If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree.
But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel.
I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.
>They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator.
A bit childish, considering the slot the candidate is running for is not in a dictatorship. If you think Trump could convert the US to a dictatorship, I would like to see the evidence supporting this.
Nobody ever ran for the Presidency of a dictatorship, that's kinda like their defining feature.
I'd point to Putin, Erdogan and Victor Orban as current strongmen who were elected democratically and slowly transformed their countries towards authoritarianism.
The parallels are undeniable: a bit of hatred against the "other", a lot of complaining about the media (and calling for laws to stop their "lying"), the hyper-masculine rhetoric and so on.
From what I understand of the US Constitution, there is a very good degree of separation of powers along with checks and balances to make this very difficult to implement in a practical sense, and would necessarily require both houses of congress as well as the supreme court to all be complicit in the act, thus requiring more than just one immoral person to pull off.
Indeed, but it's not one person. It's him and apparently 40% of the population, and large parts of the Republican establishment have also fallen in line (and many more would have if another 5% had switched to his side and made him the frontrunner).
These things don't happen overnight, and the single most important firewall may be the presidential term limit, and the absence of any similar office (like Russia's "prime minister" that Putin switched to when he was term-limited, installing Medvedev as his puppet in the meantime).
I'd hope that the limit is such a binary line that 8 year's aren't enough to change that perception. But who knows? Maybe he could have created a narrative to legitimize another term. Some sort of crisis... The usual.
But, luckily, the worst now seems unlikely to happen. It still seems important to run up the score, and then we'll see how his party deals with it. Ideologically, at least on economics, there isn't much left of what was called conservatism a year ago.
> Indeed, but it's not one person. It's him and apparently 40% of the population, and large parts of the Republican establishment have also fallen in line (and many more would have if another 5% had switched to his side and made him the frontrunner).
I don't agree with this 40% thing because it's not sufficient to say that because they support him, they support his worst ideas. Maybe they support his best ideas, and have a high degree of confidence that the worst will not happen. Nobody has foreknowledge of what a President will actually do in office. We can choose to use our best judgment and apply it while voting - that is why everyone gets one vote, to exercise that judgment.
To argue that those who are voting for him are in favor of racism, bigotry, etc. is a generalization. Would you generalize this way about followers of any religion? Many religions advocate some oppressive ideas, but we give followers the benefit of the doubt beforehand by saying that unless proved otherwise, let's first assume that they are peace-loving tolerant people of faith who believe only the "good parts" of this book, and not the violent parts. We don't seem to be doing that in politics, and I think that's wrong.
This is the situation: Identity politics makes gross hyperbole socially acceptable with ~50% of the population and "fightin words" with the other half.
Again: I actually appreciate the comments here strenuously suggesting that Trump is no real threat to democracy. This is the sentiment Altman is making room for by continuing to endorse Thiel. Their relationship works to normalize Donald Trump.
If Sam Altman is comfortable with that, he should remain affiliated with Thiel.
I am really confused by your comments here. You keep invoking Sam and Paul, but what does their business relationship with Thiel have to do with political support? Should they delete him from their contact list, too? What level of separation would you, tptacek, require of someone to disassociate themselves from a political opponent?
Your comments are infuriating in another way, because you're not actually debating what many people here are trying to talk about. You are dodging any defense of your assertions that Trump would be like a dictator, while backhandedly repeating it. That's not a conversation. That's preaching, and dodging.
Postscript: Trump can only "act like a dictator" so far as he can abuse the massive expansion of presidential power granted as much by the Democratic party as from Republicans. But I won't defend that here. I'll just tell you that other, smarter people think it too, and you should ask them about it.
>Your comments are infuriating in another way, because you're not actually debating what many people here are trying to talk about.
tptacek is focusing on the article. He has a very simple argument that Altman is acting shamefully.
This argument depends on Altman believing that Trump is a threat to democracy. It does not depend on anyone else believing that Trump is a threat to democracy.
tptacek wants to settle that, rather than get mired in arguing about Trump.
tptacek is arguing Sam A and Paul G are being inconsistent. I think maybe he could've made that point more clear by being a little less clever with his comments. :)
I'm not discussing whether Trump would be a dictator because that's not my argument. If you believe Trump wouldn't be a dictator, I am entirely comfortable with your support of Peter Thiel.
No one has the influence to convert the US to anything overnight. However, I do think that normalizing the language of authoritarianism can have long-term negative effects on our democratic process.
The same thing can be said about the normalization of globalization and technological progress which allowed the politicians and the companies who pay for their campaigns to trade jobs for cheap flat screens.
Ignoring one just because the other is more obvious isn't any better in my book.
No need to assume that I'm ignoring anything. I'm willing to accept globalization and technological progress despite their many imperfections because they have real, tangible benefits to humanity. On the other hand, the only person that stands to gain from authoritarianism is its leader.
Yeah so you are willing to accept the collateral damage of those who don't stand to benefit and whose lives are being destroyed from that. This is just another version of the same. Not better, not worse, just different.
Trumps authoritarianism is much less threatening than the same rhetoric from Obama or Hillary.
A lot of people are advocating authoritarianism- in fact thats the point of this whole thread- whether we should "excommunicate" Peter Theil.
But they don't seem to realize that leftism is essentially more authoritarian than rightism. Rightists want economic freedom, Leftists don't. (On social freedom neither of them want it- which is why Obama didn't try to legalize gay marriage, and picked Joe Biden the architect of the war on teen pot smokers as a running mate.)
Why don't liberals recognized that Hillary and Obama are authoritarians?
They're authoritarian in a sense too, but only in the ways you would expect people inside of an institution wanting to expand that institution's powers.
Trump is authoritarian in a different, more overt way. He's proposed extreme authoritarian moves like mass deportation, religious tests for entry to the US, camps, and directing the justice system at political enemies.
Maybe you don't see the difference between their versions of authoritarianism, but I do, and a lot of other people do too. It's an unfair comparison, and I think you should be able to recognize that.
There's historical evidence of people being elected, in democracies, and turning them into dictatorships. Part of the process looks the same as what Trump is doing. (e.g. saying the election is rigged therefore calling the process illegitimate, saying he'd put his political opponent in jail).
If that doesn't persuade you, what kind of evidence would persuade you?
Oh, I'm persuaded- just look at the actions of W and Obama - both moved the presidency closer to dictatorship.
As for elections not being legitimate, that clam was made repeatedly, with merit, after 2000. The democrats lost, and they lost due to widespread fraud.
Finally, Hillary belongs in jail. Basically all of the allegations have been proven by the wikileaks email releases.
When your opponent is a blatant criminal it's quite fair to say "you'll be in jail" and quite different than saying "I'm going to jail you for disagreeing with me" which is what people seem to want to clam he said (so basically they are lying about him. If he's so obviously reprehensible, why the need to lie about him?)
"Basically all of the allegations have been proven by the wikileaks email releases."
