IBM Employees Protest Cooperation With Donald Trump (theintercept.com) 600
Reader Presto Vivace shares a report on The Intercept: IBM employees are taking a public stand following a personal pitch to Donald Trump from CEO Ginni Rometty and the company's initial refusal to rule out participating in the creation of a national Muslim registry. In November, Rometty wrote Trump directly, congratulating him on his electoral victory and detailing various services the company could sell his administration. The letter was published on an internal IBM blog along with a personal note from Rometty to her enormous global staff. "As IBMers, we believe that innovation improves the human condition. ... We support, tolerance, diversity, the development of expertise, and the open exchange of ideas," she wrote in the context of lending material support to a man who won the election by rejecting all of those values. Employee comments were a mix of support and horror. Now, some of those who were horrified are going public, denouncing Rometty's letter and asserting "our right to refuse participation in any U.S. government contracts that violate constitutionally protected civil liberties." The IBMPetition.org effort has been spearheaded in part by IBM cybersecurity engineer Daniel Hanley, who told The Intercept he started organizing with his coworkers after reading Rometty's letter. "I was shocked, of course," Hanley said, "because IBM has purported to espouse diversity and inclusion, and yet here's Ginni Rometty in an unqualified way reaching out to an admin whose electoral success was based on racist programs."
Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM partnered with a nice man back in the 30s from Germany and that turned out just great!
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
One excellent reason to not repeat the same mistake.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They only paid a 3 million dollar fine. As long as cost of fine is less than the money made, all is good.
Re:Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like their leadership thinks so. Their employees apparently don't.
So something has changed for the better.
so... (Score:4, Insightful)
If only they had shown that kind of backbone during the Obama years and made such a statement about any involvement of IBM in NSA surveillance, creation of massive financial and medical databases on US citizens, and drone killings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When Obama was president, criticism of him was proof that you are a racist and don't deserve to have rights*.
When Trump will be president, refusal to fall in line and mouth the slurs that have been prepared for you to utter without thinking will be proof that you are a racist and don't deserve to have rights.
* Certain left-wing extremists who criticize him for "not going far enough" can be granted an exclusion (consistency is also a trait of racism).
Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure whether this argument is the most overused strawman in US political discourse, or a widespread symptom of being unable to differentiate racist vs. legitimate criticisms, perhaps coupled with a tendency to use racist criticisms.
Re:so... (Score:5, Funny)
The problem with crying racist is that you no longer have the ability to discern between real racists and simple political opponents. Apparently, we actually had to come up with a new word to differentiate between the normal right and the racist right, or alt-right. Unfortunately, I've now heard many identifying everyone who voted for Trump as alt-right. So, we're now going to need some sort of control to differentiate between the normal alt-right and the truly racist alt-right.
I propose "ctrl-alt-right".
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean the next time we'll need to differentiate again, it will be
ctrl-alt-Apple-right ?
Or is that too stigmatizing and should the politically correct term be:
ctrl-alt-Super key-right ?
Maybe we can throw in a shift as well...
Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with crying racist is that you no longer have the ability to discern between real racists and simple political opponents.
Real racists are the ones who view everything through the lens of race. If you are always looking for it, the mirror is the best place to find it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the left was critical of the drone program, and since they're the ones who cry racism their own criticisms are immune.
I'd say it's hyperbole that any criticism of Obama was condemned as racism. But it did happen pretty frequently. e.g. If you opposed his pro-abortion policies, you were a racist because you wanted to make it harder for low-income black women to get abortions [theroot.com].
That's the problem with overplaying the racism or sexism card. Play it too often, and the general public (not the press, which is predominantly left-biased so this falls in one of their blind spots) begins to see what's happening, calls your bluff, and votes for Trump. (Note: I did not vote for Trump. I'm just agreeing that people tend to try to cast ambiguous divisive arguments in terms of unrelated "safe" arguments like racism to try to Godwin the debate.)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if it's a general rule for everyone, but I got called racist for opposing Obama's socialist tendencies in 2008 before he even became president, and was still campaigning. I got it regularly, and I don't care about the colour of his skin (any more than I care about the orange-tinge of Trump's skin).
I saw it so often that I can't believe anyone couldn't see it. In fact, if anything, it's that sort of knee-jerk name-calling of anyone who didn't fully embrace the Obama/Clinton progressive line th
Re: (Score:3)
MSNBC "Racism!" drinking game. [youtube.com] Sorry pal, but you just dont remember it because you werent the target of constantly being called racist for 8 years.
That is just a collection of 1 second clips showing news anchors using the word "racism". There is no context whatsoever. There is racism in the US. Your video means nothing. A minority of "criticisms" of Obama were indeed racist. Most were not. The political debate during his presidency was not obviously influenced by racism in his opponents. I suspect most racist comments would have come from the media and the pundits.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard "conservatives" being called by the media "racist" for opposing the $760 billion stimulus bail out plan.
Cite? One nice thing about the media is that their articles and video tends to stay online in easily-findable archives.
Re: (Score:2)
This is hyperbole and untrue. I've never heard anyone suggest anything remotely like this for reasonable criticisms.
Your problem is hilighted there. You should fix that cognitive bias and see more clearly.
I suspected someone would say that but I wrote it anyway. I wrote it because Obama, like any president, was continuously being criticized. The vast majority of those criticisms were not racially motivated. Some of them were. I was trying to distinguish the two. I didn't mean to imply that any unreasonable criticism of Obama is racist.
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should shift your history marker another 7 or so years before that.
IBM and the Holocaust (Score:2)
Useful backstory to IBM's thinking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust [wikipedia.org]
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me, that these IBM employee's are mad their company hasn't acted belligerently toward the future President. That would just be uncivil, and bad business. Ms. Rometty has instead been cordial and offered services that are well within the bounds of the the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the parable of the boiling frog. If domestic snooping is gradually ramped up, then nobody seems to notice. Same with "corporate personhood".
Re: (Score:2)
1) That is a fable, not a parable.
2) Its also a lie. This doesn't actually work on frogs. The author of that book had never even seen a frog.
Re: (Score:2)
Roots of current batch constitution ignoring go back to FDR.
Maybe he does support those values (Score:3, Insightful)
We support, tolerance, diversity, the development of expertise, and the open exchange of ideas," she wrote in the context of lending material support to a man who won the election by rejecting all of those values.
Here's a thought - perhaps Trump indeed DOES support all those values, and you are all biting at yet more Fake News that attempts to claim he does not... time and again you find that items that paint Trump as a nazi or what have you are all vastly blown out of proportion and based on people or things Trump does not actually support and has disclaimed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did Donald Trump advocate for a Muslim registry? Yes or no?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yahoo news dreamed that one up. He was asked and refused to answer the question... Which is the only way to handle that. He answered a question that wasn't asked, and wasn't ridiculous and stupid. If he spent all of his time denying that he beat puppies and raped ferrets.. and the headlines every day would be "Trump DENIES yet again that the raped that ferret"... he (nor any other politician) would not have won. It was a trap, set and sprung. It IS FAKE NEWS.
And, you fell for it because you wanted it t
Re: (Score:2)
Did Donald Trump advocate for a Muslim registry? Yes or no?
NO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe he does support those values (Score:5, Insightful)
A fake news program, of the "shouting heads" variety. They were hilarious to watch on election night - very entertaining.
If Trump Derangement Syndrome is this bad when the guy's not even president yet, the public meltdowns when he actually starts doing stuff should keep me entertained for years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"We like Trump because he means what he says and says what he means"
http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/07/19/baio-trump-means-what-he-says?videoId=369304888
"Trump didnt mean that, what Trump actually meant was...."
Re:Maybe he does support those values (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, Trump never asked these companies to work on it. They were asked by "reporters" whether they would participate and they've been standing on soap boxes ever since. Fuck every single of them.
Re: (Score:3)
He talked a lot about Muslims directly. I'm not sure I heard anything about a "Muslim Registry", but I did hear a lot of attacking the outside threat of muslim invasion through refugees bringing terrorism to our country. It was one of the more disturbing things about this election, albeit I'm more interested in the ridiculous economic assertions coming out of both sides.
The weirdest part of American politics is liberals are fairly-reasonable while conservatives are completely-insane and prone to conflic
Re:Maybe he does support those values (Score:5, Informative)
No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process. The "Muslim Registry" was part of that fake news that people seem to think helped Trump win the election.
