Intel CEO Resigns from Trump's Manufacturing Council
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Earlier today, I tendered my resignation from the American Manufacturing Council. I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues, including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing. Politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America’s manufacturing base.
I have already made clear my abhorrence at the recent hate-spawned violence in Charlottesville, and earlier today I called on all leaders to condemn the white supremacists and their ilk who marched and committed violence. I resigned because I want to make progress, while many in Washington seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them. We should honor – not attack – those who have stood up for equality and other cherished American values. I hope this will change, and I remain willing to serve when it does.
I am not a politician. I am an engineer who has spent most of his career working in factories that manufacture the world’s most advanced devices. Yet, it is clear even to me that nearly every issue is now politicized to the point where significant progress is impossible. Promoting American manufacturing should not be a political issue.
My request—my plea—to everyone involved in our political system is this: set scoring political points aside and focus on what is best for the nation as a whole. The current environment must change, or else our nation will become a shadow of what it once was and what it still can and should be.
If you're implying here that President Donald Trump did not condemn the white supremacists, I don't know what to say except that you are wrong. He can condemn white supremacists, radical National Socialists, and radical Communists at the same time. If he picks sides in this debate, much like the center picked sides in the Weimar republic, then we would be one step toward either gulags or concentration camps.
I do not think it is fair to expect the President to do something patently unwise to stir up further tensions and deny the concerns of many, because of the violence of some. Political violence is picking up precisely because political speech is suppressed.
All of their concerns? I'm sure you realize that people don't pick up an ideology like that unless it looks like their society isn't functioning.
White supremacy is an answer in search of a question, and the question need not (and ought not) be posed.
We shouldn't be ignoring the concerns of the radical Communists either; that doesn't mean we all should become Communists and repeat the atrocities of Stalin. Likewise, we don't need to become National Socialists in order to ease the pains that make them turn to the ideology.
Yes.
>We shouldn't be ignoring the concerns of the radical Communists either;
Not even remotely the same thing. Not even in the same galaxy. Not even in the same universe.
I'm sure white supremacists are concerned about employment, the decline of the American manufacturing sector, and the cost of health insurance. In fact, I'm pretty sure these concerns contribute to their desire to join others who say they have the solution.
> Not even remotely the same thing. Not even in the same galaxy. Not even in the same universe.
Now, I'm not generally one to nickel-and-dime the deathtolls of genocidal ideologies, but I don't think you could credibly argue that in the 20th century National Socialism was more deadly than Communism. At least you'd have to concede that they are in "the same universe", or "the same galaxy".
Don't use hyperbole, else all of your blood will drain instantly from your eyes.
What do you mean? They're both totalitarian ideologies and have much in common.
You've got to be kidding me.
Point out exactly where in my comment I agreed with white supremacy.
I disagreed with literally one point in your comment and that means I suport white supremacy? Fascinating.
Looks like you're only reading what your emotions want you to read and not what people are actually writing.
The Titanic is sinking and you're arguing with me about the difference between row boats and sail boats.
At the very least you should take responsibility for your own behavior and apologize.
I merely used an extreme example to show you that you were missing the forest for the trees, and you still are. I'm sorry that you're having this problem.
We've been through these arguments since the 1940s. Karl Popper's view of the Paradox of Tolerance [1]
>Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
If we want an open society that permits maximal freedom, we can not permit those who wish to destroy freedom to override those who wish for freedom. The white nationalist movement includes people who explicitly endorse fascism and "throwing into ovens" those who exercised their free speech. [2]
Stop defending this evil.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
[2] http://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/4311880-letter-family...
>you can be accosted for publicly engaging a wrongthinker.
I don't think he cares about rationality, let alone having the fortitude to say what he means. "Everyone else is wrong and when I get called an asshole it's clearly because it's 1984."
But we are in a public space, and the commonly-endorsed tactic of ignoring trolls has the unfortunate effect of letting this sort of pablum spread. I care about not letting stupid ideas and weak thinking persist without the easy counterarguments. When I say "mental virus" I really mean "mental virus." It's a sickness that only reason can defeat.
Well, it seems like my concerns are well-founded; because the first thing you did was look at my profile. Clearly you were looking to investigate me in some fashion, who knows why, I'm sure it'll do me no good if you're more than a peon.
Now imagine somebody else who doesn't feel comfortable with the (fairly mild here, thank you folks) level of hostility that I do; that mild-mannered person is the one I want to have an outlet for their thoughts so they don't stew in their own heads.
Technically I read the thread and then looked at your profile. Because people such as yourself always have some self-aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual nonsense in your bio that -- to everyone else -- clearly displays your ego, irrationality, and how wholly unprepared you are to seriously discuss matters in a forthright manner without trying to weasel your way around the topic. It's almost absurdly comical at how consistently you find such silliness.
>I'm sure it'll do me no good if you're more than a peon.
I'm quoting this just to draw attention to it.
Well, I added it a few days ago because somebody found a way to contact me, and it made them feel less isolated. They told me that I should have my email address in my HN bio with some words of encouragement (it's meant to be playful, if you didn't detect), so I added it. If you get the impression that it's there to play into my ego, well, that's less of a problem than the crushing loneliness of even one person.
> that -- to everyone else -- clearly displays your ego, irrationality, and how wholly unprepared you are to seriously discuss matters in a forthright manner without trying to weasel your way around the topic.
What have I not been forthright about? I am here, a fully identifiable human being. I was making conversation in the wee hours of the morning, and you two took your egg accounts and started assassinating my character. I did not resort to the same tactics, and I tried to answer each jab and remark as clearly as I could manage. I made sure not to make it personal.
> I'm quoting this just to draw attention to it.
Perhaps we can all sound cryptic sometimes. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm saying that if you have it in for me, and (for example) you have direct access to a blacklist of some sort (usually reserved for management, and not peons), it'll do me no good that you're upset and willing to look for my bio.
It seems like you had this line in your clipboard, it is inaccurate, irrelevant, and puzzling in the context of this discussion.
> There are no communists involved in this discussion.
Well, there were communists at the rally, and they came with (thankfully blunt) weapons, ready to brawl. They dressed in black instead of red because that's the trend as of late. Radical communists have been regularly assaulting people at protests and assemblies in America for at least a year.
> We've been through these arguments since the 1940s. Karl Popper's view of the Paradox of Tolerance [1]
I'm not interested in tolerating political violence, but political speech I will.
We need to make ethnonationalism and other seductive ideologies obsolete, instead of suppressing the people who go to them for help.
You're implying a hidden knowledge of just what critical concerns people are ignoring, but you won't tell us.
Sorry if I was unclear. I meant to make the same statement as the first, in a different form. I hoped that providing two versions of the same statement, folks would have a better chance of understanding what I meant.
Once more: Nobody just chooses one day to become a white supremacist. Nobody is born a white supremacist. Nobody in their right mind would identify as a white supremacist without good reason, because doing so is mortally dangerous.
Clearly there's something wrong in their life for them to accept an ideological solution as severe and impractical as white supremacy. That is, they have a serious question, which the answer of white supremacy has found.
> You're implying a hidden knowledge of just what critical concerns people are ignoring, but you won't tell us.
I suspect their concerns are pedestrian: unsatisfactory employment (or lack thereof), the cost of health care, security, the uncertainty of demographic shifts (especially the shrinking proportion of their own race, and the growing relevance of race in public discourse), the moral conditions for their children (though largely an unfounded concern, given how safe America is).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/trump-charlot...