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

491–500 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#491

Post by notthemessiah »

rorykoehler wrote: post #65
morgante wrote: post #29

I'm genuinely curious what the rational for Thiel is in doing this. He's a smart guy, but I just don't see the ROI. At this point, it seems very unlikely that Trump will get elected. So Thiel isn't getting access to a future President. Plus, in addition to the monetary cost of the donation there's definitely a very real reputational cost. A lot of people in SV hate Trump and are completely mystified as to Thiel's sup…

I've always found the right-libertarian philosophy to be extremely confused. They want freedom to do whatever they want but they also want to base everything off of capitalism which by definition means you can't do whatever you want unless you're rich. It just doesn't make any sense (unless of course you're already a billionaire in which case your world is already quite libertarian in reality).

There are two notions of freedom to consider: One is the notion of a liberal society in which the collective notion of rights lead to freedom from slavery. This notion underpins modern liberal society.

The other notion of freedom developed in the late Roman empire which came to mean a lord's right to do whatever he wants with his property, including his slaves. This notion of freedom, indistinguishable from power, lies at the heart of the Neo-Reaction movement.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/openeconomy/david-graeber/two-...

Re: undefined

#492

Post by nostrebored »

thecrow1213 wrote: post #437
tvural wrote: post #264

Thiel might have ulterior motives, but his support of Trump is not too surprising if you've listened to his other ideas. He feels that the political agenda has been overrun by distractions, like "who can use which bathroom", at the expense of real problems, like the stagnation of median wages over the last forty years. He prefers the days when the national conversation was about how to beat the Soviets, and sees the…

I think it's funny that he's supporting the party that is making an issue out of the "who can use which bathroom" deal. Transgender people just want to use the bathroom they align with, it's the GOP that's making up stories about how children are at risk or some shit. Theil is an idiot.

The bathroom they align with? Do you believe in male and female brains? What makes someone align with a gender? The whole trans thing is regressive, homophobic, and medically unsound. Beyond that, the bathroom safety issue for women is real.

Re: undefined

#493

Post by chrissnell »

idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

Unbelievable. I'm disgusted that you would suggest the blackballing of an investor simply because you don't agree with his political opinion--an opinion, I might add, that is shared amongst a large percentage of our country. Trump say a lot of nutty things but he's not far off the mark when he speaks of a liberal conspiracy to ruin him in this election. Your suggestion is a textbook example of this: using out-of-band threats and pressure to force the hands of major supporters.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re: undefined

#494

Post by zappo2938 »

neonbat wrote: post #405
_tpzm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is a libertarian I just find this impossible to reconcile with his support for Trump, the most authoritarian presidential candidate in a very long time and possibly ever. I think many of his supporters would actually agree with that description, they like that about him, and they absolutely do not describe themselves as libertarian. They describe themselves as "conservatives" who want a "strong" president to "ta…

thiels philosophy is actually deeply technocratic authoritarian. in a lot of ways he is a technocrat and not a true libertarian. hes said on multiple occasions that politics has failed libertarians and that they should try 'alternatives.'

I tried looking up libertarian on Wikipedia and there are so many definitions I'm not sure what people mean when they say the word, libertarian. What I thought the word meant years ago was no government, turns out that is called anarchism. When people tell me that they are libertarian I always wonder what the hell that means or if they even know.

Re: undefined

#495

Post by striking »

S4M wrote: post #483
striking wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not avoiding the question. It's a stupid question. And this isn't nearly the first time dhh has butted heads with pg on Twitter (for no discernible reason other than to pick a fight).

DHH asks him if Thiel has invested more in Trump than in any other YC startup - implicitly asking PG if he's happy to have such a partner. PG retorts by asking if DHH would fire an employee who would be supporting Trump. How is that not avoiding the question?

I doubt it's even a question pg can answer though. I see it as pg getting to the crux of dhh's argument, without the foreplay. It helps show dhh's true beliefs. But sure, it is dodging the question.

This is a thing they have discussed before. If I were pg, I'd be bored with it by now.

Re: undefined

#496

Post by josho »

idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

I have to admit as much as I dislike Trump pg raises a valid point. Another analogy would be YC disavowing Thiel for being gay.

