Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 2016 Election

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#51

Post by braythwayt »

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.

Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor.

Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak.

If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge.

But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the weak, nor is it a case of the powerful purging voices from discourse.

It's a choice, simple as that. Agree, disagree, fine. But it's not a purge, and it's not oppression.

Re: The 2016 Election

#52

Post by abiox »

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")

there are a variety of legal cases that cover this, such as Buckley v. Valeo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

"The majority, in a per curiam opinion, contended that expenditure limits contravened the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression."

Re: The 2016 Election

#54

Post by MrZongle2 »

justjico wrote: post #22
xname2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With your logic, so Sam Altman effectively is saying half of trump of supporters are a basket of deplorables?

She apologized the next day though.

"“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong," Clinton said in a statement released Saturday afternoon." (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-basket...)

Apparently the apology was over "half" rather than "deplorables".

Re: The 2016 Election

#55

Post by cschmidt »

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")

sp527 is referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Re: The 2016 Election

#56

Post by rsobers »

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…

Agreed. This is crazy:

1. A rich and powerful person parroting Trump's evil statements --> ban from YC.

2. A rich and powerful person helping put Trump in a position to turn his evil statements into reality for an entire country --> No ban from YC.

Re: The 2016 Election

#57

Post by munificent »

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")

> Why is money speech?

It amplifies the speaker's message at a point in time when it may still affect others who hear it.

By the time you vote, in secret, your choice affects no other voters.

Re: The 2016 Election

#58

Post by lotso »

mc32 wrote: post #10

Why would Sam not go for a third party who was less problematic? There are third party candidates available. Is it because they are unlikely to be elected? If so, this thinking keeps on trapping us into voting for the least bad of the bad.

If you really care about improving the viability of third parties in this country, please do that in local and state elections where it is actually possible to elect third parties.

Voting for 3rd parties in Presidential elections is fine, but really doesn't do much really and if you actually dig deep into 3rd party Presidential candidates, they're usually not great either.

Re: The 2016 Election

#59

Post by dmcginty »

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…

While I disagree with Peter Thiel's support of Trump, I believe that he is a very smart man, and quite qualified to be a partner with YC. To fire him over his political affiliation would be petty censorship. It's easy to look at somebody like Trump and see the racist, sexist, and xenophobic parts. These attributes aren't naturally shared with Trump's supporters. As Altman said, it would be different if Thiel expressed some sort of bigotry. Also, many states (including California) have laws forbidding retaliation for political practices outside of work.

Re: The 2016 Election

#60

Post by [deleted] »

bleepbloop22 wrote: post #11

> (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 ... ?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN