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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#711

Post by pdx »

ggggtez wrote: post #530
dkrich wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree regarding Trump, but where do we draw the line? Should any employer who's executive board strongly denounces Trump's views and rhetoric fire employees who support him via donations? Should Google suppress his website? I don't think Trump is the real threat to society, but rather that he is able to garner such widespread support in American society in 2016, and I don't think that's going to be fixed b…

Theil's not an employee. What are you suggesting when asking where do we draw the line? To require defining how racist is racist enough? I think we all know the line for Trump was crossed. Money is political speech, which Theil can legally do. But no one has to accept his collaboration.

> To require defining how racist is racist enough?

That word just never ceases to be a source of power and comfort to you, doesn't it? Liberals have used that word too often to shut down debate and dehumanize their opponent or victim. We're done giving you that super power anymore. Now you'll have to make real arguments.

It's not racist to wish to enforce current immigration law. It's not racist to wish to protect the jobs and lives of American citizens.

Hey, why didn't you talk about what a homophobe he is? Well, I'm sure you'll use it next time, when Thiel is not the subject of your outrage.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#712

Post by ghufran_syed »

I wonder if the author also thinks that YC should reject founders who support trump? Just add a little question to the application form:"Do you now, or have you ever, supported Donald Trump?" The next stage could be "Do you now, or have you ever, associated with a Trump supporter?" - "if so, please list their names here so we can keep YC pure by excluding them from YC, and pass their names to the re-education brigades"

What could possibly go wrong? :)

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#713

Post by mikeash »

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…

Trump's support is way down from the summer. 538 had Trump and Clinton pretty much even at the end of July. Right now they predict an 87.4% chance of a Clinton victory, with about a 7% difference in the popular vote (which, for modern elections, is a pretty big margin).

The highly partisan nature of American politics puts a pretty hard floor on what any major candidate can expect for support. The Democrats or Republicans could run a half-eaten bagel for President and they would still get about 40% of the vote. It's no coincidence that this is about the level where Trump is polling right now.

Sure, posts like this just reinforce Trump supporters' beliefs. But so what? They're going to vote for him anyway. 80% of the electorate knew which way they were going to vote before the primaries even began. Nothing is going to sway them. What matters is convincing the 20% in the middle. They're rejecting Trump pretty hard right now, and pointing out how horrible he is certainly seems to be helping.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#714

Post by fweespeech »

Honestly, YC's position is reasonable.

> Some have said that YC should terminate its relationship with Peter over this. But as repugnant as Trump is to many of us, we are not going to fire someone over his or her support of a political candidate. As far as we know, that would be unprecedented for supporting a major party nominee, and a dangerous path to start down (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator).

Employment should not be based on political beliefs.

> Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president.

Similarly, that is a pretty clear statement that Trump isn't a conservative and I'd say that is honestly all YC needed to do.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#715

Post by thisisdallas »

ivraatiems wrote: post #694
malchow wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The O'Keefe video[1] shows extended primary source material of named Democratic operatives bragging about recruiting the homeless to deliberately cause violence at conservative events, including providing scripted words. You may not like the editing, and there could be material edited out that redeem the Clinton operatives 1-5%. But not much. At least by my lights, the evidence is quite damning. [1] https://www.youtu…

The thing is, that's what people said about his previous work, and so much of that was discredited, it's hard to believe it this time. Definite case of boy-who-cried-wolf, for me. I will admit I'm biased: I find the allegations very difficult to believe and their timing extremely convenient. That doesn't mean they aren't true (any more than the sex assault allegations against Trump are false because they only just ca…

> There's also the argument that there's a big difference between individuals in the campaign doing something, and the campaign endorsing/encouraging/demanding something.

The Foval Group is contracted directly with the DNC. As far as anyone knows, Trump has never paid anti-Semitic or racist protesters to literally cause physical harm to people at Hillary rallies.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to make excuses for the words Trump has spoken, words are EXTREMELY important, but the level corruption inside the Hillary campaign is on a completely different level than things Trump says. Remember, actions speak louder than words. With Trump, all we have right now are words. With Hillary, we have actions. What I am seeing right now is one candidate being exposed for massive corruption while another candidate is promising to clean up the corruption in US politics and essentially make it illegal for politicians to become lobbyists. That, in my opinion, is very important.

Edit2: Also, on the topic of voter fraud https://d1sb17b1leotpq.cloudfront.net/rigging-election-%E2%8...

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#716

Post by ptaipale »

totony wrote: post #469

Classic american politics: shame people on their political views. Don't argue, you'd risk understanding differing views. Better off cutting all ties with them and remain in your idiotic ignorance.

I somwhow don't think it's "classic". I think it is a fairly modern phenomenon (coming along with "safe spaces", "no platforming" and so on).

"Classic" would be something more along the well-known quote attributed to Voltaire about disagreeing wholeheartedly but defending the freedom of speech of the differing view.

And this Thiel shaming is the exact opposite of that Voltaire thing.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#717

Post by mikeash »

_hao wrote: post #118

You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.

The question of whether every eligible individual in a democratic state should be allowed to support political candidates with millions of dollars in funding is a contentious one, and my understanding is that the answer in most developed countries is "no, you're not allowed to do that."

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#718

Post by Dylan16807 »

drakonandor wrote: post #576
spraak wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL for REAL. You say Hilary should be in jail, which you're right, but Trump similarly has criminal accusations against him. > Trump, despite being a unstable madman ... REALLY?! How can anything valid proceed from that?

Trump has he said/she said accusations popping up, 20 years after, a month before election day. Hillary has the director of the FBI calling her "extremely careless" (but difficult to prosecute) before Congress.

The accusations come up now because it's something that is hard to get punished for and it was a month before election day that he stated in front of everyone that his previous claims of bad behavior were not true.

Being careless doesn't generally merit jail time.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#719

Post by tptacek »

edanm wrote: post #658
tptacek wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this logic is that you're multiplying a very low probability against a truly catastrophic outcome. The expected value result of that calculation is still very, very bad. But I also disagree about Trump's prospects. As I wrote elsewhere on the thread: I think we underestimate the likelihood that Trump will win, and further I think we're going to be in exactly the same struggle in just 3 more years, wh…

I tend to agree, but it certainly seems like Sam Altman and Paul Graham don't. I'm reasonably confident that they would do more if they thought Trump being elected was more likely. Also, you paint a terrifying picture of what happens next - as you (IMO correctly) point out, Trump will not just disappear, but will probably be setting up the next election. Which isn't even the worst case - the worst case is a serious a…

The expected value rhetoric about Trump is something I think I shoplifted from Paul Graham, so I'm pretty comfortable with it.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#720

Post by mikeash »

grey-area wrote: post #162
skywhopper wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peter Thiel is doing just fine. If Y Combinator walked away from him, he would not be hurt or marginalized or ostracized in the least. This is not about persecuting people who vote for Trump. But to support Trump with an enormous sum of money _after_ Trump has revealed himself to be willing to resort to borderline anti-Semitic slurs, to welcome the support of the white supremacy movement, to call for locking up his p…

He's a true threat to our democracy. The responses he provokes are also a threat to democracy. It's important not to become that which you oppose by calling for opponents to be punished in some way (e.g. be locked up, or lose their job) because of their beliefs.

He's doing his best to convince people that the results of the election will be fraudulent. He has hinted that his supporters might want to assassinate his opponent. That's what a threat to democracy looks like.

Saying that a business might want to reconsider who they work with because of the political donations made by a partner is not remotely a threat to democracy.

Post reply on HN