341–350 of 1001 posts
- In Restaurant people refuse to serve someone because his political view is different- Will it be great?
- Theil decides to fire employee's from his business because they don't agree with his political views. - Does that sounds good?
- For example, companies like uber/airbnb decides to serve only people who agree with the political view of their founders?
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…
So, to paraphrase, you have moral principles only as long as it's safe to do so and then are willing to stoop as low as you need to when it's not.
Well, let me tell you, sir, that that is no part of any liberal philosophy that I subscribe to, nor is it part of the philosophy of anyone I respect.
Even if throwing Thiel out would actually help Trump's candidacy, they should do it.
There's an interesting debate about whether you think Trump's policies are a good idea, and how much you care about him being elected, but that's a sideshow. Thiel represents Y Combinator, like it or not. How he's perceived affects how Y Combinator is perceived, and how the industry (SV especially) are perceived by the rest of the world. Currently, he's actively and very publicly giving millions of dollars to a candidate espousing violence, sexism, racism and sexual assault.
By supporting Thiel, Y Combinator is supporting somebody espousing violence, sexism, racism and sexual assault. It doesn't matter if they're a presidential candidate or not, or what it does to the election results. Encouraging and supporting these _moral_ positions is horrific, bad for everybody, and just practically bad for business. When your public face becomes the face of hate speech, you have a practical business problem, and you need to solve it.
You would fire a public face of your company if they publicly wrote a post about how they liked to sexually assault people. You would fire a public face of your company if they publicly donated millions of dollars to an organisation encouraging sexual assault. Why is it different if the organisation they're supporting is running for president?
It's not about Trump's policies, and it's not about whether or not it plays into Trump's hands: if a major face of your business is actively visibly supporting abuse, discrimination and violence and you do nothing, then your business is supporting abuse, discrimination and violence. You're going to give you and your industry a bad name and discourage minorities of all kinds from ever working with you, along with anybody else who finds your morals repugnant.
Supporting Thiel while he actively defend and encourages racism, sexism and violence in the name of "free speech" doesn't make the world better; it makes it far far worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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…
> 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 threaten society. So, to paraphrase, you have moral principles only as long as it's safe to do so and then are willing to stoop as low as you need to when it's not. Well, let me tell you, sir, that t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All you’re doing is trying to shame Altman and Y Combinator supporters into disowing Thiel. The great thing about what Altman is doing is that he doesn’t feel so morally superior to others that he’ll either see people share his views, or have them removed. You should learn to criticise ideas, not people.
I don't understand this line of reasoning, from either end of the spectrum. When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences, that negatively affect real people's lives, why would we not criticize the people who hold them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And just by that you became what you claim to be against. I am not for Trump or for Hillary, i am for the right to have a discussion about bigger issues without being painted as a supporter of biggotry which only serves to detract from the issues this country has. But i guess that makes me the naive part here.
Nothing anywhere gave you the right to have a "discussion about bigger issues" without "being painted" as anything. You will find no legal foundation for that entitlement in the US Constitution, nor will you find a philosophical foundation for it anywhere in the theory of liberal democracy. You have a right to express your views, and I have a right to criticize them. Both rights are inalienable.
Are the things Trump says and allegedly did reprehensible? Of course. But to bring them up in a conversation about the status quo in DC is still ad hominem, and to think that being right about his being a pig wins any debate about a possible evil power structure headed by Clinton is a straw man.
Donald Trump scares me. So does the cavalier attitude of so many who seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to politics vs the two minute hatee du jour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if you followed what happened to the Atheist community in the US, but its downfall was essentially the kind of witch hunt you're trying to incite. The level of virtue signaling demanded gradually increases until no one is left in the community. This invariably happens because the question you're asking ("does intolerant belief X threaten society?") has no absolute answer, so there is always a higher leve…
If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree. But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're ver…
A bit childish, considering the slot the candidate is running for is not in a dictatorship. If you think Trump could convert the US to a dictatorship, I would like to see the evidence supporting this.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like most people want YC to cut Thiel off, which would be very similar to that. David Heinemeier Hansson and Ellen Pao have advocated for virtually that exact scenario.
Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling Altman: rethink the endorsement.