41 ms·

Shame on Y Combinator

• DigitalSea 10y ago
  This is a tricky situation. While many universally agree Trump is dangerous in his opinions and viewpoints on many issues, you can't just severe ties with an investor because of their political affiliation. Thiel might be supporting a candidate with racist and bigotry views, but this is his choice. When it comes to business, you should never make things personal and I think worrying about someone's political affiliation is definitely making it personal. Might not be the most popular opinion, but I think Sam made the right call here.
  • sh6 10y ago
    I agree, Digital. I think Sam's comment, "We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political candidate. That’s not how things are done in this country" hits the issue spot on. If anything, maybe Mr. Thiel and Mr. Altman ought to have a serious conversation on the issue, but Thiel has undoubtedly contributed significantly to ycom.
  • idlewords 10y ago
    By Altman's own argument, there's a line Thiel could cross that would make YC sever ties with him. All it would take is for Thiel to repeat some of the things Trump said. So having a YC partner fund hate speech is okay, as long as it's by proxy. This is a baffling stance.
    • zepto 10y ago
      Perhaps Thiel dislikes the hate speech as much as you do, but dislikes Clinton's policy proposals even more.
    • DigitalSea 10y ago
      There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate. As far as I know, Thiel has done nothing but make a donation, he isn't forcing his views on anyone at YC nor publicly parroting/endorsing things Trump is saying. In this instance Thiel has done nothing more than make a donation to a political candidate many don't like.
      • ceejayoz 10y ago
        > There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate. There is, indeed. Donating over a million dollars that can be used for ads repeating racist, ignorant, and bigoted Trump statements falls squarely in the latter category.
      • poshli 10y ago
        > As far as I know, Thiel has done nothing but make a donation He had the speaking slot right before Trump at the RNC convention, if I remember correctly.
  • sickbeard 10y ago
    It's not tricky at all. YC can choose not to dump Theil and another entity can choose to criticize YC. That's part of democracy and free speech.
• permatech 10y ago
  Wouldn't this sort of behavior play into Trump's view of 'the system' being rigged against him? Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • po 10y ago
    David Duke probably thinks "the system" is rigged against him too... and if you include private institutions in your definition of 'the system' it is and should be. If you hold reprehensible views (though technically legal), then society punishes you. As it has every right to. Trump will complain no matter what, that has zero weight. When someone who cries wolf like Trump isn't complaining, then something is terribly wrong. > Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions? Yes. And society at large has every right to punish and socially ostracize these who hold abhorrent views. I feel like technically minded people get mixed up between "we withhold from the government - the institution in our lives with absolute power - the right to silence citizens" and "we expect the private companies/organizations we support to use their influence to better society, not ruin it."
  • idlewords 10y ago
    No one is disputing Thiel's right to have terrible opinions, a right he exercises with gusto.
• _pius 10y ago
  In this thread and others I've seen this: Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions? Of course they do. But a surprising number of “free speech” and “free market” people don’t seem to understand how either works. Individuals have a right to support white nationalists. Individuals also have a right not to do business with those who support white nationalists. Individuals also have the right to organize protests against those who support white nationalists. Let's be clear: defending the right to support a white nationalist while denouncing the right to protest against one isn’t courage, it’s sophistry.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • oldmanjay 10y ago
    The tone of the protest is what is objectionable. In any case, I don't see anyone denouncing the right to protest, just the protest itself, which is the next turtle on the way down from your sentiment.
  • xaa 10y ago
    You are correct that all of those are rights. The question here is what is the course of action that will lead to the best outcome? People who believe YC should disassociate from Thiel are doing so based on the belief that the consequences of not doing so would be to promote a Trump presidency, which would have bad consequences to a variety of minority groups, etc. People who believe YC should not disassociate from Thiel (I am one of them) would assert that doing so would set up or perpetuate a norm in which it is acceptable to ostracize people for unpopular opinions (unpopular relative to a certain community or context). Brendan Eich was another semi-recent example of this. The effect of this, I believe, would be to: a) further balkanize and polarize our politics, and b) to exert chilling effects discouraging people from airing unpopular opinions, which in turn would inhibit an open marketplace of ideas, which, I believe, is necessary for progress. I believe individuals and societies can only grow by being exposed to a variety of ideas, some of which they disagree with, and ostracizing people who disagree would prevent this from being possible. So both sides are arguing there are negative consequences they are trying to avoid. Which side an individual will come down on, I suspect, will depend on how much weight they place on each type of negative outcome. As a personal aside, I know what it is like to have to be ostracized for holding an unpopular opinion. I am an atheist in a deeply red and religious state. I have tried to "come out" and quickly had to "get back in the closet" based on the intensity of ostracism I received. So I admit this kind of thing has made me more sympathetic to people holding unpopular opinions.
• bobjordan 10y ago
  Conservatives have a right to their own set of values, like anti-abortion, faith-based education issues, smaller government, reduced taxes, etc., and they have a right to back whatever candidate aligns with their values. I'm a liberal but it is amazing to me to read these types of articles, from other liberals with zero tolerance for the alternative viewpoint. There should not even be a decision to be made here. It takes all kinds of people or else it would not be America. It is not acceptable to persecute people based on their political choices.
  • ceejayoz 10y ago
    Of course they have that right. Others have the right to criticize them for exercising it. The issue here is also not Trump's supposed conservatism (which I, frankly, doubt heavily), but that he brags about sexual assault and is advocating for some pretty fascist shit. YC states Trump's words would get him kicked out of YC. Color me baffled as to why spending over a million dollars to support those words isn't considered similarly bad (if not worse).
  • freshyill 10y ago
    I think a lot of people would take issue with equating Trump's racist campaign with their conservative values.
  • idlewords 10y ago
    Political debate in the US has traditionally taken place in a framework of shared values. Some of these are: you accept electoral defeat, you nominate people with a basic minimum of human decency, and overt bigotry is not acceptable. Within that framework, people have sharp disagreements over issues, some of them life-or-death (like abortion). But the framework is something that was sacrosanct, until this election. The problem many people, including conservatives, have with Trump is that he breaks basic norms around how our democracy should work, and represents a threat to it. That's why Thiel's vocal support for his candidacy is so troubling. It's not just a case of someone whose politics I disagree with, it's someone financing the destruction of the whole apparatus those politics take place within.
    • 10y ago
• fullofit 10y ago
  Racism, sexism, calling the election "rigged", saying you are going to prosecute your opponent, accusing them of being on drugs, bragging about sexual assault... These are not political views. It's just absurdity, and supporting such a person with $1.25 million absolutely makes me question your judgement.
• michaelgrosner2 10y ago
  > one wonders what YC would do if PT invested in an app that celebrated and enabled racism, bigotry, assault. https://twitter.com/lautenbach/status/788197878133030912 https://twitter.com/lautenbach/status/788197878133030912
• no_scope_me_fgt 10y ago
  There's also the entire argument that Thiel doesn't really support Donald Trump, and that this donation is more of a strategic move that is coherent with increasing Ted Cruz's chances of election in 2020. Cruz got as close to a public denouncement of Trump as possible, and he will probably need the support of many of his voters (who knows if they'll even remember, doubt it) to be able to secure a victory. Thiel could perhaps be the trump card necessary as support, as he double counts as both a gay man and someone who remained "loyal" to Trump. I think that Thiel's opinions on how the world should look are more in line with Cruz's, and he himself has called Cruz "very smart". I don't know a lot about politics or Peter Thiel, but to think that a former chess champion and fairly renowned silicon Valley figurehead legitimately supports Trump is a little outlandish. The odds of there being an ulterior motive are far greater than the opposite. Not to mention that he probably saw all the negative PR coming, as well as the resulting dissociations. He probably believes it was all worth it.
  • pauljonas 10y ago
    He appeared on stage, and gave a speech in support of Trump at the GOP National Convention in Cleveland, back in July.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• PythonDeveloper 10y ago
  LOL.. Whaaaaa... Perhaps, just perhaps, someone can see that while Trump isn't perfect, he's better than the absolute and obvious corruption of Hillary. Shame on you Marco for choosing blatant corruption over idiocy.
• stewartUK 10y ago
  Please, do the right thing, and don't take it down again. https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinator_censors_marco_arment_for_his_opinion/ https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinat...
  • akhatri_aus 10y ago
    This doesn't belong on HN. People should be allowed to make their political choices as they please & as is their right to do so. It isn't YC voting in the election and YC doesn't compel people to vote a certain way.
  • kybernetyk 10y ago
    Taking down or not is up to the site operator. HN is a privately run site. The operators can decide which content they want or don't to see on their site. So there's no "right thing" here, really.
    • simonbarker87 10y ago
      Yes it is but there is some irony that HN are ok to defend Theil based on freedom of speech but they're are not extending the same courtesy to Marco for criticizing them about it. Seems HN maybe as thin skinned as Trump.
      • kybernetyk 10y ago
        Well, Marco is free to publish his blog. At least I didn't see any HN operatives swooping in and taking his blog offline ;) Freedom of speech protects you from the government. It does not force someone to publish your blog posts on their website if they dont' want to.
  • ptaipale 10y ago
    This still shouldn't be on HN. I'm not from the US and I am totally fed up with both pro and anti Trump/Clinton propaganda that spews out to cover all of the world, and I don't want to see it here, at least particularly when it's just "stories about politics, or crime, or sports" and particularly not "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." as the HN guidelines put it. I'd rather fight for Thiel's right to say and work for his opinion.
• hoodoof 10y ago
  I'm no Trumpist and no fan of Thiel, but I believe anyone can place their vote where-ever they want. I may not agree with him but I would fight to the end for his right to vote for Trump if he wants.
  • cyborgx7 10y ago
    To be fair, OP doesn't take issue with who Thiel is voting for.
    • Kiro 10y ago
      Did we read the same post?
      • cyborgx7 10y ago
        >Thiel, a non-employee (a “part-time partner”), is directly supporting Donald Trump at a massive scale — over a million dollars! — after we’ve learned even more of Trump’s horrendous statements, positions, and past actions than we could’ve ever imagined. I'm not sure but there is no mention of voting anywhere in the article.
        • akvadrako 10y ago
          Fine, swap "vote" for "support". Allowing people to vote for candidates but not support them is just mincing words.
          • Dylan16807 10y ago
            It's really not. You don't "vote" for someone so hard you personally become an important part of the campaign.
  • DasIch 10y ago
    Nobody has a problem with whomever Thiel is voting for or wants to restrict his ability to vote in anyway. This isn't issue and you pretending to be merely derails the discussion.
• elias12 10y ago
  Just one quick comment, because these discussions always go there: This is not about Hillary. Whatever the family Clinton did or not did, it doesn't matter. This is about someone who supports Donald Trump in a significant way, and the person Donald Trump and his potential negative impact on our society.
  • camelite 10y ago
    I assume you'll be voting third party then
  • ww520 10y ago
    Lots of people think Trump is a positive impact on our society. Why not let the people decide in vote.
  • altstar 10y ago
    I don't agree. Clinton is the other choice. What people are doing is weighing up the negatives and positives of each candidate and decide who to support.
• bobsgame 10y ago
  I wish that more smart people would not demonize either party and instead analyze and dissect each platform and weigh the potential benefits and consequences of them. It is much more convincing to read actual facts about the platforms, and it's a lot more constructive. With the brain power here, we might even be able to make constructive suggestions and possibly even influence either party's policies so that regardless of the outcome it works in everyone's favor. If we can point out that some component of Hillary's plan or Trump's plan will surely lead to disaster in some way, that itself may have the political power to influence revision in a positive way, especially right now since both candidates are searching for weaknesses in each other's campaigns. This is one of the most intelligent communities in the world, so let's be constructive.
  • DasIch 10y ago
    The problem is that Trump doesn't offer much in policy, even when it comes to policy he actually talks about and this doesn't just affect the things he wants to keep secret from ISIS. He also contradicts himself quite a lot and when he touches upon policy in his talking points it's often times questionable whether he's even aware of the actual policies he's referring to and to what degree. There is just no basis for an actual discussion or comparison on policy details.
    • Chris2048 10y ago
      This might be a good strategy. What good does it do? People generally evaluate a candidate on policy last. On the other hand, the best changes would be the most controversial, so probably wouldn't help his campaign.
  • trdrake 10y ago
    This. The whole process has turned into character analysis and character assasination, rather than whose policies make the most sense for America. Both parties and the media are to blame. There's a ton I personally dislike in the published GOP platform (eliminating the EPA, walking from Kyoto, completing the Keystone, defunding Amtrak, etc, etc) that bears discussion, rather than judging and yelling who's less evil.
• jaoued 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html This surely is an off-topic on HN.
• kybernetyk 10y ago
  Why do people need to drag their personal opinions into business matters? Demanding someone gets fire/removed just because they have a different political opinion than you is ridiculous.
  • mbrock 10y ago
    Political "opinion" in this case isn't a bubblegum flavor preference. The presidency of the U.S. isn't a personal matter.
    • IMTDb 10y ago
      As a matter of fact, it is ;) A system where everyone can personally choose their leaders without external pressure or control is called a democracy.
      • vincnetas 10y ago
        This is really strange attribute of democracy, that if majority decides (informed or by uninformed that decision be), one can flip from democracy to (let's say) autocracy, but then you dont get to vote in next election if you change your mind, because there will be none.
        • IMTDb 10y ago
          The original intent of the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was to void a scenario like this, by giving enough military power to the people to make impossible for an elected government to switch to autocracy / dictatorship / ... without the approval of the population. Wether this amendment is still needed, and if it's effective considering the evolution of military technology, is open to discussion, but at least the original constitution tried to avoid this.
  • cyborgx7 10y ago
    It's probably not the same people but it's funny (in kind of a sad sort of way) that you have people arguing for deregulation because you can vote with your wallet if you're morally opposed to something, and for everyone keeping their political opinions out of business at the same time. Edit: Nevermind. I just went and read some of your other comments out of curiosity and you're a libertarian. It's exactly the same people.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• sparkzilla 10y ago
  From these discussions, are we to take it that YC will not invest in founders who support Trump?
  • quantumhobbit 10y ago
    YC seems to be sticking with Thiel, so founders should be safe regardless of their views. As it probably should be. I would hope that YC already avoids founders who act like Trump though.
• epaga 10y ago
  HN admins - if you're going to shut this one down as well, could I appeal to you to at least give a reasoning why? Killing posts like these without for example dang providing at least a quick reasoning why leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
  • ww520 10y ago
    People flag it. I just did. Not sure whether the HN admins have anything to do with it.
    • epaga 10y ago
      Flagged is one thing, a previous discussion was additionally set as "dead". As far as I know that can only be done by an admin, no? If it was all an automatic thing done by the system, then I have no issue with it. BTW, it looks like they turned off the flagged state of this post and are giving the discussion a chance. Well done. Let's hope the comments here don't devolve into silly political bashing...
      • darklajid 10y ago
        As far as I'm aware stuff can be flagged to death by crossing a threshold/without admin intervention - but I'm not 100% sure tbh.
      • jrs235 10y ago
        Enough flags turn it dead. Mods not required.
        • epaga 10y ago
          OK, I had not realized this. Thanks.
  • ptaipale 10y ago
    Not an admin, just a user, but read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. There's nothing very interesting in vilifying Thiel.
• amasad 10y ago
  Peter Thiel's support for Trump seems instrumental and not an end-in-itself[1]. I disagree with it and think it's stupid. But if he was my business partner and told me that he had good reasons to think that the long-term utility of a Trump president outweighs the unpleasantness and negative side-effects then I would argue with him and try to talk him out of it. Thinking about it in this way, shunning him seems to be an extreme thing to do. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/peter-thiel-trump-has-taught-us-this-years-most-important-political-lesson/2016/09/06/84df8182-738c-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?utm_term=.976b8d6074fc https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/peter-thiel-trump-ha...
