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

Shame on Y Combinator

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#121

Post by sosodaft »

from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-po...

2. The anchor of a major news network donates lots of money to organizations fighting against gay marriage, and in his spare time he writes editorials arguing that homosexuals are weakening the moral fabric of the country. The news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior and fire the anchor.

a) This is acceptable; the news network is acting within their rights and according to their principles

b) This is outrageous; people should be judged on the quality of their work and not their political beliefs

12. The principal of a private school is a member of Planned Parenthood and, off-duty, speaks out about contraception and the morning after pill. The board of the private school decides this is inappropriate given the school’s commitment to abstinence and moral education and asks the principal to stop these speaking engagements or step down from his position.

a) The school board is acting within its rights; they can insist on a principal who shares their values

b) The school board should back off; it’s none of their business what he does in his free time

If you answer these questions differently, you need to try to apply your so-called principles consistently. This article is bullshit for the same reason the Brendan Eich affair was bullshit--if the situation were reversed, the same people calling for Brendan Eich's head would have been ardently defending someone who had been fired for donating to marijuana legalization or something. As long as he's not discriminating or smoking weed in the workplace, etc., YOU SHOULD NOT PERSECUTE SOMEONE FOR HIS BELIEFS or how they affect his political contributions.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#122

Post by DasIch »

Chris2048 wrote: post #104
DasIch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel's support of Trump shows that Thiel is a sexist and a racist. If YC wants to attract startups with founders who aren't white men, this is a problem. If startups in YC want to attract employees who aren't white men, this is a problem.

Yeah! He probably hates gays too!

Pence is on the ticket. You don't put him on the ticket unless you are homophobic and sexist. Pence has proven himself to be truly outstanding in these areas.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#123

Post by Chris2048 »

Upvoter33 wrote: post #91
thght wrote: post #85

Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!

Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

The other candidate is corrupt, more politically savvy, and a career politician.

Also racism and sexism is a subjective issue, asking people to take a stand against "this kind of thing" without specifics is playing into the political banter.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#124

Post by mabbo »

Upvoter33 wrote: post #91
thght wrote: post #85

Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!

Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

A large proportion of Trump supporters are not for Donald Trump the human being and all the things he's done. They're for the Republican party being in power; they're against Clinton for her faults (real or imagined); they're for someone who isn't a mainstream candidate being in charge for once. There's all kinds of reasons to support the GOP Presidential candidate that many people may see as more important than the insane, racist, sexist things Trump has said and done.

(I say this as a left-leaning guy by Canadian standards. Believe me, I'm terrified you guys might actually elect that monster.)

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#125

Post by [deleted] »

Chris2048 wrote: post #104
DasIch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel's support of Trump shows that Thiel is a sexist and a racist. If YC wants to attract startups with founders who aren't white men, this is a problem. If startups in YC want to attract employees who aren't white men, this is a problem.

Yeah! He probably hates gays too!

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#126

Post by czzarr »

smt88 wrote: post #71
fareesh wrote: post #58

I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate. 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 prio…

> I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate. Endorsement is one thing. Donating a massive amount of money is something entirely different. Not many people are willing to part with $1.25M for someone they don't fanatically support. And either way, that's not the point. The point is that, while most candidates have de…

$1.25M is less for Thiel than $100 is for most people. The absolute amount is meaningless, you have to normalize by wealth here.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#127

Post by ThomPete »

Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing.

It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get.

In reality however it's much more complicated. For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on.

Marcos is all about form. Trumps form is admittedly not pretty but there are some important issues and for Theil a different political goal than Trump which isn't represented by Hillary. If you can't understand that then you make the mistakes of Marco et all. You confuse rhetorics with whats at stake.

If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency.

Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships.

So don't be the very thing your object to.

And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions. Life is complicated and it happens all the time not just around election. There are many good reasons to be against Trump or Peter Theils endorsement of him, Marcos reasons just arent any of them. They are purely superficial understanding of what's really at stake here.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#128

Post by elias12 »

fwn wrote: post #88
elias12 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if it is ridiculous. It depends. It's about a line that everyone has to draw and to set. And this also what Marco is trying to mention in his post I guess. Let's take a more extreme example from history, just for pointing out that there is a line: I hope we could agree that supporting the NSDAP is as far over such a line as imaginable. Not comparing anyone in this context with the NSDAP, just pointing o…

It's good that you aren't comparing this current context with our modern view on the NSDAP. Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in democratic societies.

Wait a second, maybe I can't follow you here. Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?

If so, two questions: - What if someone is supporting someone in none political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour and face disagreement or consequences? - What if someone supports politically the KKK, the IS or any other organisation or party, that you might not agree with?

How about a much more important thing in our constitution: Free speech. Does free speech mean I can say and publicly announce anything, without having to face consequences?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#129

Post by coredog64 »

smt88 wrote: post #86
dkopi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing political candidates to Hitler is a rather lazy thought experiment.

It's not lazy. It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line. What would Trump have to do before supporting him is unacceptable to YC? But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.

Berlusconi is a better comparison in that it avoids all that Godwin's nonsense.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#130

Post by skywhopper »

smt88 wrote: post #74
dogma1138 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general. There is a good reason why we have separation of power and why we have a complex political system in which even the president needs political capital to do things. That said i think it's highly unlikely that there will be such hypothetical candidate that i can agree with on 99% 90% or even 50% of th…

> Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general. We don't know what powers the Executive Branch has now or will have. It evolves. FDR drastically expanded the power of the President, and he almost took over the Judicial Branch by appointing a bunch of new Supreme Court justices. The next POTUS will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and possi…

FDR asked Congress to expand the Supreme Court and institute an age limit for justices, but Congress said no. So that was a failure of expansion of Presidential power. But while FDR is a good example in a lot of other ways, most Presidents have managed to expand their power, but Congress can check them if they choose to do so. See the current situation with the Supreme Court, where the Senate is actually reducing the power of the President.

I think you also overestimate the control Presidents have over the justices they nominate, which is to say, none. Anthony Kennedy was supposed to be "Bork through the back door" when Reagan nominated him, but he's been one of the more liberal justices of the past 30 years. Or see how Roberts has, in a couple of key cases, broken with his fellow conservative GOP appointees.

Post reply on HN