Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.

Don't lie with dogs. Don't take money from Andreessen if you think Snowden was a hero. Don't continue to partner with Thiel after he continues to support Trump after revelations of sexual predation put to rest that any of this is just folksy bluntness. Trump is the most dangerous candidate I've ever seen. MSNBC has reported that he's contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against ISIS.

Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC, and frankly surprising given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping first and money second.

View on HN

> Don't lie with dogs. Don't take money from Andreessen if you think Snowden was a hero. Don't continue to partner with Thiel after he continues to support Trump after revelations of sexual predation put to rest that any of this is just folksy bluntness.

This is just silly. For most people, even the most angelic, ideal political figure has done things and made decisions that people can credibly consider to be "evil". If someone from Code Pink told me that Hillary Clinton's consistent, unwarranted hawkishness meant that she had the blood of 100s of thousands on her hands and was irredeemable, I'm not convinced I could mount a credible defense of her actions (again, I think you could find such a decision for most politicians). The idea that I should fire every Hillary supporter because of this is beyond ridiculous (and it's hardly a slam-dunk case that hundreds of thousands dead in (e.g.) Iraq is a lesser sin that whatever Andreesen and Trump have done).

To be clear, I'm not endorsing the above point of view, but rather pointing out how doomed to collapse your model of the world is. Punishing people for supporting political figures who you think are irredeemable is disgusting, and it's insane to me that it's not immediately obvious to you that this is a weapon that can be pointed in every direction.

This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men. There are dictators that rise, and there are would-be dictators that were resisted strongly enough before hand to stop their rise in the first place.

Hillary Clinton is not a dictator. Thiel is not an employee. I do treat people differently based on their actions and who they support and you should to. Putin didn't just walk up to the Kremlin and tell them he was going to seize power, he was able to do it because people let him, then he seized the press to complete his control over the information Russians have access to.

> This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men.

There is no universal agreement on how to categorize every action into "evil" or "not evil". Those of us who are capable of understanding society as being larger than our tiny little bubble are aware that there are people on the other side of each issue that feel just as strongly about their points. For every person who claims Trump is "clearly evil", you can find a person who claims Hillary is. These claims per se are worth approximately nothing, particularly when you expect other people to act based on your interpretation of what evil is. 60 years ago you'd find people openly stating that interracial marriage was evil; 100 years ago being insufficiently religious was evil. I find it extraordinarily childish when people take the position that they can fight dirty because they claim they have the moral high ground. News flash: _everyone thinks they're on the moral high ground_.

Look, I don't even like the guy, and from the beginning of the election season Clinton has had my vote, but this existential total-war approach to politics is disgusting.

> Hillary Clinton is not a dictator

When exactly were you imbued with the divine right to decide that 1) being "a dictator" is the only relevant factor for demanding that people divest from supporting a candidate and 2) Trump is a dictator (using a definition of "dictator" that literally nobody else in the universe uses)?

If someone claimed that Hillary Clinton was pro-rape and pro-rape-culture for attacking victims of sexual assault[1] and that justified demands that someone else cut ties with a Clinton-supporting "part-time partner" of their firm, I'd find it just as abhorrent.

Your bar for cutting ties with someone is that they support a political candidate that _you_ find evil (or more evil than the alternative). Given that your voice isn't worth anything more than anyone else in the country, this ends up reducing to "people are obligated to cut ties with any figure for whom at least one random dude thinks they're evil". I hope it's clear how nonsensical that is.

So should we despise people who support Hillary too? She's no pure angel either.

Certainly no angel, but doesn't promote hate either. Absence of hail is not sunshine.

The only difference between Hillary and Trump is her corruption is complicated enough to sweep under a rug.

She doesn't openly advocate corruption. If you seek leadership in your organization and that leader openly advocates corruption, then that's a clear red flag. For the rest, trust due process and facts.

ps: I'm Canadian, I couldn't care less. In most provinces, both candidates would be considered center-right and hawkish war-mongers. edit: I do care, in terms of avoiding populism and war, but I'm not a strong Clinton advocate either. Just a concerned neighbour.

