Comment by Lagged2Death | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lagged2Death | Hacker News Reader

Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

The press I saw served mainly as a gigantic megaphone used to amplify a river of Trump bullshit 24/7. They did not call him out as a liar, not remotely to the degree that would have been appropriate.

Trump controls something like ~500 businesses; what conflicts of interest might arise from him assuming the title of President? Why haven't I seen any news about that?

But I know all about Clinton's personal email server. Which apparently resulted in no real breaches of security. Why do I know so much about that?

We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession ... That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line.

It's mockery to point out racism and sexism, now? What?

The data after the fact does indeed support the "they're just fucking racists" interpretation. Now more than ever.

The fact that they don't believe they are racists or that they don't understand that they are racists doesn't mean the "racist" diagnosis is wrong. The fact that calling someone a racist isn't nice doesn't mean racism should be tolerated or covered up.

If you want journalists to approach Trump supporters with empathy, fine: go ahead and approach the racists with empathy. If "empathy" means "covering up racism with nicer words" then that's bullshit, that's not journalism anymore.

bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

Yes, let's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything...

Yes, let's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything...

At other times, in other situations, I have been sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I don't think it applies here.

Let me quote something I wish I had written myself:

When you're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose, that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere "apathy" to racial issues.

To actively vote for a racist candidate with a racist platform is simply a racist act, regardless of the voter's reasons or intentions. That is, as far as I can see, merely factual.

"Labeling" is ironically and conveniently a label itself. Sometimes "labeling" is a real concern. This isn't one of those times.

This thanksgiving you should ask your family members who they voted for.

I am close with my family and I already know very well how pretty much everyone voted.

Some of my family members are outspoken racists who were planning to vote for Trump. Some recent family gatherings have been explosive and memorable.

What point were you attempting to communicate here?

>When you're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose, that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere "apathy" to racial issues.

What about apathy to foreign policy issues? Or is racism not racism when it concerns attacks on people abroad? Hillary has been consistently and vehemently pro-war and pro-"interventions" at every chance she got.

Hillary has been consistently and vehemently pro-war...

Go ahead, tell us with a straight face that supporters of Donald J. "bomb the shit out of them" Trump are pacifists who just want to avoid all that nasty conflict. I'll wait.

>Go ahead, tell us with a straight face that supporters of Donald J. "bomb the shit out of them" Trump are pacifists who just want to avoid all that nasty conflict. I'll wait.

Besides being loud-mouthed and support-our-troops kind of patriots, most of them are isolationists who don't care much for the US being involved in the other end of the world. That has been traditionally truer for the Republicans than for Democrats (with the exception of Bush Jr.) at the leadership level (as opposed to the voters level).

Also note that the "bomb the shit out of them" Trump said was for ISIS. And why not?

Whereas the previous 2 (or rather 4) presidential terms we have seem tons of "bombing the shit out" or meddling with local governments in places from Iraq to Libya and Syria, with dire effects (instability, civil war, chaos and other results of "bringing democracy"), and Clinton was all in favor...

>The press I saw served mainly as a gigantic megaphone used to amplify a river of Trump bullshit 24/7.

We probably weren't watching the same media then. Because all the established press and TV channels rooted for Hillary or against Trump.

Still, they couldn't silence his presence entirely, but then again, why should they? After all, it was what tons of people wanted and voted for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com