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

Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 486 posts

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#401

Post by simonsarris »

jlebar wrote: post #396
simonsarris wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there are plenty of rational reasons one might want to restrict immigration by country, as even Gwern has gone over before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13859767 > immigrant outcomes differ by orders of magnitude by country and that this has considerable implications for the immigration debate and that many of the arguments made by the left for illegal immigration & open borders range from ignorant to…

> Instead, we can barely talk about it. Is your contention that the main thing about the election of Trump that upset the people in this video that he took a cooly rational stance against some forms of immigration? Banning all Muslims -- including citizens and visa holders -- from entering the country does not seem to be aligned with this position. Saying that a judge was unqualified to do his job because of where hi…

No, my contention is that people who want to talk about immigration often get a response sidetracked with talking about Trump & co and whatever their positions are, instead of talking about immigration.

(Or worse, lumping any positions into support for whatever they're doing.)

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#402

Post by OxO4 »

nailer wrote: post #389
danharaj wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what?

I find it hard to believe you couldn't think of a reason to not support mass migration other than 'racism', but Sweden let around a million people into a country of 10 million in an unmanaged fashion which is causing a lot of social issues? Germany where Angela Merkel let in 5 million people and the CDU lost a huge amount of support after similar things happened?

50 million people? Germany has a total population of 80 million, so something is definitely off with your numbers. What kind of "social issues" have immigrants caused in Sweden?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#403

Post by OxO4 »

qwerty11111 wrote: post #358
danharaj wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what?

Obviously controversial, but this could be one of the reasons some may fear immigration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...

So because of one example, you are attributing criminal behavior to a whole group of people? Sounds like textbook racism to me.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#404

Post by danharaj »

nailer wrote: post #389
danharaj wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what?

I find it hard to believe you couldn't think of a reason to not support mass migration other than 'racism', but Sweden let around a million people into a country of 10 million in an unmanaged fashion which is causing a lot of social issues? Germany where Angela Merkel let in 5 million people and the CDU lost a huge amount of support after similar things happened?

Quantify those issues. At the scale of millions of people (I'm going to assume your 50 million was a typo, not that you're innumerate or gullible), one must quantify.

If 100 people out of 100,000 who migrate cause problems, and they are all fleeing intolerable living conditions, then the only reasonable way you can say that all 100,000 should be shut out is if you value the welfare of the 99,900 so low that it is outweighed by the social harm caused by the 100 even after taking into account the benefits of migration.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#405

Post by amanaplanacanal »

malandrew wrote: post #262
comesee wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that conservatively biased media is necessarily either stupid or cynically manipulative. Bastards is a strong word. Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why?

The National Review and the American Conservative are two examples of news sources that lean conservative whose writers and audience are intelligent, decent persons genuinely holding conservative beliefs.

I realized a bit ago that my news intake was from almost entirely left wing sources, so I started adding The American Conservative. I agree. Good site, and the comments are moderated, so they don't head straight into the sewer that other sites do.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#406

Post by mc32 »

dzdt wrote: post #398
mc32 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20, 30 years ago many of the same people clamoring for open borders now were speaking against globalization, corporate imperialism, cultural imperialism, but speaking for and on behalf of the cause of American workers who were being swapped out for offshoring, etc. But now the credo is open borders and strong companies which can stand against nation states and dictate values.... It’s as if the political magnetosphere…

Who is clamoring for open borders? I don't know of any prominent examples of political figures who take that position, just examples where their opponents falsely characterise the position as "open borders".

The ptogressive base makes arguments for it. They make arguments against ICE, make arguments agaist enforcing immigration laws, make arguments for “sanctuary cities”. What other country, even poor countries who, for consistency’s sake, should espouse such policy had such policies? Most othet countries I’ve been to the police have the power to deport; depening on case, on the spot. I have known of people who worked abroad who were given hours to arrange for their stuff and get out after staying beyond their visas.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#407

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rsj_hn wrote: post #51
gizmo686 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment does not prevent Google (or any other company) from restricting speech. That is a very low bar. The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of government…

That's a bit of a strawman, since the OP didn't talk about the first amendment but about "free speech". Free Speech is a principle coming from the enlightenment of which the first amendment is one expression, but certainly not the only expression. The idea is that speech should be tolerated even if you disagree with it, and that societies that make room for controversial speech are better off, in the long run, than s…

Yes but. It seems to me that forcing somebody to say what you want them to say is a much larger infringement on free speech than preventing them from speaking. Who should be telling Google, or anybody else for that matter, what they have to say? I have heard people suggest that Twitter, Facebook, or Google de-platforming people is an abrogation of free speech, but it seem to me that it would be a worse abrogation if you didn't allow them to do that. Should we pass laws to force the New York Times to print certain articles? That would seem a worse outcome for free speech than what we have now.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#409

Post by jayd16 »

hjrnunes wrote: post #274
jayd16 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "Update the wiki" I do also mean "sure just do the work yourself." We're saying the same thing. That said, fighting against things you claim to have no preference over you're also partaking in the same control/power trip shenanigans. That's when things really go off the rails.

Not really. It's not the particular choice of words that bothers people. It's the fact that they either have to submit to the frivolous power-trippers or die on a hill they don't particularly want to, in this case defending the word 'slave'. You're saying they should just submit, despite the fact that they realise the whole point of it all just is their submission. In other words, submit to the bully because, otherwi…

The rub is you really don't know what their motivation is. You can suspect but if they're willing to put in the all the work, it costs you nothing.

Going on some crusade for no gain or loss and only to deny someone else is just whipping up drama. If you have legitimate complaints, make them.

This doesn't have anything to do with politics. Any argument based around "I don't care so you shouldn't either" is bound to cause issues.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#410

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rsj_hn wrote: post #69
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations seem like they have a comical level of hypocrisy, until you realize that corporations are in it for the money, and will almost always take the most profitable position for them in any given debate. For instance, you will see strong calls to regulate businesses they have to interact with, while actively fighting against regulation of themselves, even on the same issues.

Yes, corporations are in it for the money, and they are hypocrites, etc. I don't think most people have a problem with that (except maybe those who think corporations are moral agents), but what's been happening recently is very concerning: 1. Corporations, always wanting to appeal to younger voters because brand loyalty is sticky, naturally try to position themselves externally as hip/woke/whatever. That means espou…

Can you give us some examples of number 2 happening? Because all I've heard about is those companies removing people who are whipping up their followers to abuse somebody. It is possible that there are examples of them removing people who are merely expressing conservative values, but I haven't seen it yet.
Post reply on HN