Still looking for the people on hn who eight months ago said that this would be a good thing to come out and admit not only that they were wrong, but the model of the world and their way of absorbing info that led them to such a conclusion is also wrong. Looking at you, geohot.
There are multiple generations of folks who've been trained to believe that Ronald Reagan was delivering divine wisdom when he said "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" / "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
I know many folks that don't have any animus to individual people. They just have been brainwashed since early childhood...
Yes. I'm not for calling out individual people, those who probably had hope and some may be young and didn't have the warning flags going off. I can only imagine they're disappointed and had no malice.
But people who have some level of fame who put their name behind it, and who had some influence in inspiring others down this wrong path most definitely need to address it. If you truly believe the intelligence of tech people over others in every field which led you down this path, follow the proper postmortem process.
It's a point of pride to fight tooth and nail arguing a wrong point. I worked with a guy who out right admitted that he will argue with you even if he knows he is wrong. It's not a discussion, its a fight they must win. They will die on their hill of macho pride. THEY MUST DEFEAT YOU.
Smart people admit they are wrong and learn, then move on for the better. The stagnant macho person will never learn anything and just wants status quo in perpetuity, so long as it benefits them.
They might act like it's a macho thing to argue against you, but let's be real, it can be painfully embarrassing to admit you're wrong, especially if you were really dug in already. Since it's about avoiding pain, it's the weak route to take to continue to defend a position you know is wrong.
What pain? If you feel pain from being wrong or having someone point it out you have thin skin. It's akin to being called stupid which is such a weak insult.
That's... exactly my point? They put up the defense because they are "thin skinned". It only looks all strong and macho on the surface when they continue to argue back.
Conversations around this administration and the people related or in support of them always bring me back to the Alt-Right Playbook.[1]
Usually I have a specific video in mind that is relevant, but this feels like a good time to link the whole series. It’s a good, informative, and (depressingly) humorous look at the alt-right - and while it doesn’t offer much in solid solutions, I think being able to understand how they operate and where they’re coming from allows us all to have a better chance in mitigating them and stopping the tide of fascism.
It was a reward for the biggest campaign donation in US political history. Musk didn't rig the election, he's not that competent or powerful. Occam's Razor tells us what happened was the Democrats went with a strategy that has never worked before (changing candidate mid-race), and they ended up predictably losing. That's it.
geohot has/had a weird obsession with Elon for a few years now. He copied what Elon did a lot and is sort of like an Elon Stan. Which led to him agreeing and competing with Elon a lot. However, after geohot interned at Twitter/X I think he moved on from Elon and liking his views etc.
But I suspect for most them their real desire was simply long lasting harm to the federal government and pain and suffering inflicted on those who work for the government.
I'm not sure why you think any of them would believe they were wrong. I don't think any of them were hoping for some kind of transformation other than destruction.
Really? Curious why you think a reference to Baudrillard’s Fatal Strategies would lead you to consider this projection (but always happy to meet another Baudrillard fan!)
I didn't see the cultural reference. Never heard of Baudrillard before. I was just playing off the word "revenge".
That being said, your take did stop me in my tracks. Even though it's not the first time I see sentiments like this on HN.
You said:
> I don't think any of them were hoping for some kind of transformation other than destruction.
Maybe I read you wrong. But isn't that the opposite of "Don't attribute to malice ..."?
I mean, come on. How many people grow up really wanting to do harm?
Sure, there are some. For example, there are people who have no power to create anything. For them, being able to at least destroy someone else's creation can be a form of satisfaction. Like the kid in kindergarden that doesn't have the patience to build a brick tower, but takes joy in smashing down someone else's. It's a low-effort way on leaving some mark. "I destroyed, therefore I am." Such people exists.
But those aren't the people you're targeting here, are they? As I read it, you're targeting Trump, Musk, and perhaps all the proponents of "small government". Who are, by and large, people who build, create and have an impact on our time. I'd argue that the idea of "small government" appeals first and foremost to those who stand to gain from lower taxes and less regulation - i.e. those who already do affect the world around them.
