7 ms·

How can you say "can we save ourselves a really long, pointless political argument" and end your post with a divisive political opinion (that you think people w

How can you say "can we save ourselves a really long, pointless political argument" and end your post with a divisive political opinion (that you think people with opposing viewpoints should be silenced)? You're literally inviting the debate that you're calling long and pointless. Or perhaps you just want to only share your opinion without others having the same opportunity, so you can have the last word? Personally, I think Trump is reprehensible. I also think that silencing people with opposing political viewpoints is dangerous and reprehensible. I don't always agree with Peter Thiel politically, but I would happily do business with him. It's really not our place as the internet lynch-mob to interfere with Peter's role in the startup community because of his political views. Note, @sama said as much when the whole thing went down.

derefr 9y ago
I think tptacek was trying to discourage the thread from devolving into analysis of YCombinator’s politics (which we don’t really have any useful information on either way), rather than from devolving into political discourse in general. Of course it’s going to revolve into political discourse generally; you may as well lock the thread if you don’t want that.
dionidium 9y ago
It's not enough to say your opponents are dumb and wrong, any more. No, they're so dumb and so wrong that a conversation is pointless. Nobody ever changes their mind on anything, anyway, right? This is a repugnant, defeatist, and just plain wrong view of the world. And it's held almost universally by the thought leaders of this forum.
- tetraca 9y ago
  It's essentially pointless because people get too emotionally involved in ideological arguments on the internet, causing themselves to feel attacked when people disagree with them. When this happens, people shut down, stop thinking critically, only acknowledging what they already agree with. The debate then either devolves as people dig their heels in and begin name-calling, or abruptly stops as one side simply refuses to cede a point. When there is a ratings system attached to the thread, the side which agrees with the majority ideology will inevitably "win" as other debaters come out of the woodwork to downvote and post 50 variations of the same well-tread rebuttal. I've seen the pattern so much that I'm not sure I can consider even half those sorts of discussions as productive. It mostly doesn't matter what ideology is the "generally accepted" side, and which one is the "outsider"; the wooden debate pattern will be present. I think some people are just tired of seeing two people talking past each other just to puff chests.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    This argument assumes that the point of person A responding to person B is for person A to convince person B, specifically, at that specific moment in time of the specific details of their specific argument. 1) That's not how persuasion works. 2) It's not how ideas or the stubborn humans who hold them work. 3) The point is not, in fact, to convince that one particular person at that one particular moment in time. If that's your goal, then I might suggest that a phone call would be more appropriate. These are public arguments. Read by the public. They're useful far beyond the participants. 4) Minds change over time, rarely in the moment. If your standard for success is immediate agreement, then you've established an unrealistic (and misguided) goal. You'll never get that. But, again, that's OK, because that's not what you should be shooting for in the first place. 5) Argument is as much for you as it is for the person you're trying to convince. Working through objections is good for you. You impoverish yourself when you take this away. 6) People seem to think it's a really strong argument to point out that people get mad or emotional during debates, but I have no idea why I'm supposed to care. So a faceless, nameless avatar that I'll never meet showed too much emotion in an online debate? I have no idea why anybody thinks that's worth mentioning in any context. It's definitely not a persuasive argument for nuking all debate. It's no wonder so many people have such a dim view of online argument, if your comment represents the conventional thinking on it (and it does).
    - dionidium 9y ago
      Just to put a cap on this, if tptacek wants to avoid "a really long, pointless political argument," then he should close his browser and take a walk. We're not running out of bits on the internet. There's room for all of it. If these conversations bore or otherwise bother you, then don't participate. It's the suggestion that you know what's best for me, too, that bristles.
      - SeoxyS 9y ago
