Hacker News Reader

It isn't brainwashing, it is just exposure. The author does not state that it was anything being taught, anything being forced on him. Rather, it was the exposure to individuals who were being hurt by the politics he favored. Previously, he had been in exactly the sort of echo chamber that you are describing, and afterward, he had conversations with people outside of that bubble.

It is the same way that many people will be strongly against gay rights, until one of their relatives comes out. Knowing somebody who is personally hurt by an ideology gives somebody the kick that they need to reconsider the ideology as a whole.

Rather, it was the exposure to individuals who were being hurt by the politics he favored.

And whites, especially male and/or heterosexuals, aren't "being hurt" by the Left's campaign against them, that says we're uniquely guilty, uniquely unable to absolve ourselves of this guilt, or as Hillary put it, "irredeemable"?

Just what is the Left's end game for us? Should we take a clue from its crowing about how soon we'll be a minority in the US?

Any particular reason we shouldn't join the game of identity politics that every other group is playing? Any particular reason we must commit suicide (which is by no means an entirely figurative thing in the US)?

The loss of a privileged position is not the same as being hurt. I, as a cisgender heterosexual white male, am still able to walk down the street without being catcalled. I can go to a public restroom without fear of physical assault. I can marry whomever I choose. I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name. Why does it hurt me if those basic human decencies are given to other people as well?

As to the "irredeemable" comment, I don't believe that has ever applied to all white males. It doesn't apply to those who give basic human decency to others. On the other hand, if you claim special rights by virtue of skin color, gender, or religion, and if you would deny human rights to others based on these factors, then yes, I would call you part of the basket of deplorables.

The Alt Right's position on your first paragraph is that all those are fine, but those "basic human decencies" should be accorded to others in their own lands ("diversity + proximity = war), ignoring the minor detail that simple facts always put women at a disadvantage in physical combat unless they effectively arm themselves. You are, I assume, in favor of legal concealed carry? Or have noted that women, and minority women, are doing it at ever greater rates, enough to significantly change gun design and production patterns?

But some of what you say in it is ludicrous on its face:

I can go to a public restroom without fear of physical assault.

Really? You must live some place special where no crime occurs in such venues.

I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name.

But your race, sex or sexual orientation? Haven't you noticed you're at a disadvantage here more and more? I mean, this was the theme of an episode of Archie Bunker which aired in the 1970s, the iconic scene was "Meathead" slamming a door so hard it broke the glass in it, very memorable.

Moving on:

On the other hand, if you claim special rights by virtue of skin color, gender, or religion

You're claiming a full on assault is "[t]he loss of a privileged position"; I guess at best we'll just have to agree to disagree, since it appears that simply asking for equal rights in the identity politics game, heck, even being allowed to play it, is beyond the pale for you, puts me in the basket of deplorables. But correct me if I'm wrong about that summation of your position.

> [...] simple facts always put women at a disadvantage in physical combat unless they effectively arm themselves. You are, I assume, in favor of legal concealed carry? Or have noted that women, and minority women, are doing it at ever greater rates, enough to significantly change gun design and production patterns?

As an aside, as someone who considers firearms ownership and possession basic human rights, I'm extremely happy about this development and have been doing everything in my power to assist - to the point that I've offered a standing invitation on my city's subreddit to take anyone who would like to learn about firearms and self-defense to the range at my own expense. It's "anecdata", but the people who have taken me up on this offer have been about as far from the "rural white male conservative" stereotype as one could imagine.

>> I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name. >But your race, sex or sexual orientation?

This is an interesting point for me as well - I'm a 32-year-old white male named "Lyndsy". I've had a couple of hiring processes stop cold on me the moment the hiring manager saw me in person or on Skype. I have no doubt that it was because I'm a man, and they were hoping to hire a woman. I actually don't blame them for this - my own political views allow for discrimination based on any factor - but it has been interesting.

"Really? You must live some place special where no crime occurs in such venues."

Transgender people like me (those of us who can't pass for jack squat even if we had our own platoon of makeup artists) are targeted on a regular basis when we use public restrooms and changing rooms.

As for the Alt Right, their ideologies are old as hell and quite frankly idiotic. It's like debating orthodox Marxist-Leninists. They just trot out the same old arguments without regard to the history of their implementation (and failure). So, until the Alt Right comes up with something fresh (i.e. not a mere criticism of liberalism which every has done since the ideology sprang up) I'm not going to entertain their nonsense either.

