> “He is not a partner,” Manalac said. “He never has been. We have 19 full-time partners who work very closely with the companies.” She went on to say that she “can understand why people would be very scared and nervous about that but he will definitely have no interaction with the ACLU.
So why not cut ties already? If Thiel isn't involved anymore, and he's working with the Trump administration, why doesn't he resign his partnership and move on?
I'm quoting the statement from YC Partner Kat Manalac in TFA, which was also quoted in the post I was responding to.
If you want to ask why YC is denying that he has ever been a partner now after welcoming him as a "part-time partner" previously, well, you'd have to ask someone else.
But it doesn't make sense to quote a statement about how he never has been a partner and respond to it with a question about why he doesn't resign his partnership.
It does make sense. Y Combinator has a relationship with Thiel. He's been declared as a partner many times in the past; now they're saying he's not. That's why I'm asking the rhetorical question. I'm afraid you're taking the passage quoted here and removing all other context.
I am trying suuuuuuper hard to give The Donald a chance as a far left progressive, but when you fill the swamp instead of draining it (appointments), lie directly to your country (Alternate Facts), and institute executive orders that violate the spirit of your country's foundation while being illegal (restricting the return of legal residents to US soil), you have quickly burned up whatever legitimacy folks were willing to extend you.
Facts are not negotiable, any more than gravity is. At least try to govern like world leader.
Once again, "alternate facts" wasn't meant as the boogeyman you were told it was. They were alternate (as in, the other side of the story) that the MSM wasn't telling you. I know this has been detonated in the comedysphere but they only mocked their own ignorance.
> They were alternate (as in, the other side of the story) that the MSM wasn't telling you.
This is called an opinion. Supply photo 1. Supply photo 2. Compare. Result = fact.
You also didn't address the issues that are far worse: prohibiting legal residents from returning to US soil, and filling cabinet appointments with people who want to dismantle the very institutions they are charged with leading.
I really, really want to meet in the middle with the right. Otherwise, we're going to just have to have a concerted effort to drive them into the ocean.
This started because the Sean Spicer claimed the president had the largest inauguration attendance ever. This was proven false by multiple sources. There is no such thing as an alternate fact. It's either an exaggeration or a lie.
It's how they operate unfortunately...Disagree with a Dem apologist and be prepared to be called a "racist," "fascist," "sexist," or "alt right." It's their way of avoiding critical thought...So much easier to just label your opponent something intolerable and move on.
It's crazy because I'm more "left" on most issues than my Dem apologist friends and I'm the one who gets castigated.
Look at how receptive you are being to other ideas.
Trolls like you are actually the cause for the new level of lows currently dominating the public discourse.
The poster listed a set of true facts detailing the problems they are encountering on a search for finding an accord with the "opposite side". You reply to nothing that was said and instead lump the poster into a category of people that use language completely different from the language used by the poster.
Based on your words, I don't think you are even responding to this thread. Did you reply with a copy-paste template that you insert into political charged discussion across the web?
None of us have very good insight into the administration's actions. We do know that the most provocative thing it has done so far was also called for by Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. If you suddenly feel it's a huge deal now but you didn't then, it's probably because effective persuasion techniques have altered your world-view.
Personally I hate having my reality manipulated like that and I go full contrarian, but everyone has to make their own decision about the reality tunnel they want to inhabit. PG's essay http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html is a good eye opener. From there, read Robert Cialdini's books. While persuasion works on everyone, even if they know the techniques and even if they know they are being applied, being aware that it's being done is still better than not.
The most effective (while assuredly strictly incorrect) approach I know of is to assume that everything you hear is true. All of it, good, bad, indifferent, from all sides. And then weight all of that in the context of your own values and make the decision you think is right. While this requires holding contradictory beliefs, that's clearly something we as humans are more than capable of so why not use it?
> We do know that the most provocative thing it has done so far was also called for by Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama.
