Kalanick and Musk are basically the only two remaining adults in SV. Musk basically said on twitter, "I'll go and talk to the guy". Everyone else is more concerned with political correctness and virtue signaling. Hundred thousand bombs dropped into five countries on that list -- not a goddamn peep from anybody. 2150 people killed by drones -- same. Iraqi refugees banned for half a year -- no one has even heard of it. Cuban refugees banned permanently -- okie dokie. But god forbid anyone gets stopped on the border, no sir, we can't have that.
I'm really tired of the "virtue signaling" meme. Yeah, there are some people out there that don't really care about their cause and only want to look good. But really, the vast majority of protesters out there are not in that category. They are alarmed, they know they only have partial information but that's part of what they are alarmed about, they know they don't have a lot of power to do anything other than "call their representatives", and still just want to do something.
Nonviolent protest is an effective tool. There are academic studies done on it [1] and how it is actually more effective than violent protest - it has real efficacy. It's not merely "virtue signaling".
A serious question: do people who leave comments like yours, and the even shorter ones that are literally just the words "virtue signalling", really believe that doing so presents a devastating critique which will convince others of the error of their ways and change their minds? Or is it something you do to demonstrate your affiliation with a particular set of beliefs and positions? Does this phrase have empirical content to you, in that there are theoretically people/positions you could disagree with which you would not use it to describe? Or is it something you will say to/about anyone who you dislike or disagree with, as a way to show that you and they are members of different tribes with different values?
Nah, a serious question wouldn't presuppose a particular answer. I think you've made up your mind long before you asked it.
But I'll oblige anyway. Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it. Their main purpose is similar to that of a Facebook "like", to communicate adherence to a shared set of beliefs, not to change anything per se. Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. These days you have to constantly and proactively reaffirm your adherence to the latest groupthink.
This is further exacerbated by a rather severe level of hypocrisy demonstrated by those within the currently active protest group. When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. Why? Because that wouldn't signal virtue to the socio-political group in question.
People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
One thing I don't understand is why America seems to have developed a sense of us vs them within their own country. Like "coastal elites", wtf?
Your biggest and most populous and useful cities are on the coast, they are also where all the immigrants are.
It's almost as if one group of people, that has no clue about anything to do with immigration are saying they are massively against it, whilst those that live with the immigrants don't have an issue with it.
America you need to sort that shit out, people that have no business caring about immigration shouldn't have a say on it. They definitely shouldn't be able to out-vote the population of your coastal cities which seems to be your only chance of relevance this century.
One of the most important and difficult debates during the drafting of our Constitution was whether representation in the national government should be equal for all states, or proportional based on their populations. The makeup of our Congress (one house where every state is equal, one where they're proportionally represented), and the manner of electing the President are compromises introduced in the 1780s to assuage fears from smaller states that larger, more populous states would be able to tyrannize them.
There are also historical roots here in slavery: many southern states actually had large populations, but only when slaves were counted as part of the population. So those states wanted slaves to count at least partially, even though slaves were of course not allowed to vote (which is how we get the infamous compromise where a slave was counted as 3/5 of a person for proportional-representation purposes).
And the economies of the northern and southern states diverged very early on; northern states' economies were based more on trade and manufacture, southern states on agriculture and resource extraction (supported by slave labor until slavery was abolished, then by things which emulated slavery as closely as was legal, like exploitative sharecropping and debt slavery).
This naturally leads to a divide and a conflict of lifestyles and values, wherein there are basically two countries existing within the same set of borders. One of those countries has always had a larger (free) population and always been more urban, dense and globally connected. The other has always had a smaller (free) population and always been more rural, sparse and isolationist. The southern and now midwestern rural/sparse/isolationist faction has also consistently used the compromises of the 1780s to their advantage, since they are represented and wield power in the national government disproportionate to their percentage of the population, and can at times effectively reverse the original fear and tyrannize the majority northern and coastal urban/dense/globalist faction.
But so long as the Constitution of the United States continues to be based on those two-hundred-year-old compromises, this tension will continue to exist.
Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it.
