Live data from Hacker News

A university president makes a case against cowardice

newyorker.com

881–890 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#881
post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. Th…

> That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. Can you name a monarchy that is nearly as free, safe, and prosperous as advanced democracies? That is less corrupt? Is China? (No.) > These things are a result o…

> Can you name a monarchy that is nearly as free, safe, and prosperous as advanced democracies?

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom.

Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

Liechtenstein and Monaco.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#882
post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy and elections are not opinion polls. It's a distribution of political power.

That's true but it's not usefully true. Even avoiding things like gerrymandering, are voters choosing politicians or are politicians choosing voters? Do candidates send out emails asking for you to talk to your friends, or do they ask for more money? Do candidates have principled stances founded on an underlying philosophy, or do they focus on issues that are emotional in order to drum up support. I think "why do can…

It's very imperfect - like every human institution ever - but still democracy has enormous power. Why do you think so many invest so much trying to manipulate voters? What are they spending the money on?

Also, fundraising is a signal of democratic appeal. Some fundraise with mass collections of smaller donations.

Still, I agree that money has too much influence. So what do you think, as a democratic citizen, should we do about the influence of money? It's our country. The moneyed influences love that you are distracted, on the sidelines, debating rather than acting.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. The enthusiasm of Americans for adding yet more elected roles rather than, say, having anything done by anybody competent is part of how they got here. The only place elections are even a plausible choice is political office - with an election and as close as you can to universal suffrage now the idiots running things are everybody's fault, although Americans even mana…

democracy is bad but its still better than more autocratic systems because it encourages change which keeps succession well-oiled and also acts as a vent for tyranny to curtail its worst excesses. This applies as much to politics as it does a school board.

It also ensures that many people, including people others don't like and dismiss, get a voice and some real power.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe just explain what it is instead of avoiding my point? Those who defend Israeli colonialism actually increase anti-semitism in the world and no amount of intentional conflation of Judaism and Zionism will erase that. Maybe you'll realize that one day.

[flagged]

Once again evading the substance of my comment.

> Jews are the indigenous people of the land

Rank propaganda. Enjoy your genocide.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You want the Jews to have self determination if and only if they can conjure into existence a magical fairy land free of compromise I think it's much more serious than arguing that they had the right to take over land already inhabited by another group of people, because of events from 2000 years ago. It just doesn't seem to occur to you that the Palestinians also have rights, and shouldn't have been forced to give…

No, you're dodging the point. You're basically saying Jews deserved self-determination only if they could pull off the impossible: either magically prevent fascism, or create a homeland without upsetting anyone. That's not how history works. Zionism wasn't a luxury ideology, it was a response to existential threat. Jews didn't have the option to stay in Europe: Europe made that brutally clear. And yes, the land was i…

Actually, I've never said that Jews deserved self-determination in a separate country specifically created for Jews. Jews lived (and still live today) in many countries. They deserve equal rights in their home countries.

> The alternative you're proposing amounts to telling the Jews: stay stateless, stay vulnerable

Jews were not stateless. They were Polish, German, French, Russian, English, American, etc. You mean to say that there was no Jewish state, which is something entirely different from being stateless. American Jews today, for example, are "stateless" by your loose terminology, but arguably have more rights than and are safer than Israeli Jews.

> Jews didn't have the option to stay in Europe: Europe made that brutally clear.

Without the rise of Hitler, Jews would have been able to remain in Europe. The rise of fascism and WWII were a catastrophe for civilization, which could have been averted.

> magically prevent fascism

There's nothing magic about it. For example, if the Social Democrats and Communists had coordinated against fascism, they might have been able to prevent Hilter's rise. If France and Britain had decided to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938 or prevent the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, there may very well have been no WWII and no Holocaust. However, one thing I can tell you for certain is that the chance that most Jews would have decided to move to the Middle East is basically zero. They weren't Zionists and didn't want to leave their home countries.

> Every nationalist movement has had to contend with messy realities.

You're hiding a lot behind that phrase, "messy realities."

I have yet to see you acknowledge the Palestinians and their rights in any way. You're asserting the right of Jews to take over control of Palestine, depriving the Palestinians not only of the right of self-determination, but taking their land and expelling them. You've now justified this in two completely different ways: first by an appeal to ancient history, and then by an appeal to the Holocaust.

> That's not a serious moral position; at best it's an abdication, at worst a double standard against the Jews (i.e. antisemitism).

I was wondering how long it would take you to explicity come out and start accusing me of antisemitism. But if you really want to choose the right insult, you should call me a "self-hating Jew."

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#886
post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in general with your points, except that I believe both parties “should“ (can) be grateful for each other and in that acknowledge they both need each other. It’s nice for wellbeing to be grateful for everything good that happens, it doesn’t necessarily imply servitude.

> except that I believe both parties “should“ (can) be grateful for each other and in that acknowledge they both need each other. Hard disagree on both needing each other. Employers can't exist or build their own riches without workers, while workers have existed for thousands of years, much before employers. If we are considering the relationship in adversarial terms, always remember that workers are the only ones a…

> Without workers, garbage won't be collected, water won't be delivered to households, buildings won't be built, and food won't be grown.

