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 / pa

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 - ...