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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#641

Post by ihsw »

jhall1468 wrote: post #592
obstacle1 wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 30 year old male is a military-age male, PhD or not.

I mean, if we're already going to use faith-based targeting, might as well throw a little sexism in the mix for full effect.

But it's true, men have borne the brunt of war in antiquity and in modernity. There is no sexism and frankly it's disheartening to hear people reach that far when the facts stare you right in the face.

If we're going to take things to their logical conclusion then we'll have to accept re-inviting WWI into our collective consciousness -- an entire generation of young men were be wiped out then.

The language is important because it exemplifies a state of total war[1] where the citizenry is divided into combatant and non-combatant, and all things considered that usually means men -- all young and old -- and everybody else are separated. Once separated we have a go at each-other and the last man standing wins.

The term "military-aged male" offers insight into what we will have to face and hopefully whenever you see that it will be sobering for you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#642

Post by sangnoir »

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.

> I keep seeing people repeating this meme everywhere, but I've yet to figure out why it's actually relevant

Maybe because the EO explicitly refers to 9/11 not once, not twice but three times.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#643

Post by cderwin »

normaljoe wrote: post #555
cderwin wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, it's nearly half of the voting population and I think it's fair to extrapolate that to the entire population. Even taking the approval poll numbers, that's more than one in three, so I don't really think it changes my above comment much, if at all.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#644

Post by ihsw »

idlewords wrote: post #588
general_ai wrote: post #100

First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept mil…

This is a de facto Muslim ban dressed up enough to make it constitutional. Please don't well-actually right now.

Then why are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, UAE, and Malaysia missing from this list?

Serious question.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#645

Post by mindcrime »

CalChris wrote: post #595
mindcrime wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7. Join a political party (I'd suggest the Libertarian Party, but whatever floats your boat) 8. Donate money to said party and to candidates in upcoming elections.

The last three Libertarian candidates for President are: 2016 former Republican Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson 2012 former Republican Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson 2008 former GOP House member and Clinton prosecutor Bobb Barr Gary Johnson ran as both a Republican and a Libertarian in 2008. Republican Ron Paul has run as a Libertarian. On the evidence, the Libertarian Party is a flag of convenience for Re…

Whatever. My point has nothing to do with the LP. The point is that joining a party and donating money are some of the most effective strategies for pushing change. If you don't like the LP, due to ideology, strategy, both, or something else, then pick your own poison - even if it's one of the "major" parties.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#646

Post by 1337biz »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #294
oh_sigh wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power? I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.

That wasn't the questions. It was: Do you want the possibility of a job? Does it matter if your disadvantaged, Muslim, first-generation American friend - or his/her parents - gets the shaft so that you can have a happy home and a job? Does having a job mean that I have to be careful not to be out in the sun because then I look arab? With good reason, too - my grandmother was first generation american. Her parents wer…

The interesting thing is about voter priorities. We can always argue about different shades of grey. But taking for example your list, I would love to see 1/0 data where people had to make the ultimate choice - prefer to hide the sexuality or have no job. Sometimes forcing people to make a choice and not hiding behind relatives could open the true priorities.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#647

Post by felipemnoa »

dragonwriter wrote: post #566
tlogan wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that a person who supports or condones persecution based solely on ethnic and religious background is a bad person. Or a person who support a leader which does these things. But that is my opinion. There are even CEOs and very successful people who are bad people. Even Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938... And Henry Ford loved him. So just be aware that you are seen as a bad person by certain members of US po…

> Even Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938 Time's man of the year is about influence, not endorsement.

A lot of people do not get that difference. It sounds like an endorsement to tell you the truth even though, as you say, it is about the most impact, good or bad.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#648

Post by guildwriter »

awfgylbcxhrey wrote: post #446
czep wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes me sad that politics has made its way to the top of HN. Yes I'm sad about this too, but we can't turn our backs on this, it's just too big. We can't just pretend it will go away and the world will sort itself out. We can't retreat to the comfortable confines of our algorithms and code, the real world needs us and needs us now. What's happening is literally sickening to me. The thought of young people in 20…

We can't retreat to the comfortable confines of our algorithms and code, the real world needs us and needs us now. Judging by the comments here, HNers have nothing to offer the real world (of politics) other than shrill shrieking about racism and bigotry. That's not going to help anything. If you actually want to create political change, put your head back into your work and amass a fortune. Maybe in 20 years you'll…

"Should you undertake political violence in response to the age of Trump? I don’t know; what political violence, by whom, against which targets, towards what end, as part of what larger strategic campaign? If you don’t have answers to those questions then the debate is useless. Should you undertake direct action? I don’t know; what direct action, by whom, in what sites, towards what end, as part of what larger political campaign? Should you get involved in partisan politics? I don’t know; what campaigns, for what party, towards what specific political goal, as part of what larger vision of building an effective mass movement? Should you call your members of Congress? Same deal.