About my only reply can be http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Although, just because an argument is old, doesn't mean it's wrong.... Can you really say "diversity + proximity = war" is wrong? With the very concrete example you give above???

"About my only reply can be http://www.pinkpistols.org/"

That doesn't work when it comes to states with even SYG laws. Especially if the judge sees the act of the use of force as endangerment of the public.

"Although, just because an argument is old, doesn't mean it's wrong.... Can you really say "diversity + proximity = war" is wrong? With the very concrete example you give above???"

Have you even studied the history of war? Like at all? Cause no one believes that mere differences in culture is the primary cassus belli for war in terms of history. The fact is it's majoratively been about resource acquisition; be it land or people. All other CBs for wars are purely subordinate to the acquisition of resources (ideologies don't fill bellies). And to say otherwise is firmly put your own head of your arse when it comes to the matter. So I'm not inclined to listen to the Alt Right jerks who think Crusader Kings 2 is an accurate portrayal of the Medieval Real Politik.

That doesn't work when it comes to states with even SYG laws.

Really??? Evidence, please, for I'm not aware of this being a serious problem, and this is one of my domains of semi-expertise. As in, nowadays with the changes in state laws I carry concealed almost every time I walk out the door, my state was not a SYG one, and wouldn't bother if that was futile. This of course includes when I go to public bathrooms.

As for "endangerment of the public", I've never heard of it being an issue when a gun was used responsibly and none but the perpetrators were seriously injured. But I have heard of the deaths of innocents being charged as felony murder, by the surviving perpetrators (it can, of course, go the other way, see that bit about responsibly).

Do you have any facts, any incidents to back these claims up, or do you have another reason to claim that effective self-defense is futile, even to the point where it's better to be carried by six instead of judged by twelve, to reverse the normal formulation of that saying?

And we're just going to have to agree to disagree on your last point, for I have been seriously studying war since the 1970s, and there are plenty of examples of ideological wars. Heck, on Hitler's part, WWII was not a war of necessity; yeah, he wanted more resources, but Germany was doing rather well as it was, and e.g. being cut off from British coal directly led to the invasion of the Soviet Union (let's invade Russia during the winter to take their food, what could possibly go wrong?; see The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy for the detail, if you can stomach them https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670038261/ Not finished, and not (yet) replaced after it was damaged by a tornado)). Nor, for that matter, was WWI primarily about that, although the resources of Alsace-Loraine were certainly an additional motivator. The French wanted revenge after they got skunked in the Franco-Prussian War, and they sure got their fill of it.

Heck, was Bush the son's 2nd Iraq War one of those? We didn't, you know, take their oil....

Your entire post has Dunning-Kruger all over it.

1. Google SYG cases and see how each state defers to judges. In Florida it's always up to a judge once a DA offers the case for examination. They can shoot it down on their own terms (heh). Other state SYGs are similar. Plus, many LGBT people don't live in SYG states. Minnesota has duty to retreat like the rest of us.

2. Again your examples are one driven by human desire for resources. Ideologies are the AAR of wars, not their progenitors. And to say otherwise is to be basically a complete moron.

And if you don't like my opinion, you can kindly go chat up someone else. :)

The Left in America is hardly left of anyone. What you should be calling the modern Democratic party is neoliberal because their policies reflect this ideology perfectly. And there's plenty to criticize on neoliberalism but when it comes to civil rights that's not one of them. Plus, what hurts white men isn't social but rather economic which is the principle issue I have with Democrats who've ignored the economy (it was Democrats who held Obama's stimulus hostage and not the Republicans as they already voiced their opposition). So until the Democrats cleans out the neoliberal garbage I expect them to keep crowing about id politics without regard to the larger econ politics which affects us all.

My reply is the Instapundit's, embrace the power of "and", it can be both ideology, although that's really now becoming more identity politics, and economics.

Sometimes they go hand in hand, like the importation of vast numbers of low skilled workers as eventual citizens, displacing native low skilled workers. and "dissolving the people and electing another" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung forgive my paraphrasing of the German I don't know). See all the crowing about how whites will soon become a minority in the US.

Sometimes it's purely economic, like US citizens and permanent residents being forced to train their H-1B indentured servant replacements.

(Then we could e.g. get to the more complicated things like why manufacturing has become so expensive here, lots of that is ideology and the like, but the above serves to illustrate my point.)

