I've always wondered, when do policies become nanny state policies? If they have data showing that under-age use of social media leads to higher rates of suicide, why would that be a 'nanny state' policy? Does there have to be a gun or drug involved, rather than a phone?
I am sure someone else would point the origins of 'nanny-state' comes from. Yet, it has been used initially in the UK to support advertising of smoking, later for support of not using seat belts, and so on.
It's a rather ironic twist in this case... and a very favorable read.
Even if you support his economic approach, for example, wouldn't his criminal behaviour, or his racist and transphobic views disqualify him? One does not wash away the other.
openly going after him that way and trying to "destroy" him (letisha), using the legal system as a bludgeon for political reasons was a huge mistake. so this continuously worked for him, not against.
you could take anybody of any party and find a venue somewhere in the country with a cooperative DA and get a jury to convict on some felony. [1] people realize this and aren't fooled. so it just isn't done. it probably isn't done more because it's a self-own than because it's morally wrong, but that's politics.
the ends certainly do not justify the means, but regardless it's also an incredibly stupid strategy.
> racist and transphobic views
unfortunately, these words, as well as "nazi" and "fascist" have been misused, abused, and overused to the point of utter uselessness. so now it's far to easy for people to just say "maybe i don't like DEI or i do like having police dept. so apparently makes me a 'literally violent racist' now. this is just more of that same vitriol, ignoring it"
trump did not win the election. he just stood around while the radicals and extremists on the left lost it for themselves. bigly.
> unfortunately, these words, as well as "nazi" and "fascist" have been misused, abused, and overused to the point of utter uselessness.
Yep. The ‘Twitter Left’ (pejorative) royally shit the bed with this one. Their unbridled vitriol contributed heavily to the overall ‘no words mean anything anymore’ nature of US politics. It’s really the primary way that the Left contributed to the whole phenomenon.
Dare point out that something someone did isn’t actually ‘fascist’, and dare suggest that the implication only serves to muddy the waters, and you’ll be chastised by someone that in all likelihood isn’t as much of a ‘radical leftist’ as you in any meaningful way.
I hope the loud kids are happy with where we’ve ended up. Evidently so, because it’s only gotten worse.
cute post, but get off twitter and talk to a real human being and most folk did not and do not really care about "woke" ism as you imply. its simply not really an issue as much as rightwing media blows it up to be.
people are still feeling the residual effects of the economy. they felt that and decided they wanted change. not to mention Harris had a 3 month ramp up, and people didn't know her.
twitter was filled with "woke" around 2016 and 2020 by the way; Americans still gave the Democrats the popular vote.
i think you are replying to the wrong comment? i didn't mention "woke". i don't go near twitter; impossible to read. the point i was making is that demonizing the centrists who hadn't already made up their mind, was batshit stupid. yeah, we got to know kamala pretty well - peace, love, hatred, rage, change, no-change - a politician.
> people are still feeling the ... effects of the economy
> they felt that and decided they wanted change.
this i agree with, except that effects are "residual". it's not improving for most people on the bottom 1/2. it's brutal out here.
> Americans still gave the Democrats the popular vote
now this is widely reported that as not true [1], CNN showing ~51.2%, which would be the best in 20 years [2].
Because there’s varying degrees of corruption. If you had to choose between living under American leadership vs North Korean, wouldn’t you have a preference or are they the same because neither is perfect?
When the Access Hollywood tape came out back in 2016 I thought his campaign was over. How can someone who openly boasts about sexually assaulting women, ever be considered for any public office, let alone the most powerful office in the world? In most countries of the world a scandal of that scale would end a politician's career instantly. But not in the US. Not for him at least. I just can't understand how anyone can separate his character flaws from his policy and think he cares for anyone but himself.
What rhetoric is that? He's a felon. He questioned Harris' racial identity during the campaign. He claimed at numerous rallies that boys would come home from school as girls without their parents knowledge.
It is rhetoric that tries to paint the picture that his supporters must be racist and transphobic, or at the very least tries to create a chilling effect where people are afraid to come out in his support for fear of being labelled as such.