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• ww520 10y ago
  This is a disgrace to punish someone just because they have different view. Kudos to Y Cominator to not cave in. Peter Thiel is free to support and donate to whoever candidate he feels strong about. If you don't like it, donate to the other candidate. Dragging it into business and people life is so Mccarthyism.
  • clavalle 10y ago
    Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences? Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push our own judgements.
    • ww520 10y ago
      > Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
      • clavalle 10y ago
        >Who's the judge for validity anyway? The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression. To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty. >when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression. There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of the above, no. Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment. Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic society.
• doe88 10y ago
  I understand Marco's point and I agree with him but I must say for once I find his post not very well written.
• schalab 10y ago
  Please dont invade this last bastion of rationality with emotional claptrap. Moral belligerence is not an argument.
• fareesh 10y ago
  I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate. It is entirely possibly that some people support Trump because of his crass and divisive rhetoric, and it's also entirely possible that some people support Trump because of his stance on trade. Is it really anyone's place to demand that another voter change the list of priorities that determine their choice of candidate? Does that not fundamentally alter the intended functioning of the way voting in a democracy ought to work? I am all for constructive debate on why the policies and character of one candidate makes them more suitable for holding a particular government post, but to suggest that one ought to resort to intimidation, ostracism, marginalizing and other such methods because of an individual's personal choice to prioritize a candidate's agreeable stance on one issue, over a disagreeable stance of another, seems very dangerous to me. During his campaign, President Obama famously claimed that he felt marriage was a union that ought to be between a man and a woman. Most would consider this to be a highly regressive view, yet voted for him because he was their preferred choice on a whole lot of issues. Campaign officials like David Axelrod later revealed that he took this position publicly for political expediency. Regardless of whether this is true, if one were to suggest marginalizing Obama voters in the way that is being suggested here, I am confident that there would be very little semblance of a community left.
  • mping 10y ago
    Some particular beliefs are critical. If a candidate is perfect and a genius, but for example is against (for example) women voting, this is critical for endorsement, even though he may be perfect in every other sense. Likewise, if your friend is from a different party than you, you may still be friends, but if he is a member of the KKK I guess that draws the line. Tolerance is not supposed to be infinite. What people are finding out is that the line is different for everyone. And of course, its the election for President. Everything gets blown out of proportion.
    • dogma1138 10y ago
      Why? Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general. There is a good reason why we have separation of power and why we have a complex political system in which even the president needs political capital to do things. That said i think it's highly unlikely that there will be such hypothetical candidate that i can agree with on 99% 90% or even 50% of the issues and they'll be say a member of the KKK.
• meira 10y ago
  So Trump has a lot of problems, but it looks like he is not corrupt. Hillary, on the other hand, is fully with corruption. I really don't like/agree with YC priorities (I'm not an American, which is even more disturbing to see someone that laughs about killing others country president been endorsed/elected)
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • sagichmal 10y ago
    Are you joking? Trump is _transparently_ corrupt. The Trump Foundation exists to serve as a tax shield, funneling donor money to Trump and his family personally. C.f. the allegations of corruption toward Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, which are laughably indistinct and incomparable. If corruption is what you care about, then Hillary Clinton is _inarguably_ the superior candidate.
    • msandford 10y ago
      So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm. I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it fascinating how easily people manage to rationalize things. I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.
      • sagichmal 10y ago
        > So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm. Well there's obviously a spectrum but I think it's absolutely inarguable that Trump's foundation is a tax dodge and that Trump is transparently corrupt; and I think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices, but yes absolutely the allegations against her are without proof. > I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons. Of course nobody is overlooking problems, and your attempts at equivocation are transparently concern trolling. But it's pretty inarguable that "whatever problems exist with the Clintons" are speculative and completely incomparable with "whatever problems exist with Trump".
• altern8tif 10y ago
  Thought experiment: Would it be any different if we replaced Donald Trump with Hitler? Should a company dissociate with a business partner/board member/investor because he supported an extremist's political campaign?
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • dkopi 10y ago
    Comparing political candidates to Hitler is a rather lazy thought experiment.
    • jmolinaso 10y ago
      Is quite a good one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March...
    • smt88 10y ago
      It's not lazy. It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line. What would Trump have to do before supporting him is unacceptable to YC? But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.
      • coredog64 10y ago
        Berlusconi is a better comparison in that it avoids all that Godwin's nonsense.
      • dkopi 10y ago
        "It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line." That's actually very lazy. It's shifting the burden of "drawing the line" on the other side. It's the "well, why don't we just kill toddlers as well? Where do you draw the line?" in an abortion argument. It's the "why don't we just give 12 year old's automatic assault weapons" or "why don't we disarm the police and military as well" in a gun control debate. It's the "So why don't we just tax corporations 100% of their income" in a corporate tax debate.
• gondo 10y ago
  It puzzles me how come in USA people are considering only 2 candidates to chose from. At this stage it looks like people are not voting for the candidate they agree with, they are choosing the candidate they disagree with the most and then voting for the other one. This is only 1 step better than how it used to be in USSR where people had an option to chose essentially only 1 party. (sure officially there were more parties, as there are more candidates in USA, but it wasn't a real option in reality). Still far away from European democracies where each election you have multiple parties competing.
  • smt88 10y ago
    Your characterization of this election is wrong. 43% of Americans approve of Clinton[1]. 33% approve of Trump[2]. That means the vast majority of Americans are not choosing the lesser of two evils. They actively like one candidate or the other (or both). 1. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton... 2. https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-f...
    • gondo 10y ago
      this charts (as many published polls) are based on very small samples. asking 1000-3000 people. yes those people are selected to sample the whole spectrum, but if they are always the same people, you can not claim that they are representative anymore. as simply by asking the poll questions you are turning group of people who "don't care about the election" into the group "was forced to think about election and now have an opinion".
    • jazzyk 10y ago
      Huffington Post, seriously? Per ABC News (which is still pro-Clinton), they are both equally unpopular: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-hig...
      • 10y ago
• FussyZeus 10y ago
  While I agree with a lot of what Marco says in spirit, there is a HUGE point that Altman makes as well: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. […] This one sentence I think fully encapsulates why the Republican base has gone to the extremes it has. They don't give a damn about who Trump is or the awful things he does because he is listening to them, something the coastal intellectuals haven't done for decades. Speaking as someone from one of the flyover states, I'd probably be supporting Trump too had I not come around to a lot more progressive viewpoints. The fact is yes a lot of what these people believe is wrong and backward, but just ignoring them and pretending that having the middle of the country doing nothing but hard labor and drugs is ok is exactly what got us here. Nobody gives a damn about the middle states outside of election year. Every year rural economies tank harder and harder but because it isn't a sexy problem like Shale Oil nobody gives a shit. These people have been marginalized, ignored, and abandoned during some of the hardest economic transitional periods, and they're tired of it. You'd be voting for any candidate who at least gave the passing appearance of giving a damn about you were you left in that situation. Edit: Misattributed the quote.
  • msandford 10y ago
    I think you get a lot of it right here, and nobody wants to acknowledge that for some reason. I would disagree that Trump is listening to people in the "flyover" states, but rather what he is doing is signaling that he's not in the coastal elite in-group. I'd bet Trump has very little idea how badly folks are hurting in red states, nor does he really care. But what has happened is that those people have heard every political candidate say basically the same politically correct stuff irrespective of their D or R flavor and then once elected do basically nothing to help. Now someone comes along who doesn't sound anything like the previous D or R flavored politicians (who never helped, despite their promises to) and TADA! "He knows and understands our problems" not because he does in any way, but simply because he sounds different.
    • FussyZeus 10y ago
      To be clear: I'm absolutely sure Trump doesn't understand a damn thing about middle-state people. He just isn't outright dismissing them and their problems, and look what it's done for him! That's the scary part.
• nabla9 10y ago
  Trump support is not free-speech, tolerance issue or diversity issue, it's political issue. As I understand it, Thiel is one of the 10 or so part time partners in Ycombinator. He is also board member of Facebook, so shame on Facebook. I don't think Thiel's involvement puts large shame on Y Combinator, but at the same time I don't condone political activism that tries to isolate Thiel and his money by shaming his partners. Business is not politically neutral zone.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• projectileboy 10y ago
  Replace "Thiel" with "communism" and much of this article (and many of these comments) could be taken from the 1950s. McCarthyism is unacceptable from the right or the left.
  • smt88 10y ago
    McCarthyism was not about firing rich people for donating massive amounts of money to public political candidates. There is no similarity here.
    • projectileboy 10y ago
      So, none of the Hollywood writers who were blacklisted were rich? And none of them donated time or money to Communist causes? The intolerance is almost exactly the same.
      • projectileboy 10y ago
        No one dislikes Trump more than me. But you can't divorce 40% of the country.
      • smt88 10y ago
        I don't have a problem with a private company, such as YC or a production company, firing someone for publicly donating a massive amount of money to a political candidate. McCarthyism was different because: 1. Many of the people who were fired, blacklisted, or persecuted were only suspected communists. 2. Somewhat related: if any of the blacklisted people were rich enough to do so, they didn't publicly donate their day's equivalent of $1.25M to any communist cause. 3. There is no threat of violence, prison, or losing his livelihood for Thiel in this case.
        • macspoofing 10y ago
          >McCarthyism was different because ... ... you really really dislike Trump and/or the GOP. That's the difference here.
• thght 10y ago
  Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!
  • Upvoter33 10y ago
    Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.
    • Chris2048 10y ago
      The other candidate is corrupt, more politically savvy, and a career politician. Also racism and sexism is a subjective issue, asking people to take a stand against "this kind of thing" without specifics is playing into the political banter.
    • mabbo 10y ago
      A large proportion of Trump supporters are not for Donald Trump the human being and all the things he's done. They're for the Republican party being in power; they're against Clinton for her faults (real or imagined); they're for someone who isn't a mainstream candidate being in charge for once. There's all kinds of reasons to support the GOP Presidential candidate that many people may see as more important than the insane, racist, sexist things Trump has said and done. (I say this as a left-leaning guy by Canadian standards. Believe me, I'm terrified you guys might actually elect that monster.)
      • bengale 10y ago
        Right, but a large portion of supporters are not donating over a million dollars. I'd expect that person to be for Donald Trump, rather than some vague wish for republican values.
• quantumhobbit 10y ago
  I don't know what the right thing for YC to do here is. But whatever it is can wait until after the election. The last thing you want is to enable Trump to concoct a narrative that "crooked Hillary" is forcing businesses to discriminate against Trump supporters. Trump is an existential threat to democracy and Thiel is disgusting for supporting him, but it looks like he will lose. However he is claiming that the election will be rigged against him. This is incredibly dangerous and YC firing Thiel could be like pouring gasoline onto a fire.
• creo 10y ago
  Tell me one thing YC community: What american politics topics are doing on worldwide tech-focused site?
  • oldmanjay 10y ago
    If anything, this is a silicon valley tech site that is so compelling it has a worldwide audience. Not really the same thing. Plus if you live somewhere in the world, American politics affects you because we have such immense power.
  • problems 10y ago
    Good question - a dumb bayes script could get rid of this, think I can hack something together with sklearn in a few hours.
  • inimino 10y ago
    It's literally about the YC community and some of the most well-known personalities in it.
• masterponomo 10y ago
  Sam Altman has already stated what Peter is allowed to say (and presumably think) as a condition of his continued association with YC. There was a recent spate of articles by and about Sam Altman, including a probing interview by his brother (presumably in lieu of a blatantly self-serving monologue by the subject). So we kind of know Sam's viewpoint and his tendency toward defining who can say and do what at YC and on HN. I would call that shameful in a public commons, but this is a private enterprise, and Sam is free to set the boundaries in Sam's world.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• Entangled 10y ago
  Political apartheid. We've seen it. It won't end well. Shame on Marco.
  • webXL 10y ago
    Where did we see political-only apartheid? I agree it's not sustainable.
• iamnothere 10y ago
  There are some brilliant people working in this industry whose politics I abhor. That doesn't mean that we can't, don't, or won't work well together, or even that we have to leave politics at the door. I've had some great conversations with people who I strongly disagree with politically -- frustrating, yes, but still highly interesting and worthwhile for mutual understanding. This trend of naming, shaming, and excluding political opponents has got to end. We've been here before (even as recently as the GWB / War on Terror era), and it is absolutely toxic for an open and democratic society.
  • skywhopper 10y ago
    I agree with you in general, but Trump is uniquely toxic. Every day he says more and more hateful and disturbing things, and threatens our open and democratic society with his constant railing against the rigged election and encouragement to supporters to go intimidate voters in typically-Democratic districts. This is not just a political difference. Trump is truly dangerous.
    • obj-g 10y ago
      So, we'll leave it up to you to decide then? When someone is uniquely toxic or not?
    • psyc 10y ago
      It's too easy to see the opposition as "uniquely dangerous." As I recall, the left actually believed that George W was going to start World War 3 and declare himself dictator. And Obama was going to permanently take over major corporations and institute communism.
• fsloth 10y ago
  As a non-US outsider: Would there be such a ruckus if this was about some other VC fund that bore more right-wing cultural flavors and they had a markable member who donated vast sums of money to the democrat nominee? A rational person would not discriminate against someone because they do not support the same football club. I fail to see how this is any different.
  • joshkpeterson 10y ago
    Supporting football clubs is innocuous, but the outcome of this election will have material consequences for millions of people. Trump is hostile candidate for women, and for people of color. Supporting Trump makes YC, and to some extent tech in general, less welcoming for people that fall into these two categories.
• dschiptsov 10y ago
  In the 21th century educated techies should understand that Trump is not a mere candidate, but a product of a set of image makers, speech writers, psychologists and whole bunch of deceptive and manipulative techniques applied. Basically, it is a well crafted frontman (same as in a rock band) to appeal to less educated majority. This explains all the sexism and masculinity, bravado and jokes - all this reflects what the majority of any given population would appreciate, but not necessarily publicly approve. In a society which is famous for its well crafted, researched in psychology departments, deceptive advertising techniques, all what Trump does should be familiar and transparent - the same primitive manipulations everyone is using to sell the crap to each other. Trump is a product of applied psychology, designed to obtain majority of votes. Do not even try to fancy that hipsters, vegans, etc. leave alone the ivvy league students, constitutes the majority of US population. So, some people take their chances, betting on that this primitive but sound strategy could win. Consider this as just a form of a risky investment.
• philjackson 10y ago
  Imagine working in a world where when you disagree with the way someone votes or supports a political character, you tried to get them fired. No one would have a job anymore.
• _hao 10y ago
  You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.
  • dnadler 10y ago
    It's also generally illegal to fire someone over political beliefs, if I recall correctly.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • samfisher83 10y ago
      Nationally title 7 only protects you from the following: sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There might be local state laws that protect you from politics, but no national law.
      • jobigoud 10y ago
        Religion is held higher than other forms of opinions like political stance? Weird.
        • tptacek 10y ago
          A consequence of living in a country founded on freedom from religious persecution, something that Trump's supporters badly need to be reminded of.
