Hacker News Reader

Comment by phoinix | Hacker News Reader

I listen to Ron Paul all the time, not even once i have listened him to be racist or hateful to anyone, or advocate for violence. Actually this is what i dislike him the most, that he is too peaceful, almost against all wars. Other subjects he comments usually, is the climate change that it may be true, but most probably not man-made, he is not favor at all the compulsory vaccination because it is totally unscientific, and that most of the covid measures are totally authoritarian.

However silencing the political opposition is always a necessary step we have to make, so as to have a good functional democracy.

View on HN

I mean, come on.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+racism&oq=ron+paul+...

Sorry, that's misinformation (pulled right from your search). Nothing there points to Paul being racist

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

https://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story...

I think 'cherrypicked out of your search' is more accurate. For instance, here's the first author you selected "Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review [...]"

Wikipedia is maybe a more reasonable averaging of all sources. And it's mostly a long history of bigoted stuff that Ron Paul was not responsible for but somehow kept showing up in a newsletter with his name on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters

Wikipedia is also very biased on political matters, according to its co-founder Larry Sanger.

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

I don't get your point, even Wikipedia claims that he didn't write them.

Well, if 51% of Wikipedians believe it's true, it must be so.

Actually in the 1978 that published some controversial publications i was not even born yet. However Ron is saying that they were taken out of context. Authoritative news usually do that, that's why 90% of the time they spread fake news. Some people may argue that authoritative news spread fake news 99% of the time, but i find that a hyperbole and i stick to the 90%. Point me if you so desire to the exact publication with the context around it. One or two pages would be fine. Thanks.

Ron Paul's newsletter didn't contain bigoted content because 90% of mainstream news is fake news doesn't sound empirically plausible to me. What are the 9 fake stories of the 10 top stories reported in mainstream media yesterday? Or really any 9 fake stories, out of the thousands.

Well that 99% percent statement was not meant to be read absolutely seriously, but many news outlets take out of context, sentences of the political opposition all the time. I am sorry, but half the truth, is half the lie and not half the truth. You still didn't point out a good example of a racist statement from Paul. With the full context around it. And if you can, limit the statement's time horizon on last one or two decades.

> Some people may argue that authoritative news spread fake news 99% of the time, but i find that a hyperbole and i stick to the 90%.

Nice try, but referencing an equally baseless but more extreme claim doesn't make your own claim less baseless.

Thanks, that's true.

A good politician is never blatantly racist, that's political suicide.

Anyway, it's not enough to "not be racist", that's like the default, like "being nice to others" is. What are you when you're not nice? Just "there"? No, you're a prick.

When it comes to racism, if you're not openly against it, you condone it, and you're part of the problem.

Take Trump; in his position, he can take down the extreme right paramilitary organizations, the Proud Boys, the KKK, the conservative churches, etc. But he chooses not to, instead dogwhilstling his approval and support; statements like "stand back and stand by", encouraging the crowds to storm the Capitol, etc etc etc. He knows he'd be booted out hard if he starts to hard-R his way through speeches, but dogwhistles have no consequences, and inaction has no direct consequences.

>if you're not openly against it, you condone it, and you're part of the problem.

No ideology on the planet based on "us vs them" is legitimate. Nobody is going to rile up people for you, for free.

> part of the problem.

You are right on all your words except that one part. Of course politicians know how string together two sentences with nice sounding words to convey any meaning they want. But Ron never said a homeless of one colour is more homeless than any other colour. A hungry of one colour more hungry of any other colour. But if you want to put your words into any other person, that's the start of a theocracy.

Many stuff about the climate change, are almost any other religion. And of covid too. Ron says many times hair raising stuff for the newly minted religion of the atheist left.

P.S. i personally eat the bark of the pine tree every day almost all day, specifically for climate change. If we make it economically viable to plant big trees in cities, because people will be benefiting from them as a food source, then climate may reverse in no time. But it may not be man made. And meat production is the worst for the climate, i am a vegan for years.

> he can take down the extreme right paramilitary organizations, the Proud Boys, the KKK, the conservative churches, etc.

Emphasis mime.

That's a fine mix my friend!

Greetings from a conservative churchgoer who'd rather not be lumped together with KKK!

Minimum wage laws when instituted were racist. To this day it still detrimentally affects individuals trying to enter a work force by creating an artificial barrier.

Currently, there is a push to increase the minimum wage to $15. If I oppose this on my concept of what it is, a vestige of systematic racism that contributes further to that system, then what do I make of proponents of the increase who argue that voting against it is racist.

The entire endeavor is a waste of time, the politicos will do what they want and then tell you why we should hate Eurasia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com