Sometimes the people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with. The melodrama over Thiel's political opinions is pointless. If you demand Thiel steps down, are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently?
Personally I lean liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with all the theatrics I've seen in this election from the left. The Trump phenomenon arguably occurred because half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington in the form of donald trump. Maybe we should all get to understand our neighbors instead of doubling down on us-vs-them tribalism.
If people are no longer free to use words or social stigma to advance their views and opinion, because "tolerance," then what do we have left?
It exactly means that no matter how subjectively and personally odious somebody's beliefs are to you, you can still respect their personhood, and evaluate any associated business & products at face value.
"Tolerance" does not mean enforcement for or against selected beliefs. Waging a stigmatizing crusade against a belief is enforcement.
The moment you think you can deem and enforce absolute right & wrong upon others, you open yourself up to it happening to you without defense. That is not the path of liberty.
What on earth kind of law do you want to set up where I can't preferentially trade with people whose opinions I like, or preferentially not trade with people whose opinions I don't?
Again, tolerance means I don't want to imprison or kill people with distasteful opinions; it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions.
People can be bigots, they can be jerks. Go nuts, folks, be bigots or jerks, I don't care. But I'm not going to trade with bigots or jerks, I'm not going to hire them, and I'm sure as hell not going to say "hey, you're a bigot and a jerk but tolerance so let's have a beer".
Some people have no place in my life, and the beliefs they hold are a big determining factor in that decision. If they really wanna be my friend or business partner, they can change their beliefs.
That is pretty much the definition of not tolerating a person, to remove a person from your life, not tolerating having their existence in your sphere. If it's mostly based on their beliefs, then it's an example of not tolerating that belief.
You're perfectly fine to do that, as people do, but then you can't claim that you're tolerant of others' beliefs just because you happen not to be killing or imprisoning them.
> it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions.
Tolerance does NOT mean liking them! I keep hearing false dichotomy over and over. To be decent and civil to a person, to tolerate their beliefs existing around you, does not require condoning them. It's simply being a decent human being and not being an overprovoked reactionary, intolerantly policing all others around themselves, determining what others are not allowed to be like.
The alternative is actual argument rather than punishment, something overgard in no way ruled out.
...which unfortunately may not be a great tool given the current situation. I think we are at the point where playing nice may no longer be a serious option.
But that doesn't mean we should just, lke, punish all the bad people because they're bad people. That still isn't helpful. It just feels good, it doesn't necessarily accomplish anything.
In the particular case of people joining the Trump administration, I think Megan McArdle makes a good case against punishing capable people for joining it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-09/there-s-n...
Still. We're in a situation now where argument is unlikely to get us anywhere -- but in better times, that's the ideal, not using words to punish people.
That's an utterly meaningless comparison. Bill Clinton was a governor with terrible policies concerning minorities [1], while Donald Trump was a real estate mogul with terrible policies concerning minorities. The fact that their different leadership positions meant that Trump could harm a statistically fewer number of people means exactly nothing.
"Didn't lock up any black people" isn't exactly an achievement for someone who hasn't served in government.
[1]: I agree with you that Bill Clinton deserves to be held completely accountable for his actions as Arkansas governor.
If you are talking about the cosmic tally of bad deeds, opportunity isn't relevant.
[1] Calling it "half-assed" doesn't even do it justice because the measures are far less than half of what's needed.
People prentend that politics is a purely abstract thing, but consider. Bush is directly responsible for well over 500,000 deaths. The blood of his victims is directly on the hands of everyone that voted for the idiot. Trump might not be as bad or he might start WWIII.
It's true that few of us have the time and energy to dig through all the bullshit and achieve understanding of everyone we find abhorrent.
But where we are able to do so, we usually learn some important things about others and about ourselves - mostly, that when it comes down to it, we all just want to feel safe and loved.
True compassion is hard, but unless we can offer it to others, we can't expect it to be offered back to us.
PS: Some people really don't care about safety others don't care about love.
You can disagree with their decision whilst still empathising with their reasons. Indeed you must, if you're ever going to persuade anyone to change their position.
Though you're poisoning the discussion by invoking cannibalism, it's easy to see that in primitive societies where it was accepted, it was due to a need for safety (from hunger) and love (from participating a communal ritual). Of course we find it abhorrent now, I certainly do. But I can understand why it would have been acceptable to people in a time and place where there seemed no alternative.
Equally, we would all hope and expect that where others find our opinions and actions abhorrent (and in a huge and diverse world, someone always will), that they will seek understanding before abusing or marginalising us.
> PS: Some people really don't care about safety others don't care about love.
When I've actually dug deeply into that question, I've never found it to be true. The people who, on the surface, seem not to care about being loved, actually turn out to be the ones who crave it the most. Just look into the life story of any psychopath or tyrant, and you'll inevitably find stories of abuse and/or emotional neglect in childhood.
In terms of trump voters, I don't care about their reasons. And I am not trying to convince them. They made the world significantly less safe, putting literally billions of people at risk. That's just not cool, still as a well off person I don't need to care it's probably not going to get me killed.
As to love, some people flat out can't feel pain. Some, have more than one set of DNA. That's just 2 examples, but humans have a lot more variety than most people think about. Being an outlier and being famous are really separate things.
Sure, but people did it because they perceived it to be in their interests. Because that's what evolution ensures people do. Always.
> I don't care about their reasons
Well yes, we've established that.
Humanity has many systems of tricking people to do various things harming their own self interest, but saying what people believe has any inherent value is a huge mistake. Trump getting elected is going to kill many (though hopefully a small percentage) of his supporters, but many of them don't see a problem with this.
