[sillysaurus3]

Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald.

For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's literally propaganda, but from the other direction.

Now, you can argue that you should fight the good fight and that it's immoral to say anything positive about him. Sure, I sort of buy that: If Trump was equivalent to nazis, then we should resist that from becoming a reality.

And yet he's not. From what I've studied of history, the climate today is similar-ish to 1920's Germany. But if you examine the details of how the Nazi party seized power, you'll find they held guns up to people's heads in order to get various statesmen to vote a certain way. The German political institutions were captured by popular vote, then by force. And as long as we avoid the latter, the former isn't necessarily an indication that fascism is on the rise.

But it's hard to make that argument in this climate. If you try, you're shouted down or misinterpreted or outright framed. And that's the central issue here: When you become a zealot, you lose the ability to take advantage of the opposition's good ideas. Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas?

I'm worried that in the process of fighting Trump, we'll lose reason and rationality.

[philipodonnell]

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas?

You're not wrong in that its important to hear both sides, but its also important to hear an appropriate amount from each side corresponding to the acceptableness of the ideas. Minority voices are important. When we find ourselves in the majority, we should be responsible for ensuring that those minority voices have a way to be heard. But not that they should automatically be heard equally to majority voices in all spaces.

Trump is a minority voice. The election results and polling are clear on that. So the question becomes more about how much weight we, as the majority, should give to those ideas. And like, I hate to be that guy, but... not much. He doesn't actually seem to have any substantive policies to debate, its just slogans and ideas. The substantive stuff either gets mentioned and then forgotten by the next news cycle (what happened to the national emergency on opioids?), changes on a whim, or is just him talking and other people in his administration (or party) ignoring him and doing whatever they wanted.

I just don't see the value in spending a lot of time/cognitive load considering that perspective on a regular basis, though I do venture into T_D sometimes to see what they are thinking. The current dichotomy of /r/politics vs /r/the_donald seems to have balanced itself out pretty well, I think.

[pjc50]

> Trump is a minority voice. The election results and polling are clear on that. So the question becomes more about how much weight we, as the majority, should give to those ideas.

I think this is actually irrelevant; it doesn't matter whether someone's ideas are in a minority, only whether they are good ideas, bad ideas, and the proponent is interested in constructive engagement.

[ThomPete]

And yet political parties around Europe are and have been popping up representing the same kind of voters. Who don't look to the future with optimism but with skepticism.

I always try to make sure I give a politician as much credit for their intent as possible not just those I agree with but everyone.

No one is just a bag of evil or only good. Yet when we discuss politics we always end up there as this thread is a good example of.

Whatever legacy Trump will end up leaving we don't know yet. It might lead to something amazing even if it wasn't on purpose (certainly happened to Reagan) or it might be that just the right kind of irrationality is actually quite rational in hindsight.

Political decisions often have decades of decay. It's impossible to say what Trumps (the few he has actually made) are going to mean.

It's never that simple.

[_fizz_buzz_]

I think the problem (e.g. for advertisers) isn't so much that it is one sided, but more about the quality of the content.

3 top post from /r/politics (right now):

* 17 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct. It’s time to revisit those stories * South Carolina women’s hoops team decline invite to White House * Nobody knows where Trump's leftover inauguration funds went, causing outrage and change in Washington

One sided: yes. Something that is problematic for advertisers: probably not.

On r/the_donald:

* Raise your hand if you're the greatest shitposter of all time! GOD-EMPEROR * MRW I wake up to GEOTUS shitpostsGOD-EMPEROR * Stand, Never Kneel! They Deserve Our Respect #fucktheNFL#StandForOurAnthem

Now try to be impartial. Is that advertiser friendly? Is that quality content?

[sillysaurus3]

T_D is already banned from /r/all. During the election you'd see a T_D post bubble up to the top often enough that Command-F "The_Donald" would give at least 4 out of 200. Now there's not a single post in the top 300. And I don't think they necessarily ran afoul of vote manipulation rules and therefore got banned: the election demonstrates there are just a lot of vocal supporters.

It's something of a myth that T_D needs to be banned in order to appease advertisers. They keep to themselves.

Fortunately spez is smart. Bringing down the hammer on T_D could very well start a civil war. He seems to be wary of this.

[Ygg2]

> Is that advertiser friendly? Is that quality content?

If there's enough eyeballs. Probably.

