4 ms·

Also, a reminder of what I personally think about Trump from early this summer: http://blog.samaltman.com/trump http://blog.samaltman.com/trump

by sama 10y ago

idlewords 10y ago
So why do you continue to do business with one of his greatest supporters? At some point, these are just empty words. It would be less galling if you weren't an alarmist about Trump.
- Sniffnoy 10y ago
  EDIT: This comment has substantial problems, though I think the conclusion is still essentially correct; see discussion below Because that's liberalism. Separating concerns like this is the sort of thing that is fundamental to a liberal society. Trump is a serious problem. He is fundamentally illiberal. But what sort of victory is it if we defeat Trump and give up on liberalism anyway? Yeah, that whole Enlightenment project, let's just toss that right out, because we need to do so to preserve the Enlightenment. Destroying the village is a wonderful way of saving it. Instead of rule by reactionary tyrants who determine what you can and can't say, we'll have rule by leftist tyrants who determine what you can and can't say! Such an improvement. It does us no good to become the enemy in order to defeat it. And, what, are we to believe that this transformation is temporary? That oh sure maybe we'll fight dirty this time, but next time and in all the future times it will all be OK, liberal society will just come right back? No way. It is so much easier to destroy than to create. This sort of viciousness, of splitting everything into "us" and "them" and demanding that the "us" be in absolute control of everything... that's natural. That's human nature. To get people of different groups to live together without immediately going for each other's throats, to build the structures that allow that to occur, that takes work. We start down that road, we brush those supports aside, we're not coming back anytime soon. And again -- the Trumpers are very, very, wrong, but if we use dirty tricks to go after them, all they'll see is that we're using dirty tricks to go after them. It's a mistake to think that our behavior doesn't influence theirs. If we break the "no firing people for political reasons" rule, then so will they. The eventual endpoint of all this is a split society where Democrats can only buy from Democrats and Republicans can only buy from Republicans... or maybe it's another 30-years war. I think "don't start another 30-years war" is a good rule. (Which is another reason not to vote Trump, because he'll try to go after the Muslims and the Mexicans, and then... but you know that already.) In short, defeating Trump is important, but that's only part of what it's going to take to prevent a descent into illiberalism. ( Or maybe I'd be better off just linking to Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co... ) EDIT: Rereading, the final link is not actually appropriate in this case, given how much of a threat Donald Trump actually is. That said, I think my position is still basically correct due to the reasons I give in the grandchild comment.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, it's not. Any sufficiently complicated HN argument contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden implementation of half of John Rawls. This is a perfect example. It is not liberalism to stand idly by while an intolerant faction attempts to seize political power. We are required to tolerate intolerance only as long as it doesn't pose a threat to the safety of society. In a just society, even if we can agree on little else, we should all be able to agree on about equality of citizenship and equality of opportunity. Trump campaigns, actively and enthusiastically, against these principles. He is, according to Sam Wang's predictive models, within the "strike zone" of potentially being elected President. Were Trump like David Duke from 10 years ago, we'd be required to tolerate him despite his obvious intolerance towards us. But he's not: he's captured the support of tens of millions of American voters, all of whom are themselves enthusiastically supporting a platform that would create a religious test for entrance to the US, the "liberalization" of libel laws that would allow Trump to sue the New York Times for printing the claims of his sexual assault victims, and the incarceration of his political opponent. You don't have to take my word for this: that's what Paul Graham and Sam Altman think about him as well. Trump is a real, urgent threat to the fabric of our civil society. We are obligated not to be passive about him. Society has a right to defend itself.
    - Sniffnoy 10y ago
      So, if we weren't in such a sorry state already, I'd actually be in complete agreement with you. Ideally, yes, we'd distinguish between the more object-level norms and the meta-level norms required to defend them. And then we would do exactly as you say. It would be very nice to be able to do that. You're absolutely right that I've conflated these above. There is a reason I did that, and I should have been explicit about that, but it is certainly not correct in general to do so like I did above. The reason I didn't distinguish these above is because the defense system only works if it clearly is just a temporary defense system, if people in general are clear on the distinction. We ought to be able to say, "Nope, sorry, you're fundamentally illiberal, so we're not required to play nice with you," turn the cannon on them, and have it generally understood what we're doing. It would be a big relief. The actual political situation is that the water has been muddied substantially. A large portion of what was the liberal faction has been captured by the illiberal left. A large amount of the population was never liberal anyway and won't get the distinction. Lots of people have been going around saying that the thing that makes Trump fundamentally different is... any number of things that are not the key reason Trump needs to be stopped. In such a case, where most people likely won't see this crucial distinction, attempting to invoke this defense system is likely to appear no different than just abandoning liberalism. And if we allow it to look like we are, well, everyone else will then take that as an excuse. I would really like to fire that cannon. We ought to be able to fire that cannon. This is, as you say, the exact sort of situation it was meant for! But it looks to me like nobody ever bothered to tie it down properly. (If Trump stood more of a chance of victory, it might even be worth it. As it is, I'm not seeing it.)
- mlinsey 10y ago
  Can you explain how you think YC cutting off ties with Peter Thiel would decrease the likelihood (even infinitesimally) that Donald Trump becomes president? There are a number of tangible things an individual could do to help defeat Trump, but personally shunning a Trump supporter (even one as prominent as Thiel) seems more like a gesture designed to signal your own purity as opposed to doing anything concrete to prevent Trump from becoming president. If anything, it would probably be used as further evidence by the most conservative 30% of the country that Silicon Valley is their enemy.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    I don't think it would have any effect on the election. The real importance is to people in our industry, and young people who are thinking of entering our industry.
Alupis 10y ago
Sam, probably best to let this whole thing blow over. People are not here to have an impartial, rational discussion... unfortunately...