Trying to be a hero running into a hail of bullets it stupid. But, hundreds of millions of young men have repeatedly done so. Watching a war movie most people cheer such stupidity on as a good thing continuing this cycle.
PS: Many people hate this but even a single counter example absolutely disproves what you say. Yet, convicting people to believe lies has long had value to a great many people, so pointing this out is generally a waste of time. People even react negatively to the truth note all the down votes for polite on topic responses.
There's a difference between "advancing your views" and "demanding someone get fired because they disagree with your views". See? If you want to call Thiel a dickhead for his support, feel free, you even have my agreement. But this is the CLASSIC go-to-move of overzealous social justice creeps, to demand banishment of the person for thought-crimes.
That's obviously a false equivalence. On the one hand, the candidate was encouraging his supporters' violence. On the other... well, not that.
The overwhelming majority of the videos I have seen are Hillary supporters beating Trump supporters.
The supposedly "tolerant" side has been looking awfully intolerant of late.
With the exception of Hillary-planted agents provacateur, as verified by DKIM-validated Podesta emails, who is beating up whom?
By this definition, business owners in Indiana who don't support gay marriage could legally not serve those customers. Is that the world we want?
I agree with you. But we cannot disregard the dishonest behaviour performed by most leftists/liberals over the years. The leftists/liberals hurl so much social stigma against the republicans/Christianity but they dishonestly and criminally keep mum about e.g. Islam. Sam Harris and Bill Maher have pointed this out beautifully at [1] and [2].
The leftists have never allowed anyone to socially stigmatize Muslims about their faith in the very vicious, barbaric and most importantly "the most intolerant" ideology of Islam. So now this has came around them.
Mainstream left/liberal camp is completely dishonest about its take on the issue of intolerance of Islam.
Sadly but not surprisingly people like Trump will succeed to exploit such thing.
The saner people in the left should reflect on this dishonest behaviour of the mainstream/vocal leftists and must do something about it, else the intolerance will just grow.
First a question: Insulting to whom?
If you think it is insulting to Muslims, then I disagree. It may be offensive to some Muslims. Will criticizing Nazism be considered as insulting (to Germans)?
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
"All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
Don't throw away people's humanity because of one aspect you don't like about them. Even if they're your enemy. Seriously, differences are being treated like kindergarten cooties here. You don't catch Naziism by being civil to your neighbor, and we need civility overall.
But here's a problem: Everybody is labeling everybody else as effectively Nazis for any minor or major difference, thus justifying all civility being withdrawn.
Plus, people can change.
What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true.
> What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true.
This is the root of the polarization that is tearing everything apart. The only life you'd be happy to live is one where you're only surrounded by those who are not "politically" divergent from you? Politicizing everything puts you at a fundamentalist war with everything.
This is demonstrably anti-freedom, and intolerance of the existence of differences. Sure, you can promote destroying differences that you don't like (I was going to say "political differences", but that's moot according to your outlook of all differences being political), but you're really speaking against fundamental tenets of western society so it becomes functionally moot.
Equating ethnic identity with a genocidal ideology is kinda fucked up, though.
It's too easy to label somebody a Nazi (or whatever label enables you), eliminate all civility and humanity from them, wish them nothing but death, and consider yourself righteous and tolerant for it.
It is better to err on the side of treating bad people with more respect than they deserve, than to err on the side of treating decent people with more hate than they deserve. Because your judgment of how bad or decent they are is at the very best based on incomplete information in the first place. Erring on the side of hate directly makes the world a worse place, and erring on the side of respect makes the world a more civil place.
It's all fun and games to treat people with respect if you have nothing to fear from them and it lets you feel morally superior and all that, but at some point you gotta recognize that some people are right to be concerned and work against their persecution.
Again, taking an argument and misusing it doesn't actually weaken the original argument. It's possible for the perpetrators and the victims of genocide to use the exact same rhetoric against each other, but then it's on you to figure out who's being full of shit and not go "maybe the truth is in the middle between genocide and escaping a genocide".
Tolerating certain politics as just "differences" in opinion is a luxury for people for whom politics are an intellectual exercise and maybe impact their bank statement at the end of the year, it's not affordable for those for whom it's a question of survival.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
You lean liberal? What?
Not so long ago it was a perfectly valid opinion that there should be slaves. Try that today.
(Incidentally that same level of society would have seen Thiel stoned to death, he is openly gay after all)
So what's not "open to discussion"? It seems like fundamentally everything about this election has been open to discussion, it's been a weird fucking election. Are you literally saying supporting Trump is a crime so bad that it's not "open to discussion"?
"The line tends to shift as society progresses." You talk about this "line" as if it's a real thing. Let me pose a fairly obvious question, in almost any time period, who imposed the limits of "what is not open to discussion", and what were their motives? Keep in mind, things that are obviously true don't need to be "not open to discussion", because nobody is bothering to discuss them.
I'm serious. I don't have a good answer. I think it depends on the issue, but I know people are going to draw their lines differently. Thoughts?
I merely wanted to give an example of what happens when there is a shift of the line and some people haven't caught up.
Yes, they do. However, opinions and material support are different things.
> are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently?
Expressing your opinion with a vote and funding a campaign with >$1M are not anywhere close to equivalent.
> half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington
That's exactly what happened, as expected[1]. Unfortunately, most people were more interested in playing political games or blaming their favorite scapegoat.
I'd blame the democrats alone (the party, leadership, delegates, superdelegates and a section of voters + ~~liar~~ media) for giving away the presidency to Trump. For free, literally.
How is Peter Thiel or anyone else (Trump's supporters) responsible for what comes out of the man's mouth when at the same time the other party is clearly doing what's downright corruption/stifling a democratic nomination?
