adamsea

I love all the people who just want to ignore the attempted kidnapping / murder of the Vice President and Speaker of the house.

Why are you using quotes around the word “canceled” for the Daily Stormer.

It was literally a neo-nazi site.

Do you think the issues people had with it were somehow contrived, false, or overblown?

Why would you even bring that site up tbh?

Lol so far the bar is don’t let people plan a violent insurrection on your app.

“Breaking the law nonviolently is a storied tradition for protestors. AKA civil disobedience.”

There, fixed that for ya :);)

Since Trump puts self over country/other people, in this case his foil would be country and other people over self, or at least trend that way. So IMHO it depends if PG is spending his time and money to oppose Trump, IMHO. At a moment like this genuine foils would be in active opposition to one another.

I’m proud of being intellectually honest while also doing my best not to be a dick.

And of writing maintainable and readable code that will last.

I regret sometimes when I cancel plans with friends. And getting sucked online so much.

TFA:

‘ "We are seeing ... chatter from these white supremacists, from these far-right extremists -- they feel emboldened in this moment," said Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks and counters hate. "We fully expect that this violence could actually get worse before it gets better."’

Thank you. To reiterate, however, tolerant societies should not and cannot tolerate intolerance.

People promoting the “election fraud” lie, or supporting the insurrection/coup attempt are undermining democracy and are borderline seditious. It’s not okay to spread that lie, and if not ban, HN should at least officially condemn those false and odious beliefs.

Right now I believe it’s our civic duty to make clear that those beliefs are unacceptable and anti-democratic and will not be tolerated.

I don’t know if you really understand that an armed mob attempted to take hostage members of Congress in order to stop the certification of the new, legitimately elected President.

What do you believe? If supporting that isn’t the line that someone should be condemned for crossing, and shunned, then what is?

HN - your silence is complicity. How do you think people of color feel reading HN comments where folks argue how racism isn’t really a thing or was “solved” in the 60s? Do they feel like people are being kind according to the guidelines?

What does it say about you if you ban me for what I said, but keep the racists and folks who wouldn’t mind seeing Trump get three or four or five more terms, because I’m honest about my beliefs but they hide behind junior-high level verbal wordplay?

It might be easier to make the comparison if you chose a single “BLM riot” to discuss rather than reduce a months long series of nationwide and international peaceful protests, and related riots, to a single catchphrase.

Seriously. I actually think making a comparison like that would be interesting and constructive.

Because it’s difficult to compare the events of this summer (a spontaneous response to the murder of George Floyd,choked to death under the neck of a police officer for over three minutes, on video, I’ll remind you) to the armed mob that invaded the Capital, threatening to kill or take hostage the entire Congress and the Vice-President, killed a Capital police officer, and planted pipe bombs in the Capital.

I think it would be easier to compare that event, since it’s a singular event, to another singular event, rather than a long series of events as I said.

What do you think?

[EDIT: Oh yeah the mob was also attempting to stop the process of certifying the results of the Presidential election. So much wrongness to have to remember.]

I know. It’s almost like these companies are run by people who are members of society or something. /s

Agreed. A lot of folk on HN right now are having difficulty identifying or naming treason and sedition.

Maybe there should be government regulation. That’s my personal opinion. Or laws to create and define new category for social media alongside publishers and news organizations.

Only like anything that isn't actually inciting a mob?

Seriously, I can't believe you had good intent and were engaging in good faith with that question because it's so obviously baloney.

You need to think hard about your values, or, educate yourself more about history.

For example:

- Winston Churchill's five-volume history of WWII. Read the first volume of that and you'll understand what is or isn't OK in government, even in exceptional times. You'll also understand what government actually is, and what politics actually is. You'll see what a leader making a difficult and controversial decision, and then taking responsibility for it, actually looks like - in both success and failure.

- Leadership: In Turbulent Times, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. A classic which looks at Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and LBJ at critical moments in their Presidencies and their past experiences which prepared them for success as leaders during a crisis.

If you had read those books, or works of a similar quality, you would know better.

As it stands it just sounds like you don't really understand what responsibility, leadership, accountability, politics, and government actually are.

Or, that you're not interested in those things actually functioning in a just and democratic fashion.

I honestly don't know which it is.

Not to stereotype but I feel like SO many people on HN don't realize just how uneducated they are about history, government, and politics.

Yeah that was a bit too succint. I meant:

Some of what you are saying I agree with and believe is true. Other parts of what you are saying are, I believe, overly reductive and not accurate. I think your post articulates some important points and also overlooks some. But they're also kinda mixed together and there's a lot there, so, tbh, I can't take the time to fully parse out your comment and respond with the kind of clarity one ideally would wish to in an intellectual discussion, the kind you know that would stand up to analysis and reasoned argument. So, do I agree with you? Ehh, yes and no?

Just kind of imagine me saying it with a Larry David voice, if you've ever watched the show 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' (speaking of American cultural imperialism/colonization lol).

Shit, I would simply be happy if humanity had a goal.

LOL as for blobs of meat, well, me and a couple other people I know would be unwilling to part with our meaty blobs, for a whole bunch of reasons ;)

TFA:

"Of course questions — and doubts — abound about such a proposal. Questions like: Isn’t the proposal racist on its face?

No. The point here is not to impose a new racial hierarchy, but to remove an existing one. Race, as we have come to understand it, is a fiction; but, racism, as we have come to live it, is a fact. After centuries of waiting for white majorities to overturn white supremacy, it has fallen to Black people to do it themselves.

I am unapologetically pro-Black, not because I believe in Black supremacy, which is as false and reckless a notion as white supremacy, but rather because I insist upon Black equity and equality. In a society and system in which white supremacy is ubiquitous and inveterate, Black people need fierce advocates to help restore the balance — or more precisely, to establish that balance in the first place."