Hmm. Interesting. What allegations do you think were proven? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that they mostly proved things that seem bad, nothing that was specifically criminal. It's not like we didn't know the details of the whole email situation beforehand.
Also, thought experiment - how would you react if Hillary Clinton were to say that she would appoint a special prosecutor to jail Trump for sexual harassment?
Edit: BTW, afaik, the democrats' allegations in 2000 came after the results of the election. They didn't repeatedly claim ahead of time that the election was rigged. Not sure if this is a huge difference, just putting it out there.
"When your opponent is a blatant criminal it's quite fair to say "you'll be in jail" and quite different than saying "I'm going to jail you for disagreeing with me""
sigh
No, you still can't say that. Presidents cannot tell their attorney general who to prosecute or not to prosecute, even if the President thinks the person is a blatant criminal.
Maybe if you stopped to think about it a little bit, you would understand why allowing this could lead to very bad abuses of power?
Historical footnote that is not news to 'jimbokun but which I get the sense might be news to some of the people in this thread: the last time a President tried to interfere with the prerogative of their Attorney General, their administration collapsed as a result.
Also odd considering Trump spent the entire nomination campaign shilling his deal making abilities, and how he would lead by consensus instead of executive orders.
I don't see how YC denying Peter Thiel is anything more than political theatre it has no bearing on whether Trump will win or not.
All these distractions when the US has two states CT and IL in near bankruptcy due to pensions being 200%+ over state revenues, and a frightening national debt meaning Feds will likely not be able to bail them out. Wish everybody could panic over that not Thiel being involved with YC.
You sound just like the republicans in 2008 when a gasp black president was elected. Oh dear, the world is ending, the end times are coming! What's the world coming to! We are doomed. A socialist Kenyan Muslim is in the whitehouse!
What actually happened? Nothing. If you looked at the country for the last 8 years you wouldn't be able to tell whether a republican or democratic was in the whitehouse.
Same thing will happen if trump gets in. A lot of talk, but little action.
> If you looked at the country for the last 8 years you wouldn't be able to tell whether a republican or democratic was in the whitehouse.
Millions more people have health insurance. States have legalized marijuana without federal intervention. Relations have opened with Cuba. A climate treaty and Iran nuclear deal were reached. The supreme court (with two Obama appointees) has legalized gay marriage. Maybe none of this stuff has affected you but trust me, millions of people can tell there's been a democrat in the white house.
The same thing applies with Trump. It might not effect you much if he gets elected, but it would have dire consequences for millions of people if he accomplishes a fraction of the things he's talked about.
You really think that opposing Obama because he's black is comparable to opposing Trump because he incites violence and encourages racism and xenophobia and speaks highly of dictators and brags about sexual assault?
I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had.
But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial.
Don't take a beautiful and cool facade for anything than that. Behind the scenes its raw power and they are all, everyone of them, in the game for the power.
I'm not asserting that in any way Obama is perfect and have no problem with people criticizing his actions. I do take issue with comparing opposition of Obama based on his race with opposition of Trump based on his positions.
It does not follow that because a black president did an acceptable job that any president would do an acceptable job. Nor is opposing a president for being black morally equivalent to opposing a president for the things he says he wants to do.
Obama also lied about a lot and yet the world didn't end. Something about "transparent administration" ring a bell? "Closing Guantanamo" perhaps? Doesn't this set the precedent that you can't really believe anything a candidate says before he is elected? To be fair I don't single out Obama for lying. All candidates do it.which is why I don't worry about trump.
And again, I am in no way saying that Obama is above criticism. I'm saying that opposing him for being black is not at all the same as opposing Trump for his positions.
I think it's also not wise to treat all broken campaign promises equally. There's a big difference in voting for someone expecting that they won't accomplish everything they promise and voting for someone hoping that they won't accomplish everything that they promise. The former is hope that your candidate will do what they say. The latter is hope that your candidate is an outright liar or incompetent.
I find it so bizarre that supporters look at Trump and say, "oh, he's just making empty promises and he'll never do that." His empty promises are that he'll violate the constitution to enshrine religious discrimination into laws! It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises.
Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues.
And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist.
"It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises."
Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary?
You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.)
> Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues.
Sure. The birther movement was about the issues.
> And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist.
This is patently untrue. Trumps positions have been widely derided as unconstitutional and poorly thought out. The fact that his racism and sexism are talked about doesn't mean his positions haven't also been widely criticized.
> Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary?
What are you talking about?
> You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.)
Citizens United was about political ad spending by corporations. It's a mischaracterization to present the case as if it were about Hillary trying to shut down a critical film. It was the FEC trying to enforce the BCRA.
> Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary?
> What are you talking about?
I think they are trying to make a reference to a previously-unknown conservative blog which claimed they had an anonymous quote from a "State Department source" saying that HRC asked about approving a drone strike on Julian Assange.
The claimed source has not gone to any professional news outlets. The blog has not published anything else of note, and by quick survey of other posts, its author has a clear agenda against HRC. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.
hey now, the blame for Guantanomo not being closed falls directly on congressional republicans, not on Obama's lack of trying. this is the case for most of his failed endeavors (nominating court justices ring a bell?). there's plenty of stuff he does deserve blame for. most notable i think is that although he effectively ended the Iraq war, he rescinded his decision to end the Afghanistan war in 2014. regardless, Obama and Trump are not in the same category in any respect, not even as politicians.
You reinforce my point. The blame for what goes on in Washington does not fall on the president! The older I get the more I think "commander in chief" is just a fancy title for "talking bobble head". We're not electing a leader. We're electing a media personality.
The President of the United States is not commander in chief of the country or even the government.
He is commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
> I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had.
> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial.
Well, no; technology gave us drones, not rationality. The US has always killed what it identifies as enemy combatants without a trial, whether its through war, covert operations or drones. Obama at least doesn't match the death count of the Bush years.
>> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial.
The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius. They don't take out a whole village, or more.
If a country should be in war and/or hunt irregular terror organizations is debatable. It should be debated.
But complaining about one of the most humane (relative the alternatives) ways of waging war seems just weird.
The negative thing I have to say about Obama is that he didn't do more to stop the horror in Syria, with chemical weapons, millions driven from the country and hundreds of thousands dead. But I am not certain I have a better solution either.
I understand the point about smart weapons it does not change the fact that the US is doing targeted killing without trial or are still keep people in guantanamo and so many other things that we are fine with.
Yet somehow the rhetorics of Trump trumps all that.
Well Trump openly claimed he wanted to torture terrorist suspects and kill terrorists' families. So yeah, I think that's worse than targeted drone strikes on terrorists. While I have significant concerns about the drone program, I also recognize that we are at war with certain groups and capturing these people in order to get them to trial is mostly infeasible. I don't consider drone strikes to be worse than special forces strikes. I do consider torture and murdering families to be considerably worse.
Please explain this, I really don't understand this argument:
>> I find Guantanamo morally indefensible.
Guantanamo -- afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war. E.g. the conflict in Afghanistan is still active. So what is the problem?