The funny thing about the H1B program is that the majority of people who voted for Trump or vote for the Republicans rarely ever talk about it. It's always fear of some Mexican teenager trying to "steal" some low wage agriculture job. It never seems to enter the minds of the conservatives that the facts of immigration aren't what they make it out to be. Specifically, that illegal immigrants are the least significant factor in depressed wages. H1B is a larger factor in this regard. So, it's funny that Trump's the only candidate in a long time to raise this issue. Too bad he's utter crap on the rest of his politics.

He's hardly the only one, see e.g. Sessions, his pick for AG, which will allow them to crack down on the white line illegal uses of H-1B visas without any need for new legislation.

You're mistaking talking about it with the press being unable to ignore Trump like they'd done with the previous politicians who'd made a fuss about it, modulo the symbol laden example of Disney pulling this stunt, which, you'll note, they never made a "campaign" about. To take one of the most ludicrous and iconic example of this, the NYT had much more important things to do, like get women membership in the Augusta National Golf Club.

It's also the case that H-1Bs only seriously affect our domain of "IT", and unless you're in that, it's not in your face like Latin Americans e.g. transforming your neighborhood. Something I witnessed in the dozen years I spent in central Arlington, VA (although these, at least, made good neighbors. Heh, in the D.C. Metro area Arlington was by a good measure the most "diverse" of the municipalities/counties).

First, H1Bs aren't illegal. The companies are following the rules to the letter of the law. It's the H1B program that's the problem. Second, no politician in the years H1B was enacted sought its suspension. It's been in existence for a long time (seems decades by my reading of the Migration and Nationality Act of 1965), so what took them so long to notice? I think the fact that FWD.us was exposed for what it was got the ball rolling, among other factors such as the depressed wages of professors in universities across the country.

Direct replacement of a citizen or permanent resident employee with an H-1B visa holder is technically illegal. Weasel word because up to now, the DoJ has not seen fit to prosecute such cases.

Per Wikipedia, it started in 1990, thanks to G. H. W. Bush and the Democratic Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa). Which would have followed the NSF's et. al. 1980's campaign to reduce the cost of scientific labor by claiming there was a grave skills shortage.

As for "suspending it", Sessions at least took the "Intel yes, Infosys no" approach with his 2015 bill, but I agree the whole program is a problem. But I'll take his and Trump's position, which I think will take legislation, as a good first step.

It's not a weasel word. It's a fact. Law isn't about what's right, it's about what works. H1B worked for a while, but now it doesn't. So take it to Congress and stop trying to support an overt xenophobe like Jeff Sessions who also is a garbage fire when it comes to LGBT rights. It's just not gonna happen.

As a kinda-technically-white male heterosexual myself, I think you've been reading too many conspiracy websites, or possibly idiotic Twitter feeds, if you think anyone is asking us to "commit suicide", or claiming we're "guilty". Also, as a Jew, welcome to being a minority: you'll live.

Suicide rates among older men rose from 6/100,000 to 10/100,000.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm

This increase is a public health issue. It isn't a particularly significant cause of death. See page 27:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf

On the younger end (~40), the death rate is 200/100,000. By age 60 it is 1200/100,000.

However, is not the tend worrisome? One of the reasons we do "public health" is to nip things in the bud. In the domain of infectious diseases, to prevent epi- and pandemics....

The other notable thing I've been told is that this is a unique in the US phenomena, which suggests a whole lot.

No, the trend is not worrisome in a general sense. It does not represent an existential crisis, not even for aging conservative men.

I mean, it is small enough that it could largely be the result of some particular book becoming popular.

you need to stop identifying with left/right or "us" as a colour of skin. You do that you'll just get shafted by someone claiming to represent you against "them" (a la Trump).

Don't identify either way, realise that most politicians are acting against "us" and pick and choose each election on the basis of what policies politicians are putting forward and try to ignore their rhetoric.

It's perhaps a little late to tell someone who's about to turn 56 to stop doing this ^_^!

Seriously, the "Right" and "Left" are abstractions for two general philosophies about human nature, the Right believing that human nature is basically fixed, or as a favorite history teacher put it, "Original Sin is an empirical observation!", and the Left believes in the perfectibility of man. And historically, at least since the French Revolution which created the modern versions of these two, has gotten downright murderously violent when their attempts to "perfect" men failed, as we on the right believe is inevitable.

So you're asking me to drop a perfectly usable and useful abstraction that helps to make more sense of the world because of the danger I'll be disappointing by any particular politician. Seeing that my first great disappointment was Nixon in his second term, I've got to tell you I've got other tools for that, like "best is the enemy of good enough", "the lessor of two evils", and so on. And you shouldn't assume I didn't look at the actual policies both put forward, and could make a choice on those alone.