ICYMI, Peter Thiel did mention that he'd have preferred a race between Sanders and Trump instead (watch his interview to the press club) -- where he quotes: "because they get it" -- and that Trump gets the big things right even though his behavior isn't acceptable.
I don't see any reason for YC or any other organization to follow through with your advice. It is also mind numbing that a portion of democrats who made a joke of Trump when he said "he will accept the results only if he wins" are unable to accept the result of the election themselves.
Move on folks, open your ears and do your job.
On downvotes: I'm pretty sure downvoting over here is symptomatic behavior of a community that doesn't like to listen. Thank you for proving the point. I am happy that Trump is leading us and he is the elected premier for this country despite his weaknesses.
Don't blame me for Trump. I voted for Hillary.
Each of us are responsible for their own vote. Nobody made you vote for Trump. I blame the people who voted for Trump for making him President. After all, we are all adults here, and although Trump never accepts any responsibility for his actions I think that the Trump supporters accept that they voted for him.
So yeah, blaming the Democrats for the Trump presidency is an oxymoron.
Hopefully the Democrats learn about running someone electable before 2018. I have already prepared my donation fund for Bernie Sanders' or Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 presidential race (and I'll not vote again in 4 years if the Dems run yet another establishment candidate, learn your lesson already).
Your chance for your opinion to matter was when the primaries took place. Don't save your outrage for after it doesn't go the way you wanted.
If you need people outside your party to vote for you, you don't restrict caucusing to just your party. Otherwise, you get the proverbial brick in the face. Must be a terrible legacy to lose to the person that makes up Trump in front of the entire world, that people said to themselves "Yes, he's a bigot, a xenophobe, a sexist; but he's not Clinton" as they voted.
@fatbird: I'm unsure why we're still arguing about this. Clinton lost because she did not have enough support, period.
But then nobody hacked the RNC's emails. Who knows what's in those.
The Democrats' fault (and mine too) was in believing that people of the United States were better than this.
Up to this point I used to honestly believe that justice always prevailed, some how. That the morality of the people of the United States was strong. Stupid, idealistic, naive me. I really hurts my heart but at least my eyes have been opened. You can do almost anything you want, lie with impunity, grab woman by the pus*y, assault them, defraud people, etc. etc. and as long as you have money and good connections it is very likely you will get away with it.
It is a hard pill to swallow, but at least I've learned my lesson and will live accordingly.
And of course, if the republicans again destroy the economy like Bush did in 2008 everybody will comeback crying to the Democrats to fix it and then blame them for everything once things are going OK again.
Then why am I dealing with "President-elect" Donald Trump?
> The Democrats' fault (and mine too) was in believing that people of the United States were better than this.
Nooooooo, your fault was not understanding what millions of Americans are going through that would force them to vote for the opponent. The blame lies solely with that mindset.
You expected people to put social issues ahead of their anxiety over economic survival. How ignorant is that idea? If you do not reflect, if you do not get comfortable with the idea of compromise and understanding those who did not vote the way you wanted, you will be doomed to fail.
With age comes wisdom.
Because the candidate who LOST the popular vote won the electoral college, so his fewer votes were better allocated, as it turned out. He won fair and square, but it's beyond idiotic to pretend that nominating Hillary was somehow a gift of the presidency to Trump. According to insiders, even Trump thought he was losing going into election night.
Because half the people of the United States are hypocrites with no strong moral compass. It is not politically correct to say it but it is true. I didn't think so before this but I know so now.
>>Nooooooo, your fault was not understanding what millions of Americans are going through that would force them to vote for the opponent. The blame lies solely with that mindset.
That is a lie. A good chunk of the trump supporters are actually well off. [1]
[1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
Prepare to lose a lot of battles in your life with this mindset.
EDIT (because HN throttling and I can't reply):
Don't waste the opportunity to grow as a person from this if it so strongly effects you. You don't say "fuck half of America, I'm right and they're wrong." You say, "Half of America voted for this person, this person who I strongly disagree with. Why? What motivated this? What can we do in the future to work together to ensure a better outcome?"
You ask questions. You collaborate. You compromise. In that order.
One of the reasons Trump won is that a lot of people in this country feel like they're being smugly dismissed every time they open their mouths. That the "elites" have no interest in getting to know them, understanding their problems, or building a society that is inclusive of them. They're used to being lectured by people who don't even know them, who think their entire community is insignificant and irrelevant and backwards and stupid. They're used to being called "white trash" and worse, just for existing.
I'm #NeverTrump. He's a horrible human being. I wish he had never sniffed the presidency. I fear for the safety of my transgender friends. But Trump won't be stopped if we lie to ourselves about why people support him, if we tell comforting but false stories about how everyone who supports him is just stupid, racist, sexist, or self-hating. The only way to stop him is to understand why we weren't able to stop him this time, which means understanding what the people who voted for him want that the "establishment" is failing to take seriously.
"... a lot of people in this country feel like they're being smugly dismissed every time they open their mouths. That the 'white trash' have no interest in getting to know them, understanding their problems, or building a society that is inclusive of them. They're used to being lectured by people who don't even know them, who think their entire community is insignificant and irrelevant and backwards and stupid. They're used to being called 'elites' and worse, just for existing."
The smugness of the liberal establishment bothers me, and is one reason I didn't vote for Clinton. But I find myself a recipient on the opposite end of that bigotry line all the time also. Not sure what to do with that observation, but it's very salient to me. Explaining it doesn't make it ok, I suppose, or something along those lines.
A partial answer comes from something I've sometimes heard said about racism (which I don't fully agree with, but I recognize as having some value): that when those with less power disdain those with more power, it's not as bad as when those with more power disdain those with less power.
