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

I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

blog.codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 276 posts

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#121

Post by rdtsc »

imgabe wrote: post #111
rdtsc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be a and b only. Why not both or add c and d to the list. He brought a valid point it seems but it was "bitching and moaning". And gave him a binary choice to pick between.

What is the outcome of accepting that point? "You didn't complain when the government did worse things, so now you can't complain ever about anything?" The implication of accepting that logic would seem to be that we just give up. How does that help?

> The implication of accepting that logic would seem to be that we just give up. How does that help

Not necessarily it could be also "pay attention harder from now on not to make the same mistake", "this is jumping on the outrage bandwagon more than actual outrage", "let's see what happened before so we don't make the same mistakes", "let's hear what others think about this" (as this is a public discussion forum).

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#122

Post by dingaling »

moultano wrote: post #89
SBCRec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he is referring to the global hate train (media hype?) being run on Trump, magnitudes higher than any directed at the previous administrations responsible for those actions. edit: Are military actions against these countries targeting Muslim communities worse than removing immigration privileges of Muslim communities? I dunno how to approach this question...

The people he's targeting now are Americans, which for better or worse people are much less willing to tolerate. Green card and visa holders are Americans.

Visa holders are not necessarily "Americans". For example holders of G-{1-4} Visas from the proscribed countries are not affected by the ban and remain foreign nationals.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#123

Post by facepalm »

I have high respect for CodingHorror, which is why I am confused about some of his claims.

Perhaps HN can help me understand a few things:

- why do people claim it is a muslim ban, when really it seems to be a ban on countries that the US is fighting a war with (except Iran)? Whether there is a causality between "at war with the US" and "Muslim" seems to be another question?

- what is the proper US stance on Immigration? Is the "good" line that there should be no borders at all, and everybody should be able to enter at will? Because the wall, crazy as it sounds, seems to be aimed at illegal immigration. So why not fight for better immigration laws, rather than against the wall?

I have read the memes about Jews who were denied entry to the US and then died in the Holocaust. Fair enough, and as a German, I am actually extra concerned about that. I was always very pro asylum laws, because I thought what if one day there is no US to flee to, if shit hits the fan? Still, the examples also show that immigration to the US was never as open as people seem to think.

I am not sure if the temporary ban or the wall are useful measures - I am not a fan of Trump's politics as such (not all of it anyway). But I still think criticism should be reasonable. It seems reasonable for example to ban people from a country you are at war with from entering. Maybe people are just in denial about being at war? It is only droning, not real war? To be honest it reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton not having sex.

I am not sure illegal immigrants from Mexico are hurting the US - maybe they benefit everyone by providing cheap labor. But then, why not change the immigration laws, rather than pound on an arbitrary measure for enforcing the existing laws?

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#124

Post by danso »

redsummer wrote: post #101
birken wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the EA: > "the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality " In all of these 7 countries the majority religi…

Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'? What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

It's not an either-or situation. The refugee program can accept people regardless of religion. The fact that many refugees are Muslim is a reflection of the statistical reality that many of the people afflicted are Muslim. To have a policy that favors the Christian minority makes it seem as if the Syrian/ISIS conflict is specifically one of Islam vs Christianity, which it is not.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#125

Post by redsummer »

masklinn wrote: post #108
redsummer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'? What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

> Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? You're apparently assuming people not from these minority religions aren't being murdered for some inane reason. How about prioritising people who are getting murdered regardless of the underlying reason? > Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'? Apparently you would, during WW2, say no to…

> You're assuming people not from these minority religions aren't being murdered.

No I'm not.

> Apparently you would, during WW2, say no to 7th day adventists, gays or socialists.

No I wouldn't.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#126

Post by pjc50 »

redsummer wrote: post #71
rtpg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- It was a ban of people from 7 muslim-dominated countries - It excepts non-Muslims (religious test) - It includes dual-citizens, and permanent residents. Even when you become the citizen of another country, you're still tainted according to the EO. Even when you've been vetted for the green card, you're still tainted. - Guiliani is on the record that Trump said "I want a Muslim ban" and this was drafted to be the "m…

I can't find any mention of Islam, Muslims, Christians etc in the order: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/donald-trump... And are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'?

Funny how you should use that example. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-a...

The "we'll turn away a whole group of refugees because they come from a war-torn area and some tiny fraction of them might be hostile" was used exactly during WW2 to say no to Jews, and the same argument is used now to turn away refugees from Syria.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#127

Post by kranner »

moultano wrote: post #89
SBCRec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he is referring to the global hate train (media hype?) being run on Trump, magnitudes higher than any directed at the previous administrations responsible for those actions. edit: Are military actions against these countries targeting Muslim communities worse than removing immigration privileges of Muslim communities? I dunno how to approach this question...

The people he's targeting now are Americans, which for better or worse people are much less willing to tolerate. Green card and visa holders are Americans.

I would have thought one is not American until one is a citizen.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#128

Post by coldtea »

verbify wrote: post #22
MisterWebz wrote: post #8

Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured. These are things that are acceptable, but a 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries, that's a step too far? Has everyone seriously lost their mind?

Iran is not a war-torn country. And this doesn't just ban immigrants, it bans green-card and visa holders too.

So just like Obama did back in 2011 for 6 months and nobody batted an eyelid?

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#129

Post by JBiserkov »

jhbadger wrote: post #114
nicolas_t wrote: post #64

While I agree with most everything Jeff says and it's really well written, I'm always a bit irked when I see the the president of the US being called "Leader of the Free World". Especially when it's stated in those terms: "We lead the free world. And we do it by taking the higher moral ground, doing what is right before doing what is expedient." I'm not sure the US can still qualify as leading the free world under th…

The "free world" is pretty meaningless since the Cold War ended. It never really meant "free" anyway -- Pinochet's and Franco's regimes were as much a part of it as Western democracies. What it really meant was the "anti-Soviet world".

I see a browser extension potential here. Substitute Soviet with Russia/China and call it a day.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#130

Post by SBCRec »

polymatter wrote: post #62
SBCRec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he is referring to the global hate train (media hype?) being run on Trump, magnitudes higher than any directed at the previous administrations responsible for those actions. edit: Are military actions against these countries targeting Muslim communities worse than removing immigration privileges of Muslim communities? I dunno how to approach this question...

The media was waiting for anything to crucify Trump. He has done nothing but stoke them. He already has been demonized as a white supremisist. The narrative "Trump will ban all Muslims and turn the US into a fascist state" was already on the press, they just needed an excuse to print it. And there are many who not only disagree with Trump, but are appalled at his persona. There was that big march and that whole "Not…

Yeah it is interesting, to me it seems like trump and the protesters are both coming from a place of fear and are trying to prevent something from happening, whether that is terrorist attack on US soil, or Trump turning the US into a fascist state.

Very interesting

Post reply on HN