Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#451

Post by striking »

sagichmal wrote: post #313
curiousgeorgio wrote: post #239

It looks like a lot of people here don't understand how someone could possibly support Trump. If I were simply following the mainstream media's narrative, I'd be in a similar position. If you're really interested in trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from your own (which I believe is healthy for anyone, even if you don't plan on changing your views), I would suggest beginning by listening to Stefan Molyneu…

Oh who's this Stefan Molyneux character, let me just check out his Twitter... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/787530311299112961 :\

Yeah, but you could say exactly that about the Pinboard guy and how much he hates Trump on his Twitter timeline. Just because they might be polemics doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means they have a strong opinion.

Re: undefined

#452

Post by rayiner »

ting_bu_dung wrote: post #439
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've posted criticism of Hillary on Facebook, I've gotten savaged in the comments by my liberal friends. It's a sobering and depressing experience and I'm sad to realize that my respect for most of them has declined, as no doubt theirs has for me. Periodically I will post a defense of freedom of speech, and I'll remind people that I'm willing to fight and die for their right to disagree with me, with which they…

well, when you align yourself with a women-hating, racist candidate, what do you expect your friends to think?

In a way, because this election has come down to a dichotomy between Hilary and an actual cartoon villain, it'll be bad for the democratic party. It'll ensure the entrenchment of the conservative "think of the children" "just say no" wing of the party for another decade or more.

Re: undefined

#453

Post by anindha »

1337biz wrote: post #381
nostrademons wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all of Thiel's investing thesis is to invest in things that are statistically on track to fail, but whose payoff if they succeed is greater than most people imagine. PayPal, Facebook - both of these were terrible ideas when they came out (along with a number of other ones that did, in fact, fail). His idea is that people consistently mis-price risk, and so investing in a portfolio where everyone else thin…

Perfect quote from Paul Graham here: Others may be reassured to hear Trump has only a 15% chance of winning, but it terrifies me. In Silicon Valley 15% is a good chance. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/786801011830628352

It matters who has the most chance of winning.

If there are 10 competitors and they all have between 5-10% chance of winning you have 15%. Compared to a 15%/85% split.

Re: undefined

#454

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

icebraining wrote: post #262
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of economic freedom experienced by many is a direct product of the economic policy enforced by government and advocated for by libertarians, ie, it's directly the result of government coercing people to adhere to its decisions and libertarians support sufficiently many of those decisions to be culpable. Libertarians are nothing but outright hypocrites in arguing that government shouldn't be required to pay t…

Libertarians disagree with your assertion that the government has implemented free-markets, and therefore reject the idea that they support current policy.

My point isn't contained to the present system:

Even in theory, libertarians are hypocrites because they fundamentally advocate for failing to pay for the externalities of their coercive system, and all supposed benefits of libertarianism can be traced to temporary boosts caused by (inefficient) capitalization of that failure to pay for externalities. Libertarianism enriches a few by creating 0.9 units wealth for every 1.0 units of collective suffering it implements over the current system, but hides this fundamentally externality driven mechanism behind the spread of the suffering (not a lot to everyone) and calling it freedom for many to be allowed to suffer at the hands of others without the instrument of state to implement collective relief.

Libertarianism is nothing but a sham political and economic movement that is wholly and fundamentally dishonest about its benefits and costs, by design, deeply self-inconsistent in its models and policies, and is intended to trick people in to accepting serfdom in a return to feudalism by calling it "freedom".

Libertarians, as a rule, just seem to have not thought very hard about their position or be selling you something (usually that you should be a serf because they fancy that they won't be a serf too in the new system).

Re: undefined

#455

Post by BryantD »

dreta wrote: post #351
dcposch wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.

This is a semantic argument. I agree that the terminology is misleading. However, I think we should always follow the words "there is no gun show loophole" with the words "private citizens can sell guns without background checks no matter where they are," and perhaps "let's call it the private sale loophole."

Re: undefined

#456

Post by nostrebored »

golemotron wrote: post #426
golemotron wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like the US this year. This is not an exaggeration. Many people would have professional and personal consequences for supporting Trump in public. People like Peter Thiel and Scott Adams have enough money to not care. Scott isn't even endorsing him and he says that his speaking engagements have dried up. We may see a big difference between the polling and the election results this year. The Shy Tory Effect came t…

Even here. Downvoted for this simple observation. What have we become?

"this simple observation" is indicative of the bubble you're in. There are plenty of places where the reciprocal is true. Politics in the workplace and among friends has always had ramifications. Unfortunately with both candidates being so polarizing, it's worse than usual.

Your comment reads slightly like you have a persecution complex.

Re: undefined

#457

Post by striking »

drpancake wrote: post #269
kchoudhu wrote: post #236

I've been watching pg complain about Trump on Twitter with some interest. It is mind blowing to me that he has said nothing about Thiel so far.

This recent exchange with DHH may give you some insights: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113

dhh needs to chill. I understand writing in the polemic style is something people do, and that it's not fair to judge people on it, but it's really not working in his favor.

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adhh+to%3Apaulg

Re: undefined

#458

Post by S4M »

drpancake wrote: post #269
kchoudhu wrote: post #236

I've been watching pg complain about Trump on Twitter with some interest. It is mind blowing to me that he has said nothing about Thiel so far.

This recent exchange with DHH may give you some insights: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113

The fact that PG answers DHH with another question to avoid the original question proves that he (PG) is uncomfortable with the subject. Though, this would better be asked to sama.

Re: undefined

#459

Post by striking »

kchoudhu wrote: post #290
drpancake wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This recent exchange with DHH may give you some insights: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113

I used to work at a bank, which regularly required pre-clearance for employee donations to political parties and candidates to avoid conflict of interest issues. If YC is saying Thiel can't be managed on that basis, he is a partner. And if he is a partner, YC can choose not to partner with him.

But is there a conflict of interest here? YC isn't exactly a bank, you realize. It wouldn't make sense for them to have to manage CoIs, as far as I can tell. And firing Thiel like dhh is describing in his tweets seems fairly illegal to me (tho IANAL).

Re: undefined

#460

Post by nolepointer »

seanieb wrote: post #132
bobsgame wrote: post #38

I'm not very political and I haven't decided who to vote for yet, but I don't understand why the tech industry is so anti-Trump. He seems like a relatively sincere and smart guy to me, and some of his policies seem to be better for business. Is it because of tougher immigration laws? Are there other reasons based on his policies, or is it mostly just emotional?

He suggested banning folks with a particular religion from entering the country...that's some crazy dangerous fucked up shit. He has a bunch more crazy policies, but this is the most dangerous and frankly unheard of before Trump.

*Temporarily banning. He's since changed his tune, saying that we need to heavily scrutinize those coming from countries that are terrorist hot beds. Jimmy Carter did something similar, so don't say it's "unheard of."
Post reply on HN