Live data from Hacker News

Shame on Y Combinator

marco.org

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#821

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…

>Trump is an existential threat to our democracy

If one person, even a President can be an existential threat to your democracy then your democracy is already in a very bad shape.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#822
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.…

> We should be admonishing Hillary and Trump supporters who turn a blind eye to their unethical tactics and ends justify the means mindset. You don't consider Peter Thiel to fall in this category? Why not?

Fair point, but it really depends if Trump is being unethical in his campaign and might be as president. Sure he frequently spouts utter nonsense. He's only unethical if he knows he's doing it. Hard to say with that guy. With the Clinton emails, we have evidence of unethical behavior, and we have many prominent defenders responding with "look how bad Trump is". Sure that's what conservative media has been doing to Hillary 90% of the time, but there's not a lot of love for how embarrassing Trump is right now, as a conservative AND a human being. Thiel's recent silence (AFAIK) is telling.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#823
post #687

Another way to look at this is to apply a version of Jeff Bezos's Regret Minimization Framework: project yourself decades into the future and read about yourself in a history book. If you truly believe Trump is an unprecedented threat to democracy in the league of Stalin, how would you feel telling your children that "it was just business" when you kept on a partner who was part of his campaign apparatus? I don't thi…

Would one feel particularly good telling one's children that one joined in a rabid witch hunt driving people from their employment (Eich) and business associations (Thiel)?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#824
post #6

In this thread and others I've seen this: Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions? Of course they do. But a surprising number of “free speech” and “free market” people don’t seem to understand how either works. Individuals have a right to support white nationalists. Individuals also have a right not to do business with those who support white nationalists. Individuals also have the right to organ…

You are correct that all of those are rights. The question here is what is the course of action that will lead to the best outcome?

People who believe YC should disassociate from Thiel are doing so based on the belief that the consequences of not doing so would be to promote a Trump presidency, which would have bad consequences to a variety of minority groups, etc.

People who believe YC should not disassociate from Thiel (I am one of them) would assert that doing so would set up or perpetuate a norm in which it is acceptable to ostracize people for unpopular opinions (unpopular relative to a certain community or context). Brendan Eich was another semi-recent example of this.

The effect of this, I believe, would be to: a) further balkanize and polarize our politics, and b) to exert chilling effects discouraging people from airing unpopular opinions, which in turn would inhibit an open marketplace of ideas, which, I believe, is necessary for progress. I believe individuals and societies can only grow by being exposed to a variety of ideas, some of which they disagree with, and ostracizing people who disagree would prevent this from being possible.

So both sides are arguing there are negative consequences they are trying to avoid. Which side an individual will come down on, I suspect, will depend on how much weight they place on each type of negative outcome.

As a personal aside, I know what it is like to have to be ostracized for holding an unpopular opinion. I am an atheist in a deeply red and religious state. I have tried to "come out" and quickly had to "get back in the closet" based on the intensity of ostracism I received. So I admit this kind of thing has made me more sympathetic to people holding unpopular opinions.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#825
post #769

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…

The question is not who scores more imaginary points on John Stuart Mill's or anybody else's "liberality scale". They question is whether we want to have a community in which one has to constantly look over one's shoulder to not run afoul of the thought police, and where virtue signaling and participating in Two Minutes Hate becomes mandatory, or else. Programming and software community turning into this scares me mu…

This.

Around 40% of Americans support Trump. Can you reasonably declare that 40% of society is a danger to itself?

You win over people with empathy and reasoned appeals to shared values, not firing them and refusing to associate at all with them -- that just drives them further away.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#826
Response to Sam Altman's post:

A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy. He has no real plan to restore economic growth.

The truth is that no one knows for sure what will be best for the American economy for the next four years. There are too many variables and too much unpredictability to know for certain what a Trump president would look like.

His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer.

This is a fallacy. The country is already divided over immigration, and has been for a long time. The prevalence of this kind of fallacious rhetoric from elites like Sam Altman is precisely why the nationalist faction chose Trump to lead them. In order to counter this kind of deceptive propaganda, they needed someone willing to use equally powerful rhetoric in their favor.

Also, the claim that his policies are racist is simply not true. They are not racist.

But the man himself is even more dangerous than his policies. He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.

Sam cites no evidence and makes no argument to back up these exceptional claims. I have been watching Trump for an entire year, and I have not observed any erratic or "abusive" behavior. At least, nothing exceptional that wasn't already directed at him. Sure, he savaged his GOP rivals with name-calling and theatrics. But they had already called him a clown, a sideshow, a circus. So it's OK to call Trump names but not OK to for him to respond in kind?

Trump supporters see this hypocrisy and understand that Trump is doing what he needs to do to win the election.

He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants, and I believe this reason alone more than disqualifies him to be president. My godson’s father, who is Mexican by birth and fears being deported or worse, is who convinced me to spend a significant amount of time working on this election at the beginning of this year, when Trump still seemed like an unlikely possibility.

More blatantly fallacious reasoning. Because a Mexican national fears deportation (why?), suddenly Trump is a threat to all women minorities and immigrants?

Ridiculous fallacy. This is why Trump must use the rhetoric he does, because his opponents are so full of shit that they don't even realize it.

Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president.