I agree that politicians and political parties want to win.

And I appreciate your clarification that (if I’m understanding correctly) you do believe there are currently some meaningful differences between the two parties.

The percentages bit I didn’t really follow (where’s the data/evidence? Or is this a theory?), and, if I’m being honest, on a day like today with the attempted coup and all, I simply don’t have the motivation to parse and understand more of what you are trying to say.

But I appreciate your clarification and additional effort to explain your intended point.

I would not have been surprised if we saw something similar if Trump had won a 2nd term.

When you say similar, what do you mean? An armed mob breaking in to the Capital to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college votes and the President-elect? Requiring the evacuation of the entire Congress and the Vice-President to ensure their safety and avoid a potential hostage situation? And then planting pipe bombs in the Capital?

Or do you mean something else?

[EDIT: Look. Let’s be real. There is not a semblance of similarity and there hasn’t been for the past four years. What we saw today was unprecedented and seditious, on the part of the mob, the President himself, and anyone else involved in the planning or execution of this attempted coup. And anyone who can’t see the truth needs to do a real hard gut check right now, no joke.

Let’s also be real. White supremacists are in the minority and their numbers are dwindling. Their days are numbered. There’s more of us than them and at some point if they push hard enough all of us patriotic American citizens who actually respect the Constitution and the vision of justice the United States, at its best, represents, well, we will push back.

These folks lost the Civil War. If they really do want to bring it, it’ll be a tragedy and waste of human life, and, it won’t be a war they’ll win.

And any Trumpists, at this point, go fuck yourselves. You should be ashamed of the treasonous behavior you’ve enabled.

That’s the real talk, and people who hate on it, hate on it because they recognize the truth - you know it deep down, and, you are ashamed of yourselves.

Consider your actions. Anyone can change for the better, as difficult and unpleasant as the process is, it’s always worth the effort.

If I was religious like that I’d pray for you, because you don’t even know how badly you need some forgiveness.]

Honest question - do you really believe the two situations are equivalent?

Sure, of course there are examples of parties flopping. I'm saying that it's not a constant rule.

Like, I don't think the Democrats became less invested in environmental regulation when Nixon created the EPA.

Or with healthcare. Or abortion.

You can't just point to a flop and use it to say "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything."

No, not that. Basically monopoly power, like with J.P. Morgan.

Facebook has become immensely powerful. It is controlled by Zuckerberg. It's a new domain so it's still unregulated but I'm sure that will eventually change as social media is becoming more and more of a public good or utility.

No, not that. Basically monopoly power, like with J.P. Morgan.

Facebook has become immensely powerful. It is controlled by Zuckerberg. It's a new domain so it's still unregulated but I'm sure that will eventually change as social media is becoming more and more of a public good or utility.

No, not that. Basically monopoly power, like with J.P. Morgan.

Facebook has become immensely powerful. It is controlled by Zuckerberg. It's a new domain so it's still unregulated but I'm sure that will eventually change as social media is becoming more and more of a public good or utility.

Crazy part is that one unelected guy (Zuckerberg)has this kind of power. To make this decision at his discretion.

I mean it reads like something a head of state might say.

Nonetheless, at least they are doing it.

Yes and no?

There is a lot to criticize about the Obama Administration. Including the illegal and immoral drone strikes.

But is Obama still President? No.

I’m criticizing Trump because we are talking about now.

My apologies - I did assume you were American.

If you are not a fan of the Trumpists then I retract the shame ;)

Ok downvoters:

If Trump isn’t an authoritarian, tell me what he is.

Because he obviously doesn’t believe in our system of democratic elections.

From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium. 1970-2020, progress mostly stopped,

Um if nothing else a LOT in the US happened with regards to women’s rights and feminism between 1970 and today. And LGBTQ rights.

Oh yeah - Obama! First black President. Kind of a big deal when it comes to race and social justice.

Also it’s just a hugely broad statement you are making. I’m not gonna speculate about the sweep of hisiory.

Also your point doesn’t really address the specific points I mentioned - real, actual differences between the parties.

[EDIT: For example if the Republican Party suddenly endorsed the Green New Deal (or other climate legislation) I don’t see the Democrats who already support such legislation flip-flopping.

Same with gun control laws.

And with more federal pandemic relief funds to individuals and states and cities.

And the Affordable Care Act.

And abortion.

And so on. ]

My experience is that the stance the Democrats take is the opposite of the stance the Republicans take, and vice-versa. If one party flips on an issue, the other almost immediately flops.

I’m sorry but that is way too reductive. For one thing, there’s a bipartisan consensus (for better or worse) on a lot of foreign policy, which is a pretty huge area.

And, your comment obscures the meaningful differences in ideology between the groups of people each party represents. And the different interests of those groups.

The Democrats are far from perfect. But it’s not a “both sides equally bad” situation.

Well, maybe it is when it comes to corporate money in politics. But even there you see bipartisan consensus on the fringes, I think, plus iirc the Republicans were basically all about Citizens United.

But yeah money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history.

Which doesn’t mean we can’t (and haven’t) made some progress.

The harder part is gaming our media. If attackers can help direct where voters vote with $$$, that's a cheap attack too.

Let’s be real that’s basically a part of politics. That’s not an issue with elections per se.

Plus it’s clearly easier to just use social media and targeted propaganda to manipulate voters.

I’m all for secure elections and improving that security.

But my understanding is that to date when people have taken a serious look they’ve found no meaningful evidence of fraud.

The real deal is if we got rid of the electoral college then the presidency wouldn’t come down to a few thousand votes in a few counties in a few states.