I'm distrustful of anyone who has a headline (or placard) that starts with the words "Shame on ..." It usually prefaces some soft-headed socialist sentiment.
Shame on Y Combinator
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#992Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with th…
Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article By OP I assume you mean me, ie: the guy who submitted the article to HN, not the author. First, I'm not out for attention, but thanks for that unprompted attack (dick). I submitted this as it seemed wrong that it kept being censored/flagged off HN. Honestly I expected it to be flagged off again, but hoped at least a few more people would get to s…
So it boils down to people who know they live in extreme conformist echo chambers, and think everyone else is trapped in a similar cell, repeatedly are surprised when the isolated echo chamber fails to accurately model reality, and when that happens, its always someone else's fault because some third party are dicks, cunts, have no idea whats going on, or they're scary. The theoretical model, and the echo chamber, are immaculately conceived and error free and the source of the problem is always elsewhere.
Since I can't think of a response better than restating it myself, I think I'll leave it right there? I mean there's really nothing else to say. To paraphrase Newton what doesn't work will continue not to work unless a force is applied.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#993Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things got heated but cut him some slack, he made some good points earlier. I'm sure jacquesm doesn't care either way.
Yes, things did get heated and we understand when that happens. If a user emails us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe that this will never happen again, we're happy to unban the account, but we do need this to stop now. Plenty of slack has been cut already, and it runs out before we get to the likes of this comment.
These are challenging times for everyone, and the last thing we need is more censorship and stifling of ideas.
FWIW I think most of the editing that happens on HN harms the quality of the site and discussion (title modifications included).
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#994Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thiel donating to Trump is not a big deal. Honestly, if people really wanted to solve this 'issue' instead of criticizing the business ethics of YC, they'd go DONATE TO THE OPPOSITE CANDIDATE and VOTE ON NOVEMBER 8TH. Because in the end, it's ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, and I'm sure there's more people who disagree with Thiel than agree. But then again, media—that includes HN—needs a news story.
> Because in the end, it's ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, Not sure this is really true. Because in the end, ads are effective, political spending influences people, and people like Thiel have vastly more money than I do. If we were only worried about how Thiel was going to cast his own vote, then we wouldn't be having a conversation right now. But we are having a conversation, so it's a bit disingenuous to pretend all we shou…
I would argue that this election season is an exception: both candidates are polarizing, leaving very little room for undecided voters.
As a result, the marginal efficiency of political donations is drastically decreased.
In a regular campaign season, political donations that contribute to advertisement and outreach are more important, as there is a larger undecided population to target / convince; hence, the limit of individual donations seems applicable then, but not now.
In my opinion, regardless of who wins, a limit on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign should be enforced. Hopefully, this would remove any subjectivity associated with political rhetoric, with people focusing more on a candidates objective politics (such as policy).
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#995Marcos 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…
[deleted]
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#996Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because in the end, it's ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, Not sure this is really true. Because in the end, ads are effective, political spending influences people, and people like Thiel have vastly more money than I do. If we were only worried about how Thiel was going to cast his own vote, then we wouldn't be having a conversation right now. But we are having a conversation, so it's a bit disingenuous to pretend all we shou…
I would argue that this election season is an exception: both candidates are polarizing, leaving very little room for undecided voters. As a result, the marginal efficiency of political donations is drastically decreased. In a regular campaign season, political donations that contribute to advertisement and outreach are more important, as there is a larger undecided population to target / convince; hence, the limit o…
> In my opinion, regardless of who wins, a limit on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign should be enforced
Okay, and how about organizations that have absolutely no affiliation with the candidate, who simply have an opinion and want to express it through ad spending? Can they have unlimited budgets and can I make unlimited donations to them?
We need to limit paid political speech, like ads. Not harshly, but at patiently and firmly.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#997Marcos 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…
this is the most condescending and hypocritical post i think I may have ever read in my life. dear lord.
> 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.
Translation: he disagrees with me therefore he must not follow or understand politics. Do I have any proof of this? No.
Reality: Those that actually follow politics and keep informed are the ones who are really disgusted by Trump.
>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 what you vote for and what you get.
Translation: I'm assuming people who disagree with me have this simplistic view of politics without any proof.
Reality: Trump is a unique and scary fascist beast. McCain and Romney and every other candidate for decades has been a great, upstanding, person morally. They had the fitness to lead and I simply disagreed with them on some policy points. This is a different beast entirely. The fact that you don't see this actually tells me you don't follow politics at all and are assuming that this election is the same as others.
>If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency.
Translation: If you disagree with me or rebuke racism and sexism you must not want dissent.
Reality: dissent is fine and encouraged. We'd have loved Rubio or Jeb but that isn't what we got.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#998Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Trump is an existential threat to our democracy If one person, even a President can be an existential threat to your democracy then your democracy is already in a very bad shape.
Exactly; a good system by definition should be robust to these kinds of things.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#999Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Surely there are adversaries so fearsome that the noble thing is to cut ties and avoid collateral damage, but a mob of angry partisans on the internet shouldn't be one of them.
To do that would mean giving up on civil political disagreement and sets a terrible precedent.
I don't think any good work is being undone here but perhaps you could say some political capital is being spent defending the free and open exchange of ideas.
Re: Shame on Y Combinator
#1000Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.
This is serious question-begging, though. Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made. The ones I've talked to largely believe that he's just rude, and sometimes directs that through traits like race, gender, and disability. On policy, they would say that opposing things like illegal immigration isn't actually racism. Laugh at that if you want, say th…
Just look up his behavior on the Central Park 5 (and he still thinks they're guilty, even after all the evidence). Also his nationwide stop-and-frisk desires. None of that has to do with illegal immigration and it's very racist.