Live data from Hacker News

What I Heard from Trump Supporters

blog.samaltman.com

461–470 of 906 posts

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#461

I moved to San Francisco from a very rural area (was working remotely from my father-in-law's farm), and there are a few things the liberals I work with simply do not understand about what's happening in "small-town America" (Disclaimer: I did not vote for Trump, and I don't consider myself a Republican). 1. People hate Hillary Clinton. Haaaate her. No, you think I'm saying they disagree with her politics, but you do…

Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on #1. I never really understood the level of hatred Hillary received. To me she seemed like any other politician.

Off the top of my head ... whitewater, healthcare during Clinton presidency (people didn't think the first lady should have such a large role in public policy), Hillary demonizing Bill's female accusers, "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, Vince Foster's death, Benghazi deaths, Benghazi root cause (particularly the initial narrative that it was due to the youtube video). Also the sense that it was "her turn" -- a sense of entitlement -- it was obvious the Democratic Party Leadership was "granting" her the nomination.

Part of it I think, too, is the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the right radio who wanted to undermine Bill Clinton, so they incessantly attacked both Hillary and Bill.

This also might begin to explain a little of the heart of the sentiment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clinton...

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#462
post #40

This one gave me the most pause: > “Silicon Valley is incredibly unwelcoming to alternative points of view. Your curiosity, if it is sincere, is the very rare exception to the rule.” Substitute "Silicon Valley" for any major liberal enclaves, like universities and cities, and I think you see the same thing. I am skeptical by nature and try to take a scientific view of new ideas. However I feel like I get shouted down…

>try to take a scientific view >People start throwing link after link of facts You get upset when people present you with links to facts to respond to your proposed ideas? I can sympathize that it is definitely no fun if you feel like your ideas aren't getting the attention they deserve, but if you have trouble defending the ideas in the face of factual sources, maybe it's possible that one could reconsider those ide…

> After all, that's the basis of scientific thinking.

No it isn't. Scientific thinking isn't just like how a film photograph is taken, i.e. you expose a fresh blank film with no impressions of its own to light and it captures an image.

The unique thing about our minds is that we can analyze our own minds, we can analyze the interpretation of the input from the external world. Look at our own thought process and the way we perceive the world is known as Philosophy, and my main problem with the 'pro-scientific thinking' camp is that they have outright hostility towards philosophy.

Take for example evolution vs creationism debate. Just to be clear, I believe that evolution is the correct explanation of how the world came into being. But it is mindblowing to me how much the pro-evolution side (technically the creationist side too, but I don't care about them) insists on evolution being true and how much they have betted on this.

If tomorrow aliens land and they claim that earth is their landfill, dinosaur bones are their trash, and we are the equivalent of maggots living on their trash who came up with a consistent theory explaining how all the trash fits into our story. My point is that in that case, even though creationists aren't proven to be correct, scientific thinking would take a huge hit.

I can promise you if I go out and post to 100 scientific communities "I don't believe that the theory of evolution is true" and post some clearly non-religious argument against it, nearly all of them will wanna know if I believe in God, whether I believe vaccines cause autism etc.

Once I prove my credibility, then it's followed by link throwing. Remember the point I raised is philosophical, like could an alien life form have created us, can radiometric dating be wrong because we simply haven't observed any aging method to be correct over a million years. But it will be followed by link throwing, not even related to the topic I raised.

These things have nothing to do with whether my argument has merit or not, which is why no amount of link throwing forces me to change my opinion. Changing my opinion relies upon hearing a rational argument, and link throwing does not always mean a rational argument.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#463
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are referring to the protests that arose when media reported that non-violent illegal immigrants are being deported.

Like when a mother was separated from her sons? I wonder why that might set people off...

Furthering your point. Consider that Paul Ryan also doesn't want to deport dreamers/daca or break up families [1] is it any surprise. This isn't a partisan POV, there are legislators on both sides of the aisle that recognize the complexity of the problem and that ultimately it doesn't make sense to be so black-and-white.

Our immigration process is severely broken especially for migrant workers. They are an integral part of our economy and would, in most cases, choose to come here legally if they were given the opportunity. What we should be doing is giving these people work visas with a path to citizenship. We have already seen the adverse effects of eliminating illegal immigrants from being able to work as farm labor, crops rot in the field [2], and when prices rise, it will present opportunities to importers to put farmers out of business for good.

I should also state that I have no issues with deporting, though I don't understand why we don't incarcerate, unauthorized immigrants who commit violent crime(s). These people should be removed from our society.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/13...

[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-u...

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#464
post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the purpose of devaluing someone's opinion / level of comfort like that? This is exactly how you get people to disengage and destroy any chance you have of persuading them of ... whatever you want to persuade them of.

"I don't understand what you are complaining about, I have no problem finding a seat on the bus" - Some white guy in 1955.

The original comment sounded entirely different than that to me.

Regardless, if said white guy from 1955 said he was uncomfortable about something, or otherwise felt bad, telling him why other people have it worse seems counter productive. Someone always has it worse.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#465
post #366
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People start throwing link after link of facts and don't want to even reason about ideas. It's hopeless and I end up keeping my mouth shut. So, you take a contrarian view. People respond with facts. So, where's the problem? You don't like the facts? Don't want to hear them or what exactly?

