Nytimes should be banned from HN. It is paywalled and the information is dubiously sourced, if even true. This is not an acceptable source of news nor fact.
Seriously? You have gotten to the point in your extremism that the New York Times, one of the most respected news sources in the entire world is not factual to the point it should be banned. How did the country seriously get to this point?
I am on mobile, however I will amend with sources. The NYT dileberately held back stories and pushed forward the views if the Clinton campaign. If you accept that wikileaks emails are authentic, you can not accept NYT as legit. Maybe we can assume it was incompetence that their polling numbers (85-15) we wrong, and that is subjective admittedly. I personally feel this too was intentional.
Edit: not to mention, like most media, it cant serve over https because of advertising refferers.
I have to find the actual links to the wikileaks NYT stoiry placement emails, but this at least points out the narrative that was being crafted and why I dislike NYT. The fact that they were part of the reason we had Trump v. Cointon is enough for me to drp them. Trump & clinton are terrible people and the media (namely NYT) is the reason this was even possible.
This is why I don't get usually get involved in political discussions online. Someone who's committed to a position can always bring up new questions instead of responding to the original ones. (In this case I wasn't even taking a position, just pointing out where I found the logical reasoning unconvincing.) While both the new points you raise are open to debate, they shift the topic away from the two I was talking about. If I respond further we could be here forever.
Please illuminate me. I may be wrong, but I certainly wasn't being dishonest. The fact that you leaped straight to that conclusion doesn't help convince me that you have a particularly well-grounded belief in the NYT's dishonesty, either.
That's the question then--is it the case that any rational interpretation of the polls gave an actual forecast of least 70%, and the NYT lied? The parent seemed to be saying that election's outcome alone proved that the 20% number was not only wrong, but dishonest on top of it. You need some more ingredients to prove either of those things, though.
This is the same stupid shit as the election. My point is that there is apparent proof of dubious tactics in the wikileaks disclosures, their failure to call te election polling close, and the immeadiate dismissal of the comey announcement.
You can disagree with this evidence, but telling me "you feel" im wrong isnt intellectual.
Same with you feeling you're right. And I cannot trust any wikileaks sources, so unless you've got something else, I don't see you backing up your argument.
It sounds like we're reading different NY Times regarding how they covered Comey's announcement. Immediate dismissal?
And there was a world of difference in how the NY Times or Guardian covered trump and how "new media" liberal echo chambers like Vox or Huff Post did.
Polling is hard and pretty much everyone was wrong on it, and we don't even know if it was "wrong" wrong or just on the wrong side of the margin of error... Shit happens.
I will withold judgment on your wikileaks claims until there's specific links to look at.
there is apparent proof of dubious tactics in [...] their failure to call the election polling close
I just want to address this one point. I think it's just untenable to imagine there was some big conspiracy to skew poll numbers in Clinton's favour. Why would all the pollsters fall in line, why wouldn't anyone break ranks and leak the story? It would be a huge story that would sell a ton of newspapers!
The pollsters were mostly wrong, but they were fairly close, only a couple of points off. Just about everybody (notably the Princeton Election Consortium) was way overconfident, with the exception of FiveThirtyEight who gave Clinton a 70-30 chance over Trump. That's not a bad guess given the final result. FiveThirtyEight never claimed to be correcting anyone else's bias, they just clearly stated their reasons for thinking the result was very uncertain. It's a shame nobody else followed their lead but you can bet they will next time round.
The one big outlier was the LA Times poll, which consistently put Trump ahead, but they put him way ahead, so they were actually one of the less accurate polls in absolute terms.
It will be really interesting to see what caused that overall ~2% polling miss, but I would bet a large sum of money that it wasn't "dubious tactics". The worst we should accuse the media of is overconfidence. (For example, a few left-leaning outlets accused FiveThirtyEight of gaming the system in Trump's favour; that just makes them look stupid in hindsight.)
If anything, Clinton's campaign would want to give the appearance that the race was actually closer than it was, because this would give a sense of urgency to Democratic voters and increase turnout.
You can see the same principle from the time before the first debate when Clinton's campaign was exaggerating Trump's ability to debate on live television in order to give the appearance of a comeback. The reality was that Clinton always had the advantage in terms of traditional debating and her campaign knew it.
If we can say anything about this election perhaps it is that reality (the mathematical/objective one) has taken a surprisingly minor role ...
I agree that the NYTimes should no longer be viewed as a neutral source; that doesn't mean that articles cannot be taken for what they are, often intellectual interesting and well-researched.
Refusing to read articles from left or right leaning sources on principle is ironically the point of this article.
I don't get this argument against "paywalled sources". Do journalists not have the right to try and get paid for their work? Do you enjoy getting paid for your work? Why aren't you working for free for me?
The reason the Times is important isn't because their reporting is perfect, but rather because of their commitment to good journalism. They have made numerous mistakes in my lifetime, but they have generally owned up to them and tried to address what they did wrong. That is pretty rare today.