(Then we have the whole point about the people at Guantanamo being combatants that didn't follow the war of laws. Do they have any rights, at all? Please use very good primary sources if you somehow argue that combatants that targets civilians have more rights than prisoners of war... That is contradicting the idea of those laws.)
The fundamental problem is that we are not at war with any nation here. We have repeatedly stated that we are at war with terrorism. So we've got a bunch of citizens of foreign nations that we took captive on the suspicion that they were engaged in terrorist activity, but we can't prove it. They aren't really prisoners of war, and there is no war at the end of which we can reasonably expect an exchange of prisoners. They're stuck in indefinite limbo with no trial and no expectation of release.
I don't know how we can defend indefinite detention of people on the suspicion that they might have engaged in terrorist activity. It's basically just kidnapping to hold them this way forever. I think there's a legitimate argument that taking them captive to interrogate them is reasonable, and perhaps even some moderate time of detention. Giving them a trial would also be reasonable. I don't think there's a legitimate argument for holding foreign nationals without trial indefinitely.
Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war".
You also claim that the laws of war are not applicable to the remaining types of military conflicts (with clans/tribes, any organization that is geographically spread, etc, etc).
Do you have references? [Edit: The references need to show that the laws of war don't apply to these other conflicts, too.] Also not that the world's law experts don't seem to agree [Edit: with you. See link in edit at bottom.]
(Note that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state. We also need a new word for most of the military conflicts through history -- and today. And so on.)
(Also, you shouldn't argue against what politicians say in public speeches, for the same reason you shouldn't believe advertisements...)
The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition.
The Taliban and their allies are still fighting.
Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references...
[Edit: Here seems to be the relevant definitions in USA, I saw in another place that their High Court argued that the Geneva conventions was relevant under US law also for unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... ]
Just to provide a reference for what you say: to have a "war", one does not need a nation state. And the Geneva conventions on laws of war do apply to armies and militias regardless of whether they are of a recognized nation state. The conventions apply in civil wars, too.
The Daish (IS) fighters are in gross breach of laws of war even though no one recognizes their "state".
The collection of the Geneva conventions is available in many places, here is the site of IRCR:
There used to be a nice, simple presentation of the laws of war at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ but now you get 500 Internal Server Error for the archives.
However, to be "at war with terrorism" is unfortunately a very difficult position. Definition of terrorism if by necessity quite vague and problematic. (What is "freedom fighter" for one party or at one time may be a "terrorist" for another or at another time).
-- Edit: I see you sourced the ICRC site for conventions yourself.
> Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war".
No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. Certainly we can be at war with a non-state actor (we clearly are). But our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear.
For wars not against nation states, there must still be some sort of due process for prisoners. The idea that being at war with some entity gives us the right to retain arbitrary people indefinitely, without even proving that they have participated in that entity, is morally unacceptable.
> Do you have references? The world's law experts don't seem to agree...
Do you have an references to the claim that law experts don't agree? There are a few treaties about war prisoners but they apply to signatories, which clans etc are not.
Beyond that, "laws of war" have historically been defined by the victors. I'm not aware of a body of law that applies to wars universally, nor do I believe one could exist. (Who could enforce it?)
> that by your definition we need a new word for civil wars -- at least one side is not a nation state.
You could argue that for civil wars at least both sides would effectively be signatories if the nation as a whole was a signatory before the war began.
> You also claim that the Taliban never was a government? They had control of a large part of Afghanistan. And they are still fighting, along with their allies. I assume you don't argue that a war stops being a war when one side lose control of their capital?
I don't claim any of that. I claim that Afghanistan is at least officially no longer ruled by the Taliban. We don't recognize them as the legitimate government. If we accept that we are no longer at war with Afghanistan then we must according to the Geneva conventions release any prisoners of war captured during the war with Afghanistan.
Any enemy combatants not deemed prisoners of war should be given some sort of due process. Again, the idea that being at war against terrorism gives us the right to indefinitely detain arbitrary people is morally unacceptable.
> You ignored my argument.
> Again: Afaik, you can keep combatants prisoner until after the hostilities. Which are still continuing. [Edit: This seems to be the relevant part in the Geneva Conventions -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs.... ]
> The Taliban had a government, they were a nation. So it qualify as a "war", even according to your definition.
> The Taliban and their allies are still fighting.
> Are you claiming that conflict stopped being a war when they lost the capital? Please give good references...
I don't see that I made any of those claims, nor do I feel like I ignored your argument. I don't believe that being a signatory on the Geneva convention in any way gives us a right to indefinitely detain people with no reasonable path to release and no proof of involvement in the conflict. Even if legally we can make that argument, I think it's morally repugnant.
>> No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. [...] our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear.
(I asked for references to support that claim already -- got nothing from dpark...)
What your position is based on, according to yourself, is wrong. I added this link around ten minutes before you posted that:
It address exactly those unlawful combatants and laws.
It was drafted as a result of a decision by the US the Supreme Court. (As I noted, another Supreme Court decision was that the Geneva Convention do cover unlawful combatants.)
(I also added a link to the Geneva Protocols, discussing when a POW can be sent home.)
> I asked for references to support that claim already -- got nothing from dpark...
Where in the Geneva conventions does it say that they apply to all warring parties? I'm genuinely asking. My understanding is that they apply to signatories only:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
So, it applies to conflicts between signatories or conflicts involving a signatory and a non-signatory who accepts the terms of the convention. So you're right that it's not strictly nation states. But it's also not every combat participant by my reading.
> What your position is based on, according to yourself, is wrong. I added this link around ten minutes before you posted that:
> It address exactly those unlawful combatants and laws.*
This is not a treaty. Also, the problem with retaining people indefinitely doesn't go away because we pass a law declaring that we can call them combatants. We know that we have detained innocent people in Guantanamo for extended periods of time. You can legally call them whatever you want, but it's still morally repugnant to hold innocent people indefinitely. (It is morally repugnant to hold anyone indefinitely without trial because it indicates an unwillingness or inability to establish guilt.)
The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.[6]
Since you have no foot to stand on -- bye.
------
(A note that doesn't matter for my argument: Out of interest you might want to read this and the "See also" for the page, especially the "No longer enemy combatant" link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Internation... The US Supreme Court seems to agree that unlawful combatants should get protection by the Geneva Conventions -- but this doesn't matter for my argument anyway.)
Generally referring to the "Geneva conventions" is not a useful citation. There are hundreds of articles in the conventions. Can you point out where the conventions purport to apply to all combatants?
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
By my reading, this applies to conflicts between signatories or conflicts involving a signatory and a non-signatory who accepts the terms of the convention. So not strictly nation states, but also not every party to every conflict.
For instance, break it anywhere in the world by killing civilians, and enter my country (say, as a refugee), and you'll be prosecuted if caught. There's even a recent example (a man got life sentence for what he did in Rwandan conflict; the life sentence here is practically something like 12 years).
