Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Donald Trump is a monster. Such thoughtful discussion backed by so many supporting arguments.
You think this a damning argument. But no reasonable reader thinks we couldn't blow the thread up to 1000 more comments, each choc-a-bloc with vivid details, about the terrible flaws of Donald Trump. The reason I'm not taking the bait is that the debate on this thread isn't about Donald Trump, and I'm not going to help you muddy the waters. No, I mean what I've said repeatedly. If you support Donald Trump, or even ju…
Shame on Y Combinator
611–620 of 1001 posts
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#612Marcos 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…
What you are conveniently and deliberately ignoring is that the offense is being taken not at Trump's policies, but at his actions and his bigoted views.
Back in the day, you would have been making the same argument about apartheid in South Africa: who are we to criticize them? They're a sovereign country, they have their own ways of doing things! Forcing them to accept equal rights and democracy is cultural imperialism!
Give me a fucking break. Trump is an asshole because of his actions and his lies. No one uses these terms to describe McCain, Romney, etc. Why? Because while they are Republicans, they are not assholes.
Trump calls hardworking Mexican immigrants "rapists" and "criminals". He calls for a religious test to enter the country, banning all Muslims. He kept questioning Obama's citizenship, not because he really doubted where Obama was born, but because he couldn't get himself to admit that a BLACK man had won the WHITE house; and by denying Obama's legitimacy, you can deny his victory. Finally, he quickly discarded this position for political expediency, it having served its purpose to get him atop the GOP ticket. And in the latest revelations, Trump crows about grabbing women's pussies and assaulting them. THIS IS WHAT IS OBJECTIONABLE about Trump, not his ideas (or lack thereof). He's a liar and a bigot.
So it IS fair to question anyone who puts such significant resources into getting Trump elected. It is one thing to vote for Trump; but quite another to spend millions on getting him into the dictator's seat he covets. Don't give me this "it's against democracy" bullshit.
Coming back to South Africa: if we had not put in place the sanctions and economic boycotts, the black would still be feeling the batons today.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#613Also:
> Altman’s framing of Thiel’s Trump support as a diversity issue isn’t just incorrect — it’s a harmful distortion that reveals a deep misunderstanding of the tech industry’s actual diversity issues. (I don’t and can’t fully understand our diversity problem, but I at least won’t pretend to.)
What on Earth does this even mean? There's something wrong, I can't have a different opinion, but you can't even understand or explain it? Give me a fucking break.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody denies Sam Altman's right to support Peter Thiel Of course; what upsets people (you included, probably?) is the hypocrisy and rationalization. For his friend, Altman is willing to throw all principles and grand declarations about "no asshole policy" through the window. In a way it's charming; in another way, it's hard to fathom. If anyone on HN said 1 thousandth of what Trump says everyday, they would get ba…
According to Sam Altman, if Peter Thiel said some of what Trump said, they'd stop endorsing him. I could not be more baffled by this stance: someone who speaks like Donald Trump is too toxic to affiliate with YC, but someone who diligently works to make Donald Trump President of the United States is not.
I think that at some point, you must stop punitive consequences from leaking out of a category of democratic behaviors, or else entire categories of democratic behavior may be discouraged. After all, ought not the voter also be punished in the same manner we wish upon Peter Thiel? Shouldn't that voter suffer business and personal consequence?
If a grandma appears before a massive audience because she has a compelling story to tell in support of Trump, and in doing so, she becomes coined as "Grandma Lee" and becomes a hot media narrative worth more than what Peter Thiel gave, should that grandma also be punished accordingly? Disconnected from business colleagues? Shamed by any institution she's party to?
There should be a deliberately designed limit to causal responsibility when one is legitimately participating in democracy. If "legitimate" behavior is still bad for democracy, then that's where society should target their efforts, rather than through the shadowy powers of cultural punishment.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#615This exemplifies a disturbing tactic of the left, demonizing anyone who holds differing political views, attempting to turn them into social pariahs, causing them whatever harm they're able to within the law. I happen to think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in federal prison. I think the only reason she's not being prosecuted is that the current administration is corrupt, and views laws as weapons to…
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#616Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#617Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with th…
Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article By OP I assume you mean me, ie: the guy who submitted the article to HN, not the author. First, I'm not out for attention, but thanks for that unprompted attack (dick). I submitted this as it seemed wrong that it kept being censored/flagged off HN. Honestly I expected it to be flagged off again, but hoped at least a few more people would get to s…
You may have to clarify this for me, because it sounds as if you believe people with different political ideals can never work together, even on something non-political.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see you wrote words here but they're not really saying anything.. what is your point then? What really is at stake here? If racism and sexism aren't* just that, what are they? Who is this excluded group you're talking about? > he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed What are those points then? Please, let's discuss them *Edit
I don't live in US, and I think Trump is a terrible person. But if I lived in US, I probably would still vote for him. First, some points of why to avoid voting Hillary and voting in any of the other candidates (including the weaker ones). 1. Hillary should be in jail, specially after the home e-mail server. 2. Hillary foreign policy style caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. 3. Hillary want to make that…
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt: I don't think he's malicious and I don't think he's interventionist. I think he has given these issues no more than 5 minutes thought.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#620Marcos 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…
I've yet to see this claim substantiated. Why can't one coherently believe Trump is an existential threat to society while allowing one of his biggest supporters to give advice to startups? What on earth does one have to do with the other?
People keep talking about moral "incoherence" and "spinelessness," in response to which I have two concrete questions:
(1) How does it "support" Thiel to allow him to advise startups who are allowed to choose whether they want to work with him? How would it improve the situation to rob YC startups of his advice?
(2) Sam already wrote that he thinks Thiel is "completely wrong" in his support of Trump. What else must he do?
I can't wrap my head around the idea that it's evil to do business with someone committing an unrelated evil to the business being done. It'd be one thing if Thiel were using YC as a megaphone for his political efforts, but YC already said he wasn't.