No, it wasn't. And I'm not even sure which of the many provocative things he's done you think is the most provocative, but it's not true of any of them, so...
This kind of cognitive dissonance is a reliable indicator that persuasion techniques have been applied. Interestingly, presenting contrary facts is well-established to have virtually no persuasive power.
If you really want to expand your mind try the technique in the post you're replying to. If you're comfortable inhabiting a reality where a crazy oompa loompa is going to drop nukes any day now, carry on then.
I assumed the OP was saying that since Thiel is uninvolved and currently busy working with the Trump administration they should cut ties. I can see how you can draw your conclusion as well, but it seems a little unforgiving. Hanlon's razor might apply here.
The left are politically resisting the right. This surprises you... why?
Boycotting companies and pressuring businesses to not work with organisations politically incompatible to your own views is not exactly a new concept. For example, there are currently calls from the right to boycott Starbucks because they intend to hire refugees. Not long ago there was a campaign to boycott Star Wars: Rogue One. Suggesting that the left shouldn't be doing this because they are "tolerant" doesn't really make sense.
Because the word "tolerant" means something, and that something includes tolerating opinions you disagree with, otherwise the term is empty of meaning. The people who call for a boycott of Starbucks aren't tolerant, and people demanding Thiel be ostracised aren't either.
If you want to wear the label "tolerant" you have to tolerate. If you don't want to wear it, well, you still have to tolerate, because that's what civilised people do, but if you don't, at least you're not a hypocrite.
But no-one on the left claims to be tolerant of everything, that's just a straw man applied to them by the right. No-one can be. How can you be tolerant of gay marriage and also be tolerant of homophobia? How can you be tolerant of racial diversity and also tolerant of racism?
They're in direct competition with each other. It shouldn't surprise anyone when people take a side. When people on the left describe themselves as "tolerant" it's because they are typically tolerant of more individual things, not because their tolerance is equally spread among all things.
showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.
You don't get to pick and choose individual things to be tolerant of, you don't get to pick a side and then not be tolerant of the other side, that's just not tolerance.
(What you can to, is to pick one side and then be tolerant, to show willingness to accept the existence of the other side, while seeking to change minds on the other side)
When did anyone say they wanted to wear the label "tolerant"?
As far as I can tell, it's a label applied by the right to the left to make the left feel guilty. (And that tactic works, is the sad thing.)
If you Google 'tolerant left', you'll find only right-wing folks upset at the left's intolerance. But did the left ever say they wanted to be tolerant?
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it's a straw man that the left considers itself tolerant. I'm not convinced that a poll asking people to self-label would return that result, but I have no data, so I'm not going to try to defend that beyond stating a gut-feeling.
But for the purposes of this particular thread, the GGP said the left are tolerant, and the GP accepted that premise.
At this point in time, you'll do well to justify the statement of difference, insofar as comment threads for President Trump related submissions.
Hysterical and partisan comments are as present here as they are anywhere else. Let's not slander other communities when our own has shown itself to be perfectly capable of descending to sub-reason heights of discourse.
I'm tired of this. I'm intolerant. I'm intolerant towards certain political views that are bad ideas for our country and our society and our world. Just because someone else called my views "left," do I stop being able to be intolerant of these other views?
I'll gladly join the right, then. I want common-sense economic policies that inspire growth, not identity politics that keeps people out of my country depending on where they were born. I want limited government that doesn't regulate which bathroom you're in or what medical advice your doctor can give you. I want laissez-faire capitalism, not artificial tariffs on guacamole because big government wants money for a public works project that no business would find profitable to build. I want my city's mayor to be able to say that policing is better when we apply local policy to handling undocumented immigrants, without the federal government overruling us. I go to a church every Sunday where my male pastor is married to another male pastor of another congregation, and I want the state not to tell them that their marriage is invalid. I want a country with law and order, where police officers listen to the courts, not to the president. I want Russia to stop occupying Crimea and invading other former USSR land, because I want America to have won the cold war. And yes, I want the surveillance state that Obama set up to be shut down.
