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

Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 270 posts

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#261

Post by chillwaves »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #84
chillwaves wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177

There is a difference between "suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment" and "tells people to drink bleach". There are many possible treatments being suggested for covid, but that doesn't mean you should try them until they are confirmed to work.

Is there a difference in the outcome? I'm pretty sure that it's not a good idea to inject bleach, but I'm no doctor.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#262

Post by bbrree66 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #196
blackflame7000 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this work for you? https://streamable.com/sr9o2s Edit: People on this forum need to stop being so cultish. Downvoting this doesn’t change the reality that it directly kills your narrative.

No, though it's a better reply to my comment elsewhere in the thread where I said Trump doesn't actually condemn white supremacy. The handful of examples in the video that are post-Charlottesville are a nice start, but they've clearly ended up being lip service. He says "I condemn white supremacy" and then goes back to race-baiting at his rally just days ago. [0] Also, it doesn't kill the narrative. It's entirely con…

See this is what I'm talking about. Can you not see your confirmation bias?

1. Ask for proof 2. Get proof 3. Call it "lip service"

This means that no matter what Trump says, you will say its disingenuous. Do you see how that can be problematic?

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#263

Post by GavinMcG »

bbrree66 wrote: post #262
GavinMcG wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, though it's a better reply to my comment elsewhere in the thread where I said Trump doesn't actually condemn white supremacy. The handful of examples in the video that are post-Charlottesville are a nice start, but they've clearly ended up being lip service. He says "I condemn white supremacy" and then goes back to race-baiting at his rally just days ago. [0] Also, it doesn't kill the narrative. It's entirely con…

See this is what I'm talking about. Can you not see your confirmation bias? 1. Ask for proof 2. Get proof 3. Call it "lip service" This means that no matter what Trump says, you will say its disingenuous. Do you see how that can be problematic?

No, I can see what you mean. The problem is with your claim that no matter what he says I'll say it's disingenuous. That's not true.

I do have reasons to believe Trump is disingenuous. (And if you don't see those, that's your own confirmation bias at play.) But if Trump consistently refused to say racist things and proactively worked to address racial injustice, I'd absolutely believe those statements!

Instead, you've got a huge number of examples of Trump being racist and a handful of examples of him saying the words when a reporter presses him. But where's Trump's Philadelphia speech? What did he have to say about John Lewis's legacy? Where is his leadership on addressing the pain and poverty of Black families?

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#264

Post by blackflame7000 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #257
blackflame7000 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws thinking they were going to making things better? Honest question, are you high or just incredibly naive? Secondly, in 1860s republicans freed the slaves and in 1960s they passed civil rights despite democrats voting against it. Thats 100 years of progress so what are you talking about? What did the democrats do other than burn crosses? E…

> So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws No, the people who still supported the KKK and the ideology behind Jim Crow laws switched major parties, if they were associated with a major party, from the Democrats to the Republicans between the late mid-1960s and the mid-1990s, because of disaffection with the Democrats (initially particularly President Johnson) backing civil right…

This theory is garbage because it totally forgets that REPUBLICANS passed the civil rights act and were still overwhelmingly less racist than their democratic counterparts. What you are saying is the equivalent of AOC voting for Trump because the party isnt radical enough. It’s a lie. Its always been a lie. Thats why democrat run cities since that day are some of the most destitute for black people. Democrats use them and its sickening. I’m a republican and I abhor any sort of racism. There are a lot more of me than you think and well find-out in November. One thing is for sure, Stop fighting hate with hate

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#265

Post by blackflame7000 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #254
blackflame7000 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws thinking they were going to making things better? Honest question, are you high or just incredibly naive? Secondly, in 1860s republicans freed the slaves and in 1960s they passed civil rights despite democrats voting against it. Thats 100 years of progress so what are you talking about? What did the democrats do other than burn crosses? E…

The idea of "winning" a conversation is screwed up from the get-go. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. The House and Senate were both Democratically controlled. Saying that Republicans passed civil rights because there were 18 Southern Bloc Democrats who fought it in the Senate is just lying about the facts.

Based on the percentages it's blatantly obvious which party was more in favor of civil rights for minorities, Republicans. So why would the Racist democrats, the ones that voted no, want to join the party that was much more unanimous than the party in which they currently reside? What you are saying is like Nancy Pelosi becoming a republican because Trump became a democrat. It's absurd. You've been taught a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#266

Post by bbrree66 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #263
bbrree66 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this is what I'm talking about. Can you not see your confirmation bias? 1. Ask for proof 2. Get proof 3. Call it "lip service" This means that no matter what Trump says, you will say its disingenuous. Do you see how that can be problematic?

No, I can see what you mean. The problem is with your claim that no matter what he says I'll say it's disingenuous. That's not true. I do have reasons to believe Trump is disingenuous. (And if you don't see those, that's your own confirmation bias at play.) But if Trump consistently refused to say racist things and proactively worked to address racial injustice, I'd absolutely believe those statements! Instead, you'v…

That's literally exactly what happened. Why even ask? What response could you have possibly gotten that would have changed your mind?

I have seen a ton of examples where people think trump is being racist, then I see them, and he's clearly not. I am 100% open to changing my mind, racism is terrible. Please provide specific and clear examples. Calling everything racism really weakens the argument.

You also provide another example of your clouded judgement: "and a handful of examples of him saying the words when a reporter presses him." This type of thinking shows that you just want to confirm your pre-existing idea that he is a racist. When he then says he is not, you say "oh he really is, he was just saying that because he had to". That means there is no possible thing he can do to change your mind.