> He questioned Harris' racial identity during the campaign.
It was an obvious jab at the identity politics of the democratic party. Besides - regardless of how stupid it is - questioning someone's racial identity does not make one a racist.
> He claimed at numerous rallies that boys would come home from school as girls without their parents knowledge.
I'm sure he means that literally and there's clearly no explanation for wanting to ban the promotion of sex-reassignment to children other than being transphobic.
Look, I don't like the man either and I'm nowhere near what he represents politically, but these attacks are ridiculously transparent to me and anyone who isn't so overjoyed to swallow them as truth they've become completely blind. It's fooling nobody but the already fooled. To everyone else it's actively off-putting.
I agree that you can’t generalise, since there are many voters who are simply not aware of positions / policy like the above. Having said that there are plenty who are, and they love to troll by saying the bad part out loud then dissembling through hand waving or claims of irony or victimhood.
Off-topic rant… I’ve seen identity politics mentioned over and over again the past 24 hrs. I don’t know what the definition is, but promising to dismantle the legal and medical apparatus surrounding an entire identity sure looks like identity politics to me. And personally, the only time I am exposed to any form of identity politics is when I see conservatives screeching about the topic whilst espousing heavily political opinions on why they don’t like certain identities.
> Off-topic rant… I’ve seen identity politics mentioned over and over again the past 24 hrs. I don’t know what the definition is, but promising to dismantle the legal and medical apparatus surrounding an entire identity sure looks like identity politics to me.
That policy clearly and specifically targets children from a medical perspective, not an "entire identity".
You could say arguing the government will only recognise two genders or ban people born men from womens sports is transphobic, but it seems a weak position. The policy doesn't do anything to adult trans people that I can see, beyond the sports element.
The summary appears to be "adults can make these decisions, not kids", which a few years ago was seen as a fairly moderate position.
> Trump’s platform and policy plan is actively transphobic, is it rhetoric to call this what it is?
It is fine to say: "I think his policy is transphobic.". Do not say or imply: "If you support Trump, you must be fine with his transphobia."
Not only is the latter a disrespectful way to have a political discussion, it's also likely to backfire once people are in the voting booth. It is especially likely to backfire if people take the time to actually look at his position and find it to be moderate.
If you support Trump you should support most of his policies. If you support transphobic policies, you are Transphobic, regardless of what you say.
In fact, I would much rather prefer conservatives go back to saying slurs. I'd much rather hear 'whore' or 'slut' than having policies to chase women out of state for getting a legal abortion.
I'd much rather hear 'fa*got' than have PrEP coverage revoked causing another HIV epidemic.
I'd much rather hear 'tr*ny' than have even more transgender people kill themselves.
Conservatives desire an ideal argumentative perspective where they can actively harm others and claim they didn't cause the consequences. It doesn't work that way. If you support an action and are aware of the consequences, you support the consequences.
How do you get to that logically? If you're supporting a person who is literally advocating a policy which harms another group of people, you know in your heart of hearts you might not feel like you have any bad feelings about brown people or women, but you're literally paying for the subjugation of those people.
Logically those groups are racist transphobic and misogynistic support Trump. It's factual because it's logical.
MLK was arrested and convicted many times. Mandela spend decades is jail. Navalny was convicted and ultimately killed in jail.
When the government is after you for your political activity, such convictions don't count for much.
> He questioned Harris' racial identity during the campaign
When a candidate was selected for the office for belonging to certain race and gender [0], and bases political messaging on racial identity [1], I think it makes it quite valid for questioning.
Are you comparing Trump to people who fought for freedom, equality and civil rights? Those people were arrested because of an unjust system. Trump was tried for corruption and assault. This is a false comparison.
I'm quite sure that the majority of USA voters believes that Trump fights for freedom, equality and civili rights, and that charges against Trump are as unjust as were charges against MLK.
The "actual truth" of the matter does not matter today -- the perception is truly that he is a god-like hero, come to save the masses from the oppression of the elite.
My two life-long democrat friends that voted for Trump just got tired of this shit , right here. They just don't believe it anymore. Even Andrew Cuomo admitted that Trump was subject to lawfare in New York. But go on, don't ask questions or think critically.
Tragically your two lifelong Democrat friends are illogical. And now they are transitively racist misogynist and transphobic because they're literally paying a guy to enact those policies and views. He was legally convicted of sexual misconduct with E Jene Carroll. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of guilty. The Democrat friends of yours who support that sexual abuser are now using United States budget to pay the salary for this abuser.
I was sure this comment is a parody but the last sentence doesn't quite fit.
Either way, it is such mouth foaming of the wokespeople that fuels the right.
For example:
> they're literally paying a guy to enact those policies and views.
Not literally, no. There are so many layers of indirection, that you could as well say everyone using money pays a guy... Either way, this applies in the same extent to people who voted for Kamala Harris so I guess we can say from now on, that Kamala voters literally pay to enact misogynist and transphobic policies and views.
Keep demonizing Trump voters, it will surely convince them to not vote Trump ;)(well they can't vote him on the 3rd term, but if you demonize them, they will sure continue voting against you).
I've listened to what he said, firsthand and frequently. He's deliberately divisive and uses racist and violent rhetoric whenever possible (even in the last week of the election). 8 years ago I was open to attacks against him being fearmongering and then I lived through 4 years of his presidency. Not everything people say about him is true, but the vast majority is. It is difficult to justify "got tired of this shit" as though it's not true, when a large number of his own former cabinet members AND his own former vice president refused to endorse him, saying that he is unfit for office.
But really, it's interesting how this time around my entire Puerto Rican side of the family voted for Trump. All lifelong democrats too. These folks are the core of the country: Teamsters members, paraprofessionals, and mid-tier civil servants. They laughed at the joke about the pile of trash. They left Puerto Rico in the 60s for a reason.
As much as you don't like to admit it, your idea of "divisive" and "racist" and "violent" is based on a subjective standard. It just is. A lot of people disagree or don't find it offensive enough to care. I can't stress this part enough; these are the actual majority of America as indicated yesterday.
This is all to try and point out that this is a great time for the Democrats of America to take a hard look in the mirror and realize that, if this guy is so bad, then how the hell did he win so convincingly? I'll give you a hint but it involves the fact that a lot of these demonized Trump voters are, indeed, very fine people that would give you the shirt of their backs if you needed it.
He won more votes than that other person who voted. I guess that's only the "majority" when it's convenient for the argument. So you may be technically correct but really, that's the worst kind of correct.
I was inartfully making a claim that voter apathy is a big thing, and as a result no winner can ever really claim to represent a majority of Americans.
IIRC 2020 was the only election of modern times where any candidate garnered more support than "did not vote." Putting it clearly here: neither Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan garnered support of the majority of Americans. It's not a partisan argument I am making here.
A form of government where a third or 40% of the governors routinely fail to exercise their duty has problems.
Wow that's rude. Who is you, who are liberals, and outbursts suggests that the words that I as a liberal speak are dismissible as irrational, when they are not.
Please don't do that.
When Trump literally sexually abuses women, is convicted of it, repeatedly disparages the abused woman in public, And then I talk about it here on hacker News, how That an outburst?
Please, the truth and the facts and the logic are pretty clear. This trump guy is racist and transphobic and misogynistic based on his past behavior. Anybody who supports the guy is encouraging the system which they are now electing him to manage to be racist transphobic and misogynistic. It's pretty simple and transitive logic.
I haven't followed it all that closely but didn't he end up being charged for libel/slander? That lady was a complete batshit lunatic. Just watch her interview with Anderson Cooper; it's objectively cringeworthy.
Because models do so in competition with humans, in a way that threatens their way of life. Atleast until the rewards and benefits of ML are shared fairly, people don't to help accelerate that.
He's saying the attempt to virtue signal, via the low salary, is invalidated by these deals. The virtues would be mostly altruism I guess, that the AGI mission was important enough to humanity for him to sacrifice opportunities to build personal wealth and so on. I think that's overblown personally, but certainly Altman would often repeat the line about having low salary and no equity.
