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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#971

Post by abecedarius »

byuu wrote: post #324
gondo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this seems to be a problem of presidential democracy (voting for 1 man). parliamentary democracy, where people are voting for a party and even specifically for multiple people nominated by the party, is solving this problem.

Right, but how do we get the US to move to a system of proportional voting and power? We're never going to get a president+congress that is controlled by one party to vote and pass new laws / ratify new amendments that change the system such that they'll no longer be in control. And we can't get the current two parties to agree on whether the sun is hot or not, let alone on radically changing the way our democracy wo…

The most obvious avenue is to promote ballot propositions to change the voting mechanism, in states that allow this, like California. California recently changed to "open primaries", for example. (A bad idea, that one, but approval voting or score voting could go through the same way.)

It'd need to get pushed from outside the major parties, I guess by someone genuinely public-spirited, since the benefit is very diffuse and long-term. Unless some Machiavelli can figure out an angle -- I sure can't. Once it's had a toehold in a couple states for a few election cycles, though, I think there's a good chance it'd spread, because it seems hard to argue against once it's on the table as a serious option. (Maybe the strongest move then for the parties would be to muddy the waters with instant runoff voting and other such complications.)

(I think approval voting is more 'American' than proportional representation and haven't really thought about how we'd move to proportional rep, but there's the same first step available.)

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#972

Post by epaga »

jrs235 wrote: post #107
epaga wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flagged is one thing, a previous discussion was additionally set as "dead". As far as I know that can only be done by an admin, no? If it was all an automatic thing done by the system, then I have no issue with it. BTW, it looks like they turned off the flagged state of this post and are giving the discussion a chance. Well done. Let's hope the comments here don't devolve into silly political bashing...

Enough flags turn it dead. Mods not required.

OK, I had not realized this. Thanks.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#973

Post by marbletiles »

thescribe wrote: post #943
dragonwriter wrote: post #939

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can advocate for it. Whether or not you believe that, in fact. People may question both your preferred action and the basis on which you advocate for it, however.

Wouldn't it be easier just to agree to no witch hunts than to hope the winds of public opinion never make us the witch?

But what about if you actually do have a "witch" on your hands? Like, say, an actual fascist?

I think one of the conflicts here is arising because some people see Trump as an actual fascist, and are advocating the kinds of actions that are required to deal with that. Others see him as just another politician, no worse than Clinton, and therefore see the actions of the other lot as excessive and unwarranted.

Sama, however, is trying to have his cake and eat it. He says he believes Trump is a threat to the republic but eh, if people want to support that it's up to them.

Which is arguably open-minded tolerance of intolerance, but also the sort of "so open your brain falls out" liberalism that (ironically) Trump fans hate so much.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#974

Post by marbletiles »

thescribe wrote: post #937
marbletiles wrote: post #781

Man alive this thread. When SV wonders why it has a diversity problem, just point 'em here. Where were all you Free Speech zealots when Thiel destroyed Gawker? Where were all you Political Choices Are Sacred crew when SOPA was being proposed? Where were all you "protect rich bigots" stans when it was Brendan Eich? Oh wait, that's right, you were on the wrong side there too, my bad. As for you "I guess there's a 'wron…

Ok how about this: Anyone who supports Hillary is on the wrong side of History and holds views so vile no American should hold them. I can advocate for Pao to be fired now right?

You can advocate but you're going to have to back up your argument first. This is trivial to do for Trump.

Clinton is not currently trying to undermine US democracy, use entire religions as immigration criteria, evade tax on a massive scale, defend her historic sexual abuse, or construct a fascist state, so your job is a little more difficult making your case.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#975

Post by marbletiles »

inimino wrote: post #965
marbletiles wrote: post #537

The most damning thing to me about this is that Peter Thiel is content to let YC take the flack for him. He knows he's damaging them; that partners are walking away from YC, and it's down to him. A decent person would walk away at that point, to save YC and take the heat on themselves. He doesn't. Which makes it all the more odd that sama will still go to bat for someone he a) disagrees with and b) wouldn't do the sa…

He should support the political ostracism by making it easier for everyone by ostracising himself? What an odd definition you must have of "decent".

The political ostracism has happened - people are already distancing themselves from him. It's a given here.

I'm saying he should limit the damage of it to himself, rather than letting his friends be dragged down with him, yes.

By forcing YC to stand with him, he has dragged them into his fight and undone a lot of their previous good work.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#976

Post by adamlett »

applecore wrote: post #569
matt4077 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of hand-waving high-minded rhetoric. The problem is that Trump does not represent those 40% in any significant way. - "free speech" is a protection against the government, not against Marcos/YC/whoever no longer working with you, which is also a form of speech. - Trump is not and has never been part of the white, male underclass that makes up his support. He connects with them on exactly one level: hate.…

You're conflating the First Amendment with free speech. The First Amendment is a protection against the government. Free speech is a natural right that could be exercised in the absence of government.

There are no such things as «natural rights».

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#977

Post by sosodaft »

jamesshorten wrote: post #641
sosodaft wrote: post #121

from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-po... 2. The anchor of a major news network donates lots of money to organizations fighting against gay marriage, and in his spare time he writes editorials arguing that homosexuals are weakening the moral fabric of the country. The news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior and fire the anchor. a) This is acceptable; the news network…

Your questions present a false dichotomy. You can be against the news anchor merely because of his principles and against the school board because of theirs. To me this is logically consistent because you believe the viewpoints themselves are incorrect.

The problem is that you're not the arbiter of all correctness in the universe--what if you're not around to tell everyone what's correct, or what if you don't know, or are wrong? Peoples' careers and lives shouldn't be subject to vagaries of public opinion.

That's why we have a legal system for resolving legitimate grievances. If YC believes that (for example) Peter Thiel has damaged their brand by so strongly supporting Trump, they can sue him for their just compensation. If they find that they have no real grounds for such, they can deal with the fact that we live in a society that prizes having a broad diversity of opinions, some of which are odious but which we must tolerate anyway.

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#978

Post by Zarath »

throwaway_415 wrote: post #794
Zarath wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You cannot be serious. I have no sympathy and absolutely pure hatred for white nationalist nazi types on Breitbart. That is justified. I can't wait for all the racist old whites to die out in 3 to 4 decades resulting in world peace.

> You cannot be serious. I have no sympathy and absolutely pure hatred for white nationalist nazi types on Breitbart. That is justified. I can't wait for all the racist old whites to die out in 3 to 4 decades resulting in world peace.

Man you should read your own writing. You admit to being full of hatred and can't wait for a certain race of people to die out. Sounds about as bad as something a Nazi might say (oh if only a certain group of people was gone, the world would be perfect!!!).

And who said anything about Breitbart?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#979

Post by 7Z7 »

xaa wrote: post #802
7Z7 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 criticiz…

That's all well and good, in the dreamy theoretical lands of academia. But when ideas turn into actions, and the actions have been seen before and we know the consequences, can we not criticize those who now promote them?

Re: Shame on Y Combinator

#980

Post by rmc »

prh8 wrote: post #350
tptacek wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling Altman: rethink the endorsement.

And once that happens, that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump. I understand that Thiel's involvement with YC is not "employment," but the point is that 1) yes, people are suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment and 2) high visibility people doing so would have a massive ripple effect on everybody else. It's just another thing that goes from "that's insane and you can't do that…

> that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump

Except that democratic voting systems are set up to make to make it impossible to prove who you voted for.

Post reply on HN