Also, a reminder of what I personally think about Trump from early this summer: http://blog.samaltman.com/trump http://blog.samaltman.com/trump

by sama 10y ago

Also, a reminder of what I personally think about Trump from early this summer: http://blog.samaltman.com/trump http://blog.samaltman.com/trump

idlewords 10y ago

So why do you continue to do business with one of his greatest supporters? At some point, these are just empty words. It would be less galling if you weren't an alarmist about Trump.

Sniffnoy 10y ago
EDIT: This comment has substantial problems, though I think the conclusion is still essentially correct; see discussion below Because that's liberalism. Separating concerns like this is the sort of thing that is fundamental to a liberal society. Trump is a serious problem. He is fundamentally illiberal. But what sort of victory is it if we defeat Trump and give up on liberalism anyway? Yeah, that whole Enlightenment project, let's just toss that right out, because we need to do so to preserve the Enlightenment. Destroying the village is a wonderful way of saving it. Instead of rule by reactionary tyrants who determine what you can and can't say, we'll have rule by leftist tyrants who determine what you can and can't say! Such an improvement. It does us no good to become the enemy in order to defeat it. And, what, are we to believe that this transformation is temporary? That oh sure maybe we'll fight dirty this time, but next time and in all the future times it will all be OK, liberal society will just come right back? No way. It is so much easier to destroy than to create. This sort of viciousness, of splitting everything into "us" and "them" and demanding that the "us" be in absolute control of everything... that's natural. That's human nature. To get people of different groups to live together without immediately going for each other's throats, to build the structures that allow that to occur, that takes work. We start down that road, we brush those supports aside, we're not coming back anytime soon. And again -- the Trumpers are very, very, wrong, but if we use dirty tricks to go after them, all they'll see is that we're using dirty tricks to go after them. It's a mistake to think that our behavior doesn't influence theirs. If we break the "no firing people for political reasons" rule, then so will they. The eventual endpoint of all this is a split society where Democrats can only buy from Democrats and Republicans can only buy from Republicans... or maybe it's another 30-years war. I think "don't start another 30-years war" is a good rule. (Which is another reason not to vote Trump, because he'll try to go after the Muslims and the Mexicans, and then... but you know that already.) In short, defeating Trump is important, but that's only part of what it's going to take to prevent a descent into illiberalism. ( Or maybe I'd be better off just linking to Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co... ) EDIT: Rereading, the final link is not actually appropriate in this case, given how much of a threat Donald Trump actually is. That said, I think my position is still basically correct due to the reasons I give in the grandchild comment.
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, it's not. Any sufficiently complicated HN argument contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden implementation of half of John Rawls. This is a perfect example. It is not liberalism to stand idly by while an intolerant faction attempts to seize political power. We are required to tolerate intolerance only as long as it doesn't pose a threat to the safety of society. In a just society, even if we can agree on little else, we should all be able to agree on about equality of citizenship and equality of opportunity. Trump campaigns, actively and