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

351–360 of 368 posts

Re: Make America Hate Again

#351

Post by adam419 »

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…

Correction: it would be a remarkable use of tech industry tools for political censorship.

When the hell did people forget that free speech also includes the speech you vehemently disagree with, justifiably or not?

Re: Make America Hate Again

#352

Post by [deleted] »

Inconel wrote: post #342
jbooth wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny, because if you express opposition to racism and someone accuses you of virtue signalling, they're basically saying "nobody believes that anti-racist stuff, you're just saying it to look good". Very illuminating.

I'm not sure how illuminating that really is. I mean I'm sure that is what some people think when accusing others of virtue signalling, but I'm fairly certain others are basically saying "hey look, here's another privileged wealthy white tech guy who mostly lives in neighborhoods filled with similar people, and went to school with similar people, and runs entire companies filled with similar people, and is mostly fri…

[deleted]

Re: Make America Hate Again

#353

Post by jadell »

makomk wrote: post #146
alistairSH wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were so, we would have to put Saudi on the ban list. Most of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi. Saudi has produced some of the world's most notorious terrorists. Do we suddenly think Saudi society has changed enough that no Saudis are prone to terrorism?

Neither American political party is interested in Saudi Arabia being on any kind of ban list for reasons of US geopolitics, and this has consistently been the case since before 9/11. Remember how difficult it was to get any kind of official confirmation Saudis were involved? Remember how they were one of the big donors to the Clinton Foundation? If not treating Saudi Arabia as a terrorist threat is proof of racism, t…

It's not so much proof of racism as it is proof that this executive order isn't actually about keeping America safe.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#354

Post by sanderjd »

rjtavares wrote: post #257
sanderjd wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my take: I'm torn between agreeing that these stories don't really belong on HN and thinking that the comments here are the only ones I ever see that still don't immediately devolve into ugly name-calling. I wish I knew of a decent political forum, but I only know of echo-chambers on one side or the other and un-civil cesspools. The politics conversations here aren't great , but they usually have some input fr…

There are some subreddits that attempt to do exactly that. I think the biggest is: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/

I'll check that out, thanks!

Re: Make America Hate Again

#355

Post by pluma »

mikeyouse wrote: post #296
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…

The tricky part about Clinton "not matching the numbers" of Obama's reelection is that she received more votes than he did. She received more votes than everyone who has ever ran for President with the exception of Obama in 2008. Nobody is claiming that Trump's win is illegitimate due to the electoral vs. popular mismatch, but it's clear that something is seriously wrong when a candidate can win an election by severa…

> something is seriously wrong when a candidate can win an election by several million votes and still lose the presidency

I'm not an American so the electoral college is completely alien to me but what you're saying is basically that you disagree with the entire point of having the electoral college.

Clinton lost in almost every state. The reason she won the popular vote (which, again, doesn't matter in the presidential election) is that she won in some of the states with the highest population, like California. Yes, this means she won more people over, but they still only represent a fraction of the demographics.

The electoral college has obvious flaws like swing states being the primary concern of candidates during much of their campaigns. But it's important to understand that without the electoral college there would be other problems, specifically the most populous states practically deciding the election.

So either way it's unfair: either it's unfair to a large portion of the overall population by putting states above people, or it's unfair to a large number of states by putting population above state rights.

It's really a question of what the US wants to be. Do you want to be an alliance of sovereign states united under a federal government, or do you want to be a singular nation with a central government that delegates to the individual states for bureaucratic reasons?

It seems a lot of Americans say they want the former but secretly think they have the latter. A weighted state-based system will always result in "undemocratic" results like the 2016 election, a direct vote will always be unfair to smaller states. You can't have it both ways.

In my opinion the electoral college should be abolished and the US elections (all of them) should be reformed in a way that no longer necessitates a two-party system but in practice state rights are an important issue to Americans.

The US motto may be "e pluribus unum" but that doesn't mean the political landscape can be treated as a homogeneous playing field.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#356

Post by _xhok »

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…

Built into what you're proposing is the assumption that everyone agrees about what constitutes hate, bigotry and racism. Which is my point: this works when convincing people who already agree with you, but not in today's violently polarized political climate.

