Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#321

Post by meritt » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #295

meritt wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not taking a stance here, I'm using facts to prove that this ban is targeting Muslims (and only Muslims) of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#322

Post by rcpt » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #165

rcpt wrote: post #94

I know it's an extremely antisocial position but I can't help but feel like most of Trump's immigration policies and outrageous tweets are just bait to keep our attention away from big money legislation that the 1% wants to get through. For example, the Keystone XL and Dakota access pipelines were heavily debated, protested, and ultimately rejected under Obama but Trump just signed orders to have them built and Sam's…

I've heard the exact opposite, people saying Trump's orders on highly controversial but minor-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things pipelines are cover for his less tangible but much more damaging moves on immigration and refugees. As to your last point, it is not unreasonable to ask the president for evidence when he challenges a core pillar of our society. It is good that hugely significant yet baseless opinions are not co…

I have not heard that. It doesn't even make sense to me given what's actually getting covered in the press is immigration, his crazy tweets, and gross comments on a bus.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#323

Post by whack » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #169

>1. Call 2. Participate 3. Share 4. Vote This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. It might have worked in the '90s to get a gold medal for Rosa Parks. It will not work in 2017 to make Trump back off his core message. The problem here is not that your side isn't loud enough and can't get political attention for an issue. The problem is that the opposing sid…

I don't understand your point. Who said anything about ostracizing people with links to the opposing side? In fact, Sama said the exact opposite. Winning back key constituencies is all great, and should definitely be done, but it isn't going to do anything until the next elections 2 years away. If you're suggesting we just sit tight and let Trump do whatever he wants till then, that is simply ridiculous.

It's not easy, but protests work. Calling your local congressmen and putting pressure on them works. Remember the debacle from back when Republicans tried to "reform" medicare? People spoke up overwhelmingly. They put tremendous pressure on their congressmen, who in turn put pressure on the party leadership, who then backed down. The same mechanic played itself out during every single government shutdown, where public pressure eventually cowed stubborn politicians into submission.

It's not going to be easy, but some things are worth fighting for. Defeatism is seductive, but isn't going to get you anywhere.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#324

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #169

>1. Call 2. Participate 3. Share 4. Vote This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. It might have worked in the '90s to get a gold medal for Rosa Parks. It will not work in 2017 to make Trump back off his core message. The problem here is not that your side isn't loud enough and can't get political attention for an issue. The problem is that the opposing sid…

> the opposing side

The opposing side is people who support the arbitary and harmful ban on a huge number of people based primarily on their religion.

No, the opposing side needs to learn some bipartisanship. The idea that a narrow election victory gives the right to steamroller a programme like this through is extremely dangerous.

[trolling deleted]

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#325

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

facepalm wrote: post #308

jacquesm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can very easily believe it. If you're capable of running a start-up you probably have some critical thinking skills and YC is - if anything - an extremely good selector for those skills. On top of that the undercurrent is to want to change the world, now you could take that the cynical way but for the most part that would bring out people with an idealist streak.

You are drowning in your own bias. Everybody who disagrees with you is stupid?

No, obviously not. We can disagree on all kinds of things. What we can't disagree on are facts and figures and historical lessons learned about walking certain paths.

If we fail to learn from the past we will repeat it endlessly and I really could do without a repeat of the path that we are currently on. But who knows, maybe the world just needs it's population reset every half century or so, we're overdue.

With the kind of bull-in-a-China-shop behavior on display at the moment it's a toss-up how this will end but war is definitely on the menu.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#326

Post by finid » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

TuringNYC wrote: post #129

ebola1717 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exaclty. Two of his biggest campaign promises were to build a wall to keep out Mexicans and to ban Muslims immigrants and refugees. The wall was one of his earliest campaign promises. I find it amazing that we're supposed to believe that the majority of Trump voters don't support at least one of these.

Note, this is far broader than the refugee ban initially discussed. The ban truly is a Muslim ban. See quote from Reuters -- it bans permanent residents (i.e. greencard holders.) Note that permanent residents have to pay taxes even if living overseas! "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump…

Muslims, then GC holders. Very soon, certain group of citizens will suffer the same fate.

The prison walls are getting closer... By the time you're able to reach out and touch them, it'd be too late.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#327

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #230

stonogo wrote: post #168

> This is very important people It's also complete bullshit. I actually live in a Trump-supporting area, and everyone I know who voted for him is ecstatic about this disgusting, offensive action. Trump is a bad person, and the people who voted for him are bad people, and I hope to God I 'push them away' as far as they'll get from me.

Well, you simply have to explain to people all the benefits that come from importing Muslims (especially refugees) into one's country. Perhaps use real-life examples like France and Germany to illustrate your point. People are more willing to be rational than you think--they aren't necessarily acting from some "disgusting" core impulse.

[deleted]

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#328

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #37

giancarlostoro wrote: post #14

I 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.

It is not possible to really invoke Godwin's law regarding Trump, he already opened this door when he accused the CIA of being like NAZIs for reporting he facts. I don't think there is very much reason to be shy with such comparisons anymore.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#329

Post by scrollaway » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

467568985476 wrote: post #153

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 comment reeks of victim blaming. Nobody who voted for Trump and Pence should be allowed to escape being held accountable for what they support. If their "economic anxiety" was bad enough that they can ignore the rights of LGBT people and religious minorities, then they are all the more guilty. Those people were never centrists and knew exactly who they voted for.

You focus so much on holding people accountable rather than prevention. Lay off seeking justice for a while, try to seek order instead. Listen to why people voted Trump rather than call them all bigots and justify it with "they knew what they were getting into".

As a european who truly despises Trump: This idea that you're too busy blaming people for being racist to spend time listening to them is honestly frightening.

One day perhaps in your lifetime, there'll be a candidate, populist like Trump but with extreme-left ideals and you'll be duped, just like the people you refuse to listen to were duped, because when there was time to learn you chose to be vengeful instead.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#330

Post by jowiar » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #273

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" We don't work like that. If we do the next one exiled will be you.

For some reason I'm thinking of a parable that goes like: "First they came for the Nazis"...

Oh wait, maybe not. Because when we finally got around to fighting Nazis it was good fucking riddance.