Live data from Hacker News

Shame on Y Combinator

marco.org

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#811
post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original source is not an FBI report and you are completely misinformed. An unknown blog which contains nothing but right-wing hit pieces claims to have anonymous sources in the State Department. Until I hear this quote echoed by professional journalists with the integrity to verify their sources, I will take it with the grain of salt it deserves.

"completely misinformed" https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-... "“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having…

She's Secretary of State, and parts of the State Department would like to have a say in whether drone strikes are approved. She attests that no formalized process was in place. This is not news to anyone who has been following the situation.

I do not see the name Julian Assange in the above report.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#812

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…

By that reasoning, McCarthyism was profoundly liberal: Communism was a direct, unequivocal threat to society, so hounding it out was perfectly justified. (Or even if it wasn't, lots of people strongly believed it was, with justification!)

To me, that's a pretty scary conclusion which puts some real doubt on the initial premise.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#813

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…

This is so wise and respectful. I really appreciate this comment.

Someone supporting Trump does not imply that they are sexist or racist. The issues are complex. Ultimately, if an employee has shown nothing but respect for fellow coworkers and is performing their job adequately, then I don't think you have a good reason to fire them.

What if I fired an employee for donating to a church? Or to the Clinton campaign? Regardless of the legality of the action, I would never do this. I believe it would be dishonorable. Now, if the employee were causing problems at work, then this is an entirely different situation.

We must respect each other's differences. Firing Marcos would only succeed in alienating him, further entrenching him in his perspective.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Firing someone on the basis of a political donation (to a major candidate, nonetheless) seems pretty hateful to me.

Respect for the parent commenter, and Sam Altman for doing (what I think) is the difficult but honorable thing.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#814
post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"completely misinformed" https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-... "“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having…

She's Secretary of State, and parts of the State Department would like to have a say in whether drone strikes are approved. She attests that no formalized process was in place. This is not news to anyone who has been following the situation. I do not see the name Julian Assange in the above report.

Is the only way for you find the claim she said the above statement true that someone produce a recording of the meeting at State where they were discussing droning people? Strikes me as an unreasonable bar, but hey, do you. Think recordings of everything HRC says would be wise, given her security practices?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#816
post #595

Shame on Marco. I can't stand Trump, but I also can't stand this ganging up on Thiel. I guess the fact that he's a billionaire means he can be bullied, but this political bullying has a chilling effect that leads to the lackluster choices we get for president every four years. Thiel sees Hillary as a bigger threat to his interests than Trump. To prefer an outcome does not imply you favor all aspects of that outcome.…

"Instead of Thiel, we should be admonishing our media"

I know it's trendy to bash the media, but I'm not buying that our current candidates are the fault of "the media" and not the voters themselves.

More than enough information was reported about Trump during the primaries to make it clear exactly what kind of person he was, and the Republican voters decided this is the person they wanted to represent them.

The DNC maybe was tilting their contest in Clinton's favor over Bernie, but I don't know that the same can be said about "the media".

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#817
As with Title I vs Title II and other crap like this, this is just a symptom of a bigger problem: we have only two choices. Both times, YC got dragged into a situation where people demand they sever ties and punish people for their political views.

In our first-past-the-post system, even if Hitler and Mao were the nominees of the 2 parties, would the 3rd party get even 15% of the vote?

https://twitter.com/GregMozart/status/788448482264768512

I am very happy with YC's decision not to sever ties with people based on their support of a political position that a large (over 20%) portion of the population seems to have. The way that was done with Brendan Eich at Mozilla. There should be some separation between the workplace and a person's personal politics.

These people themselves are not killers, rapists, they do not exercise their own power to coerce others etc. They don't endorse every single bad thing their candidate does.

For the record, I think Trump is not very interested in learning about nuances, half the time it's not clear what he is really saying, almost never reconsiders his position, instead he just easily disavows his own statements, and that alone disqualifies him. But should I cut business ties with every Hillary supporter because I believe they are for brinksmanship and escalating the threat of a nuclear war with Russia? Many are. But that has such a small effect on the good we can do together, in the actual sphere of our collaboration. If I want to do something about the doomsday clock, cutting ties with my coworkers is very, very far down the list of effective things to do.

Even in your personal life, realize that arguing about politics is like arguing about astronomy -- the odds are overwhelming that you can't really change anything in the current election. So if your significant other likes a different baseball team, that's not nearly as important as shared values about how you're going to raise your children, or basic respect to human beings, or other things in your real life.

I don't live in California, and I know New York State (where I live) will vote Democratic as it always has, same as Cali. But we embrace political diversity much more than California, it seems. It may be more OK to publicly disinvite Douglas Crockford from a conference for his own personal behavior (I personally think it is ridiculous, but still), than to disinvite someone for mainstream political views or support for another candidate.

But as I said, this is all a symptom of our first-past-the-post system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#818
post #299

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…

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 saw (later) how the atheist community broke apart due to activists trying to insist it become justice activist or feel shameful or part of the problem; it rips apart enthusiasts when they feel they have to become involved in someone's actions like if not doing something means you're helping cause the problem.

Expecting Y Combinator or its community to fight Trump or sever ties with anyone who supports him is not only discrimination but unnecessary, divisive, and corrosive.

All this moral grandstanding like we have to right the world the way someone wants immediately will just drench everyone in someone's mud.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#820
post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol snopes

Yeah, because they're less trust worthy than True Pundit.

They're on the same level. Does that make them both Arbiters Of Truth? Or is that lofty title reserved for PolitiFact and HRC's campaign page?
Post reply on HN