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.
IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged".
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.
For what it's worth, I haven't heard many complaints about Bernie Sanders claiming elections are bought.
> 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.)
He's making a different claim, though. That million/billionaires can donate to politicians and influence the legislation they write. Or that they can donate to SuperPACs, which will air ads that change people's minds about what candidate to support. That seems pretty true.
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.
I certainly heard them, at the very least, there was railing against Bernie supporters, not Bernie himself.
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.
And the system is rigged. It's rigged towards the two main parties. It's rigged towards re-electing the same people. Smaller parties get no representation, and have no chance in any meaningful election. The influence of the Democrats and Republicans over the election system is enormous.
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.
That's because Bernie Sanders is not in fact claiming that the election is rigged. In fact: he's been a reliable support of Clinton since the primaries ended.
Just adding to this, claiming that a democratic election is rigged is one of Umberto Eco's 14 signs of Ur-Fascism [0]:
> 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.
Just curious why everyone loves throwing around the term "fascist" so much. Why not use more precise language to describe what you dislike about a candidate? The term seems ambiguous, and no one seems to have a clear definition of what it is. At most, there seems to be some related factors. For example, my image of Fascists is that they heavily promote war and expanding the empire. But, in contrast, the "fascist" candidate in this election wants to reduce our military footprint, and have other countries defend themselves.
This is hardly a mystery: Because language is powerful and the vast majority of people are too stupid and lazy to do anything but absorb the positive/negative valence of the term being used. The redefinition and stretching of terms is hardly a new thing. Just because Stalin was famous for Orwellian use of language doesn't mean that it doesn't happen at pretty much every level of politics even in relatively well functioning political systems.
For normal candidates, I'd agree with you, but Trump absolutely nails a rather objective and detailed definition of fascism. See my comment elsewhere in this thread for sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12729018
Did you even bother to read the article? You say that you think the term is ambiguous and this article is here exactly for the purpose of elucidating the idea of Fascism as it appears in it's obvious and not so obvious forms.
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.
This is a wonderful and frightening summary of what makes fascism so superficially attractive and easy to slip into. Another point relevant to the current debate:
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 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):
> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged".
Because armies of Democrats, including pundits, elected officials, party functionaries, and the action Presidential nominees, never claimed 2000 or 2004 were rigged in any way.
Please, spare us the pearl-clutching. You're only fooling people who don't know their history.
No, there are not. That anyone even interpreted those e-mails that way is indicative of the utterly ridiculous, paranoid mindset that is far too common these days.
> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened
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?
Surely you realize how disingenuous this statement is? Trump's mantra of "the media is conspiring against me, the polls are all rigged, the election will be stolen from under us" is a far cry from anything we've seen in previous years. This has nothing to do with electronic voting machines. This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense.
No, he's not. Not in the way he's saying it. Every single poll is showing him losing at this point. Many political leaders, including those in his own party, have dismissed his claims as nonsense. As he always does whenever he's embarrassed in public, he's simply laying blame for his failure on something — anything! — outside his own incompetence. Unfortunately, his core supporters lap it right up.
His statements might have some level of validity if he was criticising the use of electronic voting machines. He is not. He is instead suggesting that his supporters go to "other areas" and "see what's going on over there" - if his objection was electronic voting machines then that request would make no sense.
I agree with the thrust of your point - that organizations like YC should be allowed to uninvite or refuse to collaborate with people they are diametrically opposed to for political reasons.
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.
SOPA is not a solely political affair; it has substantive intersections with the technology industry. Paul Graham simply talks as if he sees the economic / technological outcome of SOPA so clearly that anyone else who think otherwise either has contradictory interests or is ignorant.
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.
As to your final point: either the hypothetical founders do not have the support network from YC and simply cannot become the next Big Thing (and someone else at YC/SV does it instead), or they find a different support network - possibly in a different state or country - and the market hums along. It's not a great tragedy either way.
Having Thiel on the board is a statement that intolerance based on race, gender, or religion is tolerable by yc. This in turn chills applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males.
Why is it okay to call out white western males, but to focus down on any other gender and race with a negative statement like that would be seen as intolerant?
What's negative about saying this would "chill applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males'? If Thiel was supporting a candidate who was chauvinistically in favor of black women, it would be fine to worry about people from other backgrounds being excluded. But he isn't (in part because such a candidate doesn't exist.)
I guess my point is a bit of a straw man, but I'd expect backlash if someone did make a statement like "chill applications from startups working on problems not relating to black women".
I agree with your sentiment that society would be much better without racial segregation, but pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away - the first step to fixing a problem is to acknowledge that it exists.