        This thread itself is a great example of how this conversation was _not_ pointless. Intellectually interesting points made on both sides about the point of debating.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How can you say "can we save ourselves a really long, pointless political argument" and end your post with a divisive political opinion Probably because the “divisive” opinion is on a different question than the on tptacek sees as pointless, which he was pretty express about: the pointless argument is about the political meaning of Thiel not being a partner. And he's right, that's not going to get an answer and any argument about it is pointless. The “divisive” opinion about whether or not it's a good thing that that relationship ended is, at a minimum, not pointless in the same way (it's likely to be fruitless in the way that arguments that rest in clashes of fundamental values are, but that's a different concern.) > It's really not our place as the internet lynch-mob to interfere with Peter's role in the startup community because of his political views. You are free to choose to restrain the means in which you apply your free speech and association rights based on this narrow, misguided, elitist view of the role of the hoi polloi, of course. > Note, @sama said as much when the whole thing went down. I'm entirely unsurprised that Altman would say no external party of should question YC decisions on political (or, heck, any other) grounds, but I'm not sure why you think noting that he did so adds any weight to your argument.
- tradersam 9y ago
  I was agreeing with the begining of your post, but > You are free to choose to restrain the means in which you apply your free speech and association rights based on this narrow, misguided, elitist view of the role of the hoi polloi, of course. Is where I burst out laughing and moved on.
ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
I get the sense from his speeches during the campaign that Thiel believed Trump would act more relaxed and calm down after he won and that it was at the time a lot theatrics of campaigning. If it’s true Thiel’s cooled on him privately that would make sense because his bet didn’t worked out, it’s probably worse for him than losing hundreds of millions on a startup investment because of the social capital lost since people hold their political views so dear.
ubernostrum 9y ago
that you think people with opposing viewpoints should be silence That's a funny way of phrasing "people who strongly disagree with each other should be able to disassociate from each other without being attacked for doing so".
Mithaldu 9y ago
Trump isn't "reprehensible", his actions are literally killing people. People who agree with Trump either directly condone the deaths of people, or are so ignorant that nothing they could say would be valuable. Trying to portray it as "opposing political opinions" is a laughable insult to people for whom it's a matter of survival.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Same goes for every other president. Obama extended the drone program considerably because to him it was a convenient way of both “keeping” his promises and maintaining US political and security interests. Does that means that everyone who voted for him and agreed with most of his policies directly condoned deaths of far more people than what Trump’s policies at least currently may have contributed too? Every US president and a few other world leaders would end up killing people through both direct and indirect actions. But in all honesty this isn’t what this discussion is about. “Trump killing people” is effectively the new Poe’s law, it’s a statement that doesn’t have any meaningful substance behind it and it’s only goal is to end the discussion.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    Ah, another "there's both good and bad people on both sides" sentiment. No. Quantitative analysis matters. Also, as to your last sentence: "same goes for *" doesn't have any meaningful substance behind it and its only goal is to drag the discussion out so far as to exhaust the other side into giving up.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Let’s make it simple then. How many people do you think have died due to Trumps policies so far, out of those how many of them are Americans?
      - mrgordon 9y ago
        Not a great argument. Most of Trump's policies like expanding use of coal and not taking actions to prevent flooding and other consequences of global warming will be felt in 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. By reversing course and burying the facts, he is still responsible for them in a way that Obama (who tried to work on the problem) was not. Even more directly, Trump is in the process of gutting our healthcare, education, and taxes (read: infrastructure). If he had a few more votes in the Senate, they would have already undermined/removed even more of our social safety net. Millions of people will have significantly worse quality of life and for many of them it will mean the difference between life and death. Their medicines will get too expensive...they won't be able to afford to see a doctor in some cases...or get surgery or chemo in many more. To say that Trump's policies aren't killing people (and especially Americans) is to ignore anything but soldiers from the count. Obama largely inherited Bush Jr's wars (and Bush Jr. was largely continuing Bush Sr's wars) so you're welcome to blame him for the deaths there but he probably had fewer options than you imply. Not to say he did nothing wrong, but Trump is literally threatening to nuke North Korea which is orders of magnitude different from how Obama acted even once in eight years.
bedhead 9y ago
Yeah you have to love people who construct the rules of a conversation up front so that they can be the only person who is right.

