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

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#181

Post by archagon » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

lhnz wrote: post #165

archagon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 candid…

I strongly believe that there is no dirtiness in saying "your candidate is repugnant and we want nothing to do with his high-profile supporters". Sorry about lobbing in a Godwin, but I feel it's appropriate here. I've been watching a lot of WWII documentaries lately and it struck me just how excited and happy Germans were to see Hitler come to power. Before going to war, he was considered by many around the world to be a strong, positive leader for a resurgent Germany — to the point where people were asking if maybe authoritarianism wasn't such a bad thing after all. Seeing that made me wonder: how exactly would we prevent such a thing from happening in the future? Within the confines of democracy, the best way, as far as I can tell, is to repeat loudly and confidently as soon as we see it: your candidate is terrible, this is the path to fascism, this mockery of politics is beyond the pale and cannot be supported by reasonable people. And this especially applies to supporters with influence and power.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#182

Post by whybroke » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

lhnz wrote: post #132

whybroke wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

For that to be, Trump would have to win (or have post election influence) and Thiel would have to believe Trump's low education, semi-ludite supporters could be convinced the tech that displaced many of them is good.

It's hard to image Thiel could possibly believe the latter but surely it's impossible that he believes the former.

>...Liberal newspapers...

Like the WSJ?

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#183

Post by Normal_gaussian » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #139

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 other…

That's an odd side line to take it on. Surely it is much better to consider her history as a whole? As far as I'm aware isn't she quite the supporter of what I am assuming we would both consider fundamentally immoral regimes across the world?

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#184

Post by georgemcbay » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

sedachv wrote: post #176

supergeek133 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something? More like being murdered for being gay or black or ... and the police refusing (sometimes openly) to investigate, which used to happen well into the 1960s in the US.

Yes, this is more the sort of thing I meant.

Sure, when it comes to hateful semi-anonymous bad things said about people on twitter or whatever, celebrities are prime targets (and that kind of sucks, celebrities are people too), but I'm more thinking about active physical-world types of discrimination, the kind that end up with you being beaten, possibly killed, or just denied otherwise deserved opportunities.

Being rich/famous doesn't guarantee you won't suffer from that sort of discrimination, but anecdotally it does appear to lessen the chances by a great deal.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#185

Post by masklinn » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

551199 wrote: post #175

masklinn wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This fabricated outrage created by media & Clinton campaign of Trump's 'alleged' doings is quite concerning. You mean the serial sexual assault which he basically confessed to multiple times unprompted (bus tape, stern show, …), and to which his only defences are a british lunatic (who "confessed" to being a child pimp for british cabinet members at 17) and that his accusers are too ugly for him to assault? Let us…

You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on. Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016'[0] [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928

> You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on.

1. Trump was not hammering anything, accusing Hillary for Bill's infidelity has never been a hammer over the 20 years it's been used (in fact it's usually backfired). The strategy was flopping as irrelevant even amongst republicans. Reminder: Bill is not running for president.

2. Kenneth Starr's investigation dropped all of these accusations back when it was trying to find anything to pin on him, none of them were credible, the only thing they got in the end was infidelity in a consensual relationship

3. And Trump's bringing up of Bill was only a flippant attempt to direct people away from his Access Hollywood tape.

> Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016' https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928

Er… so? That reads like a criticism ad prep:

> This will be a microsite

Which I guess they ended up not having to run since Trump has been providing the quotes directly.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#186

Post by bcheung » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

jowiar wrote: post #145

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…

> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. And this is some seriously oppressing bullshit that has (wittingly or not) prolonged white/male supremacy. People creating a space that makes it very clear that non-white, non-males aren't welcome, then well-meaning "moderates" going along with it because, well, I'm not going to judge him for his politics. It's how…

To take his support of the Republican party to mean that he is against non-white, non-males is dishonest and straw man. If you have some evidence then present it. Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. Clearly he doesn't support everything in Trump and the Republican party.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#187

Post by hackinthebochs » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:50 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,…

Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies" and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or her urging?

It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in recent memory.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#188

Post by aaroninsf » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

Denounce and reject Thiel.

Do it now.

There should be consequences, no matter who you are. Lines must drawn, and this is the clearest articulation I have seen to date as why Thiel must go.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#189

Post by rtx » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #139

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 other…

Aylan Kurdi is dead because of Hillary.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#190

Post by yanilkr » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

Peter Theil had a long term vision for the world where others failed to see such future. I see similar line of reasoning for Peter Theil's support.

1. If you think that business people can govern better than Politicians or want to achieve an environment where it gets easier and acceptable for business leaders to seek political offices, this is a huge step in that direction. China already took this step of inviting people who succeed in business to participate in governance. If Trump can do it, so can every other business person who thinks they are better than Trump. If Trump wins this, I guarantee you next season its going to be more qualified people running for office and if Trump loses, we still would have made progress in that direction.

2. Peter Theil's support for Trump gave him (gay guy) a platform to speak at a republican convention. This is a huge progress for everyone when republicans are standing up for gay people. It makes it easy for other people to reach out and co-operate with each other.

3. Peter Theil getting into politics allows something like a Y-combinator(not the news site but a complete accelerator) for politics possible otherwise it would just be more lawyers running again and again. Just like YC grooms tech leaders, Theil's expertise into this venture could groom next generation governing leaders.

What ever your politics are, this is progress.