Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions
medium.com
medium.com
Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin...
Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"
The obvious answer to that question would be, "their track record as investors could demonstrate that." But no, in 2011, if you supported SOPA, you're out, regardless of your track record.
I think it's fair to ask whether, if Peter Thiel is so clueless as to donate $1.25 million to Donald Trump today, after so much of his dirty laundry has come to light and after this has been reflected in the polls, how could he be a good investor?
If it was the right decision for SOPA, it's right decision today.
This avoids the need for language like this: "fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe." I feel that this sort of language makes us fear one another and drives a wedge that need not be there.
The decision YC is making about Thiel is also both a political decision and a business decision.
Silicon Valley already has tremendous diversity issues and a reputation as out-of-touch. If the future of America and the world only gets more diverse, which seems to be the case, then YC has a vested interest in being on the right side of history.
These aren't apples to apples comparisons; this issue isn't that simple.
From the article, these are companies like Comcast and Godaddy. It wasn't about actual YC companies.
If you're smart and gritty and lucky enough to make a fortune with a start-up, then you probably have the minimum brain cells necessary to decide whether an investment opportunity is half-decent. Win some, lose some, nobody sees the difference because most of your wealth is either still in the company you worked on or is professionally managed, so there's little chance you will ever actually have to work again, and the public will still view you as a "winner."
To me, conflating entrepreneurs and investors - especially investors in politics - is about as silly as asking Hollywood celebrities about U.S. foreign policy.
He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him.
Thiel, of course, does not think "freedom and democracy are compatible": https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
As we all should, since many/most electronic voting machines don't even have a paper trail. How is it that so many standard liberal positions from five or ten years ago have somehow now become ultra conservative?
Trump may be saying it for the wrong reasons, but he's absolutely right that the integrity of the election is in doubt.
It's fine to question things, but just saying "it's in doubt" with no argument is just Trump style FUD.
> Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
You might also be interested in some analyses I found of how these points apply to Trump. Unfortunately some of these links are a few months old so they don't mention some more recent events (the second debate gave us plenty of more material for #3 and #14 and probably others, and the whole thing with the tape and the sexual assault allegations adds fuel to #12):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456
http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-loo...
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-che...
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/
(and if I find more within the edit window, I'll add them)
For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
Those on both sides of this debate who seek to silence and ostracise their opponents should rethink that position.
You say people are quick to throw around the term, yet you're equally quick to disregard those who see some very obvious similarities between Trump's style of campaigning and the rise of various fascist leaders.
These clues are not subtle in Trump's case. It's mind boggling to think that people do not see them. It's like watching Blue's Clues with the audience of children yelling "THE CLUE IS RIGHT THERE!" and Steve is completely oblivious for the whole episode. In the end Blue dies because Steve is ignorant. Blue is our Democracy. You are Steve.
Would you also apply this to Al Gore's complains back in 2000? Why or why not?
> We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now. [1]
(He also is fond of claiming "the system" is rigged, if not elections directly.)
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-bil...
His railing against the system regards economics and yes the foray of money into politics. It is in a similar category of statements but is very different than claiming the voting machines are rigged. Yes, some Bernie supporters alleged there was outright voting manipulation, but the Sanders campaign did not directly allege that.
Trump is suggesting that actual votes are being miscounted deliberately. That the entire voting system of the US cannot be trusted to provide the result the public give it. That's a very different charge, a very dangerous one, and utterly unproven.
But between the Dems and the Reps? Those two are fairly balanced. There is some rigging in some states through gerrymandering and making it harder for some groups to vote, but it's on a very different scale than the rigging towards the two-party establishment.
A) That's been done before (Gore, 2000).
B) There's evidence of voter fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
I hope no one intimidates voters, though. That's not right no matter who does it or why.
Please, spare us the pearl-clutching. You're only fooling people who don't know their history.
[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
[2] eg sues critical news papers, threatens opponents with prison, encourages voter intimidation, encourages foreign powers to engage in cyber-warfare, blames "magazines" for terrorism
This is more believable to me since he has been giving talks on it for the last three or four years [0].
Liberal newspapers might want to convince you that this is all about hating democracy, women, and the free press but that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. There seems to be a very small amount of dirt that has been dug up and turned from a mole hill into a mountain.
It's hard to image Thiel could possibly believe the latter but surely it's impossible that he believes the former.
>...Liberal newspapers...
Like the WSJ?
My central point is that he's been speaking about both economic and technological stagnation for many years and it is foolish to consider his actions now as completely distinct from this.
I've no idea whether he believes Trump will win or not. I expect that he didn't require it. His donation allowed him to speak at the RNC, and this has no doubt increased his political reach massively.
I was joking when I said liberal newspapers. They are not liberal at all.
>..There seems to be a very small amount of dirt that has been dug up..
I am unfamiliar with that definition of "small".
>...His donation allowed him to speak at the RNC...
Is the arrow of time also a liberal media conspiracy?
However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. I agree organizations have every right to not affiliate themselves with those investors, but in the real world there are plenty of examples of investors who hold controversial political views.
Logically, there is no a priori reason why "Thiel is a good investor." and "Thiel strongly endorses Trump." cannot both be true. To go further, I don't see an a priori reason why an investor with political views that are antagonistic to the industry he focuses on cannot be a very good investor. It might not be likely, but on its own I do not agree with using politics as a criterion for investing performance. That's silly - just look at investing performance directly.
To go even further, I think it would be disingenuous for groups like YC to announce they will distance themselves from investors they disagree with because "How could they be qualified investors if they hold this opinion?" That's masking the real reason for not affiliating with them, and in my opinion they shouldn't have to mask that anyway.
I also think using that sort of language establishes a precedent that makes the industry less inclusive to people with opposing political views. Much of the tech industry is progressive and liberal, but it would be ridiculous if this was applied to potential founders. Should founders who support SOPA or Trump not be admitted to YC if they are well into a startup that will most likely become the next Google?
Put another way, if you read Zero to One and you found it to be very insightful and full of legitimately good ideas, would you call it into question after learning that Thiel supports Trump? Doesn't that strike you as an ad hominem? Sure, Thiel's political views might be relevant or worth noting as an investor, but they certainly do not define his investment performance.
I'm not commenting on whether Paul Graham is accurate or inaccurate, modest or arrogant, but I'm not surprised that someone of his position holds strong views on his pet predictors.
This is probably just me making assumptions.
I'm not trying to say white males are victims but the more we draw racial lines the more we segregate our society.
Seems unlikely.
Which is what this conversation's about.
> This in turn chills applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males.
With the crush of applicants now I doubt more than a very few applicants are not going to apply because Thiel is on the board.
Check your priors.
Even extreme ones? Can you brush everything Trump has done under political cover? I really think that's going too far.
And as is often pointed out by women, sexually predatory behavior is much more common than most men realize. (not sure if you are a man or woman, but putting it out there for other people, mostly because I also tend to forget this point).
He still has significant influence with YC, and has so far refused to personally distance himself from Thiel despite raging against Trump on twitter (a fact over which he's been taken to task by the likes of @pinboard and tptacek).
For me, I think the Thiel situation is worse, since his judgement is very important to the companies he works with, and that judgement is suspect given his recent behavior.