        • VLM 10y ago
          Given the era it was written in "race, color, national origin, and religion" were seen as a way of defining and carpet bombing the entire "ancestry" topic. If they just listed "ancestry" there would be wiggle room with what is the definition in order to discriminate on ancestry. For the purposes of the legal system the definition of ancestry in that context is all of race, color, national origin, religion. Interesting political affiliation isn't seen as ancestry although in practice it most certainly is. We like to LARP that elections are fair because people decide, when the reality is most of the population is born into party affiliation and boundaries are gerrymandered such that almost none of the public gets to actually decide anything ever. What I'm getting at is we LARP that the people have a voice and a crucial part of the LARPing is we must pretend political affiliation is NOT dominated almost entirely by ancestry. If for example "all black people vote for party X" that would imply black people are not part of a representative democracy where leaders are selected by voting etc, which is totally badthink thoughtcrime to even consider as a physics style thought experiment or mathematical inductive reasoning. So obviously politics can't be a protected class in a "democracy" like the USA.
• sosodaft 10y ago
  from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-spectrum-quiz/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-po... 2. The anchor of a major news network donates lots of money to organizations fighting against gay marriage, and in his spare time he writes editorials arguing that homosexuals are weakening the moral fabric of the country. The news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior and fire the anchor. a) This is acceptable; the news network is acting within their rights and according to their principles b) This is outrageous; people should be judged on the quality of their work and not their political beliefs 12. The principal of a private school is a member of Planned Parenthood and, off-duty, speaks out about contraception and the morning after pill. The board of the private school decides this is inappropriate given the school’s commitment to abstinence and moral education and asks the principal to stop these speaking engagements or step down from his position. a) The school board is acting within its rights; they can insist on a principal who shares their values b) The school board should back off; it’s none of their business what he does in his free time If you answer these questions differently, you need to try to apply your so-called principles consistently. This article is bullshit for the same reason the Brendan Eich affair was bullshit--if the situation were reversed, the same people calling for Brendan Eich's head would have been ardently defending someone who had been fired for donating to marijuana legalization or something. As long as he's not discriminating or smoking weed in the workplace, etc., YOU SHOULD NOT PERSECUTE SOMEONE FOR HIS BELIEFS or how they affect his political contributions.
  • pko722 10y ago
    Sigh. People keep bringing up Brendan Eich. What happened there is very simple: a good chunk of Mozilla PR and marketing is about freedom. Software and online freedom, yes, but the word "freedom" is used a fair bit. Eich monetarily supported a cause that aimed to take away freedom for a certain class of people. This is incongruent for the face of an organization that has freedom one of its core messages. Mozilla is fairly unique in tech world in this regard. Nearly all other companies don't really talk about freedom. If Eich was the CEO of any of those other companies, his donation would not (and should not) have mattered. If Eich had remained CTO of Mozilla, his donation would not have mattered either, as the CTO is not the face of the organization. The CEO's beliefs, however, do need to align with the core messaging of the company. As for those who say that in 2008, opposing gay marriage was a mainstream view, and even Obama opposed it: in 2012, Obama publicly went on the record that his views had shifted to support. The Mozilla/Eich thing went down in 2014, and Eich had an opportunity to communicate that he'd changed his views. If he did that sincerely, he'd likely be CEO of Mozilla today. Instead he stood by his 2008 views, reaffirming that he's on the wrong side of history.
• ThomPete 10y ago
  Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get. In reality however it's much more complicated. For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on. Marcos is all about form. Trumps form is admittedly not pretty but there are some important issues and for Theil a different political goal than Trump which isn't represented by Hillary. If you can't understand that then you make the mistakes of Marco et all. You confuse rhetorics with whats at stake. If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships. So don't be the very thing your object to. And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions. Life is complicated and it happens all the time not just around election. There are many good reasons to be against Trump or Peter Theils endorsement of him, Marcos reasons just arent any of them. They are purely superficial understanding of what's really at stake here.
  • pron 10y ago
    > he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d... > the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.
• obj-g 10y ago
  I don't wanna see this crap in my HN.
  • jessaustin 10y ago
    I agree; I don't know why everyone hasn't flagged this already.
• byuu 10y ago
  Citizens United and McCutcheon were such disasters for our democracy. Hopelessly partisan 5-4 votes from the USSC as well. No surprise given the way big money usually leans. Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech, no matter what five people in robes say. The problem here isn't who Thiel supports, it's that he has the ability to throw $1,250,000 on a whim to that person. Very, very, very few people can do that. The reason millionaires and billionaires funnel so much money into elections isn't for the hell of it. It's because they know that money buys advertising, attack ads, etc. They know it helps their side win. Because yes, there are many stupid people in this country who are easily swayed by these tactics. Yes, we all know it's not a guarantee that the candidate with the most money wins. But wealthy people (mostly) aren't stupid: they wouldn't be spending the money if they knew it wouldn't sway any votes. It's not about buying the election, it's about increasing their chances of winning. An analogy would be buying 1000000 raffle tickets instead of 1 like most other people get. But our entire democracy is based around the idea of one person, one vote. Allowing unlimited money into politics effectively gives vastly more votes to the wealthy. Get the money out of politics and it's no longer an issue how big of a piece of shit Thiel is. He can like whoever he wants to and I couldn't care less. Oh shoot, I hope he doesn't see this and start bankrolling vendetta lawsuits against me now :/
  • civilian 10y ago
    If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the goals of freedom of speech & press? Citizens United is solid in my book. If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They're clearly biased and have an agenda, their biased reporting acts as a contribution to a campaign. But they're businesses, and what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should.
    • byuu 10y ago
      > If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? You already can't spend it to buy grenades, chemical weapons, illegal drugs, etc. You should not be able to spend it to influence elections either. I just explained why. It's not 'fair', sure. But a lot of things aren't fair thanks to stupid people being stupid. Most recreational drugs are outlawed to protect the idiots that can't handle it. (Well, that's the narrative anyway. We'll sidestep the racial undertones, benefits to big pharma, etc.) Because otherwise, those idiots can go on to do the rest of us great harm. There are a lot of stupid people who are swayed by bullshit political attack ads (said attacks are deplorable from both sides), so we need some way to minimize that damage. Campaign contribution laws were not a perfect solution, but at least a stopgap measure. Now the floodgates are wide open. > If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They operated long before Citizens United came down. They concern me as well, as does MSNBC, RT, Al Jazeera, etc. It's probably not possible to get fully unbiased news, but we've definitely gotten way worse in recent years on partisanship in news. And regardless of which party you support, you have to agree that the divide between us is becoming increasingly toxic and dangerous. The media is in large part to blame for stirring that up for their ratings. Of course, even without news, the internet and social media are a big problem now too. Everyone simply follows like-minded people, blocks those they disagree with, and live in echo chambers to reinforce and polarize people even more. It's ... really starting to get very dangerous :/ > what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should. Agreed. Not that it'd matter anymore :(
• pk22 10y ago
  People here defending the donation need to remember that Brandon Eich was let go for much less.
  • inimino 10y ago
    Which was also regrettable.
• binaryapparatus 10y ago
  Non American here. Inability to even comprehend why calls to punish one person because it supports option that I don't like (that's allegedly full of ism-s) equates to me being as narrow minded as the side I am attacking... is very dangerous. Marco is not doing any favor to his favorite this way. Narrow mindedness, no matter how well packaged, stays narrow mindedness. Dragging YC in this is again just a reflection of inability to see how this looks on the outside. As we say in this part of the world "just don't defend me any more please".
  • jshevek 10y ago
    You make excellent points. Marco is not alone in this. There is a subculture in the US that is so full of their own self righteousness, they are unable to take a fair look at themselves. No matter where we sit on the political spectrum, we as a larger culture need to take this more seriously. Thank you for offering your perspective as an outsider.
• apsec112 10y ago
  Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands. The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Demanding that Trump supporters be fired tells everyone that the "elites" are a) scared of Trump, b) can't win through arguments and have to resort to intimidation, and c) are a powerful, dangerous group which is hostile to average people, who need someone to protect them from this sinister force. Which is all, of course, exactly what Donald Trump wants them to believe. Daily newspapers have endorsed Clinton by a margin of 147 to 2. It should be obvious, over a year after the Trump campaign started, that anyone voting for Trump isn't going to be dissuaded by yet another article calling him racist. Indeed, I think many Trump supporters back him because of all the articles calling him racist. "They" must be scared of Trump (the logic goes), or else "they" wouldn't spend so much effort attacking him, so Trump must be the only "truly independent" candidate who will "fight the system". If you don't believe me, look at eg. this comment on /r/The_Donald, which was voted up to #1 on a recent Peter Thiel article: "True story. I once hung out with a group of lesbians (most my friends are male), and when they found out I didn't agree with them politically, they told me they were taking away my dyke card. Thankfully there are a LOT of gays who give no fucks about the 'lgbtqjseflelkf community', and just live their lives like anyone else. This article is nothing more than typical democrat tactics. 'YOU'RE NOT A REAL <insert minority> UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE SAY.' REMEMBER IF TRUMP WEREN'T A REAL THREAT, THEY WOULDN'T BE THIS DESPERATE." (emphasis in original) The same tactics have been used against Trump over and over and over, for more than a year now, and his support is still pretty much where it was during the summer. Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over and over, and expecting different results.
  • cerebrum 10y ago
    > The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Yes there is in fact a campaign of elites against Trump, in case you don't believe that I suggest taking a look at the recent wikileaks.
    • toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Or how Clinton has a disdain for your average American voter? And plans to push through trade agreements that hurt the very Americans whose vote she's trying to get? I can't imagine why half the country won't vote for her. I know minorities and women who will still vote for Trump after everything that has happened; perhaps it'd be wise if you dislike Trump to understand why that is and what has brought us to this point instead of putting your head in the sand.
• adpoe 10y ago
  To me, these attitudes (and their general acceptance + support) are just as worrying as Donald's own attitudes and supporters. One of the strangest things about human nature--at least that I've seen--is that when we vehemently resist something we detest we often produce its mirror image. It's honestly extremely frightening to think that making a political donation to a major-party candidate you support could cost you your livelihood in this country. Those are not the principles America was founded on. (It's not even like McCarthyism anymore where they were persecuting a small minority party. We want to blacklist people for being __Republican__? Really?) This is exactly how Democracy becomes eroded and one party systems emerge. And the fact that more people don't see that is quite chilling. What's that old American saying? Something like: "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That's the America I grew up in. What happened to it?
  • leurfete 10y ago
    We've been headed toward one party statehood for awhile. The American project has failed. "Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics." http://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/ http://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-...
    • kls 10y ago
      I was really hoping that Gödel was wrong when he said that he found a logical loophole in the constitution that would allow for a dictatorship. But I believe we are figuring out what that loophole was.
• trabant00 10y ago
  Living through communism in an eastern european country and getting the real freedom to vote and support who we want changed everything . And this is why I simply cannot understand this. Educated people from countries which I associate with a strong democracy are asking, no, demanding political discrimination. This is illegal in any civilized country and for obvious reasons. And they do it in the name of progress too! I must control my impulse of getting angry and calling names, but the fact is you are ignorant spoiled children who take your freedom for granted and would trade it for simple feelings of holier than though.
• mangeletti 10y ago
  tl;dr The OP feels that if somebody disagrees with his political view point they should be silenced and oustered, and have their life ruined. People like Marco are ruinous to society.
  • jshevek 10y ago
    > People like Marco are ruinous to society Yes, and ignoring people like Marcos shows integrity on Altman's part. We should never let despicable people like Marcos hold us hostage.
  • clifanatic 10y ago
    > People like Marco are ruinous to society. More than Donald Trump (or Hillary Clinton) ever thought about being, in fact.
• brlewis 10y ago
  Thanks, Marco, for drawing my attention to Sam Altman's great blog post. More people should take Sam's attitude: The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I’d like to find out, because we have to include everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020.
  • zerohm 10y ago
    This comment deserves more attention.
    • bonaldi 10y ago
      Yes, because how else are we going to hear the views of white billionaires?
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  • ridgeguy 10y ago
    But it's also about outcomes. As I understand it, Altman considers a Trump win a bad thing for America. There's no inconsistency between, on the one hand, repudiating Thiel's material support of Trump and, on the other hand, figuring out how to engage Trump supporters and their issues going forward. The former helps prevent an immediate bad event, the latter builds a future in which America is less likely to fragment further and leave more people on the outside. Nowhere in these does anybody stop talking to anyone. Altman talks to Thiel and publically disavows Thiel's support of Trump. Altman puts his own considerable resources and thought into talking with Trump supporters to see what's up with them, really. Everybody's talking. Granted, the conversations aren't easy, but they're talking.
• retrogradeorbit 10y ago
  Marcos here, line many, falls for the classic myth. That change can come to America via the ballot box. That it matters who you vote for. That the election makes a difference. How many times do we need to be reminded that this isn't true? How many elections of false hope gone nowhere do we need to see? I'll say it again as I have innumerable times before. It does not matter one bit who gets elected president. As Emma Goldman once quipped, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
  • wrecursion 10y ago
    As long as the majority of the population is bickering amongst themselves over one thing or another, the system is working as intended.
  • joshkpeterson 10y ago
    There are millions of people who have health insurance and were able to see a doctor because of the last presidential election. It matters.
• jaypaulynice 10y ago
  I'm not a Trump supporter, but all the YC shaming is terrible. You're advocating for dictatorship where only one political view matters. Wikipedia: "A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens."
  • lintiness 10y ago
    so much fear of reprisal that you have to qualify with "I'm not a Trump supporter". political discourse here is as bad or worse than it is anywhere.
    • 7Z7 10y ago
      >so much fear of reprisal That's a bit dramatic. It wasn't fear of reprisal, it was disclosure of bias.
  • stochasticegg 10y ago
    This is exactly what's happening with today's political correctness. I need to watch the daily news so politicians and news anchors can disseminate the naughty words of the week. Otherwise, I might unintentionally let the 'wrong' thing slip at work and get fired. Being a blond haired, blue eyed Caucasian programmer, my manager is constantly looking for a reason to replace me since the company implemented it's diversity program. I'm one of the highest producing employees and I feel discriminated against, but it's politically incorrect to state this.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• ceterum_censeo 10y ago
  If Thiel donated $1.25M to the NRA, would this lead to the same calls for YC to distance themselves from Thiel? Where does this end?
  • benmcnelly 10y ago
    I heard the NRA is a a racist, sexist bigot with rapidly mounting allegations of multiple sexual assaults! I don't know who this ceterun_censeo guy is, however, I reckon he obviously is supporting people who support Trump. Light the pitchforks! Shame him on twitbook!* * I feel like I have to explicitly mark this post as sarcasm for fear of peoples stupidity. I listed some other things (like find out where he works) and it just made me sick, I couldn't do it, even in sarcasm and jest. I hope after the dust settles people remember how to be decent again.
• rsp1984 10y ago
  The number of indirections here is incredible and I'm amazed nobody has pointed it out yet. In essence the post says: Shame on YC because - a non-employee / part time partner of YC has - supported a presidential candidate who - has, a decade ago, said things that (besides reflecting badly on his character) - if realized in action - would constitute sexual harassment Now if it was practice at YC to sexually harass people I'd say yea, shame on YC. But this is ridiculous. If we were to accept indirect arguments like in the post then it would be equally valid to say: - Shame on the HN community because it - Supports a site operated by YC which - ...
• baldfat 10y ago
  Character Quality often overlooked: Respectfulness. I definite it as how do we treat people we disagree with? We lack this in society as a whole. Respectfulness
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• EJTH 10y ago
  "Oh no, someone supports a political agenda different from mine. I'd better bring out the cannons and shame anything even remotely related to this person, because I don't agree with his political views!"