On top of that, consider the important work they have done just recently on things like arbitration agreements, how the wealthy exploit tax loopholes, the exploitation of immigrants at NYC nail salons, and Amazon's corporate culture, to name just a few. Those are all significant pieces of investigative journalism that have made us much better informed about issues we wouldn't know nearly as much about without the hard work at the Times.
This article is from March 2015, and shows that the writing has been on the wall for quite a while. The "safe spaces" movement is a plague, and I am sick of it. I hold extremely diverse viewpoints which span the political spectrum. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. How can liberals claim to be accepting of all viewpoints but, in reality, only accept those that align with their pseudo-personal-Utopia outlook? It's bonkers.
There is no right to not be offended.
There is no right to not be uncomfortable.
Welcome to real life, where you must be resilient to criticism and offense and countless other negative occurrences and feelings.
I don't have a problem with safe spaces. To me, they're like office break rooms. Sometimes you just need a minute to disengage. But, if you're spending your whole day in there, I'm going to question why you show up to work in the first place.
I think it sets a bad precedent, and fosters unrealistic expectations for when they leave. Most universities have counselors and psychologists you can talk to, for free, if your struggling with something. Bubbles and kittens don't help actual victims of violence.
I think that's exactly what they were supposed to be.
As for "taking over someone else's area," to me that's just politics. There are ebbs and flows of power and control. Trump's victory is going to legitimize a lot of criticisms and possibly over-correct, though hopefully we will be in a position to have a reasonable understanding of what a "safe space" should be within the next decade.
My understanding is that the safe-spaces movement wants dedicated rooms and even classes to be safe-spaces. That sounds like the opposite of what I described. Is this simply a disconnect from what the original intention was vs the current movement?
What is a women's bathroom but a safe space to "air your grievances" without the meddling of the opposite gender?
Start making "safe spaces" for Trump voters to talk about their candidate without being called ignorant and you'll start to see people's attitudes shift on what the sensible limitation of safe spaces should be.
Safe spaces as I've seen them implemented are exclusionary and discriminatory.
A women-only safe space is sexist, as the implied "safety" of not allowing men implies that men are inherently unsafe. A POC-only safe space is racist, as the implied "safety" of not allowing whites implies that whites are inherently unsafe.
If anyone were to even suggest the opposite implementation, a men-only or whites-only "safe space", then the discriminatory nature is immediately apparent and everyone rallies to shut down the idea before it ever reaches implementation.
Edit: Oops, I've invaded HN's safe space. Disagree with me all you like, but as we learned earlier this week it's not the votes that matter. Tell me why I'm wrong, I'm genuinely interested in hearing your opinion.
Remember, if you are a white male it is fundamentally impossible for you to experience hardship. Only people of color and women ever have problems in life.
You know why there are no activist/support groups for "fresh off boat" immigrants? They're too busy actively and constructively improving their lives.
Fundamentally safe spaces and related are a thing of privilege. If you have time to think about that, you're part of the privileged group.
I could be wrong. Maybe I've just never come across a support group organized by and for poor people, or by and for immigrants. Are there any?
The poor peoples campaign was one. They demanded an economic bill of rights. Martin Luther King was the founder of it, he believed that poverty the main issue in America at that time. A month later he was assassinated and the whole thing fell apart.
"The Poor People’s Campaign was motivated by a desire for economic justice: the idea that all people should have what they need to live. King and the SCLC shifted their focus to these issues after observing that gains in civil rights had not improved the material conditions of life for many African Americans. The Poor People’s Campaign was a multiracial effort—including African-Americans, whites, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans—aimed at alleviating poverty regardless of race."
His assassination (by government or business interests) is the only conspiracy I subscribe to. I believe we would live in a different world if he had a few more years on this earth.
Not that I'm aware of. I watched Occupy Wall Street for a while and it fragmented into a million subgroups without a leader. It seems you really need a Gandhi or MLK type to keep movements on track.
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I don't see anything there about genitalia or skin color.
But since it's a "safe space" I think I'll pop in there and relax for a bit. It's time I escape this mediocrity and claim the power of my white male birthright.
That's a pretty one-sided view of safe spaces. I don't think "safe spaces" are meant to be so radically exclusionary, though it's obvious why they can end up that way.
It's to give people an opportunity to talk about the impact of a thing without needing to prove that thing exists in the first place. It's like climate scientists not inviting deniers to their conference: they want to focus on the implications of climate change, not debate the existence of climate change itself.
I think there are plenty of reasonable safe spaces that accomplish the thing they were meant to do without resorting to blanket exclusions. The answer to one extreme is usually not the other.
Maybe they start as office break rooms, but they turn into gated communities and ghettos. The way to stop ghettos from forming, is to do the opposite of building gated communities, and instead subsidize housing in the wealthiest districts. Intellectual ghettos should be treated the same way. To prevent like minded hate spaces from forming, dont cast people you dont like, off to the side. Integrate dissent into every place you can. It will make us less partisan and more prepared to change our minds when introduced to evidence.
