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

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#241

Post by jessaustin »

tptacek wrote: post #224
Bartweiss wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the narrative where support for Trump is a basis for excluding a person from discussion and employment. He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence! The usual argument runs that this time is unique, that Trump has embraced racism and violence and his major-party status should not bur…

Nobody is suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment.

Would anyone be shocked if that came up in Part II? Brendan Eich wouldn't be...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#242

Post by gondo »

smt88 wrote: post #80
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…

Your characterization of this election is wrong. 43% of Americans approve of Clinton[1]. 33% approve of Trump[2]. That means the vast majority of Americans are not choosing the lesser of two evils. They actively like one candidate or the other (or both). 1. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton... 2. https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-f...

this charts (as many published polls) are based on very small samples. asking 1000-3000 people. yes those people are selected to sample the whole spectrum, but if they are always the same people, you can not claim that they are representative anymore. as simply by asking the poll questions you are turning group of people who "don't care about the election" into the group "was forced to think about election and now have an opinion".

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#244

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #205
cerebrum wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Yes there is in fact a campaign of elites against Trump, in case you don't believe that I suggest taking a look at the recent wikileaks.

Or how Clinton has a disdain for your average American voter? And plans to push through trade agreements that hurt the very Americans whose vote she's trying to get? I can't imagine why half the country won't vote for her. I know minorities and women who will still vote for Trump after everything that has happened; perhaps it'd be wise if you dislike Trump to understand why that is and what has brought us to this poi…

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#245

Post by massysett »

skywhopper wrote: post #113
fareesh wrote: post #58

I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate. It is entirely possibly that some people support Trump because of his crass and divisive rhetoric, and it's also entirely possible that some people support Trump because of his stance on trade. Is it really anyone's place to demand that another voter change the list of prio…

Peter Thiel is doing just fine. If Y Combinator walked away from him, he would not be hurt or marginalized or ostracized in the least. This is not about persecuting people who vote for Trump. But to support Trump with an enormous sum of money _after_ Trump has revealed himself to be willing to resort to borderline anti-Semitic slurs, to welcome the support of the white supremacy movement, to call for locking up his p…

" is to make a statement that these are the things Thiel is okay with advocating."

Clinton supporters are never held to this standard.

No one calls on Clinton supporters to publicly disavow her statement about the "basket of deplorables". Clinton also shipped classified information to her basement server and destroyed thousands of records when under subpoena. No one claims that Clinton supporters are supporting this behavior. Indeed, it seems just fine for Clinton voters to support her despite her activities which were, at best, "extremely reckless." Clinton supporters can say that, despite her flaws, they will vote for her.

But for some reason, any Trump voter automatically supports every bad thing he ever did.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#246

Post by hueving »

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…

The numbers dropped because of the events themselves, not because people shamed and threatened the supporters.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#247

Post by IMTDb »

vincnetas wrote: post #135
IMTDb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was to void a scenario like this, by giving enough military power to the people to make impossible for an elected government to switch to autocracy / dictatorship / ... without the approval of the population.

Wether this amendment is still needed, and if it's effective considering the evolution of military technology, is open to discussion, but at least the original constitution tried to avoid this.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#248

Post by jaegerpicker »

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 Trump's and by extension Theil's actions have a very real set of consequences has NOTHING to do with democracy. The government is not taking action against them, we the people are. The very idea of democracy is that it's the expressed will of the people, filtered through mechanics to make it possible to administrate. In this case the will of a great number of people, including Marco according to the post, is remove support from people who choose to say these damaging things. It's not an incomplete understanding, it's that in their value system, the things being said can have no possible balance and anyone supporting them represents a clear danger to what they feel makes a democratic country great. That you would suggest a lack of understanding and try and use that to defend the very people moving to limit and harm democracy in the USA is condescending and harmful in my opinion. Of course everyone is feel to support who they wish but no one is free from dealing with the fall out from standing with the hateful and bigoted.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#249

Post by mangeletti »

dkopi wrote: post #187
smt88 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not lazy. It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line. What would Trump have to do before supporting him is unacceptable to YC? But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.

"It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line." That's actually very lazy. It's shifting the burden of "drawing the line" on the other side. It's the "well, why don't we just kill toddlers as well? Where do you draw the line?" in an abortion argument. It's the "why don't we just give 12 year old's automatic assault weapons" or "why don't we…

AKA, Slippery Slope Fallacy[1].

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#250

Post by duncanawoods »

tptacek wrote: post #224
Bartweiss wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the narrative where support for Trump is a basis for excluding a person from discussion and employment. He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence! The usual argument runs that this time is unique, that Trump has embraced racism and violence and his major-party status should not bur…

Nobody is suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment.

"First they came for the Billionaires, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Billionaire. Then they came for the..."
Post reply on HN