• sgdesign 10y ago
  It would definitely be wrong to fire or sever all ties with someone for supporting, say, George W. Bush. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to do so if said person supported Hitler. So the question is where you put Donald Trump on that spectrum. Personally, I think he's much closer to an authoritarian populist than to a regular politician. You may disagree with Trump's placement on that axis, but I find it very strange to see so many people in this thread arguing that punishing someone for their political position is always wrong, no matter how vile or dangerous said political position is.
• droithomme 10y ago
  Are we going to talk about the election on Hacker News now? Seems most submissions deemed political have been blackholed, correct? And I think that's fine. But if we're opening the gates, lets open them wide and not just post the same garbage that can be read anywhere else. For example, let's talk about something ignored by most of the mainstream like this excellent investigative report that came out yesterday. It concerns those Chicago riots where Sanders supporters supposedly committed violent acts and shut down the Trump speech there. Well turns out that this and many other violent acts, riots, and even possibly acts of terrorism (which is defined as violence in the furtherance of political aims, which this was), were coordinated, organized and paid for by the Clinton campaign itself, all nicely documented with proof in federal disclosure forms showing that the violent rioters were paid Clinton operatives. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/17/new_okeefe_video_clinton_campaign_dnc_coordinated_with_organizations_to_beat_up_trump_supporters.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/17/new_okeefe... I voted for Sanders in the primary. I'm voting for Stein in a few weeks. I don't really appreciate politicians hiring people to commit acts of political terrorism and blaming it on Sanders supporters like myself. So let's talk about this since we are going to talk about politics on HN now.
  • mrschwabe 10y ago
    Excellent point, but to discuss politics on HN is a waste of time as there isn't an easy way to know who you are talking to - the same type of operatives you refer too are also crawling HN and pretty much every other popular social media space. Marco is either completely oblivious to the phenomena (and has bought into their narrative hook, line and sinker) or perhaps he himself is also artificially incentivized. The same could be assumed about Sam Altman who yesterday wrote an equally damning article (damning to himself IMO). I am not accusing anybody, and certainly would not and am not jumping to a conclusion based on a single article - and would welcome Marco and Sam's rebuttal - but am instead looking at the larger picture here... there are reports[1] of popular YouTubers being offered $$$ to endorse Hilary and so it's not too much of a stretch to assume they would also pay prominent people in tech too (and not to mention Hollywood as well of course). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjpp270dI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjpp270dI0
• jchiu1106 10y ago
  Shame on you, Marco Arment, for calling for someone's head because you don't like their political position. Whatever happened to the land of "I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to death your right to say it" or "Give me freedom or give me death"? Or it is, as it turns out for you, that it's the land of the free only for people who agree with you? I'm not a Trump supporter, but I applaud YC's decision not to sever ties with someone because of their personal opinion. And Marco Arment should feel ashamed for trying to oust people with different political opinion than his and undermine the cherished principle of freedom of speech.
• adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Ok it's true if you cut off dealings with anyone who supports the a candidate you hate, then you are not violating any laws worth obeying, let alone the US constitution. You are merely being a dickhead. Do we really want to live in a world all ordinary aspects of life a reduced to a grand show of public piety, and worse, one where we compete to show our willingess to punish the heretics?
• Overtonwindow 10y ago
  Threatening someones job, or pushing for exclusion based on their political beliefs, is a dangerous precedent. This tactic has been used to exclude people for their gender, race, and sexuality in the past. I don't care if the person working with me is a neo nazi or a hillary supporter or a Trump whack job. As long as they do their job, and dont' do anything that infringes on my ability to get my job done, I don't really care. Leave other people alone and let them believe what they want to believe.
• fixxer 10y ago
  Who stands to lose more if Theil were to no longer be affiliated with YC? Is YC a social endeavor with a political agenda, or a program for entrepreneurs? If the former, might want to tell the investors. Start with John Meriwether. ;)
• jansenv 10y ago
  Shame on this political shaming. Not everyone has to agree with you.
• jazzyk 10y ago
  Any form of ostracism based on someone's political views scares the hell out of me. It constitutes an attempt to suppress political discourse and ultimately, freedom of speech. Disappointing to see many in the tech industry not understanding this.
  • thatswrong0 10y ago
    This opinion makes zero sense to me. People are allowed to have opinions, and people are allowed to criticize those opinions. If you're going to publicly support something (like, say, with a million dollar donation), you should expect public feedback about said support. There's no suppression of the freedom of speech happening here - Marco is expressing an opinion about an opinion. By your logic, we should accept all opinions as valid and not critize any of them because that would be "suppression" of the freedom of speech. But clearly all opinions are not valid - and people on HN seems to have no problem (rightfully) critizing sexism and other discrimination in the workplace. And people are criticizing Trump (and his supporters) for the same thing.
    • jazzyk 10y ago
      Criticizing/arguing is fine. But expelling Thiel from YC (a company which has nothing to do with politics), because of his views, is a form of punishment and discourages others from expressing their political opinions, in fear of the same happening to them. So, it is suppression of free speech, through actions (not words) designed to intimidate.
      • thatswrong0 10y ago
        That's still not suppression of free speech. I know this is cliché, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. I can exercise my freedom of speech at my employer and repeatedly say terribly insulting and disparaging things to my coworkers. My employer can then fire me. Would you say my employer is suppressing my freedom of speech? The answer is obviously no. I still can speak freely, just not while voluntarily associated in a contract with my previous employer. I wouldn't say my coworkers intimidated me into being fired by my employer - I brought it upon myself by saying terrible things. I see that as the same thing as this Thiel situation, except it's even more public. Instead of just insulting coworkers, Thiel is publicly (implicitly) (to some people) (in a large way) supporting discrimination and sexism. I'm not saying I would necessarily expel him, but I would have serious reservations about working with someone who could possibly do that, even if it's somewhat unrelated to the job.
• surfmike 10y ago
  I think the core of this dispute is the question: How do we deal with those we deeply disagree with? Ostracism, shunning, and preaching? Or vocally opposing their beliefs, as civilly and constructively as you can? America is increasingly settling into two tribes who seem to believe in the first option.
• pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  PG is a butt. sam altman is a mess of an old man. greasy. you're all idiots.
• KanyeBest 10y ago
  PG's essay "What you can't say" springs to mind: >It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
• grandalf 10y ago
  Anyone who thinks Trump is the only racist in the running for the US presidency need only watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc
• giis 10y ago
  Removing someone from business just you have difference with their political view is wrong. Suppose lets take this next level: - In Restaurant people refuse to serve someone because his political view is different- Will it be great? - Theil decides to fire employee's from his business because they don't agree with his political views. - Does that sounds good? - For example, companies like uber/airbnb decides to serve only people who agree with the political view of their founders?
  • exclusiv 10y ago
    Fully agree - it should really be a protected clause for employment. Let's say the 50% that support the left controls all the jobs as an example. Then you can fire the opposition if you don't fall in line and do what you're told. That's a scary thought. I'm third party but I find it amusing and disturbing to watch both sides. If you can't understand why people don't like Hillary you're not being honest or open with yourself. The same goes for Trump.
• pimterry 10y ago
  I think a lot of people are missing a key point here. This isn't about stopping a candidate you disagree with, or even about stopping a candidate that you think would be bad for the US. It's about making Y Combinator and the software industry as effective and good-for-the-world as possible. Even if throwing Thiel out would actually help Trump's candidacy, they should do it. There's an interesting debate about whether you think Trump's policies are a good idea, and how much you care about him being elected, but that's a sideshow. Thiel represents Y Combinator, like it or not. How he's perceived affects how Y Combinator is perceived, and how the industry (SV especially) are perceived by the rest of the world. Currently, he's actively and very publicly giving millions of dollars to a candidate espousing violence, sexism, racism and sexual assault. By supporting Thiel, Y Combinator is supporting somebody espousing violence, sexism, racism and sexual assault. It doesn't matter if they're a presidential candidate or not, or what it does to the election results. Encouraging and supporting these _moral_ positions is horrific, bad for everybody, and just practically bad for business. When your public face becomes the face of hate speech, you have a practical business problem, and you need to solve it. You would fire a public face of your company if they publicly wrote a post about how they liked to sexually assault people. You would fire a public face of your company if they publicly donated millions of dollars to an organisation encouraging sexual assault. Why is it different if the organisation they're supporting is running for president? It's not about Trump's policies, and it's not about whether or not it plays into Trump's hands: if a major face of your business is actively visibly supporting abuse, discrimination and violence and you do nothing, then your business is supporting abuse, discrimination and violence. You're going to give you and your industry a bad name and discourage minorities of all kinds from ever working with you, along with anybody else who finds your morals repugnant. Supporting Thiel while he actively defend and encourages racism, sexism and violence in the name of "free speech" doesn't make the world better; it makes it far far worse.
  • j15t 10y ago
    The thing is, "good for the world" is a subjective notion. In my studies of philosophy I am yet to find any system of ethics that provides an objective and universal definition of right and wrong - if you find one, please let me know. Until then, we are all dealing with subjective opinions - it's just that some opinions are more popular than others. In democracy the most popular opinion wins, but this does not imply that an opinion is objectively "right" (as we know from history). Hence, I find this recent trend where people classify other people's beliefs as "objectively wrong" - with no consideration for the subjectivity of their own beliefs - to be deeply troubling. Such behaviour is a departure from reason; only dogma remains.
• ganessh 10y ago
  Shame on us for making this post to the front page.
  • inimino 10y ago
    Outrage, one way or the other, generates engagement. News outlets know it, now so do we. If there's some value in the discussion, it is that most of us actually do know people with differing political views, and we somehow learn to live and work together.
• defen 10y ago
  Maybe YC is worried that if they boot Thiel, and Trump wins, he'll be vindictive enough and powerful enough to crush YC. Like, it would be a real shame if the Attorney General started looking into Fair Housing violations by AirBnB, or if Dropbox suddenly lost the government connections it's been cultivating by putting Condi Rice on their board.
  • walshemj 10y ago
    If Trump wins I suspect that the H1B program would be an obvious target for him. And from experience in the UK referendum some recent immigrants are going to get killed as a result of the way Trump is poisoning the political arena.
• yohann305 10y ago
  We cannot deny the overwhelming amount of value P. Thiel and M. Arment has brought to this world. Politics is ugly and divides people instead of bringing them together. The Hacker News community is all about technological progress, which is based on science, and as such, do not let your subjectivity cloud your judgment. Do you think the world would be a better place by removing Thiel because of his political position? Asking to fire Thiel is as insane as asking to fire the 40% of Americans backing Trump (based on latest poll results: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/latest-polls-show-trump-behind-clinton-the-2016-drivers-seat http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/latest-polls-show-tr...) I wish you guys would put all your vigorous efforts on revamping the political system than pointing fingers at invaluable people.
• rasabatino 10y ago
  What a load of bullshit. If an investor of a known Republican centered industry, let's say a gun manufacturer, donated 1.25M to Hillary's campaign, Marco would be saying praises of him while the people in the gun lobby would be calling for that investors head. This election cycle has brought the worst out of everyone in the US. I regarded people like @sacca and @marcoarment in a much higher esteem before this began.
• scandox 10y ago
  Bit off topic: does $1.25 million really seem like that much money? I mean I accept it is a huge sum of money in a normal context, but in this context (donations to political parties) is it really exceptional? I mean I've heard of wealthy men losing multiples of that at Poker.
  • ceejayoz 10y ago
    If I'm reading https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864 https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N0002386... correctly, it's a good 1.5% of all pro-Trump money spending (currently $84,640,147) in this election.
• mdotk 10y ago
  If Trump is elected President of the United States will the author disown the United States?
• bambax 10y ago
  > [Altman] If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator. In the US, at least since Citizens United, money is speech. By donating to his campaign and vocally supporting Trump, Thiel IS SAYING what Trump says. Also, Thiel is no friend to freedom of speech or freedom of the press. That should have disqualified him earlier, even before this whole Trump affair.
  • inimino 10y ago
    > Thiel IS SAYING what Trump says No, he is supporting his presidential bid. That's all.
• xname2 10y ago
  My observation: - most trump supporters hate the corrupted system, the establishment, but they do not generally hate average hillary supporters. - most hillary supporters hate trump and trump supporters.
• surfmike 10y ago
  I'm against Trump but this holier-than-thou grandstanding demanding shunning anyone who supports Trump is tiring and small-minded. It's a symptom of a society intolerant of other political beliefs. Moreover, do you think ostracizing 40% of society for their political beliefs is really going to improve our political future? It's easier to cut out people we disagree with than arguing with their beliefs (civilly). Let's take the high road and stick to impassioned, reasoned arguments against Trump's beliefs and actions.
  • throwaway_415 10y ago
    No thanks, as a non-white male I will not have my quality of life destroyed due to racist old whites who aren't willing to come into the modern age.
    • surfmike 10y ago
      Calling anybody who supports Trump a racist old white is an example of what I mean. Better to argue against his beliefs and actions rather than just write off his supporters as a lost cause.
  • deeth_starr 10y ago
    Dude, go see the comments in reddit /r/the_donald and then get back to me. I hope that the "40%" (more likely 20%) will come back to rational thinking, but we will see. I consider myself a left leaning centrist, and I like some things Donald says, but it's only because a broken watch is right twice a day.
    • surfmike 10y ago
      The Reddit and Twitter trolls are terrifying. But are you saying all (or even most) of the >40% of Americans that will vote for Trump are as bad as them? We'll see what the final percentage is but 538 is polling Trump at around 42% today.
• sctb 10y ago
  We've turned off user flags again for this story because the rule of HN moderation is to moderate threads less when they're critical of YC or YC-funded startups. Please be respectful of your fellow community members in the discussion—such divisive issues are threatening and our first duty is to protect the community.
• presidentender 10y ago
  Am I to understand that diversity of opinion is only acceptable when all the various diverse opinions are compatible with your morality?
  • jshevek 10y ago
    Yes. This is correct. Please look carefully at where and from whom you see that attitude - there is an obvious pattern.
• youforpresident 10y ago
  I don't think that a person, president or not, is to play a crucial role. Society has a dynamic in which a president is only a mirror for you to watch yourself. Perhaps the mirror show you something that you don't want to see and you can try to clean it or hide it, but that mirror just show how society is for real. I sincerely and literaly think that we should get used to watch candidates for presidency to be nuked in tv, as in a big brother show, no more secrets allowed. We should see clearly and understand deeply that we are just human animals and nothing more. A candidate for presidency should be able to show some kind of humor, witful ideas, clear thinking, some catastrophic behaviour and be able to inspire some trust. I believe that nothing more can be expected. For those looking forward for a better future, the challenge is not in choosing your president, but in becoming your best friend. Any of you can be the best president, I am sure of it, just awake, get up in the morning and see yourself in the mirror for real. Edited for clarity of mind.
• metaphorm 10y ago
  is this a call for censorship, exclusion, and ostracism on the basis of political preferences? shame on the author.
• calimac 10y ago
  you people are fascists. to sever ties over political contribution? really??? your insane!! This type of thought is a result of marxist university programming the youth.
• zobzu 10y ago
  The people manipulation machine is so well tuned. The internet has failed us. People think hating trump supporters is the cool thing to do and probably would put their life on the line against him. How crazy is that? No longer is one even attempting to respect or even research another point of view. No time for that. Don't you realize that the only goal is to divide the people and remove focus from what actually matters? The whole US politics is now about showing how the other candidate character is the most horrible and any lie is fair game, on any side. The owner of basically all media wins the war - and thats not exactly surprising either.
• calebm 10y ago
  "Funding Trump, especially at this scale, represents general support of what Trump has said and done." - That's a pretty big logical leap. Would a person who supports Hillary "generally support" flippant top-secret email handling? Let's be logical: I think we can all agree that a person can support a candidate while not supporting every word they speak or action they take.