I must call you out on this: it is not "fake news". It is actual news based on something he said [youtube.com]. The transcript is here [go.com]. It's clear that to a degree he is being led on by the reporter and, as is often the case, isn't really thinking about the answers he's giving. He provides vague replies about "management" being the solution and appears distracted. Nonetheless, what's most striking is that he doesn't attach much significance to the concept of a Muslim database. It seems like a totally reasonable idea to him. If I was a Muslim in the US, this is what would worry me. My worry would be compounded by his reaction to the questions in the second half of this video [independent.co.uk]. He's asked about the racial discrimination which a database might bring about and repeatedly avoids the question. He has an opportunity to clarify his views and reassure, but he doesn't take it. It is worrying when someone reacts in the way that he does and none of this information is in any way "fake".
Re:Maybe he does support those values (Score:4, Informative)
No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process. The "Muslim Registry" was part of that fake news that people seem to think helped Trump win the election.
I don't know if it's part of the fake news so much has his own inability to communicate effectively. This article [politifact.com] seems to provide a pretty unbiased perspective on the topic. He didn't reject the concept of a Muslim registry for a few days. However, he never flatly stated he wanted one either. He either wanted one, and changed his mind, or he didn't understand the questions being asked.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorance is strength (Score:4, Insightful)
f he did, it was — likely as not — out of concern for those freedoms and the rights we cherish. Because Islam is incompatible with many of them.
Yes, we must protect the values we cherish by destroying them.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength
Re: (Score:3)
Christian scripture does not compel Christians to these acts. Islamic law does — and that's the difference.
Christianity "renders Cæsar's onto Cæsar" — leaving life on this Earth to the State, whatever it might be. On contrast, Islam prescribes Sharia as the sole acceptable basis for society's laws...
Re: (Score:2)
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Re:Ignorance is strength (Score:5, Insightful)
Be it as it may, large portions [pewresearch.org] of them want Sharia. That alone should make a country — any country — wary of them. An American President, in particular, swears to uphold the Constitution. Keeping track of who is likely to want to abolish it is not at all outrageous — the government keeps track of even of the vehicle-owners, a trait far less dangerous to the Constitution...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A religion doesn't by itself change from believer to believer. Like a Catholic could have an abortion or get divorced, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic church endorses that. What mi said was perfectly accurate about Islam, the religion: it does promote misogyny, homophobia, hatred and intolerance of non-Muslims, amongst a whole lot of things
Which then brings up the question of Muslims: what about the ones who don't believe in Islamic ideals such as death for apostasy, or shariah principles, or h
Re:Islam is anti-freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump's original proposal last year of banning all (non-American) Muslims from coming to the US (which has since morphed into 'Extreme Vetting') was perfectly legal: there are no laws that grant US rights to people not living in the US. But if he did a Muslim registry, which sounds like all Muslims in America - citizens or not - would be compiled into a list, that would probably end up in the Supreme Court.
I agree w/ you that Islam does not belong in the US, but that needs to be done legislatively by de-classifying it as a religion in terms of First Amendment protections. Like there are things in Islam - from death sentences for apostasy, stoning of adulterers, throwing gays from tall buildings, FGMs, et al that are incompatible w/ the US constitution. That's never been tried in court, but needs to be spelt out. Otherwise, someone doing an honor killing can claim first amendment protection of practice of Islam as the basis of strangling his daughter b'cos she was out kissing a Jewish guy.
Re:Islam is anti-freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, ritual infant male genital mutilation, even though it removes more tissue is a-ok. (You should review the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that we begin performing infant female genital mutilation in US hospitals to get a better idea what exactly it is.)
Oddly, the rest of that list is in both Christianity and Islam by way of the Old Testament, even including ritual infant male genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is not a mandatory part of Islam.
If you're not certain, I'd invite this fellow called MikeeUSA to help out your understanding of the Old Testament. He does seem to know what he's talking about when you peel back the insanity.
Re:Islam is anti-freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Islam is incompatible with many of them.
Yup yup, and hardline Christianity isn't. Any religion, when taken to extremes, is antithetical to a country that proclaims religious freedom as one of its cornerstones. Trying to single-out Islam as the problem is nowhere near the solution, it makes you one of them us-vs-them guys that fuels this fire even more.
