Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Silicon Valley's infamous 'Startup Castle' is getting evicted (fusion.net)
18 points by ohjeez on June 12, 2015 | hide | past | favorite | 17 comments

> who had “ever been prescribed anything by a psychiatrist more than once”

Fucking bigots.

I won't ascribe to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity. Or maybe just immaturity.


I wouldn't want to share a house with a loud person or a practising jew, muslim or vegan (I like to eat pork and we would probably end up eating together). I wouldn't personally discriminate based on medical conditions, but on the other hand, why shouldn't it be allowed? Don't we have a saying, your house, your rules?

Wow, I had to read this comment twice to really get what you were saying. At first, it came across as really ignorant, then it clicked. It's not racism, it's more of a considerate ignorance?

Really, though, I lived with a couple muslim guys in university. They didn't care much about bacon or beer. Just wasn't part of their diet.

I was a vegetarian for a time. I'd eat with people all the time, didn't matter if they were eating meat or not.

But, as far as discriminating on medical conditions. I don't know man, if you're not willing to learn what people will accept before deciding against living with them based on diets, maybe you need to consider the effects of medical conditions before deciding it's OK to allow people to discriminate against them.

I'd like to notice that bigots should have the same right to express themselves as most tolerant people, for any values of "bigot" and "tolerant". Freedom of expression either works for everyone, or (eventually) for no one.

It's not easy to go against the social grain.

Of course, the "startup castle" organizers might have gone against the grain in silly ways (tattoos?), but the mechanics is the same for any kind of going against the tastes of the public: media storm, your business or career ruined.

I wish our society was more tolerant.

Imagine a society where every business posted a list on the front door of the types of people and things that were not allowed inside. Imagine then if you had to spend half your time going through all the possible ways you might not be allowed into a business.

Oh, one of your friends is a minority? Gotta find another restaurant. But then they don't like people with long hair. Ok, no problem. But then the next one doesn't like men. What do you do? I guess you could make an app for that... List all your characteristics, and your friend's characteristics, and generate a list of places that you're allowed into.

Aside from causing social friction, I would think that it might also cause economic friction.

A completely "tolerant" (as you put it) society would be a very difficult one to deal with. I don't think it would last long.

Businesses would soon discover that their being picky costs them money, that is, customers. Lack of discrimination is profitable more often than not.

There are high-brow restaurants that won't let you in if you're not wearing a suit. There are night clubs with very discriminating face control. Possibly this helps their bottom line via the air of exclusivity sought by clients.

OTOH, there's no dress code in McDonalds; probably if you walk in naked they'll politely ask you to leave (didn't try that), but otherwise any paying customer is a good customer. I suspect that their cash flow is much higher, and their total reach is much wider, than that of excessively exclusive venues.

I too wish that. We are just going to have a huge backslash eventually and that will prevent us from advancing humanity.

And while I think their chosen axises of discrimination are pretty stupid I can see what they were trying to do - keep out the kind of people nobody wants to spend time with anyway - and that is something everybody does.

More tolerant by allowing people to discriminate against tattoos?

In private setting — yes, if you please. Having a tattoo is not a constitutional right. Did you notice how smoking in places like cafes is discriminated against? This is not considered unacceptable.

To make this point a bit more clear, let me quote a bit of Scott Alexander:


The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Tolerance Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?”

Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”.

The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why not.

Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?”

The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!”

And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!”

-- (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...)

The ad posted by the "Startup Castle" was not private. It was posted to the public.

Your quote is a complete non sequitur. Are you suggesting that I will gain Tolerance Points by tolerating the Startup Castle ad, which I hate, that discriminates against people with tattoos? If so, I will get a ton of points for tolerating your tortured logic which I also hate. I really hate your argument.

I think the point nine_k is trying to make is that one is not really tolerant if one only tolerates the things one likes, or is indifferent to. Toleration only exists regarding things one disapproves of.

And I believe that publicly saying you hate something is quite the opposite of tolerating it.

The part that I find fascinating is this: Thus, we have secured another house in Los Altos to move everyone to, and we all have to be out of here on Saturday.

How on earth did they find another place so quickly, in Los Altos no less - that's actually impressive.

If there are a lot of them, they can probably pay quite a bit in rent.

I'm not too keen on a 3 day notice because of media exposure being allowed by California tenant law, there has to be some other violation of the lease?

My guess would be that the number of people violates zoning regs: no more than X unrelated persons cohabitating a residence. At some point you get reclassified as a tenement house or a hotel.

Enforcement varies, but I'll bet Woodside wants nothing to do with this sort of thing and gave the landlord little choice.

Which raises the question: how is Los Altos different? Is the new place small enough that the number of residents meets LA zoning? Maybe this why no new address has been posted...

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact