5 ms·

I am 100% in favor of Sam Altman's decision for the following reasons: 1. Trump is offensive, racist, sexist and a terrible human being all around. I am Mexican

I am 100% in favor of Sam Altman's decision for the following reasons: 1. Trump is offensive, racist, sexist and a terrible human being all around. I am Mexican, and I hate his guts and everything about him. However, I believe in what Voltaire once smartly said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I do not agree at all with Peter Thiel's decision to support Trump in the RNC or with money, but I defend his right to express himself. 2. Sam Altman and Paul Graham have done a lot to defeat Trump and elect Hillary as president. One of their part time partners supports Trump, that is not indicative of YC's political view. 3. Peter Thiel is a business man, and investor therefore that is what I focus on, his book which is fantastic and his work on facebook, can't judge him unfairly on everything, just because he supports Trump. He has a brilliant business mind and that is why he is a part time partner at YC and that is in the arena he should be judged. I am strongly in favor of free speech. Peter should be scrutinized and debated, not fired. Sam Altman does not deserve any nonsense because of this.

hyperbovine 10y ago
I agree with you, that is the defense Sam Altman ought to have mounted, to the extent he owed anyone an explanation in the first place. Instead, he is paraphrased as having delivered this head-scratcher: "Y Combinator president Sam Altman says that he is wary of terminating the group's association with someone merely for supporting one of the two major parties' presidential candidates, and he says that Thiel has endorsed Trump, but has not explicitly endorsed Trump's racist or sexist point of view -- a narrow distinction." Sam Altman appears to agree with many republican members of congress that you can endorse someone with endorsing their views. Which, I'm sorry, is just a totally bogus and lawyerly excuse whose only function is to explain away bad behavior.
- geofft 10y ago
  Yeah. Free speech is one thing, but actively supporting ridiculous viewpoints is another thing entirely, and can't be defended in the name of supporting free speech. Specifically, this is how Trump became a major party candidate. He was a media personality who waded into a made-up political controversy (the whole birther thing). There wasn't a shred of evidence for one side of that discussion, yet people insisted on giving that side a "fair" hearing. Then he became a fringe candidate, and nobody wanted to call him out on his idiocy and fascism, because hey, free speech. Then he became a major party candidate, and you can't break your association with supporters of a major party candidate. Then he says Obama was obviously born in the US but he was happy to have caused the conversation. Of course he was happy to have caused the conversation! It gave him a legitimacy he never should have had in the first place, and he just played that game repeatedly. Peter Thiel will have plenty of millions to donate to Trump whether or not he's a YC partner. His right to speech (verbal, written, or monetary) is in no danger. But the speech question here is whether YC will continue saying that support of Trump is a reasonable position. And if they continue saying so, it will be hypocritical (although one is free to say as many hypocritical things as one wishes) to regret his presidency.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  So all Hillary supporters endorse torture and believe it should be (sometimes) legal? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/10/tort-o28.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/10/tort-o28.html All Obama supporters in 2008 and 2012 endorse his anti-gay marriage views?
  - alanh 10y ago
    Yes, this is worth noting. Presidential candidate is essentially a binary choice, not on/off, but A or B; one or both candidates can deeply offend people in certain ways and yet still get their vote or support because of a certain issue on which there is actually agreement. Cognitive dissonance can be a hell of a thing, and it seems to be at play here. We should recognize this and limit our extreme reactions when it rears its head.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      It seems like there's certain difference not just in magnitude but quality between Trump and previous Republicans. I'd have never voted for Romney, for example, but I wouldn't have had a major problem with friends supporting him. Trump seems to be different. He's different enough to get a significant number of Republicans to defect – not just other candidates, who might just be following public opinion, but also retiring politicians or commentators, where I can't think of a reason besides an honest believe in the danger of a Trump presidency. His words & actions actions are outside the Overton window, and I'd argue the problem is that he's not just threatening policy positions many hold dear (something like drilling for oil in national parks or supporting the poor<1>), but because he seems to potential affect the machinery of democracy itself (threatening to create laws restricting the press' ability to criticize him or to jail HC). <1> made-up examples of policies people don't like. I actually couldn't remember any policies he's advocating
