What is the strongest plausible interpretation of Mike Lee's xenophobic tweet?
I couldn't imaging anyone truly interpreting his words to mean "If you have citizenship in American and another country you can't now only vote in America", which I think was what Paul was saying Mike meant (I can't see Paul's exact Tweet anymore after being blocked).
The tweet is poorly worded, but you know... it's just Twitter, er, X.
https://xcancel.com/atdavidmurdoch/status/182920055910850986...
> I may have ruined my chance of ever being backed by YC in the future.
If anything, this reactionary boring thread ruined that chance.
was tongue in cheek, as I don't have any desire to start a start up.
> If anything, this reactionary boring thread ruined that chance.
I thought it was funny, not boring. It got more upvotes in the 45 minutes it wasn't flagged than any other post in the same time frame. But to each their own, I guess.
https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote
> Who cannot vote? > Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents, cannot vote in federal, state, and most local elections.
But even if it wasn’t wrong, the idea behind it is un-American. A country founded on the principle of no taxation without representation which taxes people within its borders while allowing them no voice in that taxation.
Ignoring the fact that laws don't prevent people from committing crimes... but by this logic would you say the law itself is xenophobic?
> would you say the law itself..
Well, you're asking a question that, in a vacuum, isn't political but since it can be considered controversial, and I think you know this, it becomes political. So did you want to debate politics or not?
If that law is founded on the basis of excluding "outsiders" because they are outsiders then that's texbook xenophobia.
What you might want to explore is whether "no taxation without representation" is a core US axiom, whether "outsiders" should pay taxes, etc.
> Any law that prevents taxpayers voting is inconsistent with the principle of no taxation without representation.
That sentence would have been a great response to Mike's tweet.
Thanks for letting me explore some thoughts with you without spiraling into divisive language.
https://www.passporthealthusa.com/passports-and-visas/blog/2...
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making. This is in itself a political statement. And it’s an incorrect statement. You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political?
What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest.
I didn't defend anyone's stance. And obviously, interjecting into a "conversation" (if we can call one person hurling insults at another a conversation?) is joining the conversation, no matter what its about, but I changed the subject when I called out Paul for twisting Mike's words and then insulting him; I told them to be nicer (in a ironically condescending way, yes).
If Mike's tweet said something like: > iPhone owners don't do reviews of Android phones. Non-iPhone owners shouldn't review Android phones. ...
And Paul came by and said: > That's not true. iPhone owners who also own Android can review those phones. How can you be a tech reviewer and not know that?
And then I said:
> You should learn to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Would you say I'm now engaging in a technical review conversation? Or am I just being condescending while (pretending) to correct the behavior of someone with 2M followers?
---
> The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making.
Again, no, there is no implication of right or wrong doing because I criticized a guy for insulting someone else; I'm sorry you have that impression (or maybe you just want to argue with someone, which is fine, I just don't want to talk politics).
That said, I think there _is_ a genuine/valid point to what Mike said -- admitting that ideas contrary to your own have merit does not mean you agree with them, rather, it's a mark of intellectual honesty and maturity. Even communism and anarchy have merit, but I don't agree with those ideologies either. (dang it, cherry_tree, you've got me talking about politics! cut it out!)
> This is in itself a political statement.. And it’s an incorrect statement.
Was Mike precise in his choice of words? No. Technically correct (the best kind of correct!)? Also, no. But incorrect in the _context_ of the whole Tweet? Absolutely not. American citizens (who aren't citizens of another country) don't vote in those foreign elections (well, some probably have before, but not at the same magnitude Mike is worried about). If you and Paul don't think that's what Mike originally meant then you have a problem parsing English language.
> You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political?
No, I didn't defend anyone. I'd say I criticized Paul for his pedantry. And I didn't think random Internet strangers would back me up on anything. I also didn't think anyone would want to debate citizen/non-citizen voting rights with me over this either. But life can full of fun surprises!
> What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest.
No, it isn't. It really just feels like you are projecting some disdain you have towards some group of people onto me, who you don't know.
---
Anyway, the whole point of posting about this to HN was because I thought there was some humorous irony to it. I feel no ill-contempt towards Paul, Mike, you, or anyone else here. It's been fun (just stop trying to pull me into hot-topic politics please).
You did or you wouldn’t be here. There would be no hackernews thread.
He means American citizens that aren't also citizens of a (democratic-esque) foreign nation don't vote in that foreign nation's elections.
Genuine question: did you not understand that?
What is his point that he is making by pointing out this fact?
Genuine question: do you think every line in Mike Lee's tweet is an independent fact that should be taken as totally unconnected, and happen to be in the same post by chance?
I replied to Paul because he took a single line in Mike's tweet as an independent statement without considering the context, and then turned around and insulted the OPs intelligence.
I'll try to break it down for you because your being so genuine.
I've explained the first line already. The next line follows up by saying that noncitizens (people who are not American citizens specifically) shouldn’t have the right to vote in U.S. elections. It then calls for the passage of something called the SAVE ACT, which Mike wants to be included in the upcoming September spending bill, to prevent noncitizens from voting. Finally, the tweet encourages people who agree with this idea to share the message with others, amplifying its reach.
I don't think I can break it down any further without coming off as patronizing.
And I hope it's very clear that I'm not reading the lines in the tweet as separate unconnected ideas.
They already can't, and they already don't. Mike knows that, Paul knows that. You are going to have to try again...
I guess I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be "trying"? What point to you think he was making by pointing out this fact (to use your words)?
> They already can't, and they already don't.
A did a Google search for "estimations for number of non-citizens that vote" from my US IP address.
I've cherry picked the one that is in Mike's favor (claiming 10% to 27% of votes): https://www.justfacts.com/news_non-citizen_voter_registratio...
And a good one in your favor (claiming 0.0001% of votes): https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/nonc...
---
So I don't know what is really going on, but I do enjoy reading and trying to better understand these complex topics, but I don't want to debate you on this, from either side.
If you are really just itching to debate on this topic, you should ask ChatGPT to do that with you; I've responded enough on here that you can probably get it to reply in my style of writing and pretend it's me, if you really wanted (I'd actually love to _read_ the debate if you actually do this!).
---
Aside:
I found a website that attempts to give a "Bias Rating" to publishers:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/just-facts-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/brennan-center-justice-...
This website is obviously not going to be foolproof, and probably even has some bias itself in its ratings. I'm not suggesting these "Bias Ratings" have any bearing on the legitimacy of the studies above, I just found it interesting so I thought I'd share it with you.