mzw_mzw

If, as you've just admitted, the SPLC is not reliable, why do you think it checks out?

If your job is to act as a mole for Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, then go ahead and keep doing what you are doing.

>Honestly, who needs to reach out? Did the Republicans get in the nice situation they find themselves in now by reaching out?

Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. Trump flipped a lot of counties that went for Obama twice. I recommend you follow his example. Find some people on the other side who should be persuadable, and get to persuadin'.

>Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes

And if the Presidential election was based on the popular vote, that would mean something. It doesn't work that way, and everyone knew beforehand it didn't work that way, and everyone involved, most definitely including the Clinton campaign, was happy to praise the Electoral College to the skies when they thought it would tilt the results in their favor. So, as the kids say, let it go. This line does not help you.

>That large opposition force that surpasses all Trump supporters will not go away.

That's nice, but as long as it's concentrated in a tiny strip along the coasts it will continue to be ineffective. I recommend that instead of attacking the other side you start working on converting them to your side. That's one of the reasons Trump won: he flipped a lot of counties that voted for Obama twice. You can do that right back to him, if you're willing to swallow your pride and talk to people instead of sneering at them.

>This is not over my Trump supporter.

I voted for Evan McMullin, dude.

>If the Republicans overreach there will be a backlash.

If only certain people had realized that Democratic overreach could cause backlashes, too, then your party might not be a smoking hole in the ground right now.

And that sort of rhetoric is exactly why you lost that vote. Learn from it.

That sort of rhetoric may make you feel better, but anyone who voted the other way is not going to be "ashamed" because someone insulted them for it; they're just going to dismiss you even more and harden their positions. If you want to win these political debates, as opposed to just having a momentary emotional release, you need to reach out, not attack.

"The drumbeat of election rigging and foreign hacking of voting machines" --

None of that happened.

Who gets to define "better"?

I'm guessing it never snows where you live, and nobody ever needs to buy more than one bag of groceries at a time?

Before you panic (well, before you continue panicking) you should probably read the article. There is nothing in there that even remotely suggests anything untoward happened in this past election.

> Does this call for a special situation where the elections are held again but with such concerns addressed?

No.

How many people complaining about this policy enthusiastically voted to elect the political party that has put into place this policy in 2008, 2012, and 2016, and insisted that even considering any alternative was a straight slide into fascism?

Says who? You can't go up to people and tell them what their views are. They get to decide.

Are you for open borders? No? Then illegal immigrants are going to exist.

> If we consider VICE a legitimate news outlet

Well, there's your problem.

It wasn't iCloud specific, although that didn't help. More just a general sense that with every iteration of OSX, the operating system got just a little bit slower, just a little bit more unstable, the human interface standards just a little more inconsistent and unclear, and you'd have to wrestle with more built-in systems like the Mac App Store that locked things down for Apple's convenience.

It wasn't hard to do. Endless coy secrecy on platform refreshes, deciding what tech to use based on form factor and coolness instead of utility, and an operating system that got more bloated and unstable with each version were more than enough to drive me off.

It would be nice if we could have a correct understanding of the relevance and proportion of these questions, though. So a corporation made some sliver of its annual income selling insurance policies to slaveowners over a hundred and fifty years ago (the "dark history" you are referring to.) How, precisely, is that relevant to policy in the modern day, as opposed to an element of historical trivia?

> Now, HN has a HUGE misogyny problem

[citation needed]

That'd be like trying to "normalize" the presence of shirts, or automobiles. Guns have been ubiquitous in popular fiction of all kinds for decades, if not centuries, since they're such a useful device for drama or just entertaining fights. Don't forget how Dr. Watson always had his trusty pistol at hand whenever Holmes needed him.

And in 2004, the Democratic Party ran a billionaire for President. Whoopie-doo.

Good luck winning elections with that.

Once you're talking about tearing down all existing houses and rebuilding them based on new and alien philosophies, your plan is starting to become a bit impractical.

> Getting rid of oil addiction doesn't solely mean replacing oil with wind and solar; it also means thinking rationally about why we need so much energy.

The prominent people who say this sort of thing usually have enormous mansions with heated pools and fly private jets everywhere.

No, the mainstream explicit, self-proclaimed position is that these positions should be allocated on a meritocratic basis, not on the basis of racial quotas.

Somebody so unstable they get "triggered" by how ordinary human beings walk needs professional help. At some point, you have to acknowledge that certain complaints are not reasonable.

I would cautiously argue that the two sides don't define themselves internally so much by what they are for as by what they focus on opposing. So maybe anti-racism and anti-activist? Or anti-politics?

"Anti-diversity" is a rather uncharitable term to use; it takes people who, say, dislike bullying tactics or prefer meritocracy and lumps them in with racists. One reason threads on the topic often degrade into flame wars is the attitude that there is only one moral way to view the situation.

Please don't use sexist epithets on HN.

You can't bully people into caring about things, sorry. Most people here would rather talk about solar power or functional programming than the political implications of whatever, and trying to guilt them into cooperation is just going to make them crankier.

Suggesting that mixing HN and politics will improve HN is like suggesting that mixing wine and poison will improve the poison. The political discussions on HN have been typified by flaming, bullying, groupthink, and appeals to emotion, which tends to ooze out into the less-political topics and damage them too. This site is far better off without them.

Yeah, it's actually quite charged -- saying someone is behaving "entitled" is suggesting that they are being extremely childish and bullying on the subject. That word has been used as a weapon by far-left political pundits as well to dismiss people's objections instead of debating them.