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

Make America Hate Again

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 368 posts

Re: Make America Hate Again

#241

Post by John23832 »

Inconel wrote: post #103
selllikesybok wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd start here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism #1 leads to #3 leads to #2. But there is a lot more to it. Not a simple concept. There is a lot of reading to do if you'd like to understand more. Can provide some links.

Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal…

Wouldn't your given definition be a working combination of the given definitions from Webster?

Re: Make America Hate Again

#242

Post by fridsun »

cronjobber wrote: post #234
humanrebar wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Removing Disqus integration from Breitbart would be a remarkable use of tech industry tools for political activism. I'm not sure more fracturing of American political discourse would be a beneficial form of 'activism'.

Actual fracturing wouldn't necessarily be in his interest, but I guess we can assume that's not the goal anyway. The goal would have to be silencing the social media presence of the right, a return to the status quo ante of public discourse.

> The goal would have to be silencing the social media presence of the right

*the alt-right

Or, less euphemistically, the neo-Nazi.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#243

Post by gonvaled »

metafunctor wrote: post #17
cperciva wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vouched it and it went back onto the front page, but it got promptly flagged away again. :-(

Yep. Sadly, it seems HN may be getting overrun by Trump apologists. Where's the next good place to be after HN gets gaslighted to not knowing the meaning of words?

I flagged it for two reasons:

1) Internal american politics: other political issues are promptly flagged, while UK and USA political issues fare better. I do not accept that.

2) Lots of citizens (and others) in the USA are up in arms about this, while the real suffering that the USA is causing around the world (read "killing innocent civilians") does not get noticed anymore. You seem to be outraged about this because it is a new policy which makes the USA look bad, but you do not seem to be outraged in the same way by long standing policies practiced by all US presidents which are actually having a worse impact in the world. Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize on his second day on office and did not even close Guantanamo ffs.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#244

Post by programmernews3 »

humanrebar wrote: post #219
logandavis wrote: post #203

The reason this is more HN-relevant than your average article on pure American politics is the top comment. Someone suggested to a well-known VC that he could do something about the fact that software he invests in powers the comments on Breitbart, and he said "on it". Something like 5% of Breitbart visits currently come through Disqus. Removing Disqus integration from Breitbart would be a remarkable use of tech indu…

> Removing Disqus integration from Breitbart would be a remarkable use of tech industry tools for political activism. I'm not sure more fracturing of American political discourse would be a beneficial form of 'activism'.

Agreed.

As a thought experiment: Imagine the owner of Google turned out to be a massive Trump supporter. Would it be acceptable to remove Hillary supporting websites during the run up to the election from search results as a political protest?

Re: Make America Hate Again

#245

Post by jazzyk »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #184
_xhok wrote: post #2

I agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. These are labels. No one really knows what "hate" means anymore, but because people are emotional, they see the word, recall what they think of Trump, and think, "yeah, that's hateful!" This is a problem for two re…

I agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. I totally disagree. How else do you want to describe the contents (and spirit) of this executive order? I think getting into mealy mouthed wiesel words and euphemisms for something that's clearly hateful and bigote…

You know that Obama de facto stopped - or at least severely limited - Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011. There was no outright ban, but the flow of Iraqis slowed significantly.

Would you call it a hateful act as well?

Re: Make America Hate Again

#246

Post by cronjobber »

mikeash wrote: post #96
_xhok wrote: post #2

I agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. These are labels. No one really knows what "hate" means anymore, but because people are emotional, they see the word, recall what they think of Trump, and think, "yeah, that's hateful!" This is a problem for two re…

While we're banning these other words, can we also ban "virtue signaling"? It basically means "you are being insincere" and is just as unproductive.

> "virtue signaling" ... basically means "you are being insincere"

Superficially true, but the virtues people are basically forced to signal in order not to be economically ruined are, as they say, socially constructed.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#247

Post by ashark »

mjmsmith wrote: post #149
ashark wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not very relevant since there's bound to be a strong relation between being relatively stable and prosperous (to say nothing of free, mind) and having trump hotels. I'm no fan of him, but I also don't like "my side" using weak attacks.

The notion that refugees from these seven countries represent a particularly grave threat is nonsense, so we're left to speculate on the real motives. Forty years ago, Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust. Trump still owns properties all over the world. Since he hasn't released his taxes, we have no idea how much money he owes and to whom. It's not at all unreasonable to assume that his decisions will…

Of course it's nonsense, and of course Trump's going to try to help (and avoid harming) his own fortune, and maybe this is even a case of that, it just happens that "discriminating against the same countries been bombing" doesn't require "discriminating against countries that contain Trump properties", so unless we get a leaked memo where he explicitly forbids doing anything to affect travel from those other countries, the conflict of interest case is pretty weak.

Meanwhile, I think the move is motivated by 1) actual interests of people in his cabinet and advisory group (notably Bannon), and 2) populist pandering for re-election. I think that's sufficient motivation. I think the ham-fisted implementation of the policy is either arrogance meeting incompetence or an attempt to anchor expectations so low that Republican elected officials can later happily get on board with him when he's merely being very awful instead of incomprehensibly awful, saying he's "learned". I hope it's the former.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#248

Post by derrickdirge »

nailer wrote: post #221
pluma wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still struggling to understand where this obsession with explaining how Trump got people to vote for him comes from. The real killing blow was the low turnout for the Democrat candidate. Trump only had to beat Clinton and practically nobody (outside the most progressive parts of the US) voted for Clinton. Trump may have swayed some undecided voters in his favours as a protest vote but all he had to do was rally t…

I know a Trump voter who voted for him because of his Orlando speech where he was apparently the only candidate to state what actually happened: Islamists were killing gay people. Everyone else apparently didn't talk about either or both of those things.

Because that's not what 'actually happened'.

A single young man with a sordid past and complicated relationship with the gay community claimed allegiance to Islamists immediately prior to massacring dozens of people at a gay-centric dance club.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#249

Post by 762236 »

_xhok wrote: post #2

I agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. These are labels. No one really knows what "hate" means anymore, but because people are emotional, they see the word, recall what they think of Trump, and think, "yeah, that's hateful!" This is a problem for two re…

He donated real money, so I think it a stretch to call virtue signaling.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#250

Post by soundwave106 »

hueving wrote: post #25
Jonnax wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling something/someone racist works on the principle that it's an undesired trait in society. However Trump's supporters either believe that other races/religions are inferior or believe their concerns are more important and ignore it. So what can someone do if they want to combat inequality/injustice/etc? It's not like their opponents are arguing with an open mind.

Or they don't believe they are being racist? Closing borders to some Muslim dominated countries while leaving them open to the largest Muslim countries in the world does give the impression that maybe it's not about being Muslim and it's more about nations.

I think the issue is more or less political, and it's twofold.

The first is that Donald Trump explicitly ran a primary campaign that at one time called for banning all Muslim travel to the United States. It is difficult for me to see how that promise is not rooted in some combination of bigotry and ignorance. For those who remember such promises Trump made, Trump will not automatically signal "compassion" and "tolerance", and I'm sure it's easy to morph an awfully crude executive order targeting countries already on a watch list into a policy that advocates "racism" and "bigotry".

The second is that the executive order was so poorly constructed, so hastily issued, and so overly sweeping, that it snagged people that shouldn't have been snagged (your green card holders and already-accepted refugees and whatnot) and threw immigration into chaos. Again, this only adds to the overall impression of "racism" for those who already have it.

From my perspective, my impression of this Trump executive order is more one of shoot-from-the-hip incompetence (that could've been avoided merely with more consultation with policy experts) and a fairly deaf political ear.

Post reply on HN