zlacker

>>dang+(OP)
I'm a little skeptical of this.... What's the ulterior motive here? We all know SamA was very anti-trump, is this an alternative method to keep the new US political regime from affecting YC? It's almost a weird form of discussion censorship. Whose idea was this?

>>ProAm+51
It's amazing how quickly examples of the problem dang specifically mentioned have popped up, like this comment.

Assuming bad faith without evidence is a big part of the issue here.

>>ivraat+y1
Im not assuming bad faith, just said I was skeptical. YC is a business and they are very interested in making money. Since the CEO of YC was very outspoken against one political candidate and now there is a week long ban I was just curious. Ive always seem YC as very open to intelligent honest discussion, so a ban like this seemed odd to me. That's why I asked the question, I probably could have phrased it better.

>>ProAm+A2
> Im not assuming bad faith

You specifically asked "What's the ulterior motive here?" which implies you think there is an ulterior motive. An ulterior motive would be acting in bad faith, since it would by definition be different than the expressed motive, since the reasoning was clearly expressed above.

Presentation matters. Whether you meant it to be or not, your statement is somewhat inflammatory, for the reasons I just outlined. In my opinion, it's also a very good reason why the temporary ban is a good idea.

>>kbenso+o5
I don't believe bad faith as being the same as having ulterior motive, but we'd just be arguing semantics at that point. It'd be the same as assuming temporary ban = temporary censorship.

>>ProAm+Cf
> I don't believe bad faith as being the same as having ulterior motive

I was very specific to outline an additional condition which I think makes all the difference, which is that you were presented with the reason for the action. Assuming an ulterior motive when you've already been given an explicit motive is assuming they are acting in bad faith, and that that they've provided a reason that does not match reality.

>>kbenso+Dg
Just because someone tells you the truth, it doesn't mean they are telling you the whole truth. I find this especially applicable in business. Companies the size and value of YC, I can easily see how we might get half the story sometimes. That was the basis of my question, I was skeptical about the reason dang gave hence the question.

>>ProAm+ki
You didn't question if there was an ulterior motive, you asked what it was. That's begging the question[1]. It's similar (in type, if not extremity) to asking "Have you beat your wife again?" Note how the question presupposes the person has beat their wife already. Your statement presupposes there is an ulterior motive, rather than asking if there is one. There is a distinct difference in the statements "Is there an ulterior motive?" and "What is the ulterior motive?". You may not have intended this, which is why my first reply specifically addressed that it may have been unintentional.

> I was skeptical about the reason dang

As to this, I'm not sure I have the same skepticism you do in this regard. HN has a history of flagging overly political stories, as it can often be hard to keep discussion civil. There seems to be less flagging of these as the election gets close, as it's more relevant to everyone involved, but trying to cut back after the election is past seems appropriate to me.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

>>kbenso+Om
But I don't even have a wife! Joking aside, we're arguing narratives and semantics. I do see your point and very early on admitted I could have phrased it better, I still stand by my original questions.

> There seems to be less flagging of these as the election gets close, as it's more relevant to everyone involved, but trying to cut back after the election is past seems appropriate to me.

I go back and forth on this one for a few reasons. Political diatribes are irritating and usually fruitless, but this is a very different election (and so far post election). The mere fact that the president-elect wants to increase tariffs, limit H1B visas, penalize moving business off-shore is very pertinent to the tech industry, so I think discussion on those topics are 'fair game' in the HN-sphere of discussion. In one hand I see what dang is trying to accomplish, at least I think I do, by making comments on HN less sharp and more tolerable/friendly, but in the other hand for the most part HN users have intelligent, useful conversations and as long as there is civil discussion a ban seems unnecessary.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, but if there is an ulterior motive I'd be more comfortable knowing that it exists and why it exists... it's always helpful to 'know your audience'. I didnt mean to be accusatory in any manner, more just curious.