Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrnichols | Hacker News Reader

Too bad. I think that the more tech insiders remain at arms length from Trump, the better. But Kalanick reports that he was pressured to resign from this position not from Trump or his cabinet, but by those that felt it was an endorsement of Trump.

I think that we need more of the Valley close to Trump, not avoiding him. They might be the ones he ends up listening to.

View on HN

> I think that the more tech insiders remain at arms length from Trump, the better.

> I think that we need more of the Valley close to Trump, not avoiding him.

Eh?

In any case, I think "stay close to Trump so he'll listen to you" is an idea that has been proven wrong over and over and over again since the second he became President. And you're going to be contending with his trusted advisor Steve Bannon, who thinks there are too many Asians in Silicon Valley. So...

I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

Arm's length here means close in his/her original statement.

That's not what "arm's length" typically means. Of course, OP might not be a native English speaker.

'at arms length' vs 'within arms reach'. The phrases are similar, but different. It's an easy mistake to make.

"At arm's length" means that the two parties are impersonal business acquaintances. They treat each other just like they would treat anyone else with the same amount of goods to sell or money to spend.

When you sell a car to your nephew for $1, that is not an "arm's length" trade. In some situations, a trade that is not "at arm's length" may be taxed on an independently assessed value, rather than the actual purchase price.

In most places in the US, arm's length is literally the distance you stand from someone when closing a business deal. You can't shake hands from further away, and you can't hug each other without getting closer.

OP might have meant something along the lines of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Or you can't be heard if you aren't even there to speak. I'm not sure if there's another idiom that would be more precise without also being less concise, but "arm's length" is probably not the best phrasing.

I am, and that is exactly what I meant, even if some disagree on the phrasing. (Sorry, I wasn't an English Lit major.) Keep your friends close and enemies closer.

Arm's length is close enough to reach them but still far enough away. That's where I think the tech industry needs to keep Trump and stand firm. Otherwise, they're completely on the outside, which I don't think helps.

This inevitably has the effect of normalizing his behavior. At some point, you have to decide if his behavior is so far outside the bounds of acceptable that the only option left is to disengage from it.

There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor, and nobody that will now change their mind because he quit.

"Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria.

The fewer sane people who will work with him, the harder it is to maintain the fiction that the way he's behaving is within any normal frame of reference. It's a cumulative effect.

Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes. The "angry mob" is the people who elected him.

Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs. Again, you're proving my point that Kalanick's move is good for the left, bad for America. All that matters is how you prioritize both.

Silicon Valley corps not working with POTUS on new jobs and better regulation is a lose-lose for them and for America, and objectively only serves to appease the mob.

> Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs.

Why? Because you say so? Because you repeat it?. Because it's an equivalency?

Because both are extremely emotionally-invested, which I think is a reasonable definition of hysteria. What do you disagree with?

Trump doesn't match the scholarly definition of fascism.[0] So from my point of view, it's emotional rhetoric, not serious discourse. He's more Sarah Palin than Mussolini.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics...

The parent comment creates the facts and therefore the conclusion.

Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism; that's another created fact. Interestingly, if you watch clips of Mussolini's behavior, there is a strong resemblance ...

>Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism

Check the rest of the thread, and most of people tweeting about Kalanick a few days ago.

I'm sympathetic to the Resistance crowd, but here, what, practically, does Kalanick's move achieve? What bad Trump policies will be curtailed by this? How many percentage points will Trump's approval rating dip because of this?

Why isn't the fact that the President's base of support is an angry, hysterical mob bad for America? It's odd how the term "left" is so often used in opposition to "America", as if the left isn't just as much America as the right.

On the contrary, I believe the left represents American values better than the right. Should I rephrase that it's good for the left in the short-run, bad for America in the short-run, and good for America in the long-run?

> Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes.

To my mind, incoherent response to a real threat can be "hysteria" - it doesn't imply (as "paranoia" does) that the threat itself isn't real. I would be interested to know if others interpret it differently.

> There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor

The parent comment made that up. Kalanick lends him credibility; I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?'

> "Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria.

In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure.

> I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?'

I haven't heard that, honestly. Even so, will this move really hurt Trump?

> In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure.

