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

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#441

Post by tptacek »

grandalf wrote: post #432
tptacek wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do not believe Trump is significantly more intolerant than HRC or any other likely presidential candidate, he simply focuses his rhetoric on populist ire across all of his positions. It's the only trick he knows so he does it again and again. Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc GOP candidates for several e…

That's fine. I mean, again: I would urge you to reconsider. But we otherwise don't have a live debate, I don't think.

I am not here to argue that people who oppose Hillary Clinton should change their minds (they should, though!). I'm here to urge Sam Altman, who does not agree with you, that his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#442

Post by ng12 »

d7oaks wrote: post #397
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…

I disagree. I think Marco’s point, which I strongly agree with, is that donating to Trump goes beyond just supporting a political candidate that you don’t happen to agree with. The fact that Trump has some valid policy ideas is completely besides the point. Amongst other things he is inciting racial and ethnic hatred, undermining trust in American democracy, encouraging violence and legitimising sexual assault. When…

I think this argument does more harm than good. Repeating "Trump is a bad man!" ad nauseam and shaming people for supporting him only makes them feel like outsiders, and outsiders double down.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#443

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#444

Post by grandalf »

tptacek wrote: post #441
grandalf wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe Trump is significantly more intolerant than HRC or any other likely presidential candidate, he simply focuses his rhetoric on populist ire across all of his positions. It's the only trick he knows so he does it again and again. Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc GOP candidates for several e…

That's fine. I mean, again: I would urge you to reconsider. But we otherwise don't have a live debate, I don't think. I am not here to argue that people who oppose Hillary Clinton should change their minds (they should, though!). I'm here to urge Sam Altman, who does not agree with you, that his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.

True. FWIW I think Thiel's goal is to take the opportunity to be on the national stage a bit, expecting to have a bit more involvement in future elections.

Also, FWIW, I think people who live in CA should seriously consider voting for a third party candidate, since HRC is certain to win the state.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#445

Post by metaphorm »

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...

your statement is non-sensical. what, did you add together 43 + 33 = 76 therefore the majority are satisfied?

that's crazy talk. the best case scenario is that 43% of the electorate is satisfied. both candidates are very very far away from being acceptable to a majority of the entire electorate.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#446

Post by calimac »

you people are fascists. to sever ties over political contribution? really??? your insane!!

This type of thought is a result of marxist university programming the youth.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#447

Post by meira »

msandford wrote: post #369
sagichmal wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm. Well there's obviously a spectrum but I think it's absolutely inarguable that Trump's foundation is a tax dodge and that Trump is transparently corrupt; and I think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices, but yes absolutely the allegations against her are without proof. > I'm sure there are TONS of…

> think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices The Director of the FBI said exactly that, but that there was no malicious intent and thus no crime. Why an investigative body is making a recommendation about charges notwithstanding, when it comes to national secrets, nobody else gets the benefit of the doubt re: mens rea, it's generally interpreted as strict liability. Why did former Secretary Clinton…

I don't understand how Americans don't care about Hillary's lies. (actually, I do, it's called mass media manipulation, but you guys, of all modern societies in the world, should be one of few capable of fighting it).

Hillary Clinton simple says that she made a mistake and nobody asks why did she used a private email server? I think this is a huge trap, but would things go a little better for Trump if he admits that it was all a misunderstanding and he is a reformed man now?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#448

Post by ThomPete »

dpark wrote: post #417
digler999 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had.

But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial.

Don't take a beautiful and cool facade for anything than that. Behind the scenes its raw power and they are all, everyone of them, in the game for the power.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#449

Post by ng12 »

tptacek wrote: post #291
prh8 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like most people want YC to cut Thiel off, which would be very similar to that. David Heinemeier Hansson and Ellen Pao have advocated for virtually that exact scenario.

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.

How would that make you feel if you were a YC-funded founder who happened to support Trump? The semantics of Thiel's relationship with YC doesn't change anything.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#450

Post by pron »

Chris2048 wrote: post #92
pron wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean why are we giving a hard time to all those people who join the KKK just because they look good in white? But seriously, I don't think the demand to "sever ties" with Thiel is the right (it does have the slight scent of a purge), or the smart one to make (it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon). In fact, it pretty much ensures that the debate…

> it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon Why frame it like this? It is "silencing opposing views", whether a bandwagon exists or not, so is bad in itself. You seem to imply the only problem is that people care about the issue - that's a good thing! > in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas SV is a liberal and leftist hotspot, so those idea…

> It is "silencing opposing views"

Well, I'm not 100% sure that telling your billionaire buddy that since he's become a politician in a movement that you view as dangerous to your country and its people perhaps you shouldn't do business together for a while, qualifies as silencing his views. Still, I don't think it was right to demand this of YC.

> Are you pondering why any non-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there?

I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold anywhere, I'm just saying that perhaps people of influence who oppose those views may want to speak up a bit more vocally. Maybe it's even their duty.

> Possibly for good reason. There is a lot of animosity towards the tech crowd there

So Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people but in reminding them that they're hungry?

Post reply on HN