Hacker News Reader

Comment by squigz | Hacker News Reader

Anyone on "the other side" (problems with that framing aside for now) who doesn't understand and accept this is only serving to make the problem worse. This is the result of people's disillusionment with government from both sides of the aisle reaching a boiling point. Anyone could have seen it coming, and anyone who wants to fix it needs to understand where the other side is coming from, and not just paint them as evil stupid idiots.

Compromise. It's essential to peaceful co-existence of a group of humans of any size. At some point along the line, America seems to have lost that quality.

View on HN

> Compromise

The problem is that the republican party has had a "no comprimise" policy for a while. It's like they put the party before the country.

… what?

The Republican Party was the one saying “either agree with us unconditionally or you are a Nazi” for the last 10 years?

The Republican Party was the one ignoring the many crimes of Biden’s son because it would hurt the party?

Ironically, this proves the parent comments point.

It would be a lot easier if they weren't so god-dammned stupid and plausibly evil.

I do not feel the need to compromise with "White Power" or "We need to find a way to safely inject bleach".

That isn't what I'm suggesting, and the fact you jump to that conclusion is precisely what I'm referring to...

How would you compromise with "white power"?

Y'all really doubling down on this whole "77 million people are white supremacists" huh?

You understand this means that the other 75 million people are actually looking to mutilate children, destroy the concepts of sex and gender, abolish all of the police, and are aggressively racist against white people, right?

75 million people don't care that the person they voted for attempted a coup by trying to have the results of an election overturned. They may not all be white supremacists, but they sure don't support democracy. And that's dangerous.

Because I'm annoyed when people get it wrong

- Children aren't being mutilated and anyone who believes this is a willing mark or has a toddlers understanding of science

- the concept of "Gender" is actually very important to a lot of trans folks, as it turns out. My "Sex" is about as relevant to my day to day as my blood type, and I think people who obsess about my chromosomes are fucking weird

- We should abolish all the police - got me there.

- White people don't exist as a racial category with any meaningful definition except as a catch-all for groups meant to exclude. It's not a race, it's a country club with a pantone guide.

Hope that helps, and I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for.

In case it wasn't obvious... I was not being serious. I was trying to point out the reverse of the logic being applied to the right.

Fwiw, the examples don't do a great job of that, imo. One of those descriptions is factually true, whereas the other contains mostly juicy propaganda talking points.

(And, as I pointed out, some real ones!)

But, to put a fine point on it, literally zero children are being mutilated (in the context this statement is typically brought about, "children being forcibly transitioned against their will by their parents, including surgery", which is deeply false), but there are white supremacists in the government, without room for equivocation or debate. Even in the context of absurdity, they are not equally absurd claims. You took an accurate portrayal of the right in America (perhaps assuming it was absurd?) and compared it against...the right's propaganda view of the "left". This is why it was not "Obvious".

And, to be clear; conservatives are already saying that! Your average trump voter thinks that there are litter boxes in schools! They literally think that! I'm not going to be nice and lie about their capacity for goodness while they seek to eliminate me and my pals (or, at best, casually don't care about voting for the folks who want to eliminate me and my pals, which, you know? Fuck em.)

The amount of comments here literally proving my point is a bit astonishing, frankly...

Out of curiosity, which parts were 'factually true' assessments of the positions of the 75 million people who voted Democrat last election?

I was trying to address the incoherence of this;

> Y'all really doubling down on this whole "77 million people are white supremacists" huh? > You understand this means that the other 75 million people are actually looking to mutilate children, destroy the concepts of sex and gender, abolish all of the police, and are aggressively racist against white people, right?

You seemed confused and upset that people assumed you believed the things in the latter statement, so I am primarily interested in getting you to understand why I (and a few others, by the looks) thought that.

