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

401–410 of 420 posts

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#401

Post by zimpenfish »

madengr wrote: post #357
cpr wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump did disavow the white supremacists. Not fast enough for them?

It amazes me that the media & democrats still have not figured out how shrewd Trump is. The aforementioned consider themselves intellectuals, and Trump the buffoon. Trump has a hell of a track record turning everything they say against them. He is is REALLY shrewd. They keep playing by his rules, and end up with egg on their faces. Maybe the'll figure out not to fall for playing his game. I find it all quite entertai…

> how shrewd Trump is

He really isn't. He's everyone's impotent racist bigoted grandparent railing against the iniquities of the modern world because he doesn't understand that the world has moved on from 19th century plantations. The man is a demonstrable idiot who has achieved little off his own bat.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#402

Post by grasshopperpurp »

itbeho wrote: post #400
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're defending white supremacists, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective.

Let's stop ignoring violence when it suits our own political agenda and start condemning it wherever it occurs. Racism has no place in our society and violent acts only fuel it. Pointing that out doesn't imply someone is "defending white supremacists".

Of course someone who responds to violence by white supremacists by saying, 'But what about those lefties,' is implicitly defending white supremacists.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#403

Post by talmand »

freehunter wrote: post #379
talmand wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice speech, but I have not claimed that they have not changed positions over the years. I am disagreeing with the notion of the "switch" that supposedly happened in response to the Democrats changing some of their positions. Both parties have altered their message and platform over the years for various reasons.

>the "switch" that supposedly happened in response to the Democrats changing some of their positions But no one argued that. No one argued that the Democrats changed so the Republicans said "oh man, guess we have to switch too". It was a gradual shift over decades to the point where Democrats are now the civil rights party when they used to be the pro-slavery party and the Republicans are now the party of holding bac…

>> Democrats and Republicans, through decades of policy shifts, now represent views they have historically been against.

That's the part I'm disagreeing with. I'm not arguing against a "sudden switch" as you put it. I'm arguing against the entire notion that the two parties switched at all, be it suddenly or over decades. The two parties have adjusted over time to their needs over the years to the point that, fundamentally, they are not that much different other than their fringe elements, which does not define them as a whole.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#404

Post by zimpenfish »

makomk wrote: post #238
justin66 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. The "lone wolf" moniker has something to do with the proximity to and coordination with other wolves. When a white supremacist commits homicide at a w…

The guy wasn't at the rally at the time, if I recall correctly it may have even been called off hours earlier, and no evidence of coordination has been discovered. On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail, with the attackers in communication with their handlers right up until the attacks - including car attackers like Khalid Masood.…

> The guy wasn't at the rally at the time

He was photographed marching with Vanguard Of America[1] carrying a Vanguard shield shortly before his attack with the car.

[1] Who are now desperately disavowing any knowledge of him

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#405

Post by DanBC »

makomk wrote: post #238
justin66 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. The "lone wolf" moniker has something to do with the proximity to and coordination with other wolves. When a white supremacist commits homicide at a w…

The guy wasn't at the rally at the time, if I recall correctly it may have even been called off hours earlier, and no evidence of coordination has been discovered. On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail, with the attackers in communication with their handlers right up until the attacks - including car attackers like Khalid Masood.…

> On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail

Completely untrue.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#406

Post by cyphar »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #399
yellowapple wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd." But they were (among) the ones who showed up with baseball bats, clubs, and mace (and even a few guns). It's not like the protesters were the only ones ready for a fight. "Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd." That happened well after there had been a lot of fighting already.

When you're defending white supremacists, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective.

When you're defending any form of offensive violence, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective.

This all comes back to the whole "punch a Nazi" trope that was thrown around during the Berkeley riots. Assaulting someone for their political views is reprehensible, no matter what their views are. If a white supremacist is attacked at a protest, that is just as much of an issue as when a counter-protester is attacked.

If you use that card against the white supremacists, what are you going to if the pendulum swings? If you're okay with using violence against your political opponents, you don't have a leg to stand on when they retaliate and use violence against you.

My family comes from a country that was ruled by a communist dictatorship, and the very concept of "violence is justified against your opponents" is disgusting to me. We saw enough of that bullshit before we left. It's sad that discourse has devolved to this level.

All of that being said, discussion of "violence on all sides" is contingent on there actually being violence on all sides in the particular event. As I said in GP, I am not entirely aware of all of the relevant evidence.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#407

Post by grasshopperpurp »

talmand wrote: post #318
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Sorry, I don't play the game of false equivalence by comparing opposing groups. Especially in today's political and social climate.

Then what are you saying? I posted a screenshot of this conversation below.

1. Poster asks about other poster's position on the groups in question. 2. Other poster says, 'Pure cancer. All of them.' 3. I ask if poster is really equating groups like BLM to white supremacists. 4. You ask which part of the group. 5. I ask you what positive aspects can we attribute to white supremacists - since you seemed to be backing the guy grouping them together. 6. You say you don't compare opposing groups.

So, why did you respond to the 3rd reply listed above with the 4th reply? If you don't want to compare groups, why are you injecting yourself into a conversation comparing groups?

https://image.prntscr.com/image/4uCX51xFThaPUQ_HS-zinQ.png

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#408

Post by grasshopperpurp »

cyphar wrote: post #406
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're defending white supremacists, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective.

When you're defending any form of offensive violence, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective. This all comes back to the whole "punch a Nazi" trope that was thrown around during the Berkeley riots. Assaulting someone for their political views is reprehensible, no matter what their views are. If a white supremacist is attacked at a protest, that is just as much of an issue as when a counter-prot…

This is exactly the way the white supremacists want you to think. They want you to normalize them and say, 'All violence is bad - from either side.'

"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

#409

Post by cyphar »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #408
cyphar wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're defending any form of offensive violence, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective. This all comes back to the whole "punch a Nazi" trope that was thrown around during the Berkeley riots. Assaulting someone for their political views is reprehensible, no matter what their views are. If a white supremacist is attacked at a protest, that is just as much of an issue as when a counter-prot…

This is exactly the way the white supremacists want you to think. They want you to normalize them and say, 'All violence is bad - from either side.' "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…

All authoritarian, violent actors want you to think that violence (especially of the preemptive variety) is justified for their particular set of ideals. The viewpoint discussed in that MLK quote is not my viewpoint, he talks about people who are against violence even in the instance of retaliation.

I am all for equivalent response when it comes to a conflict, but "punch a Nazi" et al was about preemptively escalating a political discourse to physical violence. That's what my whole disagreement was with. As you can see in my original comment, I effectively said that if it's the case that the violence was initiated by the white supremacist protesters (which the initial evidence appeared to indicate) then counter-protester violence was justified.

Re: Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council

#410

Post by ygaf »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #408
cyphar wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're defending any form of offensive violence, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective. This all comes back to the whole "punch a Nazi" trope that was thrown around during the Berkeley riots. Assaulting someone for their political views is reprehensible, no matter what their views are. If a white supremacist is attacked at a protest, that is just as much of an issue as when a counter-prot…

This is exactly the way the white supremacists want you to think. They want you to normalize them and say, 'All violence is bad - from either side.' "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…

Law and order bring us the closest to justice. This "negative peace" is just the absence of perfect justice.
Post reply on HN