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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#511

Post by curun1r »

woofyman wrote: post #309
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very unhelpful. i think any way to signal that trump and his policies are unpopular is helpful. if everyone knows that a vast majority of people are going to vote against him next time, congress people do not have to bend to his will, and world leaders do not feel as pressured to work with him. it seems like maintaining an illusion of popularity is paramount for history's bad political regimes, i think this is why. e…

>it seems like maintaining an illusion of popularity is paramount for history's bad political regimes That's why he is so obsessed with crowd sizes and the lie that he would've won the popular vote if not for 5-10 million fraudulent votes.

He's not really obsessed with those things, but it's an opportunity to run elements from the Russian propaganda playbook.

First, it establishes a norm with the press. This administration will lie to them, and blatantly. That way some of them will react more positively in the future when they're given anything resembling an answer of substance on some future issue. It's the PR equivalent of the "negging" pickup practice.

Second, it increases the separation between his core constituency and the rest of the country. He can't afford for any of his core constituency to abandon him, so he needs to ensure that they live in a different reality from the rest of the country and that no logic can cross that barrier. The more that the credibility of left-center-neutral news organizations is destroyed in the eyes of his Fox/Breitbart/alt-right constituents, the more legitimate news/logic can be dismissed by his supporters.

Third, it can help create a feeling in the minds of middle ground voters that the truth is unknowable if every fact is contested. At that point, it becomes a battle of personalities to determine who people believe. Donald Trump, if he's good at anything, it's sounding sure of himself.

These don't work if you only do it once or only do it on the important things. They work over time, based on opponent fatigue to combat every falsehood and our (humans) own natural-but-flawed ways that we determine trust. These techniques start off feeling absurd, especially to opponents, but have proven very effective to dictators around the world, including Russia.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#512

Post by scarmig »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #469
scarmig wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm confused. Was Elizabeth Warren wrong to criticize a second amendment solution to the wrong person being democratically elected?

Just to get us on track:

I agree that talk of Second Amendment remedies is incredibly inappropriate. Random internet comment suggests it, and it should be downvoted. Donald Trump suggests it, and he should be considered ineligible for election to dog catcher, let alone President. Agreed?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#513

Post by earthly100x »

delegate wrote: post #495

Tech companies must use their advertising networks to influence public opinion on these issues. Instead of ads for products/services, they should allocate space for ethical and moral issues. Staying 'politically' neutral is no longer an option when we're dealing with issues which affect a great part of Earth's population, like climate change, globalised economy, aggression and war and so on. Tech companies must get p…

You nailed it.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#514

Post by moomoo2 »

raverbashing wrote: post #452
bassman9000 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Given their history, and the involvement of officials of Saudi Gov in 9/11, they should also be included. Obvious reason I can think for not doing it are - business ties : weak reason - given that, as little as we'd like the country, it's a stable one, and this could destabilize it, and the entire region, even more : weak reason too - US currently engaged in a war with Yemen with Saudi allies : strong reason.…

> False. It's incomplete. Such an obvious vulnerability as this is either gross incompetence or due to the original action being nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Pick one

Bullshit. The goal is claimed to be reduction of the risk of jihadists immigrating to the US to cause harm to Americans. You claim seems to be that by not including Saudi Arabia this will have no such effect. This claim is transparently false, unless you believe a) there is zero risk of jihadists at all in the first place, or b) that literally every jihadist who would have normally come from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia or another country on the non-suspended list to enter. Surely you can see how both of these is false.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#515

Post by rdtsc »

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.

> Trump is undeniably more corrupt,

Undeniably? Why do you say "undeniably". Almost half the country disagrees with that I think. Not saying he is not corrupt, but I wouldn't go with "undeniably" here.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#516

Post by olalonde »

emehrkay wrote: post #314
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…

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-…

> Fuck them

This is the same flavor of bigotry and ignorance that leads people to believe that all immigrants or black people are dangerous criminals. Not everyone who voted for Trump supports all of his positions. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if a good chunk of his voters disagree with the majority of his positions, such is the nature of a two-party system.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#517

Post by 551199 »

thedevil wrote: post #412
disantlor wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why are we giving so much benefit of the doubt to trump and trumps supporters not only is this move ridiculous but it was executed with no foresight. now border agents are forced to make ad hoc decisions because it went into effect immediately. trump supporters cheering and claiming its just temporary, to give us time to "figure out whats going on" are deluding themselves. they rush through a ridiculous, anti-america…

Well, we definitely should not pander to them. I actually think most people (Trump supporters, you, me, everyone) vote mostly based on identity (liberal/conservative, religion, race, open-minded, well-mannered, etc). I think Trump supporters mostly voted for the party that they most identified with, the guy they thought was on their side. And I think you did the same. (I see myself as unaligned and open-minded, thus…

Republicans were against Trump. He's a centric independent who run as republican.

By all means liberals keep doubling down on identity politics. The anti-fascist are the new fascist. Democrats were against Lincoln as well. Trump will be championed as modern day hero who was opposed by the most hateful people.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#518

Post by ihsw »

stonogo wrote: post #352

You have directly caused my wife's parents to miss the birth of their first grandchild, and worse things I won't name because they would personally identify me, by electing an idiot who is terrified of fictional terrorists. You are a bad person, and I don't care whether you appreciate knowing it or not. I don't really give a shit what you think of Hillary, because she did not needlessly block my family from coming to…

It's this kind of language that hardens people's positions, myself included. I fully support his policies despite your family being affected, gotta break eggs to make an omelet.

The campaign was about targeting and isolating the harmful effects of globalization as well as terrorism. The message of his campaign is loud and clear -- America is for Americans. No more siphoning off of resources and no more half-measures.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#519

Post by t_20170128 »

adamrezich wrote: post #450
dragonwriter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually doesn't include any of the countries the 9/11 terrorists came from.

I keep seeing people repeating this meme everywhere, but I've yet to figure out why it's actually relevant. 9/11 was sixteen years ago.

Because the EO specifically cites 9/11 and terrorist attacks as justification for this ban.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#520

Post by leesalminen »

stonogo wrote: post #352

You have directly caused my wife's parents to miss the birth of their first grandchild, and worse things I won't name because they would personally identify me, by electing an idiot who is terrified of fictional terrorists. You are a bad person, and I don't care whether you appreciate knowing it or not. I don't really give a shit what you think of Hillary, because she did not needlessly block my family from coming to…

> terrified of fictional terrorists

Fictional? Really? Look at what's happening in various parts of Europe.

Post reply on HN