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

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 312 posts

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#121

Post by icanhackit »

codeddesign wrote: post #64
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta: people say they keep looking for explanations. Explanations are offered. Then the explanations are downvoted and an argument ensues. It may be fine that you don't understand or like the explanations, but saying "I really don't understand X" and then punishing anybody who tries to explain it isn't much of a way to have a reasonable public discourse. (This wasn't directed at you, just at the community at large. I…

Agreed. Anything remotely neutral about the new administration is met with a mob and pitch forks. Discussion is good. Saying you don't understand because you don't agree with answers is like saying you don't understand why a homosexaul is homosexual. Last time I checked, that's called "bigotry"

> Saying you don't understand because you don't agree

You can't make an assessment about whether you agree if you don't understand - the latter must must happen before the former can come to pass. It would either be the case that you don't understand because the explanation is complex or it contains logical fallacies...the latter applies to your statement above.

> is like saying you don't understand why a homosexaul is homosexual.

It's fine to say you don't understand why a homosexual is homosexual - however it's not fine to impose restrictions, punishment, violence or torment for what goes on between consenting adults. You're allowed to find it odd or not to your taste, but you're expected to live and let live.

> Last time I checked, that's called "bigotry"

Bigotry is intolerance stemming from a preconceived opinion that isn't based on reason or experience. And I'd agree that the liberal/progressive side can exhibit such intolerance - I've been on the receiving end despite considering myself progressive. But if we're going talk about the old classics like racism, homophobia, and sexism -- the conservative side knows the art better than any.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#122

Post by kafkaesq »

flukus wrote: post #120
iainmerrick wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations aren't democracies.

Neither are government departments.

But they aren't supposed to be unflinching propaganda machines in the style of Stalin, Goebbels, or the Kim Il Sung either.

And yet, based on the blatant counterfactuals the President's lieutenants have offered in regard to crowd sizes and fraudulent voters -- and various things that Trump himself has said, since the start of his campaign -- that's precisely what we're up against.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#123

Post by rsync »

jquery wrote: post #32
cyberferret wrote: post #6

I am looking for reasonable explanations for this, but keep coming up blank. I grew up in a country where this sort of censorship and fact hiding was the norm, and hated it. I now live in a country that is much freer, but for the first time since 1938, no longer has an active US ambassador, with no replacement in sight, since President Trump fired all US ambassadors to foreign countries on the afternoon of his inaugu…

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size? To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-poli...

"To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing"

Don't all new presidents appoint a fresh new batch of ambassadors ? I assumed it was always done that way ...

Are there cases of cross-presidency ambassadors ?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#124

Post by flukus »

kafkaesq wrote: post #122
flukus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are government departments.

But they aren't supposed to be unflinching propaganda machines in the style of Stalin, Goebbels, or the Kim Il Sung either. And yet, based on the blatant counterfactuals the President's lieutenants have offered in regard to crowd sizes and fraudulent voters -- and various things that Trump himself has said, since the start of his campaign -- that's precisely what we're up against.

> But they aren't supposed to be propaganda machines in the style of Stalin, Goebbels, or the Kim Il Sung either.

If this was the goal then banning them from social media would be counter productive.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#125

Post by cyberferret »

vacri wrote: post #75
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta: people say they keep looking for explanations. Explanations are offered. Then the explanations are downvoted and an argument ensues. It may be fine that you don't understand or like the explanations, but saying "I really don't understand X" and then punishing anybody who tries to explain it isn't much of a way to have a reasonable public discourse. (This wasn't directed at you, just at the community at large. I…

On HN, you cannot downvote a direct reply to your comment, so you can't punish an explanation provided to you.

I actually upvoted @DanielBMarkham, because I thought his comment added value, and he did explain very well that it wasn't aimed directly at my post! :)

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#126

Post by iainmerrick »

brianwawok wrote: post #7
shshhdhs wrote: post #5

I was curious if a case could be made for First Amendment rights, but I just re-read it... "Congress shall make no law regarding..." I guess Executive Orders can bypass all of that.

Presedential power has grown a LOT in the past 50 years. I still think we have a strong enough constitution to prevent a Hitler, but not as sure as I would have been in the previous generation.

It almost entirely depends on the willingness of Congress to enforce the rules, and more importantly the spirit of the rules.

I say "amost" because the Supreme Court has a part to play, but it's in a bad shape right now (highly polarized, split 50-50, with an opening for just about any old stooge to be helicoptered in).

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#127

Post by sandworm101 »

rsync wrote: post #123
jquery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size? To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-poli...

"To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing" Don't all new presidents appoint a fresh new batch of ambassadors ? I assumed it was always done that way ... Are there cases of cross-presidency ambassadors ?

Yes. Where a new admin hasnt lined up a new ambassador, normal practice is to have the old one continue until the replacement is worked out. This admin, for whatever reasons, is months behind the normal schedual. A list of names should have already have been circulated on the hill so that they could be vetted and agreed upon asap. To leave such a post unfilled breaks diplomatic protocols and can be taken as a slight.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#128

Post by gvd »

cyberferret wrote: post #6

I am looking for reasonable explanations for this, but keep coming up blank. I grew up in a country where this sort of censorship and fact hiding was the norm, and hated it. I now live in a country that is much freer, but for the first time since 1938, no longer has an active US ambassador, with no replacement in sight, since President Trump fired all US ambassadors to foreign countries on the afternoon of his inaugu…

I actually think the fact that many people in the US coming from less free/developed countries is a problem (not the fact that they are here). They might come here thinking..wow this is great..this must be how it's supposed to be (together with the existing citizens who constantly hear they live in the greatest/free-est country on the planet). While when e.g. a Northern European comes here they are amazed by what kind of shit-show it sometimes is in this country.

I think it prevents real change from happening. Questioning why things are they way they are. Should some of the fundamental just be changed/replaced? What country do we want to live in? Do we want people worrying about going bankrupt because they got sick or went to school? Do we want to worry about drinking lead poisoned water? etc etc.

Sorry, I went way off topic. Trump apparently also want to defund PBS/NPR. I see a clear pattern here. None of these ideas will save substantial money and will erode democracy. Who else is going to educate the busy citizen about world events? CNN/Fox?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#129

Post by kafkaesq »

flukus wrote: post #124
kafkaesq wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they aren't supposed to be unflinching propaganda machines in the style of Stalin, Goebbels, or the Kim Il Sung either. And yet, based on the blatant counterfactuals the President's lieutenants have offered in regard to crowd sizes and fraudulent voters -- and various things that Trump himself has said, since the start of his campaign -- that's precisely what we're up against.

> But they aren't supposed to be propaganda machines in the style of Stalin, Goebbels, or the Kim Il Sung either. If this was the goal then banning them from social media would be counter productive.

The departments weren't told to withdraw from social media permanently. They were just told to hold off for a few days until suitable Inner Party operatives could be installed.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#130

Post by [deleted] »

linkregister wrote: post #119
whyileft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that…

Unless you have evidence of jquery's having been paid to post this, please don't make the accusation. The number of true believers in various viewpoints, willing to lie in order to sway the audience vastly overwhelms the amount any organization's payroll could handle. jquery, as many conservative and liberal commenters before him, believes that a lie to persuade someone for his noble cause is justified by its outcome…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN