Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#201

Post by didgeoridoo » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

byuu wrote: post #163

civilian wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the goals of freedom of speech & press? Citizens United is solid in my book. If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They're clearly biased and have an agenda, their biased reporting acts as a contribution to a c…

> If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? You already can't spend it to buy grenades, chemical weapons, illegal drugs, etc. You should not be able to spend it to influence elections either. I just explained why. It's not 'fair', sure. But a lot of things aren't fair thanks to stupid people being stupid. Most recreational drugs are outlawed to protect the idiots that can't handle it. (Well, that's th…

Genuine questions here:

Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates?

If so, how is this not spending money (paper, ink, time) to influence elections?

If not, how is this not an unacceptable limitation on free speech?

And, (to address a common objection to this line of reasoning), if "bona fide media organizations" get special free speech protections not available to the rest of us, who decides who is a "journalist" and who is an amateur?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#202

Post by DasIch » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

ccallebs wrote: post #191

DasIch wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pence is on the ticket. You don't put him on the ticket unless you are homophobic and sexist. Pence has proven himself to be truly outstanding in these areas.

Thiel himself is gay. Surely you don't accuse him of being homophobic?

There are women who are sexist and people of color who are racist. No doubt you can find gay people who are homophobic.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#203

Post by munin » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

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…

> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years

No he doesn't. He doesn't appeal to or represent poor whites, those vote D. He also doesn't appeal to or represent minorities, immigrants, or women. Those also vote D. He appeals to and represents white men that have a household income slightly higher than the median. Those people have been nothing but listened to for the last 140 years.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#204

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

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…

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 threaten society.

You may not believe Trump is a real thread to society. I disagree. So far, so good. The issue here is: Sam Altman and Paul Graham disagree too. Both of them compare Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin. Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.

Sam Altman cannot coherently believe this while supporting Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign. Even most leaders of the Republican party refused to get on stage at the RNC to support Trump. Thiel did. When he did, he used his time to claim that Donald Trump was the only honest candidate in the race. He bundled millions of dollars of donations for Trump. And, just last week, after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote, Thiel donated $1.25MM more.

Nobody denies Sam Altman's right to support Peter Thiel, or, for that matter, Thiel's right to support Trump. But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#205

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

cerebrum wrote: post #192

apsec112 wrote: post #158

Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands. The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Demanding that Trump supporters be fired tells everyone that the "elites" are a) scared of Trump, b) can't win through arguments and have to resort to intimidation, and c) are a powerful, dangerous group which is hostile to average people, who need so…

> The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Yes there is in fact a campaign of elites against Trump, in case you don't believe that I suggest taking a look at the recent wikileaks.

Or how Clinton has a disdain for your average American voter? And plans to push through trade agreements that hurt the very Americans whose vote she's trying to get?

I can't imagine why half the country won't vote for her.

I know minorities and women who will still vote for Trump after everything that has happened; perhaps it'd be wise if you dislike Trump to understand why that is and what has brought us to this point instead of putting your head in the sand.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#206

Post by dmix » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:39 PM UTC

galactus wrote: post #177

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…

"the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions" I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff. Marco is not saying that supporting Trump should be illegal, he is saying that supporting Trump is shameful, and that supporting someone who supp…

`Supporting` someone who supports Trump? You do realize he's not their employee, he's wealthy, and most certainly wouldn't change his mind if YC or all of you disagreed with him, right?

This is all political/"moral outrage" theater.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#207

Post by crazy1van » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

byuu wrote: post #139

Citizens United and McCutcheon were such disasters for our democracy. Hopelessly partisan 5-4 votes from the USSC as well. No surprise given the way big money usually leans. Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech, no matter what five people in robes say. The problem here isn't who Thiel supports, it's that he has the ability to throw $1,250,000 on a whim to that person. Very, very, very few people can do…

>Citizens United and McCutcheon were such disasters for our democracy

The Citizens United case was about a non-profit being able to produce, advertise, and air a film about a presidential candidate. The government said that they could not because of election financing laws.

This seems much more like a free speech issue than an election financing issue. Do we really want to go down the path were the government can tell you that you can't make a movie about a person because they are currently running for office?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#208

Post by gondo » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

kzahel wrote: post #103

gondo wrote: post #65

It puzzles me how come in USA people are considering only 2 candidates to chose from. At this stage it looks like people are not voting for the candidate they agree with, they are choosing the candidate they disagree with the most and then voting for the other one. This is only 1 step better than how it used to be in USSR where people had an option to chose essentially only 1 party. (sure officially there were more p…

I heard an interesting idea which would be to place always a "none of the above" option on the ballot for any position, and in the event that option took majority, all candidates listed would be disqualified completely, and new ballot would need to be made.

this can very easily result in never ending loop.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#209

Post by Chris2048 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

ccallebs wrote: post #191

DasIch wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pence is on the ticket. You don't put him on the ticket unless you are homophobic and sexist. Pence has proven himself to be truly outstanding in these areas.

Thiel himself is gay. Surely you don't accuse him of being homophobic?

*/s

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#210

Post by civilian » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

byuu wrote: post #163

civilian wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the goals of freedom of speech & press? Citizens United is solid in my book. If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They're clearly biased and have an agenda, their biased reporting acts as a contribution to a c…

> If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? You already can't spend it to buy grenades, chemical weapons, illegal drugs, etc. You should not be able to spend it to influence elections either. I just explained why. It's not 'fair', sure. But a lot of things aren't fair thanks to stupid people being stupid. Most recreational drugs are outlawed to protect the idiots that can't handle it. (Well, that's th…

Okay, so... we need to nail some things down for your utopia. What is and is not allowed to be said or printed?

I imagine I can say (with my voice) anything I want? What if I'm standing on a soapbox on a busy corner, 12 hours a day? What if I give a speech to 200,000 people in a stadium?

What about over a radio broadcast? How do you cap that? Individual contributions to campaigns are capped at something like $2.5k, do I essentially get $2.5k of airtime, as valued by advertising times?

What if I'm not specifically supporting a candidate? But I could say: "We should really have a candidate that is good at fixing spine vertebrate, because they'd be good at fixing the spine of America!" or "The next person to appoint a supreme court justice should be pro-life."

If I'm near my $2.5k of cap of support, am I even really allowed to say anything? "America needs a _strong_ candidate" could be an interpreted as support for... well, someone.

I suspect that your solution is going to be impractical and hard to enforce.