> (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator).
So when he wrote that giving women the right to vote has been eroding capitalist democracy ... ?
The 2016 Election
11–20 of 646 posts
Re: The 2016 Election
#12Bravo to Sam for the endorsement and for calling Trump out for what he is. On the issue of Peter Thiel, for those of you that believe it's wrong to fire someone based on their political actions, is there any limit? If David Duke ran for office, or the Ku Klux Klan fielded a candidate for president, and someone gave a high profile speech endorsing them and supported their campaign with a million dollars, would it stil…
Thinking in absolutes is dangerous and anti-intellectual, that's the whole problem here. Rabidly following an ideology where you will entirely dismiss a person because their privately held beliefs don't align with yours.
There should be context to all decisions making. If the person has extreme views and, most importantly, they are very vocal about it to the point you don't think they'll fit into the culture of your organization, then I see no problem with not hiring them on that basis.
But at the same time if the person is able to treat others respectfully, not force their views on others, and keep personal life and business separated, then I don't see the problem with hiring them regardless of their views.
I'd be more concerned hiring a moderate democrat/republican/green/etc who forced their views on other people on the job, than hiring someone holding (what mainstream society considers) extreme views[^] and rarely talks about it at work.
[^] Note: calling for violence and coercive behavior is another story.
Re: The 2016 Election
#13Bravo to Sam for the endorsement and for calling Trump out for what he is. On the issue of Peter Thiel, for those of you that believe it's wrong to fire someone based on their political actions, is there any limit? If David Duke ran for office, or the Ku Klux Klan fielded a candidate for president, and someone gave a high profile speech endorsing them and supported their campaign with a million dollars, would it stil…
It depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to do effective business, probably not. If your goal is to signal your political allegiance, possibly to not get fired yourself, then yes get them out.
If your goals are a mix of both, weigh and decide.
Re: The 2016 Election
#14> I will continue to try to change [his grandmother & Thiel's] minds.
I can get behind that.
> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator
sama should address the weird things Peter has said about women voting.
Re: The 2016 Election
#15> if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator
That could be scary to employees of Y Combinator... what things fall on the blacklist? To me it's obvious that you will fire someone for saying racist or sexist remarks but it's not clear exactly what I can or cannot say to avoid being fired.
Re: The 2016 Election
#16> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…
With your logic, so Sam Altman effectively is saying half of trump of supporters are a basket of deplorables?
Re: The 2016 Election
#17Bravo to Sam for the endorsement and for calling Trump out for what he is. On the issue of Peter Thiel, for those of you that believe it's wrong to fire someone based on their political actions, is there any limit? If David Duke ran for office, or the Ku Klux Klan fielded a candidate for president, and someone gave a high profile speech endorsing them and supported their campaign with a million dollars, would it stil…
We are talking here about 40-50% of the American electorate not some fringe maniac. If you think those people's opinion should be shunned than your world view seems very restricted to me.
Re: The 2016 Election
#18> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…
What? Why is money speech? What makes donation different from voting pragmatically? (eg. "I'll put up with an offensive loudmouth for President if it means we get to avoid destroying another Middle Eastern civilization and potentially starting WW3")
Re: The 2016 Election
#19What is really bad here is that we have to vote against a very bad candidate, not for a good one. Hilary needs to commit to certain priorities for all those groups that decided to vote for her - potentially compromising what she has promised so far - simply voting against Trump. Otherwise voting for her is a lost vote...
Re: The 2016 Election
#20> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…
> he effectively is saying what Trump is saying
sort of yes, sort of no. this seems like it could be an all-or-nothing statement, which could be unrealistic.
every candidate is flawed and ultimately one has to make a decision on which will be the most beneficial wrt the issues you care about.