In the same vein, I suggested discussing who we voted for the US Elections and why (I also mention SJW's bullying speakers off of campuses)- and my Ask HN was flagged (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932905).
I figured it would be timely and on-topic as a result: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I figured it might help us see things from each other's point of view, and thus gratifying of intellectual curiousity. Perhaps I was mistaken.
I think there's a group of users on HN, including myself that wishes politics were not on the site. One can go almost anywhere to find political discussions because the threshold to join them is so low. Sometimes tech related politics gets a pass on here, but anything else tends to lead down a path of a low signal to noise ratio for insightful site content.
> One can go almost anywhere to find political discussions
But where do you go to find intelligent political discussions. For those of you who don't frequent /r/politics, it was completely taken over by HRC's Correct The Record team, the minute the election was over the character of the sub changed completely. You have to admire how effective they were.
Perhaps someone should start such a site? I fear if you let that kind of discussion on HN without any curation, it will just become like every other site that allows full scale political discussion. Pretty much a fire hose.
You might be right in that there isn't a good place to discuss it, but I don't think HN is the the solution for it.
Political discussion in non-political threads could be very damaging to HN overall, I'd be fully supportive of a very short leash outside of threads that aren't explicitly political, but we should be able to have political threads, I can't see how that is harmful at all. If HN can't have these discussions then god help us all.
You realize that these places are supposed to be breaks where people don't have to deal with others constantly saying they shouldn't exist, right? That's what the LGBTQ spaces are for, that's what the POC spaces are for, and that's what the immigrant spaces are for.
I find these discussions of tolerance fascinating. The core message of people that preach tolerance is that we shouldn't give people are hard time for views and beliefs that don't harm others, not that we should accept all views and beliefs as being equally useful.
Of course the issue most comes to a head in situations like gay marriage, where a large group of people see it as causing/embracing some sort of moral decay and another group of people doesn't see any harm at all in people loving whoever they are going to love.
The one group wonders why such a harmful thing must be tolerated, while the other group doesn't agree that there is any harm.
People that start talking about tolerating intolerance aren't trying to have a discussion, they are asserting that their views about what is harmful and what is not harmful should have primacy.
Apparently the point of posting the video is that the person recording it thinks they have been harmed (I didn't watch the whole thing)? And that you disagree?
That's exactly my point, you each have your own ideas of what harm is. What follows from that is that of course it will be messy to discuss. But it still stands that the core message of tolerance is that we should examine things for harm and accept those things that minimize it, not that we should accept all things mindlessly.
> But it still stands that the core message of tolerance is that we should examine things for harm and accept those things that minimize it, not that we should accept all things mindlessly.
The recorder of that video has gone on to create a fundraiser with two goals: 1) to defame the man in the video, and 2) to seek general recompense from the public for her harm.
I'm sure you watched enough of the video to get the gist of what happened, and any common-sense person would immediately dismiss her claims of harm. But by giving her a benefit of the doubt, by choosing to "examine" that situation far beyond its merits, she is given the platform and the opportunity to play the victim and in so doing simultaneously cause direct harm to another person and personally benefit from it.
Note that you've conceded that I didn't choose to "examine" that situation far beyond it's merits. That makes it a rather weak argument against the broader point I am making.
Yes, people will come to conclusions about their personal experiences that few others agree with. So what. Politely tell them that you aren't interested in discussing whatever their beef is and move on. I didn't say that tolerance was an absolute above, in fact I started from a place where I pushed back against that misunderstanding.
I think it's written as laws. We are not actually discussing them so much as ideals. Look at the ACA: I don't even remember a discussion about its merits or demerits. People assume a position and shout over their opponent.
Trump truly played a great song with the media. You have to respect his ability to avoid any policy discussion, preferring to shout fantasies. Clinton wasn't much better, but I don't believe it was an intentional ploy to avoid difficult discussions.
So politicians get votes, for promising to ban gay marriages and/or as reward for doing it? In other words, representative democracy is working as designed. Right?
How is this different from other politicians getting votes for supporting gay marriage? It seems to me the "political gain" argument boils down to something almost meta-political; or of satisfaction/boldness in your tribe "winning", or politicians falsely professing things they know voters want -- these apply to both sides.
When I asked, I was looking for something like how voter ID laws are supposedly really written to suppress voters from the other party. Is there some way in which banning gay marriage would inherently strengthen Republicans over Democrats? (Going with this because it was presumably the grandparent's example.)
The undivided support of the state, which has a legitimate interest in helping make it possible for stable, settled families to produce new generations of citizens and thus to perpetuate itself. From the perspective of any system of rule, this is the purpose of marriage. Homosexual partnerships, which are incapable of producing children, thus are of no benefit to the state, and can only be an unproductive diversion of funds which otherwise would be allocated to the benefit of heterosexual marriages which can and often do produce children.