I'll grant that Trump shows little explicit respect for the Constitution. But Hillary doesn't either. No one's respecting the constitution because no one (Sam Altman) has been demanding it. There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees immigration to anyone who wants it, which so far is the only issue he has identified that has not been a grossly biased representation.

Speaking of which, "human decency." Again, another extreme claim with absolutely NO argument or evidence to back it up. Altman boldy claims that Trump shows little respect for human decency, and yet anyone who has actually watched Trump interact with his supporters all year long shows that he is overflwing with of decency. People love him, he makes them feel good just to be around him. Here Altman is appealing to popular prejudice about Trump, which has been reinforced repeatedly by others like him in his echo chamber.

It's one thing to not waste time justifying claims for which the evidence is abundant and easily found. But there's no such evidence for these claims. There's a lot of other people saying similarly bad things that also have no evidence. So there's a clear reason why this perception exists. But I see no real argument.

As for fearing for national security? Again just another emotional appeal with no justification. What about Hillary actively antagonizing Russia? Speaking recklessly of no-fly zones over Syria, which our own Generals claim would mean going to war with Russia. This fear just seems ignorant.

Though I don’t ascribe all positions of a politician to his or her supporters, I do not understand how one continues to support someone who brags about sexual assault, calls for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US, or any number or other disqualifying statements. I will continue to try to change both of their minds.

First thing: if Sam Altman wants to understand, then he needs to learn how to listen. Trump never bragged about sexual assault, and to claim he did is a lie. Everyone repeating this is also lying. If you actually want to understand, the first thing you need to do is admit your interpretation of this is wrong. If you can't do that, you'll never make any progress towards understanding.

As for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US? Immigration is not a right. There's no amendment that says anyone anywhere has the right to come to this country. We have the right (and some would say duty) to restrict entry to anyone for any reason. The fact is that Muslims tend to hold very different values than Americans (Sam Altman might want to ask what Peter thinks about Muslim's beliefs on homosexuality), and there there are Muslim organizations who have made an explicit goal of destroying Western European civilization through a combination of settlement, violence, and propaganda. You can't say that about any other major religion in the world.

And so of all the "basket of deplorables", that is the one I will admit to. I am not racist, at least, no more than anyone can be in the US given the amount of race-baiting done by corporate media. I am not sexist. I'm not homophobic or anti-semitic.

But I am an Islamaphobe. Islam scares me. The religion itself scares me as does the activities of its leaders-- the so-called moderates as well as the extremists. It scares me more than any other major religion in the world. No other religion of significant size has the same combination of intolerance, subversiveness, violence, conquest, and hostility to those outside the faith. I look at the character of Islamic civilization, and I know without a doubt that I do would not want to live under those values. While I totally understand that it's possible to interpret the Quran and Hadith in less violent and aggressive ways, and that most Muslims are just ordinary people who want to live happy and healthy lives, that's not the trend in the world today. There's not a single Islamic country that I would want to live in.

You won't see me harassing anyone or trying to deny American Muslims their 1st amendment rights. It's not hatred I feel. I'll never condone "hate speech" or "hate crimes." I do not fear ordinary Muslims, individually. I am not even opposed to having a solid and stable minority of American Muslims in perpetuity. But I most emphatically do not think we should be inviting substantial numbers of them into the country. We are not prepared to assimilate them and once there are sufficient numbers of them in the country they will start agitating to impose their political will on everyone else, which is likely to include political violence.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#827
post #735

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…

> Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. I still can't think why a sane person would believe that. I mean not rhetorically claim it in a bout of electoral frenzy, but really genuinely believe it. Not that Trump has a disgusting personality or would be bad president or has this and that flaw, but that he will actually single-handedly ruin the democracy. I mean,…

There are many historical examples of countries with legitimate governments that were taken over by a demagogue or tyrant. You can't imagine a sane person could fear the same outcome in the United States?

Democracy has to be re-earned in each generation. If you just depend on past victories, you can absolutely lose it.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#828
post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snopes must be having a pretty high traffic month: http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

lol snopes

I'm going to say again what I said yesterday: I'm really unhappy that this is what passes for discourse on HN now.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#829
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…

> the Republican voters decided this is the person they wanted to represent them

You might as well say the American voters decided that, since it wasn't even close to a majority of Republicans. Trump's rhetoric just played well to poorer, xenophobic conservatives, and there are plenty of those in every state, and his asinine comments got him a lot of free publicity on the "boob tube".

> I don't know that the same can be said about "the media".

I don't think reports of violence at Trump rallies ever called into question that these might have been instigated by DNC operatives. But they will now, right?

So they might not have hand picked Hillary, but they definitely allowed themselves to be manipulated by her campaign to some degree.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#830

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…

The number of instances of the word "believe" is where your argument (and Marcos') fails. I'm not a justice expert, but unless Trump is judged and condemned, he is innocent and none of his actions are to be considered criminal, correct? That being the case, supporting him shouldn't be punished as well. I'm thinking that maybe the People should prosecute Trump over hate crimes and such (there are grounds for that, rig…

No one is talking about legal punishments for Trump (even though he threatened to jail Hillary if he won). We're talking about Y Combinator doing business with someone who is substantially and actively supporting a racist.
Post reply on HN