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

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#161

Post by masklinn » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

hprotagonist wrote: post #78

archagon wrote: post #26

Based on the awful things Trump has said and (apparently) done, it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry. Pao is right: "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Quite literally at times! (I might give a pass to the people following the party line or acting on incomplete information, but Thiel knows exactly…

>This fledgeling authoritarian streak within the tech community really disturbs me. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torme…

Good news, with authoritarian technologists you can have both.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#162

Post by masklinn » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

hprotagonist wrote: post #81

untog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing seems only natural to me. Very few people sit entirely within the spectrum of one of the two parties - they have to evaluate both and see which has the most pluses. If you're gay, the Republican party is threatening your ability to get married and live without discrimination, so I can believe that might seem more important than relatively minor shifts in economic policy.

Except, I guess, if you're Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency.

> Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against

A person worth north of 2 billion does not risk being discriminated against.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#163

Post by RangerScience » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:33 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…

> is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two countries where rape is currently legal?

Yes, although it's taking me awhile to figure out succinct and acceptable reasons "why". I keep coming back to this work: http://engl210-deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/omelas.p...

I think there's two things, here.

The first is: If you're comparing the means, compare the ends. I don't even know how to take this anywhere without feeling dirty, and the internet doesn't forget, so let's leave it at: I don't see any positive end in Trump. It's not even, "Here's something to see if the ends DO justify the means" - I straight up don't see any end worth trying to justify.

The second thing is: Black lives matter isn't about some new situation. It's about some new awareness.

> it seems like those bad things should be happening to people within the U.S. rather than abroad.

This is already the case. Right now, there's a "national debate" (whatever that means) as to whether or not this is OK. (It's not). This isn't about NEW bad things happening - it's about whether we're going to continue giving a pass to the bad things ALREADY happening. Starting here at home actually seems super reasonable to me. I have more ability to fix things here than I do a world away.

I'm going to try to leave it at this.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#164

Post by supergeek133 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #153

hprotagonist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, I guess, if you're Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency.

"who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency" Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against. I'm not saying minorities who are rich aren't also victims of prejudice and such, but when you are rich and relatively famous (and any kind of minority) you are very unlikely to be openly discriminate…

By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something?

I mean, I see more hateful things being said to celebrities than just about anyone else.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#165

Post by lhnz » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #69

lhnz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is literally a photo of Putin in the top-right header of that page. Insanely conspiratorial and reminiscent of the cold war.

Having seen (and laughed at) these kinds of conspiratorial-looking posts in previous elections on the Republican side, I would normally completely agree with you — except most of these links are to things that Trump or his allies have actually, literally said. Page decoration or not, it's impossible to deny that.

Of course. But on the other hand Clinton also doesn't have a squeaky past.

When it comes down to it, you either (1) just let people vote for the candidate they prefer, or you (2) fight dirty by: censoring them, massaging negative narratives about their behaviour, lobbying their financial backers to stop supporting them, and eventually see if you can deny voters their right to vote for them (or try to force the candidate to step out from the race).

I honestly think that if we are to talk about disliking authoritarianism, we should aim for the former and not the latter. The fact is, if you have nearly 50% of people in your country voting for someone you hate, you're not going to just be able to shut it down by ignoring them: you're going to need to reach some happy medium (or at least something that tries to be this).

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#166

Post by noobermin » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

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…

To be fair, pg does seem quite against Trump personally, at least on twitter he doesn't quite shut up about it. For him to accept Thiel while greatly disliking Trump doesn't really give me the sense that he doesn't care either way. Instead, I feel that he's most likely actively trying to look past Thiel's support. I'm not making a judgement whether to look past it is the right thing, but I don't think pg either is ambivalent about or secretly sympathetic to Trump.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#167

Post by unimpressive » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #26

Based on the awful things Trump has said and (apparently) done, it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry. Pao is right: "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Quite literally at times! (I might give a pass to the people following the party line or acting on incomplete information, but Thiel knows exactly…

>it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry.

On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand it's so easy to say this or make it seem true that making it a basis for firing/disconnecting from people is going to inevitably just mean you end up purging people you have even moderate ideological disagreements with.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#168

Post by threatofrain » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #142

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…

I agree with the thrust of your point - that organizations like YC should be allowed to uninvite or refuse to collaborate with people they are diametrically opposed to for political reasons. However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. I agree organizations have every right to not affiliate themselves with those investors, but in the real world th…

SOPA is not a solely political affair; it has substantive intersections with the technology industry. Paul Graham simply talks as if he sees the economic / technological outcome of SOPA so clearly that anyone else who think otherwise either has contradictory interests or is ignorant.

I'm not commenting on whether Paul Graham is accurate or inaccurate, modest or arrogant, but I'm not surprised that someone of his position holds strong views on his pet predictors.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#169

Post by bitewhite » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #76

maratd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To them, supporting Trump and Clinton are equally bad No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically. That's disgusting and people who support that sort of witch hunt should be ashamed of themselves. I vehemently disagre…

In short, you say "people who support that sort of witch hunt" are intolerant, and that there is no place for them here. So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved. Another matter of interest is the nature of the power imbalance of lack of same. The original witch hunts, McCarthyism, and other struggles…

"So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved".

No, OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. The statements "Thiel should be fired because of his political views" and "Thiels's political views should have no place in a civil society" are entirely different things. Political discourse has a special sanctity in American culture and I, personally, think that is one of our greatest strengths. Firing an employee due to their political views is fundamentally at odds with this idea and there are laws in place to protect employees from political retaliation. Although a company might be threatened by an employee running for political office, campaigning for a candidate or participating in fundraising or a political advocacy group, an employer should not be empowered to fire that employee. To do so would invite fundamentally undemocratic forces into our political system. e.g. a company feels threatened by candidate A, employees must support candidate B else they are fired.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#170

Post by ohthehugemanate » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #26

Based on the awful things Trump has said and (apparently) done, it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry. Pao is right: "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Quite literally at times! (I might give a pass to the people following the party line or acting on incomplete information, but Thiel knows exactly…

This is the first election where you were concerned about violence on e day?

I guess you don't remember the odds on Obama surviving his first month in office. Not only were assassination attempts expected, they were probable enough to have betting odds at Paddy Power.

You probably don't remember Bush Jr's 2004 victory, either, where literally millions of people took to the streets. Also notable that it looks like the election really may have been rigged.

From outside the country it's fascinating to watch. Half of the democratic party was accusing Hillary of vote rigging in the spring, and HN loved a couple of statistical analyses to that effect. But now that trump says it, HN says it is dangerously undermining your democracy.

Another favorite is the recent explosion over the (brilliantly played) sexual abuse video and accusations against trump. It was a fantastic power punch, coming from the same people who forgive or ignore some 21 different accusations against bill Clinton of extramarital affairs and even 3 of violent rape. That he made frequent lewd comments is well established in court. Hillary herself is accused in something like 13 of those cases of slandering, threatening, or bribing the victims to keep quiet. None of this (on either side) is proven of course, but there are videos and accuser testimonies enough for everyone. Of course, this cuts both ways: trump supporters hate hillary for the same reasons hillary supporters hate trump, and the Americans seem completely blind to their own doublethink. Everyone thinks the other side is literally the American Hitler.

Pao is totally within her rights to choose which brand of sexual abuser she wants to support. And I guess I'm within my rights to put a bag of popcorn in the micro for the last few weeks of the traditional, irrational 2 month hate leading up to November 8.