You cannot be in a startup that is the next Google and be a supporter of someone who is a proven pathological liar and pu$$y grabbing sexual predator. That simply defies logic, if not the rules of common decency, and you need to be good at logic to be Google, or anyone (other than Trump)
Well that's just a ridiculous claim. Are you literally saying that no (successful) startup has ever been founded by anyone who is a pathological liar and a sexual predator? I'd love for you to be right, but I really, really doubt it.
And as is often pointed out by women, sexually predatory behavior is much more common than most men realize. (not sure if you are a man or woman, but putting it out there for other people, mostly because I also tend to forget this point).
You're being ludicrous. A million startups can be founded by pathological pu$$y grabing liars but that does not make them the next Google. Does Monsanto have pathological liars at the top, sure but they're not Google. To be Google you're head has to be screwed on right.
To be fair, pg does seem quite against Trump personally, at least on twitter he doesn't quite shut up about it. For him to accept Thiel while greatly disliking Trump doesn't really give me the sense that he doesn't care either way. Instead, I feel that he's most likely actively trying to look past Thiel's support. I'm not making a judgement whether to look past it is the right thing, but I don't think pg either is ambivalent about or secretly sympathetic to Trump.
> He no longer has the authority to disinvite Thiel.
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).
Interesting. There might be (of course will be) disagreement about whether, as Pao argues, unpopular views about race and gender and stuff are as relevant to tech as support for SOPA. But Trump's new habit of not just implying, but saying outright that the election will be stolen from him by a nationwide ballot stuffing conspiracy is certainly relevant. That rhetoric is dangerous to the transition process and could destabilize the national environment for YC and its companies.
I disagree that opposing SOPA is just political, supporting SOPA threatens innovation which threatens the startup community which in turns threatens YC's bottom line. Therefore opposing SOPA and denying investors access based on their support is a business decision.
There is a strong business case here as well. Thiel alienates a lot of people and his public advocacy for Trump isn't helping.
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.
There's a substantial difference between forcing someone out because of the potential that other people would shun them for political reasons vs because they are taking a stand that you think would do irreparable harm to your industry. The first is pure politics, with only the indirect consequences on your company that all businesses could face. The other is a piece of pointed legislation whose primary goal will disrupt your industry.
We don't disagree. The SOPA decision was both a business decision and a political decision. Any decision a business makes is a business decision, regardless of whether it is also a political decision.
The decision YC is making about Thiel is also both a political decision and a business decision.
But politics is business, which is why lobbying is such a huge part of democracy. There are die-hards like you who would argue the same when it comes to environmental and energy, or justice and privacy issues. Few partisans think of their core cause as being mere "politics".
There is very much a difference between "uninviting companies" based on their support of a bill and firing a partner for his personal political viewpoints.
These aren't apples to apples comparisons; this issue isn't that simple.
YC companies aren't exactly multi-thousand-employee affairs. When you disinvite a YC company, you're really making a value judgment about its founders.
In this context, the companies actually were "mult-thousand-employee affairs", it was a judgement about which large companies were allowed to send investors to Demo Day.
From the article, these are companies like Comcast and Godaddy. It wasn't about actual YC companies.
I was wondering whether there was precedence for something like this. If there is, then I think YC should distance themselves from Thiel now. I agree with those who say he's a long-term harm to the industry; I do take issue, generally, with dismissing someone over their personal politics, but sometimes those stances create problems in the company that can't be overcome.
I think you're correct that this might be a case of something the business needs to distance themselves from but they shouldn't try to take the moral high ground and at the same time vilify a man for his political views.
I know this is not really possible, but it would be nice if they could just say his political views and actions reflect on our business and as we disagree with those views and actions we will no longer be working with him.
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.
Peter Thiel is not clueless but knows exactly what he is doing. Thiel opposes democracy [1] and Trump has done an extraordinary amount to damage it. Indeed, even knowing that defeat is all but certain, he concentrates even more on doing so. Spending 1.5 million to fund the a campaign denouncing all voting as rigged (amount other things [2]) is stunningly efficient at undermining it.
I think it's much more likely that rather than "opposing democracy" he is attempting to connect a pro-technology viewpoint to an anti-globalisation one, and wishes to position himself politically so that he can eventually leverage this.
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.
For that to be, Trump would have to win (or have post election influence) and Thiel would have to believe Trump's low education, semi-ludite supporters could be convinced the tech that displaced many of them is good.
It's hard to image Thiel could possibly believe the latter but surely it's impossible that he believes the former.
Trump also has high education, non-luddite supporters or at the very least supporters that could be brought over to considering investing in a future America that makes itself 'Great' through government spending on infrastructure and science. It could be that Thiel believes he is speaking to these people (some of which might only be Trump supporters in 2016 because they always vote Republican).
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.
The Thiel situation reminds me very strongly of the Woody Allen situation. He married his step-daughter after cheating on his wife with her. You either ignore this fact or you don't work with him.
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.
Making money as an entrepreneur and making money as an investor are very different skill sets.
