[deleted]
No. It does not. Edit: You said it deserves a black bar atop HN. Have some respect.
[deleted]
Time to Take a Stand
231–240 of 1001 posts
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#232I hope you mean "Peacefully Protest" I shut my eyes and ears once protesting becomes violent.
I'm not saying we're there yet, but, at the risk of waking Godwin, at what point in 1930s Germany would violent protest finally be OK? We'll start at "Never," and work back from there.
[deleted]
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#233In case anyone is still skeptical that this is really a Muslim ban and not just a blanket ban on refugees and immigrants, note that Trump has said he will give priority to Christian refugees: http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-fi...
I was talking about this last night with my wife and she mentioned she saw some statistic showing Christians were, until now, de-prioritized and actually given refugee status at a disproportionately low rate compared to their population in the ME. I don't have a source, but thought this might be useful to bring up. It sounded like this was why he did that.
Christians are being specifically persecuted in some Muslim countries, particularly in those areas under the control of ISIS.
Shouldn't we prioritize people who are the victims of religious persecution.
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#234Why is that all of these posts saying to "take a stand" fail to explain the political process? I'll just quote myself here. If you want to help stop trump the most effective ways are to: 1. Call - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/) - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials) 2. Participate - Get involved in local electi…
Interesting how calling politicians is a "thing" in the US. It seems very inefficient, archaic and unscalable. If I was a politician, I would hate those random (often organized) calls, such a waste of time. The politicians are usually not learning any new information, they know about most issues, including the approximate percentage of the people who are affected.
Well, it is supposed to unscaleable. This is how our house of representatives works! The idea is with-in each state there are districts. Representatives from a district are supposed to represent those people within the district. An exchange trader who lives in NYC probably have very different concerns than a farmer in an small district in Nebraska. It is actually a wonderful system when it works. We have grown as a nation so our number of people per representative has grown enormously since the start (we are locked by law at 435). One concern we all have in the states is, when does an individuals voice become too diluted!
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power? I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.
Minorities on average earn less, have less job security and despite this they utterly rejected Trump and his hateful platform. Trump voters also weren't the most economically desperate, those people voted Clinton. Trump did well among solidly middle class white people in rural areas. So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.
Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-bett...
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#236I hope you mean "Peacefully Protest" I shut my eyes and ears once protesting becomes violent.
Once people so upset that they become violent, you stop listening? Doesn't sound like a great plan.
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#237Yes, let us shed our puppet democracy for a corporatocracy.
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#238Is there a hn version without politics?
please lmk if you find it
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#239This is meaningless grandstanding until: 1) YC voted Thiel off the island 2) YC establishes a policy of "take money from Thiel and you are toxic to us" Anyone in a position of power who took a look at Trump and didn't recoil with disgust needs to be exiled from civil society.
I appreciate this post by Sam, it means a lot. I think your sentiments are sound, as well.
I think what's more important is clarifying Peter Thiel's beliefs and how he's going to make things better moving forward. The line in the sand that Sam and YC should seriously consider is when do the political freedoms of their partners supersede the actual freedoms of their founders?
The way I feel, as a founder, is slightly taken advantage of. I'm not directly part of the YC network, but there's an implicit social contract in Silicon Valley --- help others, and it will come back to you. YC's value is in fighting for founders. When a partner actively supports a vehemently anti-immigrant candidate and their political freedoms are defended at the potential expense of founders' livelihoods, it's confusing. It sends a message to founders that they're simply cattle - you can afford to lose a few along the way because you have the greenest pasture and you're confident they'll overlook the slaughterhouse.
I like YC. I love the founders and partners I've met that are part of the network and have a great deal of respect for everyone involved. There's some murky water here, though, and additional clarity would alleviate the anxieties of, I think, a lot of talented entrepreneurs, both aspiring and successful.
Re: Time to Take a Stand
#240Why is that all of these posts saying to "take a stand" fail to explain the political process? I'll just quote myself here. If you want to help stop trump the most effective ways are to: 1. Call - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/) - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials) 2. Participate - Get involved in local electi…
>Why is that all of these posts saying to "take a stand" fail to explain the political process?
Because most everyone here already knows these things.
And because the implication that it would be a useful strategy to keep reiterating basic principles seems reductionist.
This whole thing is a complex phenomenon that even experts are still trying to figure out. How was the sentiment or 27% of voters underestimated so badly and for so long? Even if the sentiment is now understood why did it bring about a post truth era and why do so many people easily accept this? And on and on.
Something is different this time. We need to understand it fundamentally and learn new approaches to counter it while making sure the responses themselves don't make the situation worse.