In the case where it's considered desirable to ensure that homosexual partners receive the same benefits of familial status (e.g. the commonly cited hospital visitation rights), without also including such partnerships in the financial benefits of heterosexual marriage, a federal civil union statute would easily suffice. Such things have been proposed many times, but invariably have been shot down from the left, rather than the right, as representative of "second-class citizen" status, just like "whites" and "coloreds" water fountains - a risible claim, especially in light of e.g. GLAD's explainer [1], in which, discounting the two already disposed of here, every reason cited in favor of "gay marriage", and against civil union, is at its base about money.
Such, at least, is the primary reason why I oppose the idea of "gay marriage", to say nothing of the Supreme Court's having recently discovered in the Constitution that there exists an inalienable right to same. This puts me in an apparently contradictory position, being that I am myself homosexual, but that contradiction exists only in the presence of an assumption that identity politics are the only valid sort.
Of course, to hear "gay rights" organizations tell it, that is precisely true, and we are not allowed to take a stance such as mine, or indeed any other that fails to correspond exactly with the current party line. To do so is derided [2] or pathologized [3] - or, of course, both. The possibility that we might have evaluated the cases for and against on their relative merit, and made our decisions accordingly, doesn't really enter into the discussion - and neither does the possibility that those who claim to speak and act on behalf of all homosexuals need not have their claims taken at face value by anyone, not even we whom they insist they defend.
This argument only holds if it also applies to infertile couples, or couples who just don't want children, who also are of no benefit to the state, and does not apply to homosexual couples who want to adopt.
Really, you're making a "childless couples shouldn't be allowed to get married" argument and using homosexuality as a proxy for the desire for children. It's disadvantageous to use proxies when the original metric is just as easily ascertained: Just let people get married when they bear/adopt/whatever a child, and not before.
I feel that a second argument in there is "marriage is only good for the legal protection of children", but I think that ignores the social aspects, even though I find them backward.
And they want to conflate "words" with physical action; offense with violence. Thus the need for a safe space because hearing something that upsets you or you disagree with is the same as being physically assaulted.
This is what you do when you are afraid of debate, afraid of being wrong and unable to defend your ideas... when you know you might lose or are losing in the arena of ideas.
You criminalize differing opinions in the name of diversity, and effectively outlaw free speech.
I do believe it played a part in this election. Watching shows like Rubin Report opened my eyes to how fractured the left has become. It also gives me hope that there's a lot of people out there who still want to have a dialogue.
There are a lot of young people on the right willing to have a dialogue, not much on the left based on my post-election observations. The alt-right is literally giving away the playbook on what happened, in great detail, but the left continues to insist the result is because "everyone is racist". It is depressing.
The difference between words and physical action only becomes apparent at the point fist connects with face, with is rather too late if you want to avoid being beaten up. This makes the mere threat of violence a very effective weapon. Look up the legal definition of "assault" sometime.
> The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat.
Granted that that's not the definition in actual use everywhere - but, in that case, you need to specify which jurisdiction's code you're citing, because there is no general coverage of assault in the United States code, but only a few specific cases, mostly related to assault against federal officers and officials in the performance of their duties.
Again, you can tell me till you're blue in the face that "debate of ideas, argument, and discussion", or "having you own opinion on an issue, that isn't popular or that offends" are some how equal to inciting violence, or threatening physical assault... but I won't accept it. Ever.
People are not buying this.. they are rejecting it soundly because accepting this premise gives tacit approval to regulate speech, something American culture will never accept, or should never accept in my opinion.
Liberals are willingly accepting this in many places, such as college campuses for example, where it seems harder and harder to avoid the safe space mandate to follow approved groupthink.
I'm not talking about banning free association for those groups that most desire the safe spaces. I'm saying.. those groups, or anyone shouldn't be allowed to deem the entire University (or other shared space) their private safe space and bar others from exercising their rights to free speech and free association.
If the left doubles down with this nonsense, they will push people further away.
Some people are particularly vulnerable, and I think there ought be safe rooms for them, but there shouldn't be safe <regions>. It doesn't matter if students wish to use a private room to do things that don't effect anyone else; that's just an extension of people enjoying privacy in <private places>. There's little difference from a 'safe' private room and a 'safe' business conference room where you expect to be undisturbed.
I could imagine this being useful to those with social anxiety disorders or social deficiencies, for group grief counseling, for group addiction support, etc. These are all examples of safe spaces.
What becomes insufferable is when one's safe space extends into the public space or even into my space. That's just people trying to dominate the behaviors of others. No internal turmoil justifies domination over my legitimate behaviors.
Are you offended by the idea of safe spaces? (you have no right to this)
Are you offended by people acting on their ideas? (you have no right to this)
Are you offended by people acting on their ideas impacting other people? (you have no right to this, umm.. wait, maybe you do)
Would you prefer that people carefully segregated their ideas to certain places to avoid impacting on (or being impacted by) other people? (oh fuck, the world is complicated eh?)