Concretely: Tuesday is the first time in a long time that many "elites" have had their lives affected by "white trash". But "white trash" pretty much constantly live with the results of tax, trade, and health care policies enacted by "elites". IMO "and they don't like you very much either" hurts more in the second case -- it almost always hurts more for those on the losing end of the power dynamic.
It has probably made me a bit worse of a person, unfortunately.
Trump has proven that you can say anything and as long as you have power or you tell people what they want to hear it does not matter so what are you talking about?
Get off your high horse and give some respect to the electorate, and accept that you backed a loser.
Please, for our sake that we can rebuild in 2020 from what little we have left of our country, do look around and realize that the DNC had alot to do with why Trump won.
Listen to Donald Trump's acceptance speech: https://youtu.be/-smetnW-k28?t=275
I prefer to believe that half of the people of the United States want to come together to build a better nation.
Edit: Hello downvoters. At almost the very top of his speech Trump specifically said he was reaching out to people who didn't support him, for guidance and help in unifying and improving the country.
Trump's prepared to work with you on unity, are you prepared to work with him? For better or worse dismissing him will not get your views heard, neither will calling him and his supporters names.
Sanders issued a statement saying “To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
Obama and Hillary said, let's give him a chance and wait and see.
That does not seem unreasonable.
I'm sure there are at least a handful of Trump policies that you can support and agree with (see for example his ethics in government reform policy).
People don't care because they expect politicians to lie. Hillary had her fair share of lies also. So we need a different yardstick to judge candidates beyond he/she lies.
With regards to paying attention, I have been paying attention to this entire campaign and while paying attention I noticed that the version of Trump I saw in that speech was very different from the version of Trump that was portrayed in the media during the entire election campaign - from words to demeanor to tone.
It wasn't just a small difference either, it was a stark difference. This means one of two things:
1) After winning a mandate (presidency, house, senate) that validated his entire campaign message, he decided to switch tactics and tone and give up bigotry and hatred in favour of unity.
Or
2) The way he was portrayed by the media during the campaign was inaccurate, and his message has been one of unity and nation building all along.
There is significant amount of evidence to show the latter, but either choice bodes well for the future.
I watched his acceptance speech live and was mildly encouraged. I still have grave doubts, but since there's no going back, all we can do now is make the best of it.
That was one example of stretching things to make them fit, others included:
* Trump wants to build a database of Muslims (if you look at the transcripts it was actually the reporters suggesting this, not Trump, Trump moved on to talking about something else (the wall) and the reporter kept asking questions and took his replies as if he was talking about the database).
* Trump mocked a disabled reporter (the reporter's disability was completely different from the impersonation Trump did but coincidentally a freeze frame from the video had a pose similar to a picture of the reporter. So either he knew of the reporter's disability but was doing a completely different impersonation, or he didn't know of reporter's disability and was doing a completely different impersonation - either way he wasn't mocking the reporter's disability).
* Trump thinks all Mexicans are rapists and criminals - this is a good breakdown of that: http://www.salon.com/2015/12/21/the_media_needs_to_stop_tell...
* Trump called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court justices (transcripts clearly show the context was talking about exercising voting rights).
The list goes on, and on, and the more you look in to it, the more you see example after example where the media took something Trump said or did and applied a narrative to it that matched a narrative various email leaks have shown was the strategy to defeat Trump.
And now half the U.S. is scared because it seems one of the Clinton campaign's main strategies was to make people scared of a president Trump.
The strategy worked well in that many people now seem to be afraid of what's to come, but acceptance-speech Trump did not come off as scary. I think it's worth giving him a chance.
* Calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
* "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
* I actually disagree with you on this one. Here's the quote: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know." When I heard the audio of that, it sounded very much like he was talking about people taking matters into their own hands. It came across as a joke, but one in very poor taste. Still, I suppose it's conceivable that he's talking about something else, so give that one a pass.
* Then of course, "And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." Sure, that's not a public statement, nor a statement of policy. It's also not something I can imagine myself or one of my friends saying though. It speaks to his character.
That's just a few. He's not as bad as the media or (obviously) the Clinton camp portrayed. But he still seems plenty bad. That said, maybe he can still govern effectively, and maybe some of the change he brings about will be positive. I hope so.
We agree that he has said some controversial things, including more than a few that I don't agree with.
We agree that his acceptance speech offers a glimmer of hope and that he might be able to bring about some positive change.
Let's hope that's the case.
For inaccurate portrayals in the media, Wikileaks/Guccifer leaks from the DNC pointing out deliberate strategy to brand Trump as a rascist, sexist, xenophobic, fascist bigot, along with evidence showing strong media collusion to do that, and then going to the source of his most controversial statements and finding out that many were taken out of context to push those exact themes.
For unity and caring about all Americans - repeated calls for it at his rallies, and videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm8n9qVIK_8
But I guess the biggest is simply what I mentioned above. Throughout the campaign Trump has been painted as a bully, as hateful, as a bigot as someone who does things his way and doesn't listen to others. This is also someone with a highly inflated opinion of himself, who paints his name in giant gold letters on his planes and buildings.
He and his platform had just won 'bigly' - the presidency, the senate, the house. If anything the win would embolden someone with with the above characteristics and this speech was the culmination of his entire campaign and what he stood for.
And yet none of those things came through in his speech - no message of hate or divisiveness, no bullying, no messages of vindication or retribution, instead it was the opposite. Reaching out to people who opposed him, offering to work together regardless of race and religion and political affiliation, everyone coming together to build a better America.
That language and tone doesn't square with a narcissistic, bigoted, bully who says what he wants and takes what he pleases.
It just doesn't.
