According to Sam Altman, if Peter Thiel said some of what Trump said, they'd stop endorsing him. I could not be more baffled by this stance: someone who speaks like Donald Trump is too toxic to affiliate with YC, but someone who diligently works to make Donald Trump President of the United States is not.

This is the end consequence of tremendous cowardice from a lot of people over a long time, starting with the owners and administrators of Hacker News.

HN has – through inaction – smirkingly enabled alt-right/NRx/GamerGaters to parody-thru-libel liberal positions on equality for a long time; supporting Peter Thiel is in the same vein. That's made Hacker News racist, sexist, and (worst of all for this crowd's self-image), stupid.

For a bunch of "disruptors", they're blind to the systemic effects of that set of decisions to the point of parody. Well, the only conclusion to be drawn: the Y Combinator partners (and the companies they fund) don't care sufficiently about society to be people I want to work with. Makes my decisions easier!

I am as troubled as you are about the uptick in overt racism and sexism on HN. But I know and trust the moderators of the site, and this is a conversation I have had with them too, and I don't have any better ideas on how to deal with it than they do.

The bigger problem is that the (very large) community of reasonable nerds who care about bigotry has largely abandoned Hacker News. In doing so, they've conceded it to the racist fringe. They, too, should reconsider.

It's at least comforting to know that blatant racism and sexism tends to get flagged off of threads.

Some of the trouble here is the tendency of divisive people to see any attempt at understanding an issue to be support of that issue. That's part of what encourages trumps.

Another is the funny sort of ways that liberals want to fix -isms by applying the -isms in attack and unironically saying it's okay because they have the right opinions. That's part of what encourages trumps.

It's a basic fact of human nature that the self-righteousness you feel about your own opinions is not unique to those who agree with you, and there is no objective way to prove it is superior. That's part of what encourages trumps.

And it sure doesn't help when all the rhetoric gets the added emotional manipulation of associations to hitler.

I've noticed this too. Not only on HN, but below the line on many publications - The Economist, Politico, even at The Guardian, long a liberal bastion.

I don't think the reason is that 'reasonable' people have jumped ship though. At least that's not the sole reason. It seems recent events have turned some of those reasonable people reactionary. They've watched an increase of censorship and dishonesty under the guise of progressivism and decided that sunlight is the best disinfectant (just take a look at the shrieks of conspiracy whenever a frontpage post is flagged).

In doing so they have paved the way for an increase in bigotry from those who now believe that the lid has blown off once-taboo topics.

Perhaps I'm wrong but sorting comments by 'popular' on any of the sites mentioned above suggests that this isn't a phenomenon unique to HN. It's a shift in our online discourse.

This is the thing i don't understand, and you say it a lot. Why should we reconsider? We are clearly not welcome here. I read and comment every once in awhile, certainly, because i have a certain attachment to horrifying trainwrecks -- but i don't delude myself that i'm doing anyone any good, including myself.

"The bigger problem is that the (very large) community of reasonable nerds who care about bigotry has largely abandoned Hacker News. In doing so, they've conceded it to the racist fringe. They, too, should reconsider."

Should they though? When the community tells them with every post that this isn't wanted here, that the community doesn't care, and that the contributions are not welcome, should they really spend (or waste) their time, effort, and keystrokes here? And if so why? This isn't rhetorical, but really something I think about often when I'm waiting for an app to deploy and choosing what to do with those free minutes. And more and more, the answer is a resounding NO.

Totally agree with 'genericpseudo and 'joesmo. YC's created the environment that's so tolerant of racism and sexism. If they don't want people who care about bigotry to abandon the site, it's up to them to change the dynamic.

I don't. By their actions shall I judge them, and their actions are complicit in making Silicon Valley an awful place to be for a number of my friends.

Asking anyone to "reconsider" their way into a hostile environment is pretty brutal. For that to be realistic, YC has to make the first move, and it'd likely have to be an extremely costly signal. What would you suggest?

Let's say arguendo that Donald Trump is an objectively harmful candidate to democratic society. Peter Thiel may have given far more money than what most people even possess, but it's categorically the same as those who are voters for Trump -- both parties are providing some very direct support for Trump, and Thiel is arguably one step more distal than the voter.

I think that at some point, you must stop punitive consequences from leaking out of a category of democratic behaviors, or else entire categories of democratic behavior may be discouraged. After all, ought not the voter also be punished in the same manner we wish upon Peter Thiel? Shouldn't that voter suffer business and personal consequence?

If a grandma appears before a massive audience because she has a compelling story to tell in support of Trump, and in doing so, she becomes coined as "Grandma Lee" and becomes a hot media narrative worth more than what Peter Thiel gave, should that grandma also be punished accordingly? Disconnected from business colleagues? Shamed by any institution she's party to?

There should be a deliberately designed limit to causal responsibility when one is legitimately participating in democracy. If "legitimate" behavior is still bad for democracy, then that's where society should target their efforts, rather than through the shadowy powers of cultural punishment.

There is a deliberately defined limit: The rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. People are being asked by the Left to convict Trump of things he hasn't even done yet; after all, he is an "existential threat to democracy." The fact that HRC, Obama, and Bush actually did things that are criminal by any reasonable interpretation of the law--well, that we are asked to ignore.

This isn't about rational thought and calm, fact-based discourse. This is nothing more than monkey behavior and pure red-vs-blue emotionalism.

It's sort of like asking "what is a celebrity"? There's a line somewhere, and the existence of paparazzi doesn't impact the privacy rights of ordinary people.

The political line is somewhere over the level of voting, and could be somewhere below the level of donating millions and giving speeches to millions.

There's no reason the line inherently has to be drawn at the limit of "legitimate" behavior. We can say that something is legitimate to do, and legitimate to affect who will do business with you.

Supporting someone as president does not imply holding all the views that that person holds. And associating with someone who holds views you find detestable is not the same thing as associating with someone who supports a political candidate who holds views that you find detestable. I can't see how there is anything baffling about this.