The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It • Hacker News Board

Re: The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

#21

Post by MR4D » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 4:23 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #20

MR4D wrote: post #19

This should be downvoted as horribly misleading. This idiot is FACTUALLY and PROVABLY wrong. One instance which is easy to demonstrate is the line that the President "removed a permanent military presence from the NSC". The military is on the Council according to LAW. No president can change that. SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 Now stop repeating crap that isn't true. It takes away from real…

"removed a permanent military presence from the NSC" This is a reference to Trump downgrading the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as the director of national intelligence) from the principals committee of the NSC. Rather than attending every meeting, they'll only be asked to attend if the topic of discussion pertains to their area. They're no longer permanently in attendance: just occasionally. https://www.nytimes.com…

My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee.

Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

Re: The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

#22

Post by grzm » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 4:33 AM UTC

MR4D wrote: post #21

grzm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"removed a permanent military presence from the NSC" This is a reference to Trump downgrading the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as the director of national intelligence) from the principals committee of the NSC. Rather than attending every meeting, they'll only be asked to attend if the topic of discussion pertains to their area. They're no longer permanently in attendance: just occasionally. https://www.nytimes.com…

My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee. Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not interpreting the author in the same vein.

If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid representation of the facts", I'd be more willing to consider the rest of what you have to say.

I think his use of the word permanent is valid: they're no longer permanent members. I can understand your point of view as well. I also don't see him making the argument that doing so is against the law, or even implies that it's illegal: just that it's a significant change from the past (or, in his words "a much bigger deal). Bringing this legal aspect up as to why he's being misleading is a bit of a straw man, in my opinion.

Anyway, I find arguments made calmly and reasonably, and in good faith (of which there sometimes seems to be an ever-dwindling supply) unless there's an abundance of evidence to believe otherwise to be much more persuasive.

Re: The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

#23

Post by MR4D » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 5:05 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #22

MR4D wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee. Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not interpreting the author in the same vein. If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid representatio…

While I am frustrated with the author, I don't believe that I'm willfully represnting my position. They are still permanent members, just on a different group within the committee.

The author is putting forward what is essentially a conspiracy theory and using distorted facts for fear mongering.

Re: The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

#24

Post by MR4D » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 5:10 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #22

MR4D wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee. Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not interpreting the author in the same vein. If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid representatio…

One other thought I meant to mention. His "recommends" list links to an article that Trump is trying to stage a coup. Seriously?? Now maybe he thought it was funny, but based on _his own writing_, I doubt it.

I welcome your thoughts. (And appreciate your civil tone, which has been commendable)

Re: The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

#25

Post by grzm » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 5:26 AM UTC

MR4D wrote: post #24

grzm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not interpreting the author in the same vein. If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid representatio…

One other thought I meant to mention. His "recommends" list links to an article that Trump is trying to stage a coup. Seriously?? Now maybe he thought it was funny, but based on _his own writing_, I doubt it. I welcome your thoughts. (And appreciate your civil tone, which has been commendable)

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Unfortunately, this exchange has exhausted what was left of my good will, at least for now. It's decidedly not effort-free yet for me. The past couple of days have been particularly taxing. The last three comments I've written I've immediately deleted because they weren't up-to-snuff. I'll keep at it, though, because I think it's a very important practice to keep.

If that's something you value, and would like to further cultivate in yourself, I've got some references I rely on in my profile. I encourage you to check them out.

Cheers.

Re: The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

#26

Post by Erem » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 8:07 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #25

MR4D wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One other thought I meant to mention. His "recommends" list links to an article that Trump is trying to stage a coup. Seriously?? Now maybe he thought it was funny, but based on _his own writing_, I doubt it. I welcome your thoughts. (And appreciate your civil tone, which has been commendable)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, this exchange has exhausted what was left of my good will, at least for now. It's decidedly not effort-free yet for me. The past couple of days have been particularly taxing. The last three comments I've written I've immediately deleted because they weren't up-to-snuff. I'll keep at it, though, because I think it's a very important practice to keep. If that's something you valu…

Thanks for dropping those links, grzm. Between them and the content of your comments I have been reminded what civil disagreement is supposed to look like.

Re: The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

#27

Post by scaryspooky » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

leonroy wrote: post #18

offa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would HN recommend for a news source that is worth paying for lately?

Wondering the same thing myself. In the U.K. I can attest to the quality of The Guardian although it does get a little emotionally charged - particularly its editorials - excellent paper otherwise. The Financial Times is another excellent paper and funnily enough regarded by Noam Chomsky as the most accurate. As far as US papers go The NY Times has a pretty spotty history. It is still a very good paper, just gotta be…

Democracy Now is certainly not an unbiased news source.