No more dorm room debates. No more abstraction. What is going to actually work to build a better world, right now, under these real-world conditions? What’s your plan to make real, substantive, large-scale progress? That’s the question you’re confronted with. If you can’t tie a particular act to a plausible vision of how to make real progress in the real world, then you’re wasting your time."

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/01/25/make-every-question-a-st...

If the Democrats and liberally minded people want to affect true political change, then this kind of discourse needs to take hold within discussions like these. There's far too much emoting and virtue signaling going on that builds up tribal unity at the expense of alienating all others that do not go along with it.

Like it or not, a significant portion of the country is deeply afraid of Islamic terrorism. They are not assuaged by the methodology of the past 8 years. What alternative solution can the left offer that calms their fears while holding true to core ideology of the movement? Calling these people racist may energize your base and serve as catharsis, but is going to shrink the potential voting base more and more.

It deeply saddens me to see how much invective is being thrown around on a community that I prize for being able to discuss technical issues at great depth.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#649

Post by rdl »

koolba wrote: post #40

Are there any publicly pro-Trump founders in the current YC batch and, if so, how ostracized do they feel reading things like this? EDIT: If there's no answers from the current batch (either due to sample size or general shyness), I'll pose the same question regarding past YC alumni. I find it hard to believe out of a thousand people there isn't a single Trump supporter.

I'm (YC S11) not blindly anti-Trump (I support the sitting President whoever he is, but while I voted Johnson, I don't think Trump was the worst choice of the 4 top choices), and I think some of what he's trying to do is positive. I support Keystone XL and other pipelines. I think out of 2000 founders there are probably >50 but On the immigration issue: I'm in favor of immigration reform. I disagree with the current EO because it doesn't include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and because it doesn't exempt Special Immigrant Visas (which should have been super fast tracked), and because it seems punitive vs. corrective. If the reasoning behind it is an actual improvement in the screening process, and re-examination of all past visas under that basis, then there's probably a way to do it which is less disruptive to the >99% of visa holders who are not terrorists.

(The immigration reforms I'd like to see are both improving the experience for "good" people, and more effective screening of "bad" people, though superior technology and procedures. I'm hugely in favor of deporting/banning actual criminals who are in the US and not citizens; tracking visa expiration better; physically securing borders to prevent access without valid authorization. I'd like the borders to be far more deterministic for valid visa holders, friendlier, and for the immigrant or visitor experience, starting from the websites and how we treat people in foreign embassies, to be better. That might require more funding for State/USCIS, and definitely requires better tech. In general I think the test at the border should be "will this person make the US a better place." We have a human rights need to provide emergency refuge to refugees, but that doesn't necessarily mean immigration, and could in Syria be most efficiently accomplished by funding camps in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq.)

(The trade war is dumb; if the wall is going to cost $15b, we should just pay for it.)

Reporting "will give priority to Christians" is a mischaracterization of: "> (b) 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."

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#650

Post by DanBC »

idlewords wrote: post #576
guelo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most effective action tech companies can take is what they did against SOPA: post large protest banners on popular websites. Though I don't think this is the right time to take that step. There are many outrages ahead, many will be directly related to tech, like killing net neutrality, forcing tech companies to compile Muslim registries, banning tech worker and student visas, and who knows what else. I think tech…

The most effective action tech companies can take is to pour rivers of money into immigrant advocacy and legal aid organizations, and to make sure their CEOs speak out loudly, right now. Banners don't matter. Net neutrality mattered in October, doesn't really matter now. Get your head straight.

I suck at slogans, but...

"You like this service? Our founder came to the US in 19XX"

"You enjoy this website? Here's a list of 2nd generation immigrants on our executive board"

...might get people to realise how much of the US economy is driven by 1st & 2nd generation immigrants.

Post reply on HN