Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#471

Post by striking » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #456

abecedarius wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's no philosopher you can't enlist in the support of any view if you quote them out of context (also: you could have done far better in finding a quote to deploy here; try searching On Liberty for the word "opinion"). The part you haven't come to yet is the Harm Principle.

> The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Okay. So if we're preventing harm, then, what is the possible harm here? Do you think intolerant beliefs threaten society? I'm of the opinion that beliefs mean nothing until acted upon, that only intolerant actions threaten society.

Or to rephrase it as one of the core tenets of Silicon Valley, "Having a great idea is not enough. It is the manner in which ideas are executed that counts."[1]

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318849, linking to https://archive.is/U6C4l#selection-2043.104-2043.196

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#472

Post by mc32 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

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…

It may not be, but looking back many people view the blacklisting of American communists as antithetical to democracy even though their philosophy would have it to overturn our system and forge into a communist one.

Blacklisting people because we think they are a threat to our society is what enabled employers of the past to make it hard for people of an opposing view to get jobs because their politics were "anti-American", even though strictly speaking they could be the antithesis of our political and economic system even now.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#473

Post by anondon » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

genericpseudo wrote: post #453

anondon wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel. I think it's a very slippery slope to base endorsement on a person's political actions. It raises some important questions: -Do you stop endorsing and associating with everyone who supports Trump? Where do you draw the line logically? -Why can't people with opposing views work together and agree to disagree o…

> I think it's a very slippery slope to base endorsement on a person's political actions. What exactly else do you propose? Endorsing people based on their actions ( all actions are political; no actions are apolitical; that's just how it works, you can't quit the game) is the only ethical position which makes any sense at all. This has gone far enough. The only effective response is to judge by actions and refuse to…

> What exactly else do you propose?

Let people have differing opinions and continue working with them. If Thiel is doing something illegal, and goes against the spirit of the Constitution, call him out for and push for legal action.

> The only effective response is to judge by actions and refuse to work with any Y Combinator company until Thiel is fired (and Altman resigns).

Fire Thiel for supporting Trump with a donation? Seriously? What is this, a dictatorship? Everyone who disagrees is silenced? You want Altman to resign? Genuine question : Do you hear yourself?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#474

Post by protomyth » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #200

nugget wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been in…

i agree, and believe many trump voters will privately and reluctantly vote for him, and publicly say they voted for someone else for this very reason. i also believe many others will vote for trump simply to push the country toward a breakup of the 2-party system into a 3 or 4-party system. they very well could have voted for bernie if that were an option.

I was told in another thread that was "Shy Tory Factor"[1]. I get the feeling polling is going to need to really look at what they do since they got Brexit and 2014 US wrong.

1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977911

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#475

Post by snuxoll » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

_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.

You are correct that supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, and on many occasions I continue to do business with companies headed by people who back political ideals I disagree with. However, I HAVE discontinued business with companies that directly support groups I disagree with (Chick-fil-a being a small, but easy example) - I don't care what people do with their own funds, but once a companies name is attached to a donation or lobbying effort it's completely reasonable to hold them accountable for their actions in my eyes.

Unfortunately, even with this mental separation I try to maintain it falls into shades of gray when there isn't a clear separation between the business and the individual.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#476

Post by dkrich » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #422

grandalf wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't disagree regarding Trump, but where do we draw the line? Should any employer who's executive board strongly denounces Trump's views and rhetoric fire employees who support him via donations? Should Google suppress his website?

I don't think Trump is the real threat to society, but rather that he is able to garner such widespread support in American society in 2016, and I don't think that's going to be fixed by taking punitive actions against his supporters.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#477

Post by trdrake » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

cerebrum wrote: post #259

jessaustin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At times I've suspected this entire cacophony of anti-Trump vitriol was just a ploy to convince the plebes that he isn't one of TPTB... What would really change under Trump? Coke and Pepsi taste the same to me.

Change: no WW III. Seems good enough of a difference to me.

The guy who "will end ISIS very, very quickly", and might just use nukes to do it?

http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/trump-nuclear-weapons-isis/

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#478

Post by nbschulze » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #416

surfmike wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're making the right argument, I just don't think you're making it super clear.

(I think) what you're saying, is 'There is nothing wrong with supporting an opposing viewpoint. There is a huge problem with supporting Benito Mussolini. Sam Altman has compared Donald Trump to Benito Mussolini. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with supporting Donald Trump. Peter Thiel supports Donald Trump. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with his association with Peter Thiel.'

Keeping my political views out of the equation, I agree with that line of logic. The problem I think Sam is facing and why I think it's such a difficult issue is this.

Donald Trump is not Benito Mussolini. Unless he wins the presidency, he won't even have a remote opportunity at becoming him. So I think Sam is in sort of a lose-lose situation. On one hand, Sam remains steadfast in his decision, Donald Trump wins the election, Donald Trump enacts changes that make him on par with Benito Mussolini and Sam has now been complicit in the support of someone on par with Benito Mussolini. On the other hand, if Donald Trump loses or even if he wins and is anything less than a Benito Mussolini look-alike, he has effectively suppressed the support of an opposing political viewpoint.

I'm not pretending to know the solution, not even a little bit. I do think it's important to recognize how difficult of situation Sam is in.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#479

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

genericpseudo wrote: post #466

tptacek wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Sam Altman, if Peter Thiel said some of what Trump said, they'd stop endorsing him. I could not be more baffled by this stance: someone who speaks like Donald Trump is too toxic to affiliate with YC, but someone who diligently works to make Donald Trump President of the United States is not.

This is the end consequence of tremendous cowardice from a lot of people over a long time, starting with the owners and administrators of Hacker News. HN has – through inaction – smirkingly enabled alt-right/NRx/GamerGaters to parody-thru-libel liberal positions on equality for a long time; supporting Peter Thiel is in the same vein. That's made Hacker News racist, sexist, and (worst of all for this crowd's self-imag…

I am as troubled as you are about the uptick in overt racism and sexism on HN. But I know and trust the moderators of the site, and this is a conversation I have had with them too, and I don't have any better ideas on how to deal with it than they do.

The bigger problem is that the (very large) community of reasonable nerds who care about bigotry has largely abandoned Hacker News. In doing so, they've conceded it to the racist fringe. They, too, should reconsider.

It's at least comforting to know that blatant racism and sexism tends to get flagged off of threads.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#480

Post by makomk » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

civilian wrote: post #154

byuu wrote: post #139

Citizens United and McCutcheon were such disasters for our democracy. Hopelessly partisan 5-4 votes from the USSC as well. No surprise given the way big money usually leans. Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech, no matter what five people in robes say. The problem here isn't who Thiel supports, it's that he has the ability to throw $1,250,000 on a whim to that person. Very, very, very few people can do…

If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the goals of freedom of speech & press? Citizens United is solid in my book. If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They're clearly biased and have an agenda, their biased reporting acts as a contribution to a c…

One obvious place to draw the line - indeed, the place where used to be drawn - is the part where Citizens United tried to pay channels to air their film about Hillary. Normal media outlets are businesses, which means that they need to cover their costs somehow. They also have to gain and keep the trust of their audience through their reporting. If you're just paying off existing media outlets to show your propaganda to their audience solely for your political gain, then you're engaged in campaigning. This is why Citizens United's earlier attempts to get Fahrenheit 9/11 and its trailers banned failed; the FEC found that it was bona fide commercial activity.