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.
I'm surprised people on HN are so naive to quickly dismiss Trump because of what he says. Politicians wanting to get elected will say anything to win. After they get elected everything changes. This applies many times to politicians promising the world and then delivering very little but will also happen to politicians promising crazy things and then delivering little. Talk is cheap. Once you are elected you realize it's not so easy as you thought to bring changes, good or bad.
I think part of the issue with Trump is that--to many people--he's already failed at this. Usually, once a major party candidate wins the nomination, they start moving their positions towards the center in order to capture mainstream/moderate voters. Trump has not done this; in fact, he's tended to do the opposite. He still hasn't backed off The Wall, for instance.
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.
> If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?
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.
How is this kind of authoritarianism any different than those that feel (based on science) that support for abortion (beyond reasonable medical issues for the mother) is tantamount to declaring said individuals are supporting murder and therefore should not be employed, should not be worked with, should be shamed and cast aside?
Based on the awful things Trump has said and (apparently) done, it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry. Pao is right: "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Quite literally at times! (I might give a pass to the people following the party line or acting on incomplete information, but Thiel knows exactly what he's supporting.)
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.
>This fledgeling authoritarian streak within the tech community really disturbs me.
"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)
This is the first election where you were concerned about violence on e day?
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.
I remember being slightly worried during Obama's election, but at least during that election one of the presidential candidates wasn't outright advocating aggression at the polling stations.
The thing is, the Obama worries weren't a result of McCain calling for him to be assassinated or telling his supporters the election was rigged. They were pretty much a direct result of people being scared some crazy racist would take a shot at him.
To be fair, organized voter intimidation by one of the major parties isn't unheard of; Trump is mostly just unique in doing himself what would usually happen deniably at a lower level of the organization (which may or may not be related to the fact that Trump lacks most of the lower-level organization a major party candidate would usually establish.)
I care a great deal about the quality of elections in the USA and have been watching this issue since the 1990s. In 2001 there were real problems exposed, not just hanging chads but real problems with the way software counted votes. Result massaging is a real thing.
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.
> "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence."
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.
> "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence."
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?
> As an outsider looking in, isn't Hillary's history in advocating hatred and violence?
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.
Clinton is clearly on record as having been in favor of giving the President conditional authority to go to war; only Trump is on record actually supporting the decision to go to war.
We can start by not voting for warmongers and hawks. Americans had an opportunity to vote for Sanders. But I guess they are too far removed from these incidents.
It's not too late to vote for Jill Stein. I'm not sure any of the four most prominent candidates are qualified for the position, but at least one could make a vote against war.
That's an odd side line to take it on. Surely it is much better to consider her history as a whole? As far as I'm aware isn't she quite the supporter of what I am assuming we would both consider fundamentally immoral regimes across the world?
Define "supporter". Politics is dirty, and often involves doing business with not-nice people in order to achieve goals. That doesn't mean you support them, just tolerate them. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but this how the world works.
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.
there is evidence... Have you seen the hidden-cam video of Alan Schulkin, NYC commissioner of board of election claiming that they are in fact rigged? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0
Project veritas / James O'Keefe have zero credibility. They've edited videos and set people up so many times that no one pays attention to them anymore[1]
Not to mention "single issue voting" has become a huge trend in this country. Do you know any friends who are LGBT who will vote democrat just because of gay rights, but on any other day of the week are fiscally conservative?
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.
What you're describing seems only natural to me. Very few people sit entirely within the spectrum of one of the two parties - they have to evaluate both and see which has the most pluses. If you're gay, the Republican party is threatening your ability to get married and live without discrimination, so I can believe that might seem more important than relatively minor shifts in economic policy.
Well, take a different issue then, one that's larger and either drives people to or away from a party.
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.
"who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency"
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.
>Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against.
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.
> By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something?
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 am Gay. Hillary Clinton is on the record her entire career as opposing gay marriage. Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference".
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.
Which party has a stronger record of LGBT support? According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center[1], as recently as this year, only 33% of republicans supported gay marriage. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but what I'm really voting for is the Democrat party. This means keeping another Scalia out of the supreme court, and forcing the Republicans to take a long hard look at themselves, and really evaluate where they stand as a party.
This is asinine. It was one Clinton who signed DOMA, not Clintons (plural). 224 Republican members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of it, compared to 118 Democrats. 1 Republican voted against it, compared to 65 Democrats. In the Senate 53 Republicans voted for it, none voted against; 32 Democrats voted for it, 14 voted against it.
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.
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.
Adding to this: Clinton was personally responsible for new regulations that allow trans people to easily change the gender markers on their passport and their social security records (and there's also been regulations that rendered the gender marker on social security irrelevant, though I don't remember if that was before or after Clinton left).
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.