Re: (Score:3)
Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Deuteronomy 17:
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Luke 19:27:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
As well as Matthew 10:34:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Re:Islam is anti-freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like an argument against Affirmative Action...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy, create policies that do away with these "tribal" tendencies. But you see we tried that and the "crybullies" got upset because that meant certain minorities were poorly represented in certain areas of what they would consider privileged areas of society, like higher education.
If you want to see an example of a meritocracy then look to athletics or the military. Blacks make up about 12% of the US population by most estimates. You don't see a lot of Blacks in the Coast Guard though. How could that be
Re: (Score:2)
Where can I get access to this registry of non-conforming men? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
There are women on sex offender registries as well. It isn't a registry of men, it's a registry of sex offenders. Now I certainly agree some people end up on them that shouldn't, but in general, if you rape someone or molest a child, short of branding that fact on your forehead, a registry seems a good idea.
Re:Maybe he does support those values (Score:5, Informative)
You are right. The Quran does advocate for genocide. Here's just some of those verses, straight from the horse's mouth:
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.
And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Oops! Sorry about that. Those are from the bible. [skepticsan...dbible.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Very good tu quoque argument. Except that the last time a war was fought over Christianity was in 1648 (the Thirty Year War), and in all Christian countries today, non-Christians are not persecuted the way they were during, say, the Spanish Inquisition. Theologically, Christianity has undergone a reformation over the centuries and things like the above are noted as being historical i.e. descriptive, but not prescriptive of how Christians should act.
On the flip side, there are no Muslim countries where n
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you're so wrong it hurts. There were wars in Ireland as late as the 1980s between groups of Christians. And through most of the last millenium Jews in the Muslim world had more freedom there than they did in Christian Europe, where they were forced to only a handful of professions and made to live in walled ghettos (all the easier to occassionally murder them).
ANyone who says Christianity is any better either has their head up their ass, no knowledge of history, or is purposely trying to tar another
Re: (Score:3)
ANyone who says Christianity is any better either has their head up their ass, no knowledge of history, or is purposely trying to tar another religion out of their own sense of hatred. Seems like you're a mix of 1 and 3.
Spoken like a true anal-spelunker.
Everyone not falling over themselves to virtue signal realizes that Christianity is less of a problem in the world today. The IRA did not want to conquer the fucking world. They didn't want to convert, kill or subjugate all non-Catholics. They didn't want to restore Old Testament law or old canon laws. They didn't want to bring back official religious tolerance of or advocacy of slavery.
They just wanted 'the British' (who, as a different ethnic group, happened to be
Re:Maybe he does support those values (Score:4, Insightful)
and its by pure coincidence that all the Catholics just happened to be on one side and the Protestants on the other?
and one side even labeled themselves by what they were: Protestants?
here's a clue: Irish Nationalism is deeply rooted in religious identity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, yes, I'm sure Trump and his Band of Billionaires, including no shortage of climate change deniers, oil men, and foes of civil rights, will treat one and all with all the love and kindness one could expect.
Here's a hint: Forget the news, forget the endless stream of nonsense coming out of Trump's own mouth, and look at what he's doing. He's leading us straight into a years-long shitfest that will take us decades to dig out of. Just the negative impact on climate is enough reason to be terrified of what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise there. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah since when do you give a shit you hypocrites? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where the fuck are all these special-snowflake IBM employees when they have no problem helping their corporate masters commit actual violations of civil liberties in China?
http://vannevar.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Surprisingly insightful. You can't pick and choose what you get outraged about.
Of course you can. It's called partisanship and it happens all the time. The Red/Blue Team will always get outraged when the Blue/Red team does something the Red/Blue team did when it was in power, but that was different because they were the ones doing it! For instance, I'm looking forward to the return of the anti-war left, missing since 2008.
They were in China (Score:4, Insightful)
Shocked (Score:3)
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
There is, and will be, no "Muslim registry" (Score:2, Informative)
They are protesting something that will never be created, because when the rhetoric was translated into reality, it was a proposal to reestablish the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)[1], which was in force through half of President Obama's presidency, and which tracks certain individuals who enter the United States based on country/region of origin and other factors. Useless publicity stunt with commensurate absolutely abysmal coverage by The Intercept.