And how to you characterize a rhetorical policy against political correctness? Or an attack on a common enemy like the MSM that's more carried out by rhetoric than actions?

Or the simple fact that many if not most people simply cannot be reached by dialectical arguments, it's rhetoric or nothing (or I'm told, see Aristotle's book on the subject, this is said to be a good translation: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064879/ ).

As for your point "'us' as a colour of skin", the best reply is the one attributed to Trotsky, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". I'd prefer to be left alone to code up neat stuff, but that's not an option today in the US.

>Seriously, the "Right" and "Left" are abstractions for two general philosophies about human nature, the Right believing that human nature is basically fixed, or as a favorite history teacher put it, "Original Sin is an empirical observation!", and the Left believes in the perfectibility of man. And historically, at least since the French Revolution which created the modern versions of these two, has gotten downright murderously violent when their attempts to "perfect" men failed, as we on the right believe is inevitable.

This is a uniquely right-wing view of what "left" and "right" mean. On the Left, we view it as your preferring hierarchy over equality, and our preferring equality over hierarchy. We also think of our politics as materialist and class-based, while yours are idealist (in the continental philosophy sense) and identity-based.

So you probably should drop an abstraction that isn't informative about anything except your own ideology.

My abstraction claims there are two different takes on fundamental human nature.

To shift the domain to things like hierarchy, equality, materialism, class, and idealism is Not Even Wrong, especially since you're not denying my side's take is actually, you know, wrong. Or that your side's issues don't directly flow from what I claim is your side's take on human nature.

E.g. we don't believe in "equality" as the Left defines it because we don't believe such a thing exists. We on the Alt Right are even moving past the concept of equality before the law based on this (!).

I'm only saying its crap because its a really lossy abstraction. As soon as you start saying "there are two types of people" you _know_ you're chatting nonsense because humans are damn complex beasts and to make them binary is a ridiculous generalisation. I don't care about US politics what I care about is people trying to turn the world into a boolean when it is rich and complex. All these people have unique experiences and stories, don't just jpeg all that cool stuff out.

Also don't use your age as an excuse to be stubborn, we're never too old to look at things in new ways.

Initial statements of the Muslim ban were not particularly nuanced.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

Good luck explaining how the media twisted the words on the campaign website.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"

Thank you for your attempt at gaslighting, but his speech in December of last year was fairly concise.

In response to all the downvotes you are getting. Direct quote from his campaign on Dec 7, 2015: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-b...

That seems quite a bit different from parent's quote. One is anti-Muslim, the other is pro-security.

Yes, clearly the quote was taken out of context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

I particularly liked the moment where the crowd thoughtfully refrained from cheering at the most polarizing point of that statement. Class act all around.

What do you mean by "parent's quote"?

The thing people are responding to is "No, Trump did no call for ban on all muslims."

He did. Whether he should be held to his ham-fisted early rhetoric and whether it is pro-security or anti-Muslim are entirely different discussions than the one about what words actually came out of his mouth.

Campaign press release source with those exact words: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The criticism that has been directed towards Trump is not about him thinking all Mexicans are rapists, nor that he calls for a ban on Islam. Rather, it's directed towards his rhetoric being strongly hostile towards both groups, based partly on the quotes you are referring to. Do you think that interpretation is incorrect?

>>It is the new Catholic Church, taking on only the worst of the qualities of its predecessor.

This. I am a liberal but I do agree with your characterization of the "liberals". The mainstream liberals/leftists have polluted the societal atmosphere so much by ascribing malice to even slightest criticism of their dogma and its ill effects.

For example, to accommodate minority (e.g. homosexuals) is a good thing for the progress of society. But the mainstream liberals apply double standards: they will never criticize Islam which is the most oppressive and vicious ideology out their oppressing all those who don't follow its dogma (e.g. homosexuals).

This podcast by Sam Harris is worth contemplating.

"Sam Harris - President Trump and the Failure of the Left" [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f27qaDQ1uG8

We on the Left criticize Islam all the damn time. We just don't like invading Middle Eastern countries for no palpable benefit.

Please provide some examples of mainstream left and liberal criticizing Islam. Genuinely interested.

Paul Berman has written at least two books on the subject.

Well, apparently the leftist intellectuals need a history lesson. This is why the US intervenes in the Middle East.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

I cant tell if this comment is trolling or serious. My gut says its trolling but the comment history of the poster has me confused.

How are we supposed to have a conversation when facts no longer matter? Should I start spewing out delusions also?