Now can I be intolerant of the destruction of our country at the hands of social justice warrior Steve Bannon and identity politician Peter Thiel?
"I want a country with law and order, where police officers listen to the courts, not to the president."
You should learn a bit more about how our legal system works. Separation of powers means the Judicial branch can't have control over an executive power like policing.
Control, no, respect, yes. Law enforcement has to listen to the courts, even though they are directed by their superiors. When the president makes an executive order, a court places a stay on it, and law enforcement officers respond, "I don't care, I'm carrying out the order because I answer to the president," then the executive branch has taken on the roles of both the legislative and judicial as well.
So he's never been a partner and doesn't work "very closely with the companies." Yet he's still affiliated with YC?
Actions speak louder than words: drop him or acknowledge that YC at some level acknowledges his views (this isn't bad, or good, just something that should be done in my view).
Even something as simple as "we acknowledge that people have differing political views, yadda yadda... would be sufficient).
Why say anything about him? Well, clearly he's the elephant in the room. They should acknowledge this and move on.
Why? Seems unfair to ban someone over their political views. Specially when they're from the winning party. He was right to bet on Trump, if anything I'd want him closer.
Your account was created 30 days ago. You've described yourself as a liberal just not a Dem apologist. Can you please keep your origin story straight for the next 30 days?
> "You've described yourself as a liberal just not a Dem apologist. Can you please keep your origin story straight for the next 30 day"
I'm not sure what you mean by this...what is the "origin story" you speak of that you apparently know so much about? I haven't contradicted myself about it.
The government is an enormously rich potential source of revenue for any company or investor. Unless Trump burns out, Thiel is probably now the most powerful financier in tech. Which sane businessperson wants to make an explicit enemy out of him? That explains a lot of the ambiguity. Follow the money. Please don't bet on investors (including YC) putting any political misgivings ahead of P&L in their hierarchy of concerns.
I do [want to make an enemy of him]. (Though to be fair, I'm not nearly important enough to matter.)
Seriously though, investment is a form of partnership. Thiel has diminished his stature as an investor in my eyes, government access or not; I will never -- now or in the future -- accept money from a Thiel-backed fund. YMMV.
[Edited to reflect a phrase I thought I was responding to, but was either misread or edited later...]
Does Peter Thiel still consider himself a libertarian? I just can't imagine how Trump's positions on immigration can be justified on libertarian grounds.
I didn't say it is, just that an analogous argument can be applied. First you postulate citizenship as membership in a private club. The club's bylaws determine who gets to be a member and how the club's property is to be managed and protected. The rest is trivial and I'm not actually a libertarian so I'm not going to bother working through it.
In other words, you can arrive to an incorrect conclusion by postulating incorrectly. Free immigration (free movement of people) is regarded as one of the core concepts of libertarian theory and philosophy. It's not "easy" to argue for restrictive policies on immigration from a libertarian standpoint.
That can happen only in a society where there are no public services and all property is privately owned. Then crossing the "border" of the country is considered trespassing on someone's private property and it's up to them to allow or disallow it.
In addition to the argument in the other comment, compare Donald Trump to Rand Paul or Ron Paul, which are the prime examples of what libertarianism is (unlike Gary Johnson). Both of them take a stance against illegal immigration and for strong borders [1, 2].
I imagine Peter Thiel is on a small list of people that could leave YC and start an incubator on par. Probably best to keep him around.
p.s. We also never know how many individuals at YC personally hold views closer aligned with thiel or with sama or somewhere else completely who don't make a statement because they're not as bold / don't want to stick their name out.
Could he? There's probably a very large intersection between the group of people who would be great start up founders and those who adamantly oppose the political views of the current administration.
He does have something similar, in the Theil Fellowship. I don't think they're too scared of competition, YC says that they receive more qualified applicants than they could accept.