Again I agree with everything you say but disagree on the part about needing each other/gratitude. The worker also wants all that, and for it to happen, they need collaboration and exchange/division of labor, for which they are allowed to be grateful for.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany bans pro-Palestine protests (officially they're still legal, but they've been arresting people since it began and they've just started deporting people for participating in completely legal protests) but I think that's a slightly different criterion than the one you asked for.

No. What is not allowed is calls for genocide ("From the river to the sea") and support for terrorist organizations. And yes, if you are a guest in a country, supporting genocide and terrorism can get you deported. But the police has been extremely lax in enforcement. These protests still basically always have these characteristics and there is no action by the police. It is pathetic.

Protesting against Israel's carpet bombing and mass starvation of civilians, targeted missile strikes and sniper strikes on journalists (more than any other war in history and there might not be any left by now) and so on is considered to be supporting Hamas. Because if you weren't a Hamas terrorist, you'd support everything Israel says it does to get rid of Hamas. That six year old girl and the paramedics trying to save her? All Hamas. The flour massacre? Hamas. Journalists? Hamas. I'm skeptical that you haven't seen this rhetoric constantly since Oct 7 2023.

Are you aware that people were chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", because it rhymes, and they were not chanting "from the river to the sea, let's gas all the Jews again"?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Advocating for the end of a state is not the same as advocating for the eradication of a people . Someone can firmly believe that the existence of the state of Israel is a mistake that should be corrected while still also believing that the Jewish people have every right to their own existence and freedom of religion.

> Someone can firmly believe that the existence of the state of Israel is a mistake that should be corrected while still also believing...

In theory, someone might distinguish between opposing the state of Israel and supporting Jewish rights. But in practice, that distinction tends to collapse. History shows that denying Jews a national homeland often leads to denying their safety and identity as well. Before 1948, Jews were stateless and vulnerable, culminating in the Holocaust. After Israel's founding, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries where they had lived for centuries. Efforts like the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism blurred the line between criticism of Israeli policy and rejection of Jewish nationhood. During the Second Intifada, what began as political resistance often turned into violence targeting civilians and Jewish institutions. More recently, anti-Zionist protests have featured explicitly anti-Jewish chants like "Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud," invoking historical violence. The Western assumption that "Free Palestine" implies peaceful self-determination doesn't reflect the goals of many movements where "freedom" often means dismantling Israel entirely and expelling Jews or allowing them to live only in a state of dhimmitude. In reality, it's nearly impossible to separate these ideas cleanly.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#889

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. What is not allowed is calls for genocide ("From the river to the sea") and support for terrorist organizations. And yes, if you are a guest in a country, supporting genocide and terrorism can get you deported. But the police has been extremely lax in enforcement. These protests still basically always have these characteristics and there is no action by the police. It is pathetic.

Protesting against Israel's carpet bombing and mass starvation of civilians, targeted missile strikes and sniper strikes on journalists (more than any other war in history and there might not be any left by now) and so on is considered to be supporting Hamas. Because if you weren't a Hamas terrorist, you'd support everything Israel says it does to get rid of Hamas. That six year old girl and the paramedics trying to…

> is considered to be supporting Hamas.

No it is not. Even if it almost certainly is. These protests used to run almost daily, and were often allowed to proceed even if actual calls for genocide were included.

And of course you are also wrong on the content: those accusations are largely untrue, and Israel is an absolute leader in avoiding civilian casualties in urban combat, achieving a 1:1 ratio of civilian to combatant deaths, whereas the world average is 10:1. And this despite Hamas's openly stated and obviously carried out policy of creating as many civilian casualties in their own population as possible.

And no, calling for genocide does not become legal if it rhymes.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody would vote for a politician who just makes things worse Why not? One thing is the campaign, another one is exercising his power. To quote a famous Argentinian President: "If I said what I would do, they wouldn't have voted for me".

I can't find the source of that quote (possibly a misquote?), but if I had to guess, he's saying he sold people on the problem, knowing they wouldn't like the solution. Everyone likes the idea of fixing the budget deficit, and some people like the idea of cutting wasteful government spending, but the act of fixing the budget means people lose jobs, and lives are destroyed. Even though it has to happen, people don't l…

I think they were thinking of Carlos Menem's "si hubiera dicho lo que iba a hacer, no me votaba nadie” , but AFAIK thats a misquote [1]

A more recent Argentinian president (Mauricio Macri) said a similar thing though: " If I had told them everything I was going to do, they would have voted to lock me up in an asylum" (Tl mine).

Original [2]: "Si les decía todo lo que iba a hacer, votaban por encerrarme en el manicomio"

[1]: https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2023/11/12/si-decia-lo-que-...

[2] https://www.cronista.com/economia-politica/Macri-Si-les-deci...

Post reply on HN