Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#721

Post by dmode » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

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…

I am totally lost on your pollution point. Can you elaborate ?What repercussions are there for the polluter?

Re: undefined

#722

Post by smsm42 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 9:58 PM UTC

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…

> Along virtually every axis you can come up with, Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate

I don't see any shred of evidence for this. Donating money for a preferred candidate is completely normal for "our politics". Moreover, many establishments and persons donate money to both parties and sometimes even for both candidates. It's not only within the boundaries of normal, it is dead in the center of it - it's one of the most common things people do to support the candidate. Making it as if he did some outrageous thing that nobody ever does is completely disingenuous. He did the most normal thing everybody does.

> But they have to at least pay consistent lip service to the things they claim to believe.

That wouldn't be freedom of speech and freedom of political association, per chance?

Re: undefined

#723

Post by dmode » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 9:58 PM UTC

internaut wrote: post #630

neonbat wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thiels philosophy is actually deeply technocratic authoritarian. in a lot of ways he is a technocrat and not a true libertarian. hes said on multiple occasions that politics has failed libertarians and that they should try 'alternatives.'

Libertarianism has bifurcated in recent years. Many people including myself have given up on democracy. It just no longer makes sense to be keep playing a game we can never win. For a libertarian in a democracy, the system is perpetually rigged. It is clear that war is coming and it is time to stop playing games. The truth is that democracy has nothing to offer us. It has bought nothing to the table. The new libertar…

What utter rubbish. I just spend 5 days in a French village, literally last week. And I didn't see a single invader killing , looting, or raping anyone or anything. All I saw was a lot of good people leading a happy and peaceful life.

Re: undefined

#724

Post by tptacek » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #722

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…

> Along virtually every axis you can come up with, Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate I don't see any shred of evidence for this. Donating money for a preferred candidate is completely normal for "our politics". Moreover, many establishments and persons donate money to both parties and sometimes even for both candidates. It's not only within the boundaries of normal, it is…

Freedom of speech and freedom of association are two things Donald Trump has been campaigning against. Overtly. He believes that libel laws should be "liberalized" so that it's easier to sue the New York Times for publishing information about him. Just this week, he argued to a whooping crowd that the women accusing him of sexual assault should themselves be imprisoned.

All this, of course, after he took to the stage of a Presidential debate to argue in public that his political opponent should be jailed --- not investigated, but jailed. That is his rallying cry: "lock her up".

We are not required to tolerate intolerance when it actively jeopardizes the fabric of our civil society. Particularly when a movement towards intolerance is progressing so fast that there's little time for its adherents to be educated in the gravity of what they're doing before intolerance itself wins.

Re: undefined

#725

Post by ThomPete » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

dmode wrote: post #720

ThomPete wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He has substance it's just hidden from the rhetorics.

This is his own fault of course but that does not change my interpretation of what I consider most important.

I don't care what he said about women or what cigars Hillarys husband put into what interns something. Clinton was a great president, his (to use modern feminist rhetorics) exploit of his white male privilege to force a young women into obedience doesn't change the fact that he was a great president. Neither will Trumps rhetorics change the fact that he has more important points than Hillary in my book.

So I will live with his language just as I lived with Clintons sexual escapades, Bush absurd wars, Hillarys support for them and Obamas draconian use of targeted killing and it's collateral damage.

Re: undefined

#726

Post by willstrafach » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

gallonofmilk wrote: post #228

mcknz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naturally he hasn't recently mentioned immigration because he's trying to move to the center. During the primary, however, he wanted to block all Muslims from entering the country, as well as build a wall along the Mexico/US border.

Actually you're leaving key points out, like most people/media... He wanted to temporarily block immigration from countries with islamic terrorism (syria / libya) until our country found a way to better vet them. American Muslims, or any other Muslims are not an issue. He also wants to protect our southern border with a wall to prevent ILLEGAL immigrants from easy access into our country.

Why is this alleged key point not included in the statement he made?

> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

via https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

Re: undefined

#727

Post by kybernetyk » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

ZoF wrote: post #647

kybernetyk wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm, too, not an American but a libertarian. And I don't support either candidate. Tbh. I find it horribly sad how much time and energy people invest in this election where the both possible outcomes are equally bad. "Voting for the lesser evil" is still voting for evil. So why not take all that time wasted on internet arguments about which evil is the lesser one and do something fun instead?

You saying they're the same doesn't make them the same, you're aware of that right?

You saying they're not the same doesn't make them not the same, you're aware of that right?

As you see that's a non-argument.

Re: undefined

#728

Post by whorleater » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #710

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 o…

This false dichotomy of "Thiel is making a political statement and expressing his beliefs, he shouldn't be punished/bullied/ruined/etc for it, less we start moving down the slope of totalitarianism" is intellectually dishonest. It paints Thiel as this everyman who is simply expressing his rights, while the truth could be no further than this story.

Peter Thiel is an influential person. He has created and helped build some of the richest companies in the world, an extremely impressive effort. However, his success, intentionally or not, has catapulted him into a leadership role for many in the tech industry, and an advisor for many more. As a result, we should hold him to a higher standard, because he has so much more sway and influence than your every day person. When Thiel made this contribution he crossed the line of neutrality, moving from expressing his speech into an action. Whether this action is a good one or not is debatable, but to pretend that it is not an action is incorrect. We should allow everyone to express their freedom of speech. We should definitely criticize those who perform actions we deem harmful, since to act as a bystander comes close to being complacent with the action.

Re: undefined

#729

Post by smsm42 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:06 PM UTC

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 ---…

> But I think there's an obvious, material difference between the kind of support a voter might give Trump --- casting a vote, wearing a pin, putting up a lawn sign --- and what Thiel did.

What's the material difference?

> He got up on the most public stage imaginable and told the American people that Trump was the only honest candidate in the election.

That's speaking in support of the candidate. Literally thousands of people do it every day. Many of them use this exact phrase. What's so exceptional with Thiel? I can't help but this the claimed exceptionality is not with what he did, but that he did it for Trump. And, maybe, also because what he did has potential to make a difference, unlike putting up a lawn sign. Is the only tolerable opposition an inefficient one?

> I will not tolerate the people in the crowds whooping and cheering Trump's claim that some women are too ugly to have been assaulted by Trump.

Such people, if they exist, would be despicable, but this has nothing to do with Thiel. Thiel never said something like that, as far as we know, and mentioning this as something that is similar to what Thiel did do - namely, supporting a candidate he prefers, which is the most normal thing in US politics - does not bear minimal standard of proper argument. You basically said "I won't tolerate these people who are bad and because of this Thiel is bad and has to be ostracized". It doesn't work this way.

Re: undefined

#730

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:06 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]