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

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#151

Post by msandford »

FussyZeus wrote: post #72

While I agree with a lot of what Marco says in spirit, there is a HUGE point that Altman makes as well: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. […] This one sentence I think fully encapsulates why the Republican base has gone to the extremes it has. They don't give a damn about who Trump is or the awful t…

I think you get a lot of it right here, and nobody wants to acknowledge that for some reason. I would disagree that Trump is listening to people in the "flyover" states, but rather what he is doing is signaling that he's not in the coastal elite in-group. I'd bet Trump has very little idea how badly folks are hurting in red states, nor does he really care.

But what has happened is that those people have heard every political candidate say basically the same politically correct stuff irrespective of their D or R flavor and then once elected do basically nothing to help.

Now someone comes along who doesn't sound anything like the previous D or R flavored politicians (who never helped, despite their promises to) and TADA! "He knows and understands our problems" not because he does in any way, but simply because he sounds different.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#152

Post by joshcohen »

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.

One candidate has repeatedly been dishonest and suspected of corruption while in government previously (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.

No it is not tacit acceptance. People weigh pros and cons of each candidate and make a choice. No donation or endorsement implies 100% allegiance, only an overall preference. I'm sure Thiel thinks Trump is fairly idiotic. "But he's a sexist" doesn't change anything even if it were true.

Anyone is free to shun people for their publicly stated political stance but any particular policies or personal attributes of Trump or anyone are not in a special category that is shun-worthy.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#153

Post by meira »

smt88 wrote: post #69
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)

How is it corrupt to laugh about killing a dictator/murderer in a publicly-known military action? It might be in bad taste, but it's not corrupt. Also, you should read more about Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/06/ho...

The funny thing is that the same corrupt media that paints others presidents as "dictators" and "murderers" is helping Killary, painting Trump with tons of colors.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#154

Post by civilian »

byuu wrote: post #139

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…

If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the goals of freedom of speech & press? Citizens United is solid in my book.

If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They're clearly biased and have an agenda, their biased reporting acts as a contribution to a campaign. But they're businesses, and what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#155

Post by bengale »

mabbo wrote: post #124
Upvoter33 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, but a large portion of supporters are not donating over a million dollars. I'd expect that person to be for Donald Trump, rather than some vague wish for republican values.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#156

Post by [deleted] »

Chris2048 wrote: post #92
pron wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean why are we giving a hard time to all those people who join the KKK just because they look good in white? But seriously, I don't think the demand to "sever ties" with Thiel is the right (it does have the slight scent of a purge), or the smart one to make (it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon). In fact, it pretty much ensures that the debate…

> it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon Why frame it like this? It is "silencing opposing views", whether a bandwagon exists or not, so is bad in itself. You seem to imply the only problem is that people care about the issue - that's a good thing! > in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas SV is a liberal and leftist hotspot, so those idea…

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#157

Post by feedjoelpie »

dnadler wrote: post #132
_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.

He's not an employee.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#158

Post by apsec112 »

Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands. The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Demanding that Trump supporters be fired tells everyone that the "elites" are a) scared of Trump, b) can't win through arguments and have to resort to intimidation, and c) are a powerful, dangerous group which is hostile to average people, who need someone to protect them from this sinister force. Which is all, of course, exactly what Donald Trump wants them to believe.

Daily newspapers have endorsed Clinton by a margin of 147 to 2. It should be obvious, over a year after the Trump campaign started, that anyone voting for Trump isn't going to be dissuaded by yet another article calling him racist. Indeed, I think many Trump supporters back him because of all the articles calling him racist. "They" must be scared of Trump (the logic goes), or else "they" wouldn't spend so much effort attacking him, so Trump must be the only "truly independent" candidate who will "fight the system".

If you don't believe me, look at eg. this comment on /r/The_Donald, which was voted up to #1 on a recent Peter Thiel article:

"True story. I once hung out with a group of lesbians (most my friends are male), and when they found out I didn't agree with them politically, they told me they were taking away my dyke card. Thankfully there are a LOT of gays who give no fucks about the 'lgbtqjseflelkf community', and just live their lives like anyone else. This article is nothing more than typical democrat tactics. 'YOU'RE NOT A REAL UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE SAY.' REMEMBER IF TRUMP WEREN'T A REAL THREAT, THEY WOULDN'T BE THIS DESPERATE." (emphasis in original)

The same tactics have been used against Trump over and over and over, for more than a year now, and his support is still pretty much where it was during the summer. Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over and over, and expecting different results.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#159

Post by tscs37 »

DasIch wrote: post #114
tscs37 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Thiel might think that Hillary is a worse option than Trump? Maybe. Who knows. You should ask him. Pretending to know why he votes for Trump is just wrong. You assume what he thinks, his state of mind, etc. Idunno, maybe you should consider accepting that supporting a person does not equate to being that person nor does it imply that both hold the exact same beliefs.

I don't need to assume anything about what he things. Trump is clearly, unambiguously and objectively a sexist racist xenophobe. Human rights provide a line a lower bound of values we all agree on must not ever be crossed, Trump does so eagerly. Nothing can justify this.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't care enough about US politics to know for sure or assume that you're assertions are correct.

Anyways, the point was not what Trump does, it's almost irrelevant.

Relevant is that one assumed that someone who supported Trump held equal beliefs, which is probably very easy to be shown untrue.

It's a very disgusting and toxic attitude and a very unhealthy world view to hold.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#160

Post by joshcohen »

bengale wrote: post #155
mabbo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, but a large portion of supporters are not donating over a million dollars. I'd expect that person to be for Donald Trump, rather than some vague wish for republican values.

Why?
Post reply on HN