As I said above, if someone can provide specific examples, and not just of behaviors they don't like but of how they are actually racist, I am more than happy to denounce him. Also, in case you missed it, under Trump (pre-Covid), black unemployment was at an all time low.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#267

Post by GavinMcG »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #265
GavinMcG wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of "winning" a conversation is screwed up from the get-go. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. The House and Senate were both Democratically controlled. Saying that Republicans passed civil rights because there were 18 Southern Bloc Democrats who fought it in the Senate is just lying about the facts.

Based on the percentages it's blatantly obvious which party was more in favor of civil rights for minorities, Republicans. So why would the Racist democrats, the ones that voted no, want to join the party that was much more unanimous than the party in which they currently reside? What you are saying is like Nancy Pelosi becoming a republican because Trump became a democrat. It's absurd. You've been taught a lie. http…

Okay... why did a Republican, nominee of the party "more in favor of civil rights for minorities," vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? And why did Nixon, a Republican, follow his lead in the following election, emphasizing law and order, an end to protests, and a war on drugs? Why did Strom Thurmond, a Democrat, join the Republican party?

You can't have it both ways!

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#268

Post by GavinMcG »

bbrree66 wrote: post #266
GavinMcG wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I can see what you mean. The problem is with your claim that no matter what he says I'll say it's disingenuous. That's not true. I do have reasons to believe Trump is disingenuous. (And if you don't see those, that's your own confirmation bias at play.) But if Trump consistently refused to say racist things and proactively worked to address racial injustice, I'd absolutely believe those statements! Instead, you'v…

That's literally exactly what happened. Why even ask? What response could you have possibly gotten that would have changed your mind? I have seen a ton of examples where people think trump is being racist, then I see them, and he's clearly not. I am 100% open to changing my mind, racism is terrible. Please provide specific and clear examples. Calling everything racism really weakens the argument. You also provide ano…

I did provide some examples at the end of the post. He could honor people doing racial justice work, rather than attacking them. He could stop stoking fear of immigrants and tell the truth about them, which is that they tend to be more educated and more determined than average. He could insist on full investigations of police violence toward black people, rather than equivocating. But he doesn't actually do substantive work on race.

So yeah, I call it lip service.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#269

Post by bbrree66 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #268
bbrree66 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally exactly what happened. Why even ask? What response could you have possibly gotten that would have changed your mind? I have seen a ton of examples where people think trump is being racist, then I see them, and he's clearly not. I am 100% open to changing my mind, racism is terrible. Please provide specific and clear examples. Calling everything racism really weakens the argument. You also provide ano…

I did provide some examples at the end of the post. He could honor people doing racial justice work, rather than attacking them. He could stop stoking fear of immigrants and tell the truth about them, which is that they tend to be more educated and more determined than average. He could insist on full investigations of police violence toward black people, rather than equivocating. But he doesn't actually do substanti…

Thanks for the response! This really shows the lack of clarity in your thinking. We can review each item quickly:

1. He could honor people doing racial justice work - Does not doing this make someone a racist? Silly. Also, here is a direct quote from February 2020 (see how I use actual evidence) "We’re here with some of the black leaders of our country and — people that are highly respected and people that have done a fantastic job and, for the most part, have been working on this whole situation with me right from the beginning." Does that sound like something a racist would say?

2. He could stop stoking fear of immigrants - This is not a specific example.

3. He could insist on full investigations of police violence toward black people - This isn't the responsibility of the president. If he got involved in police business people would say he is overreaching. This is again a subjective thing you "feel" he could do. The agencies that are supposed to be involved are.

I try to stick with concrete facts to base my opinions on. This has been a great example where you really want to think he's racist because of what you see in the media but have so far provided 0 objective evidence for your claim.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#270

Post by GavinMcG »

bbrree66 wrote: post #269
GavinMcG wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did provide some examples at the end of the post. He could honor people doing racial justice work, rather than attacking them. He could stop stoking fear of immigrants and tell the truth about them, which is that they tend to be more educated and more determined than average. He could insist on full investigations of police violence toward black people, rather than equivocating. But he doesn't actually do substanti…

Thanks for the response! This really shows the lack of clarity in your thinking. We can review each item quickly: 1. He could honor people doing racial justice work - Does not doing this make someone a racist? Silly. Also, here is a direct quote from February 2020 (see how I use actual evidence) "We’re here with some of the black leaders of our country and — people that are highly respected and people that have done…

Yes, it does sound like something many racists say. You treat "racist" like it only means someone who uses racial epithets. That's the tip of the iceberg. Looking at how people empower and disempower those of other races is the far more substantial and important measure.

I am laughing at your dismissal as "not a specific example". I linked to a very recent one upthread, and many many more are easily available and uncontroverted. He talked up a Muslim ban and campaigned on building a wall. You are being willfully blind on this one.

It absolutely is the responsibility of the president. He leads and sets the tone. He has influence over, for example, Daniel Cameron, and used it to encourage a lack of police accountability. He can control grant programs and discretionary spending in the area of policing. The DoJ can investigate police departments as part of their public integrity work, and has done historically little of that under this administration. And instead of calling Black Lives Matter a "symbol of hate" for reacting to a problem that his own Attorney General acknowledges (that there is systemic bias against black people in policing) he could press Congress and state leaders to address the issue.

Post reply on HN