6 ms·

I think a lot of the problems with the YC/Thiel discussion stems from the difference between how people view it: is it a political disagreement, or is it an eth

by holman 10y ago

I think a lot of the problems with the YC/Thiel discussion stems from the difference between how people view it: is it a political disagreement, or is it an ethical disagreement? In a "normal" election, this would be pretty cut-and-dry: it'd primarily be a political disagreement over taxes or something, and letting someone go because of their political beliefs would be viewed by many as being pretty extreme. Many people — myself included — view support for Trump today as an ethical problem. When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate. It's not political for many people who will see — and have seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives. So yeah, there's a lot of anger with YC supporting someone in a leadership position here. I know YC keeps mentioning that Thiel is in a part time position, but he's still in an advisory position, which brings with it a lot of responsibility and ownership that we'd hope YC would be much more understanding about the impact of such a position. I appreciate that it's a tricky situation for Sam and others to be in, but I do hope that they'd reconsider their stance in the future. Until then, on a personal level, I'm not interested in applying to Y Combinator. That's one small thing that I can do in the meantime, at least.

andrewingram 10y ago
Well said, my thoughts exactly.
MartinCron 10y ago
It seems that your argument is that this particular election is pulling items from the sphere of deviance into the sphere of legitimate controversy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres
grzm 10y ago
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a civil, well-reasoned way. To me, this is a good example of how one can approach a divisive position in a way that has some hope of reaching people who may not agree with you. Much appreciated!
tbird24 10y ago
Although I want badly to agree, I can't help but think that it's a slippery slope. We can treat this election like a special case because we think it is one, but ~>40% of the US population will vote for Trump in November. We can't condemn 40% of the population, can we? What's the counter argument to this?
- douche 10y ago
  The country is really bifurcating. It's a very dangerous bifurcation, because it is not a regional difference; it is essentially an urban/rural difference. Most dangerously, there is the situation where the urban cohort represents power and money, while the rural cohort overwhelmingly supplies their sons and daughters to populate the armed services that protect the money. As a thought experiment, I've thought what a modern-day civil war would look like. Assuming it wasn't crushed instantly by the military, I think it would look like the vast areas of fly-over-country besieging the urban areas, with huge chunks of the current command structure and rank and file joining the rebels.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Yes. Military people are usually very conservative. It would be hard to get them to engage on the "liberal" side of such a conflict. No doubt there would be defections of entire bases and installments.
zeveb 10y ago
> It's not political for many people who will see — and have seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives. Of course, if you fire people who are supporting your opponent, then you will have caused 'very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility' that effects them. That's what creates the cycles of radicalisation and polarisation: he-said, she-said, tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye politics.
- slantedview 10y ago
  How about firing someone for damaging your brand and your business through their personal actions? Billy Bush wasn't fired for the things Trump said, he was fired because his association with Trump during that incident caused real damage to his company's brand.
  - douche 10y ago
    Be honest. Who the fuck knew the name Billy Bush before this "scandal"?
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Really? I don't think the mind-numbingly large conglomerate behind NBC could be tarnished by anything a low-level bit reporter like Billy Bush could do.
strato 10y ago
Who's the arbiter on what's an -ism and an -obia? Just feels like another tactic by the left to create a safe space for itself by demonizing anything that might undermine its arguments.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  The guy bragged about committing sexual assault with impunity. If that's not sexism I don't know what is. You don't have to dig deep here.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
elect2016 10y ago
I think it's ignorant to assume it's an ethical problem just because someone supports a presidential candidate.
masterleep 10y ago
If you believe that Clinton has a greater propensity to start or inflame wars, and that wars are a greater evil than racism or sexism, then it may well be unethical to support her. It may even be an ethical duty to support Trump.
sysk 10y ago
This is 900% rationalization. > When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate The exact same argument could be convincingly used to discriminate against members of the two largest organized religions. Are you also going to ask potential hires who they voted for at the last election too?
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  Thiel is not simply voting for Trump, he's actively trying to help get him elected (first with an appearance at the RNC and then to the tune of 1.25m). And that's after the "hot mic" tape. Which means that Thiel thinks the propensity for commiting sexual assault should not be a disqualifying feature of a presidential candidate.

by holman 10y ago

andrewingram 10y ago

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

MartinCron 10y ago

It seems that your argument is that this particular election is pulling items from the sphere of deviance into the sphere of legitimate controversy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres

grzm 10y ago

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a civil, well-reasoned way. To me, this is a good example of how one can approach a divisive position in a way that has some hope of reaching people who may not agree with you. Much appreciated!

tbird24 10y ago

Although I want badly to agree, I can't help but think that it's a slippery slope. We can treat this election like a special case because we think it is one, but ~>40% of the US population will vote for Trump in November. We can't condemn 40% of the population, can we? What's the counter argument to this?

douche 10y ago
The country is really bifurcating. It's a very dangerous bifurcation, because it is not a regional difference; it is essentially an urban/rural difference. Most dangerously, there is the situation where the urban cohort represents power and money, while the rural cohort overwhelmingly supplies their sons and daughters to populate the armed services that protect the money. As a thought experiment, I've thought what a modern-day civil war would look like. Assuming it wasn't crushed instantly by the military, I think it would look like the vast areas of fly-over-country besieging the urban areas, with huge chunks of the current command structure and rank and file joining the rebels.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Yes. Military people are usually very conservative. It would be hard to get them to engage on the "liberal" side of such a conflict. No doubt there would be defections of entire bases and installments.

zeveb 10y ago

> It's not political for many people who will see — and have seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives. Of course, if you fire people who are supporting your opponent, then you will have caused 'very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility' that effects them. That's what creates the cycles of radicalisation and polarisation: he-said, she-said, tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye politics.

slantedview 10y ago
How about firing someone for damaging your brand and your business through their personal actions? Billy Bush wasn't fired for the things Trump said, he was fired because his association with Trump during that incident caused real damage to his company's brand.
- douche 10y ago
  Be honest. Who the fuck knew the name Billy Bush before this "scandal"?
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Really? I don't think the mind-numbingly large conglomerate behind NBC could be tarnished by anything a low-level bit reporter like Billy Bush could do.

strato 10y ago

Who's the arbiter on what's an -ism and an -obia? Just feels like another tactic by the left to create a safe space for itself by demonizing anything that might undermine its arguments.

AlexandrB 10y ago
The guy bragged about committing sexual assault with impunity. If that's not sexism I don't know what is. You don't have to dig deep here.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

elect2016 10y ago

I think it's ignorant to assume it's an ethical problem just because someone supports a presidential candidate.

masterleep 10y ago

If you believe that Clinton has a greater propensity to start or inflame wars, and that wars are a greater evil than racism or sexism, then it may well be unethical to support her. It may even be an ethical duty to support Trump.

sysk 10y ago

This is 900% rationalization. > When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate The exact same argument could be convincingly used to discriminate against members of the two largest organized religions. Are you also going to ask potential hires who they voted for at the last election too?

AlexandrB 10y ago
Thiel is not simply voting for Trump, he's actively trying to help get him elected (first with an appearance at the RNC and then to the tune of 1.25m). And that's after the "hot mic" tape. Which means that Thiel thinks the propensity for commiting sexual assault should not be a disqualifying feature of a presidential candidate.