5 ms·

> We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political candidate. That's not how things are done in this country. Amen.

Koshkin 10y ago
> the wrong This should be written in double quotes.
1337biz 10y ago
I am always skeptical when somebody takes his personal opinion as the metric to tell the world what right and wrong is.
- rwmj 10y ago
  He explained pretty clearly in the article why Trump is objectively wrong.
  - eeks 10y ago
    No, "subjectively" wrong. Trump is wrong from Altman's standpoint, not from an absolute "good" or "evil" standpoint. Except if you do believe the latter, and in that case any discussion is moot.
    - rwmj 10y ago
      No, objectively. Granted sama doesn't provide detailed references, but you can find factual backing for statements such as these ones easily if you look: "A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy." "He has no real plan to restore economic growth." "His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer" "He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants." "Trump shows little respect for the Constitution"
      - eeks 10y ago
        Not that I want to split hair but in the examples you gave: 1) Subjective This is an opinion, not a fact. 2) Objective I agree. But that does not make him "objectively" wrong. 3) Subjective Without starting a discussion about Trump alleged racism, whether or not a somewhat isolationist policy would either divide our country or make American innovation suffer is a matter of opinion, not facts. Some other prominent investors seem to disagree. Besides, examples in our history would tend to show the contrary (I am referring to Roosevelt policies after the '29 crash). 4) Subjective Unless SCOTUS rules that his stands are unconstitutional, it's only a matter of interpretation.
        rwmj 10y ago
        A Trump presidency would be an economic disaster: Objectively true because his policies involve reducing taxes, increasing spending, and isolating the country from free trade (eg. withdrawing from NAFTA which has been shown to have created jobs and growth on both sides of the border). "American innovation would suffer": Because of economic consequences, so see above. "He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage": I don't even know how you can argue against this, just watch one of his speeches. "He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants": He personally is a threat to women, and his policies, such as they are, are now stiring up racial hatred. Again, an objective truth. "Trump shows little respect for the Constitution": He announced several completely unconstitutional plans, such as suspending the right of US citizens to return to the country if they are Muslims. You don't need a ruling from the Supreme Court on this.
- sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
  Except that he made the case for why he thinks Trump is the wrong candidate. Keep in mind, he wrote a blog post earlier giving credit to Trump on topics that he is correct on.
  - 1337biz 10y ago
    Didn't the the other post. Thanks for pointing that out!
- qntty 10y ago
  Could you say what it would mean to have an idea of right and wrong that isn't an opinion? What would it be if not an opinion?
- sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
  What do you think 'right' and 'wrong' mean ? It will always be a matter of opinion. Especially since one side in this election is adamant to ignore empirical/scientific evidence when it comes to topics like global warming and discrimination.
braythwayt 10y ago
Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak. If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge. But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the weak, nor is it a case of the powerful purging voices from discourse. It's a choice, simple as that. Agree, disagree, fine. But it's not a purge, and it's not oppression.
- DougN7 10y ago
  What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.
  - braythwayt 10y ago
    Great discussion to be had, but you seem to be working this towards a slippery slope argument that if we don't choose to do business with billionaires to give millions and stump at the RNC convention, it won't be long before we're firing 43% of the workforce. I can accept that YC may choose not to cut Mr. Thiel loose, but I'm not convinced that there is a moral imperative not to cut him loose.
    - DougN7 10y ago
      Where does it stop though? Where is the line where you say "I disagree with you, therefore I will not associate with you"? There is definitely a line. Supporting a candidate who says a lot of stuff probably isn't it. I knew people who were against Obama because his religious leader had said something that could be construed to be pro-satan. Obama is not a 100% mirror (or even a tiny bit) that religious leader. Not supporting Trump for what he says seems fine - he's 100% responsible for what he says. Not supporting someone else, who supports Trump, is not OK. That other person has separate thoughts, and input from hundreds/thousands of other people. It's like saying if you support someone who supports Clinton, you support top secret emails being on everyone's private servers. It's a tiny slice of the whole. Or, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".

