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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#731

Post by Zarath »

throwaway_415 wrote: post #523
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…

The problem is the racial manner in which he has chosen to conduct his campaign. Today we see the normalisation of hatred and marginalisation of entire races and religions. It's not even dog whistles, rather flat out villification purely based on observable groups. It might not bother the average white male, but believe it or not, there are other groups in society who will uprise one day in a very violent manner if t…

What about the normalization of hatred against an even larger portion of the population, those that support Trump? Speaking of uprising, ever think that Trump is a reaction to the marginalization and demonization of a certain subset of the population?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#732

Post by akvadrako »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #38
Kiro wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did we read the same post?

>Thiel, a non-employee (a “part-time partner”), is directly supporting Donald Trump at a massive scale — over a million dollars! — after we’ve learned even more of Trump’s horrendous statements, positions, and past actions than we could’ve ever imagined. I'm not sure but there is no mention of voting anywhere in the article.

Fine, swap "vote" for "support". Allowing people to vote for candidates but not support them is just mincing words.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#733

Post by carapace »

When Barbara Bush and I are on the same side of this it's not a political purge, it's a matter of basic human decency. The Trump candidacy is a litmus test of basic civil sanity. Supporting it is insane.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#734

Post by inimino »

7Z7 wrote: post #331
dreta wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you’re doing is trying to shame Altman and Y Combinator supporters into disowing Thiel. The great thing about what Altman is doing is that he doesn’t feel so morally superior to others that he’ll either see people share his views, or have them removed. You should learn to criticise ideas, not people.

I don't understand this line of reasoning, from either end of the spectrum. When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences, that negatively affect real people's lives, why would we not criticize the people who hold them?

Understanding it is key to making a diverse democracy work.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#735

Post by smsm42 »

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…

> Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.

I still can't think why a sane person would believe that. I mean not rhetorically claim it in a bout of electoral frenzy, but really genuinely believe it. Not that Trump has a disgusting personality or would be bad president or has this and that flaw, but that he will actually single-handedly ruin the democracy.

I mean, George III couldn't do it, Jefferson Davis couldn't do it, Nixon couldn't do it, but Trump will. Why? Which superpowers does he have that I am not seeing that allow him to singlehandedly overcome everything that is built to prevent it?

And more importantly - why literally nobody who proclaims Trump as such a threat pays any attention whatsoever to the fact that our democracy is so weak one blowhard TV show host can ruin it? That - if true - would be a hugely bigger problem than Trump yet nobody seems to be worried about that. As soon as Trump would be defeated, everybody that were screaming "the end is nigh!" would go on with their business as if nothing is wrong anymore.

> Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign.

That doesn't seem to be true. Trump campaign has many directions but having Thiel does not seem to be an important point for any of them. And one million dollar, while a big chunk of money by itself, is minuscule compared to whole electoral spending - e.g., Clinton campaign was estimated to spend about 1.7 billions, and while Trump one seemed to be spending a little less, I assume the order of magnitude would be the same.

> after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote,

I never heard Trump doing such thing. Are you sure you are not misinterpreting his words or relying on unreliable and possibly biased sources?

> But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing,

Criticizing Altman in general is fine, of course. This particular kind of criticism, namely "you must sever ties with X because X supported cause I dislike", does not seem to be a good idea. Neither seems to be "you must sever ties with X because he supports Trump and you don't". Maybe Altman is entitled to choose his peer group by himself and other people presuming to choose his peers and partners for him are going a bit too far?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#736

Post by chickenfries »

phaus wrote: post #725
dlss wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you followed what happened to the Atheist community in the US, but its downfall was essentially the kind of witch hunt you're trying to incite. The level of virtue signaling demanded gradually increases until no one is left in the community. This invariably happens because the question you're asking ("does intolerant belief X threaten society?") has no absolute answer, so there is always a higher leve…

>I don't know if you followed what happened to the Atheist community in the US, but its downfall was essentially the kind of witch hunt you're trying to incite. Did we have a community? Was there a downfall? I'm an atheist and I know more people that are comfortable being openly atheist in 2016 than at any other time in my life.

I feel like this probably has something to do with Dawkins or Hitchens or something.

The history of witch hunts in the USA are reactionary and conservative (Salem, McCarthyism) but for some reason these days the left have been branded as the witch hunters.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#737

Post by josh5555 »

What does Marco think of Islamic fundamentalists? Are they to be condemned for their sexism and persecution of homosexuals? None of these issues are as black and white as Marco describes. We need true diversity of thought in this country; competing ideas and a healthy discourse. We shouldn't attempt to silence dissenting voices. Marco represents all the Bolsheviks, Maoists, Fascists and Nazis stood for - one singular idea at the expense of all others. People like this truly scare me.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#738

Post by DavidWanjiru »

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…

What is the relationship between what is at stake here and the suitability of Trump as the person most suited to realizing whatever real and true issues that his supporters want realized? Does wanting those issues to be addressed mean wanting a man like Trump for president as a matter of necessity? Does the importance of the issues Trump speaks to or purports to speak to trump the quality of the man?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#739

Post by jshevek »

mangeletti wrote: post #167

tl;dr The OP feels that if somebody disagrees with his political view point they should be silenced and oustered, and have their life ruined. People like Marco are ruinous to society.

> People like Marco are ruinous to society

Yes, and ignoring people like Marcos shows integrity on Altman's part. We should never let despicable people like Marcos hold us hostage.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#740

Post by xaa »

edanm wrote: post #509
ThomPete wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy. So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is n…

I'll tell you exactly why I think Trump is dangerous to democracy. He is acting in a way that has historically, as far as I remember, led to the downfall of democracy in other countries. Things he is doing in that vein: 1. Saying that he'd put his political opponents in jail. 2. Saying that the election is rigged. 3. Encouraging the idea that if he isn't elected, the election was illegitimate. These are the facts. If…

Not GP, but I share his general viewpoint. My response would be:

1. I do not believe he would actually be able to do this (like the wall). Thankfully, unlike other aspects of our government, our judiciary is generally functional and independent. I think what he is really saying here is something like this:

"HRC should have been indicted for the e-mails. The FBI director and AG are both Obama appointees. Bill Clinton was seen meeting with the AG very shortly before the decision was announced. There are many documented cases of lower-level officials being indicted for lesser mishandling of classified information. Based on all of this, it seems reasonable to propose that her exoneration was primarily a political decision, and was unjust. I'd like to correct that."

Not watertight, but a reasonable enough argument. In other words, I think he is saying that HRC should be in jail because he believes she performed a criminal act, not simply because she was his opponent.

2 & 3. My reading is that he is doing this, but not nearly as forcefully or frequently as the press implies he does. Furthermore, our elections can be and have been rigged in the past. There are numerous examples of this in the Democratic primaries this year. The real question is not whether both parties attempt to rig elections (they do: gerrymandering, voter ID laws, laws on criminal voting are all instances of this), but whether the rigging determines the election's outcome. Most people would say that it usually does not.

So if he argues, even pre-emptively, that the elections will be rigged, it is quite likely he will have a fact-based case to make that they are. It will be a much harder slog to convince anyone that the rigging was what prevented him from being elected, and I think he will not be successful in this if he tries.

I do not believe in criticizing people's statements based on consequentialist logic: i.e. "the things he is saying may or may not be true, but we should condemn them anyway because they are corrosive to democracy". My only real criterion for whether to accept or condemn statements is based on their truth or falsehood, or likelihood, or logic.

Post reply on HN