  • HelloNurse 10y ago
    Thinking there is a lot of good in "what Trump has said and done", that his horribly racist, sexist and insane opinions and ideas are an acceptable price, and that Clinton would be a worse president is a legitimate opinion, but comparing Clinton's reckless behaviour to Trump's reckless statements is not. Forgiving past errors isn't the same as accepting future policies. Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a mistake, it doesn't represent a political program or opinion or stance, except for the generic disregard for the law that is implied by breaking it.
    • nathanaldensr 10y ago
      Did you really just write "Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a mistake?" My lying eyes must be deceiving me! Not only did you just write that illegal acts are "mistakes," but you also placed political opinions over the legality of actions. You effectively declared that political rhetoric is worse than actual illegal activity. Go commit a crime 1/100th of the scale of HRC's and see if the uncaring justice system allows you to get away with it as a "mistake."
      • HelloNurse 10y ago
        Pragmatically, political "rhetoric" is more important than crimes. For example, which candidate is more likely to maintain a good relationship between USA and Mexico? Not the one who wants Mexico to pay for a great wall. It doesn't depend on how illegally and immorally they behaved in the past.
• totony 10y ago
  Classic american politics: shame people on their political views. Don't argue, you'd risk understanding differing views. Better off cutting all ties with them and remain in your idiotic ignorance.
  • ptaipale 10y ago
    I somwhow don't think it's "classic". I think it is a fairly modern phenomenon (coming along with "safe spaces", "no platforming" and so on). "Classic" would be something more along the well-known quote attributed to Voltaire about disagreeing wholeheartedly but defending the freedom of speech of the differing view. And this Thiel shaming is the exact opposite of that Voltaire thing.
• jondubois 10y ago
  I disagree with the author of this article. If anything, this article just shows how powerful the media is and how it can influence people to have such extreme thoughts about things which they actually know very little about. Trump is not guilty of sexual harassment - That is hearsay; media propaganda. Yes, he said nasty things, but it doesn't mean anything about his ability to do a good job as a president. I think he is probably a rotten person, but I think everyone in politics is just as rotten anyway. To pretend that Hillary Clinton is a saint is wrong - Personally, I think that she is every bit as rotten as Trump - But she is really good at hiding/suppressing it. Most Trump supporters don't want to vote for him because they think he is a nice person (and I'm sure that Thiel doesn't either) - They just think that he is capable of doing a great job as a president and they think that this is more important than his personality.
• Nadya 10y ago
  I could write a mirrored copy for "How dare you support a warmongering, nation-selling, unpatriotic woman like Hillary." but these sorts of attacks are pointless in the end. No US-based company should be supporting Hillary. They don't have the best interest of the nation at heart, they have the best interest of their wallets instead. I'm wondering when the far-left is going to wake up and realize by alienating their fellow countrymen with attacks and namecalling they are creating a larger problem, not solving it. You don't win over people's hearts by calling them bigots and sexists (especially when accusations like that get thrown around because of "manspreading" or "microaggressions"). Both political sides are allowing themselves to be manipulated so heavily by the media, and that there is an increasingly dangerous gap between "us" and "them" mentality going on in the States. I'm actually genuinely concerned for the day of the election. Regardless of who wins, people have fanned the flames so much that I'm glad I live in a small rural area. Regardless of Trump or Hillary I'm expecting riots on the streets of many cities/regions. I shouldn't be expecting that - and blog posts like this one only fan the flames ever higher.
• lightedman 10y ago
  Shame on all of you for daring to criticize a person's freedom of speech and participation. And I'm willing to bet the majority of people posting in this thread are Americans, which makes this whole conversation even more head-shaking for me. Not a Christian, but "pull the plank from thine own eye" seems to be the most appropriate thing to say to every last one of you here.
  • throwaway_415 10y ago
    It is a criticism of fascism, nazism, racism and sexual assault.
• ythl 10y ago
  That moment when https://xkcd.com/1357 https://xkcd.com/1357 gets taken too far and people are afraid of voicing anything but the current, popular, politically correct opinions for fear of losing their careers.
  • fernandotakai 10y ago
    honestly, i myself feel like that. i don't voice my general opinion on many threads because there's always a random person that decides that my opinion is a disgrace so it's better to email his employee to let them know.
• crimsonalucard 10y ago
  Many people think this election is different from all the past elections but I'm telling you: When Trump or Hillary become president nothing will change in your daily lives. Mostly everything you do will remain the same. So this election matters almost as much your favorite sport team winning some stupid sport which is to say it's a matter of life or death.
  • hackinthebochs 10y ago
    I'm getting flashbacks from 2000. I would hope we could learn from history, but alas, history tells us otherwise.
• dibstern 10y ago
  Hi Marco. I disagree with you for a couple reasons. (1) Seek to understand, then seek to be understood. If we want to eliminate misguided beliefs, convince anyone who thinks sexual assault and racism is okay, etc., you need to first understand them, and have them feel as though they are understood. It's a basic rule of effective communication. No one will listen to your criticisms of their arguments if they are not convinced that you have understood what they are saying and show empathy towards their position. So, a dialogue wherein all parties work together to develop shared understandings will be far more effective than the demonisation of a section of society. (2) Supporting Trump doesn't necessarily mean Peter supports Trump's more bigoted and/or inappropriate views. This is Peter Thiel we're talking about. Peter gets excited by thinking differently to other people. If thinking differently were a sex act, it would be Peter's fetish. Peter would support a candidate only if he believes it's what the country needs to help bring back a time of growth and optimism that he thinks has been lost long ago (see: Zero to One). Now, remember, just because Peter believes something, doesn't mean that it's right (see: Clarium Capital). So, it is my view that Sam is right in supporting the sharing of vastly different ideas, views and understandings. Thiel hasn't specifically supported any of Trump's shameful views, as you aptly describe them, so his only 'crime' is to believe that a protectionist moron (he'll perceive him differently) can do anything positive for the country - a belief that might be mistaken, but is by no means a crime or something to cause shame. Stop demonising Trump supporters. You'll never convince idiots of anything by addressing them as such.
• pdog 10y ago
  I admire YC for continuing to stand up for the principle and practice of free speech.
• cabalamat 10y ago
  There are two separate questions here: Q1. Is Trump a spectacularly bad candidate, i.e. would he turn the USA intor a dictatorship, start a nuclear war, or do somethnig else equally damaging to society? Q2. If Y Combinator shunned Thiel for supporting Trump, would that make a Trump presidency less likely? If the answer to Q2 is no, as I suspect it is, then it doesn't much matter what the answer to Q1 is. If we end up with a culture where people are shunned or lose their jobs for their political beliefs (e.g. Brendan Eich) or for who they associate with, that can only coarsen political debatre in the USA, in the long term making it more likely that it does become a dictatorship, something the people doing the shunning want to avoid.
  • jshevek 10y ago
    Excellent points. I have no love for someone as ignorant as Donald Trump, but the values demonstrated by some of the most committed Trump haters seems the most likely to support a dictatorship in the years to come.
  • cabalamat 10y ago
    In fact if Q1=yes and YC shunning Thiel would make it more likely that Trump would win, which it might well do as it plays into Trump's anti-establishment narrative, then people opposed to Trump should very much insist on YC not shunning Thiel.
• samlevine 10y ago
  It's worth sharing this again: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html For what it's worth, Thiel seems to have the view that Trump isn't actually going to do horrible things, and will invest in infrastructure and American businesses. This seems deluded for the same reasons that some American liberals were about Stalin, and purging him for his authentic and not apparently horrible beliefs would be the same mistakes that we did during the McCarthy era.
• throw7 10y ago
  Did or would Sam Altman support Brendan Eich when he was mozilla's CEO and accused of homophobia?
• evanmoran 10y ago
  It takes great bravery to allow your beliefs to affect your bottom line. Thiel has demonstrated this bravery by spending his time, money and reputation on Trump. Now it's Altman’s turn. If he truly believes that "This election is exceptional. Donald Trump represents an unprecedented threat to America", then Marco is correct that supporting Thiel is against his beliefs. Good on Marco for calling it out to us so eloquently. Obviously, Thiel is very influential and parting ways with him would be a big deal. It's likely it would cost Altman time, money and reputation. It's possible Thiel will hold a grudge and that will have unknown ramifications that might hurt YC and others. This is why it's brave. Business leaders often pretend they aren't choosing a side, when they always are. Be brave Altman. We'll support you.
  • forgetsusername 10y ago
    >Be brave Altman. We'll support you Do you support him whether he cuts ties with Thiel or not?
• zenobit256 10y ago
  I see the divide in this country growing every day. We aren't electing a king or queen. It's a single political position that's checked by the House and Senate. And yet because of the media, because of the Republicans, because of the Democrats, we're no longer Americans. We're a people who are being played against each other for revenue in a popularity contest. I've never seen people act so terribly to each other on such a normalized scale. The polarization scares me. Divided we fall.
  • exclusiv 10y ago
    “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin) The only thing that separates us from other countries is our Constitution. When you have the federal government doing things outside the Constitution that should be legally left to the states, you end up with some really polarizing things that are applied to the whole country. That gets nasty. I'm a states right supporter in a left leaning state. Not saying the right doesn't do this either, but the left gets very emotional if you disagree. They try to shut you down, gang up, think you're a bad person or an idiot if you disagree. When I disagree, it's usually because it's a state issue that they want to ram down the whole country. They often have a complete disdain for the Constitution and have no idea what a republic is.
• bonaldi 10y ago
  The most damning thing to me about this is that Peter Thiel is content to let YC take the flack for him. He knows he's damaging them; that partners are walking away from YC, and it's down to him. A decent person would walk away at that point, to save YC and take the heat on themselves. He doesn't. Which makes it all the more odd that sama will still go to bat for someone he a) disagrees with and b) wouldn't do the same in return.
  • inimino 10y ago
    He should support the political ostracism by making it easier for everyone by ostracising himself? What an odd definition you must have of "decent".
    • bonaldi 10y ago
      The political ostracism has happened - people are already distancing themselves from him. It's a given here. I'm saying he should limit the damage of it to himself, rather than letting his friends be dragged down with him, yes. By forcing YC to stand with him, he has dragged them into his fight and undone a lot of their previous good work.
      • inimino 10y ago
        Surely there are adversaries so fearsome that the noble thing is to cut ties and avoid collateral damage, but a mob of angry partisans on the internet shouldn't be one of them. To do that would mean giving up on civil political disagreement and sets a terrible precedent. I don't think any good work is being undone here but perhaps you could say some political capital is being spent defending the free and open exchange of ideas.
• HelloNurse 10y ago
  Maybe Y Combinator considers "unsupporting" Ellen Pao important enough to side with Peter Thiel and, indirectly, Donald Trump.
• throwaway274739 10y ago
  If you vote for Trump, you are supporting a racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-LGBTQ fascist. You are in fact voting against the very principles of equality, liberty and diversity that this country was founded on. As such voting for -- much less, actually supporting Drumpf -- means you are endorsing violence against huge portions of the American public (e.g., sexual assault against women, imprisonment of Muslims, Latinos, etc). Therefore, not only is there nothing wrong with forward looking organizations for excluding people as dispicable as Trump supporters, they have a responsibility to do so for the safety of their members who happen to be LGBTQ, Muslim, female, People of Color and basically anyone else who isn't a straight white male. It's 2016, about damn time we send a message to the bigots that their hate is no longer okay and we're not going to tolerate it anymore. End. Of. Discussion.
  • tnones 10y ago
    Actually, it's about ethics in wielding minorities as a club to smite heretics.
    • thescribe 10y ago
      Diversity is the new Deus Vault.
• oldmanjay 10y ago
  Wag, fingers, wag, then gawp in wonder at the backfire leading to more trumps.
• jondubois 10y ago
  I see it as a good thing that Trump is so foolishly blatant - You can SEE all the filth - It's all right there in plain sight. His ego is so huge, he couldn't even censor himself if his life depended on it; he is the perfect public figure.
• puppetmaster3 10y ago
  None of you on the 'left coast' got balls to say: I support Trump. And I do support Trump. What the left media is telling is simply not true. For example Racism, 4 points: 1. Picture w/ Rosa Parks: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq-YIOzXEAEyEN7.jpg:medium http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq-YIOzXEAEyEN7.jpg:medium 2. Picture w/ KKK 'leader' (not sure what they call self): http://img.youtube.com/vi/xDhpqFkUeeE/0.jpg http://img.youtube.com/vi/xDhpqFkUeeE/0.jpg 3. Bring them to heal(vid): http://tinyurl.com/jbeqqk7 http://tinyurl.com/jbeqqk7 4. Calling out a racist(not runnig yet - old vid): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4xymmq http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4xymmq More - a tie breaker: http://youtube.com/watch?v=b329eUPKQVg http://youtube.com/watch?v=b329eUPKQVg And the tradition of racisam: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/democrats-kkk.jpg http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/d... But today, we have disent, fighting against it (assuming YOU the reader belive they can think for self) - http://tinyurl.com/j89tf56 http://tinyurl.com/j89tf56 When we on the right (to the right relative to authoritarian left) say broadcast media is lying - this is an example. Left should be shamed when we can. I am engineer by training - give me data points. (ooh. Moderator downvotes. And w/o a comment)
• Kazamai 10y ago
  Really naive to think that supporting a political party and supporting Trump are the same. Of course, Peter Thiel does not support the BS that Trump says. It would be a huge contradiction coming from the same man that took down Gawker. If there was no single reason why people are supporting Trump, it is American's version of Brexit, by voting Trump people are protesting the massive economic chaos in the USA. They aren't hoping Trump will fix it. The opposite, they are hoping Trump will fail miserably, which will effectively hit the reset button on the American economy.
• Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  So by Marcos own logic does anyone who support Hillary support slut shaming 12 year old girls who have been raped?
• mathattack 10y ago
  There's an interesting dichotomy when people talk about this election. The same folks who accuse Trump of being divisive, then demand folks break ties with all Trump supporters. I detest Trump, but I understand a certain aspect of his followers. (I know several intelligent Trump followers. They do exist.) Their core premise is, "We want to push Reset on the crony capitalism in Washington, and if it takes a terminally flawed candidate to destroy the establishment, so be it." In this light, things like "He's never done the job before", "He's a Pervert", "He lies a bunch" don't hurt him. And when Republican leadership abandons him, it strengthens his cause. (Yes, there's racism too, but let's leave that to the side for now) Yes, Trump is reprehensible, but you can appreciate that the disaffected are rallying behind him with "Let's not have 4 more years of the rich bailing themselves out and bringing cheap competition in for our jobs." YC can join the Facebook drama queens who unfriend people with opposing political views, but that's childish. Better to engage the opposition, and allow people to support whatever politicians they want out in the open.
• webXL 10y ago
  Shame on Marco. I can't stand Trump, but I also can't stand this ganging up on Thiel. I guess the fact that he's a billionaire means he can be bullied, but this political bullying has a chilling effect that leads to the lackluster choices we get for president every four years. Thiel sees Hillary as a bigger threat to his interests than Trump. To prefer an outcome does not imply you favor all aspects of that outcome. As arrogant and simple-minded as Trump comes across, he didn't stay wealthy without delegating his authority, and there would be violence to no-end if he appointed racists and sexists to high-level positions. That egomaniac ultimately seeks admiration, and the threat of "deporting illegals" was most-likely (you never know and that's why I'm not voting for the guy) a strategy to get the nomination. Instead of Thiel, we should be admonishing our media, which couldn't have hand-picked two more controversial figures and allowed themselves to be manipulated at every step. We should be admonishing Hillary and Trump supporters who turn a blind eye to their unethical tactics and ends justify the means mindset. The ends (aka political payback) usually just result in more corruption and more things to fix with government. We need to stop this cycle. We can start buy turning off the TV, and considering a third party.