> I don’t see how you can have a therapeutic space that’s also an intellectual space.
College should be a place where your beliefs should be challenged. If we've learned anything, echo chambers are strong and becoming stronger. The only way to combat that is with adversity.
What if that belief is that you're fine being an LGBTQ person, and the "challenge" is from people who believe that you shouldn't exist or have the same rights as others?
Do you really? Then you call the police. The fact that these topics can't be discussed without escalation to violence (or people assuming it will lead to violence) should be troubling to everyone. In the free market of ideas, you win or lose by the merits of your ideas. If you're just spouting racism and bigotry then you will lose, and everyone will ignore you. But even then, there's no need for violence.
That's just plain violence and already illegal. You also have the right to defend yourself in those circumstances, and you don't need to have that kind of discussion all by yourself. I think some states go as far as letting you shoot your attacker, stand your ground laws and all.
Cutting off communication between groups doesn't prevent violence. It creates echo chambers that allow them to drift further and further apart. At some point, the only way they can communicate is violence.
Then oddly enough, it becomes less about you being challenged and more about those who believe you shouldn't exist being challenged. Colleges are great for exposure to peers with varying backgrounds and beliefs and are great for fostering understanding of each other's viewpoints. Isolating your group to spaces of the same people will probably strengthen that demarcation and lessen the incentive (and the ability) for those with hardened beliefs to understand the other side's viewpoints. Sometimes all it takes is befriending one LGBTQ to melt that belief.
What if, sometimes, LGBTQ people want to achieve things other than challenging people who believe they don't exist - things like, say, arranging financial support for people who've been disowned by their family for being gay and are in danger of becoming homeless, or even just having a friendly chat with other LGBTQ people about their experiences? That's what the LGBT space at university was used for when I was there.
As long as they receive no public funding I don't see a problem with it, but you don't get to take federal dollars and put up a no whites allowed sign on the door.
There's nothing wrong with talking to or gathering with other people like you or other people who think like you. The problem is when that's the only thing you do.
I am 50+ and this whole safe space movement is really perplexing. No, people should not be subjected to hurtful circumstances, but at the same time, they are a fact of life.
Being a world citizen is a dicey proposition, and my gut reaction is that further insulating ourselves is the wrong way to go. I can't imagine how a military comprised of soldiers who have grown up in this movement can be expected to deal with the events of war.
If a person is truly emotionally wounded and sensitive to common messages from typical life events, they should be afforded therapy so they can cope.
Unsure if I understood you right, but being a world citizen requires a thick skin. It involves, by definition, dealing with other cultures' nasty bits without complaining.
Basically, yes. But more along the lines of the terrible things that humans can do to one another and the possibility that those things are brought to us. We can't all just run to safe spaces and hide.
I am 20+ and this trend seems to indicate that people are growing decreasingly familiar with traumatic experiences in their lives, which also seems to indicate a general increase in average quality of life.
I wonder if one could liken it to allergies. Your body is so insulated from bad things that your immune systems kicks in when it's not needed. This trend seems similar, as it seems to me that those who have had real and damaging traumatic experiences need these safe-spaces less than those that have had pseudo-traumatic experiences.
I have no statistics to back this up, though, and would welcome evidence in either direction.
All indications are that this is the safest time in history to be alive. The headlines give us all a sense of terror because it useful to some narratives, but any articles citing studies and statistics show otherwise. We're just much more aware of horrible things due to the proliferation of information. https://goo.gl/yQkFXxhttps://goo.gl/J9ib0x
So, if the schools and universities are turning out large numbers of people unable to cope without their "safe spaces" how long before society as a whole starts to atrophy when these precious snowflakes start taking their place in positions of authority or management?
It's sad that this is old news now. But I'm sure the people who started these universities are still rolling in their graves. These free-thinkers celebrated civil discourse, and built universities to foster the marketplace of ideas. As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.
Has there been any empirical research done on this? Whenever this topic comes up on the Internet it is very charged and full of assumptions. I suspect that the creation/utilization of safe spaces and trigger warnings is actually rather low in a country with almost 14 million students in higher education.
"What will they do when they hear opinions they’ve learned to shrink from? If they want to change the world, how will they learn to persuade people to join them?"
This seems like an important quote for those who are sad/disappointed/angry about the US election results.
This is pretty key. To persuade someone, you have to understand what they believe, and why they believe it. When you approach a conversation with "the other side is stupid/backwards", their response will be that YOU are just stupid/backwards.
One of the things very few partisans seem to want to admit right now, is that the other party is NOT just a bunch of hateful people. That both parties are made up of humans who, for the most part, want to make better lives for themselves and others around them. Mostly people who want to make this country a better place, but obviously disagree on what that "better place" looks like. And those beliefs are built on their life experiences, both what they've been told and what they've been through. And that one person shouting at them and telling them they're wrong isn't going to magically change that. And trying to invalidate their lives by going after their social class or their "privilege" isn't going to help anyone, and is tone deaf to the fact that people at all levels of class experience the same emotions, the same level of panic, fear, and trauma.
