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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#421

Post by ryanSrich »

tptacek wrote: post #359
fixxer wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Mussolini

This is the type of thing that really bothers me. Not only is that a ridiculous comparison, it's completely baseless and anti-intellectual. Trump has made a few off hand fascist remarks, but nothing that could substantiate him establishing legal dictatorship. So why even make that comparison? Just fuel the witch hunt?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#422

Post by tptacek »

grandalf wrote: post #415
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…

> 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 journali…

People keep claiming that this sentiment is "profoundly illiberal". Those people should read more liberal philosophy, because it is not as if this is the first time this issue has come up. You can bring it back to John Stuart Mill if you like, but (very unsurprisingly) it's also one of the major themes of post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat to society.

If you don't believe Trump's intolerance poses a real threat, you're on safe ground arguing against appeals agains Trump. But Altman and Graham do not agree with you.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#423

Post by twelvechairs »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #300
twelvechairs wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions" Its called freedom of speech/expression. Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights uses very similar words "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference..." The idea is pretty tracea…

That's speaking of lack of interference from the government not from your fellow citizens. Everyone has the right to criticize whom ever they choose and do business with whom ever they choose, for any reason they choose. No government should have the right to enforce interference based on believes.

Certainly societal segregation is part of freedom of speech. John stuart mill is a key refefence to this. His general principle is that government should only step in to prevent harm but sometimes segregation based on belief can be that harm (his 'tyranny of the majority')

Now nobody we are talking about is struggling to survive based on their beliefs but whether its right to start segregating people for their views is definitely a freedom of speech issue.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#424

Post by mi100hael »

551199 wrote: post #257
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…

The way Democrats are running their campaign they are the real threat to democracy. Newest leak: For those without time to watch: Scott Foval, National Field Director at Americans United for Change, discloses a number of unethical (and perhaps illegal) activities on undercover camera conducted by the liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change, with various PACs and the DNC. Evidence of Democrat organizers pay…

> The way Democrats are running their campaign they are the real threat to democracy.

Yes, this exactly. While Trump is out there making lewd, offensive, or ignorant statements, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party are actually carrying out actions that threaten the integrity of our democratic process. It's sad that all of those things are just from the newest leak. Way too much collusion amongst the party, the campaign, superpacs, the media, and outside interests. All of this makes it nearly impossible for the public to make an informed decision.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#425

Post by sctb »

We've turned off user flags again for this story because the rule of HN moderation is to moderate threads less when they're critical of YC or YC-funded startups. Please be respectful of your fellow community members in the discussion—such divisive issues are threatening and our first duty is to protect the community.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#426

Post by bbctol »

hueving wrote: post #380
tptacek wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you not see the difference between judging people for their public positions and making it illegal for their positions to be private?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#427

Post by Gargoyle »

hueving wrote: post #354
infinite8s wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait, who are the fascists again?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#428

Post by dlss »

wybiral wrote: post #383
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…

> 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. Personally I must have missed this. How did the downfall of the Atheist community in the US happen and who was hunting witches?

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett wrote books, participated in debates, and basically reimagined atheism as a political movement. Then the question of social justice's role in atheism split the community in two via progressive purging. Splitting the community resulted in movements with significantly less political capital, and the main thinkers moved off to other projects.

It's fairly political, so even though a lot of it happened online you'll still have a hard time of getting a clear picture. "Elevator Gate" is the obvious starting search, http://www.conservapedia.com/Elevatorgate seems to be the most complete single page I can find as an introduction.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#429

Post by tptacek »

twelvechairs wrote: post #423
jaegerpicker wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's speaking of lack of interference from the government not from your fellow citizens. Everyone has the right to criticize whom ever they choose and do business with whom ever they choose, for any reason they choose. No government should have the right to enforce interference based on believes.

Certainly societal segregation is part of freedom of speech. John stuart mill is a key refefence to this. His general principle is that government should only step in to prevent harm but sometimes segregation based on belief can be that harm (his 'tyranny of the majority') Now nobody we are talking about is struggling to survive based on their beliefs but whether its right to start segregating people for their views…

John Stuart Mill did not believe that people should be shielded from criticism, even massed criticism, for fear that they might be victimized by their own bad feels. In fact: Mill believes that the preservation of free society and ordered democracy with equal access by citizens was one of the few reasons society has to limit freedom. As luck would have it, we're here today debating the very real candidacy of a person who proposes to strip Muslims of their citizenship rights, and of someone who stood on a debate stage and proclaimed that one of his first acts as President would be to ensure the imprisonment of his political rival.

Thankfully, nobody here is suggesting that the state should limit anyone's freedom (for that, you have to go to a Trump rally). Instead, we're simply criticizing Sam Altman for endorsing Peter Thiel.

There is no appeal you will be able to make to any liberal philosopher that people should be immunized from criticism.

Post reply on HN