A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn' • Hacker News Board

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#51

Post by candiodari » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 9:25 AM UTC

notus wrote: post #50

pnutjam wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no hope in what they are doing, it's a classic "if I can't nobody can".

That's a pretty terrible reduction of the problem that prevents any further engagement. You cannot solve problems by ostracizing people.

What I feel you're failing to consider is that less further engagement may in fact be the preferable option, at least from their perspective. They feel like they are able to survive and change their own situation for the better, but just that others are in the way and make this impossible. So no, they're not looking for engagement.

That doesn't make their assessment of the situation wrong. It just makes it very inconvenient for government workers (whose jobs depend on said engagement) and people who want to virtue signal from afar. They feel like the policies, that by necessity are cheapest-possible-forced-help-from-10000-feet policies are more of an obstacle than help. Frankly, I can come up with more than a few cases where this was entirely right.

Of course, it also doesn't make their assessment of the situation right. Those same policies help people on a large scale as well.

However I would like to point out that there is a lot of research that less intrusive, and more unconditional help certainly seems to be more effective in quite a few places. A few random examples:

1) https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/14/less...

2) Even in what seems like black and white cases. To take one really extreme example. NOT helping kids who get abused by parents ... turns out to be more effective than helping them https://sci-hub.tw/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583

(and there's a famous study from the 90s that claims that giving troubled kids free membership to a sports club near them is far more effective than anything psychiatry/social work/... can do for them, and certainly more effective than prison. Not even checking if they actually attend)

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#52

Post by pnutjam » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 11:54 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #40

war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I've waded into downvote territory anyway: It's interesting that his opponents are the only ones that hear these "dog whistles".

No, I think his supporters see the dog whistle too, but in reverse: the "wink" to establishment as the dog-whistle with the message to them as the "real" one. I don't think either interpretation is strictly correct. I don't think President Trump himself has a "canonical" interpretation of these things-- his sentiment is changeable, not ideological or even political.

You misspelled "sensible".

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#53

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

pnutjam wrote: post #52

ineedasername wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think his supporters see the dog whistle too, but in reverse: the "wink" to establishment as the dog-whistle with the message to them as the "real" one. I don't think either interpretation is strictly correct. I don't think President Trump himself has a "canonical" interpretation of these things-- his sentiment is changeable, not ideological or even political.

You misspelled "sensible".

Okay, maybe your comment is going over my head here, but I need some explanation. I misspell things often enough, but I didn't use the word "sensible" here.

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#54

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #46

ineedasername wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always found this ironic. The answer to someone who wants to watch things burn is to, in effect, give them what they want and burn things down, on a smaller scale though, I guess?

Or perhaps by fighting such a man, you end up fulfilling their desires.

Which gives them what they want either way-- you either don't fight and let them burn the world, or burn it for them. I suppose a 3rd option would be to change their mind, but that seems a long shot.

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#55

Post by pnutjam » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #53

pnutjam wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misspelled "sensible".

Okay, maybe your comment is going over my head here, but I need some explanation. I misspell things often enough, but I didn't use the word "sensible" here.

Sorry, just a snarky way to disagree with your reasons. I meant to quibble with your final statement and propose -- "his sentiment is changeable, not ideological or even sensible"

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#56

Post by mikelyons » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #30

mikelyons wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And assassination used to be the way this was corrected?

I didn't see anything in the parent comment about assassination, but given the topic: Yes, when governments were effectively embodied by one single person invested with something approaching absolute power, bumping off that person would change the situation. Of course it often plunged the kingdom into some type of crisis until the succession was decided and a new monarch/king/whatever was installed. That's still the…

So then civil war is the way it can be corrected?

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#57

Post by gerbilly » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #39

kelnos wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel now, 2.5 years in? If you knew in November 2016 what you know now, would you still have voted for him? Do you plan to vote for him in 2020? Not trying to troll or start a political flamewar here, I'm genuinely interested, especially as it's pretty rare that a HNer will "admit" to being a Trump voter. The thing that always gets me is that even though Trump presented himself as this te…

> If you knew in November 2016 what you know now, would you still have voted for him? Do you plan to vote for him in 2020? I'll throw my hat in the ring and say yes to both questions, under the circumstances . > ignorantly bumbling his way through economic, trade, and foreign policy I disagree with this characterization, but can certainly understand how someone could come to this conclusion. > Put another way: it jus…

Ok I understand that conservatives view morality differently¹ , and factor in a wider range of concerns², fine.

But I don't see how voting for Trump advances conservative voters any further in shifting the moral framework to one they would prefer. I see trump mostly as amoral if anything.

Or is the point, as the study suggests, to burn down the system? To dismantle morally offensive programs/legislation? Am I missing something?

1: I.e. that it's not just about how we treat each other, but also supposed to act as an organizing principle for society. 2: loyalty, respect for authority purity

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#58

Post by Apocryphon » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #28

AndrewBissell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is far less "burn it to the ground" than his fans like to imagine. He's a friend to Wall Street, K Street, Raytheon Acres and the good old Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Didn't see this Michael Moore video [1] until after the election, but it pretty well describes why I voted for him. I'm doing pretty well, but I have a blue collar background, and the people I grew up around weren't. Didn't really figure he'd win, but my dad had died earlier in the year, and I figured he would have voted Trump, so I did it for him. Wasn't really a "burn it to the ground" thing in a literal sense. Bas…

And did the spirit behind that gesture last? He then went and teamed up with the same Republican politicians he pledged to be different from, and gave the establishment a big tax cut.

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#59

Post by war1025 » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 1:45 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #58

war1025 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't see this Michael Moore video [1] until after the election, but it pretty well describes why I voted for him. I'm doing pretty well, but I have a blue collar background, and the people I grew up around weren't. Didn't really figure he'd win, but my dad had died earlier in the year, and I figured he would have voted Trump, so I did it for him. Wasn't really a "burn it to the ground" thing in a literal sense. Bas…

And did the spirit behind that gesture last? He then went and teamed up with the same Republican politicians he pledged to be different from, and gave the establishment a big tax cut.

People can say what they want about the tax cut, but personally I got roughly $5000 out of the deal.

Re: A Shocking Number of Americans Want to 'Just Let Them All Burn'

#60

Post by war1025 » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #57

mistermann wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you knew in November 2016 what you know now, would you still have voted for him? Do you plan to vote for him in 2020? I'll throw my hat in the ring and say yes to both questions, under the circumstances . > ignorantly bumbling his way through economic, trade, and foreign policy I disagree with this characterization, but can certainly understand how someone could come to this conclusion. > Put another way: it jus…

Ok I understand that conservatives view morality differently¹ , and factor in a wider range of concerns², fine. But I don't see how voting for Trump advances conservative voters any further in shifting the moral framework to one they would prefer. I see trump mostly as amoral if anything. Or is the point, as the study suggests, to burn down the system? To dismantle morally offensive programs/legislation? Am I missing…

The main thing Trump has been doing as a favor to conservatives is heavily loading the court benches with conservative justices. That will have a long-term impact.

I think the mistake liberals make when looking at Trump, is they think he must be viewed by his supporters the same way they looked at Obama.

Obama is someone they looked up to on a personal, moral level.

Trump is, as you said, amoral. He goes where the political winds and his instinct take him.

I think people would feel much more at ease at least with the whole unstable, incompetent leader thing if they bothered to read Art of the Deal (written in 1987), in which he lays out how he views the world basically word for word in line with what he said during his 2016 campaign.

He may be unorthodox, but he is consistent.

Would I want to be his friend? Probably not. But that's not the role he applied for.