Shame on Y Combinator • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#801

Post by daveheq » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

Wit so I'm supposed to be enraged because Y Combinator won't cut ties with an associate who supported a candidate some people don't like? There's no shame here. Hillary's got her own dirt too so should everyone who associates with either candidate be ashamed?

There's nothing heinous or shameful about supporting a presidential candidate; I don't want either to be President but it's ridiculous to hold Y Combinator accountable for an associate's political choice, those people expecting otherwise should be ashamed.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#802

Post by xaa » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

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?

> When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences...why would we not criticize the people who hold them?

I'm an academic. Academics frequently come up with ideas that have, or would have if implemented, abhorrent real-world consequences. If you're a liberal, think hardcore, Heritage Institute supply-side economics. If you're a conservative, think Karl Marx.

It is perfectly legitimate, and healthy, to criticize the ideas which you think are bad. However, the problem is that we as a society don't know a priori which ones really are and aren't bad. People have different opinions. The best way we've figured out to determine which are truly good and bad ideas is to have an open "marketplace of ideas" with free and open debate.

If we criticize and marginalize people who have unpopular (= we think are bad) ideas, then the only ideas left will be the popular ones. And that, I believe, is anathema to progress, far more so than letting bad ideas be aired and eventually lose in the court of public opinion. Another outcome is that the unpopular idea might turn out to be better and win, but would not have have a chance to if it were prematurely stifled. The best way to go, therefore, IMO, is to criticize bad ideas but not the people who hold them.

Humanity has tried before to stifle opposing viewpoints, and largely succeeded. It resulted in the Middle Ages. I prefer an open society.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#803

Post by nathanaldensr » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #614

tptacek wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Sam Altman, if Peter Thiel said some of what Trump said, they'd stop endorsing him. I could not be more baffled by this stance: someone who speaks like Donald Trump is too toxic to affiliate with YC, but someone who diligently works to make Donald Trump President of the United States is not.

Let's say arguendo that Donald Trump is an objectively harmful candidate to democratic society. Peter Thiel may have given far more money than what most people even possess, but it's categorically the same as those who are voters for Trump -- both parties are providing some very direct support for Trump, and Thiel is arguably one step more distal than the voter. I think that at some point, you must stop punitive cons…

There is a deliberately defined limit: The rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. People are being asked by the Left to convict Trump of things he hasn't even done yet; after all, he is an "existential threat to democracy." The fact that HRC, Obama, and Bush actually did things that are criminal by any reasonable interpretation of the law--well, that we are asked to ignore.

This isn't about rational thought and calm, fact-based discourse. This is nothing more than monkey behavior and pure red-vs-blue emotionalism.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#804

Post by throwaway_415 » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

surfmike wrote: post #420

I'm against Trump but this holier-than-thou grandstanding demanding shunning anyone who supports Trump is tiring and small-minded. It's a symptom of a society intolerant of other political beliefs. Moreover, do you think ostracizing 40% of society for their political beliefs is really going to improve our political future? It's easier to cut out people we disagree with than arguing with their beliefs (civilly). Let's…

No thanks, as a non-white male I will not have my quality of life destroyed due to racist old whites who aren't willing to come into the modern age.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#805

Post by forgetsusername » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

evanmoran wrote: post #533

It takes great bravery to allow your beliefs to affect your bottom line. Thiel has demonstrated this bravery by spending his time, money and reputation on Trump. Now it's Altman’s turn. If he truly believes that "This election is exceptional. Donald Trump represents an unprecedented threat to America", then Marco is correct that supporting Thiel is against his beliefs. Good on Marco for calling it out to us so eloque…

>Be brave Altman. We'll support you

Do you support him whether he cuts ties with Thiel or not?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#806

Post by smonff » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

I don't know why there is so much hype on debating if companies got sexism and racism or other oppression issues: they do have some, period. And it should be strongly improved.

If we pretend the contrary, we really have to question ourselves.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#807

Post by webXL » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #571

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…

>Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands. I'm not sure that's true. Trump is a narcissist who wants to be loved. He's not trying to be hated. What these posts do is create or reinforce cultural and political divide in a very ugly way. The message is that if you're a Trump supporter you're immoral and because you're immoral there's no way to compromise with you. The author may get brownie points from other me…

Well put. I could write a 500-word post attacking Marco and all Hillary supporters for this behavior, but that's not going to change any minds.

We're much better off scrutinizing ideas rather than candidates who frequently change their ideas based on who's listening or their chances to get into/hold onto office.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#808

Post by rfrank » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

etjossem wrote: post #795

rfrank wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FBI report. Of course, it's a "joke" that Hillary "can't recall." Even though, "The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010…

The original source is not an FBI report and you are completely misinformed. An unknown blog which contains nothing but right-wing hit pieces claims to have anonymous sources in the State Department. Until I hear this quote echoed by professional journalists with the integrity to verify their sources, I will take it with the grain of salt it deserves.

"completely misinformed"

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-...

"“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program internally at State, it was in her office or on a secure call. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program externally it was at the White House. Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”"

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#809

Post by forgetsusername » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

swah wrote: post #710

I am an outsider, but I don't understand why Wikileaks doesn't leak into CNN.com and friends in the MSM? or something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY ? Nothing bad sticks to the democrat candidate. I'm not talking about proofs, but about headlines that get written all the time for clicks. Where are those for Hillary? Not on CNN, nytimes, etc. Every day there is a new headline about how Trump wi…

>Every day there is a new headline about how Trump winning would destroy the universe.

I'm also an outsider (Canadian). It seems like an endless stream of anti-Trump news everywhere I go. Yet HN had a thread just the other day with people commenting about how "unfair" things are towards Clinton. I don't get it, either.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#810

Post by thothamon » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

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…

Exactly. There is no First Amendment protection against _social consequences_ for abhorrent speech. Companies that choose to protect people who threaten the values of democracy are _choosing to do so because they want to_, not because of some higher calling or noble purpose.