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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#851

Post by joshkpeterson »

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #174

Marcos here, line many, falls for the classic myth. That change can come to America via the ballot box. That it matters who you vote for. That the election makes a difference. How many times do we need to be reminded that this isn't true? How many elections of false hope gone nowhere do we need to see? I'll say it again as I have innumerable times before. It does not matter one bit who gets elected president. As Emma…

There are millions of people who have health insurance and were able to see a doctor because of the last presidential election. It matters.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#852

Post by hueving »

tedmiston wrote: post #680
hueving wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then perhaps you'd like to get rid of anonymous voting?

Voter registration is already public in many states (and searchable online). While that doesn't include actual votes, it does include party affiliation which is obviously a strong indicator. Beyond some extreme exceptions, you can't even opt-out of being listed in this publicly searchable database which includes your home address as well. In other words, voting is hardly anonymous even today. And even that doesn't ac…

You don't have to put a political affiliation.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#853

Post by k26dr »

Despite my disagreement with him, Peter Thiel has a right to hold an opinion on which candidate he supports, and the right to donate to the candidate of his choice. It's a presidential election. You can't call it a fair election if as a society, we're threatening to punish people for supporting one candidate over another.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#854

Post by gnarbarian »

rhapsodic wrote: post #607

This exemplifies a disturbing tactic of the left, demonizing anyone who holds differing political views, attempting to turn them into social pariahs, causing them whatever harm they're able to within the law. I happen to think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in federal prison. I think the only reason she's not being prosecuted is that the current administration is corrupt, and views laws as weapons to…

Cheers. I am absolutely sick of these McCarthy-esque witchhunts foisted on us. That combined with the recent attacks on freedom of speech have me very wary of the left in general this time around.

I was rooting for Rand Paul and planned on voting for Gary Johnson in the election but the blatant corruption and criminality that has come out exposing Clinton, her laundry list of crimes, the lack of prosecution by the DoJ, and the complete bias in media coverage has me in the Trump camp this time around.

It really makes me sick.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#855

Post by jessaustin »

cerebrum wrote: post #259
jessaustin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At times I've suspected this entire cacophony of anti-Trump vitriol was just a ploy to convince the plebes that he isn't one of TPTB... What would really change under Trump? Coke and Pepsi taste the same to me.

Change: no WW III. Seems good enough of a difference to me.

It would take a very principled person to resist the various appeals of the military-industrial complex. Trump is not that person. All it will take is a couple of ex-generals making the rounds on Sunday morning saying, "if Trump weren't such a pussy he'd be bombing the Syrians already!"

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#857

Post by exclusiv »

giis wrote: post #341

Removing someone from business just you have difference with their political view is wrong. Suppose lets take this next level: - In Restaurant people refuse to serve someone because his political view is different- Will it be great? - Theil decides to fire employee's from his business because they don't agree with his political views. - Does that sounds good? - For example, companies like uber/airbnb decides to serve…

Fully agree - it should really be a protected clause for employment.

Let's say the 50% that support the left controls all the jobs as an example. Then you can fire the opposition if you don't fall in line and do what you're told. That's a scary thought.

I'm third party but I find it amusing and disturbing to watch both sides. If you can't understand why people don't like Hillary you're not being honest or open with yourself. The same goes for Trump.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#858

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tomgp wrote: post #175
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…

Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.

>Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive //

But so to is to believe that one can't vote for someone who has acted, or intends to act, immorally and yet maintain the most ethical position.

Here in the UK for example: suppose one party is for nuclear weapons, another is for killing the NHS, another is for war in Syria. I might consider all those positions immoral but nonetheless I'd [most likely] cast a vote.

From the OP:

>"This isn’t voting for an economic or social policy — this is literally paying a huge amount of money to directly support [...unethical acts...]."

So, if you see Clinton winning as leading to even greater travesties what should you do? Not vote for Trump, Trump is surely the only other reasonable option.

Maybe Thiel does support those unethical acts, but we surely can't tell, it seems as likely from the sidelines that he simply sees that if Trump gets in Thiel personally will be better off. That seems to be the way a lot of people vote.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#859

Post by surfmike »

throwaway_415 wrote: post #804
surfmike wrote: post #420

I'm against Trump but this holier-than-thou grandstanding demanding shunning anyone who supports Trump is tiring and small-minded. It's a symptom of a society intolerant of other political beliefs. Moreover, do you think ostracizing 40% of society for their political beliefs is really going to improve our political future? It's easier to cut out people we disagree with than arguing with their beliefs (civilly). Let's…

No thanks, as a non-white male I will not have my quality of life destroyed due to racist old whites who aren't willing to come into the modern age.

Calling anybody who supports Trump a racist old white is an example of what I mean.

Better to argue against his beliefs and actions rather than just write off his supporters as a lost cause.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#860

Post by fernandotakai »

ythl wrote: post #503

That moment when https://xkcd.com/1357 gets taken too far and people are afraid of voicing anything but the current, popular, politically correct opinions for fear of losing their careers.

honestly, i myself feel like that. i don't voice my general opinion on many threads because there's always a random person that decides that my opinion is a disgrace so it's better to email his employee to let them know.
Post reply on HN