Granted, this is still just "talk," but to people like me, it's indicative of how he tends to double-down instead of moderating himself. I don't have a lot of confidence he would begin moderating himself once presented with actual power.
Trump does not threaten technological innovation the way that SOPA did.
>I think it's fair to ask whether, if Peter Thiel is so clueless as to donate
In what way is Peter Thiel demonstrating cluelessness comparable to being in support of SOPA? You are conflating a demonstrated incompetence regarding the impact of SOPA on innovation, with more generalized differences of political opinion.
And yet, in the previous HN thread on the topic, I see dozens of voices loudly defending the right for Thiel to prop up Trump's demagoguery without consequence. To them, supporting Trump or Clinton is equally bad, even though the things Trump routinely says are downright terrifying[1] and dangerous to the fabric of our country. For the first time in my life, I'm actually expecting to see violence on election day.
This fledgeling authoritarian streak within the tech community really disturbs me.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_f...
No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them.
A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically.
That's disgusting and people who support that sort of witch hunt should be ashamed of themselves.
I vehemently disagree with his choice of who to support during this election, but I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society.
Another matter of interest is the nature of the power imbalance of lack of same. The original witch hunts, McCarthyism, and other struggles involved a very powerful entity depriving individual citizens of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a career.
There is a massive difference between "So-and-so engineer cannot work in this industry because a VC finds their political views repugnant," and, "I choose not to do business with a billionaire who is actively conspiring to bring democracy down."
One is punching down, the other is punching up, or perhaps sideways.
No, OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. The statements "Thiel should be fired because of his political views" and "Thiels's political views should have no place in a civil society" are entirely different things. Political discourse has a special sanctity in American culture and I, personally, think that is one of our greatest strengths. Firing an employee due to their political views is fundamentally at odds with this idea and there are laws in place to protect employees from political retaliation. Although a company might be threatened by an employee running for political office, campaigning for a candidate or participating in fundraising or a political advocacy group, an employer should not be empowered to fire that employee. To do so would invite fundamentally undemocratic forces into our political system. e.g. a company feels threatened by candidate A, employees must support candidate B else they are fired.
> OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on
> the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong.
There is no more extreme position than claiming that all forms of "political ideology" are equally valid, and that all forms of "exclusion" are wrong.
Some people's political ideology calls for the murder of innocent civilians. I gladly refuse to do business with them, and I reject the notion that it is wrong to exclude them.
Likewise, as I pointed out, not all forms of exclusion are equivalent. If we say that all forms of exclusion are wrong, you rob me of my free will. You force me to buy advertising from Reddit or Stormfront. You demand that I work for Mr. Thiel. Or to sell my products to the RNC... Whether I want to or not.
This is the exact same argument as the one for religious freedom. Must a baker bake a cake for a lesbian couple? If so, we deprive the baker of their freedom of choice. If not, we deprive the couple of equal treatment.
We cannot grant one right without depriving somebody else of another. So in the end, we have to apply some judgment, we have to pick some line and say that things on far on this side are wrong, things far on that side are right, and things close to the line are vexing questions that must be debated.
I personally can accept arguments that in this particular case, it is ok to do business with Mr. Thiel, or arguments that in this particular case that it is not.
But the unambiguous argument that all forms of political ideology must be protected is not one I support, and nor is the one that all forms of exclusion are unambiguously wrong.
And, the argument here is that support of Trump goes a bridge beyond simply expressing disagreeable political views - he is literally encouraging election day violence and trying to delegitimize our Democracy. There has to come a point where toxic and hateful views are no longer tolerated as "political". It is admittedly a slippery slope, but one we're being dragged down whether we like it or not.
Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him, bloke's got "fuck you money" a hundred times over, nothing could "destroy" him short of institutional assault, and even then possibly not.
And you're advocating for tolerating intolerance whose end-result is the destruction of tolerance.
> I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society.
So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance? Against a billionaire shovelling money to white supremacist and fascist ideologies to boot?
I wish there were such a thing as HN gold, that sums things up perfectly.
I'm not going to fire someone for advocating firing people they don't like. Even though the irony would be damn sweet.
This isn't just about Thiel. It's about everyone else too. If you create those sorts of standards, they'll apply to everyone.
How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating.
> So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance?
Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.
Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street.
Even then.
Be an activist, go out and vote, fight for yourself, but don't attack others because they said something you didn't like.
(Yes...Im being facetious... discussions centered around "freedom" are meaningless because of how subjective the term is.)
How about you try getting chased out of a subway station after midnight getting called a "faggot" and we'll talk.
And people say that the SF tech class is out of touch.
You were so victimized I'm sorry.
FWIW, I think there's a difference between repugnant opinions and insults, so "faggot" is not a good example, but you're twisting OP's words dishonestly.
Though as we've seen recently, there are a lot of people who say, e.g., in the flower shop / bakery trope, "I don't have a problem with gay people, but my religion prohibits me from serving them."
In such a case, do you really need an epithet to read hate? Do you really need to hear the N word to know that people are racist? It's, at best, a very privileged (and at worst, an entirely naive) POV to suggest that you do.
To call someone "faggot" is indeed to threaten violence. The word originally meant "burning stick"; that's why a lit cigarette is sometimes called a "fag". By calling someone "faggot", one is saying they should be burned alive.
I'm not condoning the use of hateful language or threats. I just find your example problematic.
It is specifically and precisely about Thiel. As others have noted, YC has distanced itself from relationships for political reasons in the past.
> How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating.
Yeah except no, see there are two issues with your assertions:
1. Thiel is not employed by YC and not in a position of weakness or dependency.
2. I live in a country where you can't just tell employees to get fucked without providing a very good reason. My boss being on record firing me for my comments would net me a few years worth of income.
> Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.
But not that other people can find them intolerable? Only repugnant views are worth expressing and defending? That's an… interesting point of view, and one with which I emphatically disagree.
No, it isn't. As your mentality takes root, there is nothing stopping others from doing it to absolutely everyone.
> I live in a country where you can't just tell employees to get fucked
You live in a country where more and more people aren't employees at all.
> Only repugnant views are worth expressing and defending?
Whatever views you want to express, feel free to express them. However, only repugnant views need to be tolerated by definition.
If I say the sky is blue, nobody is going to persecute me for that. However, if I say something that isn't popular or is repugnant, it is at that point that I would need to be tolerated. That's the definition of tolerance. Withstanding something you don't like.
No. The same rules should apply to anyone, regardless on income. Thiel has the same right to express his icky views as you do, without fear of losing his job or partnership.
And this is some seriously oppressing bullshit that has (wittingly or not) prolonged white/male supremacy. People creating a space that makes it very clear that non-white, non-males aren't welcome, then well-meaning "moderates" going along with it because, well, I'm not going to judge him for his politics. It's how the US even came to be, founded on a compromise that was fundamentally designed to promise that slavery would never be repealed.
Here's the deal. Having a don't-ask, don't tell policy regarding your votes in a voting booth is fine. But the minute you write a big fucking check to a big fucking fascist (or anyone else), you forfeit any right to not suffer consequences for your actions. Sure, the government can't (and shouldn't) impose penalties. But I'm damn sure going to judge you, and judge those who continue to associate with you (because they are saying that maintaining your friendship is worth alienating others).
Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.
Get a bunch of straight folks in a room and discuss AIDS research funding.
Get a bunch of white folks in a room and discuss police treatment of African-Americans.
Get a bunch of 5th-generation Americans in a room and discuss funding for ESL programs in schools.
Some people find that deplorable.
There is a similar dynamic in play with Trump's support from evangelicals. His personal choices are nearly 100% at odds with their social conservatism, but many evangelicals seem ok with this as long as he nominates a judge that will repeal Roe vs. Wade.
Such evangelicals probably aren't really in favour of Trump, but are willing to throw many people under the bus to get what they want as well.
So... I agree that Thiel may not explicitly support everything Trump advocates (who really could), but all the same, it is valid to criticize him for the things he is willing to tolerate to get what he wants.
He's both Libertarian and gay, both are extremely socially liberal. Why do you say he is socially conservative? I'm not seeing that.
A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues but that is just because there are only 2 choices (my bedroom vs my wallet).
A vote for either party is throwing everyone from the other party under the bus, isn't it?
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-o...
But that's the problem. Who exactly are affected by these "Social issues"? (Hint: It's not rich white guys).
Even if you're an active supporter of David Duke? Must we tolerate the (frequently violent) intolerance of others?
* Job: agreed
* board seat: disagreed, board members are elected to represent the shareholders, companies voice their political opinions through political contributions. If those opinions aren't reflective of the shareholders, then that's a valid reason for their removal.
* public event: agreed.
* private event: disagreed. Distasteful to do something like this, but private events are private events.
I'm sure there are more than one of those people voting for Trump because of some issue they disagree with Hillary on, or some single issue they disagree with Trump on.
Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against.
I'm not saying minorities who are rich aren't also victims of prejudice and such, but when you are rich and relatively famous (and any kind of minority) you are very unlikely to be openly discriminated against the same way a "commoner" minority will be.
... which makes his support for Trump seem even more selfish to me.
I mean, I see more hateful things being said to celebrities than just about anyone else.
More like being murdered for being gay or black or ... and the police refusing (sometimes openly) to investigate, which used to happen well into the 1960s in the US.
Sure, when it comes to hateful semi-anonymous bad things said about people on twitter or whatever, celebrities are prime targets (and that kind of sucks, celebrities are people too), but I'm more thinking about active physical-world types of discrimination, the kind that end up with you being beaten, possibly killed, or just denied otherwise deserved opportunities.
Being rich/famous doesn't guarantee you won't suffer from that sort of discrimination, but anecdotally it does appear to lessen the chances by a great deal.
I would remind you that the chief claim in US v. Windsor was about the tax implications of a lesbian wedding not recognized at the federal level, which incurred a higher estate tax penalty (to the tune of ~$380,000) which is unconstitutional under the 14th.
That seems exactly like something that Peter Thiel probably cares about if he ever chooses to marry.
A person worth north of 2 billion does not risk being discriminated against.
Say I really side with an issue that is on the Republican platform, gun rights for example. We've come to the point lately where that just means I must also be a racist, homophobe, bigot. Guilt by association. Even to the point of people losing their job or life over it.
Really? We think that's OK? Then in this case she's doing it simply because he has money and gave it to said candidate?
On the reverse I've seen some people with the "pot should be legal" argument get completely put down by some on the more conservative side saying they must also be for free everything!! Which isn't always the case.
As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons (Bill signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the first place) are the anti-gay ones (and add Obama to that too)
Not all of us are gullible to the blatant pandering and fear mongering democrats engage in.
While during the Bush years there was some stupid asinine anti-gay rhetoric from Bush, nothing was even attempted.
But it was the Clintons who banned gay marriage. That's all when I stopped being a democrat.
[1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay...
That's an -odd- comparison. One is about gay marriage, and one is about people being gay.
Trump is perfectly capable of having no issue with someone being gay AND being against their right to marriage.
And realistically? What's worse for you as a gay person - Donald's -personal- beliefs, or those he advocates as a policy?
http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/se...
Besides, Trump has said a lot of things that contradict other things he's said, and gay marriage is one of those:
"I am not in favor of gay marriage."
For someone affected by such things, you really should be more informed.
Surely you haven't already forgotten the rise in anti-trans discriminatory legislation in recent years? Do you think Trump and his supporters are the type to not support those? Which party is it that's been at the forefront of anti-discriminatory legislation and equal protection in general?
It sucks that the first past the post voting system of ours all but guarantees that we must choose between the lesser of two evils to avoid throwing our vote away, but what else are you going to do? A vote for a third party is a vote that increases the probability of a Trump presidency.
On top of this, Mike Pence has promised to roll back the Obama administration's use of the EEOC and Title IX to protect trans rights against discrimination.
I'm voting Democratic for my very survival.
Does anyone else remember that time?
So you have a slightly moving, changing Democrat party; and complete bigotry then and still now in the Republican party. Yet you stopped being a Democrat based on this vote? That's fine, but it's completely absurd.
Democrats are the conservative party, and have always had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get anything progressive done in all of history. It does not make sense you'd use DOMA as the point in time to switch to the crazy party. You know, the bat shit insane where it's OK to "get away" with gawking at girls getting dressed in the changing room, but it's perverse for a female identifying transgender to take a piss in the women's bathroom - something that's been happening for a very long time without anyone giving two shits until Republicans got a fucking clue it was happening.
When it comes down to it, you either (1) just let people vote for the candidate they prefer, or you (2) fight dirty by: censoring them, massaging negative narratives about their behaviour, lobbying their financial backers to stop supporting them, and eventually see if you can deny voters their right to vote for them (or try to force the candidate to step out from the race).
I honestly think that if we are to talk about disliking authoritarianism, we should aim for the former and not the latter. The fact is, if you have nearly 50% of people in your country voting for someone you hate, you're not going to just be able to shut it down by ignoring them: you're going to need to reach some happy medium (or at least something that tries to be this).
If you lose, and they turn out just to be a TV personality that is ineffectual politically it will hurt your credibility.
And, if you win, maybe the republican party falls apart, and four years later you are up against a real hard-right party, like is seen in some European countries.
I am personally far more worried about what will rise from the Alt-Right's ashes when he loses, than what will come to pass in the strange future in which he wins.
Also to this point: Trump has been attempting to delegitimize the election. This is very dangerous. If he has evidence of "rigged polling places", he should share that evidence. But inciting myths is dangerous for our democracy.
As an outsider looking in, isn't Hillary's history in advocating hatred and violence?
Again, as somebody who isn't all that familiar with the state of the states isn't the choice between a moron and someone who is systematically immoral?
Either way, its a sad state of affairs.
Not really, no. Hillary has made some questionable choices, but I don't think that makes her any more or less "systematically immoral" than Trump - she just has a longer record, because she actually has political experience.
For example, both Trump and Clinton were in favor of the Iraq war. Trump got to backpedal and pretend otherwise later, because he never had to take a binding vote to express his opinion one way or the other. That doesn't make him a better person.
It's hardly as if Trump is any different, when you look at his attitude towards Russia, and that's before he's even gotten any political power.
