zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. throwa+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-31 17:46:41
Why the double standard? Why should or shouldn't it be couth for someone to talk about their political positions? Everyone is a human, and you don't get anything done in politics unless there is mass action, which means we must have conversations, public AND private, about politics.

I'm sorry, if you are like "I'm glad they gave me the money and the label" and can't take it when someone associated makes an embarassing human moment, you are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. Do better.

replies(4): >>smolde+t1 >>skeete+34 >>r00fus+X91 >>specia+dA1
◧
2. smolde+t1[view] [source] 2024-01-31 17:53:11
>>throwa+(OP)
I don't think the parent wants to eat their cake and have it too; they're torn between having the credentials or abandoning them because it's embarassing. And who can blame them? I've never said the words "Y Combinator" outside the West coast and got a positive reaction.

YC can have political opinions, but they should acknowledge the opportunity cost of putting their politics before their community. Behavior like the one linked in the OP is incredibly petty and probably should make the associated parties feel bad about working with that kind of person. Lord knows I feel ashamed to be an HN user today.

◧
3. skeete+34[view] [source] 2024-01-31 18:05:31
>>throwa+(OP)
because they want the signal to come from what YC has accomplished and represents, not the personal opinions of someone associated with them who's leveraging his unrelated benefits in a socially very unacceptable way.
◧
4. r00fus+X91[view] [source] 2024-02-01 00:15:57
>>throwa+(OP)
Do better? No, Tan and YC need to understand this will impact their image.

Free speech has consequences. And speech that has unhinged threats (even if it has a disclaimer that it's not) has potential consequences with law enforcement.

I don't think it's out of line for someone who's investing their time and effort into an organization to be critical of leadership.

replies(1): >>throwa+FD1
◧
5. specia+dA1[view] [source] 2024-02-01 05:31:09
>>throwa+(OP)
Are you suggesting branding is irrelevant?
◧◩
6. throwa+FD1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-01 06:15:45
>>r00fus+X91
nobody is saying free speech doesn't have consequences. I'm saying taking money and reputation has consequences too.
replies(1): >>PeterS+kM1
◧◩◪
7. PeterS+kM1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-01 08:03:02
>>throwa+FD1
But at what point do 'consequences' start to negate the 'free' in speech?

I'd argue you have reached the limits of free speach the moment there are consequences for just the speech.

[go to top]