Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#671

Post by DominikR »

hilop wrote: post #633
DominikR wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said in an BBC interview that the FBI contacted him that some of the death threats he received were credible. Maybe it's true, maybe not. But I can see how in the current situation it can be dangerous to you to endorse Trump. There's just too much hatred, especially after Trump is constantly compared to Hitler. (which can give people a justification to kill him or his supporters)

Meanwhile, Adams doesn't believe that women on Twitter don't get threatened with rape and violence, and Trump motivates his supporters to coordinate and commit terror attacks on Muslim-looking Americans, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/hate-crime-charges-in-a...

I don't know about this Adams statement (please add a link, I'd read it) but Trump "motivating" his supporters to "coordinate and commit terror attacks on Muslim-looking people"?

I get it that you dislike Trump (fine by me) but how on earth did you convince yourself to believe something like that. (I have no doubt you do, you could probably pass a lie detector test without a problem repeating this statement)

Re: undefined

#672

Post by SixSigma »

jphillipsio wrote: post #653
SixSigma wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. When CNN tells you reading things is illegal and you should only listen to their opinion, a line has been crossed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

It's kind of a silly thing to disclose and people should find truth but the blatant propaganda at breitbart isn't where you'll find it. This guy is not the solution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

I'm done. you're blind.

Re: undefined

#673

Post by badsock »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #528
badsock wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

You raise a good point in your last paragraph. When you said "If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning", it sounded like you were making the argument that you have to get deep into an author before you can judge them.

Re: undefined

#674

Post by sushiwarrior »

sp332 wrote: post #400
dcposch wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

Washington D.C. tried to ban handguns in some public places. The supreme court said they couldn't do that. Clinton wants states and cities to be able to enact their own bans, and she will be replacing at least one seat on the supreme court. So a lot of people might be losing their guns under a Clinton presidency.

How is anyone losing guns? Who is she taking away guns from by placing more restrictions on private sales? Does it really sound like a bad idea having less guns in Washington D.C. when their violent crime rate is over triple the national average[1]?

[1]: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/

Re: undefined

#675

Post by matt4077 »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #528
badsock wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

That's conspiracy hogwash. Replace "media" with "the medical community" and it sounds like a snake-oil salesman.

Journalism today is better than it ever was. The bias of quality journalism today is simply a general, tentative consensus that the political and economic system of what you'd collectively call "the west" is working quite well in principle.

I'm not going to look at idiots ranting into their webcams on youtube. Considering how easy it is for something good to "go viral", I'm quite happy to wait until the good stuff gets separated from the 99+% that is idiotic.

I do talk to people, quite a lot actually considering a few volunteer engagements. Many of these people life vastly different lives than I do, from the homeless alcoholic to a guy who just inherited some 9-digit fortune.

I have learned that a drunk lunatic ranting on the subway /is not/ suffering from the pain of his insights into the conspiracy controlling everyone's mind. He's just drunk, and wrong, and annoyingly loud.

When I talk to journalists, they are almost without exception some of the most dedicated, well-educated, interesting and self-reflecting people. They mostly share a core set of believes ("no whiskey before noon", "someone bragging about sexual assault must never be president"), and I'm happy to share these with them, because otherwise they'd have to start every article at first principle.

Regarding that quote: It isn't just something he once said. It's one of his pet theories, and I doubt that a well-adjusted person could even come up with something like that.

Re: undefined

#676

Post by johndavi »

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.

Public statements made under duress (however weak the duress) or after the political calculus is done are worth their weight in tweets. Any silence -- which has been anything but in Graham's back and forth with Hansson -- is already indelible.

This is really just a lame, Valley-lensed Pascalian wager. Say nothing and maintain a flatline with YC applicants (who care mostly for YC demo day flow) and the notoriously humorless Thiel; say something and enjoy only the satisfaction of having demonstrated (Apple-like) courage of conviction -- while risking whatever havoc Thiel wishes to wreak upon you.

Re: undefined

#677

Post by jarcane »

josho wrote: post #496
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.

I have to admit as much as I dislike Trump pg raises a valid point. Another analogy would be YC disavowing Thiel for being gay. An employer has no business in their employees sexual lives or politic preferences.

To conflate being gay with fascism is beyond the point of false dichotomy and well into being grossly offensive.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re: undefined

#678

Post by AsyncAwait »

DominikR wrote: post #666
AsyncAwait wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So in the first part you argue that they acted this way only because other powers tried to subvert them. I'm not going to argue against the fact that others try to subvert them because this is a fact, but the thing is that other Ideologies also face the same issue. Others face it too, true, but there's no denying that the country with the largest military in human history does have much more bullying power and if t…

> Oh, this trick, I see - for one, I would say it's insulting to other successful ethnicities, say the Chinese, to suggest that the only people that are, and have for a very long time been successful are the Jews and for the Anti-Semitism comment, I see that you constructed your own narrative to reach your own conclusions, but be aware that such comments only undermine actual cases of anti-semitism. How do you expect…

> How do you expect me to have a discussion with you when all you are doing is trying to twist my words? We were discussing if there's a connection between Anti-Semitism and Socialism so I commented on that.

You said that I wasn't far off from being an anti-semite because I hated success to which am saying that I don't hate success, but even if I did, suggesting that that means anti-semitism is a stretch at best.

Also, I have never heard of anybody paying 90% tax anywhere.

Re: undefined

#679

Post by tptacek »

idlewords wrote: post #659
pdog wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They should say whatever they want, but remember that silence looks an awful lot like assent.

His silence here is assent. He'd rather we not recognize it as such, and I feel bad for him because I think he'd rather not recognize it as such either. But Graham's own writing spells out what makes his relationship with Thiel different than that of a relationship between employers and employees. If he can discriminate against mothers with young children, he cannot claim that the unfairness of discrimination prevents him from severing ties with Thiel.

Re: undefined

#680

Post by cromwellian »

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…

Yeah, a libertarian who got rich on CIA investments and contracts. Isn't it amazing how everything else is crony capitalism and government needs to stop interfering in the market except to make oneself rich and protect ones own assets?
Post reply on HN