[supercanuck]

The difference between /r/politics and /r/the_donald, is that positive comments about Trump on /r/politics get down voted into oblivion but still are capable of being read and seen, on /r/the_donald, they simply get removed and the user is banned.

To imply that those two are equal, is disingenuous.

[moojd]

Also, one is sub meant for general political discussion and the other is clearly meant to be an echo chamber for one side's ideas. /r/the_donald is awful but at least it doesn't pretend to be impartial.

[52-6F-62]

But it is impartial in that you won't be removed for discussion in good faith, though you may be disagreed right to the bottom.

Spiteful trolling usually gets down-voted to hell as well (thankfully).

A little too often I see hyperbolic vitriol and shitposting persist, and though I don't mind the odd gag, it's not warranted. It clogs the thread as much as anything else.

That subreddit is impartial in itself. It's consensus of the participants, not censorship, if unpopular ideas aren't promoted whichever way they lean.

[wolco]

It reflects the mods.

[52-6F-62]

How do vote tallies reflect the mods?

[supercanuck]

If they ban users, those users don't get to vote.

[dsfyu404ed]

>you won't be removed for discussion in good faith,

>though you may be disagreed right to the bottom.

Is there a difference?

Both actions basically say "this speech is not worthy of consideration around here". The difference between making it still available to serve as a warning or removing it entirely is not meaningful IMO.

[supercanuck]

Downvoting says your opinion is unpopular. Banning means your opinion is unwelcome.

There is a difference. You are being obtuse.

[enord]

>Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

As is required to maintain what I would call a "democracy" with "individual rights". We have to be vehemently intolerant of intolerance and marginalization (in general), and this is more important than free speech. Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. Some people get this backwards, usually the kind of people who can't keep their foot out of their mouth.

[Danihan]

>Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however.

That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective.

Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away.

Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.

[Cryptid]

"Is the Second Amendment the Second Most Important?" - "The order of that list, however, still reflects Madison’s view: They come in the same order as the sections of the Constitution that they would have modified."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

[tscs37]

The first amendment only exists in the US and only started existing well after democracy was invented.

[Danihan]

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

[tscs37]

In what way does this respond to my comment? I asserted that America's amendment does not exist in other legislations and that democracy has been far older than america. None of which are relevant in your comment.

[ABCLAW]

The first amendment did not create democracy. It was enacted in one. That's the point being made.

[Danihan]

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

[wolco]

Being intolerant of ideas makes you intolerant even if you classify those ideas as good or bad.

Being intolerant isn't always a bad thing either.

Everything is not black or white. Move the pieces around and the minority become the majority in different contexts.

[enord]

I don't have time to socratically convince you of it, so i'll just spell it out: you can't tolerate intolerance of groups, persons or behaviors (that don't infringe on other people's liberty) in a _democracy_ because it will undermine the legitimacy and thus participation of said group or person within the democracy itself.

I realize that "intolerance of intolerance" is paradoxical in nature, but common sense and a little charity in interpretation goes a long way.

[conanbatt]

And who defines who is intolerant in this democracy of yours.

[52-6F-62]

Consensus, or consensus of representatives.

[conanbatt]

Intolerants can't have consensus?

[52-6F-62]

They have before. The results have been noted. Germany was one place where intolerant groups rose to prominence through eventual consensus.

It just happens that on these little internet message boards, the consensus shifts in another favour, and the same seems to be [mainly] true in North American societies, amongst others.

[conanbatt]

If there is no principle behind the desire to oppress, it is just an application of violence.

You won't get consensus out of me for that.

[ohyes]

The viewpoint is slightly different.

> Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

This isn't about correctness.

The viewpoint is:

Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you support them, you must be evil and desire harm to others, at very least indirectly.

Even if the racists/misogynists of the world were 'correct' I wouldn't want to live in world where we legitimize that. And that's why a lot of us reject him and his policies wholesale.

Saying "well he's right about free trade" (I don't believe this, but as an example) undermines the rhetorical context of fighting something much worse than bad economic policy.

[ThomPete]

Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny? It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent.

Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender?

Why is it a better world to live in where you ban one view rather than the other when the result is more less the same. Someone is getting oppressed.

[ohyes]

> Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny?

I think these are pretty well defined.

Racism: Prejudice against others based on race.

Misogyny: Prejudice against women.

> It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent.

There's a difference between having a normal level of in-group selection bias and realizing it is wrong, and spouting racist/sexist rhetoric.

> Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender?