There are many reasons why someone might disagree with these people's values. For example, one might argue that nobody deserves to be that rich, or that wealth should be distributed, etc.. You could argue that "small government" is really just the selfish interest of those who stand to gain from it, in just the same way as "big government" is just a selfish interest of those who stand to gain from that. That it isn't about right or wrong at all, but about what camp you are in.
But the idea that "small government" people want to destroy America? That's a circle I can't square. There are interviews of Trump from the 1980s where he spoke about America vs. China, etc.. You may disagree with his ideas about how to make and keep America great. But the idea that he's driven by a desire of destroying the country? Is that rhetoric, or do you really think that's what he secretly dreams about?
What about Reagan in the 80s? He talked about "small government", reducing regulation, agencies, etc.. Do you think he hated the country?
And Elon Musk? The man has been talking about making human life multiplanetary. Heck, he's launching one rocket after another in order to get there. Every single endeavour of his (maybe with the exclusion of PayPal and Zip2), at least from his perspective, is explicitly pro-human in motivation: Sustainable energy, human-friendly non-monopolistic AGI, self driving, multi-planetary humanity. Again - I can understand if someone disagrees with these efforts. But the idea that this man is looking in the mirror every morning thinking, "Let's see how I can destroy this country"? Like, everything he does and says 24/7 over decades is just a façade to hide the real secret wish? All that work is supposed to be just a disguise? He pretends to love humanity, because, deep down, he really hates it? That makes my head spin.
There was this debate in the 16th century between Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus said that a human is good if he strives to do good deeds. Being human, you don't see the whole picture, so you may err. But as long as you strive to do the best you can, to be courageous, to use what you've been blessed with for the good of all, you are good – and even if you err, you will be forgiven. Luther countered: No - an evil man can never be good. You're either one of the chosen ones that are good, or you're inherently bad. And if you're inherently bad, then whatever you touch is going to be tainted with evil. You're not a person, you're not a soul - you're a mere vessel for the devil, and it would be foolish to even argue with you.
I'm quite sure there are people who hate society. But where I'd look for them is among criminals and fraudsters. Every crypto scam, every Nikola or Theranos. That's where I see a hatred of humanity. Or, if not hatred, then at least a disregard of everyone outside of their own circle, or of those who came before and who will come after them.
Isn't it a much safer assumption that most people are trying to be good and helpful? They sure can develop a damn blindspot, or myopia. For example, in the internet space, I'd say Cloudflare is "destroying" a lot of the web's original openness. But that still doesn't make me believe they do what they do out of a desire to destroy. They just focus on one kind of stakeholder at the expense of some others. If I went out there on Hacker News and claimed the Cloudflare CEO was driven by a pure hatred of the internet, everyone would think that I must be a grumpy dude with anger issues. And rightfully so, as it would be just an over-emotionalized reaction to an adverserial situation.
If you say you think the DOGE efforts were misguided, that the execution was flawed, or that the goal of downsizing government expenses in itself was the wrong thing for the country - that's an argument I can follow.
Anyway. I'm off doing my homework - checking out Baudrillard!
Why do you suspect this? Is it your view that right wingers are inherently evil as opposed to, say, having different opinions about how things should be done? I urge you to find some empathy.
To be fair, many are evil and hold evil opinions about their fellow humans. How do I find empathy with someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same reality and does not value lives of even their own neighbors?
I think if you actually spoke with them, many would make the same claims about the left. Many right wingers see the left as being equally evil, that doesn't mean it's true.
I have friends who are gay, trans, non-Christian, or brown. Not all right-wingers say that they aren’t fully people but many do, and the more libertarian ones aren’t exactly rushing to shut that down. It is very hard to trust a group of people unwilling to recognize my neighbors as fully human.
In the federal space, we’ve seen purges of women and minorities, shutdowns of groups which work on things like civil rights or pollution in poor communities, widespread refusal to pay money as promised, and attempts to punish organizations for 1st amendment activities. There is zero expectation of good-faith from anyone who supports that.
Conversely I distrust people with a view of educating kids on an array of issues in gender and sexuality.
Unfortunately your/US views have become simplistic (yes simplistic) along two hyper extremes. Both sides are wrong at this stage. Just wrong in different ways.
Are you saying that respecting other people and letting them live their own lives without affecting you is worthy of distrust? Because I have directly seen what’s taught in schools here and it’s basically the golden rule without the quiet exceptions.
