Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#521

Post by davemel37 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

NicoJuicy wrote: post #251

davemel37 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely the case...but he doesnt even need the new audience or the new venture. His entire empire is built on a name that is getting billions in free press. The worst thing to happen to a famous brand is not bad press but rather becoming irrelevant and falling out of discussion. Even if the Trump political brand crashes and burns, the broader trump brand of success and money just gets stronger... This elec…

His businesses are declining in foot traffic https://medium.com/foursquare-direct/how-the-trump-president...

Short term changes have little to do with long term brand recognition and value.

I've studied branding extensively and I think, if he loses, his presidential run will still be a net win for him and his brand once the political fallout falls out of the news cycle.

edit: changes nothing to little

Re: undefined

#522

Post by pdog » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

What are you suggesting that YC say or do? Should they be compelled or forced to make a statement?

Re: undefined

#523

Post by Shivetya » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

tvural wrote: post #264

Thiel might have ulterior motives, but his support of Trump is not too surprising if you've listened to his other ideas. He feels that the political agenda has been overrun by distractions, like "who can use which bathroom", at the expense of real problems, like the stagnation of median wages over the last forty years. He prefers the days when the national conversation was about how to beat the Soviets, and sees the…

it won't matter on HN and this shit story does not belong here. There already have been too many stealth political stories posted to HN all bent one way.

For supposedly open minded people techies (this happened on /. and ended that site for many) are the most bigoted close minded people you can find. They don't want to think, they want approval of supposed peers, peers they will never meet nor acknowledge them.

The common trope is always, Republican candidates or Presidents are dumb, they are racists, they are homophobes, they are anti science, they are anti-name it. Yet no matter how much proof is offered that the candidate they will support instead will trounce their privacy rights, their freedoms, and more, they cannot be convinced otherwise.

Shit like this does not belong on HN and thank god for the karma I have because fuck it, this type of crap is the reason to delete sites like this permanently from bookmarks. You want to go to the shitshow that /. became, don't do it.

All three candidates have bad points, some more than others, but I will not vote for someone whose entire political career is one deceit after another and who turns a blind eye to the deaths their decisions have caused nor will I accept a candidate the press desperately wants and will never call on the carpet

Re: undefined

#524

Post by AsyncAwait » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

DominikR wrote: post #502

AsyncAwait wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hitler was a Socialist, not a right wing politician. He was a right-wing populist that wanted to do "socialism" for the superior German race by enslaving Slavs etc. He actually hated the Soviet Union precisely because it was socialist. In fact Nazism actually means "Nationalist Socialism" = Nazism, which is not the "Socialism" of the soviets, but a right-wing, one race owns everything ideology, which is precisely w…

I wrote this in another comment: > And last but not least: Hitler himself frequently said and wrote that he is a Socialist. Not an International Socialist like the Soviet Union but a National Socialist. International Socialism was the Soviets. By definition an international variant must be less racist and it's not surprising that a National variant was racist. But the economy had similarities, it was controlled almos…

We both know that Hitler wasn't hated because of his economics, please.

Re: undefined

#525

Post by aninhumer » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #265

rorykoehler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found the right-libertarian philosophy to be extremely confused. They want freedom to do whatever they want but they also want to base everything off of capitalism which by definition means you can't do whatever you want unless you're rich. It just doesn't make any sense (unless of course you're already a billionaire in which case your world is already quite libertarian in reality).

'… base everything off of capitalism which by definition means you can't do whatever you want unless you're rich. ' Capitalism is of course not an -ism at all. No one invented it. It's that freedom in the context of democratically agreed regulation whereby we can all trade goods and our labor with others and thereby generate value, usually monetary but by no means exclusively. We can even trade kind words and actions…

>It's that freedom in the context of democratically agreed regulation whereby we can all trade goods and our labor with others and thereby generate value, usually monetary but by no means exclusively.

The very idea that people can have exclusive control of some goods and then have to trade for other ones is capitalism. Property is not the default state of the universe, it had to be invented and enforced before it meant anything.

And while it can be called a freedom in a certain sense, property is also a restriction. In order for me to own something, you have be denied the right to use it without my permission.

Which is not to say property rights are not a good thing on the whole, but they should be compared as one economic system, in terms of their outcomes, alongside the alternatives.

Re: undefined

#526

Post by nostrebored » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

maxblackwood wrote: post #504

nostrebored wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bathroom they align with? Do you believe in male and female brains? What makes someone align with a gender? The whole trans thing is regressive, homophobic, and medically unsound. Beyond that, the bathroom safety issue for women is real.

Oh come on, really? In what way is "the whole trans thing" homophobic? As for female and male brains, there is plenty of evidence that male and female brains are significantly different.

Homophobic

1. There is a huge push to say that people are not attracted to genitals. Lesbians are being told they're transphobic for not sleeping with people with penises.

2. There is a well documented phenomenon of homosexual people transitioning for public acceptance. A number of people who have detransitioned have discussed this.

Male and female brains

1. There is a huge difference between the brains of taxi drivers and the general population. The brain is incredibly plastic and our socialization and culture should make us expect brain differences.

