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

One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

sunlightfoundation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#21

Post by crusso »

themartorana wrote: post #16
crusso wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

voting against their better interests in the name of conviction Yes, that's called having principles.

...and believing things without a shred of evidence is called "faith." And neither "faith" nor "principals" is an inherently good thing by definition - in fact some people might call "principals" based on "faith" or "religion" or "race" or "gender" or "greed" or "lack of education" or any other reason "dumb."

Yeah, I agree with that statement. It doesn't really connect with your previous post which was just a mouth-foaming political attack without any real substance.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#22

Post by nitrogen »

crusso wrote: post #15
themartorana wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republican Party and to a greater extent, the Tea Party, have mobilized a mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class pool of voters who are in many cases irrational - voting against their better interests in the name of conviction, mostly based on race and religion. It's why there is constant saber-rattling about "wedge issues" like abortion and "takers" despite a significant portion of Tea Party vot…

voting against their better interests in the name of conviction Yes, that's called having principles.

Holding to destructive principles is not a virtue.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#23

Post by refurb »

themartorana wrote: post #10
kokey wrote: post #8

I don't see how this is different to all the pro net neutrality activism and lobbying going on, except that it's an opposition opinion. It also seems to play on the narrative that people who are against expanding regulation are not rational individuals, they are instead reduced to mere tools controlled by a pair of Koch villains intent on destruction of earth and society to make themselves richer.

The Republican Party and to a greater extent, the Tea Party, have mobilized a mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class pool of voters who are in many cases irrational - voting against their better interests in the name of conviction, mostly based on race and religion. It's why there is constant saber-rattling about "wedge issues" like abortion and "takers" despite a significant portion of Tea Party vot…

mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class

This is a laughable statement. Let me address each point directly.

During the last election, 33% of Hispanics voted for the Republican party[1]. 44% of women voted Republican[2]. And "mostly lower to middle class"? I though the Republican's were the party of the rich? Who do the rich vote for then?

I strongly suggest you take a more open-minded approach to politics.

[1]http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/07/hispanic-voters-in-the... [2]http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/10/22/poll-wo...

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#24

Post by [deleted] »

themartorana wrote: post #16
crusso wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

voting against their better interests in the name of conviction Yes, that's called having principles.

...and believing things without a shred of evidence is called "faith." And neither "faith" nor "principals" is an inherently good thing by definition - in fact some people might call "principals" based on "faith" or "religion" or "race" or "gender" or "greed" or "lack of education" or any other reason "dumb."

[deleted]

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#25

Post by slayed0 »

[deleted] wrote: post #24
themartorana wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and believing things without a shred of evidence is called "faith." And neither "faith" nor "principals" is an inherently good thing by definition - in fact some people might call "principals" based on "faith" or "religion" or "race" or "gender" or "greed" or "lack of education" or any other reason "dumb."

[deleted]

and we have now fully devolved into the Fox News/MSNBC comment boards

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#26

Post by _dark_matter_ »

rayiner wrote: post #17
uxp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting reading some of the form letters in opposition. Here's an excerpt. Regulating the Internet would be a job killer. All those who are employed as tech support, companies that make and deploy servers, routers, coax and fiber-optic cable will suffer job losses if the FCC chases billions of dollars of investments away by regulating Internet services as if they were a public utility. Every time Washington…

None of that is a lie, it's just looking at particular pieces of the overall issue. Obamacare has cost a lot of people their (existing, non-ACA compliant) plans, and it has raised the cost of insurance for other people. That's inevitable with the ACA: covering people with pre-existing conditions, etc, means some people will pay more (particularly younger people). I think the ACA is a good thing, by the way, but I'm n…

I'm confused at why you are being downvoted. This is a reasonable response explaining the comments covered by the parent post. You aren't even arguing for or against! Ridiculous.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#28

Post by 0x5f3759df-i »

kokey wrote: post #8

I don't see how this is different to all the pro net neutrality activism and lobbying going on, except that it's an opposition opinion. It also seems to play on the narrative that people who are against expanding regulation are not rational individuals, they are instead reduced to mere tools controlled by a pair of Koch villains intent on destruction of earth and society to make themselves richer.

It is different because they are actively misleading people that do not understand the internet. They are using scare tactics and sensationalism by saying stuff like "net neutrallity is the obamacare of the internet".

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#29

Post by nullsub »

bendoernberg wrote: post #4

For context, see Fight for the Future's blog post on why "numerous problems with [the Sunlight Foundation's] data and their methodology make it impossible to support their conclusions": http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/105475259503/why-is...

for context for that "context": Clearing up the confusion about our analysis of net neutrality comments to the FCC http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/17/clearing-up-th...

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#30

Post by knightofmars »

_dark_matter_ wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is a lie, it's just looking at particular pieces of the overall issue. Obamacare has cost a lot of people their (existing, non-ACA compliant) plans, and it has raised the cost of insurance for other people. That's inevitable with the ACA: covering people with pre-existing conditions, etc, means some people will pay more (particularly younger people). I think the ACA is a good thing, by the way, but I'm n…

I'm confused at why you are being downvoted. This is a reasonable response explaining the comments covered by the parent post. You aren't even arguing for or against! Ridiculous.

Because, human nature.
Post reply on HN