And when I'm confronted with a situation where reality conflicts with my perception of reality, the choice is either to update my perception to match the reality I'm seeing and hearing, or to further twist reality to match that already inaccurate perception.
In any event, Trump made it clear in that speech he wanted to work on unity and building the nation.
Is that something you can support?
If yes, I suspect you are likely to find common ground with many of his supporters. If no, that is on you more than on Trump.
> Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair! [1]
Let's not pretend his the victim of a vast media conspiracy to smear him. He has done patently divisive things: Promulgating birtherism, attacking Judge Curiel, attacking Megyn Kelly, the Muslim ban, the mexican-immigrants-are-rapists comment, the calls for mass deportation,...
The only prospect that gives me hope is a temperate, center-right Trump administration emerging from the miasma of this campaign, and working towards unity with his party, the democrats, and the country. I want that, I believe you want that, and I hope most of his supporters want that. For that to happen though, Trump has to be the one to work toward unity, to reach out to the groups he has inarguably alienated.
[1]: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/79690018395509555...
That's George Soros the billionaire backer of Hillary Clinton and also someone in opposition to Trump's anti-globalist agenda.
I have no doubt many of the protestors are genuinely protesting against what they believe Trump will mean for the nation. However I do also question the motives of people stirring that up, especially when protests become violent and cause damage to people and property.
> Trump has to be the one to work toward unity, to reach out to the groups he has inarguably alienated.
I agree and I think he made overtures to this in his acceptance speech. He does need people to meet him at the discussion table though, and violent protests, and burning effigies of Trump don't help achieve that aim.
"Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!"
[1]http://iowapublicradio.org/post/app-saw-trump-winning-swing-...
We vote for who we want, if we choose to vote at all. The next 4 years will be determined by a lot more than just this one vote. Political activism is a constant finger on the scales.
Your attitude is disgusting on a number of levels, but my favorite one is how it leads to nothing useful at all.
Come on, even as a liberal - when DWS resigned from the DNC for ethics violations related to the primaries, it was what ... thirty six hours before the Hillary Campaign announced that she was working on the campaign.
That was a "fuck you, we're corrupt and you can't do anything about it".
And in case there remained any doubt, we saw the same thing repeated with Donna Brazile. Fed debate questions to Hillary beforehand, left DNC ... to work for Hillary.
How one could arrive at this opinion after reviewing the entirely of recorded human history is beyond me.
Not really. The dems sabotaged their only electable candidate. I'm not upset about the Trump presidency only because I had come to terms with it as soon as I realised Hillary was going to screw over Bernie and basically guarantee a Trump presidency. Never before has an 'I told so' felt so unsatisfactory. Besides I'm not even sure a Hillary presidency would have been more palatable given her track record.
[1]http://iowapublicradio.org/post/app-saw-trump-winning-swing-...
It wasn't that unacceptable if he gave him a million dollars and is now working for him.
YC has a choice: do what IBM did in the 1930's or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
And before you say I'm "going Godwin," remember: It was Sam and Paul who've said they think Trump is a threat of similar proportions. If Sam really thinks that, the moral thing to do is cut ties.
And yes, it'll be hard. Would have been easier to do before the election. It will only get harder.
Clinton advocated for a "Manhattan Project" scope effort to backdoor crypto. She wants no-fly zones over Syria, a place we have NO business being in, to directly provoke proxy wars with Russia. She is extremely antagonistic to freedom of association and free enterprise, and she LOVES the panopticon surveillance state we have.
She is NO FRIEND OF EITHER STARTUPS OR HACKERS, and yet, 99% of you are frothing at the mouth over a man who said bad words 18 years ago.
It is at the point that I don't even think I can do business with any of you ever again.
There are multiple reports and videos of crowds at his rallies chanting "Kill the bitch, "Hang the bitch", and "Lock her up". Trump knew this and condoned the behaviour. He has actively singled out members of the "corrupt media".
I can respect political differences but this is not normal behaviour for a healthy democracy. It's playing with fire - a fire that may burn out quickly, a fire that may smoulder in the background, or a fire that could burn the whole place down. I'm NOT saying Trump is going to start locking people up (I think he is a populist who said what people wanted to hear) but let's not pretend that the concerns people have are only because of his crude comments about women and minorities.
As I said, it's not about the normal left vs right ideology - Obama and Bush both supported policies that greatly concern me (mass surveillance, drone strikes against US citizens without trial etc). But neither Bush or Obama used this type of rhetoric about their political opponents.
I do not see any healthy democratic virtue there at the DNC. It looks a lot like third world political intimidation tactics and violence.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-off...
But let's not pretend that was solely the domain of the DNC.
Trump has stood in front of a camera and called for his supporters to beat people up at his rallies. He's said that people should be punched "right in the face". He's offered to pay legal fees for people charged with assault for attacking protestors.
Also "caught" red handed. Except he was openly advocating for it.
I don't recall any time that Trump or anyone at the RNC 'openly condoning violence against specific people'. If there is some proof of this I would like to see it.
- http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-th... "Knock the crap out of them" complete with video and offers to pay legal fees
- https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-my-fans-were-right-to... - "Maybe he should have been roughed up." on Fox and Friends
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-punch-him-in-the-fac... - "He's smiling [a protestor]. I'd like to punch him. Punch him right in the face."
I find it ... 'odd' ... that you can be so well-informed about DNC issues but have "no recollection" (I love that phrase, works so well when people are being hauled in front of Congress) of any specific issue of violence from Trump or the RNC.
In fact, here you go, someone's collated them all, with evidence:
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#...
At least nine video captured incidents:
- "I'll beat the crap out of you"
- "Part of the problem... is no-one wants to hurt each other any more."
- "The audience hit back. We need more of that."
and so on. and so on.