Interesting. I didn't realize the UN Security Council had passed such a resolution. Thanks.
I'm still not clear that this applies since our enemies do not meet the requirements outlined beyond being signatories (what with insignia and organized ranks etc). Article 3 also refers to conflicts not of an international nature. I'm not sure how that's interpreted. Is that civil wars? Or just wars involving non-state actors? The "war on terror" certainly has an international character.
Unlawful combatants don't have access to the rights under war laws, except Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (see quote below).
Hence, the question is not if you treat them as POWs or as civilians -- but if they have the protection of a POW at all.
-----
[This was my reference for the previous claims. The Wikipedia link go to the Convention. I earlier referenced the relevant US law and their Supreme Court, which also discuss this.]
The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.[6]
> You knew that 3 hours earlier, when I wrote this
First, no. You asserted it repeatedly without a compelling reference. Ptaipale provided a verifiable claim about the UN Security Council affirming that this had become international law. You linked to an article that happened to make a similar claim but had no reference to the UN Security Council decision (nor does the citation it references so far as I can see).
Second, I admitted a gap in my knowledge and your response was to come in and assert that you told me the same earlier (which you actually didn't). If the point of your arguing was to educate, this is a really poor technique. Don't respond to someone acknowledging a mistake/misunderstanding/knowlege gap by trying to make it about how "right" you are. It comes off as petty.
If a Wikipedia link with multiple good sources already in the introduction isn't enough for someone without a clue on a subject, I should have left the discussion.
My personal heuristic to avoid grief in the future: Don't discuss with anyone that dismiss Wikipedia without references... no, without having primary sources for references.
Thank you for that. The net and HN will be better for me.
Your wikipedia link doesn't cover the UN resolution, nor does the citation, which appears to be ICRC's commentary of the treaty. The article you linked does assert it, but without any significant support aside from the ICRC's commentary.
"Then we have the whole point about the people at Guantanamo being combatants that didn't follow the war of laws."
The problem is we know now many of the people at Guantanamo do not fit that description. And we don't know how many do and how many don't, because there is no legal process to make the determination.
After WWII, at least there was some kind of war crimes tribunal before executing people for war crimes. But Guantanamo is some kind of horrific, Kafka-esque limbo, where people can be sent for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or accused by someone just wanting to collect a bounty, where people can be held forever and tortured on a whim, with no prospect for any kind of closure, ever.
Please discuss it with the law professors in the Supreme Court, they claim that the US handling also of unlawful combatants must follow the Geneva Conventions.
> You ignored the main point on what you comment on. To quote myself: afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war
We have detained people that we know are not and were not enemy combatants. Your assertion that we can detain enemy combatants is not without merit. The foundation of that claim is unsound, though, because we know we are detaining people who are not enemy combatants.
(If you want to accuse someone of breaking war laws, go to ICC in Hague...)
I think you're trolling me by now. You have no foot to stand on. (I'm not arguing that the US handling of POWs can't be criticized. Of course. All states can be criticized. But their Supreme Court system do seems to work.)
I'm not comfortable with asserting that the people sitting in Gitmo are all combatants since we know that we've gotten that determination wrong multiple times and we're not giving them trials. The blind assertion that they are enemy combatants rings hollow.
Even if we are legally right to run Gitmo the way we do, I think it is still morally wrong. You can call that trolling if you want, but locking people up indefinitely with no proof of criminal or even combat activity and no path to resolution is immoral.
Condemn Guantanamo from a moral viewpoint if you want.
(Note that all POW camps will certainly have innocents, so the same moral apply to the whole Geneva Convention.)
But stop arguing against legal facts when you don't have a clue... Don't trust the media to inform you.
----
(I'm not doing the moral argument, but: Do note that if the Geneva conventions was too mild, there will be fewer POWs taken... instead lots of more people will die before capture. E.g. Iraq handles captured terrorists by execution a lot, because they know people will get back out and kill again, by bribing themselves out of prisons etc.)
Others started to claim weird illegal content in US law, until me and 'ptaipale' dug up the relevant Geneva conventions and decisions by the US Supreme Court based on them.
(But sure, a relevant answer to me might have been "I don't care about the law or if my way gets more people killed or not -- this is my personal moral and I'm ready to let lots of others suffer and die for it.")
> 1. That Guantanamo discussion was a continuation of the content came right before.
Yes, and what came before was a discussion of the morality of drone strikes. There was never a discussion of the legality of anything except maybe Trump's claimed sexual conquests.
> 2. I started to argue that everything was legal re Guantanamo, as a reply to the moral claim.
So paddyoloughlin is 100% right and "You were the one, in that very post, who started confusing morality with law, leading to the jumble of responses since."
Discussing a person is what follows after you're shown to be wrong. :-)
Never mind. I have stopped discussing with people that dismiss Wikipedia pages with good sources -- when they have neither references nor understanding of a subject.
> Condemn Guantanamo from a moral viewpoint if you want.
That's what I did from the very beginning. And repeatedly throughout this discussion.
> (Note that all POW camps will certainly have innocents, so the same moral apply to the whole Geneva Convention.)
No, my moral problem is that there's no clear path to resolution for Guantanamo detainees, not just that some are innocent. I feel like I made that clear in my first response to you about Guantanamo. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12736359
> But stop arguing against legal facts when you don't have a clue... Don't trust the media to inform you.
"Don't have a clue" is rather unfair since I provided citations into the text of the Geneva conventions to support my understanding. You on the other hand have been flip-flopping between different interpretations, claiming first the relevance of article 118 and later stating that only article 3 protections are provided. I don't think you're as well informed as you'd like to be perceived.
I also don't think "the media" has any relevance here.
You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments.
If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them.
(Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not?
Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law.
Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.)
Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.
I do not think you hit on any of the things that make Trump a potential danger to our system of government.
It is his blatant contempt for our Constitution, rule of law, and our political traditions that makes him an existential threat. Support for torture. Jailing political opponents. Wanting to jail journalists saying things he doesn't like. Making religious tests for entering the country. (Many more I'm sure I'm forgetting.)
I think way to little has been made of this as the key reason Trump is not fit to hold the office of President.
Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence? Or is protesters attacking Trump supporters across the country Trump's fault too?
I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions. His statements verbatim do not imply anything criminal, unless you fill in extra words yourself.
If you don't hate the guy, you could easily fill in extra words the other way, that is, to make it sound like he's saying something less ambiguous and more reasonable.
So ignore the part about sexual assault and there's still a laundry list of stuff that Trump has said on the record that is terrifying in a major party political candidate. Complementing dictators for running countries well? Proposing a ban on Muslims in direct contradiction of the bill of rights?
As I understand, even at the farthest point he was talking about non-citizens of this country. I don't personally believe we need a reason to stop a non-citizen from coming here. I also don't see any reference in the Bill of Rights concerning that - it's certainly a presidential power that has been exercised before.
It is worth noting he has since backed (evolved if you will) that position down to "extreme vetting" to "certain parts of the world" (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.)