derefr 9y ago

I think tptacek was trying to discourage the thread from devolving into analysis of YCombinator’s politics (which we don’t really have any useful information on either way), rather than from devolving into political discourse in general. Of course it’s going to revolve into political discourse generally; you may as well lock the thread if you don’t want that.

dionidium 9y ago

It's not enough to say your opponents are dumb and wrong, any more. No, they're so dumb and so wrong that a conversation is pointless. Nobody ever changes their mind on anything, anyway, right? This is a repugnant, defeatist, and just plain wrong view of the world. And it's held almost universally by the thought leaders of this forum.

tetraca 9y ago
It's essentially pointless because people get too emotionally involved in ideological arguments on the internet, causing themselves to feel attacked when people disagree with them. When this happens, people shut down, stop thinking critically, only acknowledging what they already agree with. The debate then either devolves as people dig their heels in and begin name-calling, or abruptly stops as one side simply refuses to cede a point. When there is a ratings system attached to the thread, the side which agrees with the majority ideology will inevitably "win" as other debaters come out of the woodwork to downvote and post 50 variations of the same well-tread rebuttal. I've seen the pattern so much that I'm not sure I can consider even half those sorts of discussions as productive. It mostly doesn't matter what ideology is the "generally accepted" side, and which one is the "outsider"; the wooden debate pattern will be present. I think some people are just tired of seeing two people talking past each other just to puff chests.
- dionidium 9y ago
  This argument assumes that the point of person A responding to person B is for person A to convince person B, specifically, at that specific moment in time of the specific details of their specific argument. 1) That's not how persuasion works. 2) It's not how ideas or the stubborn humans who hold them work. 3) The point is not, in fact, to convince that one particular person at that one particular moment in time. If that's your goal, then I might suggest that a phone call would be more appropriate. These are public arguments. Read by the public. They're useful far beyond the participants. 4) Minds change over time, rarely in the moment. If your standard for success is immediate agreement, then you've established an unrealistic (and misguided) goal. You'll never get that. But, again, that's OK, because that's not what you should be shooting for in the first place. 5) Argument is as much for you as it is for the person you're trying to convince. Working through objections is good for you. You impoverish yourself when you take this away. 6) People seem to think it's a really strong argument to point out that people get mad or emotional during debates, but I have no idea why I'm supposed to care. So a faceless, nameless avatar that I'll never meet showed too much emotion in an online debate? I have no idea why anybody thinks that's worth mentioning in any context. It's definitely not a persuasive argument for nuking all debate. It's no wonder so many people have such a dim view of online argument, if your comment represents the conventional thinking on it (and it does).
  - dionidium 9y ago
    Just to put a cap on this, if tptacek wants to avoid "a really long, pointless political argument," then he should close his browser and take a walk. We're not running out of bits on the internet. There's room for all of it. If these conversations bore or otherwise bother you, then don't participate. It's the suggestion that you know what's best for me, too, that bristles.
    - SeoxyS 9y ago
      This thread itself is a great example of how this conversation was _not_ pointless. Intellectually interesting points made on both sides about the point of debating.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How can you say "can we save ourselves a really long, pointless political argument" and end your post with a divisive political opinion Probably because the “divisive” opinion is on a different question than the on tptacek sees as pointless, which he was pretty express about: the pointless argument is about the political meaning of Thiel not being a partner. And he's right, that's not going to get an answer and any argument about it is pointless. The “divisive” opinion about whether or not it's a good thing that that relationship ended is, at a minimum, not pointless in the same way (it's likely to be fruitless in the way that arguments that rest in clashes of fundamental values are, but that's a different concern.) > It's really not our place as the internet lynch-mob to interfere with Peter's role in the startup community because of his political views. You are free to choose to restrain the means in which you apply your free speech and association rights based on this narrow, misguided, elitist view of the role of the hoi polloi, of course. > Note, @sama said as much when the whole thing went down. I'm entirely unsurprised that Altman would say no external party of should question YC decisions on political (or, heck, any other) grounds, but I'm not sure why you think noting that he did so adds any weight to your argument.

tradersam 9y ago
I was agreeing with the begining of your post, but > You are free to choose to restrain the means in which you apply your free speech and association rights based on this narrow, misguided, elitist view of the role of the hoi polloi, of course. Is where I burst out laughing and moved on.

ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago

I get the sense from his speeches during the campaign that Thiel believed Trump would act more relaxed and calm down after he won and that it was at the time a lot theatrics of campaigning. If it’s true Thiel’s cooled on him privately that would make sense because his bet didn’t worked out, it’s probably worse for him than losing hundreds of millions on a startup investment because of the social capital lost since people hold their political views so dear.

ubernostrum 9y ago

that you think people with opposing viewpoints should be silence That's a funny way of phrasing "people who strongly disagree with each other should be able to disassociate from each other without being attacked for doing so".

Mithaldu 9y ago

Trump isn't "reprehensible", his actions are literally killing people. People who agree with Trump either directly condone the deaths of people, or are so ignorant that nothing they could say would be valuable. Trying to portray it as "opposing political opinions" is a laughable insult to people for whom it's a matter of survival.

dogma1138 9y ago
Same goes for every other president. Obama extended the drone program considerably because to him it was a convenient way of both “keeping” his promises and maintaining US political and security interests. Does that means that everyone who voted for him and agreed with most of his policies directly condoned deaths of far more people than what Trump’s policies at least currently may have contributed too? Every US president and a few other world leaders would end up killing people through both direct and indirect actions. But in all honesty this isn’t what this discussion is about. “Trump killing people” is effectively the new Poe’s law, it’s a statement that doesn’t have any meaningful substance behind it and it’s only goal is to end the discussion.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  Ah, another "there's both good and bad people on both sides" sentiment. No. Quantitative analysis matters. Also, as to your last sentence: "same goes for *" doesn't have any meaningful substance behind it and its only goal is to drag the discussion out so far as to exhaust the other side into giving up.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Let’s make it simple then. How many people do you think have died due to Trumps policies so far, out of those how many of them are Americans?
    - mrgordon 9y ago
      Not a great argument. Most of Trump's policies like expanding use of coal and not taking actions to prevent flooding and other consequences of global warming will be felt in 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. By reversing course and burying the facts, he is still responsible for them in a way that Obama (who tried to work on the problem) was not. Even more directly, Trump is in the process of gutting our healthcare, education, and taxes (read: infrastructure). If he had a few more votes in the Senate, they would have already undermined/removed even more of our social safety net. Millions of people will have significantly worse quality of life and for many of them it will mean the difference between life and death. Their medicines will get too expensive...they won't be able to afford to see a doctor in some cases...or get surgery or chemo in many more. To say that Trump's policies aren't killing people (and especially Americans) is to ignore anything but soldiers from the count. Obama largely inherited Bush Jr's wars (and Bush Jr. was largely continuing Bush Sr's wars) so you're welcome to blame him for the deaths there but he probably had fewer options than you imply. Not to say he did nothing wrong, but Trump is literally threatening to nuke North Korea which is orders of magnitude different from how Obama acted even once in eight years.

bedhead 9y ago

Yeah you have to love people who construct the rules of a conversation up front so that they can be the only person who is right.