Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ancapistani | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> Broadly speaking, I support DOGE's mission. This decision in particular I'm not at all a fan of.

Everything the DOGE undertakes is absolutely justified except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.

> the removal of existing power structures within the government that support left-wing causes.

Whoa, I thought DOGE was just trying to root out waste and corruption to save America from its deficit, but now you tell me it's to cement right wing loyalty in the deep state?!

Lol yeah he said the quiet part out loud. Whoopsie.

Not sure why that’s a “whoopsie” - I’m intentionally describing both the stated purpose of USDS and what I believe to be the implicit purpose to be of the Trump administration’s actions.

Those are two different things, at two different levels of abstraction. One of them is written in relatively plain language while the other is based off my own perceptions.

> They are also some of the most vocal extreme left-wing activists I've known well.

Can you give a few examples of the vocal extreme left-wing activism?

18F wrote a slack bot to police "non-inclusive" language. You know, "hey guys" etc.

https://technical.ly/software-development/18f-using-slackbot...

https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/master/_posts/2016-0...

I sure don't agree that constitutes extreme activism of any kind, but anyway, my question is for Ancapistani and it's about the personal friends referenced in their message.

I understand the best I have with this handle is pseudoanonymity, but I’m not going to be throwing people I know and respect under the bus in a public forum.

You support DOGE's mission, but not a fan of this decision? Destroying 18F entirely consistent with DOGE's mission and Trump's goals. Why this decision then and not all their other ones?

You wrote a lot of words saying very little.

I'm just an outsider here but it seems very obvious to me that someone could both 1) support the (stated) mission of saving taxpayers' money and reducing the US national debt, and 2) disagree with a specific cut

The stated mission is unavoidably at odds with the implementation.

The gains to be had are pointlessly minuscule in comparison to the federal budget and the actual cost to Americans is extreme.

I think you could make a reasonable argument that their actions aren't actually effective at implementing their mission. I'm not really in a position to judge that, personally. I was just saying I don't think it requires any great cognitive dissonance for GP to agree with their mission but disagree with a specific cut, as was sort of implied by the reply above.

I generally like my own government but I similarly think they've made some serious blunders at times. I don't think that's a huge contradiction (I'm not American FWIW...)

I guess it's the "Stated" mission that I find impossible to believe is the truth. DOGE clearly is not supposed to be about "saving tax payers money" when they include DEI reviews as well. So even your definition removes the baggage of the racism/transphobia/homophobia/misogyny by focusing only on the money when DOGE has not been focused solely on money in the slightest.

Anyone who trusts the "stated" mission of DOGE is a simple child who hasn't followed project 2025

Let's please avoid ad hominem here. I don't think that's contributing to the discussion in the spirit of HN.

I support DOGE’s stated mission - the elimination of redundancy and reform with an eye toward efficiency in general.

Eliminating 18F does not fit into either of those categories.

I believe it was eliminated because it was staffed with people who almost exclusively opposed the current administration’s agenda. This as a political decision.

I’m trying to say that when I put myself in the position of Trump and his administration, I understand why 18F was cut, while simultaneously stating that my belief that 18F did good work and we’ll be worse off without them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com