What I Heard from Trump Supporters • Hacker News Board

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#171

Post by davidw » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

Yhippa wrote: post #86

gambiting wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because "alternative point of view" immediately makes me think of someone saying that global warming is fake, and yeah,I'm not willing to debate that, it's just not worth my time. I'm curious what sort of ideas you have in mind though.

Let's take illegal immigration. Is it wrong for this administration to enforce our current laws? If so maybe the laws need to be crafted to something different. While I don't agree with this administration's methodology this is probably the first time in a while I have seen the reality of our existing laws being executed and now we're seeing the effects of that. I am generally pro-immigration but I like to challenge…

General immigration reform along these lines is what's needed:

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/opinions/making-legal-immigrat...

Because the current system is really broken: see what it's like to try and immigrate, legally, from Mexico if you just want to do manual labor.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#172

Post by convoces » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

A relevant question here seems to be whether people can realize the difference between criticism and a personal attack.

It seems very common that people can't even talk about systems of inequality because simply mentioning that the status quo is unequal is often viewed as more taboo than actually perpetuating the inequality. e.g., there's no sexism in tech.

For example, when identifying institutional racism or sexism, one can be as scientific with data, but it seems that the mere act of suggesting that inequality even exists is painted as a personal attack.

Being pointed to inequality doesn't necessitate that the individual must assume that they're being attacked.

If someone tells me something, it can often mean that the mere fact they're talking to me at all is that they hope I have the capacity to self-examine and change. There isn't much reason to talk if they didn't think I would change at all. It's up to me if I want to construe it at an attack or an opportunity for learning.

Just like the election, it seems that the standard that each political side is held to is not at parity. Certainly, Hillary lacks charisma however, Trump's offenses and career have been, by a reasonable measure, more egregious than Hillary's; the bar she was held to seemed much higher during the election, yet it seemed there was nothing Trump couldn't do and still be elected. It seems that the disparity of expectations is somewhat generalizable to the larger political groups they represent.

From an outside perspective, the American right can perpetuate inequality, but the American left is barely allowed to talk about inequality.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#173

Post by skylan_q » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

kneel wrote: post #52

Trump won largely because of disenfranchised blue collar caucasians resonated with him. Watching the witch hunt over the last 2 months you would think it would be anything but that. Fake news (just call it propaganda), russian hackers, 4chan memes and white supremacists have all received the majority of blame. I'm curious to whether the Democrats will ever come to terms with reality here, or will they just double dow…

I'm curious to whether the Democrats will ever come to terms with reality here, or will they just double down and continue the blame game?

I've been following. They're doubling down on the Russia conspiracy theories, identity politics, alluding to Trump being Hitler. The party is in shambles, philosophically speaking. It's a shame. It's also ironic that Trump has pictures of President Andrew Jackson(D) in his office.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#174

Post by istorical » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #100

I moved to San Francisco from a very rural area (was working remotely from my father-in-law's farm), and there are a few things the liberals I work with simply do not understand about what's happening in "small-town America" (Disclaimer: I did not vote for Trump, and I don't consider myself a Republican). 1. People hate Hillary Clinton. Haaaate her. No, you think I'm saying they disagree with her politics, but you do…

I think your point about insurance premiums is spot on.

A $100-200/month increase isn't much when you live in a high cost of living area with higher salaries, but when you live in a low cost of living area with lower salaries, that $100-200/month might be a huge percentage change in your monthly expenditures.

People who are on employee-sponsored health plans don't understand how expensive healthcare is for low-income self-employed and low-income self-insured people.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#175

Post by giarc » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #72

golemotron wrote: post #61

It's interesting that HN is not for political discussion except when it is for political discussion.

Will you elaborate on this? What's interesting about it?