In other words, everyone reaches their conclusions because of reasons that are understandable. This is exactly what gets shut out when people resort to "othering" people they don't understand, out of laziness.
115 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 52.3 ms ] threadEdit: not to mention, like most media, it cant serve over https because of advertising refferers.
How Their Polling Numbers Changed:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/796209661456347136
How the HRC campaign used media to influence RNC and promote weakest candidates:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks
Op Ed on why Wikileaks isn't whistleblowing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-...
here are some screencaps of various media companies front page and politics pages:
http://imgur.com/a/v2huv
I have to find the actual links to the wikileaks NYT stoiry placement emails, but this at least points out the narrative that was being crafted and why I dislike NYT. The fact that they were part of the reason we had Trump v. Cointon is enough for me to drp them. Trump & clinton are terrible people and the media (namely NYT) is the reason this was even possible.
Trump only has 20% chance of winning.
Dow is going to tank a million points on Trump victory.
Hint: the receipts are in podesta & abedin's seized emails
The second point needs a citation.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213
Not disclosing the 'veto' in the article is pretty dishonest. don't you think?
Running 20 front page anti-trump articles everyday and no criticism of Clinton doesn't show any dishonesty?
You can disagree with this evidence, but telling me "you feel" im wrong isnt intellectual.
And there was a world of difference in how the NY Times or Guardian covered trump and how "new media" liberal echo chambers like Vox or Huff Post did.
Polling is hard and pretty much everyone was wrong on it, and we don't even know if it was "wrong" wrong or just on the wrong side of the margin of error... Shit happens.
I will withold judgment on your wikileaks claims until there's specific links to look at.
I just want to address this one point. I think it's just untenable to imagine there was some big conspiracy to skew poll numbers in Clinton's favour. Why would all the pollsters fall in line, why wouldn't anyone break ranks and leak the story? It would be a huge story that would sell a ton of newspapers!
The pollsters were mostly wrong, but they were fairly close, only a couple of points off. Just about everybody (notably the Princeton Election Consortium) was way overconfident, with the exception of FiveThirtyEight who gave Clinton a 70-30 chance over Trump. That's not a bad guess given the final result. FiveThirtyEight never claimed to be correcting anyone else's bias, they just clearly stated their reasons for thinking the result was very uncertain. It's a shame nobody else followed their lead but you can bet they will next time round.
The one big outlier was the LA Times poll, which consistently put Trump ahead, but they put him way ahead, so they were actually one of the less accurate polls in absolute terms.
It will be really interesting to see what caused that overall ~2% polling miss, but I would bet a large sum of money that it wasn't "dubious tactics". The worst we should accuse the media of is overconfidence. (For example, a few left-leaning outlets accused FiveThirtyEight of gaming the system in Trump's favour; that just makes them look stupid in hindsight.)
You can see the same principle from the time before the first debate when Clinton's campaign was exaggerating Trump's ability to debate on live television in order to give the appearance of a comeback. The reality was that Clinton always had the advantage in terms of traditional debating and her campaign knew it.
If we can say anything about this election perhaps it is that reality (the mathematical/objective one) has taken a surprisingly minor role ...
Refusing to read articles from left or right leaning sources on principle is ironically the point of this article.
Re sources: You propose we don't read this a article on education because they didn't back your candidate? Please.
On top of that, consider the important work they have done just recently on things like arbitration agreements, how the wealthy exploit tax loopholes, the exploitation of immigrants at NYC nail salons, and Amazon's corporate culture, to name just a few. Those are all significant pieces of investigative journalism that have made us much better informed about issues we wouldn't know nearly as much about without the hard work at the Times.
There is no right to not be offended.
There is no right to not be uncomfortable.
Welcome to real life, where you must be resilient to criticism and offense and countless other negative occurrences and feelings.
I find that when I personally want a "disengagement break", I get more relaxation in just holing myself up at home vs taking over someone else's area.
As for "taking over someone else's area," to me that's just politics. There are ebbs and flows of power and control. Trump's victory is going to legitimize a lot of criticisms and possibly over-correct, though hopefully we will be in a position to have a reasonable understanding of what a "safe space" should be within the next decade.
Start making "safe spaces" for Trump voters to talk about their candidate without being called ignorant and you'll start to see people's attitudes shift on what the sensible limitation of safe spaces should be.
A women-only safe space is sexist, as the implied "safety" of not allowing men implies that men are inherently unsafe. A POC-only safe space is racist, as the implied "safety" of not allowing whites implies that whites are inherently unsafe.
If anyone were to even suggest the opposite implementation, a men-only or whites-only "safe space", then the discriminatory nature is immediately apparent and everyone rallies to shut down the idea before it ever reaches implementation.
