Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#401

Post by digler999 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:44 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…

You sound just like the republicans in 2008 when a gasp black president was elected. Oh dear, the world is ending, the end times are coming! What's the world coming to! We are doomed. A socialist Kenyan Muslim is in the whitehouse!

What actually happened? Nothing. If you looked at the country for the last 8 years you wouldn't be able to tell whether a republican or democratic was in the whitehouse.

Same thing will happen if trump gets in. A lot of talk, but little action.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#402

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #268

Upvoter33 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

This is serious question-begging, though. Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made. The ones I've talked to largely believe that he's just rude, and sometimes directs that through traits like race, gender, and disability. On policy, they would say that opposing things like illegal immigration isn't actually racism. Laugh at that if you want, say th…

> Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made.

I wonder if we have enough evidence to reach that conclusion? Respectfully, I'm not sure you've talked to enough supporters to generalize about the whole group.

Speaking only for myself, if I end up voting for one of those two, it will be for Trump. I accept the strong possibility that every one of the negative personality traits he's shown are genuine.

I think in policy matters he's basically a wildcard. But I find Clinton so undesirable as a candidate that I would prefer a wildcard.

Does this mean I approve in any way of Trump's apparent personal characteristics? Absolutely not.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#403

Post by mdotk » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

If Trump is elected President of the United States will the author disown the United States?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#404

Post by barkbro » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:45 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...

Those polls don't necessarily mean that people aren't choosing the lesser of two evils. Those questions aren't asked in a vacuum. Most of the polls ask about people's opinion of the candidates in a Clinton vs Trump context. Even if that wasn't the case, people might still feel that they have to support one candidate over the other.

It's hard to make people throw away their biases and ask themselves why they really support something.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#405

Post by spraak » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

speeder wrote: post #372

munin wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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), a…

None of your points actually refute that white men with above median income have influenced and been listened to in the past 40 years

Or to say it another way, just because those things have happened, doesn't mean anything against what the parent poster wrote

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#406

Post by zerohm » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #170

Thanks, Marco, for drawing my attention to Sam Altman's great blog post. More people should take Sam's attitude: The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. We should all…

This comment deserves more attention.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#407

Post by bambax » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:48 PM UTC

> [Altman] If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator.

In the US, at least since Citizens United, money is speech. By donating to his campaign and vocally supporting Trump, Thiel IS SAYING what Trump says.

Also, Thiel is no friend to freedom of speech or freedom of the press. That should have disqualified him earlier, even before this whole Trump affair.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#408

Post by GrumpyYoungMan » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #345

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think you think this was a snappy response, but I'm simply paraphrasing John Rawls. If you prefer Karl Popper, you might look up "the paradox of intolerance". You could also take it back to John Stuart Mill, if you'd like.

So? Then they are wrong as well then, at least in that particular, their eminence notwithstanding. Appealing to authority makes your position no more tenable.

Principles that are abandoned when under duress are no principles at all.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#409

Post by sixstringtheory » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #353

sixstringtheory wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You're going to have to be more specific about how you interpreted my definition of ad hominem, and your sources that counter that idea. That search turned up some interesting ideas, but I have no idea which ones you espouse, and we'll never get anywhere on this unequal footing.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#410

Post by xname2 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

My observation:

- most trump supporters hate the corrupted system, the establishment, but they do not generally hate average hillary supporters.

- most hillary supporters hate trump and trump supporters.