Ask HN: YC please talk about Immigration Order
YC (Sam Altman) you did a great post recently on Affordable Care and the direct impact on YC company employees. Thank you for that, truly. Can you do the same for YC employees from: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya
some background: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-28/google-recalls-some-staff-to-u-s-after-trump-immigration-order
187 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 245 ms ] threadNot all tigers are criminals/murderers. I know a tiger personally. He's a good boy.
"Trump signed an executive order Friday prohibiting entry by people from seven majority-Muslim nations for 90 days. Citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya would be banned from entering the U.S. for the period, while the government determines what information it needs to safely admit visitors."
I... have a hard time finding this to be that outrageous. I noticed the article mentions that they are muslim-majority, but they are also war zones, which I think matters much more. If it was an anti-islam thing then why wouldn't they ban people from places like Indonesia?
For our firm this won't really make a difference right now, and we'll figure out what to do in the coming months. I don't really have a problem with better vetting procedures for people from these countries.
I would Also be interested in knowing how many terrorist acts have been committed in the US by refugees.
Why isn't this sufficient? Well, it is sufficient. Your chances of being killed by a refugee turned terrorist is 1 in 3.6 billion according to the Cato Institute.[2] So why isn't considered sufficient? Quite frankly it a political ploy to gain support by stoking unfounded fears of others.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/20/us/why-it-tak...
[2] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-for...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10...
You'll note this isn't a trade we aren't quitting the bombing by banning travelers.
Instead of the result of that being we bomb less people it seems to be that we are going continue to bomb them and also enact amoral immigration policy. At this point it's not about partisan ship it's about morality for many of us.
In one week we've gone full bore insane. I'll be first in line to support any republican that stands against or.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-obam... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/preside... https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/08/ob... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/09/the-kill... http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/dro... http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/war...
Perhaps you mean something other than the drone strikes? Libya?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/oba... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/how-obam...
Or did you have some other specific situation in mind that some mythical liberals have been silent about instead of emphatically critical of?
Too bad we didn't get same kind of outrage of Obamas actions in press what we get now because Trump has to sort this mess.
It's pretty disingenuous to claim that enemy combatants dodge a drone strike and then are subsequently approved for an entry visa.
I could make the insult, "Your side imagines all brown people are terrorists, racist!" But that's not how you feel.
It's not hard to understand once you stop lumping together civilian refugees and combatants as "these people".
Besides, there are people from these countries who have green cards. People living in the US for years. They could have gone on a business trip to Canada last week, and now are stuck outside the country.
If we don't let people who are already living here come back, do you think we should kick them out?
What about the Iraqis that worked with the military and got visa status before? Do we kick them out?
I don't think anyone would expect this to affect green card holders, and if this isn't an outright fabrication, which frankly wouldn't surprise me at this point, I'm sure Trump will clarify the matter shortly. No one wants these policies to affect established, permanent residents.
Remember, this is a very hard transition and the teams are still in the process of exchanging. It's absolutely plausible that there are anti-Trump people in the government doing everything they can to throw a wrench in the works. The media has certainly made it clear that they're basically willing to self-immolate to try to stop Trump, and I think there are a lot of Obama-era workers of similar mind.
Reuters has edited the story linked above [0] to state that the spokeswoman had improperly stated the effect and that, per a "senior administration official", permanent residents will be allowed to enter the United States after a "routine rescreening". [Permanent residents, or "green card holders", are non-citizens who have been granted a permanent right to reside in the United States.]
As expected, this is just another case of the media heavily misrepresenting an action by Trump because they want to destroy him at any cost.
[0] See http://archive.is/JViXa for a snapshot of the Reuters article at Sun Jan 29 01:52:21 EST 2017. The old snapshot is accessible by clicking the "history" link on that page, or going directly to http://archive.is/ZwEBt .
Or it is the result of an amateurish group in power, which seem not to understand the consequences of their actions.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-b...
Yeah, because that's where refugees tend to come from.
> If it was an anti-islam thing
You know that if and when the ban is lifted, it also prioritizes Christian refugees over Muslims, right?
> For our firm this won't really make a difference right now
Your humanity is a shining example to all.