Why is this a bad thing? Are you allowing for the possibility that it's easier to eventually sway outsiders if one first builds momentum with a significant group of like-minded people? Isn't it in fact very common to start by getting like-minded people to agree on a shared platform of ideas and actions, and then move toward convincing outsiders of the correctness of that shared platform?
Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being.
"Coastal elites" is a term lacking empirical content. However, the majority of Americans who voted did not vote for Donald Trump, and there is no evidence to support your assertion that a majority of Americans in general are in favor of the immigration order; if by "coastal elites" you mean "people of generally socially-liberal political leanings who live in major urban areas", you are in fact contradicting yourself since evidence suggests such people are the majority of Americans. You are hopefully aware that the American electoral system is designed to disproportionately represent minority populations, which is why the popular-vote winner did not get elected President.
When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation.
I have yet to see an assertion of "same or worse things" being presented which A) holds up to scrutiny of the "same or worse" assertion and B) was not protested/condemned. For example, many socially-liberal people expressed condemnation of Obama's immigration and foreign policy stances, expressing regret because they hoped he would break from socially-conservative approaches. Do you ignore this fact?
People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
If "people on the right" "don't seem to care much about protests", what is the Tea Party and its large rallies? What is the NRA and its mobilization of people? Why are there so many protests at Planned Parenthood locations, to the extent that those locations routinely need to implement strict security policies to ensure safe access to facilities?
Additionally, are all of those groups just "virtue signalling"? Do you equally condemn them, or do you only bring out such comments when a group you disagree with is protesting?
In other words: do you have a coherent position here, or are you simply engaging in the very practices you condemn?
Not the poster this comment was in reply to, but I feel they made a fair explanation that you simply chose not to consider; perhaps because of how they phrased it? Allow me to rephrase.
The trend this thread is related to (Lyft downloads surge because of #deleteUber) is a blatant hypocrisy. Neither company complied with the taxi boycott, and Uber only removed surge pricing after the strike was scheduled to end.
This leads more pragmatic bystanders to believe that the people involved in this trend aren’t earnestly invested in finding a rational solution. They just want to hop aboard the first petty public trend that superficially signals that they’re backing some side of a divisive debate; even when that bandwagon trend may ultimately turn out to be counterproductive to their professed ideals and objectives!
This is not a problem for one side of the aisle or the other, but both. That tribal group-think is the EXACT same problem that led to a Trump presidency to begin with.
So the only way to move forward in any meaningful sense is to stop this childish nonsense. That means calling a spade a spade (or virtue signaling) when it comes along, and not wasting time/effort with those who are only interested in self-aggrandizing (you, per your comments).
Your suggestion is impossible, because "virtue signalling" is now a thought-terminating cliché for the right. But I wish you luck in trying to negotiate and compromise and find common ground -- the past eight years demonstrated that you should be prepared to wait for the heat death of the universe before it happens.
Because it achieves NOTHING. If the goal is to help those affected, the ONLY way to do that is by engaging with the administration. The only way you can engage with this particular administration is by not shitting all over it no matter what it does. This is what Musk is attempting to do. What the protesters are doing is ACTIVELY HARMFUL to that goal, because it makes softening of the restrictions politically unfeasible.
On the other hand if the goal is to show each other how "progressive" you are, sure, go ahead and block the airports, burn effigies, beat and torture Trump supporters, etc. But don't act all surprised when this leads to nothing of consequence.
The only way you can engage with this particular administration is by not shitting all over it no matter what it does. This is what Musk is attempting to do. What the protesters are doing is ACTIVELY HARMFUL to that goal, because it makes softening of the restrictions politically unfeasible.
Ask Obama how well "engaging" with Republicans worked over his two terms. Anyone who shows up expecting Republicans to negotiate and compromise and work together in good faith is going to be waiting an extremely long time for them to do it.
Absolute hard-line "say no to everything and slander them for even proposing it" politics dominated the past eight years and seem to have been incredibly successful for Republicans. Why not adopt a winning playbook?
Some of the celebrities who've been using those bombed Syrians to attack Trump did speak up before - in support of the bombing. J. K. Rowling, in particular, was quite vocal in insisting that anyone who claimed that politicians who supported to bomb them were morally in the wrong or that voters should hold those who did responsible was supporting evil misogynistic harassment because someone might take such language as justification to harass MPs, some of whom were women.