Koshkin 10y ago

> the wrong This should be written in double quotes.

1337biz 10y ago

I am always skeptical when somebody takes his personal opinion as the metric to tell the world what right and wrong is.

rwmj 10y ago
He explained pretty clearly in the article why Trump is objectively wrong.
- eeks 10y ago
  No, "subjectively" wrong. Trump is wrong from Altman's standpoint, not from an absolute "good" or "evil" standpoint. Except if you do believe the latter, and in that case any discussion is moot.
  - rwmj 10y ago
    No, objectively. Granted sama doesn't provide detailed references, but you can find factual backing for statements such as these ones easily if you look: "A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy." "He has no real plan to restore economic growth." "His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer" "He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants." "Trump shows little respect for the Constitution"
    - eeks 10y ago
      Not that I want to split hair but in the examples you gave: 1) Subjective This is an opinion, not a fact. 2) Objective I agree. But that does not make him "objectively" wrong. 3) Subjective Without starting a discussion about Trump alleged racism, whether or not a somewhat isolationist policy would either divide our country or make American innovation suffer is a matter of opinion, not facts. Some other prominent investors seem to disagree. Besides, examples in our history would tend to show the contrary (I am referring to Roosevelt policies after the '29 crash). 4) Subjective Unless SCOTUS rules that his stands are unconstitutional, it's only a matter of interpretation.
      - rwmj 10y ago
        A Trump presidency would be an economic disaster: Objectively true because his policies involve reducing taxes, increasing spending, and isolating the country from free trade (eg. withdrawing from NAFTA which has been shown to have created jobs and growth on both sides of the border). "American innovation would suffer": Because of economic consequences, so see above. "He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage": I don't even know how you can argue against this, just watch one of his speeches. "He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants": He personally is a threat to women, and his policies, such as they are, are now stiring up racial hatred. Again, an objective truth. "Trump shows little respect for the Constitution": He announced several completely unconstitutional plans, such as suspending the right of US citizens to return to the country if they are Muslims. You don't need a ruling from the Supreme Court on this.
sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
Except that he made the case for why he thinks Trump is the wrong candidate. Keep in mind, he wrote a blog post earlier giving credit to Trump on topics that he is correct on.
- 1337biz 10y ago
  Didn't the the other post. Thanks for pointing that out!
qntty 10y ago
Could you say what it would mean to have an idea of right and wrong that isn't an opinion? What would it be if not an opinion?
sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
What do you think 'right' and 'wrong' mean ? It will always be a matter of opinion. Especially since one side in this election is adamant to ignore empirical/scientific evidence when it comes to topics like global warming and discrimination.

braythwayt 10y ago

Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak. If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge. But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the weak, nor is it a case of the powerful purging voices from discourse. It's a choice, simple as that. Agree, disagree, fine. But it's not a purge, and it's not oppression.

DougN7 10y ago
What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.
- braythwayt 10y ago
  Great discussion to be had, but you seem to be working this towards a slippery slope argument that if we don't choose to do business with billionaires to give millions and stump at the RNC convention, it won't be long before we're firing 43% of the workforce. I can accept that YC may choose not to cut Mr. Thiel loose, but I'm not convinced that there is a moral imperative not to cut him loose.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    Where does it stop though? Where is the line where you say "I disagree with you, therefore I will not associate with you"? There is definitely a line. Supporting a candidate who says a lot of stuff probably isn't it. I knew people who were against Obama because his religious leader had said something that could be construed to be pro-satan. Obama is not a 100% mirror (or even a tiny bit) that religious leader. Not supporting Trump for what he says seems fine - he's 100% responsible for what he says. Not supporting someone else, who supports Trump, is not OK. That other person has separate thoughts, and input from hundreds/thousands of other people. It's like saying if you support someone who supports Clinton, you support top secret emails being on everyone's private servers. It's a tiny slice of the whole. Or, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".