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.
What is going on with this community? I feel like I am taking proverbial crazy pills.
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.
> and yet, 99% of you are frothing at the mouth over a man who said bad words 18 years ago.
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.
The DNC was caught red handed funding political operatives to organise and fund protests at trump events that started the violent riots that unfolded. There is numerous videos of Trump supporters being assaulted by Democratic thugs. And at this very moment protest organised by MoveOn.org are smashing windows and starting fires in Oakland, LA, NY and other Democrat controlled cities.
I do not see any healthy democratic virtue there at the DNC. It looks a lot like third world political intimidation tactics and violence.
Undercover fomenting discord is entirely unacceptable and should be.
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 disagree re the DNC but do feel there is a difference between scuffles at a protest and openly condoning violence against specific people over multiple months.
I'm not understanding your point. The DNC has not only been condoning violence but actively organising and funding it. People have had to step down from there jobs at the DNC because of these scandals.
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.
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:
Thanks for posting those links. The thing to think about is that the 'protesters' that showed up at the rallies were precisely the people the DNC sent there to try there hardest to stir up violence.
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?
> 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".
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.
They were widely reported in the media. He could have taken the approach that McCain took in regards to Obama being called a muslim but instead he continued the rhetoric of "locking up crooked Hillary" and insinuated that the second amendment could be a solution. He was/is deliberately exploiting the anger of some people. History tells us that this is playing with fire.
In my personal morality: Torture is an absolute evil. Military engagements to kill armed combatants that kill innocents is a relative evil. Surveillance is a relative evil.
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.
The subthread you are replying to didn't mention Clinton. Didn't talk about Clinton. Didn't even say the word "Clinton" once. Yet your reply is entirely about Clinton. Why?
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...
Because two days ago Clinton was the alternative. And all the anger in the community in the last 48 hours (and prior, in the case of Thiel and YC ) has been directed at those who selected against her. This will be relevant long after the election even if the topic is Trump, for obvious reasons.
Yup...all points that warrant much pause and consideration, to understate the hell out of it. Yet these "details" are glossed over in a discussion by "thinking" people. It's as if people put on their thinking caps to build some software, but chuck it in a wastebin and rely 100% on hunches and assumptions as they navigate the rest of their world...their beliefs, community, state of their country...no critical thinking needed or desired. Just react. Take it all at face value. He's the bad one. She's the good one. So simple.
Yes, you went Godwin. Trump isn't Hitler. That's election propaganda, not truth. Election's over. Time to put the election propaganda away.
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.
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.
"has implicitly given free reign to people with even more unpleasant views on those to do whatever they want and not fear repercussions because..."
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.
So, "no"? And no because it's a problem that already existed and keeps getting worse?
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.
The world is overpopulated right now and would be better if 90% of living people didn't exist. If I had to pick America with the Republicans gone or Democrats gone I'm leaning towards Democrats.
It seems that you want people with opinions you find odious to be unhappy all the time and accept that as their lot in life. If I've understood that correctly, by what mechanism do you propose this work?
What I did was describe the current situation in the US. I'm making no particular remark, in the post you're replying to, on what I want out of "people with opinions I find odious".
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.
I think you might be reading "to do whatever they want" far too generously, unless you consider death threats (and worse) to be free expression of opinions that should be protected.
Threats are illegal, and that hasn't changed. If that is truly all you are talking about, then thank you for clarifying because that was not at all evident.
I guess in trying to keep a friendly tone to my post I overneutered it. But yes, I was referencing the stuff that was happening in the news article I linked. Similar things happened right after the Brexit vote: All of a sudden, people coming out of the woodwork thinking it's now okay to tell others to "go back to their country" (even natives), to threaten them, beat them up, etc.
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'm not going to say it's good that people have xenophobic interactions but not liking immigrants is and has been legal for some time
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.
> I'm not going to say it's good that people have xenophobic interactions but not liking immigrants is and has been legal for some time
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.
I expect this all ends in revolution of some sort. Our technological advances have far outpaced our government structures, so it's feeling like time to redo things.
Oh yes, because surely it's only those evil Trump supporters who are the bad guys! As you can see here a wild pack of trump supports are attacking a poor old hillary supporter:
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?
I don't even see what your post is trying to say. The only charitable explanation I can come up with is you're trying to reinforce my point that those in the majority feel like they can be assholes without 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).
Your post suggests that now that Trump supporters are the majority, it's open season on minorities. Like somehow the regular joes who voted for Trump will turn into some kind of criminals that go around beating up minorities. I find that ridiculous. It's not just the majority, it's the minority as well (see the video). Criminals gonna criminal, regardless if they are the majority or minority.
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.
> Criminals gonna criminal, regardless if they are the majority or minority.
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.
You're right. Trump doesn't believe Hitler did nothing wrong. He's just the overwhelmingly preferred candidate of people who believe Hitler did nothing wrong. It's an important difference! Those people obviously voted for him while believing he would never actually act on the things they care about!
Going Godwin again doesn't make the argument any better.
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.
So you're telling me it was a ridiculous liberal myth that David Duke supported Trump? That since the election results came in large numbers of people have reported increased harassment and threats of violence based on their apparent race, religion or national origin? That the Trump campaign refused to disavow the xenophobic tendencies of some vocal supporters?
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.
How is it "nibbling around the edges"? We're talking about a man for whom the use of immigration policy to expel or deny entry to people he deemed undesirable was literally the founding of his campaign. It was the issue with which he chose to introduce himself to the electorate. Is it somehow unfair to conclude he felt it was an important thing, and unfair to judge him based on it?
I'm not taking issue with the substance of your argument. The form bothers me. You've worked your way through every possible guilt-by-association tactic there is. It's bush league argumentation.
So it's guilt by association to associate Donald Trump with positions and policies Donald Trump has espoused? This is the "stop making him look bad by reporting exactly what he said" debacle from the campaign all over again.
Yes, if you imply that Donald trump is guilty of actions those associated with him have taken, you are using guilt by association. It's definitional!
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.
I'm not doing any gymnastics. I suspect you believe me to be a trump supporter, but I'm more like a grief counselor helping people like you work through the stages by keeping you grounded in reality.
So, repeating my question: is it "guilt by association" to say that when someone openly and loudly makes the favored policies of racist xenophobes into a centerpiece of his campaign, he's going to end up getting the support and votes of racist xenophobes? Is it unfair to question why he chose to openly and loudly make those policies a centerpiece of his campaign? Is it unfair to ask whether he was courting the votes of the racist xenophobes?
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'm not sure I understand you clearly. Are you saying that Donald Trump is guilty because of who supported him, and that's not invoking guilt by association?
I'm saying that given the direct, plain and obvious connection between the policies he advocated for, and the groups who supported him, it is reasonable to ask whether it was his intent to court the support of those groups.
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?
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.
Understand that with Trump, he is willing to say somewhat crazy shit in order to negotiate from a position of strength, versus conceding the fact ahead of time and hoping another country will give us the same slack.
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.
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.
We can go by his stated intentions to help determine where in the realm of possibility his future actions might play out.
Mass deportations and a retreat on civil rights and equality are within that realm.
> (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.
Its precisely because of SJW outrage cultures ridiculous juvenile comparisons to Hitler of anyone who disagrees with the narrative that these claims have zero shock value and no one takes them seriously anymore.
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.
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.