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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#631

Post by oldmanjay »

_pius wrote: post #6

In this thread and others I've seen this: Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions? Of course they do. But a surprising number of “free speech” and “free market” people don’t seem to understand how either works. Individuals have a right to support white nationalists. Individuals also have a right not to do business with those who support white nationalists. Individuals also have the right to organ…

The tone of the protest is what is objectionable.

In any case, I don't see anyone denouncing the right to protest, just the protest itself, which is the next turtle on the way down from your sentiment.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#632

Post by athroawawayy »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #300
twelvechairs wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions" Its called freedom of speech/expression. Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights uses very similar words "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference..." The idea is pretty tracea…

That's speaking of lack of interference from the government not from your fellow citizens. Everyone has the right to criticize whom ever they choose and do business with whom ever they choose, for any reason they choose. No government should have the right to enforce interference based on believes.

There's a rationalist proverb: a bad argument gets an argument in return, not a bullet. Using economic force in debate starts edging towards the "bullet" end of the spectrum.

This shrinks the range of discourse and makes the collective brain more stupid. Call it "racism" or "fascism" or what you will, but every political movement that persecuted its opponents thought its opponents were worthy of persecution. This is called "demonization". You use current morality to turn your opponents into demons and justify raising the stakes against them.

We'd all be better off with a precommitment to civil debate. This would include engaging with Trump's specific ideas instead of using mere labels to refute him.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#634

Post by j15t »

pimterry wrote: post #343

I think a lot of people are missing a key point here. This isn't about stopping a candidate you disagree with, or even about stopping a candidate that you think would be bad for the US. It's about making Y Combinator and the software industry as effective and good-for-the-world as possible. Even if throwing Thiel out would actually help Trump's candidacy, they should do it. There's an interesting debate about whether…

The thing is, "good for the world" is a subjective notion.

In my studies of philosophy I am yet to find any system of ethics that provides an objective and universal definition of right and wrong - if you find one, please let me know.

Until then, we are all dealing with subjective opinions - it's just that some opinions are more popular than others. In democracy the most popular opinion wins, but this does not imply that an opinion is objectively "right" (as we know from history).

Hence, I find this recent trend where people classify other people's beliefs as "objectively wrong" - with no consideration for the subjectivity of their own beliefs - to be deeply troubling. Such behaviour is a departure from reason; only dogma remains.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#635

Post by trdrake »

bobsgame wrote: post #30

I wish that more smart people would not demonize either party and instead analyze and dissect each platform and weigh the potential benefits and consequences of them. It is much more convincing to read actual facts about the platforms, and it's a lot more constructive. With the brain power here, we might even be able to make constructive suggestions and possibly even influence either party's policies so that regardle…

This. The whole process has turned into character analysis and character assasination, rather than whose policies make the most sense for America. Both parties and the media are to blame.

There's a ton I personally dislike in the published GOP platform (eliminating the EPA, walking from Kyoto, completing the Keystone, defunding Amtrak, etc, etc) that bears discussion, rather than judging and yelling who's less evil.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#636

Post by clavalle »

ww520 wrote: post #45

This is a disgrace to punish someone just because they have different view. Kudos to Y Cominator to not cave in. Peter Thiel is free to support and donate to whoever candidate he feels strong about. If you don't like it, donate to the other candidate. Dragging it into business and people life is so Mccarthyism.

Should all views be accepted as equally valid?

Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences?

Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push our own judgements.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#637

Post by msandford »

meira wrote: post #447
msandford wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices The Director of the FBI said exactly that, but that there was no malicious intent and thus no crime. Why an investigative body is making a recommendation about charges notwithstanding, when it comes to national secrets, nobody else gets the benefit of the doubt re: mens rea, it's generally interpreted as strict liability. Why did former Secretary Clinton…

I don't understand how Americans don't care about Hillary's lies. (actually, I do, it's called mass media manipulation, but you guys, of all modern societies in the world, should be one of few capable of fighting it). Hillary Clinton simple says that she made a mistake and nobody asks why did she used a private email server? I think this is a huge trap, but would things go a little better for Trump if he admits that…

It's basically just like Carl Sagan said:

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-les...

EDIT: That said, I don't NECESSARILY believe that the Clintons have absolutely, for sure been up to no good. But I am a little suspicious, given the facts that the FBI found. There's plenty of stuff that they could do to exonerate themselves. I just suspect it won't happen, especially since the FBI has seen fit to say "no bad intent so no crime"

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#638

Post by matt4077 »

fareesh wrote: post #588
matt4077 wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody ever ran for the Presidency of a dictatorship, that's kinda like their defining feature. I'd point to Putin, Erdogan and Victor Orban as current strongmen who were elected democratically and slowly transformed their countries towards authoritarianism. The parallels are undeniable: a bit of hatred against the "other", a lot of complaining about the media (and calling for laws to stop their "lying"), the hyper-m…

From what I understand of the US Constitution, there is a very good degree of separation of powers along with checks and balances to make this very difficult to implement in a practical sense, and would necessarily require both houses of congress as well as the supreme court to all be complicit in the act, thus requiring more than just one immoral person to pull off.

Indeed, but it's not one person. It's him and apparently 40% of the population, and large parts of the Republican establishment have also fallen in line (and many more would have if another 5% had switched to his side and made him the frontrunner).

These things don't happen overnight, and the single most important firewall may be the presidential term limit, and the absence of any similar office (like Russia's "prime minister" that Putin switched to when he was term-limited, installing Medvedev as his puppet in the meantime).

I'd hope that the limit is such a binary line that 8 year's aren't enough to change that perception. But who knows? Maybe he could have created a narrative to legitimize another term. Some sort of crisis... The usual.

But, luckily, the worst now seems unlikely to happen. It still seems important to run up the score, and then we'll see how his party deals with it. Ideologically, at least on economics, there isn't much left of what was called conservatism a year ago.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#639

Post by PopsiclePete »

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…

If his support is unchanging, the "global elite" have nothing to worry about, as long as people show up to vote on 11/8.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#640

Post by yaschobob »

grandalf wrote: post #432
tptacek wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc

Highly disingenuous. First of all, even Bernie Sanders agrees that having open borders will causes wages to plummet. It's the dream of the Koch brothers.

Second, Hillary didn't vote for 10 ft wall and never proposed a 10ft wall. She voted for the Secure Fence act of 2006:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6061

This isn't a wall, it's fencing placed at various spots across the border.

Stop lying.

Post reply on HN