If we're seriously interested in helping, we should stop pretending like we can absorb all the refugees in existence and focus instead on practical, tangible ways to improve the lives of the people who are suffering. There is also a degree of isolationism, which is important. There is no need for America to get involved in everyone else's fight. There are always going to be problems in the world, and it shouldn't be our concern to try to fix all of them.
Because the wars in the Middle East are often blamed on the U.S. (because of support for Israel, or American involvement in regime change, or something else), segments of the population grow to hate us, and segments of that population radicalize and believe they can derive meaning from attacking their perceived enemy in the only way they can (terrorism). This has happened numerous times in the US already. Since foreign nationals have no inherent right to access the U.S., it's perfectly logical to tighten procedures for prospective entrants from terror-prone nations.
Culturally, we have very little in common with Middle Eastern refugees, and I don't just mean "they go to a weird looking church". We don't share similar cultural values. It's a big culture shock in both directions. There are other nations nearby that are much more similar and that the majority would be much more comfortable in.
Geographically, we're nowhere near the affected areas, and we already have a burgeoning refugee crisis on our southern border. Why do we need to import Syrian or other Middle Eastern refugees, specifically? We have taken them in some limited quantities, and that alone is risky enough, is it not?
I sympathize with wanting to be nice, but we need to be smart about it. There's more to life than tingly feelings, and there are plenty of opportunists out there who'd be happy to exploit our kindness. I love being nice, but I also love being smart. We should do both.
I don't believe that giving refuge to anyone who asks/wants it is automatically the right thing to do. In an ideal world, that would work fine, as would a lot of other naive solutions to social ills. But we don't live in an ideal world.
Immigrants enrich our country under the right circumstances. This is typically accepted as an implicit truth and it's the theory that underpins all immigration policy and visa restrictions; it's hardly anything new, and such restrictions are so self-evidently necessary that they're universal. Every country has entry requirements, and many of them are quite significant; not something that your average Joe could qualify for without years of work.
If we let in anyone who asks or anyone who poses as a refugee, we are being reckless with our own resources and safety. Not everyone in the world is acting in good faith.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting we abandon your unfounded fears in the face of historical evidence that bringing in immigrants has only ever done good things for our country and the reality of what is right (helping to relieve human suffering) and wrong (refusing to help when you are able to do so at no real cost to yourself.)
This will be my last reply to you since you are just clinging to right wing xenophobia.
"Bringing in immigrants has only ever done good things" is an inherently subjective statement, so pretending like we can just open a history textbook and have the virtue of unlimited immigration smack us in the face is easy to dismiss without further argument. Even if someone does subjectively agree with this conclusion (and the topic is far too wide for such a broad generalization to hold), they'd point out that the stringent immigration restrictions that have always existed have played a large role in that success.
It's disappointing that rather than discussing the issue, you've chosen to apply a derisive and incorrect label, which you feel enables you to dismiss the argument without analyzing or discussing it. We're never going to get anywhere if, after two polite statements from someone, you're ready to label them with [what you feel] is a mean label and state that their opinion is invalid in light of the label you've just assigned. This is, simply and frankly, an extremely immature level of discourse, and sadly, many of us lack the moral backbone to stand up to it and we just comply with whoever is bullying the hardest/loudest. Many of our contemporary problems have this lack of moral backbone at their root.
Personally, I have great respect for Islam and Muslims in general. I think they're a net force for good, especially in modern secular nations that seriously need more influence from religious people. Though I haven't had the opportunity to travel abroad extensively, I'd like to some day, and I've seriously considered relocating outside of the United States to countries with very different cultural perspectives, including Muslim nations. My grandparents are immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island in the aftermath of World War 2, and they speak non-English at home, which I don't find at all upsetting or threatening.
By any objective measure, I'm not a "xenophobe" ("a person unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin"), but because you don't like my conclusion that some restrictions on refugee immigration from terror-prone regions are reasonable, you've chosen to label, shame, and ignore instead of politely agreeing to disagree.
Such dismissive ignorance and self-righteousness is exactly why the blue-collar hoi polloi are rejecting this tyranny of the rising nerd bourgeoisie.
Do you offer a room to every homeless guy you've ever met? I'm sure you could fit a lot of them in sleeping bags in your living room if you were so inclined. Why don't you do that? Hasn't history proven that people are good, and that "relieving human suffering" is good, and that it comes at "no real cost to yourself"?
