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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#271

Post by Bartweiss »

chourobin wrote: post #211
nugget wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been in…

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

I think the point is that in context, that doesn't matter. If everyone believed that, Hillary would be polling at 70%.

Starting an argument from "this is ok because we're right and they're wrong" means that you have to expect the other side to use the exact same argument. I'd rather not see us go down the road of firing people for supporting popular candidates, if only because everyone can do it.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#272

Post by tptacek »

mabbo wrote: post #124
Upvoter33 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

A large proportion of Trump supporters are not for Donald Trump the human being and all the things he's done. They're for the Republican party being in power; they're against Clinton for her faults (real or imagined); they're for someone who isn't a mainstream candidate being in charge for once. There's all kinds of reasons to support the GOP Presidential candidate that many people may see as more important than the…

You're right: many people are supporting the top of the GOP ticket out of loyalty to the GOP, or because they're pro-life. They don't support Donald Trump.

But Thiel does. We know this, because Thiel got up on stage at the Republican National Convention, in a nationally televised speech, and proclaimed to the nation that Donald Trump was the best candidate in the race --- and the only "honest" one. Thiel's support for Trump is not in question.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#273

Post by mcphage »

[deleted] wrote: post #263
ThomPete wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy. So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is n…

[deleted]

No one will provide them here because (a) they're not hard to find, and (b) they're not really the topic of discussion, which is the disconnect between PG and SA's claims about Trump, and their lived actions. This article isn't about Trump's dangers, it's about YC's hypocrisy.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#274

Post by hueving »

tptacek wrote: post #230
_hao wrote: post #118

You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.

Adult life is full of personal choices that adults are required to be accountable for.

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

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#275

Post by ceterum_censeo »

maxerickson wrote: post #225
ceterum_censeo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why are you entitled to do it in the most publicly way you are able?

Because he is willing to face the repercussions of doing so.

What repercussions? The situation strikes me as asymmetric: no matter what action Altman or Graham take they will be heavily criticized; for Ptacek, the worst would seem to be disagreement with his well-reasoned dialogue.

It seems unfair to force this to become a very public conversation.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#276

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #263
ThomPete wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy. So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is n…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#277

Post by jaegerpicker »

ThomPete wrote: post #237
tptacek wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy. So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is n…

It's a simple comparison really:

Trump - (paraphased) Muslims are evil, they should be registered and have special restrictions placed on them.

He singled out a single religious group. Made them the target of a group of people that are disposed to hating them. It goes against the very spirit of modern western democracy. To many it represents a clear and unforseen threat to our country. Even Bush who was clearly the most aggressive of the recent presidents in dealing with Muslim states, stopped WAY short of that. Clinton has clearly not singled out any one group, clearly tried to bring more people together. To compare the two is blatantly overlooking the clear differences in Trump's campaign and nearly every other one in recent history.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#278

Post by kls »

leurfete wrote: post #196
adpoe wrote: post #164

To me, these attitudes (and their general acceptance + support) are just as worrying as Donald's own attitudes and supporters. One of the strangest things about human nature--at least that I've seen--is that when we vehemently resist something we detest we often produce its mirror image. It's honestly extremely frightening to think that making a political donation to a major-party candidate you support could cost you…

We've been headed toward one party statehood for awhile. The American project has failed. "Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some…

I was really hoping that Gödel was wrong when he said that he found a logical loophole in the constitution that would allow for a dictatorship. But I believe we are figuring out what that loophole was.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#279

Post by hellbanner »

chourobin wrote: post #211
nugget wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been in…

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

So Clinton Cash is 0% truth then? https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Busi...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#280

Post by dvdplm »

ThomPete wrote: post #237
tptacek wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy. So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is n…

> And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy.

I don't think this is correct. It is 100% not correct in the EU and I doubt people in the countries where US foreign policy is more heavy-handed – you know, murdering people from the air without trial and all that – actually believe in substantial policy changes after the election. I am pretty sure many fear more of the bad stuff.

Post reply on HN