  • thisisdallas 10y ago
    > I guess the fact that he's a billionaire means he can be bullied No, the fact that he is supporting a republican means he can be bullied. The tolerant left is on some radical moralistic high ground right now and it's far more dangerous than any words Trump has said. When the campaign of a presidential nominee (Hillary) is recruiting the homeless and mentally ill to cause violence at Trump rallies, simply condemning and attacking someone for having different political views is all but normal.
    • ivraatiems 10y ago
      > When the campaign of a presidential nominee (Hillary) is recruiting the homeless and mentally ill to cause violence at Trump rallies Citation very VERY needed. James O'Keefe is not an acceptable - that is, truthful - source. [1] > The tolerant left is on some radical moralistic high ground right now and it's far more dangerous than any words Trump has said. You need to unpack this. I don't understand how any ideology of "radical moralistic high ground" is more dangerous than Trump's "rigged election" rhetoric, which calls into (unnecessary and unfounded) question the system our country is built on. [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe
• rhapsodic 10y ago
  This exemplifies a disturbing tactic of the left, demonizing anyone who holds differing political views, attempting to turn them into social pariahs, causing them whatever harm they're able to within the law. I happen to think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in federal prison. I think the only reason she's not being prosecuted is that the current administration is corrupt, and views laws as weapons to be used against political opponents rather than a set of rules to be applied equally to all citizens. I am of the opinion that her "foundation" that accepted "donations" from countries that had business before the US State Department while she was running, it, is basically a money-laundering operation for bribes. I believe the woman who accused her husband of viciously and violently raping her in a hotel room was telling the truth, and I think those Democrats who are throwing fits over Trump's crude statements and sketchy allegations of his impropriety are hypocrites, considering the way they defended Bill Clinton and elevated him to the status of Elder Party Statesman after he left office. And yet I think people should be free to publicly support Hillary Clinton's bid for POTUS without having their livelihoods come under attack.
  • zxcvvcxz 10y ago
    This is exactly why as a former independent I am going with the Republicans this time around. Although I do tend to side with them on more issues, it's the way the Dems conduct themselves that has completely turned me off of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
    • rudolf0 10y ago
      It's sentiments like this that still give Trump a serious shot at winning, even if more scandals about him are unveiled. I hate both but am voting for Clinton, but can very much understand your position. The whole "basket of deplorables", virtue signalling, moral superiority thing turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • gnarbarian 10y ago
    Cheers. I am absolutely sick of these McCarthy-esque witchhunts foisted on us. That combined with the recent attacks on freedom of speech have me very wary of the left in general this time around. I was rooting for Rand Paul and planned on voting for Gary Johnson in the election but the blatant corruption and criminality that has come out exposing Clinton, her laundry list of crimes, the lack of prosecution by the DoJ, and the complete bias in media coverage has me in the Trump camp this time around. It really makes me sick.
• danielmorozoff 10y ago
  The whole discussion brings to mind George Orwell. 'Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' I believe US democracy is founded on similar notions, and underscores the necessity of this dialogue. Thank you HN for supporting this open forum.
• redthrowaway 10y ago
  There seems to be this progressive instinct to claim that it's not enough for people to believe the same things I do, or support the same people I do, but instead everyone must always denounce the people I do in the ways I dictate or be shamed and boycotted. This instinct is divisive and damaging, and drives away erstwhile allies. Posts like Pao's and this one, which are intended to enforce a progressive orthodoxy through the application of massive negative pressure, are far less effective in winning over converts than its authors suppose. A lighter touch would be far more effective.
• zxcvvcxz 10y ago
  Shame on Democrats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY Also: > Altman’s framing of Thiel’s Trump support as a diversity issue isn’t just incorrect — it’s a harmful distortion that reveals a deep misunderstanding of the tech industry’s actual diversity issues. (I don’t and can’t fully understand our diversity problem, but I at least won’t pretend to.) What on Earth does this even mean? There's something wrong, I can't have a different opinion, but you can't even understand or explain it? Give me a fucking break.
• Dan_JiuJitsu 10y ago
  I for one support Y Combinator's commitment to tolerance. Tolerance is sadly lacking in today's political discourse. Like many, I find Donald Trump distasteful, but to call for the removal of an investor for supporting a candidate one disagrees with is both intolerant and small minded. A pluralistic democracy depends on both tolerance and civility for its' very existence. It's more than a little ironic to me that people critical of Donald Trump for, essentially, being intolerant are now expressing that criticism in the form of intolerance by calling for the banishment of his supporters.
• tremendo 10y ago
  If Trump is your enemy, like he is mine, fight Trump. To fight and berate others for a twice-removed association is not just stupid, it's lazy, and a waste of your and everyone's time. I see 500+ comments here but no convincing anyone. Perhaps you feel impotent and that you can only shout platitudes onto deaf ears. Think harder, act smarter. Vote, and get those you can influence directly to vote. This thread right here, is not the way.
• MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  To be charitable, you're full of shit. Does Hillary encourage violence at rallies? Does she stoke resentment at minority outgroups for political gain? Does she threaten to imprison her political opponents? Is she preemptively calling the election fraudulent and encouraging polling place intimidation and violence? Also you mixed up "kind" and "degree". The difference between them is, in fact, one of kind. Sure, she's a bit of a corporatist shill, but that's par for the course for most presidents since the 1900s. The case against her is built from years of strident exaggerations and lies, amplified by misogyny. She's a completely normal, if less than thrilling, politician. The case against Trump is sufficiently built on things he's said in public in just the last few months alone. He's an American proto-fascist.
  • throwaway425378 10y ago
    >Does Hillary encourage violence at rallies? That's what "community organizations" are for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
  • dang 10y ago
    > To be charitable, you're full of shit. You can't comment like this on HN. Please don't do it again, regardless of how wrong someone is. Commenters here should post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12735736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12735736 and marked it off-topic.
• wang_li 10y ago
  When did Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition change its name to Project Include? These are the exact same extortionate tactics that Jackson and Sharpton have been peddling for decades. http://www.skeptictank.org/gen4/gen02379.htm http://www.skeptictank.org/gen4/gen02379.htm
• rfrank 10y ago
  "Can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton, on Assange.
  • Natsu 10y ago
    Haven't seen that one. May I have a source, please?
    • rfrank 10y ago
      FBI report. Of course, it's a "joke" that Hillary "can't recall." Even though, "The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-julian-assange-229123 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-julian...
      • nicholassmith 10y ago
        Snopes must be having a pretty high traffic month: http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/ http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/
        • rfrank 10y ago
          lol snopes
          • nicholassmith 10y ago
            Yeah, because they're less trust worthy than True Pundit.
            • 10y ago
• crystaln 10y ago
  Thiel is not supportung Trump because of Trump's racism and sexism. He is supporting Trump because of his policies and disruptive capacity. This is the difference between supporting a candidate and attributing everything a candidate does to the supporter. Hillary Clinton is a war criminal by many standards. Should all Clinton supporters sever ties with YC?
• transfire 10y ago
  When you have a "hot-head numb-nut" and a "truly nasty shyster" running for President, who do you vote for? I'll tell you. You say, "To hell with all that!", and vote for the [goofball](https://www.johnsonweld.com/ https://www.johnsonweld.com/).
• ipatriot 10y ago
  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.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• gdubs 10y ago
  There's a stunning degree of false equivalence happening here with regard to Trump. Trump is not Romney or McCain. It's not a left/liberal-only claim that Trump is dangerously unfit to be president. There are scores of republican national security experts who have written open letters, come out publicly against him, etc. To claim he's just another side of a coin is absurd. This guy is out there, as we speak, dangerously fanning the conspiracy that the election will be rigged. The decision by YC sent a signal about diversity of opinions. But, it sent other signals as well. One is that it further normalizes Trump. One can make a strong argument that of the signals YC could have sent, the latter is worse. Where's the line? Would Trump need to literally have been a klan member for it to be okay for an organization to say, you know what, we're not going to associate with people publicly supporting this guy? Somewhere there's a line, and many of us believe it was crossed a long time ago. The other thing is, Thiel is not going to be 'unfairly silenced' if YC were to cut ties. He's a vocal billionaire who in our current system of money and politics has a megaphone far larger than most. It's disingenuous to equate YC cutting ties with Thiel to firing an employee over their personal political beliefs. It's a privilege to serve on a board at that level, and there should be a higher moral standard.
  • clifanatic 10y ago
    > Trump is not Romney or McCain. And in four years, when the Republicans elect candidate X, you'll say "X is not Trump or Romney, he's literally Satan."
• Steeeve 10y ago
  Was somebody under the impression that there are no conservatives involved in funding and creating startups? If you live in a world where you think you only have to deal with people who follow your political ideology, I feel sorry for you.
• _pius 10y ago
  Another way to look at this is to apply a version of Jeff Bezos's Regret Minimization Framework: project yourself decades into the future and read about yourself in a history book. If you truly believe Trump is an unprecedented threat to democracy in the league of Stalin, how would you feel telling your children that "it was just business" when you kept on a partner who was part of his campaign apparatus? I don't think IBM is particularly proud of their management during the 1930's. No one knows or cares about the personal views of the people behind those decisions, just what they led IBM to do.
  • zeveb 10y ago
    Would one feel particularly good telling one's children that one joined in a rabid witch hunt driving people from their employment (Eich) and business associations (Thiel)?
    • _pius 10y ago
      I'll feel great telling my kids I encouraged people in my industry to stand up to a billionaire mouthpiece and financier of a prominent white nationalist trying to bring fascism to the United States. In fact, I'd be ashamed to say I didn't.
• HeavyStorm 10y ago
  I'm not American. I live far away from the country and have zero influence on its politics. However, America has a deep influence on the whole world, and, of course, it's president is very relevant for all nations in this planet. So I follow the political scenario closely. As (hopefully) many, I'm completely against Trump. He's irresponsible, most of the ideals he spread are harmful to (my understanding of the) development of mankind, etc. I really hope that he isn't elected under any circumstances. Still, it seems to me that Marco doesn't understand democracy, freedom of speech, belief, and a number of other values that are as important to mankind as those Trump poses a risk to. As a person should (has to) be free to vote to whomever they wish, also they are free to support that same individual. Punishing such support is about the same as threating The Republic for supporting Clinton.
• return0 10y ago
  Someone had to do it. What a delightful clickbait subject to remind people that you exist.
• brandonmowat 10y ago
  I would encourage people to look at the similarities between Sam's decision not to punish Thiel and this: https://www.gofundme.com/reopen-a-nc-republican-office-2ukuprzy https://www.gofundme.com/reopen-a-nc-republican-office-2ukup...
• yannbe 10y ago
  2 points : - Peter Thiel has a right to support trump. The common misconception is that for something to be a right it should be morally right as well. This is not the case. Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is morally right to do so. - You can support a subset of someone's ideas without agreeing to all of his ideas. For example, I think Socrates is a great guy but I don't agree with a lot of what he says. The backlash towards Thiel is an interesting sociological phenomenon. It seems that the pressure to conform is extremely high in the tech community.
• lsh123 10y ago
  What concerns me the most is not HRC or Trump. I will vote for neither and I don't believe that either of them will make a big difference. However a big divide in American society is the real problem. I grew up on Soviet Union and it Communist Party was the one and only ideology pushed down everyone throats. The ideology was more important than people (see for just one of many examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov). With the D and R camps right now I see exactly the same - the ideology becomes more important than anything else. For example, in this discussion "support for candidate X" factor is considered more important than personal and business relationship between people. This is exactly how Communist Party wanted the people to behave. I don't like it at all. Instead of working together, the D and R camps push supporters to the extremes. Unfortunately, if this continues then things will go really badly. I am really looking for a force/person who can unite the people instead of dividing them.
• swah 10y ago
  I am an outsider, but I don't understand why Wikileaks doesn't leak into CNN.com and friends in the MSM? or something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY ? Nothing bad sticks to the democrat candidate. I'm not talking about proofs, but about headlines that get written all the time for clicks. Where are those for Hillary? Not on CNN, nytimes, etc. Every day there is a new headline about how Trump winning would destroy the universe. Where should I read the news? Politico? Infowars?
  • forgetsusername 10y ago
    >Every day there is a new headline about how Trump winning would destroy the universe. I'm also an outsider (Canadian). It seems like an endless stream of anti-Trump news everywhere I go. Yet HN had a thread just the other day with people commenting about how "unfair" things are towards Clinton. I don't get it, either.
• ghufran_syed 10y ago
  I wonder if the author also thinks that YC should reject founders who support trump? Just add a little question to the application form:"Do you now, or have you ever, supported Donald Trump?" The next stage could be "Do you now, or have you ever, associated with a Trump supporter?" - "if so, please list their names here so we can keep YC pure by excluding them from YC, and pass their names to the re-education brigades" What could possibly go wrong? :)
• fweespeech 10y ago
  Honestly, YC's position is reasonable. > Some have said that YC should terminate its relationship with Peter over this. But as repugnant as Trump is to many of us, we are not going to fire someone over his or her support of a political candidate. As far as we know, that would be unprecedented for supporting a major party nominee, and a dangerous path to start down (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). Employment should not be based on political beliefs. > Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president. Similarly, that is a pretty clear statement that Trump isn't a conservative and I'd say that is honestly all YC needed to do.
• carapace 10y ago
  When Barbara Bush and I are on the same side of this it's not a political purge, it's a matter of basic human decency. The Trump candidacy is a litmus test of basic civil sanity. Supporting it is insane.
• josh5555 10y ago
  What does Marco think of Islamic fundamentalists? Are they to be condemned for their sexism and persecution of homosexuals? None of these issues are as black and white as Marco describes. We need true diversity of thought in this country; competing ideas and a healthy discourse. We shouldn't attempt to silence dissenting voices. Marco represents all the Bolsheviks, Maoists, Fascists and Nazis stood for - one singular idea at the expense of all others. People like this truly scare me.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• Zarath 10y ago
  Man the left just excels at doublethink. "Tolerance only when we like what you say!" "A voice for the marginalized, as long as the marginalized are women and minorities!"
• sk5t 10y ago
  According to the USSC, money in politics is speech. Now, Trump's speech is also Thiel's speech. The only remaining question should be if YC partners are able to keep that position while saying and supporting harmful and often false ideas.
• smokedoutraider 10y ago
  No shame on Marcos, Pao, and anyone else taking a this stupid stance against those who disagree with them. Supporting Trump is perfectly fine, as is supporting Clinton. Calling for the heads of those on opposing sides of the isle is what is truly disgraceful and the whole lot of you acting like petulant children are just pathetic and dangerously misguided.
• whybroke 10y ago
  >If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator. If it is only reasonable to spouse Thiel's supports Trump is in every particular. Not just the least damaging but also the most. So this not only includes the more palatable anti globalization stance but also race baiting and, hostility towards women as well as a fiercely anti democracy, anti free press platform. I assume much of that is exactly opposed to ycombinator's higher mission. Thiel's association with ycombinator is not one of employee to employer, it is voluntary association of colleagues for a common goal, presumably with goals higher than just monetary. Going forward, continuing with Thiel will not only make any claim to those nobler goals _look_ disingenuous they likely will in fact _be_ undermined.