Don't forget wiretapping the whole world - - a move that would have made your every dictator jealous. You, Americans, really are crazy sometimes. And you voted for him twice.
No, they are protecting their interests even in the face of discrimination. And guess what, those bombs are continuing to be dropped and Trump wants more bombs dropped.
Has there been any case in recent history (20 years) in which a president has changed anything of any consequence due to mass protest?
Musk is on the _advisory board_. It could be that this advisory board is a farce, or it could be that Trump would actually listen to a fellow "billionaire playboy philanthropist".
One thing is pretty clear to me: Trump is not going to give a shit about either the liberal press (or in fact press in general), or liberal intelligentsia protesting in the street, especially if both demonize and disparage him no matter what he does, and refuse dialogue.
I agree with all you wrote. Hence the confusion. The only thing that might be a lever to control Trump is Musk global fame as an US visionary in Space and Cars, plus the Gigafactory (which is very much Trump-ish in gigantism) with its US jobs feel.
Trump is 70 years old and he's currently the most powerful man in the world. He won't be "controlled" by anyone. But he likely will listen to the advice of people he respects.
Nah man I think he is not. He cannot flip the U.S into a farce like that. The amount of absurdly ridiculous news all over is devaluing the whole nation at light speed. I don't think he will last. I hope not.
----
He just fired a justice head for disagreeing. Apparently his assistant is showing tweets at press conferences..
Not An American, but so far Trump is giving the image of someone who can get things done and tackle difficult problems with practical solutions. I don't really understand the hysteria.
I share this sentiment, partially, I said elsewhere that he might be a "coherent force" whether you agree with his decision, it can put some movement back into the system and make others move to.
That said, every morning I wake up reading the darndest thing about him and I forget my previous paragraph.
What's so "unreal" about firing an Obama appointee for blatant insubordination? Obama fired all of Dubya's people too, a Bush fired all of Clinton's people likewise. She was just keeping the chair warm for Sessions anyway.
This is what's baffling to me. _Everything_ Trump does is interpreted in the most bizarre and paranoid way possible.
I eagerly await the H1B order later this week. Once it is signed, HN will all of a sudden proclaim its unending love for H1B abuse in a paroxysm of cognitive dissonance.
She's a an ex head of Justice, you don't act like that with people who were in charge of your country's pillar. She is knowledgeable, and competent; even if it's 80% defiance, you know she's not the average rebel.
Trump just acts like a child removing everything that gets in its way just because he can.
I agree with you that he's seen through a biased lens, because he smells like tragedy. His past and now present actions and ideas are mostly void. Now people question the reason he didn't ban all muslim countries because he has business interests there (to be proven though).
He has no regards, no diplomacy, no sense of balance. Lots of people say he's a 5yo, I tend to agree.
Doesn't matter who she is. She's not a judge and DOJ is not a part of the judicial branch. Only a judge can stay or overrule an EO. She was way out of line, by a mile, and she got fired for it.
Funny as well that when Obama unceremoniously fired James Mattis without even bothering to communicate his decision why, no eyebrows were raised and he wasn't called a 5yo. Mattis's fault? He didn't want us to bomb Iran.
Obama's public persona makes the difference in my eyes, he was a more respectful person all along, making weird decisions less problematic in a way. You might say it's irrelevant though.
It's not just irrelevant, it's detrimental. The US should conduct itself from a position of power, not preemptively apologize for hurting other governments' feelings like Obama did. You do not bow to any king. You insist on exiting your plane to whatever exit you want, not through the fucking back door like Obama had to do in China. You demand respect. You demand red carpet and honor guard. You make sure to communicate unambiguously that you will not be manipulated by what's "politically correct", and you can only be swayed by the cold, hard facts of the situation, and your country's interest. You make others pay their fair share. You undo obviously bad trade deals. You negotiate good (or at least better) deals. Basically all of these things is what Obama failed to deliver.
_Everything_ Trump does is interpreted in the most bizarre and paranoid way possible.
Unfortunately that's how politics works in the US. It's not about arguing your position and attempting to convince people. It's about scoring "political points" which means casting your opponent in the worst possible light, even if that means twisting the trust or being hypocritical.
