A Worsening Culture War • Hacker News Board

Re: A Worsening Culture War

#281

Post by claudeganon » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #280

Apocryphon wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.

How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.

Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services), not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. The list goes on and on.

I fail to understand why you see this whole situation as what happened with one law and one proposition and not the culmination of a bunch of corrupt people who have been in bed with each other for some time.

Re: A Worsening Culture War

#282

Post by dkdk8283 » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 7:26 AM UTC

RichardCA wrote: post #275

dkdk8283 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion American BLM is racist in of itself. There needs to be changes but popularizing the polarities of the topic only serves the ad driven model of media which supports it.

I don't think anyone is "popularizing the polarities of the topic" when they draw attention to those video recordings and the way they shock the conscience of people. And I don't like to pick apart semantics, but the way you use the term "American BLM" is a Straw Man and an Ad Hominem deployed in tandem. It's difficult to have a constructive debate when it's posed in those terms.

What about having a conversation in good faith vs nitpicking my choice of language?

Re: A Worsening Culture War

#283

Post by RichardCA » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 8:04 AM UTC

dkdk8283 wrote: post #282

RichardCA wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is "popularizing the polarities of the topic" when they draw attention to those video recordings and the way they shock the conscience of people. And I don't like to pick apart semantics, but the way you use the term "American BLM" is a Straw Man and an Ad Hominem deployed in tandem. It's difficult to have a constructive debate when it's posed in those terms.

What about having a conversation in good faith vs nitpicking my choice of language?

When I point out the fallacy, it's because I am trying to have a conversation in good faith.

When you say "American BLM" as if it were a monolithic entity and attach negative attributes to it, that goes to the heart of the matter.

I don't know how to have a conversation with you from across that chasm.

Re: A Worsening Culture War

#284

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Dec 01, 2020, 6:51 AM UTC

claudeganon wrote: post #281

lern_too_spel wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.

Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services), not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. The list goes on and on. I fail to understand why y…

> Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services)

What state law were they violating? None. What difference would not taking money from them have done? None.

> not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team),

What does that have to do with the state legislators, who created AB5?

> pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping.

Uber was not a monopoly and still isn't a monopoly, as a court already confirmed. https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-f...

> The list goes on and on.

No item in that list makes any sense. Why did they go through all the trouble to pass AB5 to begin with?