Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Well think about it this way, if a corporate executive like Thiel were caught saying much of Trump's campaign rhetoric, he would likely face consequences.

Just a few that come to mind

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." [0]

"26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" [1]

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" [2]

Considering that this last one would be considered hate speech and banned on Facebook if it were not made by a major US politician [3], I think openly supporting the candidate and going out of your way to help his campaign is fair game for criticism

[0] http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debat...

[1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/33190738377114828...

[2] http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-s-memorable-...

[3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-rem...

The fact that people would face "consequeces" for making these political statements is exactly why Trump has been so popular.

People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system.

I don't think Trump phased it very well but I do think that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US, and it wouldn't' surprise me if illegal immigrants were disproportionately criminal. What's undeniable is that illegal immigration is connected with new patterns of organized crime, even if the overall crime rate is similar.

Free speech does not mean consequence free speech. It's not some gross injustice that saying racist things or supporting racist candidates makes people think you're racist.

You're completely missing my point. Did you read the whole post or just the first sentence? My point was that people shouldn't be punished for saying reasonable things, but currently they are.

Creating consequences for speech just pushes the speech underground where it can't be challenged. Then when someone like Trump pops up people wonder where all the support is coming from.

> People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system.

And the result of that is a self perpetuating system. If they really wanted to solve the situation they'd frame it as the socio economic issue it is.

bingo. Just like with the white working class, it's not particularly helpful to tell people "the system will never give you a break" if that isn't actually true.

For every fashionable article on how privilege perpetuates itself (which it does, to some extent) there is an unfashionable article on the financial payoff to college education (spoiler, it's huge).

>"26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?"

Trump said that if you put military men and women together, the sexual assault rate will go up. The military proceed to put military men and women together, and guess what? The sexual assault rate goes up. Trump was right. What is sexist about being right?

>"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"

Everyone that enters the United States must be vetted, that includes Muslims too. Muslim will not be excluded, because that would be racist.

>"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

But Cartels are bringing in drugs through the border. And 1 in 4 women who cross the border are raped. And some of those Mexican people are actually good people. How is any of this racist?

The military comment sounds like its excusing sexual assault as inevitable and is honestly pretty offensive to military members.

Shutdown of Muslims entering the country was the phrase. Not that we should vet all religions equally. Youre misrepresenting what he said pretty clearly.

He didn't say cartels. He said "Mexico". And some I assume some are good people suggests that the base case for Mexicans is that they're rapists and murderers.

I really think you're stretching to excuse his statements. He speaks pretty clearly and unambiguously in those remarks.

>The military comment sounds like its excusing sexual assault as inevitable and is honestly pretty offensive to military members.

He wasn't proposing a policy here, and he wasn't even defending sexual assault here. He was just pointing out what was happening in the military. Pointing sexual assault is not sexist.

>He didn't say cartels. He said "Mexico".

Yes. Mexico. In other word, people from Mexico, which includes both good and bad people (the Cartels are from Mexico too). Saying that Mexico have both good and bad people is not racist.

>And some I assume some are good people suggests that the base case for Mexicans is that they're rapists and murderers.

No, it suggest that the base case for Mexicans is that some of them are good people, and some of them are bad people, just like every other race out there.

>Shutdown of Muslims entering the country was the phrase. Not that we should vet all religions equally.

Mexicans are not Muslims. Mexicans will be vetted too. They can come in, but they must come in legally (through the vetting process). And once the vetting program is setup, everyone will be vetted. He said many other things, however, you seems to be ignoring everything else he said, and focusing only on one specific quote, which can be taken out of context easily.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com