If Hillary (or Trump) say things so despicable that could reasonably get you fired if you weren't repeating a presidential candidate, then we should despise anyone who repeats those words or explicitly supports those words.

I'm not currently aware of things that Hillary said that would be considered independently reprehensible if my coworker said them, but if I missed it I'd like to hear it, but if such statements exist I would have no problem saying anyone who repeated such statements should be despised.

If someone says they support some weird tax plan, it also doesn't matter whether some mainstream candidate proposed it, that is simply never grounds for disciplinary action. If someone says that women simply don't belong in the board room, that is grounds for disciplinary regardless of which party candidate said it before you.

I'm not saying it was you, but folks on HN have defended the rights of people to publish rape fantasy. That, in my opinion, is at least as bad, and probably worse. No one called for them to lose their jobs. The hypocrisy is hard to deal with.

Hillary has some views and statements that I find reprehensible, but the contrast with Trump would make most of my complaints seem silly.

Yes, but Hillary has done some despicable things, like defending a child rapist (and laughing about it).

Moral accusations aside (after all, no politician has a clean slate), I'm really curious why you think it's a good idea to mix politics and business?

Personally, though, I think both candidates have their fair share of dirt. Here in California, we are pretty shielded from the other side. I've been home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (where pg is from) for the past month working remotely, and it has been a real eye-opener hearing the other side of the story.

Full disclosure: I'm voting for Hillary.

> "given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping first and money second"

Can you elaborate? Not that I disagree with you, but I am curious what your thoughts are.

> "Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC"

I strongly disagree ("BUT {mainstream political candidate} is, represents, or supports X" isn't a valid rebuttal either, no matter what X is -- supporting said candidate should never justify an employer jeopardizing one's livelihood in a _truly_ democratic society; McCarthyism is a great analogy).

You're making a mistake that seems to be common in the US. You're assuming politics can just be excluded or ignored somehow. It's an idea that is utterly ridiculous.

Politics is about designing how humans live together. Everything you do or say that somehow has an effect on another human being, whether it is direct or indirect, whether it changes or reaffirms the status quo is political.

Continueing to do business with Thiel is just as political as to stop doing business with him. To pretend otherwise only shows both how privileged and ignorant of politics you are.

/s/politics/government

Yes, and I'm not talking about "social politics" which pervade every social interaction (given we're still very much a tribal species); I'm talking about governing politics -- which political party someone belongs to, which candidate they support, which mainstream opinions they have, etc.

The difference between the two is merely one of scale and often not even that. This election shows this especially well. Gay marriage, abortion and many other issues that are "social politics" are very much on the table.

The main issues are things like immigration, trade, health care, foreign policy, etc.

These social issues are mainly used around election time to polarize and to win voters:

Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008 http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/

No matter who is elected, you're going to end up with the same social policies trending towards progress: pro-choice, legal gay marriage, legal marijuana, etc.

if Trump ends up in the White House (thankfully he most likely won't), it will look more or less like every other presidency. Trump's "Facism" (or whatever you want to call it) will end up effectively being the same thing (nothing) as Obama's "Change".

Remember, we have things like multiple branches of government, checks and balances, and the Constitution; we're not going to just devolve into Nazi Germany because Trump was elected President (contrary to any FUD). THAT is just crazy talk.

I've seen ads every year put out by opposing candidates asserting the demise of our society as we know it should said opposition get elected. Every year, it happens...

Because the stakes are different this time. You can support anyone, even Ted Cruz and I'll continue to do business with you, while disagreeing with almost everything you say. But Trump threatens the survival of American democracy. Trump threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is.

This is the kind of familiar diatribe I am talking about, that I've heard over and over again about every Republican Party candidate:

"But Bush threatens the survival of American democracy. Bush threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is."

