[Swizec]

SFO is much closer than Syria. Anyone can go protest, anyone can go take pictures and post on social media.

The trouble that strikes at home always feels more important than the trouble that strikes far away.

Many people have friends who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves. Few people have friends living in those countries.

What worries me personally is what if this border closing stuff escalates further and further. I'm here on a visa and my country is not on the list, but who knows what they might come up with.

Especially considering the rumors that they're asking questions about allegiance to the regime and checking social media.

Hello future border agent waves

[potatosoup]

(deleted)

[grzm]

Please stop. It's not a binary issue, but unfortunately the elections are effectively a binary choice. And sometimes it takes a while for people to wake up. Encourage them to be consistent. Continually calling out hypocrisy isn't going to make people more likely to agree with you. Quite the opposite. Do you think the Executive Order should be opposed? If so, let people feel their oats now and engage. Once engaged, it's even more likely they'll be politically reflective and active in the future.

If you're fine with the Executive Order, fine, but please engage more constructively and civilly.

[rdtsc]

There is nothing wrong in pointing out hypocrisy. It is a pretty reasonable rhetoric technique.

I think his point stands, these refugees didn't appear in a vacuum. It is not a natural disaster or act of God. It was mostly due to destabilization efforts from the West. Wonder what the historical record is of these CEOs lobbying Obama to stop bombing or supporting "rebels" in those parts. I think it is worth having that discussion...

Now I think it a pretty bad decision to prevent Green Card holders to re-enter. I was one for many years, I can imagine how it feel being denied entry.

[emcq]

Why is it that people like scratching the hypocrisy itch? It's not even a logical fallacy. In fact, pointing out hypocrisy as a way of negating the merits of an argument _is a logical fallacy_: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I think we as commenters on HN should hold ourselves to a higher bar.

Pointing out hypocrisy changes the conversation in a way that avoids discussing the relative merits of an argument. It doesn't invalidate the original argument - it's just that, rhetoric.

For example, I'm sure there were other hypocritical posts today. Isn't it hypocritical to try and fight hypocrisy by commenting on specific political points in a discussion but not others? (please dont take this argument seriously as I'm just offering it as an example of rhetoric)

[jpttsn]

Thing is, what guarantee does your opponent have that you will care about muslims when there is a democrat in the White House?

It's like a game theory problem. Rhetoric becomes meaningless: there needs to be a track record that shows that you cooperate.

That's why hypocrisy is invoked in the debate; rather than an argumentative tool, I see hypocrisy accusations as "flags" that say "I can't cooperate because of your low credibility"

If this sounds harsh, I sincerely apologize.

[rdtsc]

People don't talk in first order predicate logic, it is just not how it works. Insisting on it is silly I think. Once in while mentioning "Ha! got ya, you just committed logical fallacy ${Latin_term}!" works. And is certainly very useful in rigorous arguments, but how fun is to converse with someone who throws that around after every sentence?

[emcq]

I had no suggestion that people converse in first order predicate logic.

I did suggest we are all smart enough here that we can have rich discussions without committing clear logical fallacies. HN is special in that the majority cares about thoughtful discussions and reasoning. Because of this I often read the comments in HN before the article, where historically the signal to noise ratio is quite high.

There are plenty of other forums for rhetoric or fun conversations.

[grzm]

I agree with all of your points. 'potatosoup has been making essentially the same comment throughout the day without engaging further in any nuanced way. It's one thing to point out inconsistencies in a constructive manner. It's quite another to repeatedly spout the same tired line. I'm not out to score rhetorical points. I don't think HN is a place for that.

As for the historical record, we can't do anything about what has happened in the past now. We can learn to do better. I know I'm not perfect and have things I can improve, which means I'm going to have to change and as a result be inconsistent with my past actions. It's true that some people are insincere and continue to be inconsistent and fair weather civil libertarians or what-have-you, but it's also the case that sometimes it takes a serious kick to mobilize people, and once mobilized they remain so. And if those that aren't consistent happen to align with me on an issue I care about, I'm not going to turn them away if it means that a temporary alliance helps a cause I care about. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt as long as is reasonable.

[tomp]

You (and others) keep dismissing accusations of hypocrisy as "non-constructive", "non-arguments", "logical fallacies" or "rhetoric techniques". By deflecting this (perfectly valid) criticism, you're only confirming their (our?) point. Yes, the accusation of hypocrisy avoids debating the argument that immigration ban is immoral, but the point is, when someone accuses you of hypocrisy, they don't even believe your arguments - they think you're making the arguments in bad faith, making them up just to support your "side" (Democrats), as if you were truly moral, you would have been protesting for 8 years already. So, people see this protest merey as virtue signalling, protesting against Republicans that would have happened regardless of the issue at hand.

You might disagree with the logic above, but I don't think you'll be winning any arguments by pointing out that it's just "a rhetorical technique".

[TheOtherHobbes]

No, that's nonsense.