It is factually true that Donald Trump campaigned on white replacement theory, surrounded himself with people who had ties to white nationalism, and continues to advance causes very important to white and christian nationalists. If you voted for him, you were either uninformed on those topics, informed but didn't care, or informed but agree. By and large, the trump voters I talk to on a daily basis seem to be in the first camp, but willing to defend trump regardless of what he is saying or doing.

It is factually false to suggest that Democrats want to "Mutilate children", or any of the examples you gave. Even the most harsh critic of the police that the democrats have, AOC, unequivocally said that she was against abolishing the police and preferred defunding them and moving their responsibilities to other social services. "Mutilating children" and "Abolish sex and gender" are thought-terminating cliches meant to mis-represent support for trans folk, and "Racist against white people" is a clownshoes bananapants nothing of a racist dogwhistle.

Republicans love to twist and exaggerate, but none of these reflect the policies - either stated or implied through policy - the nature of democratic support. What's more, the democrats have not universally adopted a single person to be the arbiter of their policy, as the GOP has at their last conventions, nor do democrats typically gather with such gusto around a single individual. (as a bernie supporter, I feel like I probably got as much of that as I was going to get, and it was not anywhere near as embarrassingly fawning as what trump receives.)

So, no, they are not equal in the slightest.

If you are prepared to argue that supporting trans kids is mutilating children, or actually saying "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work." or extending the olive branch to fucking apartheid is not an inherently white supremacist thing to say or do (or that it's not 'all that bad'), then I was misguided, and am comfortable ending the conversation here.

Now, if you want critiques of the democrats? Well, my friend, I have them in store. Perhaps a less absurd, more fitting diss would have been "the other 75 million people are actually looking to ethnically cleanse gaza?" (The republicans want to do that as well, but at least it's a fair diss on the democrats and their actual positions!)

They voted for people that are working to reinstitute Jim Crow apartheid, are pushing for ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the hostile annexation of Canada, canceled federal celebrations of MLK Jr. Day, put tattooed white supremacists in charge of the US Military apparatus, think "there are good people" on both sides of a white supremacist terror attack on Americans, turned Guantanamo Bay into a concentration camp while furiously deporting immigrants of color yet opening the door to white people aggrieved by the aftermath of the fall of South African Apartheid, and constantly boost/reply/repost white supremacist propaganda including normalizing white replacement theory. Just a short list of real things off the top of my head.

It's possible that their perspective on the outgroup is not entirely "fair and balanced."

As a white American the concept of "racist against white people" is laughable. The right's obsessive persecution complex while enjoying the bounties of the greatest empire of human history is childish in the extreme. Like toddlers, but with the power to destroy all of human civilization.

> We need to find a way to safely inject bleach

This is fake news that one search will clear up for you. Please stop repeating it.

> “We tested bleach,” he said at one point. “I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes.”

> “A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world,” Trump began, clearly thinking the question himself, “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

To read this in any other way than "The president suggested we blast people with UV rays or inject them with disinfectant - such as bleach, the disinfectant he just mentioned as being effective" feels like a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics, bordering on willful ignorance. Cross your eyes and maybe I'm being flippant about "bleach", wherein he only merely suggested injecting "disinfectant", which renders him a genius, I imagine?

He ranted about two common disinfectant strategies for inorganic materials and suggested they use them on people, because he's not particularly bright.

Edit: Also worth mentioning that the following day when asked what he meant by that, he did not say "I did not ask about injecting bleach", he said "I asked about that sarcastically".

> I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen … I was asking a sarcastic, and a very sarcastic, question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it, and it would kill it on the hands and that would make things much better. That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.

So it would appear not even Mr. Trump agrees with your statement.

I stand by my comment. Thank you for sharing the full quote.

> I'm being flippant about "bleach", wherein he only merely suggested injecting "disinfectant"

Yes. Fact: trump did not say to inject bleach. He also did not tell the public to inject anything.