No. You still let them speak and vote but you don't listen, and if asked, you tell other people they shouldn't listen. You can refuse to let them use your company to spread their hate.

You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to someone else's bully pulpit.

The concern that racists are getting oppressed is laughable. I don't understand the mental gymnastics required to justify that thought process.

[ThomPete]

Lots of things are well defined only to completely fail when it comes to being used in a real context. There are many obvious examples and even more less obvious examples.

Trump is a good example of a person who has said some racist things but even more things that were interpreted as racist.

We are all racist even if we don't want to be, we cannot help ourselves the question then becomes how do we let that affect us and how we act on that.

And so if it only takes one example to show someone is racist then we all are.

It's much less well defined once you look at the entirety and doesn't just take a sentence out of its context.

Language is tricky and defining something well does not mean it's easy to put things into these boxes.

You are right there is a difference and to the extent, it easy to identify this racist/sexist rhetorics we should obviously object to it.

But it's not much different when liberals paint all Trump voters racist. Very often do we see comments that were not meant racist suddenly be attacked simply because of the person who said it.

You are not a better person just because you are against racism if you base your judgment of what constitutes a racist or a racist remark on who said it and we shouldn't listen to you more by your own definition.

You can very easily be a Trump voter and not a racist and you can eve be a Trump voter and against racism or misogyny as that exist on both sides. Yet listening to the public debate one should think it only happens on one side.

Two wrongs don't make a right and yet it seems like most liberals (and I count myself amongst the liberal crowd) basically justify the sentiment you seem to be supporting with something along the lines of "well he/she started".

There are (luckily) very few racist in the Hitler sense of racist.

[beager]

> For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing.

Not true. There was positive commentary about Trump's speech in South Korea. I think you just misestimate how often the thing he does is perceived by the general public as bad.

[supercanuck]

I challenge you to find an equivalent thread such as this one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7bldfo/trump_mad...

on /r/the_donald accepting criticism of Donald Trump.

[jlos]

>> From what I've studied of history, the climate today is similar-ish to 1920's Germany.

In what respects? As far as I can recall, the US did not just move from a monarchy to a democratic republic 15 years ago as a result of a revolution after loosing a world war.

I think the populist discontent behind Trump is real and concerning, but Pre-WWII Germany and current day US are very, very, different places. I think its fair to request that if you wish to make a parallel with Nazi Germany, you substantiate the claim with specific historic evidence.

[abiox]

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas?

there was dropping the tpp... maybe. that's probably good, but i have mixed feelings. anything else?

[Spivak]

He/His administration negotiated a some positive trade deals with China that people who work in foreign trade seem to be happy with.

[52-6F-62]

I think that remains to be seen. I don't recall any word of him signing any deals with them. He claims they pledged to spend "billions" on weapons and other contracts — that seems to be all we've heard so far.

I'm contrasting that with (my) Canada who has been actively signing with China since the first rumblings of trade discord with the US.

Not saying it's impossible or not true, but I'm wary. That weird angry screaming he did at his bizarre presser the other day was not overly convincing. If it was anybody else, I would have sworn they were on uppers of some kind...

[pjc50]

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas

Some of the stuff he said on the campaign sounded great - in fact enough to get him elected. It appears he has no intention of implementing it. Does that make it worth discussing? No.

As we say about startups, ideas are cheap and execution is everything.

[te_chris]

It's not propaganda if he's actually THAT bad. I'm being deadly serious. He is not a normal candidate and claiming that it's biased because there are lots of true stories about a bad person is a feature of our media, not a bug!

It says more about Trump's fans that they're willing to overlook his egregious failings and attack and undermine quasi-impartial institutions just to point score than it does about bias.

[tomp]

So... what were the actually bad things that actually happened because of Trump (i.e. because of something he did)? In my view, much like with Brexit, the fearmongering is way exaggerated compared to reality.

[FrozenTuna]

Assuming you've been paying exactly zero attention to anything going on, here's a few major things that he is responsible for:

Travel ban targeting Islamic countries

Withdrawal of Paris Agreement

Fired head of FBI when Comey wouldn't declare personal loyalty

Issued a directive to the department of health agencies "waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay" portions of the ACA

Soon to be pretty closely tied to:

Tax bill making graduate school significantly more expensive

FCC votes to kill net neutrality next month

These are, in my opinion, the worst offenses. There are many other things that he is either responsible for or closely related to. A simple google search yields list after list of things he's done both large and small.

