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

Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

blogs.intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 420 posts

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#301

Post by humanrebar »

croon wrote: post #203
humanrebar wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty other examples. I just picked one. The Damore and Eich cases. The professor at the University of Missouri. The assault of Charles Murray.

The Damore who denied interviews with internationally renowned news organisations to go on Youtube with alt-right crazy Stefan Molyneux? The Damore who sourced real science in an effort to try to legitimize his own non-sequitor opinions in a memo? The Damore who made a t-shirt comparing a company with snack bars, lego corners, project choice and hundreds of thousands of dollar salaries with communist forced labor cam…

Damore was fired by left-wing people for his beliefs. I don't think that's controversial. I think if there's not room to discuss issues with someone like Damore (and, sure, show him to be a fool if warranted) or to work in a professional capacity with Eich (likewise), the left has an extremism problem.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#302

Post by freehunter »

tptacek wrote: post #276
freehunter wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but if you’re sitting here defending Trump’s record on civil rights or white supremacy, you are not in any way a “moderate”. That is far-right extremism, and no, it’s not character assassination. Trump supports Nazis. That a not a moderate position to take.

This horrible thread is a perfect example of why HN users should reliably and diligently flag pure political stories like this one.

Agreed. I sleep much more comfortably not knowing the (sometimes extreme) political views of my fellow hackers.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#303

Post by hsod »

humanrebar wrote: post #268
op00to wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of "disliking" Trump if they don't get rid of him?

Well, Cruz didn't exactly throw in the towel and become a fan. And there's always next time.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-don...

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#304

Post by grasshopperpurp »

talmand wrote: post #265
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A group asking police not to kill them in such great numbers should be grouped with white supremacists? Do you really believe that?

Which part of the group? The part that calls for an end to violence or the part that openly calls for violence against police officers? Lumping people into groups often times hides the positives and negatives of individuals.

Crooked police should be combated; police who do not stop crooked police should be combated.

But, you seem to, at least, acknowledge that BLM has positive aspects. What positive aspects are there to white supremacists?

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-inve...

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#305

Post by pavlov »

humanrebar wrote: post #180
pavlov wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So things that seem rather moderate to a European (nationalising some industry) is a brand new thing in the American context. When was the last time an entire industry was nationalized in Europe? I can't even think of a post-WWII example off the top of my head. (I'm sure there are examples, considering the success of Communist parties in some West European countries in the decade after 1945.) It's true that there are…

The confusion here is basically my point. I'll simplify. Scalia, a very conservative Supreme Court Justice, said burning the American flag is a right. And he made a right wing case for that. And it's not controversial on the right. In contrast, speech restrictions are popular on both the left and right in Europe. It's more about whose you like better. In the healthcare debate, the American right argued that the natio…

To me, these are both examples of what I earlier called "tweaks" rather than fundamental differences.

So Scalia agreed that you're allowed to burn a flag in America. That's great -- but how did this ever even become a Supreme Court case? If you burn a flag in Sweden or France, nobody would think to sue you. The fact that this freedom had to be weighed at the highest possible level shows that Americans have serious blind points around their perception of freedom. Similarly, European countries have individual historical taboos on speech, such as the ban on Nazi symbols in Germany.

In the US healthcare debate, the right's constitutional argument seems to revolve around Obamacare's individual mandate -- but that's just is a clumsy artifact of how the system was overlaid on existing pseudo-private healthcare systems. With a properly designed tax-funded public healthcare system, the problem would go away.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#306

Post by grasshopperpurp »

mantas wrote: post #297
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/why-cant-they-protest-peacefully-o...

Exactly. Why? We managed to get out of fuckin USSR without violent protests. Civil protests and engaging in politics is awesome. But not as easy and fun as smashing shit. Act like idiots = be treated like idiots.

The point of that is to show that white people in America are not happy with any form of protest from black people.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#307

Post by grasshopperpurp »

fastball wrote: post #294
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misses the point. The point is that America an extreme-right country. The Democrats are the moderate Right - like the Republicans used to be - and the Republicans are way Right. Removing the context of what it means to be Left or Right - by accepted standards - makes no sense.

Or Europe has a lot of extreme left countries and the US is centre-right? What in the world are "accepted standards"?

OK, yeah, sure. It's everyone else. Good point.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#308

Post by stevenh »

philk10 wrote: post #286
stevenh wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who did he retweet?

Jack Posobiec - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec

http://i.imgur.com/iFPB5my.jpg

The wikipedia article also suggests they don't like each other at all:

>Posobiec organized a "Rally Against Political Violence" in Washington, D.C. on June 25, 2017. Richard Spencer ridiculed the event and called it "pathetic".

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#309

Post by mantas »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #306
mantas wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Why? We managed to get out of fuckin USSR without violent protests. Civil protests and engaging in politics is awesome. But not as easy and fun as smashing shit. Act like idiots = be treated like idiots.

The point of that is to show that white people in America are not happy with any form of protest from black people.

I know

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#310

Post by AnthonyMouse »

matt4077 wrote: post #207
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's try it this way: This is not about some general vague problem with "extremism" of which supposedly all sides are guilty. This is about the emergence of an Islamic terrorist movement which has already committed several attacks. When your first reaction to this is to to bring in some unspecified crimes of the US, then this calls into question whether you understand the seriousness of the situation. There is a rea…

The difference is that the President, qua office, is the leader of the society that these white supremacists hail from. For islam, he is an outsider. Obama's rational for his decision is widely known: That the criticism of an outsider, denouncing their culture as extremism and terrorism will, in the ears of even the most progressive, secular muslim, only be understood as an insult, and will therefore only lead to fur…

> The difference is that the President, qua office, is the leader of the society that these white supremacists hail from. For islam, he is an outsider.

The problem with Obama's argument isn't that it's wrong, it's that it's all too symmetrical. Trump was barely accepted by the Republicans -- he's from New York. He's the outsider.

And Democrats have been doing a motte and bailey thing with racism for years, where denouncing racism is the motte and redefining racism to mean anything they disagree with is the bailey.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

So on one hand, anyone who e.g. believes there should be equality of opportunity but accepts that it may not lead to equality of outcomes, or doesn't support unlimited immigration, or voted for Trump, is labeled a white supremacist. On the other hand, everyone is required to overtly denounce white supremacists, even though we just got through telling anyone who voted for Trump that they are a white supremacist.

Post reply on HN