Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#701

Post by HeavyStorm » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #204

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 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…

The number of instances of the word "believe" is where your argument (and Marcos') fails.

I'm not a justice expert, but unless Trump is judged and condemned, he is innocent and none of his actions are to be considered criminal, correct? That being the case, supporting him shouldn't be punished as well.

I'm thinking that maybe the People should prosecute Trump over hate crimes and such (there are grounds for that, right? Inciting crime is a crime in itself). Once he's a felon, then we may discuss if supporting him over a certain extent is to be considered criminal...

Again, I know I'm not creating the most solid argument here, since my legal expertise is limited, but judging people from supporting a free person seems misguided to me, rebellious as Trump is.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#702

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #614

tptacek wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's say arguendo that Donald Trump is an objectively harmful candidate to democratic society. Peter Thiel may have given far more money than what most people even possess, but it's categorically the same as those who are voters for Trump -- both parties are providing some very direct support for Trump, and Thiel is arguably one step more distal than the voter. I think that at some point, you must stop punitive cons…

It's sort of like asking "what is a celebrity"? There's a line somewhere, and the existence of paparazzi doesn't impact the privacy rights of ordinary people.

The political line is somewhere over the level of voting, and could be somewhere below the level of donating millions and giving speeches to millions.

There's no reason the line inherently has to be drawn at the limit of "legitimate" behavior. We can say that something is legitimate to do, and legitimate to affect who will do business with you.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#703

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

DigitalSea wrote: post #24

idlewords wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By Altman's own argument, there's a line Thiel could cross that would make YC sever ties with him. All it would take is for Thiel to repeat some of the things Trump said. So having a YC partner fund hate speech is okay, as long as it's by proxy. This is a baffling stance.

There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate. As far as I know, Thiel has done nothing but make a donation, he isn't forcing his views on anyone at YC nor publicly parroting/endorsing things Trump is saying. In this instance Thiel has done nothing more than make a donation to a political candidate many don't like.

> There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate.

There is, indeed. Donating over a million dollars that can be used for ads repeating racist, ignorant, and bigoted Trump statements falls squarely in the latter category.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#704

Post by ythl » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #429

twelvechairs wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly societal segregation is part of freedom of speech. John stuart mill is a key refefence to this. His general principle is that government should only step in to prevent harm but sometimes segregation based on belief can be that harm (his 'tyranny of the majority') Now nobody we are talking about is struggling to survive based on their beliefs but whether its right to start segregating people for their views…

John Stuart Mill did not believe that people should be shielded from criticism, even massed criticism, for fear that they might be victimized by their own bad feels. In fact: Mill believes that the preservation of free society and ordered democracy with equal access by citizens was one of the few reasons society has to limit freedom . As luck would have it, we're here today debating the very real candidacy of a perso…

> and proclaimed that one of his first acts as President would be to ensure the imprisonment of his political rival.

Yeah, but he's saying that because HRC has used her power and wealth to evade punishment for the white collar crimes she has committed.

Or are you saying HRC has never committed any white collar crimes and gotten off scot-free?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#705

Post by yannbe » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

2 points : - Peter Thiel has a right to support trump. The common misconception is that for something to be a right it should be morally right as well. This is not the case. Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is morally right to do so. - You can support a subset of someone's ideas without agreeing to all of his ideas. For example, I think Socrates is a great guy but I don't agree with a lot of what he says.

The backlash towards Thiel is an interesting sociological phenomenon. It seems that the pressure to conform is extremely high in the tech community.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#706

Post by hackinthebochs » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #513

Many people think this election is different from all the past elections but I'm telling you: When Trump or Hillary become president nothing will change in your daily lives. Mostly everything you do will remain the same. So this election matters almost as much your favorite sport team winning some stupid sport which is to say it's a matter of life or death.

I'm getting flashbacks from 2000. I would hope we could learn from history, but alas, history tells us otherwise.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#707

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

scandox wrote: post #395

Bit off topic: does $1.25 million really seem like that much money? I mean I accept it is a huge sum of money in a normal context, but in this context (donations to political parties) is it really exceptional? I mean I've heard of wealthy men losing multiples of that at Poker.

If I'm reading https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N0002386... correctly, it's a good 1.5% of all pro-Trump money spending (currently $84,640,147) in this election.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#708

Post by lsh123 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

What concerns me the most is not HRC or Trump. I will vote for neither and I don't believe that either of them will make a big difference. However a big divide in American society is the real problem. I grew up on Soviet Union and it Communist Party was the one and only ideology pushed down everyone throats. The ideology was more important than people (see for just one of many examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov).

With the D and R camps right now I see exactly the same - the ideology becomes more important than anything else. For example, in this discussion "support for candidate X" factor is considered more important than personal and business relationship between people. This is exactly how Communist Party wanted the people to behave. I don't like it at all.

Instead of working together, the D and R camps push supporters to the extremes. Unfortunately, if this continues then things will go really badly. I am really looking for a force/person who can unite the people instead of dividing them.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#709

Post by smsm42 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

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…

> Most only get involved around election

Which I am afraid indicates it has much more to do with "our team winning" than supposed goal of politics - i.e. making things work better. So when I read such demands as the parent post I can't help thinking "virtue signaling".

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#710

Post by swah » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

I am an outsider, but I don't understand why Wikileaks doesn't leak into CNN.com and friends in the MSM?

or something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY ?

Nothing bad sticks to the democrat candidate. I'm not talking about proofs, but about headlines that get written all the time for clicks. Where are those for Hillary? Not on CNN, nytimes, etc.

Every day there is a new headline about how Trump winning would destroy the universe. Where should I read the news? Politico? Infowars?