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

How the US Legalized Corruption

indica.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#71

Post by DaniloDias »

rbanffy wrote: post #61
DaniloDias wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child argues that the reason their argument is valid is because it makes others uncomfortable.

Would you like to explore the reasons why it's uncomfortable to you to discuss it? I'm fine with it.

I’m not uncomfortable at all. Largely due to education and professional experience.

The people who are the most agitated by this argument are poor and white. The only people who take your argument seriously are too stupid to recognize that dumb people can believe dumb things and it doesn’t affect them.

Yelling “white privilege” at 19 year old dumbasses in manual labor who barely get by is not a productive strategy.

Trolling IRL is the privilege of assholes and narcissists.

So feel free to discuss. Start by defining the words “empathy” and “sympathy”.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#72

Post by jpambrun »

jayd16 wrote: post #7

Seems like an overly simplistic take. How do you have any form of political donation without it being labeled a bribe under this way thinking? I'm for much harder reforms on political money but this article is surface level at best.

In Quebec company can't contribute at all and citizens can contribute only up to 100$/yr/party. Pretty much everybody is happy with that.

In this frame of reference, the US political system does look extremely corrupted.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#73

Post by LordDragonfang »

disposekinetics wrote: post #65
LordDragonfang wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a month ago people stormed the capitol carrying the flag of traitors to the state who rebelled over the fear they might no longer be able to own black people as slaves. It's not historical, there are still plenty of ( white, male [1]) people in this country who would still support things like that. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/...

I accept that, this is still unrelated to the article.

At what point does "this country has a lot of foundational issues with racism and specifically white supremacy in politics" become relevant to an article about politics?

This point is that the kind of people that are accepting "bribes", as the author calls them, are overwhelmingly white men. Yes, you could say that that's just be because the majority of appointees to relevant positions are white. But that author is implicitly pointing out that maybe the fact that they're mostly white is actually relevant to the discussion.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#74

Post by flashgordon »

CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #3

Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.

Exactly there was absolutely no need to invoke "whiteness" for the corruption to apply to anybody. Even simply saying "corporations/groups/etc" would have sufficed and may even have been more potent. Instead the article just ended up polarizing the audience on race lines. Sigh!

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#75

Post by 29083011397778 »

wpietri wrote: post #68
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Both viable candidates are guilty. We can’t elect a third party candidate. And if you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.

This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. That seems like an extreme claim.

And assumes that you're a single-issue voter, and that this is the issue that decides your vote. Not abortion, women's rights, gun rights, tax policy, crime (and punishment for crime) policies, environmental policies, fiscal and economical policies, and more.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#76

Post by astkaasa »

alexfromapex wrote: post #6
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #3

Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.

Yeah same really abruptly made me want to stop reading. Imagine switching out white people with another race and it’s blatant racism.

I guess replacing "white" with "Chinese" is a good idea. Another option is "Russian".

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#77

Post by wpietri »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #69
wpietri wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. That seems like an extreme claim.

> This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. No, thats irrelevant. The relevant factor is which viable candidates have accepted contributions. And the answer is “all of them.” The part where one of the guys accepting bribes tells you “I’m opposed to bribes” is marketing.

That's definitely not true. Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform.

Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#78

Post by wpietri »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #73
disposekinetics wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accept that, this is still unrelated to the article.

At what point does "this country has a lot of foundational issues with racism and specifically white supremacy in politics" become relevant to an article about politics? This point is that the kind of people that are accepting "bribes", as the author calls them, are overwhelmingly white men. Yes, you could say that that's just be because the majority of appointees to relevant positions are white. But that author is i…

Definitely. If anything has unique features, it's worth asking if there's some relationship.

The strain of white supremacy running through America's history is willing to do absolutely anything to maintain power. Things like the Wilmington Coup and the Tulsa Race Massacre and all of the Jim Crow violence make that very clear.

It's possible that has absolutely nothing to do with America's legalized bribery. But if somebody wants to make that claim, they're going to have to argue it. It isn't a given. And given that the Citizens United decision, which legalized even more bribery, was supported by the judges appointed by the much whiter party, they're going to have to bring a fair bit of evidence to it.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#79

Post by chordalkeyboard »

wpietri wrote: post #77
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. No, thats irrelevant. The relevant factor is which viable candidates have accepted contributions. And the answer is “all of them.” The part where one of the guys accepting bribes tells you “I’m opposed to bribes” is marketing.

That's definitely not true. Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible.

> Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform.

They’ve no doubt received campaign contributions and remember those when they propose changes to the law.

> Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible.

I think the fact that you agree its impossible to elect someone who hasn’t already been bribed makes my point. I don’t trust people to take bribes and then betray the briber.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#80

Post by mtrower »

astkaasa wrote: post #76
alexfromapex wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah same really abruptly made me want to stop reading. Imagine switching out white people with another race and it’s blatant racism.

I guess replacing "white" with "Chinese" is a good idea. Another option is "Russian".

That would seem to be a category error. One of those is race, two of those are nationality.

Whether or not that’s a good idea depends on context. When you’re talking about matters of race, invoking race night make sense. When talking matters of nationality, invoking nation might make sense. When talking matters of nation, invoking race does not make sense.

Naturally, invoking nation as a means of stereotyping and discrimination is a terrible thing as well.

Post reply on HN