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

Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 414 posts

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#241

Post by supergeek133 »

georgemcbay wrote: post #184
sedachv wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something? More like being murdered for being gay or black or ... and the police refusing (sometimes openly) to investigate, which used to happen well into the 1960s in the US.

Yes, this is more the sort of thing I meant. Sure, when it comes to hateful semi-anonymous bad things said about people on twitter or whatever, celebrities are prime targets (and that kind of sucks, celebrities are people too), but I'm more thinking about active physical-world types of discrimination, the kind that end up with you being beaten, possibly killed, or just denied otherwise deserved opportunities. Being r…

Oh, well in that context yes I agree. Rich people can afford bodyguards and security.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#242

Post by ominous »

M_Grey wrote: post #148
mason240 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Project Include has the right to choose who they associate with. As does anyone else who blacklists.

That's just nonsensical, and you've defined anything with membership as a "blacklist". What makes a blacklist a blacklist, is the list of "undesirables"; you don't just get to point to any body with membership and define all non-members as "blacklisted".

Why am I blacklisted from using your money?

Also, obligatory mention that "blacklist" and "whitelist" are racist terms, and mention of similar spirals of idiocy such as [0] and [1].

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7801646

[1] - https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#243

Post by masklinn »

551199 wrote: post #209
masklinn wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on. 1. Trump was not hammering anything, accusing Hillary for Bill's infidelity has never been a hammer over the 20 years it's been used (in fact it's usually backfired). The strategy was flopping as irrelevant even amongst republicans. Reminder: Bill is not running for president. 2. Kenneth Star…

Clintons say they are running as a team. You can't take the good without the bad. You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed. BUT Trumps alleged should be believed. Hillary stated all rape victims have a right to be believed. In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped?

> You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed.

I never said that, no. What I did say was that their claims were investigated by Starr who had every reason to use them if he could, and he didn't.

> BUT Trumps alleged should be believed.

See there are a few big differences here. Trump's history of bragging about sexually assaulting women, the coherence of the accusations and Trump's MO, that Gloria Allred has decided to get involved, and that these are not 20+ years old accusations which were already dropped.

> In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped?

You do understand that "we should believe [people] saying they have been raped" means "trust but verify" right? The allegations against Clinton were extensively checked two decades ago by people working against Clinton who had every reason to use these accusation, and they judged them not worth pursuing.

Not that the move makes any sense either way, if assault accusations against one candidate's SO are impeachable offenses, what are assault accusations agains the other candidate directly?

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#244

Post by 2AF3 »

untog wrote: post #101
dfabulich wrote: post #9

There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…

IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him. Thiel, of course, doe…

Meanwhile, there are wikileaks of HRC and Podesta discussing Wetworks (before Scalia's murder)

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#245

Post by splawn »

maratd wrote: post #237
aiig wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant. Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street.

> Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street. Even then. Be an activist, go out and vote, fight for yourself, but don't attack others because they said something you didn't like.

...but is it reeeeally "freedom" if I am not free to attack others because they said something I didn't like?

(Yes...Im being facetious... discussions centered around "freedom" are meaningless because of how subjective the term is.)

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#246

Post by e40 »

dfabulich wrote: post #9

There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…

The Thiel situation reminds me very strongly of the Woody Allen situation. He married his step-daughter after cheating on his wife with her. You either ignore this fact or you don't work with him.

For me, I think the Thiel situation is worse, since his judgement is very important to the companies he works with, and that judgement is suspect given his recent behavior.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#247

Post by untog »

2AF3 wrote: post #244
untog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him. Thiel, of course, doe…

Meanwhile, there are wikileaks of HRC and Podesta discussing Wetworks (before Scalia's murder)

No, there are not. That anyone even interpreted those e-mails that way is indicative of the utterly ridiculous, paranoid mindset that is far too common these days.

http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassinatio...

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#248

Post by rtx »

untog wrote: post #239
rtx wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but when people in power play their little games this happen.

What is your proposal to remove war from the world? I'm sure a lot of us would be in favor.

We can start by not voting for warmongers and hawks. Americans had an opportunity to vote for Sanders. But I guess they are too far removed from these incidents.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#249

Post by e40 »

dsacco wrote: post #142
dfabulich wrote: post #9

There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…

I agree with the thrust of your point - that organizations like YC should be allowed to uninvite or refuse to collaborate with people they are diametrically opposed to for political reasons. However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. I agree organizations have every right to not affiliate themselves with those investors, but in the real world th…

However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views.

Even extreme ones? Can you brush everything Trump has done under political cover? I really think that's going too far.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#250

Post by xupybd »

sdenton4 wrote: post #220
dsacco wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the thrust of your point - that organizations like YC should be allowed to uninvite or refuse to collaborate with people they are diametrically opposed to for political reasons. However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. I agree organizations have every right to not affiliate themselves with those investors, but in the real world th…

Having Thiel on the board is a statement that intolerance based on race, gender, or religion is tolerable by yc. This in turn chills applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males.

Why is it okay to call out white western males, but to focus down on any other gender and race with a negative statement like that would be seen as intolerant?
Post reply on HN