8 ms·

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

Moral accusations aside (after all, no politician has a clean slate), I'm really curious why you think it's a good idea to mix politics and business? Personally, though, I think both candidates have their fair share of dirt. Here in California, we are pretty shielded from the other side. I've been home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (where pg is from) for the past month working remotely, and it has been a real eye-opener hearing the other side of the story. Full disclosure: I'm voting for Hillary. > "given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping first and money second" Can you elaborate? Not that I disagree with you, but I am curious what your thoughts are. > "Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC" I strongly disagree ("BUT {mainstream political candidate} is, represents, or supports X" isn't a valid rebuttal either, no matter what X is -- supporting said candidate should never justify an employer jeopardizing one's livelihood in a _truly_ democratic society; McCarthyism is a great analogy).

DasIch 10y ago
You're making a mistake that seems to be common in the US. You're assuming politics can just be excluded or ignored somehow. It's an idea that is utterly ridiculous. Politics is about designing how humans live together. Everything you do or say that somehow has an effect on another human being, whether it is direct or indirect, whether it changes or reaffirms the status quo is political. Continueing to do business with Thiel is just as political as to stop doing business with him. To pretend otherwise only shows both how privileged and ignorant of politics you are.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  /s/politics/government Yes, and I'm not talking about "social politics" which pervade every social interaction (given we're still very much a tribal species); I'm talking about governing politics -- which political party someone belongs to, which candidate they support, which mainstream opinions they have, etc.
  - DasIch 10y ago
    The difference between the two is merely one of scale and often not even that. This election shows this especially well. Gay marriage, abortion and many other issues that are "social politics" are very much on the table.
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      The main issues are things like immigration, trade, health care, foreign policy, etc. These social issues are mainly used around election time to polarize and to win voters: Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008 http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/ http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/ No matter who is elected, you're going to end up with the same social policies trending towards progress: pro-choice, legal gay marriage, legal marijuana, etc. if Trump ends up in the White House (thankfully he most likely won't), it will look more or less like every other presidency. Trump's "Facism" (or whatever you want to call it) will end up effectively being the same thing (nothing) as Obama's "Change". Remember, we have things like multiple branches of government, checks and balances, and the Constitution; we're not going to just devolve into Nazi Germany because Trump was elected President (contrary to any FUD). THAT is just crazy talk. I've seen ads every year put out by opposing candidates asserting the demise of our society as we know it should said opposition get elected. Every year, it happens...
3pt14159 10y ago
Because the stakes are different this time. You can support anyone, even Ted Cruz and I'll continue to do business with you, while disagreeing with almost everything you say. But Trump threatens the survival of American democracy. Trump threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  This is the kind of familiar diatribe I am talking about, that I've heard over and over again about every Republican Party candidate: "But Bush threatens the survival of American democracy. Bush threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is." ^ Does this ring a bell to you? It should. No need for exaggerated inflammatory language. Yes, I don't like Trump at all either, but just vote for Hillary like I am, instead of issuing an opinionated ad hominem attack. You're better than that. There's no reason to believe almost half of our fellow American population is behind a fascist dictator.
  - eropple 10y ago
    You are correct in that the rhetoric used regarding Bush was in retrospect overheated, though it cannot be forgotten that George W. Bush is a literal-not-fictional war criminal by most reasonable readings of international law; Bush was by no means even a mediocre politician but ranks comfortably in the bottom ten of American presidents, ever. He earned every drop of rancor he got. Trump is a difference of kind, not degree. He is an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite (and not in the "don't agree with Israel, AIPAC says you're an anti-Semite" fashion but the actual, "happy to imply that Jews secretly run the world" anti-Semite position). He has admitted to sexual assault on tape and tries to discredit those with claims against him by implying that the women in question are too ugly to assault. He is actively attempting to undermine trust in American elections by claiming that all of the polls are lying and that the only way he can lose is that the election is rigged. He is the venal id of the reactionary right and he is different from anything that came before. These are not things that have been done even by Republicans. They are not merely things that can be waved away with muddy gray-fallacy middle-ground thinking; that Trump's candidacy is credible in the face of the literal daily drop of another crime or another attempt to undermine the electoral system in which he is participating is an incipient threat to that system. This is not a game of Internet gotcha-fallacy where victory goes to the first person who can quote a bit of Latin they don't understand, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" in the first place. It is a moral argument to character. People aren't saying that arguments made by to Trump or Trump's supporters are invalid because they're blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes, they're saying that Trump and Trump's supporters are abjectly terrifying and blisteringly unqualified to be anywhere near the levers of power to a degree heretofore unseen because they are blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes. What they are is why the argument is made.

