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

131–140 of 276 posts

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#131

Post by AnthonyMouse »

grey-area wrote: post #103
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America First and protectionism is how Trump won Michigan, not how he won the Republican primary (and thus Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, etc.) He got nominated by being the candidate most resembling a middle finger to the establishment. The existing system has been systematically destroying the middle class, and the people see it happening but don't understand why or how to fix it, but they know that voting for establ…

I honestly don't think he has promised anything to address the points you raised, or has any intention to.

They're not examples of things Trump would do, they're examples of things neither of the major parties give you a choice over.

Nobody knows what Trump will do. Make America Great Again could mean anything. Compare "Hope and Change" -- Obama was the first attempt at this when he defeated Clinton. Change didn't happen so people chose an even more radical option.

It isn't that voting for the protest candidate is especially effective, it's that frustrated people don't know what else to do. They weren't given any good option so they picked the wildcard bad option over the known bad option.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#132

Post by pg314 »

venomsnake wrote: post #95
pg314 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one. I do not know how a nation where 70% of the population calls itself christian could turn away refugees from war-torn countries. > there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all. Top US universities and tech firms beg to differ. The US got the best unive…

In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason. Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might. It all depends on the perspective in which you view the other countries.

> In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason.

You're moving the goalposts. First you say there is no good reason, then you reframe it 'in the world of realpolitik'. If you want to support your original assertion, you need to argue why realpolitik is the only valid worldview.

> Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.

Again, you're moving the goalposts by adding if we define US interest as unchallenged US might and by adding to further your national interest.

Even if you accept those premises, your conclusion would need more arguments. Educating citizens of a country might further the US national interest if they stay in the US after their studies or return to their country and oppose their leadership.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#133

Post by _andromeda_ »

>Mexican culture is ingrained deeply into America and we are all better for it.

How is this the case? Multiculturalism is not necessarily a good thing.

I'm reminded of Thiel's The Diversity Myth. We no longer question whether some of these statements are true. Diversity is not necessarily a good thing and sometimes it can actually be detrimental by allowing for the tolerance of mediocre standards in a society.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#134

Post by redsummer »

birken wrote: post #115
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?

What evidence do you have that people of minority religions are being persecuted any more than people of the majority religions? In a country like Syria that is ~90% Muslim, what are the odds that all of the most persecuted people are in the 10% religious minority? Why even flag them based on religion anyways if you are trying to help people who are being persecuted or murdered? What difference does it make? During W…

There is plenty of evidence that Christians are being persecuted in Syria and other places, some even call it genocide: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-fle...

US liberals have a blind-spot about it, because they have an image of Christian conservatives refusing to make gay wedding cakes in their head. So Christians can't possibly be persecuted! The usual US narcissism.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#135

Post by fnord123 »

sleepychu wrote: post #65
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…

> It excepts non-Muslims (religious test) Source please?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/trump_executive_o...

""" (b)Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, 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. """

""" (e)Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship —and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States. """

I can't even find the EO on whitehouse.gov.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#136

Post by m_fayer »

aedron wrote: post #5

You know what a lot of people consider worse than Donald Trump? The status quo. That's what I feel is missing in all this indignation - where were you before? The political system has been deeply broken for decades, with the same unjust policies being pursued regardless of which public face was on it - imperialist militaristic foreign policies abroad, economic inequality at home. All sold to the public with glib mark…

The idea that the political system was "deeply broken" before Trump is a popular meme these days, one that IMO is utopian, ahistorical, and increasingly destructive.

Rule of law and representative democracy, as we know them today, are quite young, and the modern take on basic human rights is even younger. When did black people win full equality in the US, even in the legal sense? When did Western colonialism in the middle east and India end? When was the last time Western countries opted for total war and incinerated civilians, en masse? These are all things that are today unthinkable that have actually happened within the lifetime of someone who could plausibly be alive today.

Building a just state and society is a slow, delicate, multi-generational project, and we are just at the beginning. We're just now getting to a place where we're moving past barbaric mass violence and mass racist persecution. And you expect us to have a good handle on subtle, systemic problems like inequality and imbalance between state and private power? Have a little perspective and patience!

It's like people look around, notice that we're not in fact in some enlightened Star Trek like utopia, declare that the whole edifice rotten, and decide that the best response is nihilistic glee - why not burn it all down? Get a grip.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#137

Post by imron »

devwastaken wrote: post #69
MisterWebz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings. I'm not saying we should've put so much hate towards Obama as well, I'm saying we should put things into perspective.

You're trying to generalize 350 Million individuals, it doesn't work that way. Outrage is rarely about the events, but about how much coverage those events get.

The question then becomes why were the bombings not getting as much or more coverage than a temporary visa ban?

5 of the 7 countries on the visa list are currently being bombed by the US [0].

It's no surprise then that these countries made it on to the Obama administration's list of countries that are sources of terror, which was used as the basis for Trump's visa ban.

From a security perspective it's difficult to argue that countries you are currently bombing won't have people trying to enter the U.S. looking for payback.

0: https://qz.com/895516/which-countries-is-the-us-currently-bo...

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#138

Post by coldtea »

levlaz wrote: post #10
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?

> Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured. Who is saying that this is acceptable? > 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries I think the key issue here is that this ban includes valid Green Card holders and people who have Visas. This means that they have already spent up to two years being vetted. This policy makes no sense. If…

>Who is saying that this is acceptable?

A few, but this is irrelevant to the parent's point.

Which is that whether people say it is acceptable or not, much fewer numbers complained about it when other administrations where doing it, and much less visibly than people do today .

Which gives one the impression that if in 2 or 4 years some democrat or another republican gets into office and does the same or worse, things will be silent again (except for few consistent protestors), and hence that it's all about ousting Trump rather than justice in general.

Case in point: Obama halted people coming in from Iran in 2011 (for 6 months) and nobody said much of anything. Or how about this: Trump said he'll get rid of 3 million illegal immigrants and all went crazy. Well, Obama has the record thus far with 2.5 million deportations, but nobody seemed to care back then.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#139

Post by JBiserkov »

MisterWebz wrote: post #23
varjag wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing strawman. Most people who are anti-ban were also against Iraq war and waterboarding.

Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings. I'm not saying we should've put so much hate towards Obama as well, I'm saying we should put things into perspective.

>droning weddings

I chuckled pretty hard at this one, imagining a DJI Phantom filming a wedding. Why not call it what it is, "bombing weddings" - the focus is on what the aircraft was doing, whether it was piloted remotely or locally shouldn't matter in the slightest.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#140

Post by facepalm »

birken wrote: post #82
ominous wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It excepts non-Muslims Can I get a source on that? I just want to read about it, not doubting you.

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…

Well it says that people from a religion which has the majority in a country are probably not persecuted for their religion. That sounds lie a pretty reasonable assumption?
Post reply on HN