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

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#231

Post by wrecursion »

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #174

Marcos here, line many, falls for the classic myth. That change can come to America via the ballot box. That it matters who you vote for. That the election makes a difference. How many times do we need to be reminded that this isn't true? How many elections of false hope gone nowhere do we need to see? I'll say it again as I have innumerable times before. It does not matter one bit who gets elected president. As Emma…

As long as the majority of the population is bickering amongst themselves over one thing or another, the system is working as intended.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#232

Post by tptacek »

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.

First, it's not generally illegal to fire people over political beliefs. More importantly, though, Peter Thiel isn't an employee of Y Combinator --- as Altman himself has been at pains to point out.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#233

Post by Humdeee »

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!

You stole the words right out of my mouth. This is no place for pushing a political agenda.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#234

Post by Bartweiss »

rtpg wrote: post #185
apsec112 wrote: post #158

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 so…

the alternative to denouncing outright support for racist and sexist position is accepting it as normal political speech, which sounds worse. There's this trope that attacking this position doesn't harm (or even helps) Trump, but polling has shown the contrary. The scandals involving his comments about women, about the muslim veteran, his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, have always been followed by drops in…

Denouncing, sure. But what we're seeing is a push to fire, exclude, and not engage with Trump supporters. Think of how many people insist that they don't know a single Trump voter.

That's not something which hurts his candidacy. It convinces his supporters that they're under attack (they literally are), and encourages people to keep silent rather than admit that they like any of what he says. Ignoring him might have worked at 5% in the polls, but at ~50% you need to engage his supporters.

That doesn't mean treating his positions as 'normal', but there's plenty of room between that and firing donors and banning campaign signs.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#235

Post by jessaustin »

munin wrote: post #203
ThomPete wrote: post #127

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 wha…

> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years No he doesn't. He doesn't appeal to or represent poor whites, those vote D. He also doesn't appeal to or represent minorities, immigrants, or women. Those also vote D. He appeals to and represents white men that have a household income slightly higher than the median. Those people have been nothing but listened to for the last 140 ye…

You've been talking with a different set of poor whites than I have.

I'm not a Trump supporter or potential voter, but we fool ourselves when we invoke this caricature.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#236

Post by VLM »

maxxxxx wrote: post #138
_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.

Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with the same logical problems as people who believe every word of a holy book is literally true. The linked article is well written sophistry but don't expect sophistry to contain anything rational. If you didn't get to irrational beliefs in a rational logical manner, you're not going to escape from irrational beliefs using rational or logical discussion, which makes debating the specific points of the sophistry pointless.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#237

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #204
ThomPete wrote: post #127

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 wha…

That is in fact not a fundamental principle of democracy. There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions". What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs th…

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy.

So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is no more dangerous than Hillary.

But you are basically saying that what you believe doesent apply in the case of Trump and so you are ok with ignoring your own principles while claiming he is the one who is guilty?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#238

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #204
ThomPete wrote: post #127

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 wha…

That is in fact not a fundamental principle of democracy. There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions". What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs th…

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy.

So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is no more dangerous than Hillary.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#239

Post by pko722 »

sosodaft wrote: post #121

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…

Sigh. People keep bringing up Brendan Eich. What happened there is very simple: a good chunk of Mozilla PR and marketing is about freedom. Software and online freedom, yes, but the word "freedom" is used a fair bit. Eich monetarily supported a cause that aimed to take away freedom for a certain class of people. This is incongruent for the face of an organization that has freedom one of its core messages.

Mozilla is fairly unique in tech world in this regard. Nearly all other companies don't really talk about freedom. If Eich was the CEO of any of those other companies, his donation would not (and should not) have mattered. If Eich had remained CTO of Mozilla, his donation would not have mattered either, as the CTO is not the face of the organization. The CEO's beliefs, however, do need to align with the core messaging of the company.

As for those who say that in 2008, opposing gay marriage was a mainstream view, and even Obama opposed it: in 2012, Obama publicly went on the record that his views had shifted to support. The Mozilla/Eich thing went down in 2014, and Eich had an opportunity to communicate that he'd changed his views. If he did that sincerely, he'd likely be CEO of Mozilla today. Instead he stood by his 2008 views, reaffirming that he's on the wrong side of history.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#240

Post by tptacek »

ThomPete wrote: post #237
tptacek wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is in fact not a fundamental principle of democracy. There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions". What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs th…

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy. So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is n…

If you believe that Trump is no more dangerous than Clinton, your support for Peter Thiel makes sense, and, while I'd implore you to reconsider, I'm content for us to agree to disagree.

But Sam Altman and Paul Graham don't agree with you. They virulently disagree with you. They repeatedly compare Trump to a fascist dictator. They claim Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Paul Graham said that if Trump wins, he'll "join the resistance".

I agree with Altman and Graham on that. But I feel obligated to point out to them both --- Altman in particular --- that what they say about Trump is incompatible with the manner in which they affiliate with Peter Thiel, who is a part of the Trump campaign.

Post reply on HN