It's easy to end up at authoritarianism when you combine access to everyone's information, and an inherent belief in your own superiority and ability to "make the world a better place." The real surprise is that we haven't seen more of it.
>it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry.
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.
Having seen (and laughed at) these kinds of conspiratorial-looking posts in previous elections on the Republican side, I would normally completely agree with you — except most of these links are to things that Trump or his allies have actually, literally said. Page decoration or not, it's impossible to deny that.
Of course. But on the other hand Clinton also doesn't have a squeaky past.
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).
I strongly believe that there is no dirtiness in saying "your candidate is repugnant and we want nothing to do with his high-profile supporters". Sorry about lobbing in a Godwin, but I feel it's appropriate here. I've been watching a lot of WWII documentaries lately and it struck me just how excited and happy Germans were to see Hitler come to power. Before going to war, he was considered by many around the world to be a strong, positive leader for a resurgent Germany — to the point where people were asking if maybe authoritarianism wasn't such a bad thing after all. Seeing that made me wonder: how exactly would we prevent such a thing from happening in the future? Within the confines of democracy, the best way, as far as I can tell, is to repeat loudly and confidently as soon as we see it: your candidate is terrible, this is the path to fascism, this mockery of politics is beyond the pale and cannot be supported by reasonable people. And this especially applies to supporters with influence and power.
It's not dirty to merely express yourself, but it still might have unintended consequences.
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.
> To them, supporting Trump and Clinton are equally bad
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.
In short, you say "people who support that sort of witch hunt" are intolerant, and that there is no place for them here. So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved.
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.
"So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved".
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.
I think the second half of your comment is aligned with the second half of mine, so I will just reply to the first half of your comment.
> OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on
> the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong.
There is exclusion, and there is exclusion. The essay does not discuss stripping Mr. Thiel of his citizenship. It discusses doing business with Mr. Thiel, and the claim is that not doing business with Mr. Thiel on account of his support for Mr. Trump is a form of exclusion, and by your summary, that is 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.
> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them.
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?
Surely you do grasp the slight difference between words and being chased?
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.
How about you try getting uninvited from a conference getting called a "bigot" for supporting the wrong politician? I hear it feels great. Really makes you consider the other side's arguments dispassionately and clearly.
Tolerating their views, yes. Tolerating violence or the threat of violence, no.
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.
Etymology is really interesting. And the meaning of words can change and new meanings can be associated over time. The word computer dates back to the 17th century referring to a person who calculates.[0] I don't think this is the meaning most people intend when using the word computer today.
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.
> It is specifically and precisely about Thiel. As others have noted, YC has distanced itself from relationships for political reasons in the past.
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.
regarding #2, if you are American, you live in a STATE, not COUNTRY where that is your legal protection. Those of us in Louisiana, Georgia, Florida or Rhode Island can be fired for literally no reason.
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, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them.
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).
To take his support of the Republican party to mean that he is against non-white, non-males is dishonest and straw man. If you have some evidence then present it. Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. Clearly he doesn't support everything in Trump and the Republican party.
He may not be explicitly against non-white, non-male, non-gay, non-christian people, but he may be perfectly willing to have them thrown under the bus as long as he gets what he wants.
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.
Sure, but that's a consequence of a 2 party system and choosing the lesser evil, isn't it?
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?
> 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's the problem. Who exactly are affected by these "Social issues"? (Hint: It's not rich white guys).
That's democracy in general and one of the problems with it. People will generally vote for whatever is in their best interest at the expense of someone else. The 2 party system exacerbates the problem and steals choice from people by not allowing them to vote on specific issues.
That wasn't the argument I was making. What I was saying is that a policy of "We will allow people to express their political views free of judgement and consequence" only really works when "political views" is taken to mean "things we're saying about people who aren't in the room".
I'm not sure I follow. Any political view usually affects all people in any room.
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.
I don't think YC would be "destroying" Thiel by cutting ties with him as a partner.
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.
In a normal political climate I would agree, but I have to ask: is there a line? Is there any line? I think most people could imagine a political affiliation that they would want absolutely no association with. If Trump was a bit more murdery like Duterte, would it be OK to disavow his supporters then?
>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.
* 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.
free speech is not just saying people are allowed to talk about view points you agree with, it's saying that all speech should be allowed, even speech that is icky.
I am disappointed with Thiel's decision to donate money to Donald Trump, but I don't care what Ellen Pao or her organization thinks about it. It's their prerogative, but I laughed at the tagline 'Sometimes hard decisions aren't that hard after all'. I don't believe an attempt to pressure outside parties into severing business ties with someone because of their questionable political judgement should be treated as if it is some sort of noble crusade e.g.