Edit: Oops, I've invaded HN's safe space. Disagree with me all you like, but as we learned earlier this week it's not the votes that matter. Tell me why I'm wrong, I'm genuinely interested in hearing your opinion.
You know why there are no activist/support groups for "fresh off boat" immigrants? They're too busy actively and constructively improving their lives.
Fundamentally safe spaces and related are a thing of privilege. If you have time to think about that, you're part of the privileged group.
I could be wrong. Maybe I've just never come across a support group organized by and for poor people, or by and for immigrants. Are there any?
"The Poor People’s Campaign was motivated by a desire for economic justice: the idea that all people should have what they need to live. King and the SCLC shifted their focus to these issues after observing that gains in civil rights had not improved the material conditions of life for many African Americans. The Poor People’s Campaign was a multiracial effort—including African-Americans, whites, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans—aimed at alleviating poverty regardless of race."
His assassination (by government or business interests) is the only conspiracy I subscribe to. I believe we would live in a different world if he had a few more years on this earth.
Too bad it's a was. Is there anything like it today?
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I don't see anything there about genitalia or skin color.
But since it's a "safe space" I think I'll pop in there and relax for a bit. It's time I escape this mediocrity and claim the power of my white male birthright.
It's to give people an opportunity to talk about the impact of a thing without needing to prove that thing exists in the first place. It's like climate scientists not inviting deniers to their conference: they want to focus on the implications of climate change, not debate the existence of climate change itself.
I think there are plenty of reasonable safe spaces that accomplish the thing they were meant to do without resorting to blanket exclusions. The answer to one extreme is usually not the other.
I figured it would be timely and on-topic as a result: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I figured it might help us see things from each other's point of view, and thus gratifying of intellectual curiousity. Perhaps I was mistaken.
But where do you go to find intelligent political discussions. For those of you who don't frequent /r/politics, it was completely taken over by HRC's Correct The Record team, the minute the election was over the character of the sub changed completely. You have to admire how effective they were.
You might be right in that there isn't a good place to discuss it, but I don't think HN is the the solution for it.
It is hard to respect people that constantly treat you as an aggressor.
I find these discussions of tolerance fascinating. The core message of people that preach tolerance is that we shouldn't give people are hard time for views and beliefs that don't harm others, not that we should accept all views and beliefs as being equally useful.
Of course the issue most comes to a head in situations like gay marriage, where a large group of people see it as causing/embracing some sort of moral decay and another group of people doesn't see any harm at all in people loving whoever they are going to love.
The one group wonders why such a harmful thing must be tolerated, while the other group doesn't agree that there is any harm.
People that start talking about tolerating intolerance aren't trying to have a discussion, they are asserting that their views about what is harmful and what is not harmful should have primacy.
Some people are way too eager to be victims.
Apparently the point of posting the video is that the person recording it thinks they have been harmed (I didn't watch the whole thing)? And that you disagree?
That's exactly my point, you each have your own ideas of what harm is. What follows from that is that of course it will be messy to discuss. But it still stands that the core message of tolerance is that we should examine things for harm and accept those things that minimize it, not that we should accept all things mindlessly.
The recorder of that video has gone on to create a fundraiser with two goals: 1) to defame the man in the video, and 2) to seek general recompense from the public for her harm.
I'm sure you watched enough of the video to get the gist of what happened, and any common-sense person would immediately dismiss her claims of harm. But by giving her a benefit of the doubt, by choosing to "examine" that situation far beyond its merits, she is given the platform and the opportunity to play the victim and in so doing simultaneously cause direct harm to another person and personally benefit from it.
Yes, people will come to conclusions about their personal experiences that few others agree with. So what. Politely tell them that you aren't interested in discussing whatever their beef is and move on. I didn't say that tolerance was an absolute above, in fact I started from a place where I pushed back against that misunderstanding.
Trump truly played a great song with the media. You have to respect his ability to avoid any policy discussion, preferring to shout fantasies. Clinton wasn't much better, but I don't believe it was an intentional ploy to avoid difficult discussions.
How is this different from other politicians getting votes for supporting gay marriage? It seems to me the "political gain" argument boils down to something almost meta-political; or of satisfaction/boldness in your tribe "winning", or politicians falsely professing things they know voters want -- these apply to both sides.
When I asked, I was looking for something like how voter ID laws are supposedly really written to suppress voters from the other party. Is there some way in which banning gay marriage would inherently strengthen Republicans over Democrats? (Going with this because it was presumably the grandparent's example.)
In the case where it's considered desirable to ensure that homosexual partners receive the same benefits of familial status (e.g. the commonly cited hospital visitation rights), without also including such partnerships in the financial benefits of heterosexual marriage, a federal civil union statute would easily suffice. Such things have been proposed many times, but invariably have been shot down from the left, rather than the right, as representative of "second-class citizen" status, just like "whites" and "coloreds" water fountains - a risible claim, especially in light of e.g. GLAD's explainer [1], in which, discounting the two already disposed of here, every reason cited in favor of "gay marriage", and against civil union, is at its base about money.
