Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What I Heard from Trump Supporters

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 906 posts

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#741

Post by LyndsySimon »

nbardy wrote: post #380

> Trump won largely because of disenfranchised blue collar Caucasians resonated with him. This is one of the most startling facts of this election to me. Trump got the support of these people with emotional rhetoric that had little basis in reality. By putting on a hat and giving people groups to blame he positioned himself as a champion of the people besides his past showing is the complete opposite. Trump has spent…

> Trump got the support of these people with emotional rhetoric that had little basis in reality.

This translates to me: "I don't understand how the opposition feels, and don't care to find out why. It's easier to assume they aren't living in 'reality'."

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#742

Post by narrowrail »

azrazalea wrote: post #528
Dirlewanger wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is necessarily an act of violence No, it's not. Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies. I agree that Milo's tirade about the student was ill-advised, but it is not violence. Also, I find it side-splittingly hilarious how people are going after his Rogan interview comments (calling him pro-NAMBLA is top-notch clickbait, where were you Monday morning when all these stories were going out?!), yet the same peo…

> No, it's not. Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies. > Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowl…

>what Milo did definitely caused psychological harm from a position of power

As far as I can tell "psychological harm" is too vague and open to interpretation. It's a very broad definition that looks like it prohibits hate speech; I believe in complete free expression by voice or text (criminal/ civil court can handle the rest).

Personally, I stay away from such people in the digital world (but, IRL I'm meaner than most and enjoy 'interacting' with these people).

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#743

Post by throwaway022117 »

> One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter.

I can relate. I did not vote for Trump, but I am right of center & loathe HRC.

I stopped talking about politics at work shortly after getting a job at one of the large tech firms with "oo" in their name, but I'm pretty open about my views on social networks.

Starting on 11/9 I began to fear for my job.

One friend/coworker, very left of center, also very vocal on social networks, set up a work 1/1 with me. A bit odd, as we hadn't interacted in months (moved to different buildings), and asked if I felt responsible now that Trump was president & so many people we work with felt threatened.

A very close (& liberal) friend mentioned that another coworker had started a FB messenger discussion about people in the office who didn't support HRC, asking what to do about them. I honestly have no idea what was said or who was on it, but the close mentioned that she told them I was a good person with various examples -- which was nice, but leaves me questioning what they were asking.

This is all why our executives openly wept about the decisions. We had safe spaces established. Leaders sent out emails to their teams attempting to comfort.

At the advice of others, I just went dark. I hate doing that. I enjoy discussion & learning where I'm wrong. But I realized with kids at home, my top priority is making sure they're taken care of, and when debate isn't welcome, I should just shut up.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#744

Post by [deleted] »

hkmurakami wrote: post #522
sgift wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the first things I've noticed when looking at political discussions. People (correctly) note the abuse of powers in others, but the moment they get power themselves they see no problem with (ab)using it to attack those who did it before. And then the power relations change again and it starts anew.

Definitely. The tactics used to shame Trump supporters, evangelicals, and the like are the exact same as the ones used to shame and invalidate people of color, women's rights, etc. In the past. It's disheartening, really.

[deleted]

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#745

Post by SnowFace »

dragonwriter wrote: post #729
SnowFace wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His entire spiel about Mexicans being drug dealers and rapists. His entire spiel was spun up by the media. If you go back to what he actually said, in context, it's hard to find anything wrong. Show me an example.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." [0] There's a whole lot of bigotry to unpack in that, but the biggest is the implied conspiracy in which und…

I don't know if it's a conspiracy or not, but it's happened before. Castro sent criminals and mentally-ill to the US. Mexico is also our biggest supplier of drugs, and 80% of the women who cross the border are raped. Of course there are good people, but you can't ignore the huge criminal element too, and that's the point.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#746

Post by spinlock »

SnowFace wrote: post #706
spinlock wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about stating very publicly that a judge could not be impartial because he's Mexican. That's kinda textbook right there.

Not really. It's 100% standard to dismiss a judge for having a bias. You can't look at her being Mexican in isolation. When you consider how the media spun his statements on Mexicans, how the judge is a member of La Rasa, and how he wants to build a wall, bias is a very valid concern.

> It's 100% standard to dismiss a judge for having a bias.

This is where the dialogue breaks down. It's not normal to dismiss a judge based on ethnicity. It's normal for a judge to recuse themselves if they have a financial interest in the outcome, etc...

Trump's supporters and his detractors have very different ideas of conflicts of interest. I would say making Mar a Lago the "Winter Whitehouse" is an unacceptable conflict because we the people pay Trump rent every time he takes a trip there. I just don't understand how one can defend that sort of self dealing.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#747

Post by SnowFace »

dragonwriter wrote: post #725
SnowFace wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nit-picks are irrelevant. La Raza has a record of supporting illegal immigrants. Trump wants to build a wall. My broader point that the judge had a reasonable chance of bias stands, and Trump was right to point this out. > They didn't: they reported exactly what he said, and they took it at face value. They didn't. They took his statements out of context and then "fact checked" the misinterpretation time and time…

"La Raza has a record of [...]" No, it doesn't, because, again, "La Raza" isn't an organization. It's a name fragement used by literally thousands of different unrelated organizations. It's like saying, to use a similar name fragment common in a different ethnic community, "Fil-Am has a record of..."

The San Diego La Raza Lawyer's Association, the group the judge belonged to, gave scholarships to illegal immigrants. You're nit-picking to detract from my point, that the judge had a reasonable chance of bias, and Trump was right to point it out.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#748

Post by maxerickson »

christophilus wrote: post #307
throwaway713 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who frequently plays devil's advocate, I'll usually argue the opposite viewpoint of the person I'm speaking with just to see how they think, and I've found there are two types of people: those who become emotional and angry, and those who engage in logical debate. This seems to be more of a personality trait than a political thing.

I do the same. I have found that both conservatives and liberals get angry. But by far, the harshest are liberals, in my experience.

I get irritated pretty quickly if I think someone is playing devils advocate straight. If I'm having a discussion with a person, I don't want to have a discussion with an inverted caricature of my views.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#749

Post by narrowrail »

rosser wrote: post #588
Dirlewanger wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is necessarily an act of violence No, it's not. Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies. I agree that Milo's tirade about the student was ill-advised, but it is not violence. Also, I find it side-splittingly hilarious how people are going after his Rogan interview comments (calling him pro-NAMBLA is top-notch clickbait, where were you Monday morning when all these stories were going out?!), yet the same peo…

> Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies. If you engage in a course of action with an intent to harm another in any way, or behave in a manner likely to result in harm to another, you have committed violence, whatever form that action takes — words, bullets, or anything else. If you can't accept that basic definition, "then you're already beyond help." (See how easy it is to poison a discussion with accusat…

>in a manner likely to result in harm to another

I think this is too imprecise. Would you write code in this manner?

If one can establish a cause and effect of actual harms, then criminal statutes already apply.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#750

Post by api »

splawn wrote: post #658
api wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like "redneck" and "hick" and "white trash"? That's the other thing I think people are reacting to. There's a double standard where it's okay to slur rural white Americans but nobody else. IMHO it's about classism as opposed to racism. Racism is taboo in American discourse but classism and urban elitism (placeism?) are not. Maybe the answer is to define PC as you do and extend it to cover classism, placeism, and reve…

I thought it was taboo to be an asshole. Hence the term "asshole".

In most human cultures and subcultures it is acceptable to be an asshole to out-groups.

My point was that your average left-leaning person is not immune from this.

Post reply on HN