Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#551

Post by concinds » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:30 PM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #304

concinds wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay customers? You and plenty of people in this thread seem to confuse "behave" and "say". "While Trump's"enemies take him literally not seriously & friends seriously not literally", the wise looks at his acts & acts only. No words." --NNTaleb Ostracizing others for their words is incredibly immature, petty, and vindictive. And ironically, ostracizi…

> Do you believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay customers? I don't believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for anyone. I do believe that if they want the protections of the legal system, they must follow the same protections for others, even if they find them abhorrent. A principled stand against those protections does not mean they get to do that at no cost to themselves.…

> If "person who supports an abhorrent ideology" is a protected class in SV restaurant service law, I rescind my call to ban him from getting a table, and change it to "let him eat alone".

Political ideologies are legally protected against discrimination in California.

But even if they weren't, why judge someone by their beliefs? The only reason you would is if you think support for Trump is a moral defect, with no exceptions. In other words you're not against him because of his political beliefs, but because of your (not universal) beliefs about what is moral and what isn't.

> We all choose to associate or not with people based on their beliefs.

Disagree. Most people judge others on social status and personal character, neither of which have any link to political ideologies or personal beliefs.

> he is not welcome at my house and I won't work for him

That's a fine personal decision, but there's a huge leap between "I don't want to be involved with him" and "everybody else should ostracize him, or they are just as evil as him". The former is "live and let live", and the latter is "the world should bow to me".

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#552

Post by zo1 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:31 PM UTC

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…

I'm disappointed I'm not a citizen and couldn't vote for Trump.

I wonder how opinion-widening it would be if a terrorist attack victim's family member came on here to respond to you. There are bigger things to consider other than minor inconveniences.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#553

Post by Frondo » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:31 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…

You know who really needs to take a fucking stand?

The low-level workers at these airports who are enforcing this bullshit ban. They need to grow some spines and start ignoring bad orders, no matter who they come from.

"I was just following orders" was never an acceptable excuse to do the wrong thing.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#554

Post by AlexB138 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:31 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #324

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]

>No, the opposing side needs to learn some bipartisanship. The idea that a narrow election victory gives the right to steamroller a programme through is extremely dangerous. Give it a few months and the left will start talking about the second amendment solution.

The GOP won majorities in both houses of congress, along with winning the presidency. There's also no "almost" winning in American politics. The left was shot down pretty decisively and we really need to start thinking about why that is. Call me crazy, but I don't think we're going to win back more of those swing voters by advocating armed overthrow of the president they democratically elected.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#555

Post by normaljoe » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:31 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?

Not sure where you get nearly half when less then a third of the population voted for Trump. Nearly half of the population didn't even bother to vote. Are you referring to his approval rating which is questionable with polls of 36% to 55%?

I'm also not calling a Trump voter a "bad person" just asking about the number of people in context to the discussion.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#556

Post by potatosoup » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:31 PM UTC

briholt wrote: post #538

potatosoup wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been killing Muslim families in these countries for years, even under Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner.) Like or hate Trump, I'm surprised that now is the time to be outraged. It should've been ages ago.

I suspect the outrage has less to do with a rational analysis of polices and world events and more to do with virtue signaling and groupthink.

I'd respect some of these people (like SamA, and Zuckerberg, and others) much more if they were consistent in their views. These millionaires/billionaires who supported Sec. of State Clinton during her election, fully knowing the loss of Muslim life her actions caused abroad, now virtue signaling about Trump -- I just don't know how to take them seriously.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#557

Post by facetube » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:32 PM UTC

gns24 wrote: post #523

deno wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your source doesn’t dispute the accuracy of this number at all: > Cruz is rounding up, but he is correct about the percentage of Christians among the Syrian refugees who have resettled in the United States. > A total of 2,290 Syrian refugees have arrived in the United States since fiscal year 2011, which is when the Syrian civil war began, through Nov. 20, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center…

Or maybe the areas where most Christians live were less affected by the war?

Precisely: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syrias-christians-stand-by-assad...

More detail here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/25/why-syrian-...

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#558

Post by qwertyuiop924 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:32 PM UTC

ebola1717 wrote: post #145

qwertyuiop924 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I don't like Trump, but fighting him isn't worth going against the very principles we fight for. People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we?

Thiel donated $1.25 MILLION to the Trump campaign. This isn't holding him accountable for his "beliefs" or even his "speech" - this is holding him accountable for helping to cause this mess we're in.

For the third time, that's different from being exiled from civil society.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#559

Post by ebfd » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:32 PM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #490

ebfd wrote: post #464

I voted for Trump, and am very happy with the ban- I don't see the benefit of bringing in Muslim refugees.

I like to see this opposing voice here. Discussion is good. Please though, don't use a throwaway: it makes me think you're a government person or bot.

Not a throwaway, just a coincidental new account. Your suspicion is obviously justified- I'll be on the lookout for posts about symbolic execution research to build credibility on.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#560

Post by moomoo2 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 8:32 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #461

refurb wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's focus here. The claim is this is a ban on Muslim's, yet the vast majority of Muslims in the world are unaffected.

It is a partial fulfillment of the goal Trump explicitly stated repeatedly during the campaign: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country". He has taken a very large concrete step toward this outcome, explicitly and obviously in service of it. To claim otherwise requires both being obtuse about the wording and the belief that Trump won't do what he said he was going to do. After the events of the…

There are a lot of people who will happily accept a temporary suspension of immigration from countries full of ISIS fighters who are trying to exploit our immigration system based on the president's word that the various security services need 90 days to tighten things up. There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest if literally anything more aggressive is done from here (and who also vehemently opposed the original proposal during the campaign.)

The slippery slope fallacy falls short.