Such, at least, is the primary reason why I oppose the idea of "gay marriage", to say nothing of the Supreme Court's having recently discovered in the Constitution that there exists an inalienable right to same. This puts me in an apparently contradictory position, being that I am myself homosexual, but that contradiction exists only in the presence of an assumption that identity politics are the only valid sort.
Of course, to hear "gay rights" organizations tell it, that is precisely true, and we are not allowed to take a stance such as mine, or indeed any other that fails to correspond exactly with the current party line. To do so is derided [2] or pathologized [3] - or, of course, both. The possibility that we might have evaluated the cases for and against on their relative merit, and made our decisions accordingly, doesn't really enter into the discussion - and neither does the possibility that those who claim to speak and act on behalf of all homosexuals need not have their claims taken at face value by anyone, not even we whom they insist they defend.
[1] https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriag...
[2] http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/05/13/bret-easton-ellis...
[3] http://mashable.com/2014/06/25/internalized-homophobia-lgbt/...
Really, you're making a "childless couples shouldn't be allowed to get married" argument and using homosexuality as a proxy for the desire for children. It's disadvantageous to use proxies when the original metric is just as easily ascertained: Just let people get married when they bear/adopt/whatever a child, and not before.
I feel that a second argument in there is "marriage is only good for the legal protection of children", but I think that ignores the social aspects, even though I find them backward.
This is what you do when you are afraid of debate, afraid of being wrong and unable to defend your ideas... when you know you might lose or are losing in the arena of ideas.
You criminalize differing opinions in the name of diversity, and effectively outlaw free speech.
This is why Trump won.
> The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat.
Granted that that's not the definition in actual use everywhere - but, in that case, you need to specify which jurisdiction's code you're citing, because there is no general coverage of assault in the United States code, but only a few specific cases, mostly related to assault against federal officers and officials in the performance of their duties.
[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
People are not buying this.. they are rejecting it soundly because accepting this premise gives tacit approval to regulate speech, something American culture will never accept, or should never accept in my opinion.
Liberals are willingly accepting this in many places, such as college campuses for example, where it seems harder and harder to avoid the safe space mandate to follow approved groupthink.
I'm not talking about banning free association for those groups that most desire the safe spaces. I'm saying.. those groups, or anyone shouldn't be allowed to deem the entire University (or other shared space) their private safe space and bar others from exercising their rights to free speech and free association.
If the left doubles down with this nonsense, they will push people further away.
I could imagine this being useful to those with social anxiety disorders or social deficiencies, for group grief counseling, for group addiction support, etc. These are all examples of safe spaces.
What becomes insufferable is when one's safe space extends into the public space or even into my space. That's just people trying to dominate the behaviors of others. No internal turmoil justifies domination over my legitimate behaviors.
Are you offended by people acting on their ideas? (you have no right to this)
Are you offended by people acting on their ideas impacting other people? (you have no right to this, umm.. wait, maybe you do)
Would you prefer that people carefully segregated their ideas to certain places to avoid impacting on (or being impacted by) other people? (oh fuck, the world is complicated eh?)
College should be a place where your beliefs should be challenged. If we've learned anything, echo chambers are strong and becoming stronger. The only way to combat that is with adversity.
Cutting off communication between groups doesn't prevent violence. It creates echo chambers that allow them to drift further and further apart. At some point, the only way they can communicate is violence.
Talking to them opens an opportunity for mutual understanding, while dismissing them changes nothing.
EDIT: I don't know why you're being downvoted. You've proposed a great example.
Being a world citizen is a dicey proposition, and my gut reaction is that further insulating ourselves is the wrong way to go. I can't imagine how a military comprised of soldiers who have grown up in this movement can be expected to deal with the events of war.
If a person is truly emotionally wounded and sensitive to common messages from typical life events, they should be afforded therapy so they can cope.
Unsure if I understood you right, but being a world citizen requires a thick skin. It involves, by definition, dealing with other cultures' nasty bits without complaining.
I have no statistics to back this up, though, and would welcome evidence in either direction.
This is part of the reason behind the election result.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9245862
This seems like an important quote for those who are sad/disappointed/angry about the US election results.
One of the things very few partisans seem to want to admit right now, is that the other party is NOT just a bunch of hateful people. That both parties are made up of humans who, for the most part, want to make better lives for themselves and others around them. Mostly people who want to make this country a better place, but obviously disagree on what that "better place" looks like. And those beliefs are built on their life experiences, both what they've been told and what they've been through. And that one person shouting at them and telling them they're wrong isn't going to magically change that. And trying to invalidate their lives by going after their social class or their "privilege" isn't going to help anyone, and is tone deaf to the fact that people at all levels of class experience the same emotions, the same level of panic, fear, and trauma.