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

Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 283 posts

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#261

Post by jakeogh »

mozumder wrote: post #254
battlebot wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until Muslims can be trusted to peacefully coexist in the west and not undermine western legal tradition, I'm fine with a Muslim ban. I feel some tinge of compassion for the non-violent muslims out there, but in an us vs. them world, not one more inch will be given up to this clash of old world vs. new world. If Islam can't find a way to make a peaceful journey in the world, then it has to go. Moderate Muslims need t…

I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to white murderers that own guns. I mean, if we're going to be bigoted and ascribe negative traits to entire groups based on the actions of a few, shouldn't we do that to protect our safety by ascribing whites as murderers based on them committing the vast majority…

Why equate an ideology to skin color?

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#262

Post by dragonwriter »

3JPLW wrote: post #225
551199 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...

Again, semantics. It's being called a Muslim ban because it _only_ affects Muslims. Sure, it doesn't affect _all_ Muslims, but it still singles out one religious group.

It's being called a Muslim ban because Trump called for a Muslim ban, shifted the definition many times, and then issued this order with similar justification and overlapping provisions to many versions (though not identical to any version) of the Muslim ban.

It neither effects all Muslims nor (since it includes a temporary complete ban on all refugees) only Muslims, but it's still overtly targeted first and foremost at Muslims.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#263

Post by grzm »

jakeogh wrote: post #261
mozumder wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to white murderers that own guns. I mean, if we're going to be bigoted and ascribe negative traits to entire groups based on the actions of a few, shouldn't we do that to protect our safety by ascribing whites as murderers based on them committing the vast majority…

Why equate an ideology to skin color?

I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban.

There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required.

Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms?

'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban.

'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners.

'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban

'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in.

One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position.

And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#264

Post by dragonwriter »

mschuster91 wrote: post #204
pfarnsworth wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your math/logic, what percentage of Americans voted for Obama?

Per http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/2012-voter-turnout/ in 2008 there voted 62.3% of eligible voters in total; Obama won with 52.92% of this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Barack_Ob... ), that makes 32.96% of all eligible voters. In 2012, turnout was 57.5%, of which Obama won 51.06%. That makes 29.36% of all eligible voters. The problem is that it's really, really hard to get numbers on the…

You can usually get stats on turnout as both % of registered voters and % of voting age population. Neither of those is exactly % of legally-eligible population, but together they bracket it.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#265

Post by mozumder »

jakeogh wrote: post #261
mozumder wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to white murderers that own guns. I mean, if we're going to be bigoted and ascribe negative traits to entire groups based on the actions of a few, shouldn't we do that to protect our safety by ascribing whites as murderers based on them committing the vast majority…

Why equate an ideology to skin color?

Because actions happen on individual people, and not on an ideology.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#266

Post by throwawaybeta »

jy1 wrote: post #219
throwawaybeta wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, lyft does not operate outside of the states. They partner with Grab and DiDi. For lyft to stay consistent with their views, they'd have to cease partnership with Grab. With the claimed $1MM donation they paint a positive picture for us(fellow HN users reactions show they are more likely to use lyft, lyft will thus earn off us), but it would simply be loss of potential revenue in the case of Malaysia.

Try placing your lyft pin in Kuala Lumpur airport.

That is the result of their partnership[0]. IMO, partnering with already established services is much safer than what Uber did.

[0]http://take.lyft.com/global/

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#267

Post by pfarnsworth »

r00fus wrote: post #212
pfarnsworth wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Elon Musk buddy-buddy with Trump as well, because they're on the same advisory board? Are you going to rant against Tesla too?

Considering that Musk is competing against the entire petroleum industry (major supporters of Trump) with SolarCity and Tesla, I'd be surprised if the "friendship" was anything other than convenience.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#269

Post by 3JPLW »

dragonwriter wrote: post #262
3JPLW wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, semantics. It's being called a Muslim ban because it _only_ affects Muslims. Sure, it doesn't affect _all_ Muslims, but it still singles out one religious group.

It's being called a Muslim ban because Trump called for a Muslim ban, shifted the definition many times, and then issued this order with similar justification and overlapping provisions to many versions (though not identical to any version) of the Muslim ban. It neither effects all Muslims nor (since it includes a temporary complete ban on all refugees) only Muslims, but it's still overtly targeted first and foremost…

Ah, yes, thank you. I appreciate the correction.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#270

Post by dang »

imaginenore wrote: post #257
dang wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize for misinterpreting your list. The rest of your comment is troll talk. If you conduct religious flamewar here again, we will ban you, as we would anyone.

You should really define what you mean by "religious flamewar", because from what I see, you allow the other side of the "war" to comment, but censor me. And labeling what I write "troll talk" is ridiculous. I'm not trolling anybody. My comment was well written, I had citations to prove my points. Again, you don't have a counterargument, so you reduce yourself to name calling and censorship.

By "troll talk" I mean this is the language trolls use to keep arguments going. I'm not interested in arguing about Islam, I'm interested in you either following HN's rules or ceasing to comment here.
Post reply on HN