2. Question: The brains of transgender people are still more like people of their own sex than of their identified gender. If you buy the brain sex argument do you think that there should be a brink for a diagnosis as trans?

Re: undefined

#527

Post by rjsw » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #411

himynameistimli wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if he loses, he becomes the first investor in a ultra conservative right-wing media empire, Trump Media, which appears to already have quite a large following.

Ultra-conservative? Not by a long shot. I was a Ted Cruz backer and Trump to me is as bad as Clinton. Trump isn't conservative. He's a big government populist. Completely different despite him having an 'R' next to his name. He is about as close to Cruz as Sanders was to Clinton (in terms of policy philosophy.) By the way, I understand downvotes because I mentioned Cruz in a positive way, however let's keep in mind t…

As a foreigner, FATCA seems to be a logical reaction to the US system of taxing citizens instead of residents.

If a candidate had proposed to switch to only taxing US residents, plus apply some international pressure to close down tax havens, then I could see the point of repealing FATCA.

Re: undefined

#528

Post by curiousgeorgio » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

badsock wrote: post #482

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, you're falling into the trap of trusting what other people say about a person, rather than actually listening to that person's viewpoint. If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning, you'd understand quotes like that in context rather than how someone in the media wants to characterize him.

There are literally millions of voices out there proposing different ways to look at the world. It's physically impossible to listen to more than a small proportion of that number in your lifetime, so it's reasonable to have your first level filter be "is it easy to find examples of them saying things that are very obviously stupid".

My point has more to do with the source of your information than the quantity of information you should consume. Regardless of your particular political views, you must acknowledge that the mainstream media is far from an unbiased source (recent leaks have made that clearer than ever). Thus, if your "first level filter" is only based on what the media says, you're looking at a small sample from a very skewed dataset.

Everyone uses filters and makes judgements on limited information; the point is, you'll be better off looking to primary sources and listening to some of what people actually have to say before drawing conclusions. The media at this point is essentially useless for that purpose.

If I were to judge your character based on a single quote from your lifetime, would you rather I ask your greatest enemy for that quote, or pick a random sample on a good day?

Re: undefined

#529

Post by davemel37 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

zappo2938 wrote: post #494

neonbat wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thiels philosophy is actually deeply technocratic authoritarian. in a lot of ways he is a technocrat and not a true libertarian. hes said on multiple occasions that politics has failed libertarians and that they should try 'alternatives.'

I tried looking up libertarian on Wikipedia and there are so many definitions I'm not sure what people mean when they say the word, libertarian. What I thought the word meant years ago was no government, turns out that is called anarchism. When people tell me that they are libertarian I always wonder what the hell that means or if they even know.

IMO it means you believe in a right freedom so long as you dont infringe on someone elses rights.

So, in theory you would be against forcing someone to pay taxes to build roads or provide education, but would arguably be for paying for a police department and justice system to protect people from having others infringe on their rights.

It basically means the only function of government should be to protect our freedoms and anything outside that purview should be done by the private sector and let the markets decide what has real value and is worth investing in.

Re: undefined

#530

Post by DominikR » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #368

DominikR wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it then that Socialist governments which are supposedly subordinated to the individual all seem to end up in having re education camps, Gulags, forced labour or concentration camps to crack down on dissenters. Why can't they let individual dissenting opinions exist beside their own hive mind ideology. Why do Socialist governments always try to get control over education to indoctrinate the next generation inst…

Firstly I don't agree with the guy you answered in terms of socialism. Socialism does not say anything about the political system. Socialism is about economics and welfare. So you can have authoritarian governments that are socialist, or libertarian ones (in fact, libertarianism on the left predates right wing libertarianism by a century). Marx spent one of the four chapters of the Communist Manifesto criticising alt…

Thanks for your very detailed comment! I can say right of the bat that I partly agree with the most important part of your comment:

> Socialism does not say anything about the political system. Socialism is about economics and welfare.

I would see welfare as a part of economics (how much of the resources are spent on welfare and who decides it), so I wouldn't make that distinction here.

But as I see it you can't divide between economics and politics. When the government controls a large portion of the economy (directly owning it or by having the power to enact arbitrary regulation) then it has a large political everyday influence on citizens. When it has almost no control over the economy then it has basically no say in the lives of its citizens.

Imagine a situation where the government actually owned 100% of the economy, how would that look like? It would be slavery, because all resources would be taken away by the government and then redistributed in a way they see fit.

What I can't see is how a strongly right wing government could act authoritarian or dictatorial because they will have no power over the resources, which leaves them powerless to influence the behaviour of their citizenry without actually convincing them through good arguments or lies to act differently.

Socialism will on the other hand always try to have a lot of power over the economy which means they decide who is to be supported and who is not, who is to be punished (by higher taxes) and who isn't. They also want to control what children learn in school, which is very dangerous in my opinion. It means that they are not confident that children raised in a way their parents want them to be raised will be compliant with the system they want to create. I believe it is pretty much a known fact that most people coming out of the educational system today (particularly the higher ones) will be overwhelmingly more likely to be left leaning than not.