Perhaps we just disagree about the costs and risks involved in accepting refugees from nations with substantial terrorist activity. That's fine, and it doesn't warrant petty labeling from either side. That's just called a "disagreement" and they happen all the time. Maybe we can work on learning how to disagree better?
There is nothing wrong with considering either the safety of American nationals or the cultural compatibility and willingness/likelihood of assimilation of foreign nationals into the American mainstream before we admit them to our country. Every country has a responsibility to make these determinations when accepting new migrants, which is why every country has nation-of-origin-based visa rules and other universal immigration controls. In fact, the rules for the US are much less stringent than those of many of our first-world peers.
The fact is that your shame-based suicide cult is simply no...
"Mr. Trump also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims."
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
“if you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible."
"I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them,” the president said.
Sadly, even his logic is factually incorrect.
Not that facts matter. Anger does, right? And fear.
that said, what are the facts about refugee counts by religion from Syria?
I'm really getting tired of reporters (or journalists, or bloggers, or whoever it is that writes news these days) describing Trump's actions as they understand them rather than how they actually are. It's unnecessary and doesn't help. It just means I have to go digging around for explanations to things that should have been fully explained in the article itself.
So what's the point of it then? It can't be about "safely allowing immigration" if we're not blocking people from countries that have historically threatened our safety in the past.
immigrants from Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not scrutinized the way immigrants from Iran are, under this policy. we really must look at Trump's motivations.
Just considering the case of Saudi Arabia, we have this:
[Trump] emphasized that he has a good relationship with Saudi Arabia. On the same day, he said: “They are buying apartments and properties from me,” adding, “They spend $40-50 million, I am supposed to hate them? I love them very much.”
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2016/11/22/...
even if every single US politician takes donations from the Saudis, it still makes sense to scrutinize the motivations behind any policies that appear to unfairly favor Saudi Arabia.
It's refreshing to see a rational response to theses EO's instead of the over the top virtue signaling that is now common place on HN.
edit: ok. I get it. Not all that thinly-veiled "not white people hurr durr" talk/racism. No point of discussion.
They are okay with immigrant founders like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, since they are white. It seems like it's non-white immigrants they want to keep out.
They also don't seem concerned with the economic impact of excluding non-white immigrants, as Bannon said "A country is more than an economy."
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/right-wing-extremism-whit...
Be honest: are you being open minded?
Here are a variety of definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
Some people have (perhaps unwittingly) chosen to identify as alt-right to distance themselves from mainstream Republican conservatives.
Sadly, these people are on this very forum now.
Edit: Yeah, mod me down to oblivion because i hurt your feelz.
You're just crying about your feelz because nobody likes you. Go cry on your waifu pillow.
The /r/altright subreddit says on its sidebar: "Another core principle of the Alt-Right is Identitarianism. Identitarianism is the prioritization of social identity, regardless of political persuasion. Thus, the Alt-Right promotes White Identity and White Nationalism."
Breitbart's 2016 article, "An Establishment Conservative's guide to the Alt Right" says: "The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. ... The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness."
If you have a problem with the "alt-right" being identified with a belief in racially-separate nation-states, take it up with the alt-right themselves.
> The /r/altright subreddit says on its sidebar: "Another core principle of the Alt-Right is Identitarianism. Identitarianism is the prioritization of social identity, regardless of political persuasion. Thus, the Alt-Right promotes White Identity and White Nationalism."
This was actually surprising news to me. One issue I have with the term "white nationalism" is: can you be white and a nationalist (putting your countrymen's needs first, regardless of skin color), without being a "white nationalist" (aka racist)?
If you don't mind, I'd really appreciate your opinion on that question.
Regardless, if a subreddit with 16,000+ subscribers self-proclaims it is white nationalist (rather than just nationalist), then I have no problem conceding that it seems that it is kind of gelling into an at least partially racist organization, which would lose my support.
> The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race.
That is full-on mentally retarded, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support that assertion, and plenty suggesting the exact opposite. Jesus Christ. (EDIT: Just to be crystal clear, I realize that was not your statement, it was Breitbart's. I'm going to go look that up because I find it extremely hard to believe they would actually be stupid enough to say that.)
