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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#331

Post by 7Z7 »

dreta wrote: post #266
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…

All you’re doing is trying to shame Altman and Y Combinator supporters into disowing Thiel. The great thing about what Altman is doing is that he doesn’t feel so morally superior to others that he’ll either see people share his views, or have them removed. You should learn to criticise ideas, not people.

I don't understand this line of reasoning, from either end of the spectrum. When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences, that negatively affect real people's lives, why would we not criticize the people who hold them?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#332

Post by tptacek »

ElComradio wrote: post #328
tptacek wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Almost nobody will agree with the idea that in an ideal world built upon the "marketplace of ideas" that someone should be constrained from expressing political opinions for fear of losing their employment. In fact this being so is a primary driver of Trump's anti-PC appeal.

Nobody is losing their employment in this discussion. Thiel doesn't even have equity in YC. His part-time partner status is a marketing arrangement, a co-endorsement. All that Sam Altman is being asked to do is to reconsider endorsing Thiel.

Meanwhile, all sorts of misconceptions are behind the appeal of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a monster. I do not think reasonable people are required to change their behavior to assuage the misconceptions of his deluded followers.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#333

Post by infinite8s »

dreta wrote: post #266
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…

All you’re doing is trying to shame Altman and Y Combinator supporters into disowing Thiel. The great thing about what Altman is doing is that he doesn’t feel so morally superior to others that he’ll either see people share his views, or have them removed. You should learn to criticise ideas, not people.

He's criticizing the fact that certain people are holding two irreconcilable ideas at the same time.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#334

Post by makomk »

pron wrote: post #168
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. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d... > 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 This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.

Read this: https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-f...

The very same Gallup study which that Vox article relied on to argue that Trump support was correlated with higher, not lower income also found that blue collar and less educated workers were disproportionately likely to vote for Trump, and Vox intentionally omitted that fact. This is particularly dishonest of Vox because the result they did quote was after correcting for the fact that working-class status and education are correlated with income, and they didn't mention that either.

That is, any correlation with income that appeared to be better explained by both being correlated with being working-class or anything else was excluded, and worse still there's no guarantee that the attribution to a particular category (say, class instead of income) is the result of anything other than random chance.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#335

Post by cconroy »

tptacek wrote: post #256
ThomPete wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps you are hijacking their words and misrepresent their actual opinions. Perhaps they dont believe its as litterally as you do. It would certainly make sense since claiming Trump is Stalin is as ill informed as it is absurd. Just like you are ready to ignore your principles for a bigger belief so is Theil. He is not voting for Trump he is voting for change. The very change everyone agrees is needed.

I am not.

Thank you. This perception is exactly why we keep telling Sam Altman and Paul Graham that they need to reconsider their stance on Peter Thiel.

You do concede that people (including Thiel) can be decent and support Trump? I know plenty of good people who support him and for good reasons.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#336

Post by surfmike »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #318
ThomPete wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just by that you became what you claim to be against. I am not for Trump or for Hillary, i am for the right to have a discussion about bigger issues without being painted as a supporter of biggotry which only serves to detract from the issues this country has. But i guess that makes me the naive part here.

That's a fallacy, taking a stand against bigotry in no way makes you a bigot. There is a huge difference in refusing to support a person or a business on moral grounds than trying to copt the government of a nation to enforce bigoted believes. Trump is clearly advocating just that, using the the government to enforce anti-muslim restrictions.

There's a difference between standing against a bigot, and ostracizing anyone who may support him for their own reasons.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#337

Post by KanyeBest »

PG's essay "What you can't say" springs to mind:

>It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#338

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #301
ThomPete wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just by that you became what you claim to be against. I am not for Trump or for Hillary, i am for the right to have a discussion about bigger issues without being painted as a supporter of biggotry which only serves to detract from the issues this country has. But i guess that makes me the naive part here.

Nothing anywhere gave you the right to have a "discussion about bigger issues" without "being painted" as anything. You will find no legal foundation for that entitlement in the US Constitution, nor will you find a philosophical foundation for it anywhere in the theory of liberal democracy. You have a right to express your views, and I have a right to criticize them. Both rights are inalienable.

As long as you dont confuse my views of marcos post with my political views I have no problem with that.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#339

Post by irishcoffee »

munin wrote: post #203
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 ye…

> 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.

I think that describes like... 4% of the population, depending on your definition of "slightly".

Post reply on HN