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

701–710 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#701

Post by grzm »

tptacek wrote: post #698
grzm wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you're coming from. That said, how do you recommend we heal what's dividing people? Do we stop associating with people that don't share our beliefs? What level of association is acceptable? I know I don't have the answer, but I don't think increasing the separation between people is a good general solution. I think calling out in a constructive way behavior we think is problematic is useful. And ma…

No, I don't recommend that. I don't think we should work to de-normalize Republicans. I don't think we should ostracize Republicans who vote for Trump out of genuine concern over the direction of the Supreme Court, or because they believe abortion is murder. I don't think we should ostracize Trump supporters. But I think there's an obvious, material difference between the kind of support a voter might give Trump ---…

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was hoping more about how we might bridge the gaps between people of differing opinions, but I understand that might be a little too far afield from the original topic. I do think it's important, though, especially going forward after November 8. No one is going to be going away just because the election is over.

Re: undefined

#702

Post by tptacek »

grzm wrote: post #701
tptacek wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't recommend that. I don't think we should work to de-normalize Republicans. I don't think we should ostracize Republicans who vote for Trump out of genuine concern over the direction of the Supreme Court, or because they believe abortion is murder. I don't think we should ostracize Trump supporters. But I think there's an obvious, material difference between the kind of support a voter might give Trump ---…

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was hoping more about how we might bridge the gaps between people of differing opinions, but I understand that might be a little too far afield from the original topic. I do think it's important, though, especially going forward after November 8. No one is going to be going away just because the election is over.

Personally, I think we can start by continuing the work HRC and Obama were doing at the beginning of this election to separate Trump from mainstream Republicanism. They've stopped doing that, now that they believe HRC's victory is a foregone conclusion. Now they're trying to tether the GOP to Trump to help downticket races. I think they're making a mistake. I also think that the country needs a loyal opposition, and a voice for limited government and humility in the state's role in regulating behavior and business. And I say this as a loyal Democrat.

But that's exactly what we're saying here: support for Trump is not normal support for the Republican party and its ostensible ideals. Trump is an authoritarian white nationalist and a con-artist. He's unfit to be counted alongside Thomas Dewey, Mitt Romney, or Barry Goldwater. He victimizes those in "his" party who feel compelled to support him. His enablers, the Giulianis and the Thiels, bear a special culpability in attempting to normalize Trump to the Republican party. And Thiel's supporters bear some culpability in trying to normalize Thiel.

Re: undefined

#703

Post by adnzzzzZ »

tptacek wrote: post #628
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disgraceful that you're trying to bully an organization based on the political opinions of one of their partners. You should be ashamed of yourself and of the damage you're doing to your country.

Having political beliefs that you disagree with does not constitute "bullying".

Trying to shame someone who has different political beliefs via social pressure seems like bullying to me. One of the big reasons why so many people are voting for Trump is because people like you (and liberals in general) like to shame people for beliefs by calling them racists, sexists, homophobes and all that.

Re: undefined

#704

Post by tptacek »

t27 wrote: post #697
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.

Why aren't you going behind mark zuckerberg as well? Thiel is not only an influential investor, but also has a board seat there, and he probably has a bigger share in facebook than he has in YC right?

There's a bunch of responses here:

* It would be weird to suggest that Zuckerberg gets a free pass from the likes of DHH and Maciej Ceglowski.

* Zuckerberg's affiliation with Thiel is less voluntary than Graham and Altman's. Fb took on Thiel before the Trump election, and they're bound together by contract.

* Attacking Facebook for not taking a stand against Trump would probably be counterproductive, because it would play into the false Trump narrative that the media elites are conspiring against him when in reality it's simply human decency creating all his public adversaries.

Re: undefined

#705

Post by tptacek »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #703
tptacek wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having political beliefs that you disagree with does not constitute "bullying".

Trying to shame someone who has different political beliefs via social pressure seems like bullying to me. One of the big reasons why so many people are voting for Trump is because people like you (and liberals in general) like to shame people for beliefs by calling them racists, sexists, homophobes and all that.

If someone votes for Trump because because they oppose the shaming of racists, sexists, and homophobes, they deserve the shame they feel. They have the right to express their noxious beliefs, but no norm of justice or civics or our Constitutional system protects their feels from my right to warn others of their noxiousness.

Re: undefined

#706

Post by atypicaluser »

vonnik wrote: post #622
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…

PG has made a couple statements about Peter Thiel's position on Twitter[0], and PB has take a stand against ostracizing Trump supporters[1], so let's dig into this. The gist of the matter is: What should sane and compassionate people do about the Trump supporters in their lives? Many of us have them. Some of my family members support Trump, and I cannot fire them as family members or cancel Christmas, so I, and we, h…

Three comments -

(0) Nice setup of the sane and compassionate versus... Trump supporters? Who cannot in any way be sane or compassionate...

(1) If Trump supporters must be fought and excluded from any sort of decision-making that affects the public sphere, then why bring up US Democracy? The very nature of democracy allows the dangerous, the racist and the sexist to affect it. Are you suggesting something else?

(2) While I might criticize the five silos you toss Trump supporters into, I wonder more whether you'd find a Sanders revolution abhorrent. Not that all revolutions have been as bloody or as horrid as the French - are you saying the American Revolution was a terrible thing for the world? Certainly the Brits might think so. ;-)

Re: undefined

#707

Post by adnzzzzZ »

tptacek wrote: post #705
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to shame someone who has different political beliefs via social pressure seems like bullying to me. One of the big reasons why so many people are voting for Trump is because people like you (and liberals in general) like to shame people for beliefs by calling them racists, sexists, homophobes and all that.

If someone votes for Trump because because they oppose the shaming of racists, sexists, and homophobes, they deserve the shame they feel. They have the right to express their noxious beliefs, but no norm of justice or civics or our Constitutional system protects their feels from my right to warn others of their noxiousness.

>because they oppose the shaming of racists, sexists, and homophobes,

They oppose unjust shaming. If someone believes in stronger borders and they get called a racist for that it's an unreasonable form of shame that happens way too often.

Re: undefined

#708

Post by idlewords »

t27 wrote: post #697
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.

Why aren't you going behind mark zuckerberg as well? Thiel is not only an influential investor, but also has a board seat there, and he probably has a bigger share in facebook than he has in YC right?

I agree, and I've called them out, too. But I'm trying to tilt at one windmill at a time. Paul Graham (to his credit) at least answers my emails, while I have no hope of reaching anyone at Facebook.

Re: undefined

#709

Post by sp332 »

sushiwarrior wrote: post #674
sp332 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I don't think her only gun policy is going to be restrictions on private sales. I think she's going to push for a reinterpretation of the constitution which would allow banning carrying guns in more places.

Re: undefined

#710

Post by smsm42 »

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 is disgraceful is trying to ensure there is only one acceptable point of view, and preclude people from trying to support other points of view under threat of public boycott, being fired, deemed unemployable, etc. This is ultimately what you fight is for - so that nobody would be able to speak in support candidate you don't like or policy you don't like or idea you don't like because if he does, he will be run out of his job and made into a pariah. You (taken broadly, not as you personally but as a community of people making similar demands) are not only trying to ruin Thiel, you are trying to make not participating in ruining him as dangerous as being Thiel. And, I assume, not participating in ruining those that didn't participate too. This is not how marketplace of ideas supposed to work. This is how a totalitarian state is supposed to work.
Post reply on HN