enthusiastically, against these principles. He is, according to Sam Wang's predictive models, within the "strike zone" of potentially being elected President. Were Trump like David Duke from 10 years ago, we'd be required to tolerate him despite his obvious intolerance towards us. But he's not: he's captured the support of tens of millions of American voters, all of whom are themselves enthusiastically supporting a platform that would create a religious test for entrance to the US, the "liberalization" of libel laws that would allow Trump to sue the New York Times for printing the claims of his sexual assault victims, and the incarceration of his political opponent. You don't have to take my word for this: that's what Paul Graham and Sam Altman think about him as well. Trump is a real, urgent threat to the fabric of our civil society. We are obligated not to be passive about him. Society has a right to defend itself.
  - Sniffnoy 10y ago
    So, if we weren't in such a sorry state already, I'd actually be in complete agreement with you. Ideally, yes, we'd distinguish between the more object-level norms and the meta-level norms required to defend them. And then we would do exactly as you say. It would be very nice to be able to do that. You're absolutely right that I've conflated these above. There is a reason I did that, and I should have been explicit about that, but it is certainly not correct in general to do so like I did above. The reason I didn't distinguish these above is because the defense system only works if it clearly is just a temporary defense system, if people in general are clear on the distinction. We ought to be able to say, "Nope, sorry, you're fundamentally illiberal, so we're not required to play nice with you," turn the cannon on them, and have it generally understood what we're doing. It would be a big relief. The actual political situation is that the water has been muddied substantially. A large portion of what was the liberal faction has been captured by the illiberal left. A large amount of the population was never liberal anyway and won't get the distinction. Lots of people have been going around saying that the thing that makes Trump fundamentally different is... any number of things that are not the key reason Trump needs to be stopped. In such a case, where most people likely won't see this crucial distinction, attempting to invoke this defense system is likely to appear no different than just abandoning liberalism. And if we allow it to look like we are, well, everyone else will then take that as an excuse. I would really like to fire that cannon. We ought to be able to fire that cannon. This is, as you say, the exact sort of situation it was meant for! But it looks to me like nobody ever bothered to tie it down properly. (If Trump stood more of a chance of victory, it might even be worth it. As it is, I'm not seeing it.)
mlinsey 10y ago
Can you explain how you think YC cutting off ties with Peter Thiel would decrease the likelihood (even infinitesimally) that Donald Trump becomes president? There are a number of tangible things an individual could do to help defeat Trump, but personally shunning a Trump supporter (even one as prominent as Thiel) seems more like a gesture designed to signal your own purity as opposed to doing anything concrete to prevent Trump from becoming president. If anything, it would probably be used as further evidence by the most conservative 30% of the country that Silicon Valley is their enemy.
- idlewords 10y ago
  I don't think it would have any effect on the election. The real importance is to people in our industry, and young people who are thinking of entering our industry.

Alupis 10y ago

Sam, probably best to let this whole thing blow over. People are not here to have an impartial, rational discussion... unfortunately...