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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#561

Post by belorn »

tptacek wrote: post #422
grandalf wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more and more Moral Fashion Police on the democratic side of the isle This hits the nail on the head. It's a moralistic sort of righteous indignation and it's profoundly, dangerously illiberal . In addition, many of these are the same people who are pleased that HRC is not being challenged over the revelations in the email leaks so far. I want whoever takes office to have been vetted as much as possible by journali…

People keep claiming that this sentiment is "profoundly illiberal". Those people should read more liberal philosophy, because it is not as if this is the first time this issue has come up. You can bring it back to John Stuart Mill if you like, but (very unsurprisingly) it's also one of the major themes of post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat…

I can only point to my own government and it's laws (Sweden), but "threat to society" is not an exception in our free speech laws. Threat to individuals or identifiable groups (ie, minorities) are.

There is a distinction between someone speaking words of non-violent revolution, ie a explicit threat to society, and words that encourage violence against a group of people. The first is not illegal, and both the law and the philosophy that created that law do not make claims that it should be illegal. The second form is, which is a direct result of that post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. It is important to distinguish the two, and free speech laws is a good hint that society has already done this in the past.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#562

Post by drakonandor »

CalChris wrote: post #173
thght wrote: post #85

Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!

This is equivocation. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are in no sense equivalent. In fact, Trump is so historically bad that leading figures of his own party are disowning him. Major donors are clawing back contributions. The RNC even halted its support. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-halts-all-victory-...

You could almost say the establishment hates him, eh?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#563

Post by kgwgk »

DasIch wrote: post #41
hoodoof wrote: post #27

I'm no Trumpist and no fan of Thiel, but I believe anyone can place their vote where-ever they want. I may not agree with him but I would fight to the end for his right to vote for Trump if he wants.

Nobody has a problem with whomever Thiel is voting for or wants to restrict his ability to vote in anyway. This isn't issue and you pretending to be merely derails the discussion.

It's like the Russian gay propaganda law: nobody has a problem with you being secretly gay.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#564

Post by jflatow »

tptacek wrote: post #422
grandalf wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more and more Moral Fashion Police on the democratic side of the isle This hits the nail on the head. It's a moralistic sort of righteous indignation and it's profoundly, dangerously illiberal . In addition, many of these are the same people who are pleased that HRC is not being challenged over the revelations in the email leaks so far. I want whoever takes office to have been vetted as much as possible by journali…

People keep claiming that this sentiment is "profoundly illiberal". Those people should read more liberal philosophy, because it is not as if this is the first time this issue has come up. You can bring it back to John Stuart Mill if you like, but (very unsurprisingly) it's also one of the major themes of post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat…

In general, groups that want to suspend tolerance do so because they believe tolerating such behavior/people poses a threat to society. The people you are telling to read more liberal philosophy clearly believe that the real threat to a tolerant society is suspending tolerance itself.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#565

Post by dlss »

matt4077 wrote: post #520
dlss wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not a moral fashion to believe that jailing political opponents or advocating laws making it illegal for the NYT to criticize him is outside the boundaries of "wrong, but tolerable". And while I'd agree that employees should be protected as long as they do not intentionally harm their employers, Thiel isn't an employee and his "firing" would have far fewer consequences for him.

> It's not a moral fashion to believe that jailing political opponents or advocating laws making it illegal for the NYT to criticize him is outside the boundaries of "wrong, but tolerable".

Right, I would call those moral truths rather than moral fashions.

The issue is that Trump's behavior hasn't been as clear cut as you're pretending it is (for example rather than actually jailing political opponents, he called for a special prosecutor and a jury trial). My fashion police comment was about the behavior in this thread relative to Trump's actual actions. For a hypothetical uber-Trump I'd be on the other side of this discussion.

See also http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#566

Post by fareesh »

smt88 wrote: post #71
fareesh wrote: post #58

I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate. It is entirely possibly that some people support Trump because of his crass and divisive rhetoric, and it's also entirely possible that some people support Trump because of his stance on trade. Is it really anyone's place to demand that another voter change the list of prio…

> I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate. Endorsement is one thing. Donating a massive amount of money is something entirely different. Not many people are willing to part with $1.25M for someone they don't fanatically support. And either way, that's not the point. The point is that, while most candidates have de…

> Trump has flaws that cannot be overlooked or explained away by political differences

You are right, and many take this view. The issue is whether or not one ought to be marginalized for _not_ taking this view. If we are allowed to cherry pick the worst in a candidate (Trump offers a lot to pick from) and define their entire candidacy, and further extend this to say that all of those who support him, with either a vote or with money, must necessarily share in this horrible worldview, then I believe that to be an oversimplification.

What's effectively being said here is that this person has been immoral in the past, and there is a strong likelihood of him being immoral in the future. Those who are not willing to pre-judge him for the immoral actions he is likely to commit, should be ostracized. I think that's wrong.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#567

Post by kybernetyk »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #52
kybernetyk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking down or not is up to the site operator. HN is a privately run site. The operators can decide which content they want or don't to see on their site. So there's no "right thing" here, really.

Yes it is but there is some irony that HN are ok to defend Theil based on freedom of speech but they're are not extending the same courtesy to Marco for criticizing them about it. Seems HN maybe as thin skinned as Trump.

Well, Marco is free to publish his blog. At least I didn't see any HN operatives swooping in and taking his blog offline ;)

Freedom of speech protects you from the government. It does not force someone to publish your blog posts on their website if they dont' want to.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#568

Post by hiringmanager »

fisherjeff wrote: post #378
hueving wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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.

Trumps authoritarianism is much less threatening than the same rhetoric from Obama or Hillary.

A lot of people are advocating authoritarianism- in fact thats the point of this whole thread- whether we should "excommunicate" Peter Theil.

But they don't seem to realize that leftism is essentially more authoritarian than rightism. Rightists want economic freedom, Leftists don't. (On social freedom neither of them want it- which is why Obama didn't try to legalize gay marriage, and picked Joe Biden the architect of the war on teen pot smokers as a running mate.)

Why don't liberals recognized that Hillary and Obama are authoritarians?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#569

Post by applecore »

matt4077 wrote: post #506
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's a lot of hand-waving high-minded rhetoric. The problem is that Trump does not represent those 40% in any significant way. - "free speech" is a protection against the government, not against Marcos/YC/whoever no longer working with you, which is also a form of speech. - Trump is not and has never been part of the white, male underclass that makes up his support. He connects with them on exactly one level: hate.…

You're conflating the First Amendment with free speech. The First Amendment is a protection against the government. Free speech is a natural right that could be exercised in the absence of government.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#570

Post by statictype »

tptacek wrote: post #441
grandalf wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe Trump is significantly more intolerant than HRC or any other likely presidential candidate, he simply focuses his rhetoric on populist ire across all of his positions. It's the only trick he knows so he does it again and again. Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc GOP candidates for several e…

That's fine. I mean, again: I would urge you to reconsider. But we otherwise don't have a live debate, I don't think. I am not here to argue that people who oppose Hillary Clinton should change their minds (they should, though!). I'm here to urge Sam Altman, who does not agree with you, that his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.

* his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.*

You're worried that someone might read his endorsement of Hillary , then realise a business partner of his suppprts Trump and decide to vote for Trump instead?

I fail to see how anyone who knows who Sam Altman or Y Combinator is would follow that line of thought.

Post reply on HN