that neither Brexit nor Trump could happen. So we'll see. Suffice it to say that there are structural weaknesses there. Regardless, sometim…

Right, so we are going to have to negotiate while the EU is still in tact. What's the plan for how we do that? What reason does the EU have to give us a good deal?

Well, I'd say "because it'd be what's best for people in EU countries" but I don't honestly believe the EU cares about that, beyond perhaps avoiding mass expulsions on both sides. So far they seem more interested in securing payments into their pensions.

So my view is that they have no incentive to give the UK a good deal. This does not imply the UK should have remained. They have no incentive because they aren't accountable to the people, except via very indirect and essentially broken ways, and besides lots of Europeans buy the argument that they must suffer to preserve the union.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#388

Post by Nursie »

foldr wrote: post #386
Nursie wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it as "building on the greenbelt" and more people living in apartments rather than houses. But if you're determined to see racism everywhere I guess that's up to you.

I asked for an argument against current levels of immigration that was neither based primarily on economic considerations nor racist/xenophobic. I really don't think there is any such argument. Unless you're really saying that people are opposed to immigration because they're worried about houses being built on the greenbelt.

Overcrowding of the country is a valid concern, for more than purely economic reasons, the south east is one of the nost densely populated parts of Europe already.

As I say, if you want to see racism everywhere, and if you presume that the economic arguments are all won then fine, you just carry on shouting everyone down as mad and racist, and watch as your political viewpoints fail to gain traction over and over again.

Again, I'm not really here to argue the merits of Brexit or Trump, I voted for neither. But I am taking great delight in the frustration of those who hector, judge and shut down all discussion, shouting loudly about virtue while in fact practising all the bigotry they claim to despise.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#389

Post by DefaultUserHN »

pmyteh wrote: post #381
DefaultUserHN wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better? He is not against all immigrants. He is ONLY against ILLEGAL immigrants. He still supports LEGAL immigrants from all over the world. Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism. >I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump. The KKK also…

> Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism. He expressly called for all Muslims to be barred from the United States. I'm afraid that claiming he's "not against the Islamic religion" is not a fact-based argument.

Which he also later clarified to meant immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism. And TEMPORARY only, until they can figure something out, like a vetting program, from those countries with direct ties to terrorism.

He wants to protect everyone from terrorism. Yes, he wants to protect Muslims from terrorism too. He even asked them for their help in the fight against radical terrorism, because he knows that terrorism affects them too.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#390

Post by DefaultUserHN »

foldr wrote: post #382
DefaultUserHN wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better? He is not against all immigrants. He is ONLY against ILLEGAL immigrants. He still supports LEGAL immigrants from all over the world. Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism. >I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump. The KKK also…

http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

Like I said, election rhetoric meant to smear the opponent.

Voters are smarter than this. Voters care more about the real issues that are affecting them (jobs, economy, etc). They don't care who the KKK is voting for. The result of the election have shown that.

Post reply on HN