Yeah, no recollection. Because none of these events received much notice...
The DNC sent those protesters to provoke violent confrontation that the Clinton media operatives at the networks could use to craft the narrative that trump was a big baddie.
So while its not the sort of behaviour anyone want to see in an election. The fact remains that the entire scenario was being crafted by the DNC to damage there opponent which is far worse then what happened on the ground.
The use of fake protesters sent to stir up violence at political events is an attack on democracy itself. And an attempt to shut down peoples write to participate in a democratic society. In that light the behaviour of Trump is quite understandable.
Would you let a few paid protesters shut down your political rally?
my solution would certainly not be to say "beat them up, and I'll pay your legal fees for you".
Because paying someone to protest is one thing, inciting others to actual, physical violence and offering to pay 'costs', is a felony.
Of all the things Trump has ever said or done in his life these 2 things aren't even close to the worst and were pretty poor choices for this argument.
Both of these examples are just a reflection of many people's anger with the status quo, globalism, elitism, whatever you want to call it. People are pissed at government. This is happening around the world.
Trump is the Torture Candidate. He's on record, he loves torture. He said it on the campaign trail. He could have been Orange Bernie and I would have refused to vote for him.
You'll find that a lot of people in this community actively dislike Clinton. But after the election, she is now essentially irrelevant. So talking about her doesn't advance anything - talking about the upcoming president, however...
Now, you might still not like him. Heck, let me take a bold step and say you won't like him. He will do things you won't like. Welcome to the real world. My government's been doing things I don't like my entire life. (Along with all the things I do like.) But I rate the odds that he's going to ethnically cleanse the US at "as close to 0 as I can mathematically get".
In the event that he really does turn into Hitler, I promise to stand up to stop him along with all the other people who will. I'm not too worried about having to follow through on that, though.
(If you want to talk about which candidates tend to murder their way out of problems... well... I'll freely admit to not having proof but Trump wasn't the one I was worried about that.)
That's a vacuous argument. No one's Hitler except Hitler. No one called him Hitler except in your strawman. We can only judge the President-elect on what his stated plans are.
And one of his plans is literally to make Muslims register the same way Jews were made to register before the Holocaust. IBM faced an analogous choice: cut ties for moral reasons or preserve the relationship for expediency's sake.
The historical precedent is germane.
Well, that's nice - although you just agreed to something you believe won't happen.
I don't believe he will, either; but are you standing up to what his electorate is doing?
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/trump-voters-threatened-wome...
Take it from someone who saw what Brexit did to the UK: Your country, by electing someone with an unpleasant set of views on race/religion, has implicitly given free reign to people with even more unpleasant views on those to do whatever they want and not fear repercussions because... after all, they've been told they're in the majority now.
I suspect it's easier to promise to stand up to the "as close to 0 as you can mathematically get" than to address problems that are happening today.
And I believe that our country was already giving free reign to those with "unpleasant views". For instance, I don't think it's a coincidence that race relations have generally considered to be getting worse over the past several years: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/poll-shows-most-america... I'm a pragmatist. If people are all saying or doing the right things in the leadership but the race relations are getting worse, then clearly they are not saying or doing the right things.
Tell me: Where's the Godwin line, exactly? You railed against ubernostrum just because he compared a current situation to one in the 1930s and what you get out of this is that America's safe: should Trump turn into Hitler, America is safe because you, and surely lots of others, will stand up to the government!
Goody. Well, I feel better now, whew!
You're a pragmatist, right? So tell me: Where is that point where you, and many others, stand up to the growing problem? Is it when the people rise up and protest? (They already have.) Is it when people start dying? (Many are). Or do you wait until a wall is being built, religions are being rejected at the border and the targeted groups are being threatened on the street?
Where is that fucking line? Do thousands have to die? Does it have to be tens, hundreds of thousands? Is it when it hits 7 digits?
You won't stand up to all this nonsense? Fine. I fully realize you don't have the logistics for it. Nobody does.
No worries, you won't have to -- an ethnic cleansing is, as you said, mathematically close to 0. And really, there'll be nobody left by the time it gets to that point, because you're not standing up now.
If people down vote or flag your comment are you going to complain?
If someone is willing to say that they would stand up to an ethnic cleansing, I think it's reasonable to ask them at what point they'll stand up to it.
I do find cultural bigotry to be odious though and to answer your question, I will not protect the rights of people to threaten and kill others. I will not defend a culture that promotes the exclusion of classes of people by skin color, religion, accent, gender or even political leanings.
I don't know why you're asking me what mechanism would make this work. People's unhappiness has very little impact on whether policies work. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as the things I refuse to defend would not be happening in the first place.
> Your country, by electing someone with an unpleasant set of views on race/religion, has implicitly given free reign to people with even more unpleasant views on those to do whatever they want and not fear repercussions because... after all, they've been told they're in the majority now.
If you want these people to not feel free to express their opinions then you want some other thing. Feel free to explain what, if I misconstrued.
The more divisive the vote is, the more violent the winner gets. Bullying is easier when you have the numbers.
America just elected someone who actively encouraged beating people up at rallies. The fallout is going to suck.
I personally prefer to let the people with the ugly opinions have their say so I know who they are and I can engage them. The plan to keep them in hiding can only work until they feel too much pressure and explode, which is just what happened
I guess what I'm saying is what you seem to be advocating is what just failed. I don't think going back to it will work either.
Right, I'm definitely not attacking that. I'm also not really advocating for anything -- thankfully I haven't been put in charge of the mess that the US is, so I don't have to find a solution for it all by myself. I was just saying I won't defend such things.