See also:
8 U.S. Code  11
IBM can have Indian Hindus do it (Score:2)
hmm (Score:2)
More histrionics (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, how much of your own kool-aide can you drink?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics... [go.com]
(warning, bs autoplaying video)
"âoePresident-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false," Jason Miller, Communications Director of the Presidential Transition Team, wrote in a statement. "The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama Administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe the President-elect will release his own vetting policies after he is sworn in.""
The article goes on to illustrate where the idea apparently came from, in a probably-misheard question during a rally.
From what I can see, a good 50% of the panic the left is feeling over the Trump presidency is being startled by THEIR OWN STRAWMEN.
Re:More histrionics (Score:4, Insightful)
The "idea" came in because when repeatedly and directly asked to refute the idea - he hem and hawed and waffled and refused to do so. He may not have directly and openly advocated for such a thing, be he did his very level best to give the impression that he didn't find such violations of civil rights at all unattractive. And this isn't something that happened once, at a rally say, it's something that happened multiple times over a span of days.
Someone repeating the propaganda quote rather than addressing the facts and issues raised in the rest of the article (which it doesn't appear you actually read, or understood) should ask that question of the man in the mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
They build systems for the Nazis (Score:2)
To help them with the Holocaust and use of Nazi concentration camps.
So are we saying that trump is worst then that.
Also IBM build systems for the Japanese internment camps
Trump IS just trolling us, right? (Score:3)
When we recognize this, we ought to wonder if the Muslim Registry is just presented as just another act of trolling. Sure, he has championed a great number of Really Bad Ideas, but this one would be beyond the pale for the overwhelming majority of all people. At least his proposed wall doesn't blatantly fly in the face of any enumerated constitutional rights, but this Muslim Registry inarguably does.
It's hard to really imagine that he actually wants to do this. He must be trolling us, right?
Putting America first is not racist (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are illegal, we want you out. While illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe, I'm looking at you too.
A lot is said about America being a land of immigrants. It is true. Sadly you are not going to be one of them.
purporting to espouse (Score:2)
> because IBM has purported to espouse diversity and inclusion
But you see, everyone only purports to espouse that stuff.
Is he really that naive? (Score:2)
"I was shocked, of course," Hanley said, "because IBM has purported to espouse diversity and inclusion, and yet here's Ginni Rometty in an unqualified way reaching out to an admin whose electoral success was based on racist programs."
Is he so naive as to take internal corporate propaganda seriously, as if the most senior management was actually pursuing diversity and inclusion altruistically, and if they were, for any purpose other than cynically as a means to increase profits?
This guy not only had his bubble burst that IBM leadership weren't really ideologically invested in social justice, but that that they're calculating business leaders willing to go along with just about anything if there's money and long term value in it for IBM.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but we refuse to give into neo-Nazism. We are learning from Germany's big mistake to not just go with the evil flow.
Go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck, and has funny hair like a duck, it's probably a friggen duck.
Re:Waaah! (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess we're supposed to pretend that IBM's technology wasn't used 75-80 years ago to carry out the holocaust?
It's good that the company has learned something since then.
LK
Re: Waaah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hopefully they've learned to do a more effective job this time.
They did an effective job last time. Most of the death camps were profitable. They were very efficiently run, and IBM's tabulating machines helped with that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And, it took all of about 37 seconds before someone compared a businessman and reality TV star to a vicious, military-style dictator who started a world war that caused the death of more than one hundred million people and methodically murdered millions of people in concentration camps.
Yeah, I'm invoking Godwin's Law because it's applicable here and really a really tired comparison.
Re:Waaah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, let's compare a (failed) artist to a TV star. Better?
If the German citizens had nipped it in the bud, it may not have gone as far as it did. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of feeding a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it
Mein Tumpler? (Score:4, Insightful)
Old Adolf didn't start as a Dictator. He started as a ex-corporal and failed artist who found that he got a lot of attention screaming about how Jews were filthy and communists were evil in front of beer hall crowds. He wasn't particularly smart, but he was very charismatic. The similarities between Trump and Adolf's character and politics is striking and rather alarming to people who study world history. The people who just want to demonize Trump will of course throw around the comparison as it suits them.
No, Donald hasn't committed genocide. Comparing him to Hitler in that sense is completely ridiculous. I think the concern that people have about him is that he comes off as a populist bully, someone who is completely willing to throw followers of Islam and Mexicans under the bus in order to gain populist support. In that sense of the comparison, he is very much like Hitler.
