7 ms·

Thanks to HN's naive and draconian policy prohibiting political discussion (which is itself a clear political statement) there is little point to discussing con

Thanks to HN's naive and draconian policy prohibiting political discussion (which is itself a clear political statement) there is little point to discussing concerning issues like this as anyone expressing an opinion will be downvoted, shadow-banned, etc. Let it also be noted that Garry Tan is overtly conservative (rails on X about many of the same social issues than animate Trump supporters) and PG holds strongly right wing (largely Burkean) views on many subjects. edit: The discussion has already been flagged/suppressed. There is zero contemptuous discussion, only a few reasonable back and forth threads about various things.

_bin_ 1y ago
Tan is not especially conservative; he, like others, has witnessed a failure to address those social issues turn SF into a dump. There is a great difference between noticing the same objective problems as some Trump supporters - which are nigh impossible not to if one does live in SF - and supporting the same solutions. There is also a difference between the same underlying values and worldview and being willing to consider some of those solutions because the progressive options have spectacularly failed. PG is not someone I'd consider remotely right-wing. I periodically see tweets of his surface and he seems strongly opposed to the current administration.
- resters 1y ago
  Who said the following, Garry Tan or Donald Trump? “Soft-on-crime policies have turned SF into a free-for-all. Shoplifting, car break-ins, and open drug use aren’t victimless. We need a DA who’ll enforce the law and cops who aren’t afraid to act.”
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    Probably Tan? You are wholly ignoring my point: these are factual and obvious issues. Identifying them and proposing obvious solutions isn't being a Trump supporter. Trump does not have a monopoly on every position besides radical progressive. Said progressives had their chance - more than enough chances - at fixing the issues in SF "their way". When one solution fails, it is natural and sensible to try others. This is why you can see SF voters shifting their positions too. I do not think that an incredibly leftist city magically turned into trump supporters. It's not helpful for the left to act like Trump has a monopoly on legitimate use of law enforcement and maintaining some level of order.
    - resters 1y ago
      Not trying to ignore your point. Generally the "right wing" view of crime is that it is solved by increasing coercive (authoritarian?) measures such as policing and punishment, with the implicit (sometimes explicit, as below) idea that it is the moral failings of the "criminals" that lead to crime, rather than systemic forces. Tan (net worth $100M) explicitly rejects the systemic forces perspective and focuses on the moral failings of the weakest in society: “Crime isn’t some abstract social problem—it’s people choosing to break the law. Stop excusing shoplifters and drug dealers as ‘victims of circumstance.’ We need consequences, not endless debates about root causes.”
      - readthenotes1 1y ago
        Tan sounds like he's got some experience with people. You can't always hug it out, and there are indeed people who put their wants and needs above those of others
      - _bin_ 1y ago
        I think I'd actually read many left-wingers more charitably here; the mainstream democrat opinion is still that systemic forces impact crime rates and should be addressed but not that those justify discarding policing or order in the mean time. That's a uniquely radical progressive take, by which the SF government was unfortunately captured. I think Tan's statement here is more a strong reaction against the failed progressive version seeking to drag the overton window in SF back towards normalcy. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but Tan and YC have actually stuck around, unlike other people and companies who have simply left, so I'm guessing they're approaching this in good faith. This aligns pretty well with my personal view. Maybe we can go figure out root causes later. Depending on those causes and the possible means to address them, maybe we can enact policy changes to reduce the amount of crime in the future. All that is, however, secondary to what we must do today: return to zero-tolerance policies for petty crime to make the city liveable again.
        resters 1y ago
        > That's a uniquely radical progressive take "Radical left-wing lunatics" I'd argue that it's not at all radical, and that what characterizes SF's unique challenge has more to do with urban planning, geography, and climate than anything else: Affluent areas are on big hills with little mass transit, which concentrates both mass transit and poverty in specific low lying areas, which also happen to suffer from minimal or bad urban planning. The climate makes SF attractive to unhoused people, and so they are drawn to the tolerant atmosphere and tend to thrive there even while dealing with addiction and substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. (compared to other places). In other places they might be inmates or might be significantly malnourished, but SF offers a better balance, which is why so many find themselves there. Mild weather in winter and summer, a sanctuary city mentality, and the high value of personal freedom that led to the Castro and Haight being epicenters for social progress and culture over the years. Cosmopolitanism and tolerance abound, and so of course we'll see our underclass more active, more overt, less beaten down, and notably more offensive to those who seek a country club atmosphere. SF has 30% lower mortality rate for homeless people than other sanctuary cities like Chicago. The problem is that the right-wing perspective presents the downtrodden effectively as rats who are a scourge on society, so most people overlook that people (yes they are human beings) migrate to SF for a better life, and in spite of the challenges they face, many find it.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Thanks to HN's naive and draconian policy prohibiting political discussion No such policy exists. There was a brief experiment with such a policy, years ago, and it was terminated early when it proved unworkable. It is true that most, especially high-controversy, political discussion is outside of what the community here views as simultaneously being intellectually stimulating and something that is likely to be discussed without descending into an emotion-driven flamewar with of hyperbole, lies,and people talking past each other that has no value. And, fairly frequently, the controversial political topics that don't die right away to community moderation reinforce this point. The strengths HN has a forum on some issues over places loke Twitter or Reddit or even yelling at people on a street corner simply are not there for many political controversies.
- resters 1y ago
  Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law and (with a few notable exceptions) a centuries old norm for western civilization.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? Is there, in fact, significant controversy over it? Then, yes, it is controversial. > I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law I don't think most people have any idea what “british common law” is, much less have a particular opinion about what it has to say about American immigration policy. And, AFAICT, British Common Law at the point it was last relevant to American law, that is, at the time of US independence, was somewhat unsettled on the matter, with leading scholars disagreeing over whether the power of removal was purely discretionary, required stating good cause, or might be subject to more stringent limits as to justification for certain aliens, see, e.g., the discussion at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-2/ALDE_00001256/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8...
mdp2021 1y ago
Well I would say it is a success that this page actually worked, in terms of debate.