The golden rule is to treat people how I would like to be treated, and I welcome opinions from my friends and family on my life choices. I might not agree, and if I disagree strongly enough I might resolve to find a community where people are more aligned with me - but I'd expect that community to also have opinions on what's a good or a bad way to live your life.
You say that not all right wingers are bigoted, and then go on to proclaim the entire group doesn't recognize minorities as being human. Have you spoken honestly and in good faith with right wingers?
Let me clarify my point: I’m not saying every Republican is the same on every one of those issues, I’m saying that the people who disagree are not standing up to the people rejecting the idea that certain groups deserve full rights.
I have a number of family and a few remaining right-wing acquaintances (all of the libertarians I knew are voting straight-ticket for Democrats against MAGA) – not “kinda liked Reagan” but people who’ve had worked published in national media or been invited to dinner at Rupert Murdoch’s estate. Privately, people express concern or distaste for anti-liberty actions - but not in public, never to the point of standing up for a group being targeted. Like the Mexican woman who cleans their house, she’s great even if her husband was originally undocumented, so of course ICE shouldn’t go after them – but they won’t speak up on behalf of anyone they don’t know personally, even just to call for due process.
I left the Republican sphere during the Bush years when it became obvious that for all of the talk about ethics and the rule of law during the Clinton administration, there wasn’t a desire to hold their fellows to that same standard. Sadly, it’s only gotten worse since then – as we can see from the blatant lawlessness this year where even people who might share goals like reducing government spending or reconsidering industrial policy should feel safe saying there’s a better, legal way to do it.
I have had many such conversations (Texas is a fun state) and while many don't consider themselves bigoted, their policy preferences amount to, essentially, "but I'd rather we not treat people equally."
They don't "hate gay people". (They have gay friends!) But they don't think gay people should be able to marry or adopt children. Sometimes Leviticus comes up.
They don't "hate Black people" (They have black co-workers!). They just think the disparities in the justice, education and financial systems are all Black people's own fault.
They don't "hate immigrants" (They love Mexico!), they just think they're not assimilating, taking American jobs and draining tax payer resources.
Trans people seem to be the only group they'll outright admit to hating.
This is an odd comment, do you not know any right wing people? Especially in the non-coastal parts of the country?
This opinion comes from having many conversations with (real, not online) people who literally state that they consider that the government is inherently evil and it's sole function is to rob people of their liberty and hard earned money. I've spent a considerable amount of time doing business travel and working in parts of the country where I've heard people, in an public office conversation, voice that support for public radio is literally fascism to nodding agreement among their peers. I once mentioned an experience I had in the beginning of the pandemic and the response was "oh yea, that's when people still thought it was serious right?"
I don't think these people are inherently evil, they believe the government is evil and that those who work for it are working to undermine everyday Americans. If you actually had a conversation with anyone deep in the MAGA community you would know that harming the federal government, for them, is seen as a victory and virtuous.
It's baffling to me that anyone can still not understand the foundation of the MAGA community and growing extreme right. For years they have increasingly felt that their way of life has been robbed from them (and to be fair, it has been, rural communities in the US are in trouble), and they sincerely believe that this is caused by sinister forces working in the federal government, immigrants, the global elite, and "radical" woke leftists that want to harm their children.
Empathy is always good, but in this case, within your "right winger" party you've got powerful factions with active and explicitly stated intentions to dismantle the federal government.
I said it would be a good thing and still do. Dismantling USAID alone was worth it. It's easy to spend taxpayer money, it's harder to make cuts, no matter how you do it you'll be the bad guy. But government needs to live within its means.
Dismantling USAID has condemned hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to literal death through a loss of famine relief and life saving medications for diseases like HIV and tuberculosis. It has diminished the soft power of the United States, destroyed the credibility of the country for a generation or more, and didn't even save that much money. It has profited the average American not at all and likely made everyone less safe.
I have no idea what kind of person thinks that was a good idea.
Borrowing billions of dollars when you are $37 trillion in debt and giving that borrowed money to people who hate you is insane. And most of that money goes to warlords and dictators. USAID needed a complete overhaul. And do you accuse the countries who don't give aid of causing famine and death? Why just America? You are welcome to give out of your own pocket if it assuages your guilt.