For one, there's genuine concern now that the next step will be action against "internal dissidents" or "malcontents" or "nonconformists" - or whatever language this administration decides to use against people who protest actively, or even just on FB and Twitter.

There's already an internal no-fly list. How happy will voters be when friends and family start appearing on it because they criticised the administration?

For another, freedom of movement - within the limits of immigration and the visa system - is a basic human right. With this action Trump has crossed the line from party politics to an attack on human rights in general. That's a protest-worthy step change in itself.

Finally, there has actually been quiet but steady agitation against foreign wars all the way back to 2003. (If not before.) It's never been as high profile, and it's been considered a "far left" effort.

The Democrats in the US are an unfortunate amalgam of incompatible interests, and there's always been a solid pro-war core of financial and political opportunists in the party who are consistently at odds with the ethical position of many mainstream D voters.

If "people see this as virtue signalling" that's up to them. I don't think they do, because this level of protest is unusual.

And also, to point out the glaringly obvious, it's not as if talk of building a wall or locking out people with green cards can't be even more easily dismissed as virtue signalling itself. For some reason the right seems to believe virtue signalling is purely a left wing pastime - which is a curious conceit, and is clearly incorrect.

[jpttsn]

People also feel it's "unfair" when they don't have any options for establishing their track record today. They don't have 8 years to build up credibility, and they hope to instead convince people of their good intentions verbally, mortgaging their supposed future protests against Democrat-era abuses.

[grzm]

It's certainly a pickle.

One thing I want to get out of the way: I personally don't align very well strictly Democrat or Republican. I actually think it's unlikely that anyone aligns perfectly with one or the other. I also find this type of bucketing problematic because it reinforces this us versus them polarization that, among other things, prevents people from seriously considering that they may actually agree with some of the things people on the "other" side might believe.

As for deflecting criticism, as you call it, I'm not sure what realistic alternative there is. One would be to say, for example "oh, you're right! I was so wrong all those years! I should have been doing more!" That's tough for anyone to come out and say. How often do you hear someone actually say that? More likely people will shift their stance and act on it. It would be great if people would come out and say this. Accusing them of hypocrisy (as opposed to more constructive encouraging a change in behavior) makes it even harder for people to do so.

Another alternative could be to flip it around and point out where those who are accusing them of hypocrisy are themselves hypocritical. And assuredly there are cases of this. No one, much less a party, is so self-consistent to be immune from such criticism. But would that be constructive? I don't think so. That would only further polarization and increase the divide, each side thinking the other all the more unreasonable.

I'm sure I'm missing other alternatives here. Feel free to suggest your own.

I completely agree with you regarding the level of disbelief and bad faith that's currently abundant. How do we get beyond that? At some point if you're not willing to believe people at their word, can you at least believe their actions? You may, for a while, think they're insincere while they go about doing things that you might actually agree with, but if they continue to do so, even if you don't believe their sincerity, does it make sense not to work with them, at least on the projects that further your goals and don't require you to compromise on any of your other goals?

As for virtue signaling, 'tptacek had a very insightful comment on this today (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512522):

Serious question: have you noticed how there's no way to level that accusation without feeling like a jerk? It's because it's hard to accuse someone of doing something good for the wrong reason without behaving like a jerk.

There's more, and I think the whole thing is worth reading.

I honestly don't know how to bridge the gap, to reduce the polarization we're now experiencing. I do believe that continuing to act in bad faith, to obstruct and name-call is definitely not going to help.

If you don't think this gap can or should be bridged (and I don't mean "convince everyone to agree with me"), feel free to dismiss everything I say. If there were a way on HN to hide all comments from a particular member, I'd encourage you to block me, as that's really all I'm about.

[einarvollset]

So.. your thesis is: supporting Clinton (against Trump) is somehow anti muslim (how exactly? Never mind, let's just grant you that for arguments sake)

But demonstrating against Trump when he proves their worst fears (including being anti Muslim in the dumbest of ways possible) is "virtue signaling" somehow?

I think you need to take a break and work on your Logic 101.

[adventured]

Clinton's support of bombing numerous Muslim countries in the Middle East as Secretary of State and prior to that, would blatantly be considered anti-Muslim if it were Trump doing it, just as it was considered anti-Muslim under Bush. Hillary was an extremely aggressive supporter of the Iraq invasion, the war in Afghanistan, the US involvement in Libya, the bombing of Syria, and the drone programs that bombed numerous Muslim nations including Pakistan.

[robryan]

Not supporting Clinton would have been effectively supporting Trump. Wouldn't it be greater hypocrisy to support Trump then protest?

[inopinatus]

Sounds like you're inventing principles for yourself and then complaining that others don't conform to them.

[F2]

"Trump wants us to stop fighting these wars."

Proof?

[aaronbrethorst]

Here's some evidence to the contrary. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/01/24/trump-iraq-oil

"...If we kept the oil you probably wouldn't have ISIS because that's where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil, but OK. Maybe we'll have another chance."