> 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)
Or it's a stand against a movement which opposes their moral principles. To Pao (and, to the extent that it matters, me), D. Trump's movement is so vile that any prominent supporters of it waive their right to being tolerated. I am sure you'd agree that doing so would be acceptable if Thiel supported Strom Thurmond, Viktor Orban, or Mao Zedong; it's just a matter of how bad D. Trump is.
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?
"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."
You'll need to source that. Despite some evidence in his later actions, Strom never vocally repudiated his earlier racism. I couldn't find any sources on it.
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.
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.
I should have been more specific. The 24 hour marathon filibuster, the longest in history, put him in this position. There were others who filibustered the Civil Rights Act bills, but none of them made such a dramatic show of it.
When was it that he repudiated his racism? Because he said in a 1998 interview when asked if he wanted to apologize for running as a Dixiecrat. He said "I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets." He was also asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right and said "Yes, I do."
Presumably the OP thought Strom Thurmond was still a racist, which, as those quotes prove, is clearly true.
> 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:
Oh, I found that one, but the quote isn't sourced there either, and this appears to be a hit piece biography of Thurmond.
Even taking it at face value, the quote is grossly taken out of context, just as I said.
"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?
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.
> 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.
"If this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it."
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","
>You did know that Clinton called Byrd a "friend and mentor" but didn't know that Byrd repeatedly & profusely apologized for his racism.
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.
Despite his repeated apologies and support of legislation that helped people of color, you're not willing to believe that Byrd was genuine when he apologized. But you do believe Thurmond was genuine. Okay.
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.
Out of curiosity: What were your feelings about Brendan Eich?
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.
> ~everyone~ here and elsewhere called for him to step down.
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.
Cleaving off 40% of America is not a recipe for progress. When Trump shows his people how they're getting blacklisted from the economy, that isn't going to make them want to riot less. Our culture of progress has become entirely about excluding dissenters until they submit, and it's not working anymore. We've given up on convincing the people who have all the weapons, and now we're going to start hurting them economically. Good luck, y'all.
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...
This article from an infotainment site is the best write-up I've seen on where a lot of Trump's support comes from. Applies to Duck Dynasty's success as well imho.
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.
That's just nonsensical, and you've defined anything with membership as a "blacklist". What makes a blacklist a blacklist, is the list of "undesirables"; you don't just get to point to any body with membership and define all non-members as "blacklisted".
Again, as you seem not to have understood my point, you are not blacklisted, you have not been invited. There is a difference you're welcome to ignore, but don't be shocked when people don't take your complaints seriously.
Can't the list in a blacklist be defined by intension (like the set of people who support Trump), or does it have to be by extension (like the set of people whose name is on a literal list)?
There are two larges groups of people who are voting for Trump regardless of anything he does (as he said: he could shoot people down on 5th avenue and these people would still vote for him). The largest group of them are Republicans who will always vote Republican. My beef with these people is that I wish they were a little more loyal to our country's values than they were to their party, but fundamentally I've got no real problem with them.
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.
Those two groups overlap substantially (making the latter group a subset of the former was rather the point of Republican strategy beginning with Nixon's Southern Strategy, which exploited Johnson's support for civil rights legislation to try to peel that group off from the Democrats, who'd they'd supported since "White Nationalism" made a real go at having an actual nation; the Democrats have certainly lost them, but the Republicans haven't reliably captured all of them, though they've done a fair job of it.)
Out of the 40% that support Trump, the numbers I've seen are that roughly 10% support his identity politics. They might not call themselves white nationalists, but they are attracted by someone "telling it like it is" with respect to immigrants, inner cities, etc.
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.
40% of America is not interested in Trump. 57% of America isn't even voting, and significantly less than half of the remainder are supporting Trump. Of those, you'd be a bit thick to assume that more than half are doing it out of any meaningful support for him, rather than ideology or despising the alternatives.
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.
> 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.
I think the point is that there's no way you can win over hardcore Trump supporters. The Nazis and white nationalists that have rallied to him are a lost cause.
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.
This would be fine if HRC supporters were also going to be marginalized for advocating the use of drone warfare, warrantless wiretapping, and all the many deeply troubling things about HRC's policy ideas.
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?
Wow, the world is getting way too fractured between left and right. Reading that, the YC folks make out that Trump is a monster and any affiliation with him is evil. Come on, try to understand why people are supporting him. I don't think it's racism and sexism that's driving this, it's the wedge between left and right. Combine that with the two party system and people find themselves with little choice. When you vilify everyone on the other side there is little chance they'll come over to yours.
Thank you for posting this. To my view, partisans on both sides are roughly comparable. Some of their manipulative tactics differ in the specifics, but they are both dishonest and both harmful to society.
And people with this kind of thinking are considered to be the good guys? SNL writer Chris Kelly "How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?"[0]
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]
> This fabricated outrage created by media & Clinton campaign of Trump's 'alleged' doings is quite concerning.
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"?
> You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on.
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.