_bin_ 1y ago

Tan is not especially conservative; he, like others, has witnessed a failure to address those social issues turn SF into a dump. There is a great difference between noticing the same objective problems as some Trump supporters - which are nigh impossible not to if one does live in SF - and supporting the same solutions. There is also a difference between the same underlying values and worldview and being willing to consider some of those solutions because the progressive options have spectacularly failed. PG is not someone I'd consider remotely right-wing. I periodically see tweets of his surface and he seems strongly opposed to the current administration.

resters 1y ago
Who said the following, Garry Tan or Donald Trump? “Soft-on-crime policies have turned SF into a free-for-all. Shoplifting, car break-ins, and open drug use aren’t victimless. We need a DA who’ll enforce the law and cops who aren’t afraid to act.”
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Probably Tan? You are wholly ignoring my point: these are factual and obvious issues. Identifying them and proposing obvious solutions isn't being a Trump supporter. Trump does not have a monopoly on every position besides radical progressive. Said progressives had their chance - more than enough chances - at fixing the issues in SF "their way". When one solution fails, it is natural and sensible to try others. This is why you can see SF voters shifting their positions too. I do not think that an incredibly leftist city magically turned into trump supporters. It's not helpful for the left to act like Trump has a monopoly on legitimate use of law enforcement and maintaining some level of order.
  - resters 1y ago
    Not trying to ignore your point. Generally the "right wing" view of crime is that it is solved by increasing coercive (authoritarian?) measures such as policing and punishment, with the implicit (sometimes explicit, as below) idea that it is the moral failings of the "criminals" that lead to crime, rather than systemic forces. Tan (net worth $100M) explicitly rejects the systemic forces perspective and focuses on the moral failings of the weakest in society: “Crime isn’t some abstract social problem—it’s people choosing to break the law. Stop excusing shoplifters and drug dealers as ‘victims of circumstance.’ We need consequences, not endless debates about root causes.”
    - readthenotes1 1y ago
      Tan sounds like he's got some experience with people. You can't always hug it out, and there are indeed people who put their wants and needs above those of others
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      I think I'd actually read many left-wingers more charitably here; the mainstream democrat opinion is still that systemic forces impact crime rates and should be addressed but not that those justify discarding policing or order in the mean time. That's a uniquely radical progressive take, by which the SF government was unfortunately captured. I think Tan's statement here is more a strong reaction against the failed progressive version seeking to drag the overton window in SF back towards normalcy. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but Tan and YC have actually stuck around, unlike other people and companies who have simply left, so I'm guessing they're approaching this in good faith. This aligns pretty well with my personal view. Maybe we can go figure out root causes later. Depending on those causes and the possible means to address them, maybe we can enact policy changes to reduce the amount of crime in the future. All that is, however, secondary to what we must do today: return to zero-tolerance policies for petty crime to make the city liveable again.
      - resters 1y ago
        > That's a uniquely radical progressive take "Radical left-wing lunatics" I'd argue that it's not at all radical, and that what characterizes SF's unique challenge has more to do with urban planning, geography, and climate than anything else: Affluent areas are on big hills with little mass transit, which concentrates both mass transit and poverty in specific low lying areas, which also happen to suffer from minimal or bad urban planning. The climate makes SF attractive to unhoused people, and so they are drawn to the tolerant atmosphere and tend to thrive there even while dealing with addiction and substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. (compared to other places). In other places they might be inmates or might be significantly malnourished, but SF offers a better balance, which is why so many find themselves there. Mild weather in winter and summer, a sanctuary city mentality, and the high value of personal freedom that led to the Castro and Haight being epicenters for social progress and culture over the years. Cosmopolitanism and tolerance abound, and so of course we'll see our underclass more active, more overt, less beaten down, and notably more offensive to those who seek a country club atmosphere. SF has 30% lower mortality rate for homeless people than other sanctuary cities like Chicago. The problem is that the right-wing perspective presents the downtrodden effectively as rats who are a scourge on society, so most people overlook that people (yes they are human beings) migrate to SF for a better life, and in spite of the challenges they face, many find it.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Thanks to HN's naive and draconian policy prohibiting political discussion No such policy exists. There was a brief experiment with such a policy, years ago, and it was terminated early when it proved unworkable. It is true that most, especially high-controversy, political discussion is outside of what the community here views as simultaneously being intellectually stimulating and something that is likely to be discussed without descending into an emotion-driven flamewar with of hyperbole, lies,and people talking past each other that has no value. And, fairly frequently, the controversial political topics that don't die right away to community moderation reinforce this point. The strengths HN has a forum on some issues over places loke Twitter or Reddit or even yelling at people on a street corner simply are not there for many political controversies.

resters 1y ago
Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law and (with a few notable exceptions) a centuries old norm for western civilization.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? Is there, in fact, significant controversy over it? Then, yes, it is controversial. > I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law I don't think most people have any idea what “british common law” is, much less have a particular opinion about what it has to say about American immigration policy. And, AFAICT, British Common Law at the point it was last relevant to American law, that is, at the time of US independence, was somewhat unsettled on the matter, with leading scholars disagreeing over whether the power of removal was purely discretionary, required stating good cause, or might be subject to more stringent limits as to justification for certain aliens, see, e.g., the discussion at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-2/ALDE_00001256/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8...

mdp2021 1y ago

Well I would say it is a success that this page actually worked, in terms of debate.