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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#131

Post by smt88 »

projectileboy wrote: post #117
smt88 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McCarthyism was not about firing rich people for donating massive amounts of money to public political candidates. There is no similarity here.

So, none of the Hollywood writers who were blacklisted were rich? And none of them donated time or money to Communist causes? The intolerance is almost exactly the same.

I don't have a problem with a private company, such as YC or a production company, firing someone for publicly donating a massive amount of money to a political candidate.

McCarthyism was different because:

1. Many of the people who were fired, blacklisted, or persecuted were only suspected communists.

2. Somewhat related: if any of the blacklisted people were rich enough to do so, they didn't publicly donate their day's equivalent of $1.25M to any communist cause.

3. There is no threat of violence, prison, or losing his livelihood for Thiel in this case.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#132

Post by dnadler »

_hao wrote: post #118

You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.

It's also generally illegal to fire someone over political beliefs, if I recall correctly.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#133

Post by msandford »

sagichmal wrote: post #67
meira wrote: post #59

So Trump has a lot of problems, but it looks like he is not corrupt. Hillary, on the other hand, is fully with corruption. I really don't like/agree with YC priorities (I'm not an American, which is even more disturbing to see someone that laughs about killing others country president been endorsed/elected)

Are you joking? Trump is _transparently_ corrupt. The Trump Foundation exists to serve as a tax shield, funneling donor money to Trump and his family personally. C.f. the allegations of corruption toward Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, which are laughably indistinct and incomparable. If corruption is what you care about, then Hillary Clinton is _inarguably_ the superior candidate.

So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it fascinating how easily people manage to rationalize things.

I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#135

Post by vincnetas »

IMTDb wrote: post #46
mbrock wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political "opinion" in this case isn't a bubblegum flavor preference. The presidency of the U.S. isn't a personal matter.

As a matter of fact, it is ;) A system where everyone can personally choose their leaders without external pressure or control is called a democracy.

This is really strange attribute of democracy, that if majority decides (informed or by uninformed that decision be), one can flip from democracy to (let's say) autocracy, but then you dont get to vote in next election if you change your mind, because there will be none.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#136

Post by saiya-jin »

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.

This election is generally perceived as choice between 2 bad persons, 2 bad leaders, or choosing lesser evil if you prefer.

Some people have higher preference of political correctness, smooth behavior and strong, likable speeches. Some feel bad/desperate enough to don't give a f__k about this and rather want to see a change in current not-so-bright-for-them situation. This kind of situation happens very often, all around the globe where you have elections.

Personally, choosing between spoiled amoral brat who didn't achieve much without daddy's cash and influence, and Clinton which is arrogant lawyer (where is the common lawyer hate when it matters?) apparently too deep in corporate pockets to ever see or solve anything real... well, I guess I would just pick a candidate that doesn't have a chance.

luckily not US citizen, so this is just outside view

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#137

Post by skywhopper »

iamnothere wrote: post #99

There are some brilliant people working in this industry whose politics I abhor. That doesn't mean that we can't, don't, or won't work well together, or even that we have to leave politics at the door. I've had some great conversations with people who I strongly disagree with politically -- frustrating, yes, but still highly interesting and worthwhile for mutual understanding. This trend of naming, shaming, and exclu…

I agree with you in general, but Trump is uniquely toxic. Every day he says more and more hateful and disturbing things, and threatens our open and democratic society with his constant railing against the rigged election and encouragement to supporters to go intimidate voters in typically-Democratic districts. This is not just a political difference. Trump is truly dangerous.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#138

Post by maxxxxx »

_hao wrote: post #118

You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.

Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#139

Post by byuu »

Citizens United and McCutcheon were such disasters for our democracy. Hopelessly partisan 5-4 votes from the USSC as well. No surprise given the way big money usually leans.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech, no matter what five people in robes say.

The problem here isn't who Thiel supports, it's that he has the ability to throw $1,250,000 on a whim to that person. Very, very, very few people can do that.

The reason millionaires and billionaires funnel so much money into elections isn't for the hell of it. It's because they know that money buys advertising, attack ads, etc. They know it helps their side win. Because yes, there are many stupid people in this country who are easily swayed by these tactics.

Yes, we all know it's not a guarantee that the candidate with the most money wins. But wealthy people (mostly) aren't stupid: they wouldn't be spending the money if they knew it wouldn't sway any votes.

It's not about buying the election, it's about increasing their chances of winning. An analogy would be buying 1000000 raffle tickets instead of 1 like most other people get. But our entire democracy is based around the idea of one person, one vote. Allowing unlimited money into politics effectively gives vastly more votes to the wealthy.

Get the money out of politics and it's no longer an issue how big of a piece of shit Thiel is. He can like whoever he wants to and I couldn't care less. Oh shoot, I hope he doesn't see this and start bankrolling vendetta lawsuits against me now :/

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#140

Post by 35bge57dtjku »

czzarr wrote: post #126
smt88 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's still a lot of money for the campaign, isn't it?
Post reply on HN