Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#211

Post by chourobin » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

nugget wrote: post #148

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.

Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been in…

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#212

Post by rsp1984 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

The number of indirections here is incredible and I'm amazed nobody has pointed it out yet. In essence the post says: Shame on YC because

- a non-employee / part time partner of YC has

- supported a presidential candidate who

- has, a decade ago, said things that (besides reflecting badly on his character)

- if realized in action

- would constitute sexual harassment

Now if it was practice at YC to sexually harass people I'd say yea, shame on YC. But this is ridiculous. If we were to accept indirect arguments like in the post then it would be equally valid to say:

- Shame on the HN community because it

- Supports a site operated by YC which

- ...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#213

Post by crdoconnor » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

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.

I wouldn't support Trump but Hillary's fealty to Wall Street and die-hard neoliberalism ("hemispheric FTA, etc.") affects hundreds of millions of people whereas whomever Trump groped affected maybe 50 people.

And no, turning it into a symbolic issue in a Presidential election isn't going to help prevent it happening to the women in your life.

For all the fearmongering over him (and let's face it some of it has been absurd) I think he'd end up being a lame duck president who doesn't do very much except primp, preen and massage his ego. Assuming that's true (he never has been particularly well connected to reality and the president can't do an awful lot unilaterally), that might actually be the preferable option.

Ironically many of the people who were against Bernie because "he wasn't realistic" and what he wanted "isn't achieveable" seem intent on forgetting that now that an orange attached to a blonde mop is running for president.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#214

Post by FussyZeus » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #171

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…

Not even just ignoring large chunks of the country, but actively arguing that their problems don't exist and that anyone who thinks otherwise is just making excuses for racism: https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-f...

Correct, this is huge and cannot be overstated.

Also that's an excellent article, thanks.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#215

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:42 PM UTC

dlss wrote: post #183

pron wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d... > 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 This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.

> > 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 > This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society. While this is literally true, I feel the need to point out that increased restrictions on speech, and increased repercussions for speech seem to correlate s…

Exposure to criticism is not a "restriction on speech".

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#216

Post by gondo » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

byuu wrote: post #112

gondo wrote: post #65

It puzzles me how come in USA people are considering only 2 candidates to chose from. At this stage it looks like people are not voting for the candidate they agree with, they are choosing the candidate they disagree with the most and then voting for the other one. This is only 1 step better than how it used to be in USSR where people had an option to chose essentially only 1 party. (sure officially there were more p…

It's an inevitable result of winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting. This video explains the situation very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Short of revolution, we aren't ever going to see a representative democracy here, because the two parties in power have us perfectly divided 50/50, and the status quo benefits them both greatly.

this seems to be a problem of presidential democracy (voting for 1 man). parliamentary democracy, where people are voting for a party and even specifically for multiple people nominated by the party, is solving this problem.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#217

Post by lintiness » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

jaypaulynice wrote: post #178

I'm not a Trump supporter, but all the YC shaming is terrible. You're advocating for dictatorship where only one political view matters. Wikipedia: "A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens."

so much fear of reprisal that you have to qualify with "I'm not a Trump supporter". political discourse here is as bad or worse than it is anywhere.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#218

Post by Chris2048 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

DasIch wrote: post #202

ccallebs wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel himself is gay. Surely you don't accuse him of being homophobic?

There are women who are sexist and people of color who are racist. No doubt you can find gay people who are homophobic.

There's no reason women can't be sexist, unless you'd assume it applies only to men.

AS for gay people who are homophobic wrt their own - Milo? It does make you question what homophobic means though, or if its application is to broad.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#219

Post by FussyZeus » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #151

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 p…

To be clear: I'm absolutely sure Trump doesn't understand a damn thing about middle-state people. He just isn't outright dismissing them and their problems, and look what it's done for him! That's the scary part.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#220

Post by SolaceQuantum » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

daxorid wrote: post #188

tomgp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.

You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences. So, for the sale of argument: if Trump is democratically elected and then begins reprisals of his political enemies, you must accept those consequences?

The right to free speech means the government cannot or should not punish you for speech (save for when it poses a danger, like creating imminent threat to someone else's wellbeing).

Everyone else is free to respond to and criticize someone for their speech (as long as that response doesn't involve, say, assault). This includes the writing of articles against someone else's decision of where to spend their money.