About the only way to avoid this would be to elect an entirely isolationist President who refuses to talk to the outside world, which isn't really an option these days.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." (C.S. Lewis)
On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand it's so easy to say this or make it seem true that making it a basis for firing/disconnecting from people is going to inevitably just mean you end up purging people you have even moderate ideological disagreements with.
I guess you don't remember the odds on Obama surviving his first month in office. Not only were assassination attempts expected, they were probable enough to have betting odds at Paddy Power.
You probably don't remember Bush Jr's 2004 victory, either, where literally millions of people took to the streets. Also notable that it looks like the election really may have been rigged.
From outside the country it's fascinating to watch. Half of the democratic party was accusing Hillary of vote rigging in the spring, and HN loved a couple of statistical analyses to that effect. But now that trump says it, HN says it is dangerously undermining your democracy.
Another favorite is the recent explosion over the (brilliantly played) sexual abuse video and accusations against trump. It was a fantastic power punch, coming from the same people who forgive or ignore some 21 different accusations against bill Clinton of extramarital affairs and even 3 of violent rape. That he made frequent lewd comments is well established in court. Hillary herself is accused in something like 13 of those cases of slandering, threatening, or bribing the victims to keep quiet. None of this (on either side) is proven of course, but there are videos and accuser testimonies enough for everyone. Of course, this cuts both ways: trump supporters hate hillary for the same reasons hillary supporters hate trump, and the Americans seem completely blind to their own doublethink. Everyone thinks the other side is literally the American Hitler.
Pao is totally within her rights to choose which brand of sexual abuser she wants to support. And I guess I'm within my rights to put a bag of popcorn in the micro for the last few weeks of the traditional, irrational 2 month hate leading up to November 8.
In 2004 I worked for a third party candidate, who had a direct line to live numbers as they came in. He also called to thank me that evening. One of the things he related to me was that they were watching vote counts as they got announced and he was doing very well, but once he hit a certain threshold the software seemed to switch and he would start losing votes.
This isn't a case of his percentage going down as more votes were counted, but his absolute vote count going down as more votes were counted-- something that should be an impossibility. And not just in one precinct but in dozens of them, particularly in areas of a particular software maker's machines.
I don't consider the elections valid because the machines that count the votes have closed source software and come from two politically connected companies.
The sad thing is that MIT described a solution that would allow online voting in such a way that anyone could independently audit the election without knowing who voted for whom (you could verify that your vote was in fact counted and that the total count is correct, but not know who your neighbor voted for)... they announced this in the 1990s I believe, but of course it wasn't adopted.
A point of fact, though, Bill Clinton is not running for President.
Who cares. He's a shitty husband, whatever.
Do I care that Trump sleeps around? beyond thinking "gross", no.
> 3 of violent rape
Yes, those are worth caring about.
> We have hope for YC;... Today it is clear our values are not aligned.
And make no mistake, it's either an attempt to pressure YC or a PR play for the organization (possibly both)
I can concede that point.
How about Hillary Clinton's "friend and mentor", a man of "eloquence and nobility" (her actual words) Robert C. Byrd? You know, "KKK Kleagle" Byrd? "Tried to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act" Byrd? "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Byrd?
Remember him?
"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." -- Robert Byrd
"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.
"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy."
Why is that?
His filibuster against the Civil Rights Act put him in this position. Had he succeeded, his impact would have been far more detrimental to the rights of those protected under the act today then anything Byrd had/has done.
Both are disagreeable sorts, but Strom's lasting impact would have been much, much worse.
"His"? Singular?
Both Byrd and Thurmond attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act, so I don't know where you're getting "anything Byrd had done" from.
See the actual text that paulv selectively quoted out of context below.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/07/13/met_233245.s...
Second sentence: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation."
Actual quote from Thurmond below:
"I may have said some things that I could have left off because I favor everybody receiving equal treatment," Mr. Thurmond said. "Race should not enter into it. It's merit that counts."
And in a (probably futile) attempt to stave off another misstatement of my position: I don't believe Strom Thurmond stopped being a racist. I don't believe that Robert Byrd stopped being one either.
Presumably the OP thought Strom Thurmond was still a racist, which, as those quotes prove, is clearly true.
Why do you believe Byrd and not him?
Edit: given that they've both been dead for quite a while, I doubt that either Thurmond or Byrd is involved in much racist activity today.
"States' rights" is a dog whistle phrase for racism.
Why don't you provide the full quotes, in context? You didn't even provide a source for your quotes. Convenient.
You have absolutely no room to be calling someone else "intellectually dishonest".
Edit: if this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.
It's always interesting to me how technologically literate HNers suddenly forget how to use a search engine when they don't want to acknowledge a point. It took me like 15 seconds to Google. Bottom half of the page:
https://books.google.com/books?id=UjO6L2hv0mIC&pg=PA341&lpg=...
"I don't have anything to apologize for. I don't have any regrets. I may have said some things that I could have left off, because I favor everybody receiving equal treatment. Race should not enter into it. It's merit that counts."
In any case, I'm not trying to claim that Thurmond wasn't a racist, no matter how much you'd like to pretend that I am. Strom Thurmond absolutely was a racist. So was Byrd. Both later denied it (Byrd with his "change of heart", Thurmond with his "state''s rights" argument). But, oddly, only Byrd's denial is given credence. Why?
Edit: given the full, in context quote, the source appears to be: http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/07/13/met_233245.s...
Which also says: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation." So much for Thurmond never having repudiated it. That's literally the second sentence in the piece.
"Intellectual dishonesty", indeed.
You said:
> If this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.
You then dismiss it as a "hit piece", apparently out of nowhere - the author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bass) appears reputable and I can't find anything Googling that indicates it was controversial in any way.
> Which also says: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation."
It has been pointed out to you elsewhere that the "state's rights" pivot is something of a dog whistle - moving away from explicit support for racial segregation was a political necessity (see also: the famous Atwater quote in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).
The significant difference between Thurmond and Byrd is, IMO, the level of contrition. "No longer supports" isn't the same thing as "happy to apologize and keep apologizing", especially when the latter comes with demonstrable action to right the injustices.
Your book link does not describe it as a "1998 interview", and in fact doesn't cite the original source at all.
And no, I don't just dismiss it as a "hit piece". I dismiss it because Thurmond claims to have given up segregation in the very next sentence. Thus making paulv's claim that these "quotes" show that Thurmond never repudiated segregation clueless at best, and likely actively dishonest.
"No longer supports" isn't the same thing as "happy to apologize and keep apologizing","
It is if the "apologies" aren't sincere.
* You did know that Clinton called Byrd a "friend and mentor" but didn't know that Byrd repeatedly & profusely apologized for his racism.
* You did know that Thurmond "apologized" for his racism but didn't know that Thurmond didn't really mean it.
* You call me out for not providing a source (which ceejayoz provided below) but ignored purephase's request for you to provide a source above.
Not to mention that we started this thread with your (incorrect) claims about Byrd + Clinton but now we're talking about Thurmond.
Convenient. Maybe next time you should try googling for a few minutes before you press submit.
No, actually, I did know that. I just didn't believe him at the time, and still don't.
>You did know that Thurmond "apologized" for his racism but didn't know that Thurmond didn't really mean it.