The venn diagram of that group and the group that immediately, with zero evidence, following the Charlie Kirk incident, declared war on “the left” is a circle.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. At the time of the original post, where people were condemning “leftists” and saying “this means war against the left,” there was zero evidence. No one had been caught (I guess they may have piled drived a poor janitor or something at this point), no idea who it could even be. This was days before it was revealed to be some MAGA splinter group.
One of the strange joys of this site is reading the insane takes of otherwise intelligent right-wingers as they try to bend reality to fit with their beliefs.
At the very best you'll get "the left forced them to do it" but blank denial of reality and invention of entirely fake parallel worlds is much more likely.
They've been doing that for climate, renewables, COVID, Trump etc. far longer than for DOGE with no sign of giving up.
I thought it was a good idea in spirit although I wasn't sure how effectively it would be done. To be honest I'm still not sure how effective it was. Almost all criticism I've seen of DOGE has been from those biased against it already. Obviously federal employees will be negative about a program designed around reducing their scope and funding...
All you have to do is look at the non-serious initial claim of $2T savings. That is wildly high, and told you that the people running it had no interest in success. It’s like if we have a startup founder here saying they’re going to have AGI by Christmas and be the first $10T company.
That's a non-sequitur. Plenty of serious AI companies have made predictions about AGI or replacing programmers which have not come to fruition. That doesn't mean they don't have interest in success.
I said serious in the sense of something they seriously believe they can deliver. Those wild predictions on unrealistic timeframes are for the stock market.
For an example: Sergei Brin, Sebastian Thrun, and Elon Musk were all interested in self-driving cars. Musk has been making materially misleading statements promising to deliver L5 in the next year or so many times since 2013, and still doesn’t have more than L2. Waymo did not promise things they couldn’t deliver, treated safety as a top priority, and is expanding L4 taxi services around the country. They’re all interested, Waymo is serious, but Musk’s strategy has made him enormously rich and I think that’s always been his top priority.
The spirit of the "program" leaned in the right direction, but Elon was absolutely the wrong guy to put in charge of it. Misplaced incentives, lack of interpersonal skills, lack of respect and empathy, lack of organizational skills when he does not have strong, professional lieutenants that will implement changes.
Edit: and who TF would have thought putting "big balls doge kid" in a position of power would be a good thing? That kid, along with whomever hired him, would be tossed out of any professional corp env swiftly.
> The spirit of the "program" leaned in the right direction ...
Congressional oversight in combination with incorporating CBO[0] work products to perform the oversight obviates the purported need for DOGE.
> ... Elon was absolutely the wrong guy to put in charge of it. Misplaced incentives, lack of interpersonal skills, lack of respect and empathy, lack of organizational skills ...
A more succinct way to describe this is; corruption.
It was an effort in spirit only. It was aimed almost entirely at damaging those agencies that Trump hated and that Musk wanted to muck up so he could gain advantages from less government oversight and regulations. In the end it had almost no effect on overall government spending, but it certainly helped Trumps aims to damage the government departments he didn't like, undo what Biden had done, and gain some advantages for Elon's companies.
It’s still completely insane that people still think it was anything other than this. I can understand if you’re a musk fan you could have thought he was being serious on the bullshit (otherwise how could you be a musk fan?) but think today there was any plan or “spirit” behind it is pure delusion.
The spirit of the program did not lean in the right direction at all.
It started and ended with malicious intent and demonstration of power. Classic Trump.
The correct spirit is how it was done under Clinton / Gore. Slowly, thoughtfully, carefully, properly planned and delicately executed.
(and this says nothing of party politics or the quality of president that Clinton was, this is only commentary of that particular action as comparison)
The program started from ignorance of the functions of the federal government and the people who work in it. People who don’t know anything drank and believed the koolaid. Their actions might make sense if the propaganda was true. But it isn’t.
The whole thing seemed to me to be a quid pro quo for Elon to get Trump elected via Twitter. I'm fairly sure everyone but DOGE knew it would not accomplish anything.
He also lacked the authority to realize the full vision, being only a guest of Trump. Hence the inevitable conflict when it came to the big beautiful bill.
