Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shame on Y Combinator

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#841

Post by clavalle »

ww520 wrote: post #747
clavalle wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences? Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push…

> Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.

>Who's the judge for validity anyway?

The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression.

To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty.

>when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.

There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of the above, no.

Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.

Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic society.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#843

Post by knz »

ThomPete wrote: post #440
d7oaks wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think Marco’s point, which I strongly agree with, is that donating to Trump goes beyond just supporting a political candidate that you don’t happen to agree with. The fact that Trump has some valid policy ideas is completely besides the point. Amongst other things he is inciting racial and ethnic hatred, undermining trust in American democracy, encouraging violence and legitimising sexual assault. When…

So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal. Yet somehow the very words of Trump is immoral. I guess I just don't get it.

> So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal.

I'm 99% certain that the Republican party is as deeply entrenched in the foreign policy directly responsible for the War on Terror, the War on Drugs (and all of the "lovely" people in Central/South America associated with that conflict), and many other conflicts related to the Cold War (Iran, the first Indochina War, Malayan emergency, Suez Crisis, Congo, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Mozambique, India-Pakistan, Libya, Cambodia, Chile, Israel and its neighbours, Afghanistan in the 70s, Grenada, Panama and many others).

Every conflict has two sides so let's not pretend that other actors aren't working the opposite side. But let's also not pretend that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are somehow more responsible for the consequences of US foreign policy. Every Western nation and its government is actively involved in this policy to some degree.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#844

Post by tnones »

jrs235 wrote: post #109
4ad wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, the fact that we had, and continue to have numerous threads, and thousands of comments means it is very interesting to the community.

The fact that it keeps getting flagged to death shows something too.

Indeed it does. Flags are disabled here, and now we get a long and extensive back and forth of all the sorts of arguments normally shut down as bigoted tout court.

Excuses from above about it being good for the community strikes me as eerily similar to the "national security" argument: in order to defend a free community from those who seek to harm it, we don't need to uphold the principles that it was founded upon. Hm.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#845

Post by [deleted] »

prawn wrote: post #172
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…

Does he really represent that group of people? Or does he appeal to them because no one actually represents them? I think he's there for himself and whoever will give people the impression that he's winning. Obviously there are many disillusioned people but I certainly don't think Trump is the best option for them. I'd like to see far more real attention and representation given to the crowd you speak of.

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#846

Post by knz »

madmax96 wrote: post #813
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…

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? Re…

Great post. People seem to lose track of the fact that political views exist on a spectrum and that our individual views can be quite different than the "team" ideology (conservatives who support gay marriage and liberals who support gun rights etc).

We need more people willing to work the middle ground and find reasonable compromises.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#847

Post by tnones »

throwaway274739 wrote: post #546

If you vote for Trump, you are supporting a racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-LGBTQ fascist. You are in fact voting against the very principles of equality, liberty and diversity that this country was founded on. As such voting for -- much less, actually supporting Drumpf -- means you are endorsing violence against huge portions of the American public (e.g., sexual assault against women, imprisonment of Muslim…

Actually, it's about ethics in wielding minorities as a club to smite heretics.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#848

Post by [deleted] »

dlss wrote: post #299
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#849

Post by Kalium »

d7oaks wrote: post #397
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…

I disagree. I think Marco’s point, which I strongly agree with, is that donating to Trump goes beyond just supporting a political candidate that you don’t happen to agree with. The fact that Trump has some valid policy ideas is completely besides the point. Amongst other things he is inciting racial and ethnic hatred, undermining trust in American democracy, encouraging violence and legitimising sexual assault. When…

The line of reasoning is that supporting a political candidate of a major political party in a political race for a political office is OK, fine, and normal in the general case. It's a key right that we need to maintain a free society. Supporting this particular candidate of this particular party in this particular race for this particular office is not, because it's different for a host of reasons.

I understand the logic. The thing is, every single office, race, candidate, and election is unique. There will always be some reason why this logic applies. Where do we draw the line? There are only two sane places that don't rest entirely on someone's personal mores - all or none. I'm inclined to lean towards people being "allowed" to make their own choices without being Othered for it.

That's what tolerance is - accepting people who make choices you personally loathe. Real tolerance is often a deeply uncomfortable thing.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#850

Post by joshkpeterson »

fsloth wrote: post #101

As a non-US outsider: Would there be such a ruckus if this was about some other VC fund that bore more right-wing cultural flavors and they had a markable member who donated vast sums of money to the democrat nominee? A rational person would not discriminate against someone because they do not support the same football club. I fail to see how this is any different.

Supporting football clubs is innocuous, but the outcome of this election will have material consequences for millions of people. Trump is hostile candidate for women, and for people of color. Supporting Trump makes YC, and to some extent tech in general, less welcoming for people that fall into these two categories.
Post reply on HN