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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#371

Post by e40 »

ElComradio wrote: post #328
tptacek wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adult life is full of personal choices that adults are required to be accountable for.

Almost nobody will agree with the idea that in an ideal world built upon the "marketplace of ideas" that someone should be constrained from expressing political opinions for fear of losing their employment. In fact this being so is a primary driver of Trump's anti-PC appeal.

Can we stop with the straw man of people getting fired for their views! That is so over the top as to be ridiculous.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#372

Post by speeder »

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…

I am not even living in US, but wanted to give you some data to show that you are wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/04/death...

Also, last I checked women had plenty of voice in the last 40 years... beside being the majority of the voters (and thus always pandered to by default), US have no-fault divorce (something that usually only women want, most no-fault divorce are initiated by women), abortion is legal (Brazil for example where I live, abortion is still mostly illegal), Title IX exists, VAWA exists, more women than men finish college, female labour participation is higher than male, and so on...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#374

Post by grandalf »

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…

> But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.

Perhaps, but it's a slippery slope to a loosely-defined moral litmus test that is in the eye of the beholder, a fashionable "in group" set of beliefs which are not actually subject to rational scrutiny but are instead tenets of a creed of allegiance. They are hyperbolic and intended mainly as a signal to others, like a patch stitched onto a sleeve or a badge worn on one's clothing, which side the person is on.

For example, consider this creed of statements largely unsupported by fact (caveat: I do not support either candidate and actively oppose both):

I consider Donald Trump a threat to American democracy and prosperity. I believe the 40% of the American people supporting his candidacy are deeply disturbed, damaged human beings who are animated by Trump's racism and hatred.

I am certain that Donald Trump has sexually assaulted many women, and his criminal sexual acts are on par with the worst sexual predators of history. I am certain that Donald Trump's campaign is in collusion with the Russian government simply to get Donald in office so that he can do business in Russia and extract personal profit for himself (unlike HRC who is motivated by altruism and service, not personal ambition or greed).

I believe that in spite of being nominated by major American political parties, Donald Trump and HRC are vastly different human beings with vastly different ambitions and quality of judgment.

I believe it is our duty to our daughters and future generations to do everything possible to stop Donald Trump from gaining power, including socially castigating and penalizing his supporters in any way possible, including "unfriending" on social media. I believe that focusing on the outrageous allegations of Trump's kissing and groping behavior are far more important than comparing the two candidates stances on issues and comparing the practicalities of their stated policy aims.

I am certain that Donald Trump intends to challenge the election results if he loses, and that he's planning to incite violence in an attempt to gain office.

These statements pull the dialogue away from facts, logic, debate, falsifiability, etc., and make it about raw power, which is coercive and not rational or meritocratic.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#375

Post by surfmike »

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…

They can agree with that and still continue working with Thiel. You can be against fascism and but still be against creating a society where everyone must get in line politically or else be shunned.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#376

Post by hueving »

tptacek wrote: post #332
ElComradio wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nobody will agree with the idea that in an ideal world built upon the "marketplace of ideas" that someone should be constrained from expressing political opinions for fear of losing their employment. In fact this being so is a primary driver of Trump's anti-PC appeal.

Nobody is losing their employment in this discussion. Thiel doesn't even have equity in YC. His part-time partner status is a marketing arrangement, a co-endorsement. All that Sam Altman is being asked to do is to reconsider endorsing Thiel. Meanwhile, all sorts of misconceptions are behind the appeal of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a monster. I do not think reasonable people are required to change their behavior to…

>Donald Trump is a monster.

Such thoughtful discussion backed by so many supporting arguments.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#377

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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.

I think its the anonymizing nature of the internet. We're not evolved to communicate digitally. Its going to be a rough road here on out for the human race.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#378

Post by fisherjeff »

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.

No one has the influence to convert the US to anything overnight. However, I do think that normalizing the language of authoritarianism can have long-term negative effects on our democratic process.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#379

Post by Semiapies »

tptacek wrote: post #323
ceterum_censeo wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What repercussions? The situation strikes me as asymmetric: no matter what action Altman or Graham take they will be heavily criticized; for Ptacek, the worst would seem to be disagreement with his well-reasoned dialogue. It seems unfair to force this to become a very public conversation.

Sam Altman has so much money that he divides his time between multiple McLarens. His "reserve fund" in case of emergencies is ten million dollars. Altman need never work again in his life. That's not me, especially after my two teenage kids go to college. I'm a startup founder. Not only that, but I'm a startup founder that just last year considered attending YC during the summer session after Altman invited me (and,…

Logic suggests that you aren't, in fact, likely to risk any of those things just to express your opinion in an online argument. So you don't think this is a real danger or you wouldn't be saying it here.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#380

Post by hueving »

tptacek wrote: post #281
hueving wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then perhaps you'd like to get rid of anonymous voting?

No, I would not like to get rid of anonymous voting. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer.

But you would like to punish people who are publicly backing a candidate. Not very consistent.
Post reply on HN