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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#681

Post by tptacek »

pvg wrote: post #670
tptacek wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't post banners about the US refusing reentry to Green Card holders who are the spouses of American citizens, or who fought alongside our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, because that might dilute our protests against net neutrality ? After a period of 6-12 months outside the country, US Green Card holders lose their Green Cards .

After a period of 6-12 months outside the country, US Green Card holders lose their Green Cards. In a time of grave concern for many green card holders, it's probably better to avoid this sort of inaccurate info. It's freakout time but let's stick to freaking out about true things.

Could you please true up the information?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#682

Post by fastflo »

in the end only US citizens can decide. as a devotee for freedom and a world in peace i am very worried about those citizens' last decision concerning POTUS. i am not a US citizen. and i never felt the need to be one - just because i was lucky to be born in a country where in my opinion there is at least hope left for a better future.

i hope more US citizens "take a stand" like the OP and show how they want their part of the world to be like.

just my two cents - euro cents (a currency used in another union of only 28 states...)

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#683

Post by Retra »

stale2002 wrote: post #617
lucb1e wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uhhhh, bad things happen to people who publicly support trump in liberal bastions. A throwaway account is perfectly reasonable. I cannot count the number of times I hear supposedly tolerant people yell "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." Where the consequences is usually violence. But thats OK, because it is not the government doing the violence. Being coy about being a Trump supporter is a ne…

That's because they are tolerant towards personal choices, not political ones. There's a big difference, and sticking them in the same bucket so you can shout 'hypocrisy' doesn't constitute a useful analysis.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#684

Post by wundering »

"Almost every member of the GOP I have spoken to knows that these actions are wrong. Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Kevin McCarthy and James Mattis said so themselves when Trump first proposed his Muslim ban"

NY Times says about Paul Ryan today [1]: "House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said it was right on target."

Which one is it?

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/trumps-immigration-ban...

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#685

Post by ihsw »

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.

It sounds like you're interested in targeting him for harassment.

This is why I'm considering closing all of my social media accounts even remotely linked to my real identity -- reprisal is a very real threat.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#686

Post by Haegin »

guelo wrote: post #157
methehack wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Mr. Altman is largely addressing tech CEOs here and urging them to make public statements. The actions you list are great for you and me, but he's mostly not really talking to us. Supporting quotations from the post (because evidence): "The tech community is powerful. Large tech companies in particular have enormous power and are held in high regard. We need to hear from the CEOs clearly and unequivocally" "A…

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…

Tech companies can also leave the states. Taking the amount of tax revenue they pay abroad will make a much stronger point than adding some banners, and that's before you factor in the deskilling of somewhere like the bay area if the tech companies leave.

Of course, too many of the mostly white male tech company founders and investors are hoping to benefit from things like reduced corporate taxes to care about discrimination that doesn't affect them.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#687

Post by cmurf »

thilmo wrote: post #453
_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…

How about the best way: 7. THINK Think up better arguments, that might convince people. Examine your own opinions, to see whether they're actually right. Examine your opponents' opinions, to see whether they're right too. Maybe come up with new ways of thinking about the issue which are better than the way anyone's thinking about them at the moment. And then start talking. People in politics should put less thought i…

I'd say evaluate the actual target audience for this conversation, and choose to not engage an audience that clearly has no interest in anything other than what amounts to tribal warfare.

And that includes the president smearing every source of criticism as "FAKE NEWS!" He exactly represents those who voted for him: ignorant, fearful, angry, reactionary, conspiracy theorists, suspicious and vindictive. There is no possible way of having rational conversations whether smarter or louder. I don't see any point in examining these opinions, it's a colossal waste of time. I'm not responsible for their opinions, or changing them. I think a very decent chunk will have buyer's (voter's) remorse on their own without me having to say a thing about it, and the rest will just dig their heels in.

Ergo, Trump and Trump voters are a distraction. Focus on the effecting policies: non-violent demonstrations and associations, legal recourse, letting local and state reps know how you feel. There are mayors like Marty Walsh who historically have done more to stand up to overreaching state and federal bureaucracy than any U.S. Senator.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#688

Post by jacquesm »

LeChuck wrote: post #671
jacquesm wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NL is about (March) to make a huge shift to ultra-right. The coming elections are predicted to be a landslide victory for the PVV, the extremist/nationalist party which is pushing those exact same buttons that Trump is pushing. We may end up in a very strange situation where the largest political party will not be part of government and where the prime minister will be part of that party (a constitutional crisis, his…

That's not quite correct. It happened in 1977 and in 1982. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_1977 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_1982

Excellent information, thank you. So it will be the coalition rather than the largest party. I was hoping for that but could not easily find a source to make that un-ambiguous, precedent is better than anything else.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#689

Post by Tulip68 »

kyrre wrote: post #95

aren't the majority of Americans in favor of this ban? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/18/fox-news-poll-vie... https://theintercept.com/2016/07/07/donald-trump-backs-off-m...

Appeals to majority do not make sense when it comes to fundamental human rights; we have a Constition for a reason.

More concretely: majorities of Americans once believed that African-Americans could be someone else's property or that a trans-woman is somehow not a woman. Thus this would not be the first time large numbers of (mostly old, white and privileged) Americans placed themselves on the wrong side of history by opposing logic, facts and basic human decency.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#690

Post by potatosoup »

grzm wrote: post #627
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.

People in the US have been outraged since Bush's response to 9/11. To torture, to Guantanamo, to black sites, to the invasion of Iraq, to drones, to all manner of things. If you're going to cherry-pick items, be honest about doing so, or come up with a supported thesis as to why your chosen points are different from all these others.

(deleted)
Post reply on HN