According to whom? You?
> You call me out for not providing a source (which ceejayoz provided below)
A source which a) showed that your "quotes" were grossly out of context and b) when tracked back to its actual source showed that Thurmond did repudiate his segregationist stance.
> Not to mention that we started this thread with your (incorrect) claims about Byrd + Clinton but now we're talking about Thurmond.
1) No, this thread started with Thurmond.
2) My original claims about Byrd were:
a) Hillary Clinton called him a "friend and mentor" and a man of "eloquence and nobility". That is correct. I even provided a link to the video of her saying it.
b) Robert Byrd was a Kleagle (recruiter) in the KKK. That is also correct. He was also later the Exalted Cyclops (head) of his local chapter.
c) Byrd once wrote "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." That is also correct.
I can only conclude that by "incorrect" you mean "100% correct".
If you have any factual links to refute any of those claims, please provide them. Not "Well, he later said he was sorry, yadda-yadda".
Are a), b) and c) above factually correct or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
> Maybe next time you should try googling for a few minutes before you press submit.
Maybe you should try reading for a few minutes before you press submit.
It has become clear that this conversation is a waste of my time.
I believe nothing of the sort. I explicitly said "Thurmond absolutely was a racist." How is that not clear?
You are, to be blunt, lying. Hint: that doesn't actually work when my original words are here for all to read. I would recommend sticking to out of context quoting from obscure sources in future.
I take it, then, that you can't refute my factual statements, despite declaring them to be "incorrect", repeatedly?
You cited Thurmond's "I have nothing to apologize for" out of context as evidence that he never claimed to have given up segregationist views, even though when (laboriously) tracked down to its original source, his very next sentence was in fact just such a claim.
And you have the nerve to call someone else "intellectually dishonest".
> It has become clear that this conversation is a waste of my time.
Agreed.
I wasn't really part of that debate, but I seem to recall that ~everyone~ here and elsewhere called for him to step down.
Then again, cultural differences and nuances especially around potentially offending stances might make this seem more similar a case than people from the US would agree upon - I'm arguing from afar and in a language that is still hard to get right at times.
Many, many people did not. Many people said that it was unfair, and a witch hunt. Many people, myself included, also did not speak up.
Theil may have good reasons to donate to Trump. It's really none of our business. A society who is continually drawing lines in the sand is no society at all, and Ellen Pao is the last person anyone should be giving any attention to on the topic.
How are they getting blacklisted by the economy? Project Include has the right to choose who they associate with.
As does anyone else who blacklists.
Also, obligatory mention that "blacklist" and "whitelist" are racist terms, and mention of similar spirals of idiocy such as [0] and [1].
I'm going to be a bit pedantic; that's 40% of eligible, who intend to vote, and self select into responding to polling. That is nowhere near 40% of Americans. Its important not to conflate relative support of political candidates with American sentiment at large, sometimes they diverge strongly.
But I more or less agree with your general point. But I would counter that while we are at the height of political fractiousness, it may not be worthwhile to spend a lot of time trying to convince people. It may be more effective to succeed with good ideas, like trade and liberal immigration, and pluralism then invite your former opponents to enjoy the benefits later. Maybe...
Edit: of course, this is for the primaries, but many folks will vote along party lines no matter what.
The point is to show the much larger group of people who are just going along with him, or considering it that this violent, racist, misogynist set of behaviors and beliefs is not acceptable.
The second group are all white nationalists. They honestly believe that Obama is a Muslim, that Jews control the banks and media, that immigration is bad for the country, etc.
These people I have no problem with blacklisting.
IOW, a very large part of Trump's core supporters are simply Republicans that will vote for him because he is at the top of the Republican ticket. They would also have voted for Rubio or even Kasich. They don't like a number of things he's said or done, but they will vote for the Republican before they vote for a Democrat (especially Hillary Clinton).
The minority, though, are not really Republicans -- they are truly a right wing nationalist cohort that is very attuned to things like Trump's "David Duke who?" initial response to his endorsement.
With respect to the other comment about Republicans reaching out to these people: the Southern strategy is a 50-yr old strategy that the Republican party has consciously and publicly tried to move away from in the last 8 years as demographics have made it less and less likely to deliver the Whitehouse. Yes these people have been loosely attached to the Republican party, but as the Republican party moves away from them, they've also moved away from it.
The natural thing, if we didn't have a legally supported two-party system, would be for a Marie Le Pen style nationalist party to form behind Trump.
As for, "people who have all the weapons", unless they have tanks, an air force, a navy, and AA capability, they're still just idiots with popguns who were already joining militias and similar groups en masse over the last 8 years; appeasement does not work.
I know people say that, but let's not forget, our armies are still only good fighting traditional armies (like we did in WW2). We are still no good in invading and not-killing civilians (which would be the ultimate priority in a SHTF/TEOTWAWKI scenario).
Earlier this year 5 cops were shot down by a veteran who got agitated by the shootings of African Americans by the police. If SHTF scenario happens, a lot of veterans would be in control of the militia groups, training people, guiding them (pretty much the same thing which is happening in Iraq/Syria, except much worse).
No I am not predicting a civil war or a rebellion, just saying that among all the countries I could bet on regarding a civilian population's ability to defend itself, Americans are as armed as they need to be in case such a situation arise.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...
Media and many businesses are excluding and mocking a huge chunk of America. I deal with that chunk on a regular basis. Most are decent, hard-working people with different political views is all. A small percentage of them are as bad as portrayed in some category. You wouldn't think that from how liberal organizations or media portray them. Huge untapped market for politics and business if people market it the right way. The shocking thing is lack of Republican candidates really appealing to them. Even business people as I can think of plenty Republican founders and executives that make a better President than Trump. Mind-blowing.
While I could never bring myself to vote for Trump or HRC, I am profoundly disappointed that anyone would advocate marginalizing Thiel for simply participating in democracy.
Thiel's donation is a a drop in the bucket. His personal endorsement will likely influence few people. But the chilling effect of not having the "right" beliefs will effect many. Shame on Ellen Pao for advocating this sort of illiberal thinking.
I find myself in a position that there are things that I dislike about both nominee's policies (in that they are the same or both suck), and things that I exclusively dislike about Trump's policies but not the other way around.
Can you give me some examples to balance the scales?
Seriously pause to think that.
This fabricated outrage created by media & Clinton campaign of Trump's 'alleged' doings is quite concerning. At the same time there are Wikileaks collusion, media enabled terrorism, GOP, and some shady doings of agitating violence by the Democrats shown in today's leak. None reported by the msn[1]
[0]http://archive.is/NiRJ4 [1]http://regated.com/2016/10/project-veritas-clinton-camp-corr...
You mean the serial sexual assault which he basically confessed to multiple times unprompted (bus tape, stern show, …), and to which his only defences are a british lunatic (who "confessed" to being a child pimp for british cabinet members at 17) and that his accusers are too ugly for him to assault?
Let us get this straight: you think it's necessary to fabricate outrage over a man who believes the issue in being accused of sexual assault is he's accused of sexually assaulting "uggos"?
Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016'[0]
1. Trump was not hammering anything, accusing Hillary for Bill's infidelity has never been a hammer over the 20 years it's been used (in fact it's usually backfired). The strategy was flopping as irrelevant even amongst republicans. Reminder: Bill is not running for president.