[fhood]

I think the major fear is the precedent he sets for divisive politics in the future. He also may cause the US to loose ground to China as far as foreign influence goes, but the first point is what worries me.

[tomp]

I think the politics were divisive before. In fact, I'd claim that Trump's election is the result of divisive politics.

[beepboopbeep]

The purposeful gutting/disorganization of major federal agencies and operations, the discrediting of the white house's statements, the undermining of existing federal law (see: explicitly sabotaging the ACA), then there's, of course, aiding and abetting enemies in order to win an election.

[ThomPete]

What exactly is it you mean these things show? Sounds mostly like you are complaining about his form than anything he has actually done.

Is it worse than Bush administration who started a war?

[beepboopbeep]

I just don't know how else to tell you that these things are all very bad. They, to me, should appear bad at face value. We clearly differ in the perception of the world at a fundamental level.

[ThomPete]

Even if they are bad are they as bad as Bush starting a war?

It's claimed that somehow Trump is the worst of them all. From what you have stated here do you personally think they are worse things than Bush starting a war?

[tomp]

So... typical politics or unproven allegations. Got it. Not like... starting wars (like 4 previous presidents have done) (although he's still got time, I'll give you that).

[beepboopbeep]

I know 2 data points do not make a pattern, but it's really weird that both replies to my comment are in a similar vein from usernames that appear to be variants of "Tom P"

[pjc50]

Unconstitutional religious discrimination by executive order: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/21/donald-trump-muslim-ban-...

Simple failure to do the job: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics...

[ThomPete]

And yet isn't all you have to show for that his tweets.?

Which of his actions shows that he is that bad.

You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see that you are proving the parents' point.

[te_chris]

I don't understand how you can even argue that, unless you're trolling?

[bluGill]

Your reply says a lot about you.

[masterrex]

No, it's baseless propaganda and character defamation cranked to 11.

Your hypocritical hivemind tends to overlook that your queen bee accepted tens of millions from the KSA/Qatar in campaign contributions with the knowledge that, in her OWN words, they provide clandestine and logistic support to ISIL. It's OK to be white, it's OK to be American, and it's OK to love your country.

[sctb]

We ban accounts that abuse Hacker News by posting only political or ideological comments. This isn't a place to wage such wars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[artursapek]

I got banned from T_D for saying that the reason Obama spent more $ on new regulations in his first 100 days than Trump did was because Obama inherited the financial crisis and Trump inherited an 8 year bull market. It was a simple fact that got me perma-banned. Both of the communities are terrible circle jerks.

[dingo_bat]

You actually expect that from a sub called "the donald". You don't expect that kind of bias from a sub called "politics".

[philipodonnell]

You're probably placing too much emphasis on the name.

Subreddits are reflective of the moderators and readers. There is no objectively higher criteria to determine whether a subreddit is or should be "free from bias", only that they should reflect the makeup their membership, which they do.

[abiox]

it's a reddit sub so i don't have any expectation, but fwiw, "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective".

[dingo_bat]

> "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective".

I think it absolutely does.

[abiox]

as i see it:

"unbiased" is, if hearing is given to a position, it is either not represented with favor or disfavor, or any expressions of favor and disfavor are combined in such quantity that there is no obvious position with respect to (un)favor.

"objective" is, if hearing is given to a position, it is discussed in terms of empirical data that persists regardless of subjective views or interpretations.

"balance" coverage is giving hearing to all positions, no matter how idiotic or inane. "balance" is giving nazis and jews equal airtime to argue their views on whether the holocaust is a good idea. "balance" is rapists and rape victims debating the merits of rape.

[coldtea]

>And as long as we avoid the latter, the former isn't necessarily an indication that fascism is on the rise.

Especially since in most accounts, Trump is more alike with Obama than not. Obama send home hundreds of thousands of immigrants, both back a shameless war machine (in fact Trump was more reluctant about that and more isolationist until the republican establishment forced his hand -- and then press found him instantly, if temporarily, more "presidential"), both have advanced the interests of corporatists, etc. If you didn't have the Obamacare repeal (which I'd call bad) they'd be 99% alike in their results.

One had better table manners and is a better (still ho-hum and totally fake) actor (in the kind of low quality populist soft-PR video like "the President interviewed by Zach Galifianakis" and "Another day at the office", etc that presidents feels obliged to put out post Clinton who popularized that BS to show us how funny and/or everyday people they are) compared to the vulgar billionaire, but that's more or less it.