Sorry, let me spell it out for you;

I refer to this incident colloquially as "The time trump told us to inject bleach", which would be more accurately described as "The time the president of america was so balls-on stupid that he rambled for five minutes about doctors using bleach and UV disinfectant to fight Covid, a ramble so incoherent that the CDC had to issue a warning to ignore what it appeared he was suggesting."

I have no desire to treat the "intelligence" behind that statement - or those with full throated support of his incredible genius - with any authority.

The "White Power" was the evil (though, quite stupid in its own right) part. The "Bleach" was the "stupid" part of my comment, and I stand by it.

You mean the time a president (a non medical expert who doesn’t claim to be) tried to theorize about mechanisms by which a covid treatment could be delivered using ordinary language? And all of those mechanisms are real forms of treatment in other contexts?

Dear Leader is never wrong. There is no COVID in ba sing se.

Communication is a two way street, and the fact that people heard “inject bleach” means that’s what Trump communicated. That we are arguing about this years later proves the point. You can say that’s not what he meant, but that’s what he communicated. He had experts there that day who are eloquent and have precise command over the science and the English language, unlike him. He chose to sideline them because his ego wanted attention, so he confused the nation at a time we were in need of clarity. He played no role except to make everything worse. His absence would have been the best thing he could have done for everyone that day. Failure of leadership at a critical juncture.

> the fact that people heard “inject bleach” me

You mean how did the aggressive media find a sentence they could give to their base to get clicks, that he didn’t even say? Give me a break.

Miscommunications happen. Now you’ve been corrected. Stop repeating false claims.

These communications were from Trump directly to people, they heard it with their own ears. And you can't even make it out to be a partisan thing because Trump's own experts in the room reacted with visible shock when he made those statements. I think it's fair to say if the President had done his job and let experts do the emergency communicating, no directives approximating "inject yourself with bleach" would have been understood by the general public. And that's why the failure lies with him.

> Miscommunications happen. Now you’ve been corrected. Stop repeating false claims.

I have not repeated this claim. My point is because miscommunications happen, the person in charge should have left it up to experts instead of just riffing, because now his sloppy words will live on forever.

I think not only compromise, but more importantly communication. Like it or not, the other half of the country is also part of the country, and you cannot claim to be in support of the public without covering half of the public. The first line should be consensus, and when consensus isn't possible a carefully balanced compromise should be attempted.

If the left or the right disagree on even language and core cultural issues, they both need to find ways to communicate and evolve that allows for a peaceful coexistence. The notion the other party is a stupid or evil adversary incapable of enlightenment is poisonous, it forbids communication. Even if your adversary is indeed stupid and/or evil, it is far better to talk to them and if not change their mind, explain yourself in a language they understand (that includes a language they don't find outrageous or absurd!), leaving open the door to seeing your point of view. Even if they want to destroy you, it is a much better strategy to show you're not all that bad than escalating or just giving up. Of course, there are always voices that profit from discord, and human nature is perhaps attracted to antagonism. But we shouldn't let that go out of control, for the benefit of everyone.

If we're wrong about something, it's to our profit to learn from an adversary. This is the main lesson I think we should be taking -- even if being wrong is painful or sometimes isolating. Also logically, don't isolate those who think a little differently from your cultural heterodoxy, for the case they might have good reasons you just don't understand yet.

I think the old customs of being, and of course appearing, respectful were in part norms created for this. By behaving respectfully you're showing a willingness to learn and be wrong. By shouting, offending and imposing your opinion you're demonstrating you might be closed to other possibilities even if they are wrong, sometimes for very misguided reasons like ego, pride, or power. It's clearly then particularly important to act respectfully with those who are your adversaries or with whom you disagree (since perhaps you'll be more inclined to hear those who you already mostly agree with).

In summary: communication, compromise and respect.

Remember when there was a bipartisan bill to fix immigration that had a good deal of compromise in it, and it was all set to pass until Trump told the republicans to tank it so that Biden wouldn’t get credit for it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com