Elon Musk Defends Role on Trump Advisory Board. Read His Full Text Explanation | Hacker News Reader

Elon Musk Defends Role on Trump Advisory Board. Read His Full Text Explanation

entrepreneur.com

5 pointsendswapper9 comments

No thanks, but I'd rather have sensible voices advising the president than not.

The only proper response to such a hare brained and destructive "policy" like the immigration ban is not to "offer suggestions for changes". But to demand its immediate reversal -- along with a profuse apology and an offer of compensation to those adversely affected by this profound betrayal of trust.

I would prefer what you described, and I imagine it feels good to verbalize it. However, demanding that the President do anything simply isn't reality.

If I am reading him correctly, I agree with fullshark, in that we are better off if intelligent, rational people are advising the President.

Kalanick's withdrawal was news to me, and I find that disappointing.

However, demanding that the President do anything simply isn't reality.

It's OK if we differ on whether one should attempt to constructively influence the current administration, or not.

But I have to strongly disagree with you on the other half of what you're saying. If your rights are being trampled, or the physical well-being of your loved ones is being directly threatened -- as is the case with those being denied access to health care, or who find their long and meticulously planned applications for asylum are suddenly throttled -- then yes, demanding that their rights and physical well-being be protected is the only responsible and dignified course of action you have available.

And on top of that -- it's the only way people have ever won and safeguarded their rights, throughout all of history.

That's simply not true. The voice of the people is powerful and important, but demands are not and should not be how we win or protect rights.

Constructive discourse with rational minds wins and protects. Demands, without discourse, context or leverage, can be counter productive and can completely derail productive discourse.

Constructive discourse with rational minds wins and protects.

Do you suppose that the LGBT community ultimately won their rights through a patient campaign of engaging their opposition through debate clubs, paid advertisements and letters to the editor? Or through actions like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

The moment a police baton cracks your head is the moment you can be pretty sure that the time for "constructive discourse" -- and for patiently "asking" for your rights -- has ended.

The LGBT community have won partial rights and their pursuit of rights is necessary and ongoing. I'll point to silly, counter-productive efforts in North Carolina for an obvious example of why it is necessary and ongoing[0].

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act[1] and granting rights for same sex marriage[2] has done more for the LGBT community than any riot, or act of violence, or demand, ever has, or ever will.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Repeal... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Unite...

Agreed, riots aren't necessary anymore -- but that's only because you're fast-forwarding by nearly 50 years. The anti-DoMA movement, the bathroom bills and all the other modern wins are but the culmination of a decades-long process. The prevailing opinion on the LGBT community is that they never would have gotten anywhere near to where they are now (or at least never would have without an unacceptably long wait) without Stonewall (or some similarly cathartic moment).

That is, without a moment when those affected came forward to not just demand, but to claim and assert their rights when the situation called for it.

Key quote: "I understand the perspective of those who object to my attending this meeting, but I believe at this time that engaging on critical issues will on balance serve the greater good."

Engagement: amazing how this has suddenly become controversial. What's the productive alternative? A temper-tantrum?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com