Hacker News Reader

Comment by thisisdallas | Hacker News Reader

I would just like to remind everyone of the words Obama spoke yesterday, "Now, everybody is sad when their side loses an election, but the day after we have to remember that we’re actually all on one team. This is an intramural scrimmage. We’re not Democrats first. We’re not Republicans first. We are Americans first. We’re patriots first.

We all want what’s best for this country. That’s what I heard in Mr. Trump’s remarks last night. That’s what I heard when I spoke to him directly. And I was heartened by that. That’s what the country needs — a sense of unity, a sense of inclusion, a respect for our institutions, our way of life, rule of law, and respect for each other."

Let's make sure our comments here are tolerant of others and devoid of hate at those we might not understand.

View on HN

> a sense of inclusion

Hard to take from a man who chose an virulent anti-LGBTQer as his VP running for a party with extensive anti-inclusionary policies as their platform.

Edit: To correct VIP to VP.

Then maybe it's our job to stand as a nation against their hate and show them we won't tolerate it.

Forget The Man and remember yourself.

What does that even mean?

"stand as a nation against their hate" Stand how? Mass demonstrations each time he speaks or wants to do policy?

"Forget the man and remember yourself" remember myself? huh? What does that do?

And science denier, climate change denier, anti-vaxxer, religious zealot, etc.

"inclusion" is one of the feel-good words which does not mean anything in real-life. Since this word is mostly used by liberals, I would start with the protected classes, e.g., homosexuals, religious minorities. How do you include religious Muslims and homosexuals in the same group? Homosexuals are regularly being prosecuted in Muslim-majority countries. Many Muslims (devout or not) are outright hostile to homosexuals. Do you include religious Muslims or homosexuals? Please let me know if you know a concrete solution of this problem, I'm eager to hear that.

Since "same group" in this instance is "The society of The United States", it's quite easy. We manage it in the UK without everything collapsing (thus far.)

If it helps, you can take "inclusion" to mean "has the same rights" - ie. Muslims, LGBTQ, women, etc. all have the same rights.

It is interesting that you cite the UK as an example, because the US seems to be doing much better than the UK in this regard. Polls show that 100% of UK Muslims find homosexuality an unacceptable lifestyle choice, and more than half want homosexuality made illegal. Not gay marriage, homosexuality.

Being inclusive and tolerant of intolerance works up to the point when the intolerant group is large enough to wield political power.

> We manage it in the UK without everything collapsing (thus far.)

This may turn out to be awfully prescient.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... has the 52% wanting it illegal but nothing about the 100% against lifestyle choice.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-f... has the "100% against" figure but is from 2009 and not entirely relevant at this point.

Either way, they're both included into UK society.

Overall, I agree with you. All too often diversity and inclusion are sought as an end as opposed to the means. Many situations can benefit dramatically from these as strengths. Many others can be crippled just as well.

However, when it comes to government, you don't have the option to be anything but inclusive. Anything less leads to unrest and ultimately revolt as the silent oppressed find escape valves.

This election cycle is proof that true inclusion is paramount. Not the Politically Correct inclusion Democrats are so fond of, but true inclusion, true representation.

> How do you include religious Muslims and homosexuals in the same group

As someone who grew up in northern Virginia I'm really wondering about the answer to that question. Try coming out as homosexual in one of the many Democrat-voting Asian and Middle Eastern households around here. Try saying you're going to marry a black man or woman. Try mentioning (as a brown person) that your wife is a white American and see how many comments you can get about why it is better to marry a girl from your own country.

That's the hardest part. I want to, I truly want to understand the other side, to make sense of what it is we can do to become more inclusive and accepting of everyone, to try and boost the entire country, not just parts of it.

But it's so hard to do that when there's so much that I find morally and ethically reprehensible about the president-elect and the public statements him and many of his supporters have made.

Okay well, let's try an experiment - tell me one thing you find morally or ethically reprehensible, and I'll try to provide you with one devil's advocate reason why the other side might consider it differently. Then we can do it the other way around.

The dialogue between the two "opposing sides" has so completely broken down that "othering" is in full effect - there is no concept of what the "other side" wants, just third-party digestion of what someone thinks it wants.

I'm not a Trump or Clinton supporter, although I'm biased for Trump and against Clinton, so I'll gladly take the first step.

I've listened to some of Trump's speeches, and some of Clinton's speeches. I've also had a little bit of exposure to Obama's speeches, which I really liked. From my experience, Clinton's campaign has always had an undercurrent of contempt for opposing voters. I've looked around and seen other people have this belief - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/45paoo/why_would_...

