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

301–310 of 368 posts

Re: Make America Hate Again

#301

Post by Brockenstein »

jazzyk wrote: post #288
yongjik wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Obama's "Iraq refugees ban" to justify Trump's action was a weak argument anyway, but the time window for the argument's viability has passed hours ago. Now you will have to find out cases when Obama ordered government officers to ignore court order. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord... > Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents defied the orders of federal judges regarding Donald T…

"Using Obama's "Iraq refugees ban" to justify Trump's action was a weak argument anyway" Instead of providing supporting argument for your above statement, you conveniently change the subject to another, only loosely related matter. Whataboutism at its best :-)

And the support for your argument was "Obama did it"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...

But you feel like "Obama did it" is an apt corollary to the scale, scope and circumstances of this week's events? Because of an actual event, and the resulting review and re-examination of existing Iraqi refugees which caused a slowdown in the acceptance of new Iraqi refugees for several months, you know because of finite resources... and no explicit orders or stop immigration that equates close enough to Trump's EO? I mean there's just no way to discuss that rationally with someone who wants to make that comparison. It's intellectual laziness and textbook false equivalence. If Obama did nothing he would have been crucified for that by Republicans. And because Obama did the most benign thing possible he was likely crucified for that by Republicans. And because the thing he did had tangible consequences, but wasn't unreasonable, that's now justification for Trump's EO? Forget double dipping, some people are triple dipping.

But let's compare anyway. A review of existing refugees which caused the slower acceptance of new refugees in response to the discovered failure in the system.

VS

Trump picked some countries seemingly at random from a large pool of Muslim countries in order to fulfill a "campaign promise" regardless of actual need or circumstances. The countries he picked haven't been a hotbed of terrorism against the U.S. He selected no countries that he has business interests in, even if they have had citizens who've carried out attacks against the U.S. His executive order effected people with green cards and visa's people we've already researched and vetted, not just new immigration.

Yeah, they're the same event all right /s. So is your BS ignorance or dishonesty?

Re: Make America Hate Again

#302

Post by humanrebar »

beat wrote: post #266
humanrebar wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complex set of events, but America is overdue for some stronger checks on the executive branch. I think it's also fair to say the executive branch has unique power in security affairs that the judicial branch can overstep its authority in. I'm not supporting these actions, here. I might go either way on them, honestly, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about constitutional crises now given all the exec…

A temporary restraining order in a non-emergency is not overstepping any authority. I see absolutely no reason why this is too important to go through due process.

There's a good point there, but I can also see the merit of letting the commander in chief get the benefit of the doubt, especially since we're not talking about U.S. citizens as far as I can tell.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#303

Post by reitanqild »

daveguy wrote: post #217
yummyfajitas wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you mean by "racist". Can you provide a clear and unambiguous definition? I don't think you can.

Negative action, thoughts or words based on race. No individual is a stereotype. Treating a racial group as a stereotype is racist. Edit: fortunately we can legislate the hell out of the actions. It's not that difficult. Though I will give you credit for willful ignorance for the sake of argument. Good rhetoric. A-

I was with you almost until the "willful ignorance". I also guess yummyfajitas was with you until the second paragraph as well.

My frustration is that your definition doesn't seem to be the one that one is jugded against but rather one that defines us all as racists because of the society we live in, because of our distant relatives etc.

Because of this there seems to be no way to defend against this. And since I am a "racist" it is only fair to dismiss all my opinions, right?

Again: I'm arguing in good faith. I don't like Trump but I am afraid the rethoric we see from Democrats and others are driving voters straight into his arms. I'm also fairly certain that it hurts this community when people go around accusing other long term contributors of willfull ignorance.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#304

Post by derrickdirge »

jazzyk wrote: post #294
derrickdirge wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But of course it's not that simple. From the wiki: >Mateen's ex-wife, however, claimed that his father called him gay while in her presence. Speaking on her behalf, her current fiancé said that she, his family, and others believed he was gay, and that "the FBI asked her not to tell this to the American media"

Because conservative, old Muslim men never call anyone "gay", right? For wearing a trendy piece of clothing, for example? My male friend has been called "gay" a few times because he likes Broadway shows. You can believe in any hearsay you want, but at the end of the day, this was a US-hating, Muslim guy/couple, killing LGBT people (for whom many Muslims have special hatred, and like to throw them off the roofs).

My point is that we should be cautious about assuming that his motives were uncomplicated.

For what it's worth, the FBI also found no evidence linking him to ISIL.

