YC: Can't bring itself to even censure a billionaire who only works with them "part-time" for supporting actual hatred and sexual abuse.
I await this thread filling up with "but how you can be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance?!" and other Phil-101 Do You Sees
"Taking the high road like this is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. Hacker News can gregariously see past these faults because they're not in the crosshairs, but if Shanley Kane were a YC partner and saying "all men support rape culture, even if indirectly", there's no friggin way this comment section would be so sanguine."
ok honestly this is just outright wrong. you're just reciting false talking points from your liberal tv when you clearly haven't actually taken the time to listen to what Trump actually said. He never once called all Mexicans rapists yet you say he did. He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US yet you did. For your information, the FBI notified congress and local governments that they currently are not confident that they can properly vet all incoming refugees. If the FBI is saying that, how on Earth can you claim it's wrong for Trump to call for a temporary stop until the FBI says it has a handle on it?
OK, that's correct as far as I can tell. He didn't say "all Mexicans are rapists". You might still want to reflect on how what he did say was nonetheless offensive, not to mention factually incorrect.
However,
> He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US
this is plainly false. From his website:
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...
It's clear that he's not asking for a permanent ban. The parent poster did not say "permanent ban". It's still clearly a "ban" by the plain meaning of the word.
If you're going to defend Trump, at least read what he puts out on his own website.
kthx.
Person -> SOPA
Person -> Trump -> Sexism/Racism/etc
Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that. That doesn't make Thiel right, however it is an important distinction. If Thiel said or did anything racist/sexist/etc, he'd be out of YC. It's a slippery slope to start firing people because someone they support supports something you don't like.
After all, Clinton supports SOPA, and Sam just endorsed her.
How do you know that?
Here's a great article: http://theweek.com/articles/638051/why-does-peter-thiel-supp...
Some bullet points:
* He believes we've stagnated (see http://blog.samaltman.com/trump)
* He sees a unique opportunity to buy into politics at the highest level for a mere $1.25MM
* He likes being on CNN and on stage. He's famous, but not politics-famous.
* He found a way to get Republicans to cheer for the phrase "I'm gay"
At the end of the day, we shouldn't be surprised that a guy who's famous for asking "What's one thing you believe that no one else does?" is supporting the most contrarian candidate we've ever seen.
Thiel supports Trump for his economic policies, which seems utterly bizarre to me, but I don't see any double standard in terms of YC's behavior.
On the other hand, he did endorse Trump.
If you endorse someone, without pointing out what you believe to be their flaws, when you know those flaws (and, really, I don't think Thiel could claim excuse by ignorance here), you implicitly support those flaws.
But.... this post does censure Peter Thiel. sama is completely disavowing Thiel's support of Trump. Maybe I don't understand what "censure" means though, if you meant something else.
That's pretty weak sauce, and also isn't an official YC position. YC needs to distance itself from this donation and this support.
If you look at their respective Tweets they seem to agree.
I don't support trump, but the hyperbole is getting exhausting.
Trump is not worthy of defense.
As for why a woman might not press charges after a sexual assault, there are a multitude of reasons that have been discussed in plenty of related literature, I urge you to seek them out.
Smells like bullshit to me.
She is already playing dirty, why stop at convincing a group of women to lie some more for the cause?
I have just seen what happens when unfounded claims of sexual assault get taken seriously.
Insofar as the offenses are criminal rather than civil then, even if they aren't barred by statute of limitations, it's not their decision but that of a public prosecutor.
And, in some cases, they can't file civil charges because they sued in the past and already reached settlements.
Yeah, Trump is a frigging billionaire who officiated at Miss Universe contests. If it had turned out that he had never made a pass at any of those beautiful women, I'd be suspecting that he's really a closet case, or else he is the saintliest man in human existence. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't fit his brand.
One candidate has sexually assaulted women. One candidate has most certainly not.
If you don't see a moral high ground to seize there you are being deliberately obtuse. In fact I'd go as far to call you a hateful moron.