Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjdemers | Hacker News Reader

Disagreeing with each other's views on the economy, international relations, even the environment is good for the country. We need different points of view on important issues.

But using race baiting to gain political power crosses a line that should never be crossed. He should not be helping to legitimize this.

View on HN

I very much dislike Trump and would never vote for the man. Both sides use race baiting. Spurious use of the word "racist" against those who dislike government intervention and entitlements has basicly denuded the term of its once-quite-considerable power. They called Bush racist, wasn't true. They called Romney racist, a laughable claim. They called Trump racist and maybe this time there're right, but what does "racist" even mean again?

When someone is racist and sexist, it is everyone's duty to call what they are: racist and sexist.

Agreed. But if you call anyone who disagrees with you on economic policy a racist and sexist, it opens the door for an actual racist and sexist to get in.

Which is not the case right now. So yes the president elect of the US is racist and sexist and a % of his supporters are openly racist and/or sexist people.

This is not a disputed fact in anyway

But when you claim that "all" his supporters are racists and sexists, you lose validity and just enrage people who are not which has adverse reactions

Being opposed to urban people getting entitlements, but in favor of rural people getting entitlements, is approximately racist, when you factor in demographics.

At this point, I'm not even sure what's more racist: calling a group of people "lazy and unintelligent", or molly-coddling a group of people because "they need special attention".

The way the left treats minorities is pretty patronizing, to be frank.

(I say this as a minority)

I am not sure what molly-coddling means in this context, but as a single data point you can look at the platform page of a minority advocacy group: [0]. The actual low-level details of many of the policies (if not the headlines) share a lot in common with Sanders' platform, for instance.

I'd like to think that, for the most part, trying to address a societal problem like [1] is better than denying that any action is needed, even if the increased visibility causes strife—[2] is of interest here—or we don't get it right the first time. It's hard to discuss because many Americans begin on vastly different pages with vastly different experiences.

[0]: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/

[1]: http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/systemic-racism-is-real

[2] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

When you start calling every Trump supporter a race baiter, bigot, or racist without understanding their viewpoint, it's time to stop using those words and take a look in the mirror.

Disagreement is one thing. Outright blindness to issues that could destroy humanity, and that are not in question, such as global warming, are something else entirely. But it is too late to fret over that - what is important now is supporting those people who CAN work with Trump to make better decisions. So whether you like Trump or Thiel or think they are dimwits, we'll get a better result by helping them vs. bitching about things on the internet.

(In two years, this cycle starts all over again. Save your energies for that time.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com