Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#531

Post by matt4077 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:03 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #348

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 compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. A bit childish, considering the slot the candidate is running for is not in a dictatorship. If you think Trump could convert the US to a dictatorship, I would like to see the evidence supporting this.

Nobody ever ran for the Presidency of a dictatorship, that's kinda like their defining feature.

I'd point to Putin, Erdogan and Victor Orban as current strongmen who were elected democratically and slowly transformed their countries towards authoritarianism.

The parallels are undeniable: a bit of hatred against the "other", a lot of complaining about the media (and calling for laws to stop their "lying"), the hyper-masculine rhetoric and so on.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#532

Post by throw7 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

Did or would Sam Altman support Brendan Eich when he was mozilla's CEO and accused of homophobia?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#533

Post by evanmoran » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

It takes great bravery to allow your beliefs to affect your bottom line. Thiel has demonstrated this bravery by spending his time, money and reputation on Trump.

Now it's Altman’s turn. If he truly believes that "This election is exceptional. Donald Trump represents an unprecedented threat to America", then Marco is correct that supporting Thiel is against his beliefs. Good on Marco for calling it out to us so eloquently.

Obviously, Thiel is very influential and parting ways with him would be a big deal. It's likely it would cost Altman time, money and reputation. It's possible Thiel will hold a grudge and that will have unknown ramifications that might hurt YC and others.

This is why it's brave.

Business leaders often pretend they aren't choosing a side, when they always are. Be brave Altman. We'll support you.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#534

Post by AsyncAwait » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

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…

> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on.

I honestly think there's not a good choice in this election, but I find it ironic that the people who regularly make fun of poor people, call them "leeches" etc. want to cut social spending etc. and are known to hold the belief that "you probably didn't work hard enough" are now the ones left behind, "not working hard enough" to pull their own in modern society, yet still advocate for the same things as they were when in control...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#535

Post by zenobit256 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

I see the divide in this country growing every day.

We aren't electing a king or queen.

It's a single political position that's checked by the House and Senate.

And yet because of the media, because of the Republicans, because of the Democrats, we're no longer Americans. We're a people who are being played against each other for revenue in a popularity contest.

I've never seen people act so terribly to each other on such a normalized scale. The polarization scares me.

Divided we fall.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#536

Post by ridgeguy » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:05 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…

But it's also about outcomes. As I understand it, Altman considers a Trump win a bad thing for America.

There's no inconsistency between, on the one hand, repudiating Thiel's material support of Trump and, on the other hand, figuring out how to engage Trump supporters and their issues going forward.

The former helps prevent an immediate bad event, the latter builds a future in which America is less likely to fragment further and leave more people on the outside.

Nowhere in these does anybody stop talking to anyone. Altman talks to Thiel and publically disavows Thiel's support of Trump. Altman puts his own considerable resources and thought into talking with Trump supporters to see what's up with them, really. Everybody's talking. Granted, the conversations aren't easy, but they're talking.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#537

Post by marbletiles » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

The most damning thing to me about this is that Peter Thiel is content to let YC take the flack for him. He knows he's damaging them; that partners are walking away from YC, and it's down to him.

A decent person would walk away at that point, to save YC and take the heat on themselves.

He doesn't. Which makes it all the more odd that sama will still go to bat for someone he a) disagrees with and b) wouldn't do the same in return.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#538

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #449

tptacek wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think the idea that Altman disavowing Thiel would make Trump supporters uncomfortable will persuade me to stop asking Altman to disavow Thiel?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#539

Post by dreta » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

egeozcan wrote: post #412

dreta wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, you move a group of people, who don't share western values into the middle of the western civilization and this is what you get. Syria is not the only war-torn country on Earth.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#540

Post by ashark » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #472

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…

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-Ame…

I do think things have shifted more than a bit with unbridled campaign donations as "speech". This isn't someone handing out fliers or manning a call bank—if you're helping someone deeply opposed to your politics make money, and they're spending giant piles of that money to aid candidates you don't like, severing business relationships and trying to harm their ability to make money any way you can seems like fair game to me.

Don't like it? Favor measures to strictly limit money's effect on campaigns.