51–60 of 1001 posts
Just one quick comment, because these discussions always go there: This is not about Hillary. Whatever the family Clinton did or not did, it doesn't matter. This is about someone who supports Donald Trump in a significant way, and the person Donald Trump and his potential negative impact on our society.
Please, do the right thing, and don't take it down again. https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinat...
Taking down or not is up to the site operator. HN is a privately run site. The operators can decide which content they want or don't to see on their site. So there's no "right thing" here, really.
I wish that more smart people would not demonize either party and instead analyze and dissect each platform and weigh the potential benefits and consequences of them. It is much more convincing to read actual facts about the platforms, and it's a lot more constructive. With the brain power here, we might even be able to make constructive suggestions and possibly even influence either party's policies so that regardle…
There is just no basis for an actual discussion or comparison on policy details.
Why do people need to drag their personal opinions into business matters? Demanding someone gets fire/removed just because they have a different political opinion than you is ridiculous.
HN admins - if you're going to shut this one down as well, could I appeal to you to at least give a reasoning why? Killing posts like these without for example dang providing at least a quick reasoning why leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
There's nothing very interesting in vilifying Thiel.
Peter Thiel's support for Trump seems instrumental and not an end-in-itself[1]. I disagree with it and think it's stupid. But if he was my business partner and told me that he had good reasons to think that the long-term utility of a Trump president outweighs the unpleasantness and negative side-effects then I would argue with him and try to talk him out of it. Thinking about it in this way, shunning him seems to be…
It is entirely possibly that some people support Trump because of his crass and divisive rhetoric, and it's also entirely possible that some people support Trump because of his stance on trade. Is it really anyone's place to demand that another voter change the list of priorities that determine their choice of candidate? Does that not fundamentally alter the intended functioning of the way voting in a democracy ought to work?
I am all for constructive debate on why the policies and character of one candidate makes them more suitable for holding a particular government post, but to suggest that one ought to resort to intimidation, ostracism, marginalizing and other such methods because of an individual's personal choice to prioritize a candidate's agreeable stance on one issue, over a disagreeable stance of another, seems very dangerous to me.
During his campaign, President Obama famously claimed that he felt marriage was a union that ought to be between a man and a woman. Most would consider this to be a highly regressive view, yet voted for him because he was their preferred choice on a whole lot of issues. Campaign officials like David Axelrod later revealed that he took this position publicly for political expediency. Regardless of whether this is true, if one were to suggest marginalizing Obama voters in the way that is being suggested here, I am confident that there would be very little semblance of a community left.
Just one quick comment, because these discussions always go there: This is not about Hillary. Whatever the family Clinton did or not did, it doesn't matter. This is about someone who supports Donald Trump in a significant way, and the person Donald Trump and his potential negative impact on our society.