
Maybe We Should Go Easy on Uncle Bob - kmdupree
https://www.philosophicalhacker.com/post/uncle-bob-trump/
======
DanielBMarkham
Watching the uproar, I am ashamed of the tech community I've called home for
many decades.

Bob's always been the kind of person that would take a position, popular or
not, and ask people to reason with him so that either he's wrong or the other
person is. There's no hate here, just open inquiry.

Sometimes Bob has good ideas, sometimes he has bad ideas. Like the rest of us.
Sometimes he states his ideas poorly.

My mission is to make technology developer's lives happier and more
productive. To do that I meet people where they are and openly and honestly
try to help. I find when I get my focus on to other things, I tend to do a
really poor job.

When I see this kind of herd-like mobbing and shunning, supposedly by
professionals, I wonder what it's like to work with some of these people.
Would I want to bring somebody in to an emotionally-charged situation that
publicly shames and shuts down conversation they're uncomfortable with? At
some point you're either humble and your mission comes first -- or you're
sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks at people. If I ran a brothel and it
caught on fire, I would want some people in a red truck to show up and put the
fire out. I wouldn't want a lecture on evils of the business I was in. Save
the lectures for your church group.

I apologize for the rant. I personally know people on both sides of this. It
is disturbing. I feel like what happened to Bob can happen to anybody. As one
person IMed a week or so "Having an opinion like Bob's or supporting him is a
good way to lose your job!"

It is. And that's fucked up.

------
jamestimmins
In general, it seems that we easily decry public shaming or mass pile-ons when
we have no dog in the fight, but when we feel we have the moral high ground,
it's all too easy to fall into mob-thinking. History is full of dangerous mobs
who felt morally justified in their actions only to be judged as immoral at a
later time, which is perhaps reason enough to avoid mob-thinking. This is
clearly one of humanity's blindspots.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I keep getting back to one word, whether it's hiring good teams or public
displays of purity: _humility_.

On HN, we try to assume positive intent. Many times I fail. But it's that
effort, that _humility_ , that makes productive conversations happen.

I'm okay with being correct and moral and having strong convictions -- and the
world not agreeing with me. That's because who knows? I might be wrong. Been
wrong a lot before. But once I drop that humility, then it's only natural to
go out seeking wrongs to right. After all, I have the high ground!

