4 ms·

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 paraphra

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.
      - alanh 10y ago
        Good point: there are reasons to view Hillary as the unacceptable choice (not that I am saying these reasons are convincing reasons or not). Certainly there is a lot not to like, such as her scary and vague plea for an “intelligence surge”, which sure sounds like a dramatic increase in monitoring of civilians

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.
    - alanh 10y ago
      Good point: there are reasons to view Hillary as the unacceptable choice (not that I am saying these reasons are convincing reasons or not). Certainly there is a lot not to like, such as her scary and vague plea for an “intelligence surge”, which sure sounds like a dramatic increase in monitoring of civilians