I think people vastly overestimate how much ideology matters once you get past a certain net worth. At that point, they're all in it for the same reasons
cue the picture of the Clintons laughing at Trump's wedding
I think people vastly underestimate how many rich people still have other values in their life than money.
Look at Bill Gates. In the '90s, most of the tech industry viewed him as the stereotypical greedy monopolist, a robber baron of software. 20 years later, he has done more to help mankind than almost any billionaire ever. The picture is not black and white, but a continuum of shades.
I don't think this is really saying anything at all, other than to drum up a negative association (or positive, depending on how you look at it). Thiel is not involved with YC-backed ACLU, just as he is not involved with the YC-backed company I work at.
Business is as business does. Sam Altman has stated he is not going to cut ties with Thiel over political issues [1]. At their level of influence, doing so burns bridges unnecessarily, and sends a clear message that polarization and bubble-creating is OK, and its not. YC wants to set a good example for the tech community by influencing the world in a positive way (e.g. ACLU) and not in a negative, spiteful way (dropping Thiel).
Bridge building at every opportunity with those of opposing political views should become the policy of the tech community. Hopefully the YC/ACLU collaboration can make some headway on solving the problem of both sides demonizing the other.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald
It is something I was never able to do. It is clear that to really make it in life, idealist have to dial down their inner voice - a lot.
I do not think that, given the chance, I would ever be able to work for/with people like Peter Thiel. But I have great respect for educated, smart, strong and generous people, who are able to work with those who doubt evolution, who doubt climate change, or who put their archaic beliefs above those of others and decide how they should live their life.
But the world it seems is increasingly fractured, and a lot of doors open up for those able to work efficiently with the other team, or outside of any team.
"polarization and bubble-creating is OK, and its not." - says the man who advocates giving a break to a supporter of the most polarizing president in living memory.
Screw that, there is something called "ethics", and the supporters of the The New World Order (Trump, Bannon, Thiel, Farage, Le Pen, Putin, and so on) needs to be shunned.
It's a worrying trend that tech and Silicon Valley are increasingly politicizing. Excepting direct regulations, I'd like to keep business and politics separate.
Whatever sincere doubts and supposed nuances may have lead YC to continue to tolerate Thiel's presence before Trump took power, there can be no more doubts today.
An organization that associates itself with both the ACLU and a fascist regime lacks any kind of credibility. This reeks of PR driven opportunism.
Some world views should not be (and are not) accepted. Railroading damaging world views has always been part of politics, and for good reason -- there are plenty of world views whose existence damages everyone.
Sorry if negative, but I like my tech companies pushing their political agendas on me, as much as I like Hollywood stars doing it.
I'm sure they're all good guys, but now that the Prez has proven you can get elected as a billionaire non-politician it took about 45 seconds to start hearing about candidate Zuck.
Would argue, the Hacker way is to be skeptical of all of it.
86 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadSo why not cut ties already? If Thiel isn't involved anymore, and he's working with the Trump administration, why doesn't he resign his partnership and move on?
> why doesn't he resign his partnership and move on?
Because to resign his partnership, he'd first have to be a partner.
I'm quoting the statement from YC Partner Kat Manalac in TFA, which was also quoted in the post I was responding to.
If you want to ask why YC is denying that he has ever been a partner now after welcoming him as a "part-time partner" previously, well, you'd have to ask someone else.
But it doesn't make sense to quote a statement about how he never has been a partner and respond to it with a question about why he doesn't resign his partnership.
So is Trump, two powerful industry magnates cooperating to make a country as great as it can be, what's wrong with that?
Thiel is the only reason I applied in YC.
Facts are not negotiable, any more than gravity is. At least try to govern like world leader.
This is called an opinion. Supply photo 1. Supply photo 2. Compare. Result = fact.
