Shame on Y Combinator

Re:Shame on Y Combinator by madmax96 on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @08:36AM (#12743174)

    > Has more progress been made through
      war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or   
      empathy/reasoned appeals?

That's a difficult question, and I'm not sure what the actual empirical answer is. And that's ignoring the obvious deficiency that we need to define progress -- progress to what?

    > it's a matter of wrong.

Most great evils that have been committed in history have been caused by groups thinking that their perceived moral superiority grants them license to act violently against opposition. Be it a witch-hunt, genocide of Native Americans, etc. there is always an element of moral superiority.

This sort of comment is displaying that same kind of attitude, an attitude which is actually dangerous to society. If your side is encouraging violence, and your opposition knows you are encouraging violence, then it is only rational for them to also consider violence and to adopt a first-strike policy. This leads to actual civil war. War is the opposite of progress -- it's the destruction of capital, families, and individual. That's regressive.

The people who oppose these things are not monsters. They have lives as rich and meaningful as your own. They attend church, they donate to charity, they tuck their children into bed at night. They are __not__ some radical fringe minority, hell-bent on imposing an ideology upon the world.

We are all basically decent people. Our democracy is destroyed when one group believes it has a moral license to incite violence to achieve its ends rather than work in the system. When that happens, we have stopped listening.

When we stop listening, we stop learning.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Shame on Y Combinator by infosample on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @01:30PM (#12745779)

> If your side is encouraging violence

I haven't picked a side on this thread and I haven't encouraged violence. I pointed out that empathy isn't always the solution. I wonder if your comment also applies to American conflicts in the Middle-East.

I do empathize with Graham/Atman's position and many of the commenters here.

1) We all agree firing an employee over politics is wrong.

2) Graham/Altman say Thiel is basically an employee and ending the part-time partnership is basically firing him. We should take their word.

3) If Trump is as bad as Graham/Altman describe, Thiel actually isn't an employee, and smart/rich guys with great lawyers couldn't figure out how to distance themselves, it will look bad.

But "if" arguments are weak. There is disagreement over how bad Trump is, I think time will tell. In the meantime, from a PR standpoint, I think Y Combinator didn't handle this well. Keeping Thiel on board didn't cause this outrage, Atman's explanation and Graham's Twitter arguments did.

Empathy and fighting weren't my only options, ignore is a choice. I wonder if Atman/Graham had stayed silent for three more weeks until the election is over, would this have blown over. I also wonder how hard they fought to keep Project Include as a partner.

[ Parent | on HN ]