------
regularfry
There comes a point when all the arguments are well known, the direction of
travel is obvious, and there's no real grounds for disagreement given the
facts. At that point one can easily assume that the disagreement is not in
good faith, and therefore not worth engaging with.

~~~
steve_g
I think there can be good faith disagreement even when all the items you
mentioned are agreed upon. The basis for the disagreements may be
presuppositions, values, and priorities - people may differ here, in good
faith.

To use a controversial (and simplified) example, the abortion debate may
result from conflicts between a women's right to autonomy over her body vs. a
child's right to life. I think both sides would agree these two values are
positive; the difference is which takes priority.

Now it may also be true that it's not worth arguing about values, because they
are not likely to change based on argument. But I still think many of these
arguments are made in good faith.

------
bluesnowmonkey
It breaks my heart when I hear the stories about these kids.

That said, Bob is right. Is it even controversial to say there's a massive
amount of shameful political rhetoric going around out there? I mean, that's
usually the case, whatever is happening in the world. Each side is always
watching for any kind of misstep by the other that can be exploited for
political gain.

Remember when the whole country spent a long time taking about nothing but
Clinton's affair? All over the news. We even impeached him! Shameful political
maneuvering. Am I defending his affair by saying this? Obviously not. But the
reason the country got worked up about it was not that it _really_ mattered so
much what he did, but that someone powerful had something to gain by igniting
a political firestorm.

So yeah it plays really well to audiences, babies being torn from their
mothers bosoms. And it's really good for Trump's opponents if you hear a lot
about it. So you're going to hear a LOT about it.

------
anothergoogler
Why do intelligent people think it's wise to take a stand on a medium as
crippled and incendiary as Twitter? Regardless of the merits of your views or
where they lie on the political spectrum, you're basically putting on a seal
suit and diving into a tank of hungry sharks.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I've been thinking about your comment for the last couple of days. It was
quite piercing. I don't have a good reply. The best I have is that Twitter
seems to do something that other forms of communication do not.

When it works is when I throw out some technical issue I'm struggling with and
people chime in and help. When it doesn't work is when I try to provoke or
lash out emotionally because nobody listens to me. I wish there was much more
of the first and much less of the second.

------
RickJWagner
I'm with Uncle Bob on this one.

For the record, he tweets things that lean both right and left.

It's true Trump broke up families. It's equally true that Obama handed
immigrant children off to sex traffickers. Neither should be compared to
Nazis.

Those who use such hyperbole will be completely ashamed of themselves in years
ahead. Count on it.

------
jstewartmobile
We should, because one day we will all be old, and we will all have snot nosed
kids react to our current "liberal" ideas in exactly the same way.

------
jdlshore
Taken out of context, my "shaming" tweet looks like a horrible overreaction.
And I agree! Shaming someone for a mild tweet about a historical analogy is
just weird.

Look at the context and it makes more sense. Unfortunately, TFA left that
context out. The context was:

a) Bob's attempt to deflect criticism of a child-separation policy, which is
going to cause lasting harm to thousands of children, mostly by repeating
right-wing pundits that were outright defending the policy.

b) Five hours of tweets before mine, most of which were people trying to
engage in good faith with Bob and being ignored.

c) Bob's history of engaging in bad faith mockery of people who criticized his
attitude towards women.

All that led to a situation where a) I wanted to tell Bob I agreed with people
saying he was in the wrong; b) I felt every point I wanted to make had already
been made by other people replying to Bob, who he had largely ignored; and c)
I didn't want to engage in further discussion with Bob.

Finally: I'm not far-left, politically speaking. I'm registered independent
and fairly centrist in terms of the historical American political spectrum.
(That puts me on the right-wing/conservative side by European standards.) I
believe in market-based solutions, personal freedom, and minimal regulation
sufficient to counterbalance the wealthy and powerful.

I am also someone who sees racists, holocaust deniers, and overt Nazis coming
out of the woodwork. In my home town of Portland, a very left-wing city, the
Proud Boys (a white supremacist group) are inciting violence and beating
people up [1]. Holocaust deniers and self-proclaimed Nazis are running for GOP
office [2]. Lifelong Republican voices are abandoning the party [3].

I don't know what the best response to this is. I'm just somebody who's never
gotten involved in politics before. To me, it seems like a situation where
social norms [4] are breaking down--where, previously, racist views were
something you hesitated to share in mixed company, now more and more people
think it's okay.

In my mind, our country needs to reset social norms. Making it socially
uncomfortable to deflect criticism of a cruel and unjust policy is one small
step.

[1] [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/04/rauner-cruz-
nazi-a...](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/04/rauner-cruz-nazi-arthur-
jones-chicago-694768)

[2] [http://www.wweek.com/news/2018/06/30/portland-police-
declare...](http://www.wweek.com/news/2018/06/30/portland-police-declare-a-
riot-after-right-wing-marchers-begin-beating-antifascists-with-flag-poles/)

[3] [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/george-will-leaves-
go...](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/george-will-leaves-gop-224801)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm)

PS: I'm leaving for a vacation today, so I may not respond to replies.

~~~
kmdupree
James, this is totally a fair criticism. Sorry that I left out this
information initially.

I've edited the article to reflect more of the context you've highlighted
here.

It was cool to learn a little more about you and I respect your commitment to
fighting against white supremacy, etc.

Hope we can still disagree respectfully. If there's anything else you feel was
unfair, please let me know.

------
mcphage
> Can social pressure work on positions that make up large portions of the
> country? Not in my experience. I’ve only seen polarization come from “social
> pressure” on conservatives.

It worked very well on drunk driving. Previously seen as a minor problem, a
very public campaign to shame the act—and drunk drivers—has reduced the
incidence of drunk driving considerably—fatalities down 50% since 1980.

