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

What I Heard from Trump Supporters

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 906 posts

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#341

Post by thehardsphere »

the_gastropod wrote: post #247
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…

> 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?) Some very prominent and (mostly) beloved liberals talk about these things _constantly_. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, and Salman Rushdie for example, are very…

Those people are all famous for saying controversial things. It's part of their brand. They get effectively get passes because:

1. They're famous and very successful 2. They hold enough "appropriate" beliefs that minor deviations are tolerated 3. They’re all used to death threats.

Many ordinary people don't enjoy those benefits. Like the teacher who was mentioned earlier who wanted "rule of law" and got fired for "racism." Or the owners that pizza shop in Indiana who got harassed by the entire internet for saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding, neverminding the fact that nobody would want a pizza shop to cater a wedding and that nobody was denied service at that shop.

I mean, even those two people are lucky, because their stories got famous enough to generate national media interest. What about the people who don't get interviewed by newspapers after their livelihoods are destroyed for saying the wrong thing in the wrong place?

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#342

Post by panic »

camdenlock wrote: post #248
panic wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are those the extremely important topics that need discussion? What about the people who are actually being hurt every day in America (drug addicts, prisoners, trans people, poor people...)?

They're questions with profound societal significance, and they're even more important now because of how little we've been able to discuss them openly. The dam is bursting, in other words. I don't understand your second question, but I'd be happy to reply to it if you could clarify a bit.

OK, let me put it another way: there are billions of billions of billions of possible questions we could be asking. Most of them are not things that people talk about, and that people would be confused about if you brought them up. Why are the specific questions you mention worth discussing?

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#343

Post by Bartweiss »

convoces wrote: post #236
Yhippa wrote: post #40

This one gave me the most pause: > “Silicon Valley is incredibly unwelcoming to alternative points of view. Your curiosity, if it is sincere, is the very rare exception to the rule.” Substitute "Silicon Valley" for any major liberal enclaves, like universities and cities, and I think you see the same thing. I am skeptical by nature and try to take a scientific view of new ideas. However I feel like I get shouted down…

>try to take a scientific view >People start throwing link after link of facts You get upset when people present you with links to facts to respond to your proposed ideas? I can sympathize that it is definitely no fun if you feel like your ideas aren't getting the attention they deserve, but if you have trouble defending the ideas in the face of factual sources, maybe it's possible that one could reconsider those ide…

I'm assuming "link after link" is pointing to a Courtier's Reply kind of issue - people throwing out thousands of pages of "required reading" to ensure that the bar for discussion is unreachably high. If you slog through it all and persist, they toss out another reading list instead of responding to the specific claims.

There's no good fix for this, of course. Sometimes an idea has been rebutted so often that people aren't willing to digest and summarize the links (like "people didn't come from monkeys so evolution is false!") Sometimes the answer is genuinely subtle and there is a reading list to have useful views (lots of monetary economics, or relatively subtle biology like "how could eyes arise by chance?") Sometimes a person is just so wrong it's a category error and their claim can't be rebutted because it's meaningless.

But it's also a real problem. There absolutely are people who stonewall valid points (or easily answered questions) by handing out endless obligations. And it's not particularly clear which one you're getting until you've done all the work - it's not even guaranteed that the other person is right about whether their content is relevant!

So having been handed useless books as "required reading", I hugely sympathize with the complaint. But I don't really know a good answer except "stop debating people who pull this".

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#344

Post by web007 »

> I have defended him and said things I really didn't believe or support because I was put in a defensive position.

This is amazing cognitive dissonance. This is the reason "they" are "idiots" - not because they believe what they are saying, but because they can't argue properly.

You don't have to be defensive if your position is correct, you can counter with facts. If you can't counter with facts, maybe your position is wrong.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#345

Post by mikeash »

dboreham wrote: post #21

Honestly not sure this sheds much light. Doesn't it boil down to: I always vote Republican regardless, sorry. I vote according to my pet wedge issue (usually guns or abortion), sorry. I'm bigoted and racist but I'm not going to admit to that. The alternative candidate wasn't very appealing so I figured why not? I liked the idea of a bomb-thrower, sorry.

"I'm bigoted and racist but I'm not going to admit to that."

This one always gets me. We're told, over and over again, that these people are tired of being called whatever-ist and that we should start being nice to them if we want their support.

Well, I'm sorry, but if you weren't so freakin' racist, we wouldn't keep pointing it out. If you don't want to be called sexist and ignorant, stop electing people who try to enshrine sexism in the law and have no clue about basic human biology.