2. Kenneth Starr's investigation dropped all of these accusations back when it was trying to find anything to pin on him, none of them were credible, the only thing they got in the end was infidelity in a consensual relationship
3. And Trump's bringing up of Bill was only a flippant attempt to direct people away from his Access Hollywood tape.
> Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016' https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928
Er… so? That reads like a criticism ad prep:
> This will be a microsite
Which I guess they ended up not having to run since Trump has been providing the quotes directly.
You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed. BUT Trumps alleged should be believed. Hillary stated all rape victims have a right to be believed.
In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped?
I never said that, no. What I did say was that their claims were investigated by Starr who had every reason to use them if he could, and he didn't.
> BUT Trumps alleged should be believed.
See there are a few big differences here. Trump's history of bragging about sexually assaulting women, the coherence of the accusations and Trump's MO, that Gloria Allred has decided to get involved, and that these are not 20+ years old accusations which were already dropped.
> In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped?
You do understand that "we should believe [people] saying they have been raped" means "trust but verify" right? The allegations against Clinton were extensively checked two decades ago by people working against Clinton who had every reason to use these accusation, and they judged them not worth pursuing.
Not that the move makes any sense either way, if assault accusations against one candidate's SO are impeachable offenses, what are assault accusations agains the other candidate directly?
The strategic nature of information dispersal is not lost on people and it's disgusting.
If you accept the accusers claims from both sides (as I am inclined to do in cases of sexual harassment), we have one nominee that is a self reported serial sexual predator and another who is an attacker of victims of her serial sexual predator spouse.
There's no moral high-ground here.
The article is a bit murky. They "invited" YC to contribute, but do not actually say whether YC agreed.
Forgive the cynicism, but if it turns out that YC was not contributing in any way to Project Include, this is just empty bluster.
It also reads like she's trying to associate this project with big names like YC and Thiel.. but if I'm reading correctly all "Project Include" has done is "actively invite YC to contribute". The cynic in me says that this is a simple political power play and a marketing trick in one. Nothing to do with actually helping people and society, which would involve understanding and sympathy for all sides; even your political enemies.
It's never going to be this easy to delegitimise someone when they are widely known as being more credible than yourself.
If YC was to pull out it would be a loss for their startups. It should be the founder's choice whether they wish to deprive themselves of Thiel's money or insight to make a political point.
And you denounce... Thiel? Hillary Clinton made material contributions to starting two seemingly random wars in Libya and Syria with hundreds of thousands of victims. That doesn't count as funding violence? What about her supporters which appears to be everyone else.
The difference is that one of these doesn't matter.
1. If you think that business people can govern better than Politicians or want to achieve an environment where it gets easier and acceptable for business leaders to seek political offices, this is a huge step in that direction. China already took this step of inviting people who succeed in business to participate in governance. If Trump can do it, so can every other business person who thinks they are better than Trump. If Trump wins this, I guarantee you next season its going to be more qualified people running for office and if Trump loses, we still would have made progress in that direction.
2. Peter Theil's support for Trump gave him (gay guy) a platform to speak at a republican convention. This is a huge progress for everyone when republicans are standing up for gay people. It makes it easy for other people to reach out and co-operate with each other.
3. Peter Theil getting into politics allows something like a Y-combinator(not the news site but a complete accelerator) for politics possible otherwise it would just be more lawyers running again and again. Just like YC grooms tech leaders, Theil's expertise into this venture could groom next generation governing leaders.
What ever your politics are, this is progress.
How on earth is that not the argument for dropping him?
From another angle, how on earth can you trust someone's advice if they truly and honestly think like that?
I'm honestly shocked YC can champion women founders while having someone like this involved as a partner.
Just shocking.
And so, so disappointing.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
Why misrepresent this (as so many have in this page) when we can all follow the link and read for ourselves?
More context: " The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”
So, he literally says he doesn't despair this.
> Thiel thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote, and has written unambiguously as much?
Is a vast oversimplification of what he wrote.
So I don't think it's quite unambiguous, although I wouldn't buy this explanation. I would love to ask him why he thinks women voters differ from men on these issues.
Maybe Thiel is like an idiot savant who has a natural talent for investing. Just because John Nash was literally mentally ill doesn't mean he wasn't good at his job.
Some political platforms are inherently non-inclusive and Trump's is one of them.
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper
No, it means accepting to disagree on values. Pretty much by definition.
> calling out bad behavior
So creating needless conflict.
> and sometimes firing people
If people are too different from you, fire them! Great for diversity!
I wish these people would have the guts and sincerity to call their agenda what it really is, because diverse, it is not.
Is this some US thing or are there really so many so obvious hypocrites out there?
There are still around 40% people voting for Trump and many donating to him, so you mean they are also advocating hatred and violence?
What you believe could be different from others. People can choose different perspectives to see and understand the world. We should encourage different ideas and voices. This post could be downvoted too because I'm supporting and encouraging different voices.
In very many cases, that is quite overtly the case.
> What you believe could be different from others.
Right. And hatred (racial, misogynistic, and otherwise) and violence are among the areas where those differences can be found within the electorate.
At this point, I'd have to say yes, given Trump's actions the past few days. His supporters are openly committing sedition[1]. If you don't believe and hatred and violence, and you still support him, I'd have to say that's a case of superior orders. The man is intentionally inciting fear and violence.
Encouraging different opinions and voices are fine, but there is a limit. When that voice is actively encouraging harm to others based on unfounded allegations, it makes sense to cut it off, as it is not driving the conversation forward.
1- https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-...
NOTE: Technically, they banned contributions "to state and local candidates running for office, as well as state or local officials running for federal office." as of September 1, 2016. Since Mike Pence is a sitting state official, it means that Goldman partners can't contribute to the Trump-Pence ticket.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/07/goldman-sachs-donati...
What exactly was the relationship between Project Include and YC prior to this?
I also find it ironic that something called Project Include is upset because someone is supporting a party that a huge percentage of the country is going to vote for. YC had nothing to do with Thiel's donation and you dissociate from them when there are 2 degrees of separation? That is not inclusion.
I think some "both-sides-ism" is in order here.
From the perspective of the right, the left is also advocating hatred, violence and is also trying to do an end-around to thwart democracy. Consider:
- The riots we've had in four different cities, riots that occurred before the facts of the case were even known, and which white people were being specifically targeted for violence -- http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/milwaukee-pro...
- Michelle Obama's support of Beyonce's Black Panthers homage at the Super Bowl (if you are unfamiliar with how destructive the Panthers and the movement associated with it were, you can start here https://devinhelton.com/hate-group-history )
- The left's strategy of "electing a new people" -- favoring mass immigration from Mexico because it will help push liberal policies. This was stated openly in Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal" and you see articles all the time about it (for example https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/... )
- The continued scapegoating of "white men" and "structural racism" as being the source of problems for minorities, even when you do a deep dive on the statistics and the situations that is clearly not the problem.
- Selective enforcement of the law, going after Republican associated people in groups, such as the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-shame... ), the IRS going after tea party groups, or the adminsitration trumping up charges against Peter Thiel's Palantir company
There are serious issues at stake, and a lot of bad behavior on both sides. The only way a two-party system works, is if when one party wins, it doesn't try to punish people who supported the wrong side.