EDIT 2: Curious to see how long until my mystery downvoter shows up and downvotes my last set of comments. :)
EDIT 3: After a skim of the article, I feel quite confident that "The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race" was an unintentional mistake, and replacing "race" with "nationality" or "community" would better express the writer's actual thoughts.
This whole phenomenon is very interesting to me. I don't think many people would deny that your environment has a significant effect on your character development (nature vs nurture), would they? Yet, when you extend this idea to the national level, these very same people will now say it is literally impossible for your environment to influence a person's character. Or, people will gladly visit a foreign country and come back extolling the virtues of the culture, but if the topic of conversation change from tourism to immigration, the same people would passionately proclaim that it is a delusion to think that there is such a thing as "culture" of a nation.
No, I don't think he is, in that he doesn't want whites to lord it over non-whites. What he wants, as I understand it, is for different races and cultures to live in different societies/countries.
Richard B. Spencer is a leading figure in the American Alt-Right (he even created the name). Here's a section from the beginning of his Wikipedia article:
Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is a noted American white supremacist. He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian. He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.
I'm not sure what a "peaceful ethnic cleansing" would look like, and I don't think I want to find out.
Peaceful for himself I suppose. He'd like to be nice and cozy, miles from the action, while it's being carried out.
The more that lad get's slapped about the place, the better I feel.
It's clearly impossible.
Then of course they bring up "white genocide" and are staunch antimiscegenationists.
Edit/Clarification: I disagree with Bannon. More specifically, he would probably consider me "them" instead of "us".
This seems to be one of my least popular comments. Care to explain why?
|> Implying that Asian CEOs can't be part of civic society.
I hate Steve Bannon and Trump, but lazy and dishonest retweeting of your own personal biases are what causes this complete fake news epidemic. I said the same thing in the New York Times post. This is what is killing America, because we can't have an honest discussion.
The same thing happened with the "media should keep their mouths shut" quote. Another dishonest quote taken out of context, which only weakens any respect in stories that are anti-Trump. You don't beat Trump by spreading your own lies, you beat him by spreading the truth and opening the eyes of his supporters.
Do you see all the ad network ads that show Michelle Obama with a taken-out-of context angry face? The reason the right buys those ads is to create hate through implication. The headline and click-through content don't matter.
PR and marketing are subtle.
Trump is going to win another term because of obtuse people like yourself.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/
The order applies to existing visa and green card holders. Many of these people have build there lives here. Some of them are key employees in American companies.
If they are on vacation abroad right now they can't come back to their home and families. If they are in the US, they can't leave the country - even if their jobs might require them to travel abroad.
Even worse than that is the uncertainty. I think many are now afraid this order might be extended indefinitely.
This is completely anecdotal but our reaction has been more norm than strange in our circle of friends and coworkers.
The immigration order was the last straw.
Btw a number of vendors mark third world products as "ethically sourced", so it's possible to avoid products from dictatorships.
(Also, go back to Reddit with your "OP" business.)
OP is short for original post(er). It's much older than both Reddit and HN.
It's a great rhetorical strategy to conflate the attacks on various militant groups (that many people did oppose) with a blanket policy based on country of origin, but it's pretty weak sauce.
It's possible to think that bombing is wrong, while still holding the opinion that the immigration order is worse.
You're seeing the conservative social media strategy in action -- repeat talking points to divert discussion whenever "their side" is criticized.
If we want real discussion we have to ignore efforts to change the subject!
'...the conservative social media strategy in action -- repeat talking points to divert discussion whenever "their side" is criticized.'
tomp isn't trying to change the subject. Instead he asks a valid moral question: why would someone refuse to visit the USA because of Trump's (comparatively insignificant) executive order, yet the same person not be put off by a far more morally repugnant act: Obama's killing of thousands with drone attacks.
tomp also has a strong argument in his comment below about hypocrisy. I'd want him on my team in a debate - he sounds like an honest man.
I mean, I'm not happy that America has been at war since 9/11. I simply don't think I can attack America for being in wars, that my own country is participating in, at least not without being a hypocrite.
The only thing I can think of to say is that Trump and Trump's actions are "not in my name". Because I believe in kindness it is hard for me to condemn those who voted for him without realizing the extent of what he would actually do, but I personally did not vote for the man nor support his policy or administration. In some ways it is quite strange that we are told that "we have to support the president" because he won the election. I will say I wasn't super happy with our choices this time around in general.
