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

711–720 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#711

Post by tptacek »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #707
tptacek wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where I wrote "oppose the shaming of", you can simply add or substitute "belief that shaming people for racism, sexism, and homophobia is unjust".

Re: undefined

#712

Post by acdha »

_cbb1 wrote: post #620
acdha wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you haven't read those emails: they show nothing of the sort, which is why you couldn't provide any evidence to back that claim. You can find signs that people in the establishment personally favored the establishment candidate – the least surprising revelation in political history – but there's no evidence that lead to any concrete action. That's why the only claims of rigging have been intentional misrepres…

When you have Donna Brazile feeding the Clinton campaign townhall questions so that she can prepare the answers. Threats for super delegates switching to Bernie and Debbie Wasserman Shultz stepping down. It's clear evidence of a rigged election. Who knows what was happening that is not in the emails.

Try citing specific ptimsry sources for events which actually happened. There's plenty of hyperventilating and outright propaganda on right-wing blogs but there's a reason why nobody with credibility is claiming the primary was rigged.

Hint: it's the same reason why the alleged victim is going around telling his supporters to vote for Hillary. If you trusted his judgement enough to think he should be president, why not trust his analysis now?

Re: undefined

#713

Post by smsm42 »

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 make expressing those belief dangerous to the point of losing one's job, income and business is. Trying to make not participating in implementing the above as dangerous as expressing those opinions, through guilt by association, is. If you don't like somebody's speech, speak against them, not try to ruin their life and lives of those that don't run to help you to do that.

Re: undefined

#714

Post by tptacek »

smsm42 wrote: post #713
tptacek wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Trying to make expressing those belief dangerous to the point of losing one's job, income and business is. Trying to make not participating in implementing the above as dangerous as expressing those opinions, through guilt by association, is. If you don't like somebody's speech, speak against them, not try to ruin their life and lives of those that don't run to help you to do that.

That's exactly what's being done here. And, I'll remind you again:

* Thiel is not an employee of Altman or Graham's

* Graham himself publicly claims that a strength of startups is that one can choose business partners without regard for moral norms, unlike employees.

Re: undefined

#715

Post by welanes »

tptacek wrote: post #700
welanes wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Paul Graham has disavowed Trump. Thiel supports Trump. Paul Graham hasn't disavowed Thiel's support of Trump. That seems an absurd expectation, to ditch someone for exercising their own agency legally and within the parameters of a democracy. I don't support Trump. I also don't support the goading and lack of empathy towards those that do. Nor the guilt-by-association accusations being promulgated in this election…

Thiel isn't merely a supporter of Trump. There are, as many have pointed out on this thread, tens of millions of Trump supporters. But they are not all the same: some of them support Trump because they cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate (they are wrong in this instance, but they are wrong in good faith). Others --- hundreds of thousands of them --- support Trump because they are themselves whit…

> Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate. Thiel is not a typical Trump supporter.

But is this really so? That Thiel has the means to donate one million dollars while others must settle for lawn signs shouldn't determine how much ire we direct his way. You seem to be saying that having preference for a candidate is one thing but advocating and encouraging other people to have a similar preference is beyond the pale. Yet one seems a logical and natural consequence of the other.

Also I'm a little suspicious of DHH's intentions in his tweets to Graham (later picked up by Pinboard). Not that it negates the point he's making but it appears to be a long-standing vendetta masquerading as sanctimony: https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adhh+to%3Apaulg

This is going to be my last comment. Too much politics is bad for you ;) Thanks for the alternative POV.

Re: undefined

#716

Post by Jill_the_Pill »

zo1 wrote: post #609
coding123 wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my simple way of understanding this, then, is that libertarians are un-developed democrats. They think Democrats are "wrong" because of what they are, but when you extend this line of thought for many, many many years, you find yourself a democrat. Democrats can be easily criticized for overthinking bathroom rights, but doesn't that argument boil down to freedoms of the oppressed transgendered person? Freedom for…

All those things you mention violate the Non-Aggression Principle, and are thus incredibly non-libertarian. Libertarianism make few exceptions to that principle in order to allow for such things as limited government policing, courts and defence. Bathroom laws require forcing companies to pay for additional bathrooms, and by extension, pay for the policing required to prevent gender-mixing in the non-approved bathroo…

How do the people with the pollution-damaged health or property then get justice or cause those "repercussions"? Is libertarianism then ultimately grounded upon tort law? Is the idea to have a corps of free or low-cost lawyers constantly ready to sue polluters to cease and desist and pay restitution to the harmed?

