Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulgb | Hacker News Reader

> What happened?

I'm partial to Aaron Levie's take on this[1]:

> An alternative take on the importance of companies taking a stand on critical social issues that impact our employees and communities: when there's a vacuum of leadership from the government in dealing with these topics, businesses often need to lead more than ever.

When we have had presidents who were willing to condemn white supremacy, we tended not to call on CEOs to.

1. https://mobile.twitter.com/levie/status/1311007294033854464

View on HN

Closely related, but in the opposite direction: the Waltons (of Wal-Mart), Koch brothers (industrial conglomerate including such banal brands as Molex), and Green family (of Hobby Lobby) all got involved because they thought that they needed to take a critical stand on issues where they thought a leadership vacuum existed. They felt that the government wasn't doing enough to support their notion of an ideal way of life.

The country is tearing itself apart right now because we really do have two camps with opposite beliefs that each feel they are fighting for the survival of the nation itself. Read what the other side says about themselves, and not just what your side says about them.

Makes me think of "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"

Note that “corporate power” here actually refers to primarily to labor unions which operated in coordination with capital of the Catholic corporatist social doctrine, which was a major ideology of the late 19th and early-to-mid-20th century, competing against both capitalist opposition to labor organization and socialist approaches to labor organization.

> When we have had presidents who were willing to condemn white supremacy, we tended not to call on CEOs to.

https://twitter.com/robsmithonline/status/131113297546835968...

Last night he was given the chance to unequivocally condemn the Proud Boys and instead told them to "stand back and stand by", which the group themselves has taken as a rally cry. Just like how after Charlottesville, white supremacists took his ambiguous response as a sign of approval.

He doesn't condemn, he validates with just enough deniability that people can make lists like the one you posted, while everyone who is following along sees exactly what is happening.

The Proud Boys are a white supremacist organization? Headed by an Afro-Cuban?

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/proud-boys-enrique-tarrio...

>Last night he was given the chance to unequivocally condemn the Proud Boys and instead told them to "stand back and stand by

Let's be honest here: if Trump had "unequivocally" said "I condemn White Supremacy", what would have happened, practically? Do you think for a second that the media would have suddenly "let him off the hook"? Problem solved? No more white supremacy talk?

There is footage of him disavowing the KKK, and David Duke, going back 20 years, believe it or not. Has it made a difference?

The fact that question was even asked demonstrates just how far the US political system has fallen. Kind of embarrassing. The fact that Trump doesn't simply repeat the condemnation -- for whatever that's worth -- is sad and polarizing. But let's not pretend it changes anyone's opinion on anything.

>He doesn't condemn, he validates with just enough deniability

Much like many Democrats did with regards to the looting and burning of cities.

Did you follow that debate closely? Because it seems like a lot more nuanced than the media put it.

I did, unfortunately. I haven't really followed the media's portrayal of it, but I do know that the Proud Boys' website now says "stand back and stand by" prominently on their home page above a call for recruits.

English is not my first language but I think it was the host who introduced that term?

Also he was pushed really hard and seemed willing to denounce violent far right, not just in sweeping terms.

Also: Contrast this to Biden (who could easily be my favorite except for his candidate for vice president) who AFAIK refuse to denounce ANTIFA at all.

I dislike Trump and I am scared by how many seems to be close to worshipping him as a family values guy despite his two broken marriages and other problems.

That said, I think he will easily win again this year. Why?

- underdog sympathy: media tackles him harder and it seems easy to see as an unbiased observer (Again: not a native speaker, but at least I don't want either of them, although in Bidens case that is more because of his choice of vice president candidate.)

- BLM is out everyday to remind people to vote for a law-and-order president

- the Left still underestimating the discontent in the working class

- Trump simultaneously bringing home troops and strengthening the armed forces so people won't lose their lives or their jobs (for now).

- His support for law enforcement (unlike HN-ers many people seems to support the police)

- He is actually wildly successful in certain areas. He has actually managed to get more peace in the Middle East than a number of other presidents, including Obama who got the Nobel peace price.

That said: I don't like him.

I'd rather have any decent engineer or business(wo)man or teacher who knows a bit about politics, can keep their mouth shut at times etc.

> English is not my first language but I think it was the host who introduced that term?

It was not.

Relevant portion of the transcript:

WALLACE: “Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups…”

TRUMP: “Sure…”

WALLACE: “And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we’ve seen in Portland”

TRUMP: “Sure, I’m prepared to do it, but I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing not from the right-wing. I’m willing to do anything, I want to see peace…”

WALLACE: “Then do it, sir.”

BIDEN: “Do it, say it.”

TRUMP: “What do you want to call them? Give me a name.”

WALLACE: “White supremacists and right-wing militias”

BIDEN: “Proud Boys”

Trump: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left.”

WALLACE: “And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we’ve seen in Portland”

[...]

Trump: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.

Trump parroted the language in the request by Chris Wallace and the named individuals from Biden. It was a gotcha request.

> Trump parroted the language in the request by Chris Wallace

No, he didn't. And while he does have trouble focussing long enough to string together a full coherent sentence, he's not so incompetent with words and shirt phrases to not understand the difference with, or to a inadvertently swap, the terms with very different meaning “stand back”, and particularly “stand by” when intending to repeat “stand down”.

“stand down” means to demobilize.

“stand back” means to pause, usually for planning or emotional reflection.

“stand by” means to be ready for action or orders.

Yes, I watched it and his “stand back and stand by” direction to the Proud Boys wasn't nuanced at all.

In fact, the media tends not to report on the added emphasis on the “stand by”, which served to minimize the “stand back”.

"stand back" was barely a good thing to say, but adding "stand by" is means "and get ready to attack later".

Trump speaks in code, so it's hard to take any of his words at face value. This could be interpreted as "nuance" or, in context with a pattern of behavior, it can be seen as an sly sort of encouragement -- which is how the Proud Boys are taking his comment.

If the way the comment was received is incorrect, then it is up to Trump to correct it. Obviously, he will not be doing so.

You can draw your own conclusions.

More like, he unambiguously condemned Neo nazis and white nationalists right after Charlottesville, so don't repeat that lie. We have the freaking video. https://www.twitter.com/BarrettWilson6/status/13111436668917...

And the Proud Boys' leader looks pretty black for a white supremacist.

This is what I hear: he says white supremacists should be “totally condemned” which is as harsh as an indictment from a 6 year old. And then proceeds to say that the media treated them unfairly, and the “other side” was worse because they dressed in black and used riot gear.

If you say a group should be condemned but then proceed to justify their actions it’s barely a slap on the wrist, and coming from the president the lack of a strong response is actually a form of encouragement.

> If you say a group should be condemned but then proceed to justify their actions

Uh no, he's saying "white supremacists" and "proud boys" are two different groups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com