> That kind of diversity is painful and unpopular, but
> it is critical to health of a democratic and pluralistic
> society. The 2016 Election
101–110 of 646 posts
Re: The 2016 Election
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
If you are claiming that calling a non-trivial proportion of Trump's supporters deplorable requires an apology, you disagree with me about what is deplorable.
Re: The 2016 Election
#103YC: 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
I mean, I see the difficulty. Ostensibly, Peter Thiel has a lot of value to the tech community. SOPA does not. But.... this post does censure Peter Thiel. sama is completely disavowing Thiel's support of Trump. Maybe I don't understand what "censure" means though, if you meant something else.
No, the post censures _Trump_. The strongest it gets against Thiel is "I can't understand [his support]".
That's pretty weak sauce, and also isn't an official YC position. YC needs to distance itself from this donation and this support.
Re: The 2016 Election
#104> 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…
No he isn't. Since Trump has donated to the Clinton Foundation (edit: and Hillary's senate and presidential campaigns), does that mean that he is effectively saying everything that Hillary is saying? Does buying an album mean I agree with every lyric on it? If I donate to someone who then incites violence, can I be prosecuted?
Also, the Supreme Court does not believe money is speech. If they did, campaign contribution limits would be obviously unconstitutional.
Re: The 2016 Election
#105If I had an employee whose job description involved hiring (or providing advice about hiring) a high-level addition to our company, and said employee advised that we should hire an individual who is widely known to be:
- racist
- erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage
- a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants
- shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency
I would conclude that my employee has bad judgement. Very bad judgement. I would fire said employee immediately. I would also likely shun said employee on a personal level.
I don't think people get a pass on this one just because this decision is being made in the context of politics.
Re: The 2016 Election
#106YC: 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
I think you are overstating the case. Thiel didn't support Trump's hatred and sexual abuse. Presumably he said "I'm proud to be gay" at the republican convention precisely to put those issues aside. (Apparently he was the first person to do this, which shouldn't be underestimated.)
Thiel supports Trump for his economic policies, which seems utterly bizarre to me, but I don't see any double standard in terms of YC's behavior.
Re: The 2016 Election
#107I'm happy to take 'yes' for an answer.
On some glorious day, notorious vampire Peter Thiel will be hoisted by his own petard, find himself stranded in the sunlight, and turn into a column of ash.
In the meantime, this was an appropriate stance to take.
Re: The 2016 Election
#108It'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…
> This isn't about politics.
Of course not - it's about religion, and burning the heretics.
Re: The 2016 Election
#109> 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.
Opinion laundering.
Re: The 2016 Election
#110The problem I have with this campaign is that _both_ candidates present a legitimate threat to the republic, in different ways. Sam is of course correct, but a similar argument can be made for Hillary.
Is there still time for a do-over?