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

361–370 of 414 posts

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#361

Post by awqrre »

sigmar wrote: post #335
awqrre wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is evidence... Have you seen the hidden-cam video of Alan Schulkin, NYC commissioner of board of election claiming that they are in fact rigged? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

Project veritas / James O'Keefe have zero credibility. They've edited videos and set people up so many times that no one pays attention to them anymore[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

I don't think that the editing matters in this case... but this is not the only example of rigging...

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#362

Post by hackinthebochs »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #266
hackinthebochs wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that Clinton is shitty. She certainly represents "politics as usual", and that is the current bogeyman of the hour. But ultimately she's an effective politician with reasonable positions. Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A larg…

Two questions: 1. You stated that Hilary Clinton is "an effective politician with reasonable positions". Which of Hilary Clinton's positions do you like? 2. Which part(s) of Bernie's platform do you think held back his chances of winning the nomination/election?

It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen.

As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#363

Post by Turing_Machine »

paulv wrote: post #358
Turing_Machine wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You did know that Clinton called Byrd a "friend and mentor" but didn't know that Byrd repeatedly & profusely apologized for his racism. No, actually, I did know that. I just didn't believe him at the time, and still don't. >You did know that Thurmond "apologized" for his racism but didn't know that Thurmond didn't really mean it. According to whom? You? > You call me out for not providing a source (which ceejayoz pr…

Despite his repeated apologies and support of legislation that helped people of color, you're not willing to believe that Byrd was genuine when he apologized. But you do believe Thurmond was genuine. Okay. It has become clear that this conversation is a waste of my time.

>But you do believe Thurmond was genuine.

I believe nothing of the sort. I explicitly said "Thurmond absolutely was a racist." How is that not clear?

You are, to be blunt, lying. Hint: that doesn't actually work when my original words are here for all to read. I would recommend sticking to out of context quoting from obscure sources in future.

I take it, then, that you can't refute my factual statements, despite declaring them to be "incorrect", repeatedly?

You cited Thurmond's "I have nothing to apologize for" out of context as evidence that he never claimed to have given up segregationist views, even though when (laboriously) tracked down to its original source, his very next sentence was in fact just such a claim.

And you have the nerve to call someone else "intellectually dishonest".

> It has become clear that this conversation is a waste of my time.

Agreed.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#364

Post by Turing_Machine »

purephase wrote: post #284
Turing_Machine wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strom Thurmond also repudiated his earlier racism, but that didn't stop the OP from using him as a litmus test. Why is that?

You'll need to source that. Despite some evidence in his later actions, Strom never vocally repudiated his earlier racism. I couldn't find any sources on it. His filibuster against the Civil Rights Act put him in this position. Had he succeeded, his impact would have been far more detrimental to the rights of those protected under the act today then anything Byrd had/has done. Both are disagreeable sorts, but Strom's…

"You'll need to source that."

See the actual text that paulv selectively quoted out of context below.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/07/13/met_233245.s...

Second sentence: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation."

Actual quote from Thurmond below:

"I may have said some things that I could have left off because I favor everybody receiving equal treatment," Mr. Thurmond said. "Race should not enter into it. It's merit that counts."

And in a (probably futile) attempt to stave off another misstatement of my position: I don't believe Strom Thurmond stopped being a racist. I don't believe that Robert Byrd stopped being one either.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#365

Post by M_Grey »

User23 wrote: post #281
M_Grey wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40% of America is not interested in Trump. 57% of America isn't even voting, and significantly less than half of the remainder are supporting Trump. Of those, you'd be a bit thick to assume that more than half are doing it out of any meaningful support for him, rather than ideology or despising the alternatives. As for, "people who have all the weapons", unless they have tanks, an air force, a navy, and AA capability…

You should do some research into the demographics of the various combat arms roles in the US military.

If you're suggesting a military coup in this country, you're dreaming.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#366

Post by ScottBurson »

maratd wrote: post #237
aiig wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant. Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street.

> Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street. Even then. Be an activist, go out and vote, fight for yourself, but don't attack others because they said something you didn't like.

Tolerating their views, yes. Tolerating violence or the threat of violence, no.

To call someone "faggot" is indeed to threaten violence. The word originally meant "burning stick"; that's why a lit cigarette is sometimes called a "fag". By calling someone "faggot", one is saying they should be burned alive.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#367

Post by flukus »

ScottBurson wrote: post #366
maratd wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street. Even then. Be an activist, go out and vote, fight for yourself, but don't attack others because they said something you didn't like.

Tolerating their views, yes. Tolerating violence or the threat of violence, no. To call someone "faggot" is indeed to threaten violence. The word originally meant "burning stick"; that's why a lit cigarette is sometimes called a "fag". By calling someone "faggot", one is saying they should be burned alive.

Faggot hasn't had that connotation since around the same time that gay meant happy.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#368

Post by grzm »

ScottBurson wrote: post #366
maratd wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street. Even then. Be an activist, go out and vote, fight for yourself, but don't attack others because they said something you didn't like.

Tolerating their views, yes. Tolerating violence or the threat of violence, no. To call someone "faggot" is indeed to threaten violence. The word originally meant "burning stick"; that's why a lit cigarette is sometimes called a "fag". By calling someone "faggot", one is saying they should be burned alive.

Etymology is really interesting. And the meaning of words can change and new meanings can be associated over time. The word computer dates back to the 17th century referring to a person who calculates.[0] I don't think this is the meaning most people intend when using the word computer today.

I'm not condoning the use of hateful language or threats. I just find your example problematic.

[0]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=computer

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#369

Post by ceejayoz »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #345
ceejayoz wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: if this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it. It's always interesting to me how technologically literate HNers suddenly forget how to use a search engine when they don't want to acknowledge a point. It took me like 15 seconds to Google. Bottom half of the page: https://books.google.com/books?id=UjO6L2hv0mIC&pg=PA341&lpg=...

Oh, I found that one, but the quote isn't sourced there either, and this appears to be a hit piece biography of Thurmond. Even taking it at face value, the quote is grossly taken out of context, just as I said. "I don't have anything to apologize for. I don't have any regrets. I may have said some things that I could have left off, because I favor everybody receiving equal treatment. Race should not enter into it. It…

> Oh, I found that one...

You said:

> If this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.

You then dismiss it as a "hit piece", apparently out of nowhere - the author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bass) appears reputable and I can't find anything Googling that indicates it was controversial in any way.

> Which also says: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation."

It has been pointed out to you elsewhere that the "state's rights" pivot is something of a dog whistle - moving away from explicit support for racial segregation was a political necessity (see also: the famous Atwater quote in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).

The significant difference between Thurmond and Byrd is, IMO, the level of contrition. "No longer supports" isn't the same thing as "happy to apologize and keep apologizing", especially when the latter comes with demonstrable action to right the injustices.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#370

Post by wutbrodo »

jimmydddd wrote: post #352
amyjess wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Just curious why everyone loves throwing around the term "fascist" so much. Why not use more precise language to describe what you dislike about a candidate? The term seems ambiguous, and no one seems to have a clear definition of what it is. At most, there seems to be some related factors. For example, my image of Fascists is that they heavily promote war and expanding the empire. But, in contrast, the "fascist" can…

This is hardly a mystery: Because language is powerful and the vast majority of people are too stupid and lazy to do anything but absorb the positive/negative valence of the term being used. The redefinition and stretching of terms is hardly a new thing. Just because Stalin was famous for Orwellian use of language doesn't mean that it doesn't happen at pretty much every level of politics even in relatively well functioning political systems.
Post reply on HN