The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#41

Post by ryanSrich » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

It's definitely not a popular position. Just take a look at Twitter and you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other. While not super surprising I've seen little discussion around the fact that your chances of being fired for supporting one of the candidates (you can guess who) publicly are pretty good. Especially when you work in the tech field.

Which to me is really interesting because it shows a side of politics that I've personally not seen before. This election has permeated all institutions and if you're not on the right side you're going to have a bad time.

Re: The 2016 Election

#42

Post by mkaziz » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

What about Brendan Eich and Prop 8? It was acceptable to denounce him then. But supporting Thiel is okay?

Re: The 2016 Election

#43

Post by sp527 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #18

sp527 wrote: post #5

> 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")

This was the shocking conclusion of a landmark case, Citizen's United vs FEC, that was heard by the Supreme Court.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Re: The 2016 Election

#44

Post by Analemma_ » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #7

YC: Happy to cut people off over SOPA support. YC: Can't bring itself to even censure a billionaire who only works with them "part-time" for supporting actual hatred and sexual abuse. I await this thread filling up with "but how you can be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance?!" and other Phil-101 Do You Sees

Might as well just copy-paste my comment from yesterday:

"Taking the high road like this is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. Hacker News can gregariously see past these faults because they're not in the crosshairs, but if Shanley Kane were a YC partner and saying "all men support rape culture, even if indirectly", there's no friggin way this comment section would be so sanguine."

Re: The 2016 Election

#45

Post by darawk » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

sethbannon wrote: post #4

Bravo 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…

David Duke is not a major party candidate, for one. And secondly, it is possible to support some of Trump's positions (say, opposition to free trade, stricter immigration policy, etc.) without endorsing his others. It is further possible to believe that his more extreme racist positions are mostly populist rhetoric that would not actually be implemented.

Now, I don't particularly believe those things. But it is possible to hold those views and support him, despite not agreeing with his more racist, misogynistic ones.

Censoring people by expulsion in this way is a very dangerous path to start down. Especially when you don't even really know what Thiel's views are. Support of a candidate is an extremely broad brush.

Re: The 2016 Election

#46

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The 2016 Election

#47

Post by rwmj » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

1337biz wrote: post #33

sanjeetsuhag wrote: post #2

> We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political candidate. That's not how things are done in this country. Amen.

I am always skeptical when somebody takes his personal opinion as the metric to tell the world what right and wrong is.

He explained pretty clearly in the article why Trump is objectively wrong.

Re: The 2016 Election

#48

Post by tdb7893 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #5

> 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…

I think that all you can assume with donations is that the statement is "I think that this is the best candidate" instead of "I endorse everything that this person says". I would then think that it is reasonable to not hold a donor responsible for everything that the person they donated to says

Re: The 2016 Election

#49

Post by chrisco255 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

The polarization in politics has gotten worse and worse. A lot of people are feeling marginalized and unheard. The echo chambers we find ourselves in make it difficult to even perceive how the other side could hold the views that they do. Yellow journalism is worse than I've ever seen. Viral social media posts that are more click bait than fact are spreading more misinformation than valuable insight. It's more than anyone can sort out. Even intelligent people are susceptible to bias and believing stories that align with their preconceived notions. What are we to do, as technologists, to alievate this problem?

Re: The 2016 Election

#50

Post by tyre » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

It's a slippery slope to not associate with people based on politics. It is also a slippery slope to continue to associate with people because the views they support are those of a politician.

David Duke is running for senate. Does that make Holocaust-denial a political issue?

There was a time when women having the right to vote was a political issue. Today it is not (though Thiel has raised concerns about what women's suffrage did for capitalist democracy[0].)

There was a time when slavery was considered a political issue. Today it is not.

I don't think sexual assault is in the realm of "personal politics". I don't think racism is either. Can I take the time to understand people who might advocate for these? Sure, but that doesn't mean I want them as leaders.

Having Thiel as a partner in YC, when Silicon Valley has tremendous issues with diversity already, sends a strong message. It's not about supporting a political party. I'm sure the YC partners have a wide spectrum of political views. This isn't about politics.

[0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...