------
olefoo
If you think your government carrying out ethnic cleansing operations is just
a minor thing but that comparing those ethnic cleansing operations to earlier
ones by other governments that you were taught were bad is rude...

You are not a good person.

Shaming is thoroughly justified here.

What the US government has been doing to the most vulnerable, brought here by
their parents, fleeing persecution and coming to what was once a beacon of
hope for a better life; is shameful.

Shaming those who support shameful policies is one of the few effective ways
we can arrest the slide into catastrophe.

When the .gov is looking at ways to strip naturalized citizens of their
citizenship; you should be alarmed because it will not stop there. Look
around, do you have coworkers, family, loved ones who are not in the groups
favored by this administration? They are at risk. We are all at risk.

If the price of putting a stop to this is to slightly reduce the social
standing of someone who I only ever hear of when he does something gross. (
Porn slides at a conference, this. ) I am OK with that.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'm an open borders guy. I have been for years. I have no problem with vastly
liberalizing immigration policy.

I also have direct experience in immigration, having worked at ICE for a
couple of years. I know how it works on the inside.

I've worked with immigrants and have done my best to help them my entire
career. I've been very fortunate to have worked with great people from all
over.

Finally, I know a lot of people on both sides of this issue.

If you are willing to accept new information, I'd like to share with you that
the U.S. is not carrying out ethnic cleansing operations. To me that appears a
very dramatic and unsupported claim, geared toward getting people upset (and
keeping yourself upset) more than understanding the issues involved.

I have a dozen things to be angry about when it comes to U.S. policy on
immigration and travel. Almost weekly I am either angry or ashamed. But the
world does not exist to conform to my emotional state. I have been angry about
many of these things for a long, long time.

None of that has anything to do with Bob. Picking out a new victim every week
and publicly shaming them isn't going to bring people together to solve
problems. This behavior is creating a world in which problems and conflict are
just going to get worse, not reach resolution. These folks are not helping the
very causes they claim to support -- one of another half-dozen things that
drives me nuts about watching this idiocy. Want to fix this? Me too. Stop
trying to keep exacerbating it.

~~~
dnomad
This sort of thinking is hilarious, you've got admit.

The most immediate example here is the gay marriage debate. It goes like this:

Conservative: Gay people shouldn't be denied marriage to the people they love.

Liberal: That position is _pure fucking evil_ and you're a terrible person for
believing such.

Conservative: Why are liberals so mean?

Of course the classic case of conservatives insisting that liberals are
"uncivil" was during the actual _civil rights movement_. Oh how all the
protests and speeches incensed people. To this day there's still many people
who believe that the 60s protest movements for equal rights... somehow broke
the West.

None of this is new or particularly interesting. The heroic defenders of the
status quo have always played this card. The more horrific position held up to
and including, say, whether certain people should be allowed to exist, the
stronger the calls for "civility" and "calm, reasonable debate."

What's interesting here is perhaps the speed of Twitter. This dynamic no
longer plays out in weekly newspaper columns. Now people get called out for
their evil beliefs (and have no doubt, they are evil in the only meaningful
sense of the word) in a matter of minutes.

> This behavior is creating a world in which problems and conflict are just
> going to get worse, not reach resolution.

That doesn't appear to be the case at all. It turns out that speaking up early
and often does indeed work to, say, stop the government from destroying
families. Certainly it seems far more effective than anything else proposed
including "civil" debate.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It is pretty funny. The people wanting us to be polite are always the ones
getting in the way of finding solutions. That's because as it turns out, it's
quite rude to have to re-think your worldview!

No doubt there are some nice tactical wins. For each of those, my money says
society loses more with all the people that get shut down and just don't talk
any more. Admittedly that's a theoretical debate, but such is the nature of
these things.

Talking about theory, direct democracy was never a goal of the United States.
In fact, there was a lot done to prevent it. Twitter closing the feedback loop
and making things more direct and immediate would be considered a horrible
step backwards by most of the people who understood why the country was
structured the way it was. If we've got to learn that lesson again, I guess
that's the way goes.

