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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#891

Post by Taek »

grandalf wrote: post #432
tptacek wrote: post #422

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 do not believe Trump is significantly more intolerant than HRC or any other likely presidential candidate, he simply focuses his rhetoric on populist ire across all of his positions. It's the only trick he knows so he does it again and again. Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc GOP candidates for several e…

> I could not vote for either of the two major party candidates

That's the worst part of this election. I really dislike HRC. Her alleged crimes to me are much more significant than even the rape allegations against Trump. They affect more people, and they move our country in the direction of a corporate oligarchy.

But my alternative is Trump? Sexist, racist, and has unresolved sexual assault allegations against him? That's who you want me to vote for to keep HRC out of office?

Holy shit!

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#892

Post by natmaster »

webXL wrote: 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.…

> ...our media, which couldn't have hand-picked...

According to wikileak's hacking of Hillary's email, they didn't handpick anyone - it was Hillary who was telling them what to do.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#893

Post by deeth_starr »

While I don't agree w/ Marco on all his points, I think Thiel should go.

Trump/Thiel are racists against multiculturalism. This is the life blood of California and the tech sector. I say this as an old white guy.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#894

Post by clavalle »

ww520 wrote: post #879
clavalle wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 s…

> To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty. I think we are in agreement here. > Should all views be accepted as equally valid? > Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment. These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious, and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones you don't like. T…

>Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view.

I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose that influence. It is a double edged sword.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#895

Post by smsm42 »

thothamon wrote: post #827
smsm42 wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There are many historical examples of countries with legitimate governments that were taken over by a demagogue or tyrant

Not that many, actually (then again, there's not that many true democracies until recently) but in each case the problem was much deeper than the person of the specific demagogue and tyrant. And usually the particularly heinous demagogue and tyrant was precedent by a row of less heinous demagogues and tyrants. So what's so special in this one?

> You can't imagine a sane person could fear the same outcome in the United States?

Fear - sure. But fearing something and claiming something is going to happen is a different thing. I can fear being mugged and still not claim everybody I meet is a mugger. I can fear snakes but not see snakes behind every corner. Fear is healthy, but not when it gets out of control.

> Democracy has to be re-earned in each generation.

True, but also not very useful. What is specific in Trump that didn't ever happen that makes him more threat than King George, Jefferson Davis and many other lousy and controversial presidents US had over the years? Which specific faults will enable him to overthrow the Republic and why no one is working on fixing those flaws right now?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#896

Post by xaa »

deeth_starr wrote: post #883
xaa wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not GP, but I share his general viewpoint. My response would be: 1. I do not believe he would actually be able to do this (like the wall). Thankfully, unlike other aspects of our government, our judiciary is generally functional and independent. I think what he is really saying here is something like this: "HRC should have been indicted for the e-mails. The FBI director and AG are both Obama appointees. Bill Clinton…

>>1 I'm impressed by the 9th dimensional re-reading of "You'd be in jail" if he were president. I know your God Emperor loves that you help him complete his sentences and also tie his shoes. >>2/3 Sure, Trump is a fact-based kind of guy! So after he cries fire in a crowded theater let's trust he's the the guy trying to stop the mob. /s

I'm not a Trump supporter. Actually I was a Bernie supporter. I dislike both remaining candidates, but I do try to take as charitable an interpretation of both candidates' statements as reasonably possible. I have not found it productive to work any other way.

I can take a charitable interpretation of one candidate's statements, but not the other -- in which case my thinking becomes biased, or I can take an uncharitable interpretation of all candidates' statements, in which case they all seem irredeemably evil. Or I can try to make a good-faith attempt to determine what each candidate seems to be trying to say, which at least makes logical (as opposed to purely tribal) discourse possible, even though my inferences may be wrong.

I'm also a contrarian -- so, even though I may appear to be defending Trump here, because HRC is so overwhelmingly favored on HN, I do exactly the opposite with my friends and family in the red state I live in.

Of course I am not saying Trump is an especially honest or fact-based person. I am simply saying that when we evaluate candidates and their statements, we should try to look at facts. In case I didn't make it clear enough:

#1 is supported by some facts, if you take the interpretation I have taken. If he means something different, maybe not.

If he means, "I would put her in jail if I became President simply for being my political opponent", then that would be very bad, and of course I wouldn't condone that. I just don't see any more evidence for that interpretation than for mine.

#2 could be supported by ample facts, or not, depending on what he means by "rigged". Actually the bar would be much higher if he said something like "the election is/was rigged in HRC's net favor". I strongly doubt that.

#3 will almost certainly never be supportable.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#897

Post by EdSharkey »

This is a free speech country. People can associate with whomever they want. Celebrate that we can say and write deplorable things to one another. Peter Thiel can do what he wants with his millions, celebrate that. You can moralize about how nuts Thiel is to do that, I celebrate you for that.

On the right, I've been told God will judge me if I don't vote Trump (not biblical - I told them where to go.) On the left, I've seen violence and vile hate directed at trumpsters.

Everyone calm down, please. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree 100% on Trump v. Clinton. Don't try to ruin people's lives or be a hater over someone's opinions. Other people have dimensions, and life is never black and white. Always be civil, just shake your head in cases like this and say, "well, I simply don't know where your head is on this one."

We can settle our disagreements at the ballot box.

Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Trump or Clinton for (in my opinion) obvious reasons, and I'm not emotional about either.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#898

Post by deeth_starr »

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…

Dude, go see the comments in reddit /r/the_donald and then get back to me.

I hope that the "40%" (more likely 20%) will come back to rational thinking, but we will see. I consider myself a left leaning centrist, and I like some things Donald says, but it's only because a broken watch is right twice a day.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#899

Post by kasey_junk »

jshevek wrote: post #591
e40 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop with the straw man of people getting fired for their views! That is so over the top as to be ridiculous.

We have seen many examples in the last decade of "enemies of the left" being fired and no platformed for their views. This campaign targeting Thiel appears to be a product of the same value system, so it is understandable that some people consider it relevant to the discussion.

I really really hate to wade into this, but can you define either "enemies of the left", "the left" or give explicit examples of what you are describing?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#900

Post by moefogs »

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…

> If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency.

Thank you for making crystal clear that there is literally ZERO value in engaging with you.

You're such a closed-minded piece of shit the you're willing to accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being dumb autocrats. The arrogance and stupidity of that sentiment is overwhelming. The lack of humanity required to write it and click post... wow... you're absolute garbage.

FUCK YOU TOO

Post reply on HN