True. I meant "normalization" specifically with regards to Trump, not as a sociological concept. WRT Trump, the "normalization" rhetoric poses as a moral imperative but doesn't achieve anything. It's not a strategy. Staying on Trump's advisory team, with every member of that team publicly and directly denouncing Trump's immigration ban (on TV, "open letters" are useless), and forcing Trump to kick them off himself would have been more effective, for example. Why didn't he donate to the ACLU, too?

And how will leaving hurt Trump? He's following public opinion, not influencing it. Your "credibility" point can be addressed simply by having everyone on the board disavow Trump, and criticize future anti-immigration moves, but saying that if Trump wants to help the Valley, they'll work with him on those issues specifically. He doesn't kick you off, great, you can influence him on tech issues. He fires you, great, that'll hurt him.

All Kalanick did was leave Trump's council, and have Uber, Inc. buy Facebook ads targeting ACLU supporters.[0] Just seems like posturing at this point, not action.

[0]: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14441770/uber-aclu-faceboo...

I think you greatly underestimate the power of norms and normalization, specifically with regard to Trump.

It's a democracy. People see Kalanick act and will follow; and politicians will follow their constituents.

I hope you're right, honestly. The cynic in me just sees Trump going on with terrible policies for the next 4 or even 8 years. Regardless of Kalanick's impact, there's too much hand-wringing and not enough people studying how to influence public opinion, how to run a successful movement that won't peter out, and how to organize from the grassroots.

Hard to change his mind when that mind is manipulated by Stephen Bannon. If Bannon leaves then I suspect he would fall more in line with a typical Republican President.

If you read anything besides the headlines, you'd realize he's more of a Democrat than a Republican. Most of the policies he supports are more traditional Democrat views, except for the anti-Muslim ones.

Oh my god. Please list the traditional Democratic views he holds, starting with abortion, health care, gun rights, separation of church and state, and undocumented immigrants. Please list the cabinet nominations he's made that would be typical for a Democrat. Please list the Supreme Court justices he's considered that would be typical for a Democrat. Please list the interactions with foreign leaders he's had that would be typical for a Democrat.

Very much pro-American workers, and anti-globalization. Rejection of TPP, increasing taxes on hedge funds by getting rid of carried interest, decreasing drug prices, full unequivocal support of LGBTQ,

If you were following the Republican nominations, the other Republicans were accusing him of being a Democrat.

full unequivocal support of LGBTQ

What has he done, or promised to do, other than lip service?

What has he done that goes against his lip service?

Not quite an action yet, but his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast makes this seem likely: http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/gender/23...

Even if you think this isn't anti-LGBTQ, it is clearly very opposed to the Democratic party's position.

Picking Mike Pence as his Vice President.

Also Jeff Sessions as attorney general. He is not as vocal as Pence, but his voting and speaking record on gay rights is not very good.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-executive-order-draft-c...

> A draft of an executive order on "religious freedom" is circulating in the Trump administration, outlining a possible weakening of protections designed to shield LGBT individuals from discrimination, according to a copy of the proposed order obtained by ABC News.

If that's true, then "A lot".

Educate yourself. Anyone can write a draft of an executive order. It's most probably not related to anyone in the White House. So there's nothing to that particular story. Stop scaring yourself over unnecessarily and wait for actual things to occur.

> Stop scaring yourself over unnecessarily and wait for actual things to occur.

It's funny - people were saying that for all of 2016 and look how well that's turned out.

Are you serious? Once in a while he says something close to a Democratic idea, like his quotes on universal healthcare, but you should pay more attention to his actions. He has not taken a single action so far that has anything to do with the Democratic party, and nearly all of his promises are either vaguely Republican, or too nonsensical to fit with either party.

Ridiculously false.

Since when was gutting Obamacare, the border wall, his Cabinet choices, and a Scalia-like SC nominee, Democratic positions?

I have no clue why people defend Trump and Bannon for these antics either. It's just clear that both together is like the anti-peanut-butter-chocolate combo.

> If Bannon leaves then I suspect he would fall more in line with a typical Republican President.

How so? This was the same guy who ran on a platform that was the antithesis to the Republican establishment.

His policy platform was literally the GOP's standard platform (excepting the Mexican Wall).

> Hard to change his mind when that mind is manipulated by Stephen Bannon. If Bannon leaves then I suspect he would fall more in line with a typical Republican President.

Interesting speculation, but based on what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com