>We agree that people shouldn’t be fired for their political views, but
Trump's supporters have, in some cases, started talking open revolt if he doesn't win. On Twitter, there was a hashtag of #RepealThe19th, which essentially said they wanted to disenfranchise women in efforts to ensure Trump is supported.
This isn't necessarily new from constituents, but at the very least, the candidates have drawn the line. McCain is reported to have told a woman than Obama is good Christian family man with whom he had fundamental policy disagreements.
Trump is threatening to throw Hillary in jail, and is attempting to use her husbands (known) indiscretions as ammunition. Campaigns get vicious, but in this case, Trump is actively feeding the hatred and paranoia.
That happens every time.
> Trump's supporters have, in some cases, started talking open revolt if he doesn't win.
This also happens every time.
> On Twitter, there was a hashtag of #RepealThe19th, which essentially said they wanted to disenfranchise women in efforts to ensure Trump is supported.
Eco-terrorists vote too.
> Trump is threatening to throw Hillary in jail
There's a not-insignificant percentage of the population (potentially a majority) who believe that jail is where she belongs.
Being receptive to free speech means being receptive to free speech, full stop. It is a pillar of our country, and regardless of how incendiary you view anyone else, this is a country where the KKK, fundamentalist groups of all flavors, Nazis, etc, are all allowed to exist and that's important.
It is perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions that free speech means all speech is protected. Libel, slander, and sedition are all forms of speech that is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.
Also, while sedition is illegal in the US, seditious speech is not (there is clearly a gray area there).
As Billy Carter once put it, "That means you can call your congressman a no-good sumbitch and he can't do anything about it".
Seditious conspiracy is a crime, but requires overt planning of an act to overthrow the government, or make war against the United States. Suggesting that an election was rigged doesn't come close to meeting that bar.
Are we to draw a principle from this? Is PI arguing that dissociation from those who advocate hatred and violence is not only a moral imperative, but transitive?
What about all the CEOs of YC companies? Are they obligated to disassociate? If they don't, are we as customers obligated to dissociate from them? If we don't, are the people in our lives obligated to disassociate from us?
As far as I can tell, this post contains no explicit generalizable principle for imperative disassociation. Probably because that's a really hard thing to create.
What's easy is taking a strong stand on a hyper-specific situation where the bad guys are caricatures and your target audience already agrees with you. It's just not very interesting.
Is this the kind of reasoning that would make someone not read Ender's Game due to the opinions [0] of the writer?
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Views_about_h...
(removing video as valid concerns were raised)
Although, isn't there evidence that more violence has occurred against trump supporters than anyone else?
I am not a supporter by any measure (for one, I'm form the middle east), but I'm trying to understand Paos quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe
Let's be a little more skeptical this time around, shall we?
-- Some Nobel Prize dude.
It's somewhat easy to argue that someone should not face professional repercussions for their support of a candidate. It's harder to argue that they should be able to donate 463x what a typical person might (assuming a generous $2.7k not using Super PACs).
It seems more like the argument is that people would like to disassociate with Trump backers as a matter of basic moral principle; that Trump has made himself such a symbol of hatred, racism, xenophobia etc that organizations should shun working with his supporters to send a message that they don't agree with that hatred, racism, and xenophobia. I think that would be quite a reasonable gesture (and I understand why Ellen is trying to do the same thing here). But so is taking public stances against Trump in other forms, including Sam's post re: trump on the YC blog, and his project voteplz.org, a project which, given the lesser likelihood of Democratic-leaning demographic groups to turn out, will probably do orders of magnitude more damage to Trump than Theil's office hours will help him.
I'd like to see more of a focus on what the tech industry can do in the next three weeks to stop Donald Trump from being president, and a little less focus on which companies can prove their moral purity by shunning Trump supporters.
And if we're really doing the latter, isn't going after Palantir, Founders Fund's LPs+ portfolio companies a much more logical place to start? I really hope (and I mean this earnestly, not saying it to make an argument) for the sake of the broader cause of diversity in the tech industry that Project Include is not planning to disassociate with all the companies on this page: http://foundersfund.com/portfolio/
But why only prominent? And if not where does this go? Do you now ask anyone who does business in any way shape or form (vendors, employees, YC applicants, the cleaning crew etc.) what their political or personal views are and then cut ties with them as a result? Or is the line arbitrary "we know it when we see it". Kind of like a boycott?
Not at all unlike the uniquely dangerous threats of the past - terrorism and communism immediately come to mind. I probably haven't paid enough attention to pick up on the uniquely dangerous threats between McCarthyism and the 1% doctrine.
I would advocate restraint, not blacklists.
Grow up Ellen.
2. China's Shenzhou 11 blasts off on space station mission (101 points, 3h ago)
7. Quantum computers: 10-fold boost in stability achieved (63 points, 4h ago)
30. Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions (this thread) (348 points, 2h ago)
I recognize that the Hacker News ranking algorithm takes more criteria into account than just current number of points and time posted, but this is an instance where a little extra transparency in the ranking model would help to show that this is not an arbitrary moderated downrank.
It's important that we avoid deliberately inflammatory statements like this on controversial issues—they serve only to disrupt already-sensitive threads.
Do it now.
There should be consequences, no matter who you are. Lines must drawn, and this is the clearest articulation I have seen to date as why Thiel must go.
Let's assume that not only is Trump a rapist, but that he's keeping a few women tied up in his basement. Even in this scenario, is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two countries where rape is currently legal? Especially since she did this after receiving 25M+ in donations to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, and apparently a 1M dollar check from Qatar for Bill's birthday, so it's hard to even argue that it was out of any sort of realpolitik.
Similarly, is Trump making overtly racist statements really worse (with respect to race issues) than Hillary voting to invade Iraq even after Scott Ritter and Hans Blix said that they had no weapons of mass destruction?
There's no question that Trump's overt sexism and racism is extraordinary problematic. But, as someone who isn't even a Trump supporter/voter, I'm struggling to understand how people find it so much more objectionable than all of the systemic human rights abuses that have already occurred under Hillary. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump, but the idea that he's so much worse for women and minorities seems to be more of a media creation than based in reality.
Even if you assume that something imminently bad is going to happen to minorities if Trump is elected, from an ethical and social justice perspective, if bad things are going to happen that are of our own making, it seems like those bad things should be happening to people within the U.S. rather than abroad.
I don't mean to in any way make light of what are extremely serious issues, but in my humble opinion the idea that Trump is automatically more racist because he says racist things is complete bullshit. Maybe he is worse, but I think the situation is far more nuanced than the media would have you believe.
Also, the external links in that sentence you quoted are not hard facts. They are up for interpretation. Especially the one about his speech being anti-semitic is nothing but pure nonsense.
/edit: downvote me all you want. I'm not even voting for Trump, but the media bias towards Trump is real.
ah! he just says eh?
Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama.
>Hillary voting to invade Iraq
Her own floor speech before her vote said she was voting yes precisely to give Bush leverage to reinstitute inspections, not as a blank check to war.
The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd.
