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

Time to Take a Stand

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#291

Post by corysama »

burkaman wrote: post #59
myblake wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How effective is calling local congress members if you live in an area with a strong progressive majority such as the Bay Area. Not that we shouldn't voice our option to our represented officials but I suspect in some ways it's redundant whereas things like raising money for national organizations may be more impactful.

First, it helps put actual weight behind their words, so they can say "I received 2000 calls about this issue in the past week" or something. Second, members of congress have limited time and limited political capital, so if for example you want them to prioritize stopping the Muslim ban over stopping the border wall, you should let them know. It helps them choose what to focus on, and can also help them recruit othe…

Keep in mind, when politicians measure how much people care, the numbers are weighted by how much effort went in to making the statement. So, a unique, hand-typed letter takes a lot of effort and therefore is given a lot of weight. A phone call, less so. A copy-paste letter much less. And, a online petition signature, zero.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#292

Post by adamnemecek »

I think that one of the main issues of politics is the lack of real time data. There should be a website where people can vote every day (I'm not sure what exactly I mean by vote, I guess the bare minimum would be "i'm content with current political situation" and "i'm not content with current political situation").

Idk if this could take off but i feel like it could become a tool for voicing discontent and seeing some of these numbers of how many other people are voting could lead to something more.

One of the fundamental instruments of dictatorships is deceiving the public about how many other people are dissatisfied with the regime. If you know for a fact that 9/10 of the population is extremely dissatisfied with the regime, you can topple these regimes.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#293

Post by general_ai »

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #269
general_ai wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two. And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.

Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.

Destroy the most radicalized, enforce Syrian law for the rest. There's nobody that can do the job better than the Syrian government (which is more "well versed" in local politics than any White House hack will ever be). That's the only way to minimize the body count.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#294

Post by Broken_Hippo »

oh_sigh wrote: post #130
microtonal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

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.

That wasn't the questions. It was:

Do you want the possibility of a job? Does it matter if your disadvantaged, Muslim, first-generation American friend - or his/her parents - gets the shaft so that you can have a happy home and a job?

Does having a job mean that I have to be careful not to be out in the sun because then I look arab? With good reason, too - my grandmother was first generation american. Her parents were from Syria.

Does having a job mean that my bi-racial niece and nephew have to deal with alt-right led government?

Does it mean that I have to hide the fact that I'm bisexual?

It isn't enough that I have food and shelter. I want others to have the same, otherwise, I'm simply sharing and having less on whatever paltry sum the overlords will pay out. It isn't like there is a real social safety net to rely on.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#295

Post by maratd »

meritt wrote: post #220
general_ai wrote: post #100

First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept mil…

> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. A 90-day suspension and a ban are the same thing. ban is defined as "officially or legally prohibit." -- duration is irrelevant. > Second, it's not "Muslim" The executive order specifically exempts people of minority religions in those countries "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious…

> The executive order specifically exempts people of minority religions in those countries

I'm sorry, but are you actually upset by a provision that makes an exception for those being actively persecuted because of their religion?

Regardless of what you may think of the executive order, I'm not sure how you can find fault in that.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#296

Post by 467568985476 »

cornholeconnie wrote: post #263
Scirra_Tom wrote: post #86

I think it's shameful to have an open Trump supporter as part of the upper echelons of YCombinator (Thiel). Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But when you openly support a candidate who likes to "grab [women] by the pussy", and now is making headway into some sort of Muslim ban which was a campaign headline, how will female and muslim applicants feel if they know part of their process might be controlled by som…

So only opinions that you deem acceptable are ok. So people are not entitled to their own opinions...

It's perfectly reasonable to kick a toxic person out of your community. Free speech means the government won't put you in prison. It doesn't mean that other people are required to entertain your opinions.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#297

Post by cderwin »

bratsche wrote: post #73
myblake wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How effective is calling local congress members if you live in an area with a strong progressive majority such as the Bay Area. Not that we shouldn't voice our option to our represented officials but I suspect in some ways it's redundant whereas things like raising money for national organizations may be more impactful.

It feels like it's not very effective, but that may be because there needs more weight of numbers behind it. If you're in a progressive area like the Bay area I can see how it would just add extra load to officials who may not need further persuading. I'm in Texas though. A very red state. I've been calling my representative and senators to voice my opinion on all this stuff, but it's hard to tell how effective it is…

I wonder how much calling actually matters, because I feel like whether they receive 10 calls or 10,000, it's always going to be one-sided. Conservatives aren't going to call their reps and they don't have the propensity to engage in the same activism as progressives, so I would think representatives would take calls with a relative grain of salt. If a very conservative congressperson starts getting a bunch of calls saying how much the dislike [standard conservative proposal], they've got to think that as much as the people who voted against them don't want [standard conservative proposal], the conservatives who voted them in do.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#298

Post by jowiar »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #141
jowiar wrote: post #11

This 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.

> 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. And this well represents the leftist-elitistic-rhetoric that drove so many to vote for Trump (HRC's "deplorables" comment). Five year olds say "I told you so," adults find reasonable pathways forward in difficult situations. People voted for and supported Trump for a variety of reasons, let's…

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with "position of power". I wasn't talking about "James Wilson, truck driver in Madison" or "Allison Smith, bartender in Columbus".

It's the folks who single-handed lot have power to shape the world. Thiel can grab a friendly dinner with the greatest threat to humanity on Monday, and yet Sam Altman will gladly have lunch with him on Tuesday and joke about his "friends" as though nothing happened?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#299

Post by innocentoldguy »

microtonal wrote: post #53
djrogers wrote: post #8

> In doing so, we should not demonize Trump voters—most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban. We need their eventual support in resisting actions like these, and we will not get it if we further isolate them. This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe, a moron, and not deserving of the franchise is not going to help anything. I didn't vo…

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

I didn't vote for Donald, because I think he sucks, but what other non-racist option was there? Hillary? Hillary exhibits just as much racism as Donald does; just in a different way. Hillary, along with many members of her party, are paternalistic racists. In other words, they hide their racism behind agendas that treat minorities and other groups like children. They feel that they are superior and better than other people, and so they talk down to them and coddle them in their campaigns and policies. It is condescending, and indeed a type of racism.

If we REALLY want to solve these sorts of problems, we need to:

1. Stop playing team sports with our votes, and be willing to look for the best options in third-party candidates. Sure, we may lose a few elections initially, but if we keep pushing, eventually we'll win. We can never achieve greatness by settling for the "evil of two lessers," as we did on both sides of the political fence last year.

2. Force our elected officials to stick to the checks and balances of the Constitution, and eliminate things like executive orders, which are in place solely to short-circuit Congress.

3. Get new blood in Washington. Stop voting for morons like Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell; or better yet, push for term limits and the elimination of exorbitant retirement benefits for these public servants. We cannot "drain the swamp," as Donald likes to say, until we, as voters, stop defecating into it with our suffrage.

The government is one of the biggest hinderances for minorities, and the Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans, if not more so. If we're going to fix this issue, we need to fix the corruption in Washington, as well as in our states and local communities.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#300

Post by gizmo »

einarvollset wrote: post #235
gizmo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What point are you making here? That you can find a subset within a minority demographic that voted for Trump? If so, that proves nothing.

Just look at the graphs here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump...

White people elected Trump, minorities rejected him. Fact.

Post reply on HN