You also didn't address the issues that are far worse: prohibiting legal residents from returning to US soil, and filling cabinet appointments with people who want to dismantle the very institutions they are charged with leading.
I really, really want to meet in the middle with the right. Otherwise, we're going to just have to have a concerted effort to drive them into the ocean.
http://time.com/4656182/trump-muslim-ban-woman-died-green-ca...
This started because the Sean Spicer claimed the president had the largest inauguration attendance ever. This was proven false by multiple sources. There is no such thing as an alternate fact. It's either an exaggeration or a lie.
It's crazy because I'm more "left" on most issues than my Dem apologist friends and I'm the one who gets castigated.
Trolls like you are actually the cause for the new level of lows currently dominating the public discourse.
The poster listed a set of true facts detailing the problems they are encountering on a search for finding an accord with the "opposite side". You reply to nothing that was said and instead lump the poster into a category of people that use language completely different from the language used by the poster.
Based on your words, I don't think you are even responding to this thread. Did you reply with a copy-paste template that you insert into political charged discussion across the web?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Personally I hate having my reality manipulated like that and I go full contrarian, but everyone has to make their own decision about the reality tunnel they want to inhabit. PG's essay http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html is a good eye opener. From there, read Robert Cialdini's books. While persuasion works on everyone, even if they know the techniques and even if they know they are being applied, being aware that it's being done is still better than not.
The most effective (while assuredly strictly incorrect) approach I know of is to assume that everything you hear is true. All of it, good, bad, indifferent, from all sides. And then weight all of that in the context of your own values and make the decision you think is right. While this requires holding contradictory beliefs, that's clearly something we as humans are more than capable of so why not use it?
No, it wasn't. And I'm not even sure which of the many provocative things he's done you think is the most provocative, but it's not true of any of them, so...
If you really want to expand your mind try the technique in the post you're replying to. If you're comfortable inhabiting a reality where a crazy oompa loompa is going to drop nukes any day now, carry on then.
Boycotting companies and pressuring businesses to not work with organisations politically incompatible to your own views is not exactly a new concept. For example, there are currently calls from the right to boycott Starbucks because they intend to hire refugees. Not long ago there was a campaign to boycott Star Wars: Rogue One. Suggesting that the left shouldn't be doing this because they are "tolerant" doesn't really make sense.
If you want to wear the label "tolerant" you have to tolerate. If you don't want to wear it, well, you still have to tolerate, because that's what civilised people do, but if you don't, at least you're not a hypocrite.
They're in direct competition with each other. It shouldn't surprise anyone when people take a side. When people on the left describe themselves as "tolerant" it's because they are typically tolerant of more individual things, not because their tolerance is equally spread among all things.
showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.
You don't get to pick and choose individual things to be tolerant of, you don't get to pick a side and then not be tolerant of the other side, that's just not tolerance.
(What you can to, is to pick one side and then be tolerant, to show willingness to accept the existence of the other side, while seeking to change minds on the other side)
As far as I can tell, it's a label applied by the right to the left to make the left feel guilty. (And that tactic works, is the sad thing.)
If you Google 'tolerant left', you'll find only right-wing folks upset at the left's intolerance. But did the left ever say they wanted to be tolerant?
But for the purposes of this particular thread, the GGP said the left are tolerant, and the GP accepted that premise.
Hysterical and partisan comments are as present here as they are anywhere else. Let's not slander other communities when our own has shown itself to be perfectly capable of descending to sub-reason heights of discourse.
I'll gladly join the right, then. I want common-sense economic policies that inspire growth, not identity politics that keeps people out of my country depending on where they were born. I want limited government that doesn't regulate which bathroom you're in or what medical advice your doctor can give you. I want laissez-faire capitalism, not artificial tariffs on guacamole because big government wants money for a public works project that no business would find profitable to build. I want my city's mayor to be able to say that policing is better when we apply local policy to handling undocumented immigrants, without the federal government overruling us. I go to a church every Sunday where my male pastor is married to another male pastor of another congregation, and I want the state not to tell them that their marriage is invalid. I want a country with law and order, where police officers listen to the courts, not to the president. I want Russia to stop occupying Crimea and invading other former USSR land, because I want America to have won the cold war. And yes, I want the surveillance state that Obama set up to be shut down.