There has never to my knowledge been a president who banned immigration based on religion. If it's happened it was unconstitutional then as well. Certainly it's within the government's scope to ban immigration but not based on a religious test.
Did you link to the wrong proclamation? There are no countries even specified there. It's basically a proclamation that we won't allow in people who committed war crimes.
And there's nothing legally wrong about blocking immigration from a certain country or countries. We could block immigration from Italy and Poland and it wouldn't be unconstitutional despite the fact that they are predominantly Catholic. The religious test itself is what's unconstitutional.
> And if the religion condones crimes against humanity?
No. If you want to block people who say they are against homosexuality, that might be legal. If you want to block people who say their religion is against homosexuality, that's not legal.
The subtle differences matter. Similarly, if you're hiring for a warehouse job, you can discriminate against people who cannot safely lift 50lb packages repeatedly. You cannot discriminate explicitly against people in wheelchairs, even though that group in general will have a lot of trouble lifting 50 lb packages overhead.
>the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign
nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of
the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens.
Then over a dozen women confirming, yes, he did indeed do everything he claimed to do.
"His statements verbatim do not imply anything criminal, unless you fill in extra words yourself."
Uh, no, he describes text book sexual assault.
"I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions."
Many people have pointed this out already, but this is a really weird way to brag about sexual prowess. Most men who brag about their sex lives, brag about how many women want to sleep with them, not about grabbing, groping or kissing women uninvited.
He never said 'uninvited'. You are putting that word in his mouth because of your bias.
He said at least one thing that shows his belief that whoever he's referring to was ok with it, as he said something like, "when you're famous, they let you do anything".
You might be able to argue that it's not unwanted, but you cannot claim it's not uninvited. By Trump's own statement he doesn't wait for an invitation. (Arguably, he also doesn't wait for any indication it's wanted, so if this is really his behavior he's undoubtedly done it to women who did not want it.)
I'm afraid I have to agree with the parent, as much as I don't like trump. I know it's fun having someone to vilify, but let's look at what was actually said:
> And when you're a star, they let you do it
If someone let's you do something... is that not consent? What, must one sign a legal document before "letting you do something" becomes consensual? What is lacking here that would otherwise pass as consent? I fail to see anything.
Oh, but then you'll likely point out the next quote:
> I just start kissing them. ... I don’t even wait.
Is he proclaiming that he "doesn't wait" to initiate, or that doesn't wait to actually begin physical contact? There's a big difference, and it's not immediately clear which he's suggesting. To clarify, consensual kissing happens in several steps: you approach someone (on the dance floor, say), get a cue that your advances are desired, pull them in (gently) almost there, and then let them close the gap if they wish. If someone asked me if I "wait" to kiss someone, I'd likely suggest that I do not -- but in that case, I'm referring to the initial approach (no sense in presuming someone won't invite your advances when you could, alternatively, respect their ability to accept or deny them).
The point is, the above quote does not make explicit the nature of his advances. Maybe he does manhandle people faces, we don't know. But it's lacking in intellectual integrity to suggest that your (equally arbitrary) interpretation reflects reality. And to be doubly clear, I don't believe either argument: I'm okay with the fact that, given the imprecision of his bus banter, I (nor anyone else) will ever know, unequivocally, if that particular quote was intended to convey a consensual interaction. If you were intellectually honest, you would do the same.
> Many people have pointed this out already, but this is a really weird way to brag about sexual prowess. Most men who brag about their sex lives, brag about how many women want to sleep with them, not about grabbing, groping or kissing women uninvited.
Again, the guy never said "uninvited" -- you've made the leap from "doesn't wait" to "uninvited". Let's leave emotion behind for a sec, and consider this rationally: there's no way, from the quotes given above, to deduce that "doesn't wait" == "uninvited" (I hope I made that clear, but if you need further proof by contradiction, as someone who's enjoyed a whole lot of consensual kisses, I'd be happy to provide it). Sure, you can say "well, clearly, I mean, I think he's a dick, so... yeah, it's clear that he'd rape women and be open about it" -- but that doesn't pass muster for rational discussion, and you might as well further reduce your exclamations to "Trump is a dummy-head, and I don't like him", but at least have the integrity to not spout off headline misinformation as if it were pure, golden, axiomatic properties of the universe.
Is Trump crass?
Yep (e.g. "Grab them by the p---y")
Do I generally like the guy?
Nope.
Do I want him as president?
Hell no.
If I don't like the guy, you might be wondering, why would I defend the guy so much? And that's where you'd be wrong again: I'm not defending Trump, I'm defending honest, rational discourse. There are a million and one reasons to not elect Trump, and I would like to see people discuss those things rather than erect strawmen just because it's oh so much fun to proudly proclaim that the other half of our country are a bunch of clueless, inbred, misogynistic, sick fucks (and then pat each other on the backs on our Facebook echo chambers for being comparatively less shitty, as if that were the pinnacle of human self actualization).
Both sides keep spouting off headlines as truth -- with no further critical thought applied -- and it deeply, deeply saddens me to find that even our forum of supposed intellectual minds choose to engage with herd like, collective delusion over engaging with objective reality.
Yes, it is equivalent. The fact that you are deluded to think that you can change anybody's mind by repeating this "racism xenophobia sexual assault" mantra which literally everybody has already heard million times by now just shows that you are equally stuck in your ways and irrational as the people you oppose. It's knee jerking on both sides.
And, speaking of Obama, you guys reminded me of this beauty created during the previous campaign:
It's not comparable to oppose a potential president for being black and opposing a potential president the things he claims he wants to do. You can oppose Obama's policies and statements all day, and that is comparable to opposing Trump based on his positions. Opposing Obama because he's black is just overt racism and equivalent to opposing Trump for having small hands.
Nobody opposed Obama for being black. Not even racists in the south. They couldn't care about that because they were too upset with the policies he proposed.
The only people talking about Obamas race where Obama supporters who wanted to avoid substantive discussion about the issues.
Those same people are running around calling Trump a racist now.
The entire scenario here was posited as this being equivalent to when republicans were terrified of a black president being elected. You might not agree that this was the problem, but it's the scenario being discussed.
For the record, the whole "Kenyan, Muslim" stuff was overly racist. Almost no one came out and said that they were opposed to Obama because they were racist. But when you falsely accuse a black man of being a secret Kenyan Muslim, you're just racist.
Not merely accuse, but persisted in questioning him even after the black man's papers were shown. And this was no mere questioning, but peddling lies like the investigators Trump claimed to have sent to Hawaii who were finding things we wouldn't believe, without ever elaborating.
And not in five years did Trump ever talk about policy. He just accused the president of not being legitimate. Like many Republicans did, some directly, most by just staying silent. A handful rejected birtherism outright.
There's a reason why some 98% of black American will not be voting for Trump this year. And it's not their f'g imagination.
You two don't seem to realize that the whole "kenyan muslim" thing -- birtherism and secret muslim- were campaign tactics used by Hillary.
