141–150 of 1001 posts
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.
Please, do the right thing, and don't take it down again. https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinat...
This still shouldn't be on HN. I'm not from the US and I am totally fed up with both pro and anti Trump/Clinton propaganda that spews out to cover all of the world, and I don't want to see it here, at least particularly when it's just "stories about politics, or crime, or sports" and particularly not "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." as the HN guidelines put it. I'd rather fight for Thiel's right to say…
Where I disagree is that I think the real problem lies in the reactionary posts, like Pao's Medium post and this one. These I think are a very real threat to me and mine.
These ideas - that things that aren't focussed on hacking code together to create businesses, that distract not from adjacent to the topic but from within, these are the problem.
That's the crazy part here to me. Forget the politics, the people reacting to politics and wanting things in the HN sphere to change are (trying?) to have very real impacts on things I care about, and none of that is, AFAICT, in any way shape or form positive.
Trump, Clinton and the US election hasn't helped one person hack together any code, and neither has the post linked to, but only one of them is part of the industry that is directly involved in hacking together any code, and that part, that part is the issue.
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 buys a certain amount of airtime, organizers' time, etc. Thiel said, "I'm not going to do X numbers of hours of work for you, but I'm going to donate them to your campaign."
That number of hours is staggeringly high, by the way: equivalent to 30+ years of full-time work by unskilled laborers.
As we say in this part of the world "just don't defend me any more please".
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.
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.
Your position undermines the very democracy it purports to defend.
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.
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.
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.