I'm not the parent commentor, but they may be referring to the fact that HN pulled all political topics for a week a while ago.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#176

Post by FeepingCreature » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

pg314 wrote: post #107

gedy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then I read a casually racist opinion from a red tribe member or hear another xenophobic policy proposed by Trump and swing right back to a. I understand and respect that - but my friends who do that seem to also turn a blind eye to riots and beatings from folks "the left". There just seems to be a lot of double standards with saying fringe wackos on one side represent the entire group, but not the the side.

There are fringe wackos on both sides, but only one of the sides had a fringe wacko as a candidate.

Considering how much flack the Democrats got for shutting down Bernie's campaign with questionable means, that was a close-run thing.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#177

Post by therpe1 » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

camdenlock wrote: post #76

None of this is particularly surprising, but it is sobering to hear it from the horse's mouth. Insane racist sexists didn't win this election for Trump; dogma did. One can no longer openly discuss certain extremely important topics (is there something inherently wrong with Islam as a belief system? Is Black Lives Matter doing good or bad things? Are women really paid less than men for performing the same work?) witho…

What's so strange is that over and over I hear comments about Islam (from the President, no less), comments about BLM and many, many comments about women working.

What's striking is the nature of these comments. Recently the Utah GOP chairman wrote a letter arguing that woman shouldn't work, that they belong in the home and this is what's "best for everybody." He was forced to resign. [1]

I wonder is this the sort of thing you're talking about?

> If you question the dogma of social justice, you will be lynched on social media and branded a bigot, a racist, a sexist, and so on.

Did you ever consider that maybe the people nobly questioning the dogma actually are bigots, racists and sexists?

Honestly that would jive much more with the evidence from Sam's experiment. And if this is the case then there's simply two deeply incompatible value systems at work here. The idea that people might have a some sort of reasonable discussion about whether women should be allowed to work or whether BLM is protesting "appropriately" while cops murder citizens with impunity is kinda... dumb?

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/...

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#178

Post by sfeng » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

Making fun of people is not a good way to learn about them or work with them. We all learn this in grade school, but we seem to forget it when we talk on Twitter or on TV. If your presupposition before entering a conversation is that the other side is crazy or stupid, you're not going to achieve any sort of real communication.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#179

Post by djaychela » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

droopybuns wrote: post #68

jacobolus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Trump didn’t write any of his own books, and hasn’t read a whole book in decades (including the ones he puts his name on), why would reading “his” book give an accurate impression of his ideas, vs. just listening directly to the source (his tweets and campaign rallies)? Anything “coherent”/“nuanced”/“subtle” is the invention of the ghostwriter, a kind of best-guess translation from word salad to something…

When all politicians rely on speech writers, what is the point you are making? The result is the same: someone was commissioned to draft statements that the speaker endorses.

While that's true, I think the two don't compare in terms of degree. Trump's off-the-cuff speech (or answers to questions I saw the other day in a press conference) is drastically different to something a speech writer would create. I don't think that's the case with Obama, or a raft of world leaders.

As a parallel, I know very little about programming. But I could have a ghost writer create a book that I would endorse by agreeing with the general premise (let's say it was a "learn Python from the start the right way" book), and a book of the same quality could have been ghost written for one of the many incredibly talented people on here. The quality of the books would be similar, but if you asked them or me anything about programming, you'd get a good answer from them, and a complete pile of old tosh from me!

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#180

Post by rpearl » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

shklnrj wrote: post #33

dwringer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's an inaccurate assessment. If someone at such a show holds a minority viewpoint and doesn't want to be the only person clapping, that is up to them. I have never seen a contemporary domestic example of the attitude you describe, of someone like that being "seen as a criminal", except at Donald Trump rallies.

Well there were widespread calls by people to push even Peter Thiel out of silicon valley positions which he holds just because he supported a candidate. His fault - He supported a guy publicly! Even he was seen as criminal. Forget about the average Joe. That's why people wanted confidentiality agreements!

> He supported a guy publicly!

...You can't just talk about the abstract notion of "supporting" "a guy". A specific thing happened, not the generalized notion of "publicly supporting a candidate".

Is he not subject to criticism for his political positions? Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions?