Hacker News Reader

Comment by specialist | Hacker News Reader

Please add the pundit's name [Glenn Beck] in the submission.

Its hilarious how this comment alone exemplifies exactly what he's talking about when he says that conservative voices are being marginalized in silicon valley. We need to make sure we brand the post with his name so us cushy liberals can be protected from these mean and different viewpoints, right?

yes, but at the same time, Glen Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of the far-right. That's the whole issue with the right (IMO) is that it was hijacked by the (Hypocritical) religious people, whereas there was almost NO ONE representing the right-center folks who are fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal/acceptable (live and let live).

I already know who my state with vote for, which allows me to vote who I want to (Gary Johnson). The 2-party setup (debates, etc...) won't allow anyone in who doesn't identify to one extreme or the other.

> Glen[sic] Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of the far-right

The article linked is not based on a religious view. In fact, the only mention of religion is a comment intended to ridicule the comments of others at the table from the right who Beck implies are being morally inconsistent.

I'm glad they didn't because my own bias likely would have caused me to skip it. I was pleasantly surprised by the blog post.

Why, I don't usually see author titles on blog posts? In fact, none of the front page links have author names right now.

In this case, it's better off without the name in the headline. Many people would probably assume that anything by Glenn Beck would be far-right nonsense (sorry, I would, even if you wouldn't) but it seems to me that it's actually an honest and fair report. I thought he made some good points.

Agree. It's a very honest post. TBH I often feel the same, from the other point of view: when did "being a leftist" started meaning "pitchforks on Twitter on the slimmest excuse"? But it did -- because, in the end, any group of humans, no matter how well-intentioned, will eventually encounter the same old problems with groupthink, enforcing rules and so on. Any group.

So it's really nice to see the occasional individual going "hang on, we weren't supposed to do this!" and self-criticize a bit, show some real doubt. Even if it's fake (it might all be a play to score honesty points, who knows), it's still nice to see and I wish more people on all sides could do it more often.

It blew me away since I read the whole thing and then got to the bottom to see who wrote it.

No, please don't. I wouldn't have read it and despite him taking more than half of the length of the article to get to the point, I was really surprised at what he said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com