If I did, though, it'd probably involve education and systemic changes. Like you said, "hiding" the problem didn't, doesn't and never will work. I don't believe that Hillary would have made any changes to the system, so if anything 2020 could have been a worse election (whereas now, I'm reasonably certain that unless Trump does exceptionally well this cycle [or exceptionally badly], Warren will be president the next).
These are all theoretical fixes to a system that's broken today, though. People are being bullied in the streets, at their work etc. When do people stand up to that?
Yesterday somebody was lamenting that people shouldn't say "democracy is gone" when it's working exactly as intended. This here isn't what's intended. Two sides fighting to the point that further escalation would result in civil war? The extreme demonization of democrats, republicans, mexicans, muslims, blacks, old people, christians, atheists and whatever demographic favours one side over the other? Seeing the immediate aftermath of the election, I fear that America really is falling apart.
I mean, here in Europe, people are saying left and right that the EU is falling apart because of Brexit and a general sentiment against globalization. The US has it worse now. I'm starting to wonder if there'll still be 50 states in a few years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnQNFBHHs6w
Oh wait no, sorry, that's a group of leftists literally beating up an old man 10v1 because he's white and might have voted for Trump. Sorry, you were saying something about people not fearing repercussions?
Take a long, hard look at both my post and yours and ask yourself what point you're attempting to make (and if you somehow don't come up empty, please share it with the rest of the class - I'd love to know at least).
It's also unfair to say that the act of electing Trump is implicitly condoning this kind of behavior, which is absurd. ~60 million people voted for Trump. A tiny minority will use it as an excuse to commit violence and crime. Just like a tiny minority of Hillary supporters will use the election of Trump to commit violence and crime (See video).
Now, you use Brexit as an example where ordinary people who didn't agree with the direction the country was going and wanted a change, somehow turned to violence. I'd need to see some evidence of this because here's an article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Br...) that provides direct evidence from your police force that hate crimes did not significantly increase. Here's a sample from the article:
"However, its footnote added that 85 people had logged hate crime ‘incidents’ on True Vision, a website that records unverified allegations of such behaviour, during the four days in question, up from 54 during the corresponding period a month earlier.
What exactly did this mean? The police press release made things clear. ‘This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent but an increase in reporting through one mechanism’ over a single 96-hour period."
And the next section is a series of images that were used as propaganda citing a 57% increase in hate crimes since brexit used by anti-brexit campaigners. A direct contradiction to your police force's analysis of the statistics.
The idea that somehow ordinary people turn into racist criminals is just wrong. So there, I shared with the class. I hope your condescending response made you feel smug and happy inside. Made me feel good to drop police stats to prove my case. Why don't you go ahead and share your stats with the class that suggest an uptick in violence due to "implicit" permission.
Bullying is exponential. The acts of hatred I linked have been happening for a long time, but elections such as Brexit and Trump are validation for such behaviour. They tell the population: "You have more support than you thought you did".
The filter bubbles, the disconnect that everybody talks about? That amplifies that behaviour as well. It makes people feel like the violence is justified. And yes this happens on both sides, but this isn't a fucking contest.
I'll also note that you're linking the Daily Mail, which is the lowest quality rag in the UK and is extremely biased. I don't want to argue numbers because that's not what this is about -- It's a controversial subject in the UK and I'm well aware both "sides" exaggerate everything. What I can tell you is that there was a surge of violence following the vote because of the validating effect it has.
> The idea that somehow ordinary people turn into racist criminals is just wrong
Dude, really, this isn't what I claimed anywhere. You wrote a whole fucking post arguing numbers which I didn't bring up, fighting a point which I didn't make. Only reason I'm replying is because you put effort into it, but really, step out of your damn bubble for a bit and stop seeing the world in such black and white terms.
I told you to take a look at my post and yours - you failed that basic task. All you managed to do is make assumptions, craft an entire narrative around my post and then proceed to argue that narrative you yourself built.
Ordinary people may not turn into racist criminals, but it sure highlights how people like you can turn into insufferable trolls with very little effort.
"Take it from someone who saw what Brexit did to the UK: Your country, by electing someone with an unpleasant set of views on race/religion, has implicitly given free reign to people with even more unpleasant views on those to do whatever they want and not fear repercussions because... after all, they've been told they're in the majority now."
You argued that there would be an increase in "do whatever they want", which I take to mean crimes (assault, robbery, hate crimes, etc) by people who feel empowered by a majority.
You cited anecdotal evidence as an example (take it from me, I experienced brexit...) to back up your claim there would be an increase in crime. I cited a source ("rag" or not, they cited direct quotes from the police and the police's own analysis of the statistics that there wasn't an exponential increase) to prove the idea that there is some kind of magical "exponential" increase in crime to be false.
My point is that electing Trump is not going to cause this increase because the vast majority of ordinary citizens will not turn into criminals exponentially.
This is what all those news articles lately have been about. You're too insulated from the rest of the country if you seriously think ~50% of the nation just voted for Hitler. That card's played out... every Republican's been [expletive] Hitler if you listen to the Democrats. That's election propaganda. Time to put that away. I mean, ideally we wouldn't all swallow it in the first place, but time to put it away.
I'd love to find out that it was all 100% manufactured and none of it ever happened or was true. But, y'know, it all did happen and was true. And it elected a candidate who began his campaign on explicitly racist (build a wall and deport all the "Mexican rapists") and xenophobic (ban all the Muslims) lines.
I understand that you feel strongly about this, but it's not illegal to hate someone. If there are people being threatened or harmed, we do have police and the general rule of law to handle those things. It's not like trump runs the government now!
Despite emotional currents we are mostly peaceful domestically. Our institutions are still democratic in nature. Trump has to share power with the other pillars of government.
