Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#131

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

timehastoldme wrote: post #83

hood_syntax wrote: post #23

I am disappointed with Thiel's decision to donate money to Donald Trump, but I don't care what Ellen Pao or her organization thinks about it. It's their prerogative, but I laughed at the tagline 'Sometimes hard decisions aren't that hard after all'. I don't believe an attempt to pressure outside parties into severing business ties with someone because of their questionable political judgement should be treated as if…

Or it's a stand against a movement which opposes their moral principles. To Pao (and, to the extent that it matters, me), D. Trump's movement is so vile that any prominent supporters of it waive their right to being tolerated. I am sure you'd agree that doing so would be acceptable if Thiel supported Strom Thurmond, Viktor Orban, or Mao Zedong; it's just a matter of how bad D. Trump is.

[deleted]

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#132

Post by lhnz » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

whybroke wrote: post #106

dfabulich wrote: post #9

There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…

Peter Thiel is not clueless but knows exactly what he is doing. Thiel opposes democracy [1] and Trump has done an extraordinary amount to damage it. Indeed, even knowing that defeat is all but certain, he concentrates even more on doing so. Spending 1.5 million to fund the a campaign denouncing all voting as rigged (amount other things [2]) is stunningly efficient at undermining it. [1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2…

I think it's much more likely that rather than "opposing democracy" he is attempting to connect a pro-technology viewpoint to an anti-globalisation one, and wishes to position himself politically so that he can eventually leverage this.

This is more believable to me since he has been giving talks on it for the last three or four years [0].

Liberal newspapers might want to convince you that this is all about hating democracy, women, and the free press but that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. There seems to be a very small amount of dirt that has been dug up and turned from a mole hill into a mountain.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KlXhrRxxbA

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#133

Post by M_Grey » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

sctb wrote: post #99

> The Nazis and white nationalists that have rallied to him are a lost cause. It's important that we avoid deliberately inflammatory statements like this on controversial issues—they serve only to disrupt already-sensitive threads.

And yet, a significant portion of Trump's current support is just that. Should we simply not talk about that fact for fear of inserting the reality of the controversy into a thread? It strikes me as disingenuous at best to try to silence people in the name of civility, when what they're saying is simply the truth.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#134

Post by supergeek133 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

jackfrodo wrote: post #88

supergeek133 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is one side of that is ALWAYS marginalized, right? The difference is she's pulling support because it's her side this time.

Is one side always marginalized? Maybe in political matters you could frame it that way, but I don't think that's the case in most tech-related discussions. This is the fairly narrow case of discussing diversity in tech.

Yeah, that's fair. I guess I was talking in the context of the political article.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#135

Post by xupybd » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

ivraatiems wrote: post #112

xupybd wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're correct that this might be a case of something the business needs to distance themselves from but they shouldn't try to take the moral high ground and at the same time vilify a man for his political views.

I'm not sure how else they would justify it.

I know this is not really possible, but it would be nice if they could just say his political views and actions reflect on our business and as we disagree with those views and actions we will no longer be working with him.

This avoids the need for language like this: "fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe." I feel that this sort of language makes us fear one another and drives a wedge that need not be there.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#136

Post by hindsightbias » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #53

vowelless wrote: post #18

> but we draw a line at individuals who fund violence and hate. (removing video as valid concerns were raised) Although, isn't there evidence that more violence has occurred against trump supporters than anyone else? I am not a supporter by any measure (for one, I'm form the middle east), but I'm trying to understand Paos quote.

>Due to his videos of ACORN workers allegedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the U.S. Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit. The national scandal resulted in the non-profit also losing most private funding before investigations were completed. In March 2010, ACORN was close to bankruptcy and had to close most of its offices.[1] Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the U…

Particularly ironic since Thiel provided funding to O'Keefe.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#137

Post by bitewhite » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

mootothemax wrote: post #75

Hang on - Thiel thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote, and has written unambiguously as much? How on earth is that not the argument for dropping him? From another angle, how on earth can you trust someone's advice if they truly and honestly think like that? I'm honestly shocked YC can champion women founders while having someone like this involved as a partner. Just shocking. And so, so disappointing.

I don't see evidence of Thiel making any such remarks about women's rights to vote and the link cited actually makes the opposite claim. To me, it destroys an author's credibility to make such a blatantly false citation.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#138

Post by wehadfun » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #56

hackinthebochs wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. >Hillary voting to invade Iraq Her own floor speech before her vote said she was voting yes precisely to give Bush leverage…

> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. "In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state,…

Lets just say Clinton did not push for the sales of the weapons. You thing Saudi Arabia would say oh well and make peace with the people they are bombing? They would find some other way to kill them. This may have been a "choose your pit of snakes" situation. Either sell them some weapons or let them by develop or acquire gas/nuclear/bio weapons,

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#139

Post by untog » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #122

sigmar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Also to this point: Trump has been attempting to delegitimize the election. This is very dangerous. If he has evidence of "rigged polling places", he should share that evidence. But inciting myths is dangerous for our democracy.

> "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." As an outsider looking in, isn't Hillary's history in advocating hatred and violence? Again, as somebody who isn't all that familiar with the state of the states isn't the choice between a moron and someone who is systematically immoral? Either way, its a sad state of affairs.

> As an outsider looking in, isn't Hillary's history in advocating hatred and violence?

Not really, no. Hillary has made some questionable choices, but I don't think that makes her any more or less "systematically immoral" than Trump - she just has a longer record, because she actually has political experience.

For example, both Trump and Clinton were in favor of the Iraq war. Trump got to backpedal and pretend otherwise later, because he never had to take a binding vote to express his opinion one way or the other. That doesn't make him a better person.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#140

Post by thedifference33 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #10

> His attacks on Black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe. Let's assume that not only is Trump a rapist, but that he's keeping a few women tied up in his basement. Even in this scenario, is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qata…

You're conflating "business here" with "business abroad". It happens a lot. These are two separate topics.

Trump is openly advocating for subjugation of women and minorities in the U.S.. He's explicitly called for firing a judge due to their race. I mean seriously?

And I think there is pretty clear evidence that Trump is not "just saying" racist and misogynist things. Especially on the misogyny point, he actively behaves like a d-bag. It's hard to think the race thing isn't just a bit better buried.

He has a history for trampling all over his business partners. Of lashing out when things don't go his way (see: basically every Trump media event of the last few weeks). How far you think that will go with the international community? Didn't get the deal he wanted from S. Korea? He goes on a race hating rant, and hey guess what, now the trade deal doesn't exist at all.

Ask the Philipines how having an emotionally unstable clown in charge has gone for them on the international stage. Then imagine that emotionally unstable clown has control of the largest military humanity has ever seen.

On the other hand, Hilary, by all accounts, has been praised as great to work with. I may not approve of the outcome of many of her decisions, but I'd rather have someone that can appear poised and level-headed dealing with people like Putin, or other suspect world leaders.

I think you're right. It is more nuanced. But many of those nuances we may never see. I have only my gut to guide me on them.

It says in matters international and domestic, Trump is a volatile clown. While Hilary will at least keep the dysfunctional status quo.