661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nationally title 7 only protects you from the following: sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There might be local state laws that protect you from politics, but no national law.
Religion is held higher than other forms of opinions like political stance? Weird.
Please, do the right thing, and don't take it down again. https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinat...
This still shouldn't be on HN. I'm not from the US and I am totally fed up with both pro and anti Trump/Clinton propaganda that spews out to cover all of the world, and I don't want to see it here, at least particularly when it's just "stories about politics, or crime, or sports" and particularly not "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." as the HN guidelines put it. I'd rather fight for Thiel's right to say…
And apparently enough people think that it should be on HN that the topic continues to appear even after flaggings.
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 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 b…
If religion X rules the world, it's possible that there will be bad consequences. If Trump becomes President, it's possible there will be bad consequences. Should our confidence score for either of these eventualities determine how we treat those who think the opposite? I think that is at the heart of these issues.
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 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 b…
If religion X rules the world, it's possible that there will be bad consequences. If Trump becomes President, it's possible there will be bad consequences. Should our confidence score for either of these eventualities determine how we treat those who think the opposite? I think that is at the heart of these issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's historical evidence of people being elected, in democracies, and turning them into dictatorships. Part of the process looks the same as what Trump is doing. (e.g. saying the election is rigged therefore calling the process illegitimate, saying he'd put his political opponent in jail). If that doesn't persuade you, what kind of evidence would persuade you?
Oh, I'm persuaded- just look at the actions of W and Obama - both moved the presidency closer to dictatorship. As for elections not being legitimate, that clam was made repeatedly, with merit, after 2000. The democrats lost, and they lost due to widespread fraud. Finally, Hillary belongs in jail. Basically all of the allegations have been proven by the wikileaks email releases. When your opponent is a blatant crimina…
Hmm. Interesting. What allegations do you think were proven? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that they mostly proved things that seem bad, nothing that was specifically criminal. It's not like we didn't know the details of the whole email situation beforehand.
Also, thought experiment - how would you react if Hillary Clinton were to say that she would appoint a special prosecutor to jail Trump for sexual harassment?
Edit: BTW, afaik, the democrats' allegations in 2000 came after the results of the election. They didn't repeatedly claim ahead of time that the election was rigged. Not sure if this is a huge difference, just putting it out there.
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…
And it's a refugee problem, not a Muslim problem.
"Can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton, on Assange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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,…
Encouraging your well-armed nutjob supporters to go to the polls and 'monitor' them is kiiiind of on another level. Trump isn't just a moron spouting off nonsense--he's the leader of a large radicalized army, an army which includes large swathes of the police and military. Americans are so complacent and used to stability that they think this is all a crazy TV show that can't affect them personally, but this is a ver…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Based on reading your comments for several years, I presume you are very much in favor of protecting employees from various kinds of discrimination(as you should!)." I think it's pretty relevant that Thiel isn't an employee of YC. Saying that they would "fire" Thiel is a complete misnomer - he's a partner that does business with them. I think that's a very different kind of relationship.
I'm aware of that legally the distinction is relevant, but in the realm of public discourse, it isn't. YC could also e.g. cut ties with Thiel because he's gay, but of course HN would crucify them.