We are very, very far from anything resembling naziism. No amount of hatred expressed in speech is equivalent. Action is required.
If someone loudly campaigned on a promise of, say, amnesty for immigrants who have no criminal record or who were brought here as children, would you call it unfair to conclude that the person was either courting the vote of immigrants and their sympathizers, or was an immigrant or sympathizer? Would you call that "bush league" and "guilt by association"?
Or does this standard magically only apply when it's Donald Trump?
I notice you also haven't answered my question: does your sudden intense desire to pick apart any argument I make apply to all arguments, or only -- by complete coincidence -- to arguments made with respect to Donald Trump?
I also have no obligation to detail to you which arguments I challenge. Sorry.
hitler was seen to be pretty crazy to most "moderate" germans too and he wasn't voted in as the führer with absolute power. he slowly worked his way up in popularity until he became chancellor. then he worked to slowly build up members of the NSDAP into positions of power until no one could oppose him. then he began suppressing the opposition.
the lesson about hitler in germany is not, "don't vote in an extreme dictator" the lesson about hitler is that a person can assume power legally and still end up with total control without the will of the people.
you "promise" to stand up to trump if he becomes this. but by the time you realize what's going on. it'll be too late.
now i'm not saying trump is going to become hitler. the reason everyone is scared now is because he is following similar blueprints to hitler or other fascists. most of the time these type of leaders just become any other "normal" leader and do their term and let power go democratically and i honestly hope that happens because that's the best case.
but if he goes through with everything he promises. it'll be very scary. trumps call to south korea president assuring her that us forces would remain was very assuring for the stability of asia, so i have some hope.
this is almost a version of the boy who cried wolf. too many people have cried hitler and now no one believes it or just dismisses it outright.
I think this will become more clear once the man has a chance to lead for a few months. That no, he's not going to try to dispatch paddywagons to round up all the illegals, no he's not going to try to require all Muslim citizens to enter some sort of registry... but he is going to tell all the people who spent the 10 years becoming legal citizens that there time was well-spent, and send a message to the people like Syed Farook that they will have a much harder time walking through CBP.
Right now we don't really know which of his promises he plans on actually keeping.
When Trump suspends the constitution and starts a continental war with Mexico and Canada. And sends Six million Jews including his own daughter to be exterminated in gas chambers then we can compare him to Hitler.
Until such events unfold (I'm not holding my breath) entertaining people who make these ridiculous arguments is like a slow, self inflicted lobotomy.
(Also, if the Holocaust had only consisted of mass deportations it wouldn't be nearly as bad or remembered. Have some perspective.)
We already tried this and have seen the results. We rounded up and deported more than a million Mexicans twice in our history. It is remembered, California apologized for their hand in it a couple of years ago.
Millions of families could be uprooted, torn apart and be left stranded without ID, possessions or money[1] and left to die[2]. Mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, co-workers and classmates could disappear.
My perspective is that 'exactly as bad as the Holocaust' isn't the bar to pass to be a potential tragedy.
I didn't make a comparison to the Holocaust, but since we're there: deportation and mass ordered removal is part of what made the Holocaust a tragedy. It took years of deportations (of the traditional sense), forced relocations and imprisonment before people were shipped to the ovens in droves.
[1] http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/04/07/deported-immigrants-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback#Consequences
The same can be said of racism, sexism, misogyny etc.
You have done more to de-stigmatize these words then the people who espouse the ideology have ever been able to do. It has made the accusation in itself a clownish eye rolling gesture to the general public. Rather then something to take seriously.
No one with any credibility is going to compare the President elect of the United States to Hitler. Its a pantomime act that the disgraced 'Media' and Twitter nobodies do to entertain one another.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/...
Friday, Nov. 20
The next day, an MSNBC reporter asked Trump, "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?"
"There should be a lot of systems," Trump responded. "Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems."
Trump then digressed to talk about a wall along the southern border, before the reporter interjected, "But that’s something your White House would like to implement."
"I would certainly implement that. Absolutely," Trump said.
Here, we’re not clear if Trump is talking about implementing a wall or implementing a database.
But a few seconds later, when asked how he would register people into a database, Trump said, "It would just be good management."
Finally, the reporter asked if Muslims would legally have to be part of the database.
"They have to be — they have to be," Trump said. "Let me just tell you: The key is people can come to the country, but they have to come legally."
After Trump’s tweet, Fox News asked him about his position on a Muslim registry.
"Let's hear it directly from you," said host Kimberly Guilfoyle. "Would President Donald Trump support a full Muslim database?"
"Basically the suggestion was made and (it’s) certainly something we should start thinking about," Trump said, repeating that the reporter presented the idea. "But what I want is a watch list. I want surveillance programs. Obviously, there are a lot of problems. … But, certainly, I would want to have a database for the refugees, for the Syrian refugees that are coming in because nobody knows where they're coming from."
Guilfoyle followed up: "So to be clear, you are not saying anything with respect to a religious database. You are talking about the Syrian refugees in light of the national security development affecting this country as we speak here tonight."
Trump said he didn’t hear the MSNBC reporter’s question clearly, "but even if I did, I mean, I want databases for the Syrian refugees that Obama is going to let in if they come in."
> he confirmed that he wants a database for Syrian refugees.
Doesn't the government already have database of all immigrants? I even have a nice card with a number, I'm pretty sure this number refers to a record in the database. Before I had that, I also had to fill in and send out certain forms, which I am pretty sure also went to some government database.
So how exactly Syrian refugees are different and what exactly makes the thing that US - and pretty much every other, as far as I know - government routinely does so beyond the pale?
Yeah I'll believe it when I see it
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-...
https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/
The longer YC waits to do the right thing on this, the worse it will get.