Apparently we're supposed to close our eyes and ignore the huge character flaws in certain of our countrymen in the vague hope that they'll start voting for people we like if we're really nice to them. I really don't think that's a good strategy.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#346

Post by digler999 »

cylinder wrote: post #160
Yhippa wrote: post #40

This one gave me the most pause: > “Silicon Valley is incredibly unwelcoming to alternative points of view. Your curiosity, if it is sincere, is the very rare exception to the rule.” Substitute "Silicon Valley" for any major liberal enclaves, like universities and cities, and I think you see the same thing. I am skeptical by nature and try to take a scientific view of new ideas. However I feel like I get shouted down…

Same thing, even with long-time friends, if I am trying to counter their hysteria (they're reading and sharing "fake news," too, and I just want to point out the inaccuracy of their statements or test them with logic, I'm called an "alt-right fascist." Honestly, the level of discourse in this country is an absolute joke. It doesn't matter what side you are on.

> the level of discourse in this country is an absolute joke

This is the main reason I'm thankful for HN and the mods. Reading and participating in the discussions has challenged me to work on my discourse technique. Particularly with reigning in my level of emotional investment in my positions, which for me is and has been difficult.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#347

Post by cr0sh »

darkmouth wrote: post #142
Yhippa wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am a staunch liberal and I don't understand the hostility towards deportation of illegal immigrants either. Calling illegal immigrants undocumented immigrants doesn't make the illegal part go away.

Deportation probably wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't also deporting legal residents along with the "illegal" ones.

Yes - this happens. We still don't know how many Sherriff Joe and other officials in Arizona deported. It was basically a program here of "if you're brown enough, don't speak enough english, and can't produce any docs on the spot" you had a good chance of being rounded up, sent to an ICE facility, then deported. Even if you were a born-here American - just because you were of Mexican descent, and didn't learn english.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#348

Post by maxerickson »

pizzetta wrote: post #136
Exofunctor wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not vote for Trump, but I couldn't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude at the reaction of my mostly very liberal friend group to his win. For months and months, they'd been unfairly denigrating Trump supporters while simultaneously insisting that he was a joke, there was no way he would beat Clinton, etc. and somehow convincing themselves that their political ideology was synonymous with science, truth, and re…

Bill Maher said something along the same lines. That if people in the opposing camp decide they are going to objectify their opposition as one monolithic group of uncouth people that Democrats would lose in the next election --not sure about that, as the current admin may irk a number of Republicans as well, but it's worth noting that devolving to name calling and other denigrating aspects are not the most likely way…

It's quite likely that all Democrats need to do to win the next presidential election is help voters register and obtain any necessary id. Ideologically, Trump and the GOP don't have any strong numerical advantage, they won the election with better tactics and a few good news cycles.

The question is more whether there is sufficient movement (it has to start now) to take quite a lot of seats in the house in 2018. Which is the first opportunity to put a further check on the administration than is provided by the Constitution and such.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#349

Post by jat850 »

jrs235 wrote: post #310
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gets my goat is the kind of shouting down I get whenever I take any contrarian stance on non-GMO foods, or God forbid, vaccination. I know that vaccines are critical and that there is nothing wrong with them. But to not even admit the possibility that there might be a link between vaccines and some health problems is, to me, very anti-science. My understanding for science has always been to question all assumpti…

If you want to see some cognitive gear grinding and confusion, if you run into anyone that believes that vaccinations should be mandated by law, ask them "if it's my body, isn't it my choice?"

Maybe, but there's probably something to be said for social cost that make that argument somewhat less valid. Herd immunity. Seat belt and helmet laws, etc.

Note that I am not taking a position here on vaccinations or anything else, just that it's not the best point one could make (other than for some casual amusement at cognitive gear grinding and confusion).

It'd be the same as making fun of someone with anti-abortion views by saying "but death penalty lol isn't all life valuable!?" - which I am certain many have said and heard, but this type of arguing doesn't actually approach the reality behind issues and beliefs and positions.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#350

Post by randcraw »

awinder wrote: post #49
RangerScience wrote: post #2

The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club". Also, main takeaway from this? Don't attack people. It seems like that's a big complaint from the[se] people: I've been attacked for my beliefs and values.

How these people feel attacked from the left would be a very important question to ask, though. I mean, they're not walking into artisanal coffee shops and facing this every day. From Sam's account, they're living in communities where there is not a representation from the left where you'd think, oh, they face this adversarial attack every day. What I'm getting at is that if these people feel attacked because they're…

It's curious that the press (and the populace) seems to have assumed in this election that the left was not also sensitive to being attacked as a carpetbagger.

Unlike most folks on the right, I suspect a smaller fraction of folks on the left now live anywhere near where they grew up. Emigrating as most did to larger metro areas, they left friends/families behind to seek a better life within their own country, hoping to thrive in a climate where outliers and diversity are more common and better tolerated.

It's hardly a surprise that someone like Trump who has made opposition to immigration/emigration the central plank in his platform would be seen by any transient, be s/he international or intranational, as a threat.

Post reply on HN