Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#351

Post by fixxer » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #304

dlss wrote: post #299

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…

What is next? Perhaps YC should ask applicants for political affiliation?

I think you're wrong and I think the reason YC will not drop Theil is very practical: Theil is valuable for the underlying goal of the program (money) and dropping Theil would also alienate a huge (yes, yuuuge) swath of investors.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#352

Post by dreta » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

jaegerpicker wrote: post #277

ThomPete wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a simple comparison really: Trump - (paraphased) Muslims are evil, they should be registered and have special restrictions placed on them. He singled out a single religious group. Made them the target of a group of people that are disposed to hating them. It goes against the very spirit of modern western democracy. To many it represents a clear and unforseen threat to our country. Even Bush who was clearly the m…

There’s a major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe right now. My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime. What he’s saying is based on reality, even if it makes you feel all bad inside when you hear it. Even in the US, where the refugee problem doesn’t exist, you still learn after terrorist attacks that, f.e. the family knew, or that the attacker had bomb equipment all over the apartment, but nobody said anything.

These are national security issues, and they need to be addressed by the president, i’m glad he’s doing it, same for illegal immigration, even if he’s doing it in a cringe-worthy, populist way. He’s not a life-long politician.

Anytime a tragedy happens right now, first thing you hear is Obama and Clinton taking about guns being the problem, and wanting to disarm you, or that all Muslims are amazing people. You never hear the problem being addressed. It is rather scary to see your president, and potential future president do that.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#353

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

sixstringtheory wrote: post #347

tptacek wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think OP's desire is to be able to have a debate about the topics without being met with Ad Hominem responses. 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 Tru…

No, that is not what "ad hominem" means.

A pretty good resource on this can be found by Googling "ad hominem fallacy fallacy".

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#354

Post by hueving » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

infinite8s wrote: post #333

dreta wrote: post #266

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.

He's criticizing the fact that certain people are holding two irreconcilable ideas at the same time.

If they are irreconcilable, then you should be petitioning to have every fired at work who supports different political candidates than you.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#355

Post by dreta » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

infinite8s wrote: post #333

dreta wrote: post #266

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.

He's criticizing the fact that certain people are holding two irreconcilable ideas at the same time.

No, he just can’t understand why somebody would tolerate an idea they disagree with.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#356

Post by criddell » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

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…

> For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years.

Is there a line that Trump could cross where you would start to say he's dangerous and doesn't deserve his spot at the table?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#357

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

prh8 wrote: post #350

tptacek wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And once that happens, that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump. I understand that Thiel's involvement with YC is not "employment," but the point is that 1) yes, people are suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment and 2) high visibility people doing so would have a massive ripple effect on everybody else. It's just another thing that goes from "that's insane and you can't do that…

You can construct a slippery slope out of any argument. I can get you to "DHH fires Basecamp employees" from "refusal to donate to Donald Trump" in just a few more steps. So that argument is not compelling.

It's more productive for us to concentrate on the arguments that are actually being made. You don't have to, of course, but I don't think you'll get very far otherwise.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#358

Post by jazzyk » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

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...

Huffington Post, seriously?

Per ABC News (which is still pro-Clinton), they are both equally unpopular:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-hig...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#359

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

fixxer wrote: post #351

tptacek wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is next? Perhaps YC should ask applicants for political affiliation? I think you're wrong and I think the reason YC will not drop Theil is very practical: Theil is valuable for the underlying goal of the program (money) and dropping Theil would also alienate a huge (yes, yuuuge) swath of investors.

People --- more of them on my side of this debate than yours --- say this a lot. But I think more highly of Sam Altman than to believe he's standing by Peter Thiel, despite Thiel's work to elect someone both Altman and I believe to be an American Mussolini, simply out of financial expedience. It's that basic respect for Altman that motivates me to keep pressing this argument: the effort seems hopeful.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#360

Post by fixxer » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #348

tptacek wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. 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.

This is the situation: Identity politics makes gross hyperbole socially acceptable with ~50% of the population and "fightin words" with the other half.