Today, if I read an article describing someone as racist, that gets me no closer to understanding them as a person, because I have no idea what the article means by that, or if the author can be trusted to wield that word.

I realize one feels uneasy making long-winded arguments about something that seems so obvious, but that it is necessary is just a consequence of diversity of thought. There are actually people who disagree with your characterization of this order as racist or bigoted who are also sincere and thoughtful.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#357

Post by voidr »

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…

Can you point out the parts of the document that proves that it is based on "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism"?

I don't think having ad hominem as your main argument is a good strategy, look at the election results!

The reality is: more than half the people disagree, if you label them, you are dooming all chance of ever getting your way.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#358

Post by pluma »

grzm wrote: post #174
pluma wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cried as a baby the first time I was put in a group with other babies (most likely of the same color as me). I think the word you're looking for is xenophobia. And while xenophobia certainly isn't any less of a problem, calling it racism makes it sound far more grandiose than it really is. Racism is a political (and ideological) issue. Feminists define racism in terms of power dynamics. Supremacists use racism to a…

I think xenophobia is used to express something much stronger than just bias.

You're missing the point.

"Racist" is no more than an insult at this point. They way it's commonly used it is now either tautological ("Well, yeah, everyone is racist"), an accusation of racial supremacism, or something in between.

"Xenophobe" is equally tautological but xenophobia is something you can actually address. If used as an accusation, at worst it accuses someone of hatred, at best it accuses them of an unintentional bias. It doesn't accuse people of being part of a system that maliciously ruins people's lives.

Racism, sexism and so on are pathologies. Calling someone a racist is no more productive than calling them a communist. They may agree with the label or not but it doesn't express the actual problem and its cause. Even worse, it implies an intentional choice. It's political.

Xenophobia is not political. It can give birth to politics: isolationism, for example, or discrimination. But it's not in itself political or politicised.

Of course if you just go around calling people "xenophobes" to avoid saying "racist" you're not making it any better, but xenophobia simply doesn't lend itself to being used as an accusation without making a point of painting yourself as infallible (which is ridiculous).

Re: Make America Hate Again

#359

Post by croon »

rayiner wrote: post #145
kalleboo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Trump went to election on "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" [0, donaldjtrump.com] The fact that it was implemented as a ban on citizens from the most prominent Muslim-majority countries (as seen by the eyes of the average American voter, who forgot about Saudi Arabia) could be interpreted as a way for Trump to say he kept his pledge while not being instantly impeached for n…

How are those the "most prominent Muslim majority countries?" They don't have he largest Muslim populations, etc. They're a list of the most unstable Muslim-majority countries.

Which is the exact question any sane person would be asking. He says he wants to ban all Muslims entering the country. He can't ban Saudi Arabia, UAE, India, Indonesia, etc. He bans entry from a list of Muslim countries with unrest, but smaller profile, and subsequently less (almost none) terrorist export.

I'm going to use a phrase I hate, because it's almost always misused.

He is virtue signalling to his electorate.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#360

Post by grzm »

pluma wrote: post #358
grzm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think xenophobia is used to express something much stronger than just bias.

You're missing the point. "Racist" is no more than an insult at this point. They way it's commonly used it is now either tautological ("Well, yeah, everyone is racist"), an accusation of racial supremacism, or something in between. "Xenophobe" is equally tautological but xenophobia is something you can actually address. If used as an accusation, at worst it accuses someone of hatred, at best it accuses them of an uni…

Xenophobia is an intense, irrational, pathological dislike or fear, and connotes something pathological. Bias (in this case, tribalism bias) is something that's a pretty well ingrained aspect of human psychology, and something everyone has. While a common usage of bias has the connotation of something unfair, it's also used in a stricter sense to indicate these inborn aspects of the human psyche. My original comment was intended to point out this distinction. I should have taken the time to be clearer.

As for racism, sexism, and so on, or the political aspects of these, or xenophobia, those are beyond what I was addressing in my first comment, and not a mess I'm interested in digging into right now.

Post reply on HN