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Hillary also supports laws restricting the ability to criticize her. She will probably choose a supreme Court justice who will roll back citizens united (which protected the ability of private citizens to make "Hillary: The Movie" which criticized Hillary). That isn't outside the Overtones window at all.
matt4077 10y ago
The right to free speech is a limitation of Government powers. A private entity like Include can do whatever they want. And considering Thiel's "speech" was mostly through money, and their "speech" is mostly through "no longer working with them", it seems they're pretty much doing the same thing. Firing, in this case, would also be an embodiment of speech. (Although I'd argue there should be more stringent anti-discrimination laws to stop people from firing others for their political opinions (but I'd also argue that he's no employee of YC)).
- basch 10y ago
  there is a difference between the right to free speech and the philosophy of free speech. free speech as an ideal existed long before the laws protecting it.
  - ipatriot 10y ago
    What is the difference? Shouldn't we strive for the most free speech possible. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America states as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The government protects free speech in all its forms, including the horrible vile that comes out of Trump. Why can't us informed citizens respect other people's point of view and defeat it with facts, reasoning and logic. When we shut off members of a society because we disagree with them, we are pushing them to the extreme, leaving them isolated and creating more horrible monsters. A democratic and free society must tolerate all opinions to actually be free and not be run by a certain group that prohibits certain types of speech.
    - basch 10y ago
      youre asking me what the difference between a right and theory are? the right is the philosophy put into practice, the philosophy is a more abstract thought experiment and ideal. in america, the right to free speech gives prevents the government from suppressing your speech. it doesnt protect you from private companies refusing to propagate your message or others talking louder than you, or people refusing to do business with you because they dont like what you said. freedom of speech isnt freedom from consequence. companies however can choose, by their own accord, to value and prioritize the philosophy of free speech.
secstate 10y ago
Would it were universally applied sir. PG himself banned reps from companies in support of SOPA from Demo Days five years ago. I'm not saying that was a bad decision (SOPA, ugh ...), but sometimes who you don't invite says as much about your org as who you do invite. In this case, keeping Thiel involved at all means they don't give a shit about his support for a fear-mongering demagogue who appears to be punking the nation into electing a dictator.
danudey 10y ago
> However, I believe in what Voltaire once smartly said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". For what it's worth, Voltaire never said that. It was a description, written by Tallentyre, of Voltaire's attitude towards De l’esprit after the book became a resouding success and everyone who hated Helvétius for writing it suddenly wanted to be his friend once he was a popular success. > but I defend his right to express himself. Sure, and he's expressing himself by giving millions of dollars to a man who, by his own account, thinks the president can and should behave as a fascist dictator. Altman deserves attention for that reason: does Peter Thiel truly reflect the will and opinions of Trump supporters? That seems implausible at best. More likely Thiel is their opposite in many ways, but he sees an opportunity that he can get by aligning with Trump. In other words, I don't believe that Thiel speaks on behalf of Trump supporters, or that his input really helps to target them at all, but rather his recent history has shown he is more likely behaving in his own selfish self-interest.