We can't possibly know what he felt in his heart, but making policy decisions based on the assumption that we can is reckless and only serves to further smooth over any of hint of subtlety left in American public discourse.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#305

Post by derrickdirge »

reitanqild wrote: post #293
derrickdirge wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still missing the point the parent was making.

What then? This: "it seems like you are missing the point: in a pervasivly racist society, discriminatory behaviors creep in the subconscious of everyone, black/white/antiracist/whatever, and we have to consciously struggle with them." ? I have recently argued against my own misunderstanding of someones explaination and find that embarrassing so I am actually listening.

Yes, that.

We all hold prejudices that we all need to be mindful of. Getting tangled in the weeds of arguing about semantics completely derails that point.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#306

Post by Avshalom »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #271
Avshalom wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because context matters there is no one line definition. Not that you care. You will happily argue that MLK was the real racist for making white people let black people eat in their restaurants.

According to you, context matters for murder and surgery as well. Yet there is a clear and unambiguous definition of those terms. I have no idea what you are trying to argue in your second line. Is that an attempt at a strange ad-hominem attack?

Context matters for cutting people open and removing bits of them.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#307

Post by cylinder »

beat wrote: post #210

Regardless of how one feels about the order itself, the fact is, courts are ordering it temporarily suspended, and the Trump administration is ignoring court orders. Legislators are going to airports to see that travelers arriving in their district and being detained are allowed access to counsel, and they're not allowed to meet with the detainees. This is a constitutional crisis. This is not about the right or wrong…

The orders have not been suspended. The Judge ordered that refugee arrivals should not be sent back to their home countries due to the risk of danger.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#308

Post by elechi »

jazzyk wrote: post #245
CaptainZapp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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.

The comparison barely pasts muster when you consider the circumstances. First of all, Obama's 'ban' was based on an intelligence report that stated that terrorist had already gotten into the US through the immigration program, and wanted to know why that was the case. They limited, not banned, Iraqis to make sure that the new processes were working. Here, there was a clear and present cause and effect to show why these steps were taken.

Trump's ban is a straight outright ban, based on a list, granted, that was made by the previous administration, but unless I've missed the report/statement/briefing, that honestly doesn't have anything to do with a specific policy or situation, other than keep them out. Otherwise, why would long-standing US green card holders also have to warned not to leave the country for fear of not getting back into the US??

> Would you call it a hateful act as well?

I would call what Obama did sad, both for what he did and the reactions he received, but nobody ever thought he did it because he wanted an entire nation kept out of the country, let alone just a particular reason. (This is all hearsay, but considering what the man has previously stated publicly, lends some truth to this rumour, but apparently this is as legal as they could get to keep Muslims from the Middle East out of the country.)

Re: Make America Hate Again

#309

Post by jazzyk »

Brockenstein wrote: post #301
jazzyk wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Using Obama's "Iraq refugees ban" to justify Trump's action was a weak argument anyway" Instead of providing supporting argument for your above statement, you conveniently change the subject to another, only loosely related matter. Whataboutism at its best :-)

And the support for your argument was "Obama did it"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/... But you feel like "Obama did it" is an apt corollary to the scale, scope and circumstances of this week's events? Because of an actual event, and the resulting review and re-examination of existing Iraqi refugees which caused a slowdown in the acceptance of new Iraqi refugees for several months, you k…

Yes, let's compare:

Obama: implemented quietly, no official ban, limited to one country

Trump: implemented through executive order, covers 7 dangerous countries.

Apart from style and scope, the effect was/is the same: stop certain groups of people from coming here for a period of time, until better checks are implemented.

Except for Iran, the countries he has picked ARE on the list of the most terrorist-ridden places in the world [1][2].

[1] http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-global-terrorism-inde...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index

Re: Make America Hate Again

#310

Post by sosuke »

humanrebar wrote: post #231
sosuke wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't people have the patience to define their language before having a discussion? Your last line seems to indicate that you think having unchanged definitions to words is a good thing. My wife and I define things to each other frequently. We often are saying the same things but confusing each others meanings because of wording.

> Why shouldn't people have the patience to define their language before having a discussion? Most people aren't practiced in keeping sets of definitions in mind that vary from context to context. You're also opening the (aspirationally meaningful) conversation with somewhat involved semantic discussion and debate. "Now that we've labored over the meanings of 'race', 'diversity', and 'equality' for fifteen minutes an…

The implications are overwhelming. To be a meaningful part of the debate would require a great deal, maybe even obsessive, of focus, time and research.

I used to love text because it felt unambiguous. I just realized a part of me fears speaking because I don't want to be misunderstood.

Post reply on HN