Now can I be intolerant of the destruction of our country at the hands of social justice warrior Steve Bannon and identity politician Peter Thiel?
You should learn a bit more about how our legal system works. Separation of powers means the Judicial branch can't have control over an executive power like policing.
Actions speak louder than words: drop him or acknowledge that YC at some level acknowledges his views (this isn't bad, or good, just something that should be done in my view).
Even something as simple as "we acknowledge that people have differing political views, yadda yadda... would be sufficient).
Why say anything about him? Well, clearly he's the elephant in the room. They should acknowledge this and move on.
He addressed it again in a blog post: http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election
Why do they need to publicly admit the obvious? What is the angle here?
True. Nice observation.
> "You've described yourself as a liberal just not a Dem apologist. Can you please keep your origin story straight for the next 30 day"
I'm not sure what you mean by this...what is the "origin story" you speak of that you apparently know so much about? I haven't contradicted myself about it.
Seriously though, investment is a form of partnership. Thiel has diminished his stature as an investor in my eyes, government access or not; I will never -- now or in the future -- accept money from a Thiel-backed fund. YMMV.
[Edited to reflect a phrase I thought I was responding to, but was either misread or edited later...]
[1] https://randpaul.com/issues/immigration
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...
p.s. We also never know how many individuals at YC personally hold views closer aligned with thiel or with sama or somewhere else completely who don't make a statement because they're not as bold / don't want to stick their name out.
cue the picture of the Clintons laughing at Trump's wedding
Dem pundit: "It's the uneducated white cis male patriarchy that wants the south to rise again..."
GOP pundit: "Those minority transgender liberals want to take your guns and religion..."
Oligarchy: smiles
Look at Bill Gates. In the '90s, most of the tech industry viewed him as the stereotypical greedy monopolist, a robber baron of software. 20 years later, he has done more to help mankind than almost any billionaire ever. The picture is not black and white, but a continuum of shades.
Business is as business does. Sam Altman has stated he is not going to cut ties with Thiel over political issues [1]. At their level of influence, doing so burns bridges unnecessarily, and sends a clear message that polarization and bubble-creating is OK, and its not. YC wants to set a good example for the tech community by influencing the world in a positive way (e.g. ACLU) and not in a negative, spiteful way (dropping Thiel).
http://www.recode.net/2016/10/16/13302120/y-combinator-sam-a...
It is something I was never able to do. It is clear that to really make it in life, idealist have to dial down their inner voice - a lot.
I do not think that, given the chance, I would ever be able to work for/with people like Peter Thiel. But I have great respect for educated, smart, strong and generous people, who are able to work with those who doubt evolution, who doubt climate change, or who put their archaic beliefs above those of others and decide how they should live their life. But the world it seems is increasingly fractured, and a lot of doors open up for those able to work efficiently with the other team, or outside of any team.
Screw that, there is something called "ethics", and the supporters of the The New World Order (Trump, Bannon, Thiel, Farage, Le Pen, Putin, and so on) needs to be shunned.
An organization that associates itself with both the ACLU and a fascist regime lacks any kind of credibility. This reeks of PR driven opportunism.
I'm sure they're all good guys, but now that the Prez has proven you can get elected as a billionaire non-politician it took about 45 seconds to start hearing about candidate Zuck.
Would argue, the Hacker way is to be skeptical of all of it.
Imagine saying about your partner that you "can understand why people would be very scared and nervous about [him] ... and then keeping him.
care to comment on this one?
He IS a YC partner, although part time. She tweeted: Thiel isn't a YC partner.