An employer has no business in their employees sexual lives or politic preferences.

Re: undefined

#497

Post by fmihaila »

2AF3 wrote: post #395
rconti wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but offhandedly dismissing "these dishonest polls", when, frankly, 1. They're the best data we have 2. We have no reason to believe they're incorrect 3. There is REALLY no reason to believe they're dishonest Is 100% intellectually dishonest. This is exactly what happened 4 years ago, and apparently some people have not learned from their tremendous mistake. If you want to know why "turnout at a campaign ev…

I'm in fantasy land? If you think the polls aren't manipulated for political advantage you are in fantasy land. You're appeal to 'real scientific data' is childish, since the data can be easy manipulated.

And yet, Trump supporters never had any trouble believing the polls when they showed their candidate leading during the primaries. Every single time, Trump would open his rallies with "have you seen the latest polls?".

When the polls show him to be ahead, it's evidence that the voters love him. When he's behind, it's evidence that the polling is rigged.

Re: undefined

#498

Post by blfr »

mrcarrot wrote: post #387
DominikR wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Austria, it was a disgrace. All of media was attacking the right wing guy with no dissenting voices, and you have to be afraid of personal and professional consequences if you endorse him or say anything against the Socialist candidate they are trying to push. It's literally like in the Soviet Union, at least that's what my parents told me as they came from a Communist country.

The media can't be very good at propaganda if they were 'all attacking the right wing guy' and he _still_ managed to poll almost 50% of the vote.

It's a feedback loop of adverse selection. They become more politically slanted, fewer people listen to them, their revenues plummet, their recruitment pool gets shallower, they become more politically slanted... At a certain point only true propaganda believers willing to work for ~minimum wage remain. Now, they're also getting hammered by social media hastening the process.

The same thing happened to communists. After 50 years only idiots and sociopathic opportunists (since they still had the spoils of power) could be found in the party.

Re: undefined

#499

Post by kefka »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #422
Jimmy wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thiel understands that should Clinton win, there will be war Why is this?

Maybe because of Clinton's track record. While Sec. of State, she persuaded Obama to intervene in Libya, and in recent speeches she has suggested that the U.S. should take a more aggressive stance against Russian expansionism. She's more of a hawk than is either Obama or her husband. I would put her in roughly the same category of interventionism as Bush.

I know. When I've heard that recently in the last debate, it somewhat made me throw up in my mouth. Last thing I want is yet another war we can't win.

I also started thinking about John Titor again, regarding how things happened in his story/anecdote. Obviously different, but a good deal of things seem pretty similar... How many rights will we lose before it's too many?

Re: undefined

#500

Post by Keverw »

badsock wrote: post #468
Keverw wrote: post #359

I feel more people support Trump than we know. Probably many billionaires, but don't announce it because the people who listen to two minute sound bites in between their cartoons and reality tv will call them "racist" and the other ist words. I just don't get how business people can support democrats when republicans are supposed to be more business friendly(for smaller gov, less regulations from what I've heard). I…

There isn't a big dial labelled "regulations" that when you turn it up, the "economy" needle goes down. Business requires trust. Just as more and better deals happen when both parties believe that contracts will be enforced, when consumers can trust that the meat they're buying has been inspected, that there's no toxic materials in their mattresses, and that their bank deposits are insured, the whole engine of commer…

Some good points. I liked Obama 4 years ago when I was old enough to vote for president the first time. Now 4 years later, I'm liking Trump. But I still think social issues and even things like basic income, and using technology to do work sounds interesting.

Trump says he'll tax goods made out of the US 30% more on import, he never said they had to be made by humans.

I feel regulations increase the cost of business within the US, and also why there's very few banks or cable companies. Then no matter how big the gov gets, it's still slow at approving things. It just feels like something isn't working. I guess we just need to find a balance between the two and simplify things.

Like for some things, you need a whole army of lawyers working for you. I just feel the world isn't meant to give the average person an advantage. Plus big companies can afford more regulations, to make it harder for smaller businesses to compete with them. I think over time it's going to get worse and worse for the amount of regulations. There's probably honest business owners that aren't even aware of all of them as they are scattered all over the place, and disorganized.

Post reply on HN