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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#961

Post by infosample »

madmax96 wrote: post #825
smsm42 wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Can you reasonably declare that 40% of society is a danger to itself?

Yes.

Has 40% been on the wrong side of slavery, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights?

Has more progress been made through war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or empathy/reasoned appeals?

There is a time for empathy, a time to ignore, and a time to fight. It's not a matter of percentage, it's a matter of wrong. Unfortunately, we don't usually have a consensus on what views are wrong until decades later.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#962

Post by bobwaycott »

ythl wrote: post #600
tptacek wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this logic is that you're multiplying a very low probability against a truly catastrophic outcome. The expected value result of that calculation is still very, very bad. But I also disagree about Trump's prospects. As I wrote elsewhere on the thread: I think we underestimate the likelihood that Trump will win, and further I think we're going to be in exactly the same struggle in just 3 more years, wh…

> Even as a liberal Democrat, I feel sorrow for the loss of a loyal opposition and a voice for limited government. I always got the impression from my liberal friends that they would be overjoyed controlling the house, senate, and oval office until the end of time with no opposition.

Perhaps you need more thoughtful friends. Some of us on the left simply want an end to either of the two parties and their focus on controlling the branches of government. Unchecked power is rarely (never?) good. You also left out the judiciary. Both parties want total majority control of the entire government, and they're both comfortable with abrogating their constitutional duties and any sense of statesmanship if it seems likely to help further their power goals. This won't be good for many reasons, not least of which is the vital importance of including as many voices as possible in the processes of self-governance. We can't maintain stability and improve the future when we're always "winning" by a couple percentage points every few years, while remaining otherwise evenly divided into two hating-the-other-side camps.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#963

Post by inimino »

skoocda wrote: post #831

During extensive, complex discussions like these, it becomes readily apparent that while the HN/Reddit-style threaded text forum is the best format I know of, it's still woefully inadequate. There will soon be 1000 comments on this page- none of which are merely simple thoughts. Nobody could read them all and still maintain a cohesive, holistic perspective on all the issues presented. Most of the comments themselves…

> every opinion presented holds unique value.

Most of the comments here are actually repeating the same few opinions over and over in different words. For example, about half the top-level comments here are a variation of "shame on the author".

A system that consolidates duplicated sentiments would probably cut this page down to size, but ML is not even remotely up to the task. A system based on human review could do so, however.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#964

Post by inimino »

ganessh wrote: post #373

Shame on us for making this post to the front page.

Outrage, one way or the other, generates engagement. News outlets know it, now so do we.

If there's some value in the discussion, it is that most of us actually do know people with differing political views, and we somehow learn to live and work together.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#965

Post by inimino »

marbletiles wrote: post #537

The most damning thing to me about this is that Peter Thiel is content to let YC take the flack for him. He knows he's damaging them; that partners are walking away from YC, and it's down to him. A decent person would walk away at that point, to save YC and take the heat on themselves. He doesn't. Which makes it all the more odd that sama will still go to bat for someone he a) disagrees with and b) wouldn't do the sa…

He should support the political ostracism by making it easier for everyone by ostracising himself? What an odd definition you must have of "decent".

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#966

Post by inimino »

bambax wrote: post #407

> [Altman] If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator. In the US, at least since Citizens United, money is speech. By donating to his campaign and vocally supporting Trump, Thiel IS SAYING what Trump says. Also, Thiel is no friend to freedom of speech or freedom of the press. That should have disqualified him earlier, even before this whole Trump affair.

> Thiel IS SAYING what Trump says

No, he is supporting his presidential bid. That's all.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#968

Post by mzw_mzw »

No, shame on Marco, barking orders to other people about what politics they should or should not support. If one cannot be a professional and calmly interact with people who have wildly varying opinions, even opinions one finds despicable, one should not be in an industry whose very foundation is diversity of thought.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#969

Post by mzw_mzw »

tptacek wrote: post #441
grandalf wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's fine. I mean, again: I would urge you to reconsider. But we otherwise don't have a live debate, I don't think. I am not here to argue that people who oppose Hillary Clinton should change their minds (they should, though!). I'm here to urge Sam Altman, who does not agree with you, that his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.

To be more precise, you're here to make demands that people who disagree with you politically be exiled from polite society.

No. In fact, not just no, but hell no.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#970

Post by mzw_mzw »

criddell wrote: post #555
exstudent2 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't deserve his spot at the table? No one gets to decide who gets a spot at the table. It doesn't really matter if you think Trump is "dangerous", the idea that if you think the "right" way you're entitled to shape the dialogue by censorship if needed is exactly what people who are anti-anti-Trump are trying to fight.

> No one gets to decide who gets a spot at the table. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein (and many others) would like to have a word with you.

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should have a seat at the table, too.
Post reply on HN