Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#721

Post by burkaman » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC

lefstathiou wrote: post #502

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…

For many Americans Sam Altman and Madonna are unrelatable so the messaging falls on deaf ears (or is potentially even counter productive). Nobody believes Google or YC is hiring refugees, or that Sam Altman and others are sending their kids to public schools attended by refugees, or living in low to middle income neighborhoods housing refugees and having to manage the increased violence that ensues. All well and good…

This is demonstrably untrue, the people you're talking about enthusiastically voted for a millionaire celeb.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#722

Post by davidw » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:37 PM UTC

myblake wrote: post #22

_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 effective is calling local congress members if you live in an area with a strong progressive majority such as the Bay Area. Not that we shouldn't voice our option to our represented officials but I suspect in some ways it's redundant whereas things like raising money for national organizations may be more impactful.

It's a hell of a lot more likely to have some effect than not calling at all!

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#723

Post by MylesHiIdebrand » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:37 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…

> fictional terrorist

lolwhat?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#724

Post by pvg » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:37 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #681

pvg wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm no immigration lawyer - just a greencard holder who's been through a couple of adventures in the process. There's a decent summary here:

http://lawandborder.com/risk-abandoning-green-card-abroad-6-...

Key things: 6 months absence can be a factor in challenging your status as a Lawful Permanent Resident. 12 months absence means your green card (the actual document) is no longer valid for re-entry but it doesn't automatically make you a non-LPR.

Customs and Border Patrol can deny you entry, as we've just seen, on the basis executive action, legally questionable or not. But they can't take away your LPR status - only an order from an immigration court judge can do that.

A lot of this is cold comfort to any LPR caught up in this and unable to re-enter right now - but there is a process and the status itself is not so trivial to take away. The call to help organizations who provide legal aid to such people (and refugees and other visa holders) seems like the right thing to me, it's probably the most immediate need.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#725

Post by rdl » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:37 PM UTC

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.

Oh, I missed your actual question: I don't have a problem with it at all. Sam has some political opinions personally which I disagree with (and so do most other people, in different ways), and as long as they're clearly personal and not organizational views, great.

In the case of immigration, that's clearly a YC position as well -- if you look at the percentage of YC founders who are immigrants, immigrants in early employee roles, and international markets, it would be negligent for YC to not be pushing for sane immigration rules. While the status quo isn't great, either, it's quite reasonable to criticize changes which also don't make things better. SOPA/PIPA, spying, etc. are all critical issues for YC and other groups of tech companies. Stuff like 2A, abortion, etc. isn't, even though a lot of people care about those.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#726

Post by lucb1e » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #685

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.

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.

Unlinking nicks from your real identity is fine, but for example the user I'm using is fairly verifiable not to be a government account. There's way too much effort and original content in my account. Or if I'm a government bot (it's still possible), I'm a very expensive one that wouldn't scale because of all the on-topic original content that's required.

As for harassment: no, that was never my intention.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#727

Post by ErikVandeWater » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:39 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #300

einarvollset wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-bett...

What point are you making here? That you can find a subset within a minority demographic that voted for Trump? If so, that proves nothing. Just look at the graphs here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump... White people elected Trump, minorities rejected him. Fact.

Minorities always reject republicans. The argument is whether Trump did better with minorities given he is a republican.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#728

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:39 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #687

thilmo wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

[deleted]

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#729

Post by MisterBastahrd » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:40 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #644

idlewords wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because he's got business interests in those countries.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#730

Post by Cyph0n » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 9:40 PM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #142

oh_sigh wrote: post #111

Why do people call this a "Muslim ban", when most Muslims are unaffected by it? There are 200M Muslims in Indonesia who are unaffected, 180M Pakistani Muslims, 172M Indian Muslims, 150M Bangladeshi Muslims, 75M Nigerian Muslims, 75M Turkish Muslims, 73M Egyptian Muslims...all of these people are unaffected by this "Muslim ban"

OK, but they explicitly mentioned that non-Muslims from the target countries are exempt from the ban. What do you call that?

As a Muslim, I'm quite appalled by the nonchalant reaction on HN, so I'm just going to downvote and continue following the news.