So I'm living in a country doing what I can not to allow one president and one administration's policies to tarnish our relationships with other countries and each other, but it still makes me sad to see you feel the way you do. Again, I understand though.
Just remember, like good people in the US recognize that there are good people in every other country (all the time, even during tough times), we still have good people too.
Trump and his policies have generated similar reactions in me. What about scandanavia? Where to start looking for tech jobs there?
Your countries are beyond help anyway.
I don't think putting all Americans in the same bag because you don't like an elected politician is fair. I'm European and have been to America. It's a country that is extremely diverse. Maine doesn't look like Florida which doesn't look like Texas which doesn't look like California.
It would be like boycotting all Europe because some guy you don't like got elected at the European level and took a decision you didn't like. The whole TSA thing is a pain in the arse but I got there by car from Canada and I will always remember the fog descending on the hills on the early morning when I entered Maine, it was just magic. You're missing a lot.
As for boycotting goods from China: that's not really possible anymore, so it would be a futile exercise. But that's a different discussion.
>We won't buy American products under Trump
in the grandparent, not the bit about cancelling his vacation.
Our boycott of America is more of a protest than an anti-American sentiment though. I mean, non-US citizens don't have a say in US politics, and rightfully so, but US policies do affect us. So how else would we protest Trump?
The reason for avoiding the American cloud, however, has less to do with protesting and more to do with privacy concerns. Especially now that Trump has spoken out against the Privacy Shield.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34832512 e.g. Salah Abdeslam: French national.
Please provide a source for this statement or be a liar.
And this is just since 2000! If a year ago America was a country you admired, here's some advice: do visit, and don't just go to NYC and SF like most tourists, but rent a car and drive through the country. See what there is to admire about how the leaders of the US have run the country for decades vs. home your Scandinavian countries are run. Go to places that voted for Trump whose jobs are gone, whose infrastructure is falling apart, who have no health care and little opportunities for education, whose life expectancy has declined down to 3rd world levels under the America you admired. Perhaps you will then understand better why many Americans found themselves desperate enough to vote for a madman.
Based on the statistics I've seen, Trump had _fewer_ low income voters than Hillary. In addition Trump has similar percentages of male and white votes to GW Bush Senior [0].
While the disenfranchised poor Trump voter paints a pretty narrative, it leaves out a large volume of voters who turned out that dont fit that mold.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...
[0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump...
This is very childish and shows that you never really knew much about America in the first place. Love it or hate it, our nation was never a Scandinavian hug box. Even under Obama.
I know two persons who while born in Iran, didn't live there for quite a few years and haven't been able to visit the US for conferences in the last few years.
I just don't get this obsession with Trump. So what if he is the president of the US? It doesn't change US one bit. You will still find the same people, the same cities, the same landscape as half year ago when Trump was not president yet. Why would you deprive yourself of broadening your horizons just because a guy who you don't like is in charge?
His selection is also a backlash against a culture too-far: the emphasis on PC thinking and behavior,the new religion of inclusion which older|traditional personalities find to be decadent and repulsive.
You can boycott what is 'American' because of Trump but Trump doesn't care about America.
I really hope you change your mind and visit us, it may help you see through the national stereotype to the subtleties of the situation on the ground. You're welcome to my couch in Boston :).
[1] http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&f=0&o...
[2] http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagraph.php?year=2016&f... (Suffolk County)
[3] https://www.rt.com/news/367187-sweden-democrats-second-popul...
Society != Nation. Trump!=America. Trump is an asshole politician (just like Hillary) who has grabbed power.
When you refuse to engage in Trade you are not hurting Trump you are hurting average American and yourself. Trump will simply tax Americans more to keep is Airforce One flying.
Not only is this order terrible, but this sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
Also note that christians from these countries are allowed to apply for refugee status; it's essentially a Muslim ban, a religious ban.
Does he allow gay men or muslim women to enter then? I would applaud such an initiative. Why doesn't he do that? Muslim women far outnumber christians in these countries, if you cared so much about them you'd be against this ban.