hyperbovine 10y ago

I agree with you, that is the defense Sam Altman ought to have mounted, to the extent he owed anyone an explanation in the first place. Instead, he is paraphrased as having delivered this head-scratcher: "Y Combinator president Sam Altman says that he is wary of terminating the group's association with someone merely for supporting one of the two major parties' presidential candidates, and he says that Thiel has endorsed Trump, but has not explicitly endorsed Trump's racist or sexist point of view -- a narrow distinction." Sam Altman appears to agree with many republican members of congress that you can endorse someone with endorsing their views. Which, I'm sorry, is just a totally bogus and lawyerly excuse whose only function is to explain away bad behavior.

geofft 10y ago
Yeah. Free speech is one thing, but actively supporting ridiculous viewpoints is another thing entirely, and can't be defended in the name of supporting free speech. Specifically, this is how Trump became a major party candidate. He was a media personality who waded into a made-up political controversy (the whole birther thing). There wasn't a shred of evidence for one side of that discussion, yet people insisted on giving that side a "fair" hearing. Then he became a fringe candidate, and nobody wanted to call him out on his idiocy and fascism, because hey, free speech. Then he became a major party candidate, and you can't break your association with supporters of a major party candidate. Then he says Obama was obviously born in the US but he was happy to have caused the conversation. Of course he was happy to have caused the conversation! It gave him a legitimacy he never should have had in the first place, and he just played that game repeatedly. Peter Thiel will have plenty of millions to donate to Trump whether or not he's a YC partner. His right to speech (verbal, written, or monetary) is in no danger. But the speech question here is whether YC will continue saying that support of Trump is a reasonable position. And if they continue saying so, it will be hypocritical (although one is free to say as many hypocritical things as one wishes) to regret his presidency.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
So all Hillary supporters endorse torture and believe it should be (sometimes) legal? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/10/tort-o28.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/10/tort-o28.html All Obama supporters in 2008 and 2012 endorse his anti-gay marriage views?
- alanh 10y ago
  Yes, this is worth noting. Presidential candidate is essentially a binary choice, not on/off, but A or B; one or both candidates can deeply offend people in certain ways and yet still get their vote or support because of a certain issue on which there is actually agreement. Cognitive dissonance can be a hell of a thing, and it seems to be at play here. We should recognize this and limit our extreme reactions when it rears its head.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    It seems like there's certain difference not just in magnitude but quality between Trump and previous Republicans. I'd have never voted for Romney, for example, but I wouldn't have had a major problem with friends supporting him. Trump seems to be different. He's different enough to get a significant number of Republicans to defect – not just other candidates, who might just be following public opinion, but also retiring politicians or commentators, where I can't think of a reason besides an honest believe in the danger of a Trump presidency. His words & actions actions are outside the Overton window, and I'd argue the problem is that he's not just threatening policy positions many hold dear (something like drilling for oil in national parks or supporting the poor<1>), but because he seems to potential affect the machinery of democracy itself (threatening to create laws restricting the press' ability to criticize him or to jail HC). <1> made-up examples of policies people don't like. I actually couldn't remember any policies he's advocating
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Hillary also supports laws restricting the ability to criticize her. She will probably choose a supreme Court justice who will roll back citizens united (which protected the ability of private citizens to make "Hillary: The Movie" which criticized Hillary). That isn't outside the Overtones window at all.

matt4077 10y ago

The right to free speech is a limitation of Government powers. A private entity like Include can do whatever they want. And considering Thiel's "speech" was mostly through money, and their "speech" is mostly through "no longer working with them", it seems they're pretty much doing the same thing. Firing, in this case, would also be an embodiment of speech. (Although I'd argue there should be more stringent anti-discrimination laws to stop people from firing others for their political opinions (but I'd also argue that he's no employee of YC)).

basch 10y ago
there is a difference between the right to free speech and the philosophy of free speech. free speech as an ideal existed long before the laws protecting it.
- ipatriot 10y ago
  What is the difference? Shouldn't we strive for the most free speech possible. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America states as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The government protects free speech in all its forms, including the horrible vile that comes out of Trump. Why can't us informed citizens respect other people's point of view and defeat it with facts, reasoning and logic. When we shut off members of a society because we disagree with them, we are pushing them to the extreme, leaving them isolated and creating more horrible monsters. A democratic and free society must tolerate all opinions to actually be free and not be run by a certain group that prohibits certain types of speech.
  - basch 10y ago
    youre asking me what the difference between a right and theory are? the right is the philosophy put into practice, the philosophy is a more abstract thought experiment and ideal. in america, the right to free speech gives prevents the government from suppressing your speech. it doesnt protect you from private companies refusing to propagate your message or others talking louder than you, or people refusing to do business with you because they dont like what you said. freedom of speech isnt freedom from consequence. companies however can choose, by their own accord, to value and prioritize the philosophy of free speech.

secstate 10y ago

Would it were universally applied sir. PG himself banned reps from companies in support of SOPA from Demo Days five years ago. I'm not saying that was a bad decision (SOPA, ugh ...), but sometimes who you don't invite says as much about your org as who you do invite. In this case, keeping Thiel involved at all means they don't give a shit about his support for a fear-mongering demagogue who appears to be punking the nation into electing a dictator.

danudey 10y ago

> However, I believe in what Voltaire once smartly said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". For what it's worth, Voltaire never said that. It was a description, written by Tallentyre, of Voltaire's attitude towards De l’esprit after the book became a resouding success and everyone who hated Helvétius for writing it suddenly wanted to be his friend once he was a popular success. > but I defend his right to express himself. Sure, and he's expressing himself by giving millions of dollars to a man who, by his own account, thinks the president can and should behave as a fascist dictator. Altman deserves attention for that reason: does Peter Thiel truly reflect the will and opinions of Trump supporters? That seems implausible at best. More likely Thiel is their opposite in many ways, but he sees an opportunity that he can get by aligning with Trump. In other words, I don't believe that Thiel speaks on behalf of Trump supporters, or that his input really helps to target them at all, but rather his recent history has shown he is more likely behaving in his own selfish self-interest.