It is trivial to cherry-pick facts that support a controversial, higher-level framing / viewpoint.

Then it should be easy to provide facts which disprove their point and start a discussion.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is patently untrue. All this navel gazing in this thread is bizarre and forgets the past 30 years of political history in America. You'll (Americans) have long ceased to have a conversation with each other. People seem to have forgotten the many decades of Fox News (when there was no internet), the steady movement of debate from policy to stuff like "birthers", tea parties, gun boats, creationism, and so on. The…

> People seem to have forgotten the many decades of Fox News (when there was no internet), Fox News was founded in 1996; the internet started being publicly popular in 1994-1995 (and had been around for decades earlier); there were not any decades of Fox News when there was no internet.

Do note that by internet, I am referring to the current scenario - where the net is the primary source of content for a majority of the population.

The period 1996-2006 was extremely different when compared to the last several years.

Consumption of media is not the same, and the impact of old media sources is not the same either.

-----

I do appreciate the correction. I was wrong and your correction Has helped me recall and revise other facts about the empire built by Fox News and Murdoch.

As I recall Fox News is the one which helped make climate change deniers look respectable, and helped build the world we live in today.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#467
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this was in the feedback: “I’d love to see one-tenth of the outrage about the state of our lives out here that you have for Muslims from another country. You have no idea what our lives are like.”

>Yes, this was in the feedback: >“I’d love to see one-tenth of the outrage about the state of our lives out here that you have for Muslims from another country. You have no idea what our lives are like.” The Democrats had a debate in Flint about the water crisis where they discussed what to do about it and how the country's infrastructure got there. Meanwhile Donald's fans were screaming "TEN FEET HIGHER!" If GOPers…

Thanks for your viewpoint. I agree there is something odd here. One lesson from this election is how big an influence the media has on politics, and I see this as a huge problem.

Honestly it is beyond me why health care reform was so controversial. It seems that Obamacare is flawed, but would be less so if there wasn't so much resistance to it. I don't think it should be a partisan issue but somehow it turned out to be. I would love to see a level headed analysis of what happened.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#468
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because "alternative point of view" immediately makes me think of someone saying that global warming is fake, and yeah,I'm not willing to debate that, it's just not worth my time. I'm curious what sort of ideas you have in mind though.

"I'm willing to listen ${them}, as long as they don't question ${sacred_cow}" is a key aspect of the unwelcoming behavior described by the interviewee. To use your example, I'd wager that most global warming skeptics (especially the ones that you'll meet in SV) have a more developed and nuanced perspective than "global warming is fake". Sure, we don't have infinite time or patience to fully understand and empathize w…

> "I'm willing to listen ${them}, as long as they don't question ${sacred_cow}"

More broadly, this seems to be how most of politics (especially recent American politics) operates on either side. Anything is open to debate and discussion as long as it doesn't seriously threaten to make someone change their behavior. You can even persuade someone to change their views, as long as their new views can support the thing they want to keep doing. Humans (myself included) are amazing at rationalizing, and hate serious challenges to their deeply held positions.

But I do think it's a useful pattern to recognize. The best tool I know for genuinely well-intentioned debate is to open with "What would make you change your position on ${issue}?" Unless both people can consciously identify a point or set of points that would be sufficient to alter their belief/behavior, there's not much chance of progress.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One can no longer openly discuss certain extremely important topics (is there something inherently wrong with Islam as a belief system? Is Black Lives Matter doing good or bad things? Are women really paid less than men for performing the same work?) Some very prominent and (mostly) beloved liberals talk about these things _constantly_. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, and Salman Rushdie for example, are very…

It's great that those prominent figures are discussing difficult questions openly. That can only result in good things for our society. However, not all of us have such luxury. For most of us, merely asking the initial questions to start a difficult/challenging conversation can have very bad consequences in the current climate. If you've got a job as a coder at a SV company, you'd better be extremely careful about st…

Do you know a single person --regardless of religion-- who supports honor killing? Of course not. This is just an excuse to engage in fear mongering about Islam, and no good will come of that.

Essentially the issue here is that some people want to say racist or bigoted things without being ostracized for it. Like you could in the good old days, when everybody was racist. So now there is this big backlash, but it won't amount to anything because we're in the 21st century now and we're never going back.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#470
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are illegal because the system is so broken. There's a market demand for those people, and they're moving here to work, by and large. Just because something is set in law does not make it morally right.

>They are illegal because the system is so broken. They're illegal because what they are doing is against the law. Broken system or not, it's still illegal. >Just because something is set in law does not make it morally right. No, but it does make it the law, and breaking it is still illegal. Morals are grey, while law is much more often black and white.

Rosa Parks broke the law too.

No, it's not quite the same, but my point is that this is absolutely a case where the law is not working well, is not 'right' and ought to be fixed.

There are a lot of similarities with MJ legalization: by legalizing, regulating and taxing, states like mine (Oregon) have hurt criminal enterprises and taken in millions of dollars in revenue, and brought a lot of businesses out of the shadows. It's a win all around.

Post reply on HN