If you care about persecuted people, what about persecuted muslims? Asghar Farhadi, the director of A Separation, cannot attend the Oscars because of the bizarre ban on Iranians. He has a long history of being persecuted by his government. That is not even talking about the millions of muslim doctors, engineers, actually skilled people being bombed out of their homes by all kinds of forces.
And it's not like the US gleefully accepts all refugees from Syria. They go though an extensive process that takes years. The ones that get through - are far less likely to commit any kind of crime than the average American citizen.
Also look at the countries he's selected- Iran, which is not host to ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and who have not had any of it's citizens ever carry out an attack in the US. The main crime of Iran seems to be that it's not a US ally. If this is allowed to become a precedent, if say the Indian government does something to upset the US, what's to stop Trump from banning visas from them too?
[1]-http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/d...
[2]-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trum...
I hope this doesn't backfire on trump that it creates more havoc. America is seen as the Nation of progress. It seems that is no longer the case.
According to Wikipedia, 23% of people are Muslims, somewhat higher than 1/10.
It's amazing that as a president you can openly criticise and be racist against Muslims.
I somewhat predict a recession coming because trump pisses off some major nations.
Arendt wrote about this on 1930s Germany. https://storify.com/AndrewHickey/lusztig-arendt-and-trump
Michael Eisen, http://www.nature.com/news/geneticist-launches-bid-for-us-se... Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg and others are taking a stand. We must unite to do this.
We know where sticking our heads in the sand got us the last time...
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/825319115548147713
Sometimes you have to deal with politics, whether you want to or not.
>"...they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."
Going by this thread, it's obviously up for debate whether the submission fits the spirit of the guideline.
Aside: If the guidelines count as rules, your comment is definitely against them.
Over the last couple of months the US has developed from a country that I'd rather not visit to a country I really, really don't want to visit. At least not while its political system appears to be under duress and the situation appears to be extremely volatile.
I do travel quite a bit, so this is an actual choice I make several times per year. Just in the last month I've been offered free airline tickets to the US twice, and I declined both offers. One of them was to give a talk (which I really would have liked to), the other was some form of bonus ticket from an airline I fly frequently.
Over the last year I've also experienced an increased interest in working here in Norway from people in the tech industry. Mostly white people with US citizenships or green cards working in the bay area.
If this goes on for much longer it will hurt the US because right now I don't think many of my peers (people in the tech sector) would want to go there, and due to some of the other executive orders, we don't know if we can safely use cloud providers in the US in the future (it'll be great for local cloud providers though).
Trump is trying to manipulate the media to suppress discussion of bad things he does. His trolls have succeeded in suppressing this discussion on HN. A win for Trump and bad for the rest of us.
Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something (e.g. to ask us questions about Y Combinator, or to ask or complain about moderation). If you want to say something to us, please send it to hn@ycombinator.com.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
On this topic in particular, the discussion is doing little to actually advance conversation and understanding. Your comment itself "His trolls have succeeded in suppressing this discussion on HN" is evidence of that, regardless of what other people are posting. This isn't constructive, civil, or substantive.
Edit to add: In the hopes of better communication, if you'd like to down vote this comment, will you also take the time to add a brief reply? I appreciate it.
HN is poorer if it focuses on tech only and not on how society is influenced. Probably I should post some on Feynman's writing on this topic.
Have a good day
Yes, awareness is constructive. Is there anything in this thread that isn't elsewhere on HN (and likely in spades)?
I'm not at all arguing against being able to discuss constructively how society is influenced. Tech in and of itself may be interesting, but it's ultimately empty if it's not used to benefit society.
That said, the comments in this thread are not people talking to each other to reach any kind of understanding (even if not agreement). Can you point to any three exchanges where that's happening?
Even our exchange, I feel like you've reacted to my comment as only an argument for the submission to be flagged while ignoring why I thought it has been. It has nothing to do with it being non-tech. It has to do with (a) Ask HN's aren't for addressing YC or YC companies, and (b) whether the discussion is actually accomplishing anything. Flamewars do little to advanced anything constructive, even awareness.
HN is for civil and substantive discussion. There are plenty of places elsewhere where people can post micro-rants at each other. HN isn't supposed to be one of them.
I hope these nations respond by confiscating any/all American assets around their territory and expelling American ambassadors.
http://blog.samaltman.com/time-to-take-a-stand