Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#431

Post by maratd » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:07 PM UTC

meritt wrote: post #380

general_ai wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not Muslims from the 189 remaining countries. So maybe it's not, in fact, about Islam per se? Do you think there is such a possibility? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

It's about Muslims (and only Muslims) from the 7 listed countries. I'm not sure how to make this any more clear.

> It's about Muslims (and only Muslims) from the 7 listed countries.

Emphasis mine. Why those 7 countries specifically though? Anything special about them?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#432

Post by bassman9000 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:07 PM UTC

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #385

bassman9000 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. That's a nice slippery slope you got in there. There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order, and it's clearly stated that it's temporary, with several revision dates for assesment, the goal being to strengthen the vetting procedures. I bet most people commenting here haven't read it. Do it. Now. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/…

What's wrong with using the slippery slope argument here? Regarding slippery slope logical fallacy: > This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. In this instance, plenty of reason and argument to believe this event will lead to another. It's what he campaigned on. > There's zero mention to muslim…

> What's wrong with using the slippery slope argument here?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

> Plenty of Muslim mentions in his campaign.

Not an argument, and irrelevant. Read. The. Text.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#433

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:07 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #336

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.

Honest question: how do you think a country where nearly half of its population are "bad people" should be governed? I can't imagine you'll actually be successful in pushing away one out of every two Americans. What do you think would be proper action to devalue the influence of these people and where in the world would you draw the line?

> Honest question: how do you think a country where nearly half of its population are "bad people" should be governed?

Historically, if such countries are made up in such a way that there is a well defined geographical split the country will break up.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#434

Post by mrchicity » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:07 PM UTC

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #211

myblake wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means 52% of Republicans don't strongly support it, and Trump was elected by a mix of Republicans, independents and even Some Democrats.

OK, but 52% is a pretty scary number. I'm still curious for a source on the statement that "most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban". If big numbers did vote for him on that reason then there's a cancer running deep in USA's society that trying to brush under the rug isn't really going to help.

In a two-party system, few people agree with every policy in someone's platform. I voted for Clinton but disagreed with many of her views and actions. Oftentimes people are voting based on a single very important issue or for the lesser of two evils.

I'm curious why you think supporting a ban like this is a "cancer"? It's heavy-handed and misguided, but religion is ideology. People see heinous acts worldwide perpetrated in the name of Islam. Some Muslims have extremely regressive beliefs on women's rights, gay rights, personal freedoms like drinking alcohol or even making loans that make even the staunchest Bible thumper look progressive. They see countries with larger Muslim immigrant populations like France in constant disarray, with little integration and once peaceful neighborhoods lit on fire. Even people with no initial ties to terrorism read up on this ideology online and commit lone wolf attacks.

So why do we want these people coming in? Maybe we have a principles-based belief in religious freedom and don't want to appear discriminatory. There are some more secular or Westernized Muslims who can live peacefully and contribute to our society. Helping refugees will help save innocent lives and undermine ISIS. Those are all great reasons, but it's disingenuous to pretend they come at zero cost. Some people do this analysis and say it's worth it, and others disagree. A sovereign state has a right to its borders and admitting immigrants who advance its interests.

I don't support the ban, namely for the reasons I gave above, but it's completely understandable why someone would. It doesn't make them a bigot or evil, just scared and perhaps lacking in empathy. The hardcore left does itself no favors in this regard, constantly parroting the "religion of peace" line and pretending there are no reasonable reasons to oppose immigration that they need to argue against.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#435

Post by tacomonstrous » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

akjainaj wrote: post #342

emehrkay wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the only thing that he campaigned on was hurting black/brown people and repealing the ACA. Everything else, every other policy topic was met with "I have the best people" or "I will have the best advisors." He constantly, falsely, repeated how bad black people have it in inner cities. How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people. He touted the need for a nation-…

>How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people. I'm not from the US but this really looks awful. I wouldn't set foot on this city even if you paid me a million dollars. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/

As a resident of that very city, I thank you for not bringing your bigoted behind here. Stay away, please.