So, will you be consistent and say Hillary is a racist? (Would be consistent with her long friendships with Robert Byrd, and her "needy latinos" comment)
Provide some evidence that Clinton had anything to do with birtherism and then we can discuss how racist she is. So far no one has produced any evidence at all to back this claim. Ditto for the Muslim claim.
Trump is a con artist. People who believe anything he says, or vote for him, are being conned. He is the epitome of George Carlin's rant about people who keep on voting for people against their own self interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESAmKudsKKY
I will be very interested to see what people think of Trump's character on November 9 when he doesn't graciously concede like 100% of every previous loser of a presidential election. There is no gracious anything about Donald Trump.
> Nobody opposed Obama for being black. Not even racists in the south.
Now you're just lying. Shame on you for your blatant racism denial. [1] [2] There are many racists all over America, and many of them are quite explicit and open about being opposed to Obama for being black. Do you suggest we not take them at their word?
>Negative representations of the dominated group are essential in such a
reproduction process. However, such attitudes and ideologies are inconsistent
with dominant democratic and humanitarian norms and ideals. This
means that the dominant group must protect itself, cognitively and discursively,
against the damaging charge of intolerance and racism. Cognitive
balance may be restored only by actually being or becoming anti-racist, by
accepting minorities and immigrants as equals, or else by denying racism.
It is this choice white groups in Europe and North America are facing. So
far they have largely chosen the latter option.
What is next? Perhaps YC should ask applicants for political affiliation?
I think you're wrong and I think the reason YC will not drop Theil is very practical: Theil is valuable for the underlying goal of the program (money) and dropping Theil would also alienate a huge (yes, yuuuge) swath of investors.
People --- more of them on my side of this debate than yours --- say this a lot. But I think more highly of Sam Altman than to believe he's standing by Peter Thiel, despite Thiel's work to elect someone both Altman and I believe to be an American Mussolini, simply out of financial expedience. It's that basic respect for Altman that motivates me to keep pressing this argument: the effort seems hopeful.
This is the type of thing that really bothers me. Not only is that a ridiculous comparison, it's completely baseless and anti-intellectual. Trump has made a few off hand fascist remarks, but nothing that could substantiate him establishing legal dictatorship. So why even make that comparison? Just fuel the witch hunt?
I agree that Trump is no Mussolini - however I see why it's tempting to compare them, as they are both slightly comical figures with a great regard for themselves.
The closer parallel would be to another Italian leader: Silvio Berlusconi. He was also a businessman, is also famous for his attitude to women, also authoritarian, etc. Both men are great showmen, and populists who 'speak their minds'.
Of course, any analogy is imperfect - but it seems closer than the whole Mussolini/Stalin/Hitler one.
Saying he's made "a few off hand fascist remarks" is a pretty generous characterization. I'd say he's shown strong contempt for the rule of law and division of powers, has gleefully stoked racist and misogynist resentments to excite his base, and has very literally encouraged violence at his rallies (and is continuing to lay the groundwork for significant election day violence for the first time in a century).
Does any of this mean he could establish a legal dictatorship? I don't know, hopefully not, but I would hardly say the comparisons are baseless.
What strikes me as actually anti-intellectual is the trend among Trump sympathizers (particularly the ones I see on HN and other more cerebral contexts) to refuse to acknowledge that the inflammatory language he's used during the campaign can and already has materially impacted the way millions of Americans perceive and act upon their world.
it's weird then how, at this point, overwhelmingly violence has been against rather than by trump supporters. Except actually it's not, because when you label someone a fascist, then anything is justified in stopping it before it takes hold. so you have people trying to jump the stage, you have headquarters being firebombed,you have physical assaults of people outside events, people being beaten up for wearing trump hats.
Violence against Trump supporters? I watch live feeds from rallies on both sides.
I've seen Democrats calling out to protesters and hecklers, suggesting that those protesters are wasting their time trying to gain support for their candidate, and reminding them of the expectation of civil discourse. Mocking, sure, but not "hate speech" (if you'll forgive the loaded term) and not violence.
I've seen Republicans punch, kick, slap and spit on protesters and hecklers, and shouting that they have no right to be there. Demanding the arrest of the protester, in some cases, with the candidate actually suggesting that, back when "America was great", the police would've locked them up sooner, or that the person who had the audacity to speak out would often be carried out on a stretcher. That seems quite violent to me.
I'll admit I may have missed something, as I can't watch every rally, but I've watched an equal number from both sides as far as I can recall.
> to refuse to acknowledge that the inflammatory language he's used during the campaign can and already has materially impacted the way millions of Americans perceive and act upon their world
You're using real numbers here so I assume you're not just making things up. I've not seen those, but if you have those sources I'd like to see them.
Here's the thing. I'm much more concerned with policy than Trump's rhetoric. He's mostly insincere and anyone that has spent time with a politician can see that. His discussions and ideas around policy are as empty and baseless as his threats to build a wall. He's a performer. Not a threat.
It would behoove liberals to focus more on policy and demonstrations of how their candidate can positively change the economy than to continue feigning outrage about the things that come out of Trump's mouth.
How is it baseless and anti-intellectual? If Trump were elected, he would be able to push through an agenda by exercising a significant aggressive minority of the population. This power to summon millions (who call legislators, picket, rally, etc.), who are compelled to participate if only for the spectacle, would be unique among American presidents.
You should direct that question to the person who made the comparison. I agree with it, but I think you'll understand this thread more if you ask the person I'm referencing.
You said both you and Altman felt that way. Maybe you didn't create the comparison but you just repeated it and said you agreed. It's hyperbole like that that makes people not care about your Clinton zealotry.
What, you think someone seeking power is going to stand at a podium and announce "I want a fascist dictatorship"?
He has been relentlessly attacking the legitimacy of democracy, encouraging political violence, stoking racial hatred, and threatening to imprison his opponent. On most days he does all of this before 11am.
No, we can just see right through the gross hyperbole that people are so fond of invoking. It's like the anti-circumcision folks saying things like:
"Circumcision is a barbaric practice in which babies have their genitals violently mutilated by religious nutjobs."
People that have actually been circumcised roll their eyes at such a phrase because it completely disregards the meaning and weight of the words "barbaric", "mutilate", "violent", etc.
This got modded down, I guess, because people haven't seen the video that outright proves that Democrats are paying people to start violence at Trump events.
It doesn't matter what actually happens; it only matters what Trump haters want to happen. Trump is being taken to the woodshed over things he hasn't even done yet and may never do, yet Obama, the Clintons, the Bushes, et al--who actually have committed crimes--get free passes.
> I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel.
I think it's a very slippery slope to base endorsement on a person's political actions. It raises some important questions:
-Do you stop endorsing and associating with everyone who supports Trump? Where do you draw the line logically?
-Why can't people with opposing views work together and agree to disagree on the elections and let the votes speak?
-I imagine Trump haters and Hillary haters have very strong reasons,facts,opinions and speculative thinking to backup their claims that the other candidate is a threat to democracy, will start WW3, corrupt practices etc. This should lead to well informed debate as it seems to be happening here but without calling for distancing from person X for endorsing a different candidate. What will you achieve by distancing people based on differing views? A monoculture? Differing views and discussion on the views is one of the things that makes a democracy work.
I believe Sam is right on this. It's Thiel's money, he can support whichever candidate he wants (it's legal). His views differ from Sam's and PG's, and people seem to extend it to YC as an organization and call for distancing Thiel from YC. It achieves nothing, and if anything weakens democracy.
> I think it's a very slippery slope to base endorsement on a person's political actions.
Is it though? Let's take it a bit further: would YC be expected to continue to endorse, say, a confirmed and outspoken Fascist?
How about someone who had donated to organizations with an explicit, stated objective of reducing the rights of women and minorities? Or supporting a political organization which intends to carry out ethnic cleansing?
Are we to believe there is no line to be drawn, anywhere on this continuum?
> Are we to believe there is no line to be drawn, anywhere on this continuum?
The problem is that the line being proposed here separates roughly 50% of the population of America, possibly more. You are basically saying "I know that even though I may technically be in a minority, my moral convictions are so strong that I must impose them on you and deter you from your way of thinking by any means necessary, even if it means firing you from your job."
> The problem is that the line being proposed here separates roughly 50% of the population of America, possibly more.
That's not a moral argument, just an appeal to popularity. The same could be said in 1932 Germany and it would be just as wrong then. To be clear I'm not suggesting Trump is Hitler, but your argument is flawed.
That's a flaw in democracy, not my argument. Democracy relies on the majority having good moral judgment. If you're in the minority, too bad. I'm sure there are lots of religious people that would like to impose their morals on the majority, and I think you and I both agree that's not a good idea. But now that your group might be minority (by a slight margin), suddenly it's okay to do anything it takes to impose your morals on the majority?
> I think it's a very slippery slope to base endorsement on a person's political actions.
What exactly else do you propose? Endorsing people based on their actions (all actions are political; no actions are apolitical; that's just how it works, you can't quit the game) is the only ethical position which makes any sense at all.
This has gone far enough. The only effective response is to judge by actions and refuse to work with any Y Combinator company until Thiel is fired (and Altman resigns).
And yes; I want working with Thiel to be a large net economic loss, because I believe that's the language he understands. This is the only effective tool I have to try and do that. It's nowhere near enough, but it's what I've got.
You say "thats the language he understands", but that's a really dangerous way to be thinking.
Look at it this way: assume you support gay marriage, and the supreme court had gone the other way. Some business partner finds out you support gay marriage, and they vehemently disagree with that, so they refuse to do business with you. They tell all of their other anti-gay acquainances to also stop doing business with you.
What would you think of that? Would it make you reconsider, would it make you suddenly be against gay marriage? More likely, it would piss you off and create even more division.
That is literally all that cutting business ties with Thiel would do, create division. Cutting a person off because you disagree on something political will never change their mind, it will only make them hate you right back, and suddenly you have two separate groups.
Remember after world war 1 when the world went "screw Germany", and ordered massive reparations, and shunned them from everything? Remember how that just caused animosity and hated right back? It triggered another, bigger war.
After WW2, on the other hand, the allies integrated. They actually worked at meshing together and creating something better, and it worked. Germany is no longer heavily nazi, or even kind of nazi.
For another great example, see the religious history of England.
Cutting off Theil and having everyone who doesn't support Trump boycott him just sends him a big middle finger, and makes a big rift that is going to keep causing problems in a big casual loop.
So... will you actually put your money where your mouth is? Will you not associate with companies or products that were helped by Y-Combinator until they publicly reject YC?
Will you not use HackerNews, Docker, DropBox, Reddit, AirBnB, DoorDash, Stripe, Pebble, or any of the rest?
Let people have differing opinions and continue working with them. If Thiel is doing something illegal, and goes against the spirit of the Constitution, call him out for and push for legal action.
> The only effective response is to judge by actions and refuse to work with any Y Combinator company until Thiel is fired (and Altman resigns).
Fire Thiel for supporting Trump with a donation? Seriously? What is this, a dictatorship? Everyone who disagrees is silenced? You want Altman to resign? Genuine question : Do you hear yourself?
Thiel cannot be fired by Sam Altman because he is not an employee of Sam Altman. His relationship with Altman is that of an endorsee, and all that's being asked of Altman is that he stop endorsing members of Trump's campaign.
> His relationship with Altman is that of an endorsee,
Noted. Should have been careful there.
> and all that's being asked of Altman is that he stop endorsing members of Trump's campaign.
Why? It makes no sense to me. Why can't people have their opinions and agree to disagree on ones they don't agree on. Don't you feel such calls go against free speech?
They can. What they cannot do is work effectively to prevent bigotry, sexism, and the destruction of the American economy and political fabric while simultaneously endorsing and working with people doing the exact opposite. People keep dancing around the fact that Thiel is not simply a Trump supporter, or even just a Trump donor. He is a Trump campaign surrogate --- a member of the campaign.
I understand your frustration. The desire to respond in a constructive way is necessary for us to go forward, especially now. For me, a part of that is to try my best to (a) give the people I'm talking to the benefit of the doubt that they're engaging in good faith; and (b) try not to use language that escalates any tensions. Online text discussion makes this especially fraught, given its low-bandwidth: we only get the text, without the benefit of other channels such as voice inflection and body language.
One tool HN provides is the ability to view a user's other comments, which can provide a gauge to measure whether someone is engaging in good faith.
And there's always the choice to not respond. If you think someone is just looking for attention, not responding might be the right course of action. Once people get angry or frustrated, it's probably better to just back off and try again some other time. And in general I'm thinking of myself as well to those I'm engaging with.
Or if you don't think you have something meaningful to add. Sometimes that's hard to do because you think the conversation is important and want to participate.
Please don't interpret anything I've written as criticism of either you or tptacek. For the record, from what I've seen both of you are thoughtful and engaging honestly. I also hope this doesn't come off as preachy. These are just the heuristics I've been using. Some others are Rapoport's rules [0], which I think are really insightful. I'd love to hear how others approach this as well.
I've thought about all these things in writing this comment, and I'm still unsure whether I should click the "reply" button. I do think it's important to try to keep these types of conversations going, and I know I need the practice, so in good faith I'm willing to put my neck out another time.
Valid points. My comment wasn't meant to be "frustration", but steering the conversation back toward productivity. I definitely can see why it came out as frustration, and in that sense I deserve the downvotes (this is not to imply that you were among the downvoters). Thanks for sharing the link.
>Why? It makes no sense to me. Why can't people have their opinions and agree to disagree on ones they don't agree on. Don't you feel such calls go against free speech?
I'm pretty sure this is a fundamental misunderstanding of free speech. Free speech means the governing body can't forbid you from expressing your opinion or punish you for it.
