Hacker News Reader

Comment by brian-armstrong | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure which way to read this statement. Is he saying Republicans shouldn't waste time with bathroom bills or that Democrats are wasting time by arguing against them?

View on HN

I interpreted it as both, actually. It seems quite clear that his point (whether you agree with it or not) was that it is a distraction that take time way from (what he sees as) more important issues.

It can't really be both. The one is a reaction to the other. If North Carolina hadn't brought it up, we'd scarcely be talking about it.

Someone on the other side would argue that if the left-wing hadn't started pushing for it, North Carolina wouldn't have passed the law.

Again, no matter what your position is on this, it's quite clear that the "left" is the group that altered the status quo and therefore brought the issue to the foreground.

And again, that isn't correct. The status quo was that you used the bathroom for the gender you identified as. And the status quo was maintained, perhaps silently, for a long time. HB2 upended that and imposed on personal freedoms.

Not sure what you're getting at, but your history is wrong:

"In a one-day specially convened session on March 23, North Carolina’s legislature passed a sweeping law that reverses a Charlotte ordinance that had extended some rights to people who are gay or transgender.

The North Carolina bill was not something that was pulled from thin air to antagonize a disfavored community, but it was a response to a local ordinance which sought to codify specific legal privileges for that community.

No matter what you think of either law, the sequence of events is not how you represent them.

No, the status quo was that you used the bathroom that matched your external physical genitalia, not what you "identified as".

Your claim is untrue on its face.

Now, if you want to argue that it should be otherwise, you won't necessarily find me in disagreement, but claiming things that are contrary to facts does not lead to a productive conversation.

Of course it can. Why is the origin of a particular controversy relevant to telling both sides to stop sweating the small stuff and get on with the critical business of running the country? If anything the, "they hit me first", sort of back-and-forth is exactly the sort of thing he's saying is the problem. I don't know that Trump is the answer to that, but on his statement at the convention: Thiel is right.

The way I heard it was essentially: both. With this sort of issue, it's usually some advocacy group of the Left that gets the ball rolling with policy (not legislation, usually some regulatory, rule making, or court thing) and then the Right feels the need to react as it's advocacy groups see fit. In the meantime, more critical, if perhaps boring, problems are ignored. Sure, to those for whom this is their world there is nothing more critical, but on the whole it is a side show.

I think Thiel is correct on this point. And I do think it was remarkable that he got such a warm reception on his statement about being Gay and not agreeing with all the platform planks; and that Trump's statement on Orlando was so warmly received.

Having said that, for me jury is out. Personally, this election feels not unlike how I'd feel about be given a choice between killing a puppy, killing a kitten, or just walking away leaving them both to starve. There is no option that won't make me sick, and even just not voting leaves you with the taste that this time you should have done something productive to stop one or the other from getting in.

I think he is taking Trump's POV that it shouldn't even be discussed by either side and whole thing is stupid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com