Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#201

Post by microtonal » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #130

microtonal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power? I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.

But the choice was not racist+job or non-racist+job. Also, let's keep in mind that a demographic within the population with the highest unemployment will not be helped at all.

I realize that the democratic candidate was less than ideal.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#202

Post by MichaelBurge » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

> But the executive order from yesterday titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” is tantamount to a Muslim ban and requires objection. I am obviously in favor of safety and rules, but broad-strokes actions targeted at a specific religious group is the wrong solution, and a first step toward a further reduction in rights.

I see this mistake a lot. "Muslim" isn't intended to target a certain religion here; it refers to citizenship status with problematic countries that happen to be predominantly Muslim. I support the "Muslim ban", but would be surprised if Trump tried to target Muslim US citizens(especially 3rd-generation US citizens, to avoid all doubt).

You might oppose the immigration controls, but it's nothing more than a rhetorical trick to say they violate religious freedom, so that you can bring up the first amendment. I don't believe the first amendment offers any protection with regards to citizenship status.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#203

Post by anonmous » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

Is there a hn version without politics?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#204

Post by grzm » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

ftrflyr wrote: post #193

Sam...I hate to say it, but you're out of touch with reality. Your posts are becoming progressively more annoying. I suggest you stick to what you know best. Otherwise, get involved in politics.

If you'd like to address Sam directly, his post accepts responses.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#205

Post by SamReidHughes » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #70

SamReidHughes wrote: post #6

Is targeting religious groups in refugee admittance actually a bad thing? How would this guy feel about favoring Jewish refugees in the 1930's?

Presumably you are smart enough to see the difference between those two cases, given that one group was actively fleeing state-sanctioned oppression and eventual genocide. I would hope that no one has to explain that to you.

I'm not in Syria and thus can only repeat what other people say, but I've heard that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and Shiites. The source of this information is John Kerry.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#206

Post by anon987 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

Not interested in politics - even if it's from Sam.

Flagged.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#207

Post by nkurz » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

Here's a link to the full text of the executive order:

Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (January 27, 2017)

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-V...

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#208

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

general_ai wrote: post #100

First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept mil…

> It's insane to accept military age males from there for entry into the country

That's why there's a procedure for obtaining a visa. Individuals from those countries can only go to the US in possession of a visa

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#209

Post by disantlor » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

manish_gill wrote: post #143

A majority of his voters did vote for Trump because they support his views on immigration. It's why they voted for him. To deny that is to simply deny reality just like Trump does on a daily basis. Honest question - What will statements by tech CEOs do? Trump has a mandate given to him by the people of your country against the very elites this post is appealing to. The politicians are with him because they want to ke…

mandate is a strong word when you lose by almost 3 million votes and when only half the country votes at all

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#210

Post by GCA10 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

Bravo to Sam Altman for focusing on a way to talk about immigration that will resonate outside Silicon Valley. The full-strength SV mindset plays very well in the 650 area code ... but it's less effective and sometimes downright counter-productive in a national context.

Here's the lead story on Breitbart today, demonizing Mark Zuckerberg for his position on immigration. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/28/sheriff-clarke-im-... I'm sharing it, not because I agree with a single word of it, but because it's in the mix. To convince the current Congress (or the emerging Supreme Court) of the merits of the pro-immigration case, the argument needs to be made in a way that polarizes less and enlightens more.