Clintons say they are running as a team. You can't take the good without the bad.
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?
> You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed.
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?
If it makes you feel any better, there are many of us that would like to see both Trump and B. Clinton in a court room.
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.
This obviously wasn't a hard decision for them. In the article she's doing her best to demonize Thiel and Trump without even trying to empathize.
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.
How can you distance yourself from Thiel if he has shown no interest in being connected to you?
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.
Some serious absolutism on display in this piece. Thiel isn't supporting a fringe candidate; most of the polls right now have a difference between Trump and Clinton smaller than the margin of error. To make the claim that a candidate backed by around 50% of the country is deplorable enough that we should completely divest from his supporters, is silly.
At Project Include, our mission is to give everyone a fair chance to succeed in the workplace. “Everyone” means all groups to us, but we draw a line at individuals who fund violence and hate.
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.
Most sitting presidents and secretary of states in the past 50 years have had to call for violence against other nations. It's part of the role and maybe she's made mistakes. But there's a difference between Secretary of State allowing an airstrike and being a owner of a company inciting others to violence.
Or, you know, explicitly calling for the commission of war crimes, for the use of torture, for the reintroduction of carpet bombing, and for the directed assassination of the family members of terrorists.
Peter Theil had a long term vision for the world where others failed to see such future. I see similar line of reasoning for Peter Theil's support.
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.
I don't see evidence of Thiel making any such remarks about women's rights to vote and the link cited actually makes the opposite claim. To me, it destroys an author's credibility to make such a blatantly false citation.
Thiel would tell you that's not what he meant, it was simply a factual observation that women tend to vote against his preferences, according to polling data. And I do think he is slightly redeemed by the fact that his conclusion was not "let's roll back women's suffrage", it was "let's get rid of voting altogether".
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.
He's saying that women tend not to vote libertarian, not that they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
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.”
how on earth can you trust someone's advice if they truly and honestly think like that?
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.
I'd say it's typical, and pathetic, not surprising. Lets not pretend that anyone particularly cares about his thoughts where they don't pertain to his incredibly narrow specialty, and more importantly, his money.
You can trust his advice based on his past record e.g. wasn't he the one who told Zuckerberg to abandon his music sharing ambitions and focus on Facebook? Or you could not trust his advice based on his record, e.g. his credulous investments based on "peak oil". Whether or not he wrote a blog post with some whacko (possibly thought experiment?) idea in it has no bearing on the quality of his advice
I am completely morally comfortable with the idea of YC opposing a $1.25 million handout to the candidate of mass deportation.
"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
Has Ellen Pao (and Project Include) spoken out against her husbands alleged Ponzi scheme? His alleged actions seems to be in direct conflict with the values of any wholesome tech company.
Thanks for saying this. As a non-American it's incredibly frustrating for me to keep hearing all this diversity BS talk, yet it's always always only skin-shallow attributes and no diversity in things like opinions or politics is ever tolerated... in the name of diversity.
Is this some US thing or are there really so many so obvious hypocrites out there?
> this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence.
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.
> There are still around 40% people voting for Trump and many donating to him, so you mean they are also advocating hatred and violence?
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.
It may be worth noting that Goldman Sachs recently banned all of its partners from donating to the Trump ticket, as of September 1, 2016. They can still donate to Clinton. [1]
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.
I don't get how you can be so cognizant of the problem of misaligned values while at the same time having an unquestionable faith in the value of diversity. How can you avoid cognitive dissonance here, except through a very shallow understanding of diversity that assumes all people or groups of people hold roughly the same values and beliefs and that where they differ, the difference never results in unresolvable incompatibility?
Kudos to Project Include for making this decision. This sends a clear signal that there is a growing (or at least increasingly vocalized) segment of the tech community that won't stand for a guy like Thiel to be a "captain" of this industry. I believe in the long run, he's holding us back.
Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. It's unlikely he is supportive of Trump's / Republican's bigotry, but more an issue of practicality since he doesn't like the alternative.
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.
Sorry, I must be ignorant of some facts. What am I missing? I haven't seen anything from Thiel that would be lead me to believe he is anti-gay. It seems quite the contrary to me. He even said in his Republican speech that he was gay. What do you mean by self-hating? His choice of the Republican party? There's really only 2 choices so you can't really take that to mean he supports everything from the Republican party.
Right -- it's kind of an intuition that's perhaps uniquely available to a gay person. It's an awareness you develop after talking to enough gay men -- some open and free, some repressed and mean. It becomes apparent that those who are most bitter, most mean, and most vindictive, are those who are actually hurting inside the most.
It seems to me that these concepts are totally foreign to the SF tech class, which seems to operate in what is perhaps believed to be a fully rational paradigm. But people aren't really that rational.
