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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#481

Post by angry_octet »

dlss wrote: post #299
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…

I don't know if you followed what happened to the Atheist community in the US, but its downfall was essentially the kind of witch hunt you're trying to incite. The level of virtue signaling demanded gradually increases until no one is left in the community. This invariably happens because the question you're asking ("does intolerant belief X threaten society?") has no absolute answer, so there is always a higher leve…

Atheist downfall? Since when? And what do you mean by 'downfall'? Like, they all started professing a belief in the hereafter, or like the scene in the movie 'Downfall'?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#482

Post by arohner »

tptacek wrote: post #204
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 th…

Based on reading your comments for several years, I presume you are very much in favor of protecting employees from various kinds of discrimination(as you should!). Advocating firing Thiel seems to be counter to that.

- If YC severed ties w/ Thiel, as people are recommending, should YC also divest itself of companies with founders who support Trump?

- Should YC-invested companies fire employees who support Trump?

- Imagine the shitstorm if a right-leaning YC founder fired an employee for working in the HRC or Stein campaign. The no-discrimination at any cost crowd is going to howl with rage the first time "their" person gets fired by "the other" camp, solely for political affiliation.

- Ok, we could pass some employment law: "firing employees over political beliefs is not OK, unless it's an existential threat". Who gets to decide what is an existential threat?

This is a very dangerous weapon, and your eagerness to use it now makes me think you haven't considered what will happen when it's used against your political tribe.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#483

Post by jshevek »

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.

I believe you've misused the word fallacy. Taking a stand against bigotry absolutely can make you a bigot. Different kinds of bigots engage in mutual opposition on a regular basis.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#484

Post by edanm »

hueving wrote: post #348
tptacek wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree. But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're ver…

>They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. A bit childish, considering the slot the candidate is running for is not in a dictatorship. If you think Trump could convert the US to a dictatorship, I would like to see the evidence supporting this.

There's historical evidence of people being elected, in democracies, and turning them into dictatorships. Part of the process looks the same as what Trump is doing. (e.g. saying the election is rigged therefore calling the process illegitimate, saying he'd put his political opponent in jail).

If that doesn't persuade you, what kind of evidence would persuade you?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#485

Post by youforpresident »

trentmb wrote: post #16
idlewords wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political debate in the US has traditionally taken place in a framework of shared values. Some of these are: you accept electoral defeat, you nominate people with a basic minimum of human decency, and overt bigotry is not acceptable. Within that framework, people have sharp disagreements over issues, some of them life-or-death (like abortion). But the framework is something that was sacrosanct, until this election. T…

> and overt bigotry is not acceptable. I'm scared to ask- is this really true?

is hidden bigotry more acceptable?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#486

Post by [deleted] »

prh8 wrote: post #350
tptacek wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling Altman: rethink the endorsement.

And once that happens, that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump. I understand that Thiel's involvement with YC is not "employment," but the point is that 1) yes, people are suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment and 2) high visibility people doing so would have a massive ripple effect on everybody else. It's just another thing that goes from "that's insane and you can't do that…

[deleted]

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#487

Post by fisherjeff »

ThomPete wrote: post #452
fisherjeff wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has the influence to convert the US to anything overnight. However, I do think that normalizing the language of authoritarianism can have long-term negative effects on our democratic process.

The same thing can be said about the normalization of globalization and technological progress which allowed the politicians and the companies who pay for their campaigns to trade jobs for cheap flat screens. Ignoring one just because the other is more obvious isn't any better in my book.

No need to assume that I'm ignoring anything. I'm willing to accept globalization and technological progress despite their many imperfections because they have real, tangible benefits to humanity. On the other hand, the only person that stands to gain from authoritarianism is its leader.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#488

Post by smt88 »

jazzyk wrote: post #358
smt88 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your characterization of this election is wrong. 43% of Americans approve of Clinton[1]. 33% approve of Trump[2]. That means the vast majority of Americans are not choosing the lesser of two evils. They actively like one candidate or the other (or both). 1. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton... 2. https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-f...

Huffington Post, seriously? Per ABC News (which is still pro-Clinton), they are both equally unpopular: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-hig...

Huffington Post is a respected poll aggregator. Also, I wasn't showing you unpopularity. I was showing you popularity. Those are different.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#489

Post by edanm »

tptacek wrote: post #204
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 th…

"Sam Altman cannot coherently believe this while supporting Peter Thiel [,...]"

Why not?

This is the only part of your comment I have a problem with. People can coherently have two values that they care about, and have to weigh one against the other.

It is totally legitimate to think that Trump is a threat to democracy, to completely oppose Thiel, but to also think that firing someone for their political beliefs is a bad precedent that you don't want to engage in.

It's even totally legitimate to be more OK with what Thiel is doing because the chances of Trump winning are relatively low. It's possible (even likely, IMO) that if Trump were much closer to winning the election, Sam Altman and Paul Graham would do more to prevent it.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#490

Post by Cabal »

Bartweiss wrote: post #223
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…

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the narrative where support for Trump is a basis for excluding a person from discussion and employment. He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence! The usual argument runs that this time is unique, that Trump has embraced racism and violence and his major-party status should not bur…

He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence!

Are you sure? Prop 8 was _passed_ (i.e. it was voted in favor of by more than half of California's population), and yet we still regularly hold witch hunts for people that supported it. I've actually been asked about it on a job application.

Post reply on HN