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

Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 414 posts

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#251

Post by bcheung »

braythwayt wrote: post #226
bcheung wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He may not be explicitly against non-white, non-male, non-gay, non-christian people, but he may be perfectly willing to have them thrown under the bus as long as he gets what he wants. Some people find that deplorable. There is a similar dynamic in play with Trump's support from evangelicals. His personal choices are nearly 100% at odds with their social conservatism, but many evangelicals seem ok with this as long a…

Sure, but that's a consequence of a 2 party system and choosing the lesser evil, isn't it?

He's both Libertarian and gay, both are extremely socially liberal. Why do you say he is socially conservative? I'm not seeing that.

A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues but that is just because there are only 2 choices (my bedroom vs my wallet).

A vote for either party is throwing everyone from the other party under the bus, isn't it?

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-o...

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#252

Post by virgil_disgr4ce »

amyjess wrote: post #231
untog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him. Thiel, of course, doe…

Just adding to this, claiming that a democratic election is rigged is one of Umberto Eco's 14 signs of Ur-Fascism [0]: > Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism. [0] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Awesome find. Sharing this.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#253

Post by masklinn »

maratd wrote: post #215
masklinn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him, bloke's got "fuck you money" a hundred times over, nothing could "destroy" him short of institutional assault, and even then possibly not. And you're advocating for tolerating intolerance whose end-result is the destruction…

> Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him This isn't just about Thiel. It's about everyone else too. If you create those sorts of standards, they'll apply to everyone. How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating. > So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can…

> This isn't just about Thiel.

It is specifically and precisely about Thiel. As others have noted, YC has distanced itself from relationships for political reasons in the past.

> How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating.

Yeah except no, see there are two issues with your assertions:

1. Thiel is not employed by YC and not in a position of weakness or dependency.

2. I live in a country where you can't just tell employees to get fucked without providing a very good reason. My boss being on record firing me for my comments would net me a few years worth of income.

> Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.

But not that other people can find them intolerable? Only repugnant views are worth expressing and defending? That's an… interesting point of view, and one with which I emphatically disagree.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#254

Post by st3v3r »

Alex3917 wrote: post #227
archagon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you realize how disingenuous this statement is? Trump's mantra of "the media is conspiring against me, the polls are all rigged, the election will be stolen from under us" is a far cry from anything we've seen in previous years. This has nothing to do with electronic voting machines. This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense.

> This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense. Trump may be saying it for the wrong reasons, but he's absolutely right that the integrity of the election is in doubt.

No, he absolutely is not. He is acting as a giant crybaby, and he will continue doing so after the election, with disastrous consequences.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#255

Post by danem »

hiringmanager wrote: post #201
untog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing seems only natural to me. Very few people sit entirely within the spectrum of one of the two parties - they have to evaluate both and see which has the most pluses. If you're gay, the Republican party is threatening your ability to get married and live without discrimination, so I can believe that might seem more important than relatively minor shifts in economic policy.

I am Gay. Hillary Clinton is on the record her entire career as opposing gay marriage. Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference". As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons (Bill signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the first place) are the anti-gay ones (and add Obama to that too) Not all of us are gullible to the blatant pandering and fear mongering demo…

Which party has a stronger record of LGBT support? According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center[1], as recently as this year, only 33% of republicans supported gay marriage. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but what I'm really voting for is the Democrat party. This means keeping another Scalia out of the supreme court, and forcing the Republicans to take a long hard look at themselves, and really evaluate where they stand as a party.

[1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay...

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#256

Post by grey-area »

amyjess wrote: post #231
untog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him. Thiel, of course, doe…

Just adding to this, claiming that a democratic election is rigged is one of Umberto Eco's 14 signs of Ur-Fascism [0]: > Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism. [0] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

This is a wonderful and frightening summary of what makes fascism so superficially attractive and easy to slip into. Another point relevant to the current debate:

For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

Those on both sides of this debate who seek to silence and ostracise their opponents should rethink that position.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#257

Post by supergirl »

dfabulich wrote: post #9

There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…

I'm surprised people on HN are so naive to quickly dismiss Trump because of what he says. Politicians wanting to get elected will say anything to win. After they get elected everything changes. This applies many times to politicians promising the world and then delivering very little but will also happen to politicians promising crazy things and then delivering little. Talk is cheap. Once you are elected you realize it's not so easy as you thought to bring changes, good or bad.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#258

Post by st3v3r »

xupybd wrote: post #250
sdenton4 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having Thiel on the board is a statement that intolerance based on race, gender, or religion is tolerable by yc. This in turn chills applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males.

Why is it okay to call out white western males, but to focus down on any other gender and race with a negative statement like that would be seen as intolerant?

Historical context.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#259

Post by FireBeyond »

hiringmanager wrote: post #201
untog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing seems only natural to me. Very few people sit entirely within the spectrum of one of the two parties - they have to evaluate both and see which has the most pluses. If you're gay, the Republican party is threatening your ability to get married and live without discrimination, so I can believe that might seem more important than relatively minor shifts in economic policy.

I am Gay. Hillary Clinton is on the record her entire career as opposing gay marriage. Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference". As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons (Bill signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the first place) are the anti-gay ones (and add Obama to that too) Not all of us are gullible to the blatant pandering and fear mongering demo…

"Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference"."

That's an -odd- comparison. One is about gay marriage, and one is about people being gay.

Trump is perfectly capable of having no issue with someone being gay AND being against their right to marriage.

And realistically? What's worse for you as a gay person - Donald's -personal- beliefs, or those he advocates as a policy?

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/se...

Besides, Trump has said a lot of things that contradict other things he's said, and gay marriage is one of those:

"I am not in favor of gay marriage."

For someone affected by such things, you really should be more informed.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#260

Post by hsod »

Project Include is disassociating with YC because YC is associated with Peter Thiel who is associated with Donald Trump who advocates hatred and violence.

Are we to draw a principle from this? Is PI arguing that dissociation from those who advocate hatred and violence is not only a moral imperative, but transitive?

What about all the CEOs of YC companies? Are they obligated to disassociate? If they don't, are we as customers obligated to dissociate from them? If we don't, are the people in our lives obligated to disassociate from us?

As far as I can tell, this post contains no explicit generalizable principle for imperative disassociation. Probably because that's a really hard thing to create.

What's easy is taking a strong stand on a hyper-specific situation where the bad guys are caricatures and your target audience already agrees with you. It's just not very interesting.

Post reply on HN