It does not mean other people or organizations can't take action based on their disagreement with your opinions and it doesn't mean expressing an opinion has to be without consequence from anything.
Legally, that's what free speech means, but philosophically Free Speech can certainly be more general than just related to the government.
Voltaire's "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," comes to mind.
We'd generally feel the same way if a company were enforcing completely arbitrary abridgment of free speech on its employees. Or if a private school were (legally) kicking kids out because they supported Black Lives Matter.
I did forget one thing that still falls under free speech (even legally probably), aside from the state not stopping you from expressing your opinion, it should protect your ability to do so. As in, not allowing anyone to silence you, but even that has its boundaries since silencing someone is not the same as not perpetuating what they say.
The examples you gave are ones where the effect on that person's life would be so fundamental that it could easily be considered an intrusion into their rights.
Boycotting a company or choosing to end a business partnership are completely different in that regard.
I believe Thiel only responds to economic pressure.
I am intending to use my economic leverage, and advocating others do the same, by refusing to work with Thiel and his enablers, which include Y Combinator and companies funded by them. (It's not just the Trump thing, by any means, that's the end of a very very very long list.)
Altman has also shown himself to be – at best – unaware of the moral dimensions of his actions, and that's not someone I want to have to deal with. So I won't and I suggest that you don't.
Same reason I won't work for an oil supermajor. I don't want to be party to pollution.
Everyone else is free to act as they choose, but I hope enough people agree with me that it weights the needle. If companies can't hire talent, they die; so what talent can do is refuse.
Our disagreement isn't on the question of Trump's existential threat status, it's on the question of what should be done about it (incidentally, the same disagreement you seem to have with Sam Altman and Paul Graham).
If you have a different solution than tossing out the heathens, I'm all ears. In Sam's blog post the solution he decides on is continuing dialogue. While this may be an imperfect solution, it seems to me a less imperfect solution than purging, as that generally results in communities being destroyed.
As long as an ideology is small enough, completely shunning it's adherents is actually the best strategy, because everyone is susceptible to social pressure.
But I fear that at 40% of the population, and with the social bubble people have build around them, Trump's neo-fascist movement may be beyond the reach of such tactics.
> it's on the question of what should be done about it
Everything that is legal. When, in the past, Republicans advocated trickle-down economics you possibly had a chance to convince people with arguments.
But I'm equally pessimistic about convincing anybody rationally. Trump and his supporters live in a reality completely divorced from any actually existing facts. It's this world with FEMA death camps and vast conspiracies planning to use the national guard to invade Texas and sell it to Mexico. There is no overlap anymore in what sources, what types of arguments, what axiomatic moral laws the two tribes consider valid.
Both strategies seeming comparably useless, I decided at some point that, when my grandchildren ask me in 40 years or so I want to be able to say "I did everything that's legal".
> As long as an ideology is small enough, completely shunning it's adherents is actually the best strategy
Until the thousandth time you use this tactic, and the number of people shunned begins to outnumber the ones doing the shunning.
> when my grandchildren ask me in 40 years or so I want to be able to say "I did everything that's legal".
I'm sorry to hear this. I hope in time you can come to focus on the similarities you have to your fellow humans rather than what sounds like a myopic focus on purely ideological differences.
As I said in GGGP to excuse your actions:
> sometimes a person needs to make mistakes / destroy something beautiful in order to find the next level of understanding
"Purely ideological differences" like whether sexual assault is okay and whether Muslims can be American citizens. Nope. Not going to just "agree to disagree" on that shit.
They can agree with that and still continue working with Thiel. You can be against fascism and but still be against creating a society where everyone must get in line politically or else be shunned.
I don't need people to get in line politically. I would be content with them not bundling millions of dollars for Donald Trump before getting up on stage at the RNC and claiming, as Thiel did, to speak for Silicon Valley in claiming that Trump is the only honest candidate in the race. I'm a simple sort of guy. My needs are not complicated.
I think you're making the right argument, I just don't think you're making it super clear.
(I think) what you're saying, is 'There is nothing wrong with supporting an opposing viewpoint. There is a huge problem with supporting Benito Mussolini. Sam Altman has compared Donald Trump to Benito Mussolini. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with supporting Donald Trump. Peter Thiel supports Donald Trump. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with his association with Peter Thiel.'
Keeping my political views out of the equation, I agree with that line of logic. The problem I think Sam is facing and why I think it's such a difficult issue is this.
Donald Trump is not Benito Mussolini. Unless he wins the presidency, he won't even have a remote opportunity at becoming him. So I think Sam is in sort of a lose-lose situation. On one hand, Sam remains steadfast in his decision, Donald Trump wins the election, Donald Trump enacts changes that make him on par with Benito Mussolini and Sam has now been complicit in the support of someone on par with Benito Mussolini. On the other hand, if Donald Trump loses or even if he wins and is anything less than a Benito Mussolini look-alike, he has effectively suppressed the support of an opposing political viewpoint.
I'm not pretending to know the solution, not even a little bit. I do think it's important to recognize how difficult of situation Sam is in.
That's not in fact the argument I am making. I do not support ostracizing or blacklisting all Trump supporters, just as I wouldn't have supporting ostracizing all Republicans in the wake of our catastrophic war on Iraq. However: I am comfortable with calling on people to divest from investments in the architects of the war on Iraq, like Doug Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, and I am comfortable with calling on Altman to divest from Peter Thiel, a key figure in the Trump campaign.
Altman's ulterior motive here is that it's bad for business if yComb departs from Thiel. And at the end of the day it comes down to money, so regardless of what Altman says, they will never part ways and ultimately become directly competitive with one of SV largest venture investors.
I didn't mean specifically in the comment above, I meant earlier.
'If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree.
But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel.
I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.'
It seemed like you were getting attacked from all angles, so I chose a comment that didn't have much on it. I wasn't trying to attack your argument (from above). I was attempting to put it into a more objective light.
False equivalence to Rumsfeld and Feith (and interesting you leave out Rice and Powell). What about somebody who contributed money to the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004?
I'm glad you brought Rice up, because this site had absolutely no problem calling for a boycott of Dropbox over their inclusion of Rice as a director.
(I don't support that boycott, because I think Rice's role in the Iraq war is far more complicated than that of Rumsfeld or Feith, who are the literal architects of the war plan she consistently criticized. Rice isn't blameless, but she's no Doug Feith.)
I have never heard him claim to speak for Silicon Valley.
The question becomes then, what do you consider your line. Is this about his outsized financial support? What if he gave his RNC speech and only donated $10,000?
Then --- respectfully --- you have never heard him speak in favor of Donald Trump, and you should go watch his speech before arguing about it. It's pretty scary. Maybe after seeing it, you'll understand the vehemence of the anti-Thiel sentiment.
Re-read. "We don’t accept such incompetence in Silicon Valley, and we must not accept it from our government." I think using the word "we" is the closest he gets to your interpretation, but even here it's clear to me that his views are his own.
But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel.
I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.