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

Boycott IETF 127

boycott-ietf127.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 412 posts

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#91

Post by _2d30 »

croes wrote: post #66
_2d30 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and some of the links to the “traumatizing” deportations are for people who are clearly in violation of their visas. I had a friend deported from Denmark when he overstayed his visa and it was basically the same thing. Some of these look really bad and could be sensible justification for the proposed boycott/cancellation (see French scientist eg) but a lot of it looks completely hysterical.

How long did his deportation take? Because two weeks in jail what could be a simple flight home sounds fishy. And I wouldn’t want to gamble if I‘m one of the unlucky ones that you described as looking bad. That kind of uncertainty is exactly what makes those travels unnecessarily dangerous. That’s not hysterical it‘s cautious.

I don’t quite remember and would have to ask. I think he was detained for 5 days, maybe?

> Because two weeks in jail what could be a simple flight home sounds fishy.

The inefficiency of American institutions is nearly limitless. Don’t put too much stock in the glacial pace of our bureaucracy as being malicious when it happens everywhere else out of broad incompetence.

> That’s not hysterical it‘s cautious.

Again, I agree that there are a few stories of deportations that are legitimate causes for concern about hosting a conference with internationals in the US. But if you use people getting deported for overstaying their visas as a part of justifying that concern, then that is hysterical. It conflates issues that are effectively totally unrelated to one another.

It would be like claiming it’s not safe to travel to Italy because the local justice systems will charge you with trumped up charges and quote both the Amanda Knox case as well as cases where Americans actually broke the law and got charged justly. Only the Amanda Knox case is actual justification for the claim!

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#92

Post by koakuma-chan »

throwawayk7h wrote: post #58
koakuma-chan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The order being reasonable or not is not germane to the topic at hand. It isn't relevant what sex a transgender person is defined to be. What matters to the boycott is that transgender people in tech are facing difficulty entering the U.S. to attend the conference. Wouldn't you agree that's a problem?

[flagged]

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#93

Post by spartanatreyu »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #53

[flagged]

> This is just activist extremism. There’s no threat to anyone’s safety. The US is perfectly safe to visit.

Except the link you're responding to is literally linking to reports of threats to safety.

> Activists who are in opposition to the US presidency are overreacting to a few lone cases of people being detained at borders without knowing the details of those situations.

We know more than enough to point out that it shouldn't have happened at all. Even without those incidents, the previous concentration camps are not acceptable.

> Three of the stories linked are from the guardian, a far left publication that has been attacking the Trump administration.

The Guardian is a centre-left outlet, not a far-left outlet. Also, other outlets across the political bias spectrum are reporting the same thing so your comment here is boiling down to ignoring the message and attacking the messenger.

> All of the stories lack details and evidence of wrongdoing. So this just looks like hysteria and manufactured outrage.

You mean, except for the details, and the evidence of wrongdoing?

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#94

Post by lynx97 »

silisili wrote: post #40
nialse wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a historical context “wellness farms” is understood as a euphemism for concentration camp. It’s free but you can’t leave.

If you talk to a parent of a child who OD'd, most commonly of fent these days, they all have this thought. What if I took them somewhere remote where there are no drugs and didn't let them leave? My heart hurts for them, but I have no idea if it's a good idea or not. Regardless, I think his heart is in the right place. Time will tell whether or not it's actually useful.

Not just parents. Its a method that actual addicts employ. I have heard this not only once. "Moved a few months to a rural place where I had no access to the stuff to get my system clean" is a tactic that people turn to. Heck, one example I am thinking of even moved from the USA to Europe in the 90s to get rid of his crack addiction.

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#96

Post by silisili »

InvisibleUp wrote: post #85
silisili wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you talk to a parent of a child who OD'd, most commonly of fent these days, they all have this thought. What if I took them somewhere remote where there are no drugs and didn't let them leave? My heart hurts for them, but I have no idea if it's a good idea or not. Regardless, I think his heart is in the right place. Time will tell whether or not it's actually useful.

There’s a webcomic, “Joe vs. Elan School”, that might be an enlightening read for you.

This actually resonates a bit with my own thoughts from these comments.

If we assume a drug abuser is doomed for death in the next 6 months. But by using them as slave labor in terrible conditions for 3 years guarantees they will live to old age, regardless of any psychological trauma from said experience, is it worth it?

I'm not taking a position, I'm just making a thought experiment. It's more of a moral philosophical thing than an answer, I guess.

I think a lot of people not in the midwest may not understand the gravity of the fentanyl problem in the US. Literally every family is affected, whether directly or indirectly.

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#97

Post by tdeck »

viraptor wrote: post #44
arketyp wrote: post #20

I understand the sentiment that the Trump administration is draconian, especially for people traveling from abroad considering the new border policy. But, pardon me, how is that executive order about sex a "threat"? Listed as the top issue undermines the credibility of this petition I think.

Check out all the issues currently faced by people with either updated or X gender on their documents. Look at what happens with documents at government level that use even vaguely trans-related words. Do you get why people would see erasure like that as threat, given historical context?

Just to add one more example, the anti-trans frenzy led someone to call the cops on a cisgender lesbian woman who was using the women's restroom, where the male cops barged in to arrest her:

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/03/cops-burst-into-womens-r...

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#98

Post by throwawayk7h »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #92
throwawayk7h wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The order being reasonable or not is not germane to the topic at hand. It isn't relevant what sex a transgender person is defined to be. What matters to the boycott is that transgender people in tech are facing difficulty entering the U.S. to attend the conference. Wouldn't you agree that's a problem?

[flagged]

Right. I think I was unclear -- my point is that whether or not you agree with the E.O., you must surely agree it makes travel to the U.S. difficult for transgender travellers, right? And that's a problem for the conference.

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#100

Post by throwawayk7h »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #69
arketyp wrote: post #20

I understand the sentiment that the Trump administration is draconian, especially for people traveling from abroad considering the new border policy. But, pardon me, how is that executive order about sex a "threat"? Listed as the top issue undermines the credibility of this petition I think.

[flagged]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but the U.S. is already denying entry visas for transgender travellers, either as a follow-up to this E.O. or based on the same principles as it. This doesn't seem hysterical to me.
Post reply on HN