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

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#81

Post by mtrower »

technick wrote: post #58
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.

Are you really that sensitive that you can't look past a potentially poorly worded part of an otherwise amazing write up? That's some sad shit, that you can't take the positive with the negative, and look past a personal opinion which, in context, is correct as the author is specifically addresses Janet Yellen, who is white and a horrible choice for that position in my opinion.

I’m pretty sure from context that when he says “white people” he’s referring to the general American public - not Janet Yellen.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#82

Post by astkaasa »

mtrower wrote: post #80
astkaasa wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

Actually on the daily communication context these two nationality words are used as representation of races. You probably will not call a black/white people with China nationality "Chinese". And I will present you another example if you consider the previous too rare: you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right?

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#83

Post by mtrower »

astkaasa wrote: post #82
mtrower wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

Actually on the daily communication context these two nationality words are used as representation of races. You probably will not call a black/white people with China nationality "Chinese". And I will present you another example if you consider the previous too rare: you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right?

What else would you call a person born and raised in those countries, if not Russian or Chinese? Are descendants of Irish immigrants to America not American? Perhaps language is used differently in our respective circles.

If you're born in Russia, raised in Russia, you're certainly Russian to me.

A black man born in China, I'd absolutely include him in "Chinese" if the context was nationality. However, yes; Chinese is commonly used for both race and nationality, I'll give you that.

> you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right?

I will confess I am not educated enough on these regions to have an opinion here. Do Tibetans(?) identify as Chinese nationally? Or do they resent the Chinese takeover and view them as unwelcome oppressors? I think that would have a lot to do with my perspective on them (and I think maybe a lot of label-based identification comes down to perspective).

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#84

Post by astkaasa »

mtrower wrote: post #83
astkaasa wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually on the daily communication context these two nationality words are used as representation of races. You probably will not call a black/white people with China nationality "Chinese". And I will present you another example if you consider the previous too rare: you will definitely not call people from Tibet or Uighur "Chinese", right?

What else would you call a person born and raised in those countries, if not Russian or Chinese? Are descendants of Irish immigrants to America not American? Perhaps language is used differently in our respective circles. If you're born in Russia, raised in Russia, you're certainly Russian to me. A black man born in China, I'd absolutely include him in "Chinese" if the context was nationality. However, yes; Chinese i…

Blah blah blah, so the answer is no. I get it.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#85

Post by wpietri »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #79
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem.

The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. They don't like the influence fundraising has on politics. They would rather focus on solving issues. It's possible to make progress on this issue, just like has been done before.

You may be a person who slavishly follows their economic incentives, in which case I'm sorry for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking everybody works like that.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#86

Post by raincom »

Author missed one more method of corruption: writing books. These politicians write books, sometimes using ghost writers. And the publisher pays them millions of dollars, then the said politician goes on book tours and visits their 'patrons' in wealthy towns like Los Altos Hills, Atherton, etc. Some billionaires buy like 50,000 copies, then incinerate them without being found. There are even trustworthy contractors that incinerate such books. That's how it goes.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#87

Post by chordalkeyboard »

wpietri wrote: post #85
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. They don't like the influence fundraising ha…

> I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem.

I’m tracking that you don’t agree but it might be more helpful for you to consider why I might feel that way instead of dismissing my perspective as cartoonish.

> The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals.

Sure, maybe. They’d probably prefer to get the same money with less effort.

> They don't like the influence fundraising has on politics. They would rather focus on solving issues. It's possible to make progress on this issue, just like has been done before.

I’m not sure how. Campaign finance already has the unintended consquence of inhibiting the free speech of citizens by limiting their ability to purchase advertisements prior to an election. And they politicians still get bribed.

What solution do you envision? Further restrictions on political speech? Prohibiting people from donating to causes they support?

> You may be a person who slavishly follows their economic incentives, in which case I'm sorry for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking everybody works like that.

People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure. I’m pretty sure the politicians who collect a six figure annual salary from the treasury in addition to their laundered campaign contributions are quite attuned to financial incentives. The part where they claim otherwise is just marketing and its quite naive to take that at face value.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#88

Post by mtrower »

astkaasa wrote: post #84
mtrower wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would you call a person born and raised in those countries, if not Russian or Chinese? Are descendants of Irish immigrants to America not American? Perhaps language is used differently in our respective circles. If you're born in Russia, raised in Russia, you're certainly Russian to me. A black man born in China, I'd absolutely include him in "Chinese" if the context was nationality. However, yes; Chinese i…

Blah blah blah, so the answer is no. I get it.

...excuse me? There’s no call for that. Why come to a discussion forum if you don’t actually want to talk?

Furthermore, the answer is not “no” —- I acknowledged that your usage may be acceptable, not that mine isn’t. I explicitly stated that while you may not call those people that, I would.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#89

Post by wpietri »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #87
wpietri wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. They don't like the influence fundraising ha…

> I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. I’m tracking that you don’t agree but it might be more helpful for you to consider why I might feel that way instead of dismissing my perspective as cartoonish. > The truth is…

If you don't want to be thought cartoonish, you should not say cartoonish things. For example:

> People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure.

That's just absurd. Every day people make choices between maximizing revenue and other things they value. If everybody was so slavishly devoted to economic incentives, we'd have no teachers or nurses. I'm no expert, but I haven't heard of many teachers dying of exposure because they have other values than money.

This is also cartoonish:

> What solution do you envision? Further restrictions on political speech? Prohibiting people from donating to causes they support?

This is already a well-discussed space. Other countries do fine. In the past, the US did better. We can do better again. If you really want to understand it, go do the work. But since it looks like you don't, I don't think it's worth my time to spoon-feed you something you could look up perfectly well.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#90

Post by indication »

Hi chaps, I wrote this. Some of you seem triggered by the white part. Whiteness is shit. No apologies there.

If y'all want to be a decent human beings, you need to renounce whiteness. I'm brown but I'm not getting together with Pakistanis to bomb Myanmar based on our 'brownness'. Be American, be Italian, be your football team, I don't care. But whiteness is white supremacy, and it's central to the major problems the world faces. If you have a problem with that, you're a part of the problem

As I wrote elsewhere:

"Whiteness is white supremacy. There’s actually nothing else to it. There is no white food, there is no white music. Whiteness is just the dehumanization of everyone else, and that shit’s got to go. Renounce your whiteness. Be a decent human being."

https://indica.medium.com/renounce-your-whiteness-be-a-decen...

Post reply on HN