Re: undefined

#717

Post by tptacek »

welanes wrote: post #715
tptacek wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel isn't merely a supporter of Trump. There are, as many have pointed out on this thread, tens of millions of Trump supporters. But they are not all the same: some of them support Trump because they cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate (they are wrong in this instance, but they are wrong in good faith). Others --- hundreds of thousands of them --- support Trump because they are themselves whit…

> Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate. Thiel is not a typical Trump supporter. But is this really so? That Thiel has the means to donate one million dollars while others must settle for lawn signs shouldn't determine how much ire we direct his way. You seem to be saying that having preference for a candidate is one thing but advocating and encouraging other people to have a…

Yes, I think Thiel's enabling of Trump is materially different than a normal voter's support of Trump.

I understand the concern people would have about DHH and Maciej's opposition to Paul Graham. But DHH and Maciej aren't the only people that have this concern. They happen in this instance to be right.

Thanks for the civil disagreement!

Re: undefined

#718

Post by CamperBob2 »

acdha wrote: post #712
_cbb1 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have Donna Brazile feeding the Clinton campaign townhall questions so that she can prepare the answers. Threats for super delegates switching to Bernie and Debbie Wasserman Shultz stepping down. It's clear evidence of a rigged election. Who knows what was happening that is not in the emails.

Try citing specific ptimsry sources for events which actually happened. There's plenty of hyperventilating and outright propaganda on right-wing blogs but there's a reason why nobody with credibility is claiming the primary was rigged. Hint: it's the same reason why the alleged victim is going around telling his supporters to vote for Hillary. If you trusted his judgement enough to think he should be president, why n…

There's a reason why nobody with credibility is claiming the primary was rigged

And that reason is elementary game theory. The only people with incentives to claim that the Democratic primaries were rigged are those who will be left with no political influence if the Democrats fare poorly.

When the Republicans do well, it's because they value party unity over literally everything else. One of HRC's strengths is that she brings the same thinking to the Democrats. For anyone within the party, working against her carries no conceivable upside. And as we've seen in DWS's case, working for HRC means you'll be well taken care of, no matter what.

Basically, if Sanders or anyone else on the left has beef with the DNC, they will be much better off if they wait to bring it up until after the election. And maybe not even then.

Re: undefined

#719

Post by smsm42 »

idlewords wrote: post #660
chrissnell wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unbelievable. I'm disgusted that you would suggest the blackballing of an investor simply because you don't agree with his political opinion--an opinion, I might add, that is shared amongst a large percentage of our country. Trump say a lot of nutty things but he's not far off the mark when he speaks of a liberal conspiracy to ruin him in this election. Your suggestion is a textbook example of this: using out-of-band…

I'm suggesting Thiel face consequences for supporting a sexually predatory bigot. I'm literally just a guy with a Twitter account, so the idea that I'm strong-arming billionaires with my ruthless tweets is a little hard to credit.

Everyone who voted for Bill Clinton and who now is about to vote for Hillary Clinton supported sexual predator and are supporting a person who at the very best enabled, vigorously defended and comforted a sexual predator for years. They are completely fine with that. I guess you'd agree all these people have to "face consequences" too and the consequences should be the same?

You personally are not strongarming anyone. You are trying to organize others in hope you can strongarm YC into pushing out Thiel. So far you have very little success, it is true. That does not make the motives of the deed or its goal more noble.

Re: undefined

#720

Post by dmode »

ThomPete wrote: post #662
dmode wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you have to move past childish rhetoric before we talk substance. And even if we did, Donald doesn't have any substance. If he did, he would have focused on those. His policy ideas are broad brush strokes which don't hold up under further scrutiny. Hillary is a centrist and pragmatic politician. I for one is pretty happy with where the US is and do not want radical change. Minor tweaks around healthcare, milita…

You still really only object to form. I have no interest in that.and be happy where the US is all you want. That makes you part of the problem the way I see it. Something have to change IMO.

Let's agree to disagree that something needs to change. Also, as I said in my previous comment - I object to form AND substance. His form is so vile that it catches attention, but his substance is equally lacking.
Post reply on HN