741–750 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pence is on the ticket. You don't put him on the ticket unless you are homophobic and sexist. Pence has proven himself to be truly outstanding in these areas.
Thiel himself is gay. Surely you don't accuse him of being homophobic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> more and more Moral Fashion Police on the democratic side of the isle This hits the nail on the head. It's a moralistic sort of righteous indignation and it's profoundly, dangerously illiberal . In addition, many of these are the same people who are pleased that HRC is not being challenged over the revelations in the email leaks so far. I want whoever takes office to have been vetted as much as possible by journali…
People keep claiming that this sentiment is "profoundly illiberal". Those people should read more liberal philosophy, because it is not as if this is the first time this issue has come up. You can bring it back to John Stuart Mill if you like, but (very unsurprisingly) it's also one of the major themes of post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 excu…
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…
> For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very
> important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a
> group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group
> who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own
> form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are
> benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and
> so on.
I grew up in the South, and I have friends and family who have very much ended up on the "have-not" side of the economic equation over the past couple of decades. The US today is a shittier place if you're anywhere near the bottom half of the income chart. If you grew up poor in a poor state and didn't happen to get a good education, our country doesn't know what to do with you.
We took away your low-knowledge-but-high-skills manufacturing jobs. Those got outsourced or automated away. The chronic pain you likely suffer from those back breaking jobs is even worse today. First your doctor got you hooked on Oxy, then that was taken away, so there's a real chance you're self-medicating with any of a cornucopia of drugs up to and including heroin and meth.
You don't have an employer to provide you healthcare, and you can't afford it on your own. You're sick, tired, and unemployed. And you didn't do anything to deserve it. You took the public education you were offerred and worked hard at the jobs you could find.
You're too poor to move away from your shithole town. You rely on your constellation of family and friends so you have no mobility. Even if you could move, your lack of service skills and the booming real estate market means you couldn't find a job in a big city that paid enough for you to survive.
These people are angry, and justifiably so. The wealthy and the urban progressives have reshaped the country to their benefit and left a lot of people behind. It's a great time to be a skilled service worker in a big city, and not a great time to be much else.
So I totally get where Trump supporters are coming from. If you listen to his rhetoric, he knows exactly the pain these people feel and speaks directly to them. I don't blame them for supporting him.
The problem is that he's full of shit and not a single thing he is promising them will come to pass, or is even a coherent proposal. The heartbreaking part of this election is not that people support Trump who is a raging asshole, but sadly that they believe he would even help them if he won.
This is basically a zero-win election for the poor in the US.
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…
Why should we suppose there is any other agenda than what he says it is?
>he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years
He _appeals_ to that group but what he has said does not indicate any serious intention to benefit it.
An utter disinterest in the details of how to bring it about such a benefit and a near total focus on blame shifting to vulnerable groups and conspiracy theories makes it painfully clear this is merely a self interested demagogue.
This is very deeply regrettable because the group he appeals to does in fact need help. But as has happened repeatedly historical, they have instead been lured in by an aggressively anti-democracy demagogue.
This is a disgrace to punish someone just because they have different view. Kudos to Y Cominator to not cave in. Peter Thiel is free to support and donate to whoever candidate he feels strong about. If you don't like it, donate to the other candidate. Dragging it into business and people life is so Mccarthyism.
Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences? Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push…
Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adult life is full of personal choices that adults are required to be accountable for.
Then perhaps you'd like to get rid of anonymous voting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is "silencing opposing views" Well, I'm not 100% sure that telling your billionaire buddy that since he's become a politician in a movement that you view as dangerous to your country and its people perhaps you shouldn't do business together for a while, qualifies as silencing his views. Still, I don't think it was right to demand this of YC. > Are you pondering why any non-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there…
He hasn't "become a politician", it isn't proposed "for a while". > I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold We were talking about "various racist and misogynistic ideas", not "supremacist views". Are you talking about any view you see as subjectively racist/misogynist, or only specific ones? > Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people Antoinette's famous comment…
There is not much room for subjectivity when extreme views are concerned, certainly no more than in any other moral question. Either you think an equal power distribution among the races and the sexes is a desirable, high-priority goal or you don't. There's room for subjectivity in the means of achieving that goal and in its exact priority, but not in recognizing it as one. In any event, Trump's movement is certainly much more supremacist than any other mainstream and establishment conservative movement in recent history, and leaders at YC have said they regard it as abhorrent.
> Also, she was a monarch
Here we come to the question of whether government is the only external power affecting people's lives, or that there are a multitude of powers. It has been firmly established that the latter view is the correct one. The moral responsibility of an unelected and unconstitutional government to its subjects stems from the fact it has power over them (as it is not formally obligated to do a specific job); every other power has similar responsibility, from the same moral argument, to a degree commensurate with its influence.