^ Does this ring a bell to you? It should.

No need for exaggerated inflammatory language.

Yes, I don't like Trump at all either, but just vote for Hillary like I am, instead of issuing an opinionated ad hominem attack. You're better than that. There's no reason to believe almost half of our fellow American population is behind a fascist dictator.

You are correct in that the rhetoric used regarding Bush was in retrospect overheated, though it cannot be forgotten that George W. Bush is a literal-not-fictional war criminal by most reasonable readings of international law; Bush was by no means even a mediocre politician but ranks comfortably in the bottom ten of American presidents, ever. He earned every drop of rancor he got.

Trump is a difference of kind, not degree. He is an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite (and not in the "don't agree with Israel, AIPAC says you're an anti-Semite" fashion but the actual, "happy to imply that Jews secretly run the world" anti-Semite position). He has admitted to sexual assault on tape and tries to discredit those with claims against him by implying that the women in question are too ugly to assault. He is actively attempting to undermine trust in American elections by claiming that all of the polls are lying and that the only way he can lose is that the election is rigged. He is the venal id of the reactionary right and he is different from anything that came before. These are not things that have been done even by Republicans. They are not merely things that can be waved away with muddy gray-fallacy middle-ground thinking; that Trump's candidacy is credible in the face of the literal daily drop of another crime or another attempt to undermine the electoral system in which he is participating is an incipient threat to that system.

This is not a game of Internet gotcha-fallacy where victory goes to the first person who can quote a bit of Latin they don't understand, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" in the first place. It is a moral argument to character. People aren't saying that arguments made by to Trump or Trump's supporters are invalid because they're blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes, they're saying that Trump and Trump's supporters are abjectly terrifying and blisteringly unqualified to be anywhere near the levers of power to a degree heretofore unseen because they are blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes. What they are is why the argument is made.

Yes, there is no fallacious reasoning if one takes your well-written hyperbole literally, but given that it is just exaggeration, these arguments are still invalid attacks on character.

Regardless, I'm not here to defend Trump (at risk of contradicting myself, I actually agree with everything you say about his character, even if they are "ad hominem" attacks); my position is still that someone shouldn't lose their job over supporting a mainstream political candidate; that is not Democratic, and reeks of infringing on one's First Amendment rights.

If we're in North Korea, yes, you should at the very least get fired (and also sentenced to hard labor) over your political views; but this is America.

The one aspect of diversity that the Valley needs to work on improving is tolerance of alternative (read: mainstream Republican Party) political views -- it has only gotten worse here over time.

I can't possibly see how anyone aware of these principles at stake can somehow feel justified in undermining them.

Because they're not being undermined. No private citizen is required to associate with any other private citizen except for the provision of protected classes in the course of public service or public business (and that is not an obligation of the patron, but rather an obligation of the business; a business is required to accept the custom of a black man, a black man is not required to patronize the Klan).

What I am saying only has become even slightly controversial as the reactionary right has lost power and the ability to exert their desired mores in society. Political activity earns political response, and if you want to make a case for the lack of ethics of such a thing I invite you to make it instead of just claim the end result.

Okay, so a public business shouldn't fire someone for having dissenting political views -- that is discrimination, and it is the same kind of discrimination as any other: racial, sexual, etc. We're not talking about Altman and Thiel's friendship here.

In fact, there are laws:

California

The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies.

(^ note: IANAL, and this is not a legal threat against ANYONE)

So it looks like the governing body of the State of California is in majority agreement with our position.

>There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.

Doesn't having to base your argument on lies like this undermine it?

> There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.

Do you realize that the media that is telling you this has also lied to you on just about everything else in the past (e.g, Afghanistan, Iraq, ...)?

Why would you believe anything liars say?

CNN is now effectively nothing more than the Clinton News Network.

I'm voting for Trump because Trump is the candidate the establishment is actively trying to destroy. And virtually every story the mainstream media has produced on Trump can be debunked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com