• ravinpm 10y ago
  now there is no difference between you and the so called trump supporters. You are asking others to take a stand on behalf of your moral values or bunch who share your values. Come to the developing countries who call themselves democracy and you can see it be absued by their supporters who have the very same notion as you. There is no difference between them(some are uneducated) and you(educated).I hope you are one those guys who can be brainwashed easily or there is no difference between you and those who get brainwashed. Either make your system strong or soon a combination of adam sutler(Vendetta movie) and father's mask(Equlibrium movie) or person with veil will screw everyone using the very same system.
• joshberkus 10y ago
  Given Thiel's long history of crazy an immoral utterances and behavior, why pick out his support of Trump as the "line in the sand"? It's practically normal compared to his other activities, and protected by law to boot. Compared to: * Suing a news publication (Gawker) out of business for criticizing him * Funding research into vampirism (stealing young people's blood so he can live longer) * Paying to design an actual John Gault Island * Funding an initiative to split California into 6 states * Saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote There are tons of reasons why YC should disassociate form Thiel, but his donation to the Trump campaign has got to be the least of them.
• fredgrott 10y ago
  I would just state that while we have political freedom and free speech in the USA..YC should not be ENDORSING those political forces who in their direct actions with a consistent basis regale in Sexism, Predatory Sexual behavior, Racism, Hate of Gays,etc. Its time for YC take a stand..no try to sit on a fence
• jjawssd 10y ago
  "We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political candidate. That’s not how things are done in this country." What a crazy idea!
• jacquesm 10y ago
  Altman has it right, as much as Trump is reprehensible what candidate the partners of YC support has no bearing on whether or not a business relationship should be broken up. Politics are a private matter, just as religion, your sexuality, who you choose as a significant other and so on. Thiel has had the guts to publicly come out in support for one of two very reprehensible candidates, one who I would be happy not to see become president of the most powerful country in the world (privately I wonder if these two are really the best people America could come up with to lead the country but that's another matter). At the same time I'm not so conceited that I would call for others to dissociate themselves from a working relationship with Peter Thiel though I will happily dissociate myself from him (easy for me to say, I have no business dealings with Peter Thiel, so probably I should say 'would'). Freedom is all about how you live your life, not about telling others how they should live theirs and what they should and should not do and even if I would be happy to see Altman (and by extention YC) dissociate himself from Peter Thiel I would not stoop to the point of asking or demanding of him that he do so, it's his life, his business and any kind of cognitive dissonance between what he sees as a serious threat to America as we know it today/continued association with a supporter of that threat is entirely his own. I've always had a real problem with people telling others how they should live their lives, decide for yourself what you want and leave other people out of it. People telling other people how they should live is why there is religious persecution, why LGBT people can't marry and why political dissent is repressed in many places. This behavior has no place in an advanced society. Peter Thiel should be free to support whichever candidate he feels like and Sam Altman should be free to associate himself and YC with Peter Thiel.
• treebeard901 10y ago
  Is it so crazy to say that Thiel is free to support whatever candidate he wants... While Graham and Altman are free to choose who they do business with?
• fizixer 10y ago
  The size of this thread, and the split of opinions, is a clear indication to me that this goes beyond the single decision of "Whether or not keep Thiel on board". I would like to bring your attention to that bigger issue (sorry if this comment is useless to you in making up your mind about Thiel). I consider myself a transhumanist, a futurologist, a technologist, that sort of thing. I got into this about 3 years ago. And I've done a lot of thinking/reading on this topic, and I've tried my best to gauge the perception about technology in the eyes of non-techies, especially economists, and politicians. And my conclusion is that, except for a few, economists and politicians are hopelessly lagging behind the fast pace of socio-economic change. I also predicted that within a matter of years, we're headed for a serious social disruption of an unpredictable nature. Here is my thesis: 2016 is the beginning of that socially disruptive era. And it's all due to technological progress and automation-driven-unemployment! If you think it's only about the 2016 US election, and things will settle down within weeks after November 8 election of Clinton, you would be misguided. Of course the election fever will settle down, but not the frustration behind it, which is growing like a frog in a slowly boiling water. I can tell you right now, the 2018 election season would be worse, and 2020 season would be far worse! Case in point: Have you seen the statistics related to self-driving cars and trucks? Arguably it'll put 3 million truckers out of work. This will happen within a matter of months, not years, not decades. What do you think would happen when all of a sudden 3 million people are without means to put food on their table? Something that would make you forget Trump! You might ask, we don't have self-driving cars yet why do we have social disruption? Well, self-driving cars is a poster-child of automation. It's something that's easy to understand and relate to. There is a ton of subtle, behind-the-scenes, automation going on, that is indirectly making harder for humans to utilize their skills for making money. Smart-phone and related apps, news article bots, automated warehousing like Amazon Kivy, Uber/Lyft, Airbnb, Etsy, vertical farming, solar and wind power, on, and on, and on. But more importantly: Social disruption is not a step function but a logistic curve. It's not that we'll have zero disruption until self-driving trucks are available for retail purchasing, and after that we'll have full disruption. Instead, it's a sign of things to come, and we're off the zero-level, and slowly rising up the S-curve of the logistic function. Please think of this problem in a bigger context. If technologists cannot do this, economists and politicians definitely can't.
  • 10y ago
• ume123 10y ago
  Because of extreme overuse, I think that now roughly half of the country don't care about being called racist or sexist anymore. Congratulations. In fact, in certain circumstances it's actually a pretty good evidence that something "interesting" is being said and someone is trying to silence it, like how searching for grayed out comments in HN is the first thing I do in threads like this.
• rbanffy 10y ago
  Peter Thiel's financial support for Trump's campaign, as well as Trump's campaign of hatred, racism, xenophobia and misogyny, are perfect examples of the Overton window sliding into insanity. The next Trump may be slightly more moderate. He may accept that women may have some of the same rights as men. He may accept the fact some foreigners should be afforded some civil liberties. He may even accept access to healthcare is a good thing and that Islam is not inherently evil. And, next to Trump, he'll be pictured as a moderate. I am sorry if I look intolerant of diversity, but this cannot be tolerated. We cannot allow the subversion of democracies.
• bonaldi 10y ago
  Man alive this thread. When SV wonders why it has a diversity problem, just point 'em here. Where were all you Free Speech zealots when Thiel destroyed Gawker? Where were all you Political Choices Are Sacred crew when SOPA was being proposed? Where were all you "protect rich bigots" stans when it was Brendan Eich? Oh wait, that's right, you were on the wrong side there too, my bad. As for you "I guess there's a 'wrong side' these days of things you just can't say" newcomers: surprise, there have always been unacceptable opinions, such as supporting fascism. It's just that a mainstream party accidentally chose as its candidate someone who holds and expresses those opinions. That doesn't give him, you, or Thiel, a pass.
  • thescribe 10y ago
    Ok how about this: Anyone who supports Hillary is on the wrong side of History and holds views so vile no American should hold them. I can advocate for Pao to be fired now right?
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      Sure, you can advocate for it. Whether or not you believe that, in fact. People may question both your preferred action and the basis on which you advocate for it, however.
      • thescribe 10y ago
        Wouldn't it be easier just to agree to no witch hunts than to hope the winds of public opinion never make us the witch?
        • bonaldi 10y ago
          But what about if you actually do have a "witch" on your hands? Like, say, an actual fascist? I think one of the conflicts here is arising because some people see Trump as an actual fascist, and are advocating the kinds of actions that are required to deal with that. Others see him as just another politician, no worse than Clinton, and therefore see the actions of the other lot as excessive and unwarranted. Sama, however, is trying to have his cake and eat it. He says he believes Trump is a threat to the republic but eh, if people want to support that it's up to them. Which is arguably open-minded tolerance of intolerance, but also the sort of "so open your brain falls out" liberalism that (ironically) Trump fans hate so much.
• Dowwie 10y ago
  So if I publicly attack a Y Combinator legend the HN community gets to fight about politics? In that case, I'll just leave this debate between Hedges and Reicht for everyone here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4cXH3Fil8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4cXH3Fil8
• test6554 10y ago
  The moment you disagree with someone's free speech is precisely the moment when that freedom needs to be defended the most. You can disagree with the contents of the speech, but not with the freedom to express ones self. Shame on Marco, but I'm proud he has the right to speak his mind.
• phlakaton 10y ago
  I believe that Trump is uniquely unfit for office, more than any major presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime. I believe, though I cannot prove, that should Trump be elected, he stands a well better than average chance of being an existential threat to our republic. So I do not take this election lightly at all. That being said, I believe Mr. Thiel may say has he likes and spend his money where he likes, though his choice of candidate, like for many Republican voters, disappoints me greatly. I do not believe he speaks for YC in doing so, and I do not expect YC to terminate their relationship with him for him doing so. I see no shame in this.
• daveheq 10y ago
  Wit so I'm supposed to be enraged because Y Combinator won't cut ties with an associate who supported a candidate some people don't like? There's no shame here. Hillary's got her own dirt too so should everyone who associates with either candidate be ashamed? There's nothing heinous or shameful about supporting a presidential candidate; I don't want either to be President but it's ridiculous to hold Y Combinator accountable for an associate's political choice, those people expecting otherwise should be ashamed.
• smonff 10y ago
  I don't know why there is so much hype on debating if companies got sexism and racism or other oppression issues: they do have some, period. And it should be strongly improved. If we pretend the contrary, we really have to question ourselves.
• EGreg 10y ago
  As with Title I vs Title II and other crap like this, this is just a symptom of a bigger problem: we have only two choices. Both times, YC got dragged into a situation where people demand they sever ties and punish people for their political views. In our first-past-the-post system, even if Hitler and Mao were the nominees of the 2 parties, would the 3rd party get even 15% of the vote? https://twitter.com/GregMozart/status/788448482264768512 https://twitter.com/GregMozart/status/788448482264768512 I am very happy with YC's decision not to sever ties with people based on their support of a political position that a large (over 20%) portion of the population seems to have. The way that was done with Brendan Eich at Mozilla. There should be some separation between the workplace and a person's personal politics. These people themselves are not killers, rapists, they do not exercise their own power to coerce others etc. They don't endorse every single bad thing their candidate does. For the record, I think Trump is not very interested in learning about nuances, half the time it's not clear what he is really saying, almost never reconsiders his position, instead he just easily disavows his own statements, and that alone disqualifies him. But should I cut business ties with every Hillary supporter because I believe they are for brinksmanship and escalating the threat of a nuclear war with Russia? Many are. But that has such a small effect on the good we can do together, in the actual sphere of our collaboration. If I want to do something about the doomsday clock, cutting ties with my coworkers is very, very far down the list of effective things to do. Even in your personal life, realize that arguing about politics is like arguing about astronomy -- the odds are overwhelming that you can't really change anything in the current election. So if your significant other likes a different baseball team, that's not nearly as important as shared values about how you're going to raise your children, or basic respect to human beings, or other things in your real life. I don't live in California, and I know New York State (where I live) will vote Democratic as it always has, same as Cali. But we embrace political diversity much more than California, it seems. It may be more OK to publicly disinvite Douglas Crockford from a conference for his own personal behavior (I personally think it is ridiculous, but still), than to disinvite someone for mainstream political views or support for another candidate. But as I said, this is all a symptom of our first-past-the-post system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
• nothrows 10y ago
  no one should be shamed or fired for their political beliefs. go fuck yourself marco.org
• librvf 10y ago
  Response to Sam Altman's post: A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy. He has no real plan to restore economic growth. The truth is that no one knows for sure what will be best for the American economy for the next four years. There are too many variables and too much unpredictability to know for certain what a Trump president would look like. His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer. This is a fallacy. The country is already divided over immigration, and has been for a long time. The prevalence of this kind of fallacious rhetoric from elites like Sam Altman is precisely why the nationalist faction chose Trump to lead them. In order to counter this kind of deceptive propaganda, they needed someone willing to use equally powerful rhetoric in their favor. Also, the claim that his policies are racist is simply not true. They are not racist. But the man himself is even more dangerous than his policies. He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. Sam cites no evidence and makes no argument to back up these exceptional claims. I have been watching Trump for an entire year, and I have not observed any erratic or "abusive" behavior. At least, nothing exceptional that wasn't already directed at him. Sure, he savaged his GOP rivals with name-calling and theatrics. But they had already called him a clown, a sideshow, a circus. So it's OK to call Trump names but not OK to for him to respond in kind? Trump supporters see this hypocrisy and understand that Trump is doing what he needs to do to win the election. He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants, and I believe this reason alone more than disqualifies him to be president. My godson’s father, who is Mexican by birth and fears being deported or worse, is who convinced me to spend a significant amount of time working on this election at the beginning of this year, when Trump still seemed like an unlikely possibility. More blatantly fallacious reasoning. Because a Mexican national fears deportation (why?), suddenly Trump is a threat to all women minorities and immigrants? Ridiculous fallacy. This is why Trump must use the rhetoric he does, because his opponents are so full of shit that they don't even realize it. Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president. I'll grant that Trump shows little explicit respect for the Constitution. But Hillary doesn't either. No one's respecting the constitution because no one (Sam Altman) has been demanding it. There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees immigration to anyone who wants it, which so far is the only issue he has identified that has not been a grossly biased representation. Speaking of which, "human decency." Again, another extreme claim with absolutely NO argument or evidence to back it up. Altman boldy claims that Trump shows little respect for human decency, and yet anyone who has actually watched Trump interact with his supporters all year long shows that he is overflwing with of decency. People love him, he makes them feel good just to be around him. Here Altman is appealing to popular prejudice about Trump, which has been reinforced repeatedly by others like him in his echo chamber. It's one thing to not waste time justifying claims for which the evidence is abundant and easily found. But there's no such evidence for these claims. There's a lot of other people saying similarly bad things that also have no evidence. So there's a clear reason why this perception exists. But I see no real argument. As for fearing for national security? Again just another emotional appeal with no justification. What about Hillary actively antagonizing Russia? Speaking recklessly of no-fly zones over Syria, which our own Generals claim would mean going to war with Russia. This fear just seems ignorant. Though I don’t ascribe all positions of a politician to his or her supporters, I do not understand how one continues to support someone who brags about sexual assault, calls for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US, or any number or other disqualifying statements. I will continue to try to change both of their minds. First thing: if Sam Altman wants to understand, then he needs to learn how to listen. Trump never bragged about sexual assault, and to claim he did is a lie. Everyone repeating this is also lying. If you actually want to understand, the first thing you need to do is admit your interpretation of this is wrong. If you can't do that, you'll never make any progress towards understanding. As for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US? Immigration is not a right. There's no amendment that says anyone anywhere has the right to come to this country. We have the right (and some would say duty) to restrict entry to anyone for any reason. The fact is that Muslims tend to hold very different values than Americans (Sam Altman might want to ask what Peter thinks about Muslim's beliefs on homosexuality), and there there are Muslim organizations who have made an explicit goal of destroying Western European civilization through a combination of settlement, violence, and propaganda. You can't say that about any other major religion in the world. And so of all the "basket of deplorables", that is the one I will admit to. I am not racist, at least, no more than anyone can be in the US given the amount of race-baiting done by corporate media. I am not sexist. I'm not homophobic or anti-semitic. But I am an Islamaphobe. Islam scares me. The religion itself scares me as does the activities of its leaders-- the so-called moderates as well as the extremists. It scares me more than any other major religion in the world. No other religion of significant size has the same combination of intolerance, subversiveness, violence, conquest, and hostility to those outside the faith. I look at the character of Islamic civilization, and I know without a doubt that I do would not want to live under those values. While I totally understand that it's possible to interpret the Quran and Hadith in less violent and aggressive ways, and that most Muslims are just ordinary people who want to live happy and healthy lives, that's not the trend in the world today. There's not a single Islamic country that I would want to live in. You won't see me harassing anyone or trying to deny American Muslims their 1st amendment rights. It's not hatred I feel. I'll never condone "hate speech" or "hate crimes." I do not fear ordinary Muslims, individually. I am not even opposed to having a solid and stable minority of American Muslims in perpetuity. But I most emphatically do not think we should be inviting substantial numbers of them into the country. We are not prepared to assimilate them and once there are sufficient numbers of them in the country they will start agitating to impose their political will on everyone else, which is likely to include political violence.