Edit: okay, that was not a great thing for me to say. Sorry. I'm just fed up with the repeated vilification of a great American city by the buffoon-in-chief. Yes, violence in the city is a big problem, but it's hardly its defining characteristic.

Edit 2: apology rescinded.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#436

Post by angry-hacker » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #382

mythrwy wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trump is a bad person, and the people who voted for him are bad people" I voted for Trump. I support many (not all) of his policies. I don't appreciate being called a bad person. Certainly you have a right to think this but I disagree. I won't go into what I think of people who voted for Hillary because I try not be mindlessly nasty but I don't think they are all "bad people".

I think anyone who supports ethnic and religious bans and persecution is a bad person. Even if they deprioritize them in voting over other policies, thinking, well, who cares, a little bit of racism never hurt anyone, that makes them a bad person. And Trump promised voters that, and now they're getting what they voted for. The only very thin escape route a Trump-voter has is "I thought he was lying to trick the rubes…

And anyone who supports a man who is killing innocent people with drones, wiretaps all the world, signs things that allow kill people without any questions is a bad person. Heck, some even voted for him twice! What a bunch of fascist.

So in the end all the Americans are bad people or maybe you guys start to understand each other more to avoid these situations in the future. Calling each stupid doesn't lead you anywhere.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#437

Post by jimmywanger » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

id wrote: post #337

naaaaak wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't running the most corrupt, least trustworthy candidate who couldn't cite a single accomplishment in 30 years of public "self service" THE problem?

The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it. Trump is undeniably more corrupt, less trustworthy and has no experience whatsoever. It shows everyday. She on the other hand was actually a decent candidate with a lot of experience and few scandals.

> The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it.

You can say the same thing about the Democratic smear campaign against Trump.

Clinton was somebody who was complacent, part of the existing political machine, and ran on a divisive platform that marginalized 25% of the electorate. Plus it didn't help that she ran the gender card into the ground and got out campaigned by political neophytes in both major parties in the biggest campaign in the world.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#438

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

_m8fo wrote: post #7

Why 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…

Run for office. Since it's hard to get up the gumption to run yourself (everyone here knows what imposter syndrome feels like), convince friends to run.

Don't limit yourself to Congressional races. Those are incredibly hard to win, especially for political outsiders. Run for parks commission, for library board, for school board, for town trusteeships, and for county offices. Run for water reclamation. You don't need to be a subject matter expert --- that's not expected of you. You just have to be willing to do a little extra work every month.

Any elected office gives you a greater voice in all of the rest of our politics. You use local offices to put pressure on your congresspeople and your state reps, and to build an organization to win more offices later.

This is what the Republicans have been doing since the 1980s, and as a result the GOP controls most US states.

Another fantastic place to start:

https://www.indivisibleguide.com/

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#439

Post by burkaman » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

bassman9000 wrote: post #319

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. > But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to th…

> He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. That's a nice slippery slope you got in there. There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order, and it's clearly stated that it's temporary, with several revision dates for assesment, the goal being to strengthen the vetting procedures. I bet most people commenting here haven't read it. Do it. Now. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/…

> 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.

The vast majority of Middle East refugees are Muslims in the majority in their countries, so here the Secretary of State is directed to prioritize non-Muslims.

> The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.

What does this mean? Trump is in charge, and he has made it clear that this is how he sees Muslims.

Trump has also specifically stated he will prioritize Christians: http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-fi...

Finally, there's nothing wrong with a slippery slope argument when Trump has explicitly stated that he wants to get to the bottom of the slope.

> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

- https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

This is still on his website. We don't have to guess what he'll try to do next, he's already told us.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#440

Post by scarmig » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #377

pjc50 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama Regarding the second amendment: ".@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can't handle the fact that he's losing to a girl," - Elizabeth Warren

That's mighty clever of you, but there's a world of difference between a random pseudonymous person implying we should take Second Amendment solutions to kill Trump and a Donald Trump implying we should take Second Amendment solutions to kill Clinton.

You're a smart guy: you know this. You can do better.