Clinton even went so far as to label half of Trump's supporters as "deplorables....racist,sexist,homophobic..". Here's a discussion of that comment I've read - https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Hillary-Clinton-call-half-of-D...

Madeleine Albright, when talking at a Clinton rally, said "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-al...

Gloria Steinem suggested that female Bernie voters are doing it "for the boys" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/bernie-sande...

You may have heard about "Bernie Bros" from the time Bernie was still a threat to her candidacy.

It's not just attachments to her campaign, the media has been relentlessly supporting Clinton in labeling Trump supporters(or even anyone opposing Clinton) as racist and sexist. It doesn't stop with the media, it's her supporters as well, here's an example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd4wXAUFAow

One of the possible explanations of Trump's surprising victory is the social stigma of voting for him - http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13075/why-were-p... This worries me greatly, as a very zealous proponent of free speech - I wouldn't want a significant contingent of voters, enough to sway a whole election, to feel like they cannot voice their opinions publicly, even if I disagree with them.

Considering all that, why do you think Clinton's campaign holds a moral high ground over Trump's? Why should I not be worried about this undercurrent of contempt for anyone politically opposed to her?

Haven't forgotten about you, just have an exam to cram for today. I'll respond tomorrow!

Ha, no worries, life is more important than arguing on the internet :)

Clinton even went so far as to label half of Trump's supporters as "deplorables....racist,sexist,homophobic..".

You left out by far the worst part of that, she said we were "not America", that we were "irredeemable".

Your devil's advocate offer doesn't strike me as relevant, you're trying to build some common ground or the like, right? Well, there's no common ground to be found when one side wholeheartedly believes you, and by you I mean in particular myself and my family, aren't even worth trying to reeducate, aren't even capable of that, are, to quote Merriam Webster "not able to be saved, helped, or made better"

Just what future to you think we have in our opponents' Utopia?

Anyway, near your close you say "This worries me greatly, as a very zealous proponent of free speech - I wouldn't want a significant contingent of voters, enough to sway a whole election, to feel like they cannot voice their opinions publicly, even if I disagree with them."

Is it really true you believe this isn't already the case? If you habituate HN, did you fail to notice the strong calls to purge Peter Theil from Facebook's board and Y Combinator's partners?

At the other end of the economic classes, all the violence and vandalism against Trump supporters, which thanks to Project Veritas we know was in part directed and paid for Clinton's campaign? That takes "contempt" to a higher (or is that lower?) level than your thorough citations of mere words.

> why do you think Clinton's campaign holds a moral high ground over Trump's?

Because it isn't running on a platform of exclusion.

Finally back!

So to answer the question regarding moral high ground: Do I think Clinton also ran an immoral or unethical campaign? Absolutely. You've noted how her supporters have also engaged in those actions by socially stigmatizing free speech.

I'd argue that social stigmatization of speech is allowed, as is the speech itself. Free speech goes both ways, does it not?

But you're right, I would personally still want to listen to people I disagree with, just as we are discussing differences in opinion right now.

And at the end of the day, I don't support Clinton. Precisely because I just didn't feel like I could rationalize that stigmatization for other people's points of view just to reaffirm my own.

Here's the thing though: Did Clinton actively support violence? Racism? I'd argue that she did indeed support sexism, so I can't argue for or against that. I think that Trump reinforces supporter beliefs that racism is okay, that violence towards others that do not agree with him is okay. He has friends like Steve Bannon, that had a domestic violence dispute, that ran a hate-filled website. I can't deny that Bannon's probably a very smart individual, but morally I'm not sure I can support that.

And we're seeing the repercussions of Trump's rhetoric, at least here in the Midwest and South. I'm from a southern state, and live near a public university. As a person of color, I've had people in trucks with confederate flags tell me whilst driving past that Trump will deport me, even though I was born here. Students are being killed for their religious beliefs (thankfully not in my town). All it's doing, as far as I can tell, is bringing fear, uncertainty, and doubt in many people's lives.

I was young when 9/11 happened. And nobody told me what was going on, so I only knew the bits and pieces I would see on the news. What I gained out of it, I'm ashamed to say, was an irrational fear of men with turbans, and women with hijabs. I'd have nightmares of it. I'd be afraid when going to houses of family friends who were Sikh, some of the most peaceful people you'd know, solely because the men in the family wore turbans. Of course, now I know that those are irrational, and have since made my peace with it.

Today, I find myself feeling the same irrational fears of my youth, but instead towards the white southern folk that I probably grew up with. I look at them and wonder, will that person stop me or make fun of me because of the way I look?