"In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been 'a top priority' for Clinton personally."
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons...
> The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd.
Absolutely, but as a society I'm not comfortable with just writing off a million deaths under the guise of "it's complicated." In my personal opinion, making the comparison and deciding that Hillary is less bad is completely reasonable, but not making the comparison at all is what's absurd.
Yet your arguments sound more directed at the average Joe. You seem to have assumed, based only on headline news, no one else is making the comparison.
This is a pretty self-aggrandizing position to take.
It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in recent memory.
Was that during the period when Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State or in the period when John Kerry had that role?
In any case, the sad part is people having to defend one of two subpar candidates in this election to justify their position. Aside from a minor miracle where a third party candidate steals the race, we're going to be stuck with a shitty US president for the next 4 years. Can we at least try to come to terms with that before it happens?
Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A large number of people will necessarily have a bad taste in their mouth.
1. You stated that Hilary Clinton is "an effective politician with reasonable positions". Which of Hilary Clinton's positions do you like?
2. Which part(s) of Bernie's platform do you think held back his chances of winning the nomination/election?
As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large.
So do you like Hilary Clinton's support for fracking? Do you see that as a pragmatic choice? How about Wall Street regulation, where she's basically admitted she thinks it's best if Wall Street regulates itself, do you see that as pragmatic? How about her support for TPP, which will end up encouraging more jobs to be taken outside the US, do you see that as pragmatic?
> "As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large."
Other countries manage to have tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded higher education systems, and still pay less overall than the current systems in the US. Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it. If some American people ignored the offer and the details, that's their fault, not Bernie's.
Yes, actually. Fracking is a reasonable part of a platform for fighting climate change. It absolutely is the pragmatic choice as it allows local production of natural gas with a lesser environmental impact than the coal or oil it replaces.
>she thinks it's best if Wall Street regulates itself
She didn't say that. If you're referring to her speeches, she said that Wall street should be a part of developing regulation since they know the business the best. That's a straight-up no brainer.
>How about her support for TPP
Anti-free trade is the left's climate change denial. There are things to dislike about the TPP, most of which has nothing to do with trade itself, and for these reasons she's come out against it.
>Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it.
And his plans were widely panned as requiring completely impossible GDP growth and otherwise severely lacking in details.
>tax-funded higher education systems
Yes, but they're not proposing to simply put the government on the hook for already outrageously overpriced institutions like ours. Also, other countries can do public funding because the available spots are restricted. Such restrictions on who are allowed a college education are a non-starter in the U.S.
> And his plans were widely panned as requiring completely impossible GDP growth and otherwise severely lacking in details."
What details are you aware of regarding the funding plans Bernie had for free college tuition and free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare?
In another, you're talking about a person who is tasked with carrying out orders and directives to do what they think is in the best interest of the country regardless of their personal feelings about the decision.
I'm not saying I condone what our government has done, but I do understand that people in government are carrying out the will of an elected governance, even if they make stupid decisions in doing so.
I don't think that anyone able to rise to the top-tier of politics, in any large country, is going to be a 'nice' person. Perhaps not even a 'decent' person. They've had to fight and claw and backstab their way up there, throwing plenty of people under the bus. All driven by personal ambition and a lust for power and control. And once they're there, they'll do everything they can to stay there.
Perhaps anyone who wants to be President should be immediately disqualified.
[ Edit: removed the gladiatorial section as it was a tangent ]
He is inciting his followers to voter intimidation at best, and violence at worst, and they are taking the bait. That is a threat to our stability, and that, as many others point out, is what makes him so dangerous.
Also, a "humble opinion" does not call something "complete bullshit" in the same sentence.
Clinton has been in politics for almost her entire career as a prominent, high profile figure. She also has an affiliated, massively successful charity organization. If you imagine peoples' social and political connections as a graph, hers is very, very large, with her organizations interacting with pretty much every state and VIP entity out there.
Now, imagine you're running the Trump campaign/Breitbart and you have to come up with some Clinton-bashing narratives. Gold mine! Just start picking random connections from the graph and inventing narratives about her being corrupt. Easy peasy.
Here's the problem: Clinton has been investigated for these allegations and a jillion other things many, many, many, many times. By many, many, many people. Publicly. And the results of the investigations have found... basically nothing. They've found a person who is good at their job, a person who is wildly competent despite making a few shitty judgement calls from time to time. But her graph is so large, her connections so huge, that it's easy to keep spinning up these new, mostly false/unproven narratives.
Trump, on the other hand, has a history of abuse, a history of stoking racial resentment, and a history of calling into question the entire foundation of our democracy (freedom of press, elections, etc). These are real opinions that he has right now. Not some conspiracy-stoking narrative concocted about a career politician.
Saying that the list of well-investigated, thoroughly debunked Clinton conspiracy theories is equivalent to actual, real hate speech is, pardon the language, bullshit. Hate speech is hate speech, racial and sexist statements the same. YC needs to take the right stand on this, given the precedence.
Trump is openly advocating for subjugation of women and minorities in the U.S.. He's explicitly called for firing a judge due to their race. I mean seriously?
And I think there is pretty clear evidence that Trump is not "just saying" racist and misogynist things. Especially on the misogyny point, he actively behaves like a d-bag. It's hard to think the race thing isn't just a bit better buried.
He has a history for trampling all over his business partners. Of lashing out when things don't go his way (see: basically every Trump media event of the last few weeks). How far you think that will go with the international community? Didn't get the deal he wanted from S. Korea? He goes on a race hating rant, and hey guess what, now the trade deal doesn't exist at all.
Ask the Philipines how having an emotionally unstable clown in charge has gone for them on the international stage. Then imagine that emotionally unstable clown has control of the largest military humanity has ever seen.
On the other hand, Hilary, by all accounts, has been praised as great to work with. I may not approve of the outcome of many of her decisions, but I'd rather have someone that can appear poised and level-headed dealing with people like Putin, or other suspect world leaders.
I think you're right. It is more nuanced. But many of those nuances we may never see. I have only my gut to guide me on them.
It says in matters international and domestic, Trump is a volatile clown. While Hilary will at least keep the dysfunctional status quo.
Yes, although it's taking me awhile to figure out succinct and acceptable reasons "why". I keep coming back to this work: http://engl210-deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/omelas.p...
I think there's two things, here.
The first is: If you're comparing the means, compare the ends. I don't even know how to take this anywhere without feeling dirty, and the internet doesn't forget, so let's leave it at: I don't see any positive end in Trump. It's not even, "Here's something to see if the ends DO justify the means" - I straight up don't see any end worth trying to justify.
The second thing is: Black lives matter isn't about some new situation. It's about some new awareness.
> it seems like those bad things should be happening to people within the U.S. rather than abroad.
This is already the case. Right now, there's a "national debate" (whatever that means) as to whether or not this is OK. (It's not). This isn't about NEW bad things happening - it's about whether we're going to continue giving a pass to the bad things ALREADY happening. Starting here at home actually seems super reasonable to me. I have more ability to fix things here than I do a world away.
I'm going to try to leave it at this.
> Money is power.
But this would not have served the actual purpose which was to attack Thiel (YC is just collateral damage). This should have been done in some blogs posts, possibly on the personal blogs of the participants of this project.