• skoocda 10y ago
  During extensive, complex discussions like these, it becomes readily apparent that while the HN/Reddit-style threaded text forum is the best format I know of, it's still woefully inadequate. There will soon be 1000 comments on this page- none of which are merely simple thoughts. Nobody could read them all and still maintain a cohesive, holistic perspective on all the issues presented. Most of the comments themselves splinter into anecdotal tangents, and surely every comment has overlap with another comment here. But, should any comment be omitted from consideration? I think not, because every opinion presented holds unique value. We, as mere humans, just can't consider each one individually. Not at internet scale. While it's a precarious use of ML, we really do need computational synthesis and analysis to draw trends from these discussions. We all know ML recognizes and reinforces biases- so we shouldn't be training a classifier by using HN's sentiment as a baseline. That said, we need a solution here, ideally soon. Until that happens, I won't be wasting my time dropping 2 cents into a bottomless void.
  • inimino 10y ago
    > every opinion presented holds unique value. Most of the comments here are actually repeating the same few opinions over and over in different words. For example, about half the top-level comments here are a variation of "shame on the author". A system that consolidates duplicated sentiments would probably cut this page down to size, but ML is not even remotely up to the task. A system based on human review could do so, however.
• k26dr 10y ago
  Despite my disagreement with him, Peter Thiel has a right to hold an opinion on which candidate he supports, and the right to donate to the candidate of his choice. It's a presidential election. You can't call it a fair election if as a society, we're threatening to punish people for supporting one candidate over another.
• StudyAnimal 10y ago
  I personally respect, and am thankful for the fact that people exist that have opinions that differ, even a lot, from mine. Especially on moral issues. I find it pretty immoral to have too much faith in ones moral framework. I will do business with anyone especially those with different political or other opinions than mine, they are usually more interesting conversations.
• jfe 10y ago
  true tolerance tolerates the intolerant.
• polyfields 10y ago
  Because of these pussified posts, I am voting for Trump.
• rebootthesystem 10y ago
  American politics have become radioactive. Intelligent people stay as far away from it as possible. Because getting involved and becoming visible can mean the end of you in more than one form. We will never have a good government if good people fear the process and the media so much so that they move-on and devote their lives to more productive pursuits. Imagine you are not perfect, decide to run for office and are subjected to the kind of media attacks we see escalate to lower lows every election? Who in their right mind wants a part of that? To some degree one has to admire Trump for enduring the massive campaign against him. A lesser person would have imploded a long time ago. This isn't an endorsement as much as it is recognition of a fact. What is happening in this election is despicable. The two main candidates are hardly the best this country can produce. And it is our fault. Entirely our fault. Not theirs. My guess is it will have to get far worst before people wake up and realize we have been in an "emperor has no clothes" environment for decades. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. This is about a government taken over by some of the most despicable self-serving people around. Ambulance chasers who would not amount to much had they not gone into government. Not sure how this will fix itself, if ever.
• kartman 10y ago
  I am glad Trump has run, spoken and reached this point. We each now know and can remember going forward, if we so choose, how all the people we assign respect to acted when it mattered. (And we should remember the actual meaningful actions with long term $ impact to the actor. Not get guiled by the arguments skillfully couching intent and rationalizing the actions).
• drawkbox 10y ago
  Nearly all of our bosses, owners, authorities vote and support in various ways, most you probably don't like. Thiel is a funder, how often have you worked for people/financing that had differing opinions? All the time... The real problem is that the 2 party system has successfully divided us and put us on teams warring one another over silly things like politicians (and non issues like sex lives over real issues like healthcare, education, prosperity, opportunity, security -- not the war on terror kind, more like the bridges aren't going to fall kind). Most of what we want are the same things, but we'll never get anywhere hating on each other based on our political team that is essentially the same party once in action. I wish we would go back to the old way of keeping your vote and opinion closer to your chest and surprising the two political parties so they actually need to court the vote again. I can't wait til the election season is over, it is always a very harsh/rigid time in the US when they are on, people seeing others as lower who aren't in their own party. Disconnect from it and everyone be independent. Don't do work for politicians and blindly support anyone or any party, make them do work for us.
• sytelus 10y ago
  I strongly believe that businesses should stay out of politics - no matter what the rhetorics and controversies are. They are built by efforts of lot of different people and someone at the top shouldn't get to decide what is good for everybody. It's bad enough that editorial boards of major news media goes out and openly endorse political leader. That completely destroys their neutralism and ability to serve news without bias. Its equally bad that that outgoing president who is supposed to stay out of politics is now using his powerful position to change the election. Fundamental principle of democracy is that you have to trust the people to make the right choice. If you can't then you shouldn't have democracy. The argument that the big powerful entities are expected to forcefully shut down the candidate because he/she is deemed not "normal" or morally corrupt is bad for democracy. You need to let people decide that with their vote. So the last thing we want is businesses start firing their employees for holding different political beliefs. May be there is a red line somewhere, for example, real Nazi party coming in to existence without any pretense whatsoever. It would make sense then if POTUS, businesses and major media openly rebels against it. But outside of those extreme cases where do you draw that line is anyone's guess and convenience. Y-Combinator is doing absolutely the right thing for the current situation, IMO. PS: I do not endorse any candidates at this point. Above statements are NOT the endorsement for Trump or anyone else. This is what I believe should be the core principles for functional democracy that allows for different opinions.
• gjolund 10y ago
  Another post about purging Trump supporters from the workplace. Is it SV that causes people to view the world in black and white? What a surprise, one of the least inclusive industries on the planet is trying to exclude more people.
• yellowapple 10y ago
  Translation: "Shame on Y Combinator for not punishing someone for supporting a candidate I don't like". I don't like Trump, either (in fact, I rather strongly dislike him), but that doesn't mean I inherently dislike his supporters just because they happened to pick one of two evils in this shitfest of an election.
• deeth_starr 10y ago
  While I don't agree w/ Marco on all his points, I think Thiel should go. Trump/Thiel are racists against multiculturalism. This is the life blood of California and the tech sector. I say this as an old white guy.
• EdSharkey 10y ago
  This is a free speech country. People can associate with whomever they want. Celebrate that we can say and write deplorable things to one another. Peter Thiel can do what he wants with his millions, celebrate that. You can moralize about how nuts Thiel is to do that, I celebrate you for that. On the right, I've been told God will judge me if I don't vote Trump (not biblical - I told them where to go.) On the left, I've seen violence and vile hate directed at trumpsters. Everyone calm down, please. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree 100% on Trump v. Clinton. Don't try to ruin people's lives or be a hater over someone's opinions. Other people have dimensions, and life is never black and white. Always be civil, just shake your head in cases like this and say, "well, I simply don't know where your head is on this one." We can settle our disagreements at the ballot box. Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Trump or Clinton for (in my opinion) obvious reasons, and I'm not emotional about either.
• stuffedBelly 10y ago
  I wish more thinking could be put into their words when people write political posts like this. As much as I'd like to see healthy debates over presidential candidates of choice, this post is not written to facilitate conversation between two sides. Using strong moral indicators ("shame"), finger-pointing to specific influential targets (YC and Thiel) and staying on superficial rhetoric, the author deliberately wrote the post in a way to try policing over people with opposite political belief, leaving no room for argument. If the targets were not influential or the title gave out the blog content (e.g.shame on my neighbor for being a Trump supporter), it would be treated like yet another personal rant against Trump. If the post presented comprehensive but complicated political analysis, it would loose a big chunk of the intended audiences. I applaud for Marco's ability to convey his political opinion to big audience through a simple blog post. That said, if you are used to performing critical thinking whenever you read stuff, this post is probably not for you. This post doesn't give people much constructive material to argue over aside from fueling more potential verbal violence. The same goes for most media political pieces. They are political snacks, cheap to grab and quick to consume, but too many snacks are bad for health, in this case, bad for decision making.
• ryguytilidie 10y ago
  Can someone help me follow the logic whereby its "facist" or "hypocritical" for people to find fault in someone who is supporting an admitted sexual predator and racist?
• blackflame7000 10y ago
  Unemployment is really going to skyrocket if we start firing people for which presidential candidate they vote for.
• shruubi 10y ago
  This kind of thinking is why even as a heavily left-leaning person, I have a real problem with the current attitude of the social-justice movement. I believe Sam is right, Trump is a reprehensible person who has done horrific things and has no right being president. But just because I find him and a large majority of his supporters as ignorant, racist, homophobic and hate-filled people doesn't mean I have any right to exclude or excommunicate them just for their beliefs. It sets a dangerous precedent to work towards silencing and vilifying a party whom you disagree with, and while it seems fine when from your point of view it is for the greater good, what happens when someone who works to silence and vilify you claims it is for the greater good? On top of which, it makes us no better than the ultra-conservative isolationists to vilify and excommunicate based upon belief. Don't believe me? Just look at the language and justification used by Trump and his supporters and compare it to the language that we left-leaning use against Trump and his supporters. A true democracy means every person, no matter how repugnant, gets their voice heard. A truly diverse community means that all people, no matter their race, sexual orientation or their political beliefs deserve to be heard. And a truly free society allows for the free exchange of ideas and beliefs, what defines us as people is our ability to recognize what is morally right or wrong in those ideas and rather than vilify, try to educate.
• hiringmanager 10y ago
  You really need to stop confusing the opinion of a propaganda site for reality. Shame on you for being so completely patronizing and such an asshole as to imply that I haven't spent any time thinking about this. This issue affects me directly, so you can't possibly know how little regard I have for your anti-intellectualism (and you've been anti-intellectual for years here). You believe what you want to believe and you find propaganda a that fits it and you define it as truth. You're a exactly as intellectual as a religious fundamentalists. In fact, you're a jihadist. No amount of intellectual dishonesty is "a bad tactic" when you have a "good target". Shame on you, you patronizing bigot.
  • sctb 10y ago
    We've banned this account for these personal attacks on another user, which is just not OK on Hacker News. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738065.
    • grandalf 10y ago
      Things got heated but cut him some slack, he made some good points earlier. I'm sure jacquesm doesn't care either way.
      • sctb 10y ago
        Yes, things did get heated and we understand when that happens. If a user emails us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe that this will never happen again, we're happy to unban the account, but we do need this to stop now. Plenty of slack has been cut already, and it runs out before we get to the likes of this comment.
        • grandalf 10y ago
          These are challenging times for everyone, and the last thing we need is more censorship and stifling of ideas. FWIW I think most of the editing that happens on HN harms the quality of the site and discussion (title modifications included).
• puppetmaster3 10y ago
  And this just out - adding to my other post: http://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/788121240036896768 http://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/788121240036896768
• cekvenich2 10y ago
  This was deleted by moderators - reposting: None of you on the 'left coast' got balls to say: I support Trump. And I do support Trump. What the left media is telling is simply not true. For example Racism, 4 points: 1. Picture w/ Rosa Parks: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq-YIOzXEAEyEN7.jpg:medium http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq-YIOzXEAEyEN7.jpg:medium 2. Picture w/ KKK 'leader' (not sure what they call self): http://img.youtube.com/vi/xDhpqFkUeeE/0.jpg http://img.youtube.com/vi/xDhpqFkUeeE/0.jpg 3. Bring them to heal(vid): http://tinyurl.com/jbeqqk7 http://tinyurl.com/jbeqqk7 4. Calling out a racist(not runnig yet - old vid): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4xymmq http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4xymmq More - a tie breaker: http://youtube.com/watch?v=b329eUPKQVg http://youtube.com/watch?v=b329eUPKQVg And the tradition of racisam: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/d.. http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/d.... But today, we have disent, fighting against it (assuming YOU the reader belive they can think for self) - http://tinyurl.com/j89tf56 http://tinyurl.com/j89tf56 When we on the right (to the right relative to authoritarian left) say broadcast media is lying - this is an example. Left should be shamed when we can. I am engineer by training - give me data points.
• poshli 10y ago
  I was one of those "I loathe your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to say it" people when it came to Trump right up until now. He's started claiming that if he loses the election, it'll be because of voter fraud, which is indefensible.
• echaozh 10y ago
  I am not a US citizen and definitely not familiar with all its laws and rules and such. I do wonder, if one thinks endorsing Trump is punishable, shouldn't they bring up a legal case? If it is not against the law, why cannot it be done? If Trump is a new Hitler, shouldn't there be a legal way to put him out of the election? If his campaign is legal, why all the fuss? Just don't vote for him. Isn't that exactly why you Americans hold elections? You want democracy and elections, you got to live with the outcomes. You may get what you don't want.
  • hysan 10y ago
    > Just don't vote for him. Isn't that exactly why you Americans hold elections? This is a loaded question and a good one at that. To put it simply, the presidential election is particularly unique compared to other elections in the US because of several intertwining factors. 1) Unless under exceptional circumstances, the US presidential voting system will always devolve into a 2 party race. Because of this, "choice" is much more of an illusion than people are taught to believe in the US. 2) The manner of choosing party representatives (Trump, Clinton) can be gamed or rigged. For the parties, this is to unify support and strengthen the chance that the president will at least be "on your side" (left, right) even if you don't support all of that candidates particular stances. This sounds great, but this tosses all of the niche voters, which is a broad net because people are forced to be in one of these two parties to not have a wasted vote in the presidential election, to the side and forces them to pick a lesser of two evils. 3) The presidential election is unique in that it uses an electoral college system. When you vote, you are not voting for the president. You are voting for someone to vote on your behalf and hoping that they follow through (yes, oversimplified but it is how it works at the most basic level). This is why you can predict the outcome of the race based on just how a few swing states vote. It's also why your vote doesn't really matter if you are not in one of these swing states. And these are just the obvious problems in the __presidential election__ system in the US. Voting for representatives, Senate and House, are just as bad in other ways (gerrymandering being the big issue). So no, it's not really as simple as not voting for Trump (or any other candidate for that matter). On another note, most Americans do not understand how the system truly works and the flaws. On top of that, if you live inside the US or obtain most of your news via US media outlets, I've found that there is a huge bias and attempt to ignore certain realities. As someone who works and lives abroad consuming news that's not even in English, it was clear early on that Trump was going to win the primaries and that Clinton in particular would have a hard time against Trump. The vocal reaction to the current situation is exactly what you should expect.
• mzw_mzw 10y ago
  No, shame on Marco, barking orders to other people about what politics they should or should not support. If one cannot be a professional and calmly interact with people who have wildly varying opinions, even opinions one finds despicable, one should not be in an industry whose very foundation is diversity of thought.
• throwaway1892 10y ago
  I disagree with Marco on the fact that keeping Thiel at YC is against diversity. Sam Altman is accepting to work with someone with opposite political views, which require a lot of courage. How can you stand for diversity if you refuse to accept to work with people who have different opinions (and opposing opinions)?
• lstroud 10y ago
  Irony...advocating discrimination against Trump supporters because you believe they advocate discrimination.
• pmdulaney 10y ago
  I'm distrustful of anyone who has a headline (or placard) that starts with the words "Shame on ..." It usually prefaces some soft-headed socialist sentiment.
• pmdulaney 10y ago
  I'm distrustful of anyone who has a headline (or placard) that starts with the words "Shame on ..." It usually prefaces some soft-headed socialist sentiment.