I know that you probably don't agree with racism and sexism, just as I know that many of Trump's supporters probably also do not. But there are definitely people in that camp that Trump is not outright calling out. And I really wish he did.

Finally, I did a google search to see if anyone had compiled any links to demonstrate what I've noticed in trump and his supporters. I found a bunch of links compiled in the subreddit /r/EnoughTrumpSpam, so I understand if they aren't exactly the best sources for how I feel about Trump. https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4uabwt/fin...

Yet Trump was holding a rainbow flag at his rally:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/donald-trump-...

and then got a lot of flak for it in Utah in christian newspapers and media for it. Maybe he'll keep Pence in check, who knows...

Hillary being extremely "pro-LGBT" is also taken too much for granted. In one instance Hillary's crowd during the nightclub shooting was perceived to have thrown the gay community under the bus when they suppressed the news about it, because it might have had an "Islamic terrorist" component to it, so it would have hurt her slightly in her rhetoric. Many people have not forgot that.

People noticed she took large donations from the Saudis and Qatar and other places like that. I know a some women who voted for him, certainly noticed that part.

EDIT (another thing I thought of): During the process I was really fascinated with the media, new forms of media, popular media, etc. As part of that I was looking at how news spread on Reddit among Hillary and Trump supporters. One thing that was unexpected is that Trump's supporters included people from all walks of life: young, old, gays, transgender, Hispanic, Black, other minorities and they all were rather civil and respectful, they got along, all having fun with their frog mascot and whatnot. On the Hillary's side, there was a lot of hatred, condescension, as soon as someone mentioned anything critical about her, immediate downvotes and labels like "sexist" thrown around. It looked rather unhealthy. That militant attitude might come from the right place, but I can't imagine it being healthy, and I wonder if it cost her the election.

> As part of that I was looking at how news spread on Reddit among Hillary and Trump supporters. One thing that was unexpected is that Trump's supporters included people from all walks of life: young, old, gays, transgender, Hispanic, Black, other minorities and they all were rather civil and respectful, they got along, all having fun with their frog mascot and whatnot.

You found Trump supporters on Reddit to be civil and respectful?!

> You found Trump supporters on Reddit to be civil and respectful?!

I should have qualified it with "more than I expected". I just expected a lot worse, and at the same time expected a lot more from Hillary's crowd.

Also I meant they got along with each other and I didn't see the expected "gay bashing" or racial slurs and so on. Those are things someone coming from the left and liberal side might assume. Especially since there is anonymity online, there is absolutely no reason for them to hold those things back.

As for Hillary's side, it was sad to see how using that same anonymity, the ugly, intolerant, condescending and frankly childish behavior showing.

> I should have qualified it with "more than I expected"

That does not say much. If your expectation of Clinton supporters being civil and respectful is higher than that of Trump's, it is quite natural that you'd be "surprised". You need to have the same yardstick for both camps.

All said and done, it is one matter being condescending and totally another manner to promote hate.

> All said and done, it is one matter being condescending and totally another manner to promote hate.

That's a fair point, agree with that.

I read a lot of r/the_Donald, as I like to not confine myself to echo chambers. They are often young and immature, and can be disrespectful to Clinton supporters generally, but in the most upvoted thread yesterday there was a comment chain near the top talking about gay rights, all of it very pro-gay rights and respectful.

Yesterday has been very different all across Reddit, not just on r/the_Donald

I have seen vicious racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny on different subs during the election. The kind of comments that came through and words used were not even comparable to the other side.

> Hillary being extremely "pro-LGBT"

Hilary did not get behind gay marriage until 2013: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/....

Fricking Rudy Giuliani is a better icon for gay rights. Guiliani and Clinton came out in support of gay marriage about the same time (2013 and 2015, both before Obergefell), but Clinton did so to stay relevant with per party and Guiliani did so against the mainstream of his party.

Yea. This fact is commonly being forgotten. Not on is the man anti-LGBTQ he's a total con artist. His money is from his father, he's been bankrupt a number of times only to be bailed out by his father and banks that peddle his name for their own benefit.

He has no conception of togetherness, of sacrificing one's own goals for the good of the larger group. He's part of the gang that's shit on the Constitution, obstructed government for their own petty reasons and have no issue with legislating to punish people that didn't vote for them.

Sadly the Democrats will try to take the high road, give in on terrible laws just to make it appear that we're not obstructing in hopes of - I don't even know what.

Everyone is singing the praises of the Republicans for seeing the real America except for the fact that the real America is a scared, selfish bunch of folks. If Trump had ANY ACTUAL CRED then I would feel less sad. Everyone is acting as if Trump can actually do something - there is zero evidence of that other than he can lie like no one's business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com