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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#411

Post by zimpenfish »

rfrank wrote: post #294
chourobin wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

"hasn't been a single shred." http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

Worth pointing out that GAI was co-founded by a STEPHEN K. BANNON which, coincidentally, is the same STEPHEN K. BANNON that runs Breitbart and is currently the campaign chairman for DONALD J. TRUMP.

Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#412

Post by egeozcan »

dreta wrote: post #352
jaegerpicker wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe

I'm a theological noncognitivist so I couldn't care less about what religion is more "evil" but move any group (Muslim, Christian or even a bunch of Pastafarians) from such a condition to the middle of Europe, and you will get similar results. They are more human than they are Muslim.

I'm not going to go on about how not actually that bad the situation is because that is not the point.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#413

Post by mabbo »

tptacek wrote: post #272
mabbo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large proportion of Trump supporters are not for Donald Trump the human being and all the things he's done. They're for the Republican party being in power; they're against Clinton for her faults (real or imagined); they're for someone who isn't a mainstream candidate being in charge for once. There's all kinds of reasons to support the GOP Presidential candidate that many people may see as more important than the…

You're right: many people are supporting the top of the GOP ticket out of loyalty to the GOP, or because they're pro-life. They don't support Donald Trump. But Thiel does. We know this, because Thiel got up on stage at the Republican National Convention, in a nationally televised speech, and proclaimed to the nation that Donald Trump was the best candidate in the race --- and the only "honest" one. Thiel's support fo…

... touché...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#414

Post by throwsincenotpc »

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.

> 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.

It used to be the monopoly of the right in US, now it's interesting to see that the left engages in the exact same rhetoric, techniques and tactics. Or maybe they always did, it's just more blatant today how both sides are extreme and if you don't fall in line you're either Satan or worse than Hitler.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#415

Post by grandalf »

dlss wrote: post #299
tptacek wrote: post #204

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…

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…

> more and more Moral Fashion Police on the democratic side of the isle

This hits the nail on the head. It's a moralistic sort of righteous indignation and it's profoundly, dangerously illiberal.

In addition, many of these are the same people who are pleased that HRC is not being challenged over the revelations in the email leaks so far.

I want whoever takes office to have been vetted as much as possible by journalists. How could anyone want their "side" to win so badly that they'd prefer their own candidate evade accountability (or vindication!) for alleged wrongdoing?

There has been very little adversarial press behavior toward either candidate... the press in this election has simply focused on stories that will get lots of clicks, such as those about sex, money, etc.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#416

Post by tptacek »

surfmike wrote: post #375
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 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.

I don't need people to get in line politically. I would be content with them not bundling millions of dollars for Donald Trump before getting up on stage at the RNC and claiming, as Thiel did, to speak for Silicon Valley in claiming that Trump is the only honest candidate in the race. I'm a simple sort of guy. My needs are not complicated.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#417

Post by dpark »

digler999 wrote: post #401
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…

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 ha…

You really think that opposing Obama because he's black is comparable to opposing Trump because he incites violence and encourages racism and xenophobia and speaks highly of dictators and brags about sexual assault?

You want to rethink that?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#418

Post by abecedarius »

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.

OK, Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2:

> But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in or opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

> [some pages later:] For a long time past, the chief mischief of the legal penalties is that they strengthen the social stigma. It is that stigma which is really effective, and so effective is it that the profession of opinions which are under the ban of society is much less common in England, than is, in many other countries, the avowal of those which incur risk of judicial punishment.

My understanding of Mill is quite against this claim, and especially your claim upthread 'There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions".' He was arguing directly this idea that it's enough for free speech that the state not suppress it.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#419

Post by throwsincenotpc »

mcphage wrote: post #317
thght wrote: post #85

Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!

If it was $1.25 million for Clinton, there would have been no complaint. If it was $1.25 million for Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or even George W Bush, there would have no complaint. Donald Trump is a different and unique circumstance, as Sam Altman and Paul Graham repeatedly claim in their writings, but do not follow through with in their actions.

> If it was $1.25 million for Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or even George W Bush, there would have no complaint

Are you kidding ? when Condoleezza Rice got a seat on DropBox's board, people here on HN very much complained and said how they were going to "drop" Dropbox because someone on its board was on the wrong political side.

I'm not republican but it's pretty clear in most US tech circles,especially in the Silicon Valley, you just cannot be republican or people will be out to get you. Trump or not, that's a fact and it's ridiculous.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#420

Post by surfmike »

I'm against Trump but this holier-than-thou grandstanding demanding shunning anyone who supports Trump is tiring and small-minded. It's a symptom of a society intolerant of other political beliefs. Moreover, do you think ostracizing 40% of society for their political beliefs is really going to improve our political future? It's easier to cut out people we disagree with than arguing with their beliefs (civilly).

Let's take the high road and stick to impassioned, reasoned arguments against Trump's beliefs and actions.

Post reply on HN