What I Heard from Trump Supporters • Hacker News Board

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#831

Post by gerbilly » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

Glyptodon wrote: post #828

gerbilly wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Likewise, there seems to suddenly be this notion that pretty much anybody who shows up whenever for whatever reason should just be allowed in to stay and work in America Globalization promotes the free flow of capital, but not labour. This never seemed fair to me. It feels like a mechanism of exploitation. Who _deserves_ to work in America more? Someone born into that country, or someone who left their whole life be…

Deserve is a terrible and dangerous word. Even the mere idea that jobs should be for the "deserving" sounds like some sort of weird cultist wet dream. But maybe in the future we can get rid of borders and citizenship, establish a global government with a single labor market, and then allocate jobs to the "deserving" by going down a list of afflictions, awarding points for suffering, and then giving jobs to those who'…

I wasn't endorsing the concept of 'deserving' here.

It may have been a bit of a straw man, but the idea that "foreigners are stealing our jobs" has an undercurrent of entitlement to it.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#832

Post by spinlock » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

SnowFace wrote: post #747

dragonwriter wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

1. Trump said the judge was not qualified because of his race not affiliations. This is ex-post-facto reasoning and it's intellectually dishonest.

2. It's also fake news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/...

I see comments like yours and want to give up on dialogue. Why should I play into your game?

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#833

Post by mikeash » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 4:57 PM UTC

rabbyte wrote: post #616

mikeash wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm bigoted and racist but I'm not going to admit to that." This one always gets me. We're told, over and over again, that these people are tired of being called whatever-ist and that we should start being nice to them if we want their support. Well, I'm sorry, but if you weren't so freakin' racist, we wouldn't keep pointing it out. If you don't want to be called sexist and ignorant, stop electing people who try to…

It's the "I'm not going to admit to that" part where the left gets it wrong. Pointing out that a person suffers from ignorance, racism, sexism, and bigotry doesn't need to come with the hostility and animosity or risk to their financial well being. These are states of mind that come from lacking context, from having an incomplete model of the world. If a person is punished for their incomplete model of the world they…

I'm happy with driving ignorance into the shadows. The harder it is to express and the less support bigots have, the less likely they are to pass it on to the next generation.

That is the primary mechanism for reducing bigotry. The number of people who will self-correct is small. Big changes mostly come from waiting for bigots to die out, and not replacing them with new ones.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#834

Post by gls2ro » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 5:09 PM UTC

PKop wrote: post #389

As a Trump supporter many of the comments resonated. In regards to upholding and celebrating American culture I always have this thought: Why do silicon valley types promote the concept of a "company culture" and feel it's important enough to base hiring decisions on, while demeaning those that want to uphold and sustain their own country's culture in the same manner? You hear it time and time again when a CEO stress…

There is a difference between jobs/skills and ethnicity.

The difference is the choice:

(1) One does not choose where one is born. And one cannot change that.

(2) But one can choose what programming language one learns or what type of job and how one wants to do it.

So from the first point it follows that a group of people born somewhere are protecting something they didn't had any part in creating.

I'm talking here about ethnicity or maybe citizenship, but I think it can be easily demonstrated that the place one is born will affect one's believes (religion, culture, preferences, taste) most of the time involuntarily and unconscious.

So to sum up: there is no moral high ground in protecting something that happened to you before your were born and saying that others are misfortunate because they were born in other place, as no one has a choice in that, And this is very different, in regards to discriminatory side, than a job at a company. The company is a choice, it is created voluntarily by the people working there. So it is the result of their nurture.

Actually my reply is related to a more general argument about movement of people in the world and what is the basis of denying it.

edit: formatting

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#835

Post by Balgair » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #823

lazugod wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they good reasons? Should I be hating her?

No, but that wasn't the question. If we could run a collective by facts and optimal herd ideology, democracy would be obsolete. The only thing we can do is understand WHY something happens, then try to work to change it (if it's bad, which is an entirely different can of worms of a problem).

>> If we could run a collective by facts and optimal herd ideology, democracy would be obsolete.

Haha! Yes, democracy would be very obsolete, and also just about everything else that makes a society more than one giant ant-bee-termite-like hive mind.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#836

Post by leesalminen » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 5:21 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #779

leesalminen wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: why would an American citizen choose to not learn the national language? Doesn't that disadvantage you severely in life?

> why would an American citizen choose to not learn the national language? English isn't our national language—the US doesn't have one.

I think that's a bit pedantic. If you plan on working in almost any field (maybe except farming) English is spoken.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#837

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #765

hkmurakami wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's natural. Maybe people haven't seen it in America before, but this happens all the time. Radicalism begets radical responses over enough of a time line. People in this thread keep feeling disheartened or calling out liberals enclaves - but they completely forget that this is only 3 weeks into Trumps presidency. As a candidate he was frightening to liberals, in a way no American presidential candidate has been in…

I don't care how liberal groups feel. I care how they act. And how they are acting is contrary to both liberalism and liberty.

(Conservatives are not acting conservatively, either...)

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#838

Post by dahart » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

iak8god wrote: post #829

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoting doesn't mean 'suppressing dissenting views'. It means simple disagreement. Further we don't discuss voting in threads, according to site policy.

Where is the policy "don't discuss voting in threads" outlined? My personal policy is never to downvote just for simple disagreement. I upvote comments that I disagree with if I think they're making a quality contribution to the conversation. Downvotes are reserved for comments that are trivial, combative, insulting, or intentionally offensive. For some reason I'd been assuming HN guidelines prescribed this approach…

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Near the bottom, "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

My personal voting philosophy matches yours, I tend to take downvotes more seriously, but it is not site policy, and it is acceptable here and lots of people do drive-by downvote, as you put it, for simple disagreement as well as other legitimate reasons. This is a good reason to resist taking downvotes personally, to resist speculating on why they were given, and to resist commenting about them when they happen.

One way to think about voting is symmetry -- maybe it's okay if downvotes are given out as freely as upvotes, and for the exact same reasons. If I upvote something I like without explanation, maybe it should be fine to downvote something I dislike without explanation. In a group heavy on engineers, perhaps this approach has an appealing consistency.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#839

Post by spinlock » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #756

spinlock wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

democrats have given up on gun control. you'll notice Obama didn't really grab any of them

Anti-gun-control nuts have not realized this. Source: listening to my gun nut friends on FB.

It's great marketing. If you look at the NRA's leadership, they all held marketing positions for gun manufacturers

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#840

Post by fireflash38 » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

splawn wrote: post #500

sdegutis wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't say Merry Christmas. You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder. You can't call a man "he" if he identifies as a "she". Do any of these in school, business, or government and you'll be punished.

These are mainly just social norms. I guess I never considered that as "censorship". "You can't say Merry Christmas." First off... yes you can. However, Why would you assume a large group of people in a public setting outside of a Christian context would all want to be wished a Merry Christmas...seems unlikely to me. "You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder." Again.. you can say that, However you…

" You can call anyone anything you like... what you don't have control over is how they feel in reaction. Assuming you identify as a man.. how would you receive someone that always referred to you as a female, and I mean always not just as a one-off joke type thing. I'm going to take a guess that you would feel worse than "censored"."

Basically, imagine having Dr. Cox calling you Shirley every single day, even though you hate being called girl's names. A lot of it boils down to 'Don't be a dick'.