Peter Thiel very likely had a tough childhood, one that made him particularly sensitive to his sexuality. [E.g., not to go there but his vendetta against Gawker has no other explanation. Modern self-accepting gay men would probably say, "ok yeah um that was low but whatever."]
My evidence of him being self-hating is not from his political choices, but it's from everything else. It's from the way he speaks, his profound effort to be contrarian (I went through that phase), his peculiar vendetta against Gawker, and, to go there, his apparent lack of a stable partner. If there ever were a gay bachelor, it would be Peter Thiel -- but something is apparently wrong to make that an impossibility.
But in general, you might have to concede that your intuition on these issues is not as well developed here as that of a gay man's, who has seen these issues for many years on a deeply personal level.
- 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.
The problem is that this election is not about a difference of opinions over the fundamental issues. It's become a spite-driven, rage-fueled, all out fear mongering and hate breeding spectacle.
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.
Or the fire bombing of a GOP headquarters and physical assault of Trump supporters at rallies. Both of those are significantly more serious than people saying mean things on twitter. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either candidate, but your examples are incredibly one sided.
I won't comment on the physical assault, but I do know there are no identified suspects in the firebombing. It's a bit premature to blame Trump's opposition.
The words "Nazi Republicans get out of town or else" were spray painted on an adjacent building. Are you suggesting someone who didn't oppose Republicans, and their candidate, did that?
Let me repeat this again so we're absolutely clear: there have been NO identified suspects in this case and NO reported leads. It is too premature to guess anyone's motives.
> It's become a spite-driven, rage-fueled, all out fear mongering and hate breeding spectacle.
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.
> 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.
It is very difficult to make a case for libel or slander against a public official. I can't think of a single one, offhand.
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.
I'm not an American. I would rather not miss out on his presence as an investor at Demo day because of this ridiculous culture war your country is in and continues to escalate.
There's a real blind spot for SJWs to this kind of irony. They keep making these exact kinds of errors, over and over again, for instance advocating sexism or racism but thinking its ok because of the particular sex or race they choose to discriminate against.
I'm not sure what to think about the fact that someone can be 'blacklisted' in tech because their stance on an issue isn't aligned with the majority of the community, or they have voiced an opinion for or against a political candidate.
Not only does Pao expect everyone she works with to agree with her on her Important Concern, but also she expects the Important Concern to override all other potential considerations that might go into a person's decision on whom to support. That is a lot to ask for. There are after all only 2 effective choices.
Indeed. This may be the thread that gets me to leave HN for good. It feels like being inside a history book. It would be fascinating if it weren't so unsettling.
I would not be surprised if Thiel does not care about Trump's policies or character, but only about ending democracy and reducing the role of goverment, thus making the world "safe of capitalism": https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
Project Include is disassociating with YC because YC is associated with Peter Thiel who is associated with Donald Trump who advocates hatred and violence.
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.
>Due to his videos of ACORN workers allegedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the U.S. Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit. The national scandal resulted in the non-profit also losing most private funding before investigations were completed. In March 2010, ACORN was close to bankruptcy and had to close most of its offices.[1] Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. A preliminary probe by the GAO found that ACORN had managed its federal funds appropriately.[2][3]
The fox, having investigated the crime at the hen house, has determined that no foxes did anything wrong and the allegations that hens were harmed is unsupported.
I question the integrity of the author who wrote this article, but if people truly have an issue with Peter Thiel donating to the Republican candidate, then just stop giving him money—blacklist him, not YC. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon. Better than disagreeing with someone spending their money, why don't people collectively donate to the other candidate then? That's not the conclusion the author comes to and hence in my opinion this seems to be a company taking advantage of a situation for free PR.
I wish more companies would cut ties with Ellen. She's a joke. In summary, "I know we support diversity but not the kind of diversity where you support a candidate I don't like."
I keep getting back to this thought that a lot of what Peter does is to make a point about contrarianism - that is to stay a consistent contrarian (publicly atleast).
"donating $1.25 million is a lot more than speech"
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).
Thiel is a billionaire. If the worst things that Trump and his followers have advocated for come to pass, he most likely won't face any consequences that people of lesser means will.
Trump is uniquely dangerous and I would fully endorse YC cutting ties with prominent supporters/backers of his...if that would do anything concrete to reduce Trump's chances of winning the presidency, by even one epsilon. I don't Thiel doing office hours for YC companies gives him any sort of tactical advantage he could parlay into assisting Donald Trump's campaign, though I'm willing to entertain arguments otherwise.
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/
> I would fully endorse YC cutting ties with prominent supporters/backers of his...
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.
Bravo, 100% behind severing ties with YC until they break ties with bigot Peter Thiel. Bigotry != difference of opinion. It's inciting violence and hatred, which is different and very dangerous.
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.
I've noticed this for the past few months. Anything touching the current US election, no matter how engaging, is quickly sent off the front page. I'd guess it'd have to do with a quickly growing "Flame war", either by volume of down votes or flags or both.
