We have to return to free speech and the exchange of free ideas. Banning people for having opposing viewpoints is a big step backwards. If you disagree with someone, hear them out and then explain why your idea is better.
free speech is a principle that the government can't silence you. it never meant that other people have to listen to you or care what you say.
There's no compromise on either side, why talk about different points of view, if you are not going to change your mind.
Thank the removal of earmarks and Citizens United for that.
Legislators are dependent on those sweet PAC dollars (or more critically, dependent on someone else not getting them) in order to get re-elected and without an earmark to bring home to your district to please your voters with you can't risk losing goodwill with the party elites who control the purse strings by breaking from the party.
Over the last 10 years, only one side has been consistent in blocking and denying compromise to the other. The Democrats, sadly, naively, keep trying for compromise because they haven't yet quite grasped what's going on (although it finally seems to be filtering through - the Republicans are never going to compromise.)
The majority of Republicans want businesses to have the right to refuse gays[5], so it seems logical that they (and Will Hurd) would support the right to refuse to include someone based on ideology.
1. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
2. https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-belief...
3. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...
4. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
5. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-religio...
This glosses over some important nuance on the "religious freedom" side of that issue. In the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, for example, they didn't discriminate against gay people, per se - they served gay customers. They refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding specifically.
On the religious freedom side of the argument, they maintain that its a kind of compelled speech to require the baker to make a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. I'm not saying I buy it completely, but its an earnest argument advanced in good faith - and shouldn't be reduced to bigotry/prejudice.
Because disinviting is stupid and getting way too common now. This is like the 5th case of this I've seen within the past year. If they is going to be a heckler's veto then get the heckler's permission before inviting.
People with Hurd's views are welcomed in most places in the country. Despite having minority viewpoints, they form the majority of elected officials due to the way districts are drawn. They're CEOs, board members, and prominent parts of almost every group. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that people like Hurd are ostracized in a general sense.
Also, having unpopular views as a lawmaker (so not just having them, but trying to enact them into law) means that a brand may not want to be associated with you.
When the US was founded, one would have been ostracized for being a loyalist to the Crown. Or an atheist. Or, depending on where one lived, believing that blacks shouldn't be slaves, or being a Protestant or Catholic in the wrong neighborhood. And as societies go, the US is incredibly laissez-faire compared to elsewhere, where unpopular opinions have gotten people killed for centuries or millennia.
Perhaps we should have a look at where he stood on the ACA - I don't suppose he was part of the Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics?
> He favors repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.[41] In 2017, when House Republican leadership introduced the American Health Care Act (a bill to repeal the ACA), Hurd was faced with a political quandary.[42] Hurd did not say whether he supported or opposed the legislation.[41][43] Ultimately, after the measure was declared dead and withdrawn from a planned vote due to insufficient support, Hurd "released a statement in which he appeared to oppose the overhaul."
Pathetic. The use of the ACA by Republicans for campaigning for nearly a decade and then their utter failure to repeal or replace it once they had full control of the federal government will stain them forever in my eyes (or at a minimum, the ones in federal office at the time).
It would be great to have a government that focused on policy problems and policy solutions, that had reasoned, evidence-based debates on issues. Unfortunately, the Republican party has done more than any other force to destroy that (Office of Technology Assessment, anyone?). The fact that today, in 2019, we have a Republican president who refuses to admit global warming is a thing, is another exemplar of Republican policy and strategy - which is not to debate, but to avoid it; to hide and ignore and defund evidence when inconvenient; to focus on emotions instead of logic and reason.
There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. Some political overlap is inevitable with the topics that get posted here, but battling opponents is incompatible with the intellectual curiosity that HN exists for. When accounts are only or primarily doing that, we ban them. We have to, because otherwise such flames will take the site over completely.
I've posted about this a lot if you or anyone wants more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... The bottom line is, please use HN in its intended spirit, which is not this.
Refusal to engage with individuals on subject A (cyber-security) because you disagree on subject B (healthcare in this case) is unfortunate, and possibly a similar level of hypocrisy if one would otherwise posit being open-minded as a general rule.
> Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics?
If it was about opinions he had that are not reflected in his legislative work, that would be different, but when lawmakers lawmake based on their opinions, it goes beyond just a difference of views.
Well, it depends. Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work? Does America really have to take one for team while we go on another boneheaded "well, if we ignore governing and prioritize fucking over our opponents just this one time, it'll mean better governing in the long run" quest?
Could you help me understand—is "running against the ACA for a decade and then having no workable plan for its replacement when you're finally in charge" an example of 'punishing the other team' or an example of 'doing the country's work'?
now that we've blocked a record number of judicial appointments including a supreme court justice, literally took out an ad in the new york times to try an undermine the Iran deal, claimed that the president wasn't a citizen along with all kinds of other horrible stuff, now...now it's finally time for us to work together. This new guy he's president of all of us. Let's get together and make sure...
No thank you. At some point it's Charlie Brown's fault for even trying to kick the football.
How do you think lobbyists get the policy changes they’re after? By giving the cold shoulder to any rep not already predisposed to voting in their preferred direction?
In conclusion, your comment boils down to the idea that somehow half the country is just lying about their preferences and somehow magically the other half of the country knows exactly what they are really thinking.
Most people in the U.S. do not think elective late term abortions should be lawful. Opposition to elective late term abortions is the norm, whatever you think about the issue.
Want to get progress on DRM laws? It probably won't happen solely by talking to a coalition that includes Hollywood and the broader creative community.
Here's what the conference said on the matter: https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-usa-...
It creates a healthier society if we can listen to people even when we don't agree with their views, thus I am not be in favour of this becoming the norm. It's also deeply impolite to withdraw an invite in this manner when no new information has come to light, merely a change of mind. If he'd been discovered to be dishonest or a criminal that's one thing, but "meh, thinking about it, we don't think we want you to come any more, even though we asked you before, when we did want you to come" doesn't cut it.
Will be interesting to see if they stick to the apolitical line consistently with others.
Call me back about the chilling effects of this when he can't get onto Fox News with those views.