DasIch 10y ago

You're making a mistake that seems to be common in the US. You're assuming politics can just be excluded or ignored somehow. It's an idea that is utterly ridiculous. Politics is about designing how humans live together. Everything you do or say that somehow has an effect on another human being, whether it is direct or indirect, whether it changes or reaffirms the status quo is political. Continueing to do business with Thiel is just as political as to stop doing business with him. To pretend otherwise only shows both how privileged and ignorant of politics you are.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Hydraulix989 10y ago
/s/politics/government Yes, and I'm not talking about "social politics" which pervade every social interaction (given we're still very much a tribal species); I'm talking about governing politics -- which political party someone belongs to, which candidate they support, which mainstream opinions they have, etc.
- DasIch 10y ago
  The difference between the two is merely one of scale and often not even that. This election shows this especially well. Gay marriage, abortion and many other issues that are "social politics" are very much on the table.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    The main issues are things like immigration, trade, health care, foreign policy, etc. These social issues are mainly used around election time to polarize and to win voters: Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008 http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/ http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/ No matter who is elected, you're going to end up with the same social policies trending towards progress: pro-choice, legal gay marriage, legal marijuana, etc. if Trump ends up in the White House (thankfully he most likely won't), it will look more or less like every other presidency. Trump's "Facism" (or whatever you want to call it) will end up effectively being the same thing (nothing) as Obama's "Change". Remember, we have things like multiple branches of government, checks and balances, and the Constitution; we're not going to just devolve into Nazi Germany because Trump was elected President (contrary to any FUD). THAT is just crazy talk. I've seen ads every year put out by opposing candidates asserting the demise of our society as we know it should said opposition get elected. Every year, it happens...

3pt14159 10y ago

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

Hydraulix989 10y ago
This is the kind of familiar diatribe I am talking about, that I've heard over and over again about every Republican Party candidate: "But Bush threatens the survival of American democracy. Bush threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is." ^ Does this ring a bell to you? It should. No need for exaggerated inflammatory language. Yes, I don't like Trump at all either, but just vote for Hillary like I am, instead of issuing an opinionated ad hominem attack. You're better than that. There's no reason to believe almost half of our fellow American population is behind a fascist dictator.
- eropple 10y ago
  You are correct in that the rhetoric used regarding Bush was in retrospect overheated, though it cannot be forgotten that George W. Bush is a literal-not-fictional war criminal by most reasonable readings of international law; Bush was by no means even a mediocre politician but ranks comfortably in the bottom ten of American presidents, ever. He earned every drop of rancor he got. Trump is a difference of kind, not degree. He is an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite (and not in the "don't agree with Israel, AIPAC says you're an anti-Semite" fashion but the actual, "happy to imply that Jews secretly run the world" anti-Semite position). He has admitted to sexual assault on tape and tries to discredit those with claims against him by implying that the women in question are too ugly to assault. He is actively attempting to undermine trust in American elections by claiming that all of the polls are lying and that the only way he can lose is that the election is rigged. He is the venal id of the reactionary right and he is different from anything that came before. These are not things that have been done even by Republicans. They are not merely things that can be waved away with muddy gray-fallacy middle-ground thinking; that Trump's candidacy is credible in the face of the literal daily drop of another crime or another attempt to undermine the electoral system in which he is participating is an incipient threat to that system. This is not a game of Internet gotcha-fallacy where victory goes to the first person who can quote a bit of Latin they don't understand, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" in the first place. It is a moral argument to character. People aren't saying that arguments made by to Trump or Trump's supporters are invalid because they're blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes, they're saying that Trump and Trump's supporters are abjectly terrifying and blisteringly unqualified to be anywhere near the levers of power to a degree heretofore unseen because they are blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes. What they are is why the argument is made.