> The Nazis and white nationalists that have rallied to him are a lost cause.
It's important that we avoid deliberately inflammatory statements like this on controversial issues—they serve only to disrupt already-sensitive threads.
And yet, a significant portion of Trump's current support is just that. Should we simply not talk about that fact for fear of inserting the reality of the controversy into a thread? It strikes me as disingenuous at best to try to silence people in the name of civility, when what they're saying is simply the truth.
I apologize for having misread your comment as suggesting that all those who rallied to him were Nazis. It was the use of that word that confused me, because I read it as a judgement rather than identifying a group of currently-living individuals in the US.
This is the kind of knee-jerk dismissal that made me lose respect for the reddit community. What she's saying resonates with a lot of people, especially marginalized ones, and for that reason alone she's worth hearing out.
Is one side always marginalized? Maybe in political matters you could frame it that way, but I don't think that's the case in most tech-related discussions. This is the fairly narrow case of discussing diversity in tech.
In what way a group of people that has the almost unanimous support of mainstream media, the current government and the (most likely) upcoming government can be called marginalized?
If it had been anyone else I would have read with more interest and sincerity. I'm not arguing with her message, I'm stating my opinion, that Ellen Pao has zero credibility in the tech community, and should be just as disregarded as Trump.
That's not a serious argument. People you dislike can be right. Hypocrites can be right. Hell, even Trump is right on some issues. That doesn't mean I like him or will vote for him.
> His attacks on Black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe.
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.
>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar
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.
> 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.
"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."
> 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.
Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies" and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or her urging?
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.
Lets just say Clinton did not push for the sales of the weapons. You thing Saudi Arabia would say oh well and make peace with the people they are bombing? They would find some other way to kill them. This may have been a
"choose your pit of snakes" situation. Either sell them some weapons or let them by develop or acquire gas/nuclear/bio weapons,
Your beef seems to be with the media and how it is framing the issues in the election.
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.
> "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."
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?
I disagree that Clinton is shitty. She certainly represents "politics as usual", and that is the current bogeyman of the hour. But ultimately she's an effective politician with reasonable positions.
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.
It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen.
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.
> "It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen."
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.
>So do you like Hilary Clinton's support for fracking?
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.
You're conflating "business here" with "business abroad". It happens a lot. These are two separate topics.
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.
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 personally tend to feel the same way as this. But I also don't think taking the other position is so unreasonable as to inherently warrant banishment.
In one case you're talking about a person and their personal actions in a personal situation.
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.
To generalise your point, as a non-USian looking in I'm baffled by the horror that many express towards Mr Trump as a potential President as if he is so much very different from anyone else operating in that stratum.
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 ]
But they respect the process, and the process is all we have.
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.
You tend to ignore the fact that foreign policy is not dictated by one person alone. Yes the secretary has a lot of say, but not ALL the say in these matters. The decision to have those countries as strategic allies is a country-level decision. The sale of weapons etc. is a result of that decision.
I don't think that's what anyone is arguing. People are arguing that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the american republic, not that he would be "bad for minorities". The racist thing is bad, but really only a small part of the overall badness of Donald Trump.
Its not so much about Trump, its about what he represents. If the U.S. Pres can say things like ban muslims, fc married women and grab them by the then it must be ok for us all to do it. I think people fear being in a society where racism/sexism is tolerated or even encouraged by the U.S. government. Does not matter what he has done. We are worried about what other people who feel empowered by him being president will think they can do
No one else's badness makes him good. Don't vote if you don't like the options. There's no need for us all to lower ourselves to the worst standard. But if apologizing for him is good enough for you, then consider that others have the freedom to forgive, disregard, or otherwise absorb the failings of their candidate.
Also, a "humble opinion" does not call something "complete bullshit" in the same sentence.
I agree. The key here is: Trump says mean things, Hillary does mean things (and has been doing so for nearly 30 years)
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.
The "mean things" Trump has said are largely confessions of doing "mean things", and things for which there is considerable additional evidence of him doing them. Whether it's sexual assault, or quid pro quo bribery.
The right way to do this would have been to simply drop the association with YC and give a minimalistic explanation when somebody would ask.
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.
Looks like Mr. Thiel will have to content himself with being inclusive on his own, or at least not as part of Ms. Pao's exclusionary inclusion organization. Her post made me think of a quote about "all right-thinking people" that I remembered incorrectly as something from (serious) political science, but it turned out to be from Monty Python. Thus discredited, I will not include it here, but will exclude it.
Edit: Oh wait, I see that Orwell had a good statement about right-thinking orthodoxy, and Monty Python did an excellent parody of it.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/499753-at-any-given-moment-t...http://www.montypython.net/scripts/right-think.php
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.