Godwin's 'Law', notes that it is OK to discuss Nazis in the context of a topic that pertains to Nazis. So provided that we are not just trying to demonize him, it seems fair. There is a real concern that Trump is going to do some very evil things with power, and starting a national Islam database seems very similar to Germany's first steps with Jewish people. IBM was the company who sold Germany the machines to make punch cards and trace genealogy of Jewish people, so this should be a very touchy topic for IBM.
I don't care if you are pro or anti Trump. Don't get your opinions about him from pundits or talk show hosts. Just watch for yourself what he does very closely and think about history. It is usually a rerun...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but we refuse to give into neo-Nazism. We are learning from Germany's big mistake to not just go with the evil flow.
Go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck, and has funny hair like a duck, it's probably a friggen duck.
And small duck hands, don't forget that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/21/... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I find T's statements and attitudes surprisingly similar to Adolf's. Even if T's are somewhat milder, that's hardly a reason to dismiss them.
"But that iceberg is only 2/3 the one that sank Titanic. Relax!"
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, that phrase gets used a lot. It's not just Trump and Hitler:
"Maybe I want to use them.
Re: Waaah! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are inventing a false dichotomy.
Re: (Score:2)
No he's not inventing one, rather he's just observing a commonly held one.
That, and it's really absurd to label this as a racism thing as in TFS when Islam isn't a race. Besides, this won't happen anyways because it's a pretty clear violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.
Re: (Score:3)
Sh!7 we have a database of everybody but I don't remember anybody calling the Obama Administration "fascist."
The government does not have a database of everyone's religion. The only time the government ever asked me my religion was when I was a Marine and a PFC asked as he was using a metal punch machine to make my dogtags. I was told it was to ensure I got the right funeral. It didn't go into any database.
Re:trump never said that (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:trump never said that (Score:4, Interesting)
Preface: I voted against Trump.
In the first clip I'm noticing that Trump refers to borders and walls suggesting his mind is in the context of immigration from the south. That would mean his comments about databases refer to immigration in general. Islam isn't referenced until late in the clip, and then by the interviewer rather than Trump. My conclusion: Trump and the interviewer are talking about two different things. It's unclear if the interviewer intended for that to happen. It's also unclear whether some of the interview from before the clip we see would've established a Muslim context to what we see.
In the second clip Trump seems to try to avoid the question. I can interpret that as him being evasive or as him being annoyed at the question. Being annoyed would be understandable if Trump has not proposed a Muslim database. I haven't seen evidence he has. A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it! Now an immigration database would be handy to have in the unlikely event Canada invades..." if he has not proposed a Muslim database, but I don't think Trump is very smart (see my preface).
Re: (Score:2)
A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it!
That is exactly the point. But I don't think this is a question of being smart. I think this is a question of him at heart not being opposed to this idea. In fact, he's a narcissist who is not opposed to any idea that inflates his ego and gives him air time. All publicity is good publicity as far as he's concerned. He fought his whole campaign that way. Consequently, nobody really knows what he'll do when he gets into office. If he decides that his popularity will go up if there is a database of every Musl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the good old days when marxists didn't call themselves 'center-left liberals'? Neither do I, they've been doing it my entire life.
Re:trump never said that (Score:4)
Nothing he said implied that he supported creating a database specific to Muslims. He was talking about expanding and better managing long existing systems [cbp.gov] which track people entering/exiting the US. Yes, because some immigrants are Muslim, they should be in the database (same as others). But, because he refused to say that he wouldn't track Muslims, the alt-left fake news says he wants a "Muslim database", says Muslims would be in it based solely on their religion, and implies it would include US citizens.
I get how people can misunderstand things he says - he's not well read, not very articulate, and doesn't have a career politician's ingrained care with words. It gets him in trouble, but it doesn't make him evil.
Re: trump never said that (Score:4, Insightful)
NYT is the prime driver of fake news.
I genuinely find this comment chilling. Things have entered a spiral that going in a worrying direction. If we can't agree on the facts under debate then we are all (regardless of our political affiliation) going to be fucked. It's in everyone's interest not to create a fog that makes dialog and reasoned debate impossible. When debate becomes impossible we no longer have a democracy. Elections are just window dressing.