Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2016 20:23 UTC
In the News

Marco Arment:

Y Combinator is extremely influential in tech startups and startup culture.

Peter Thiel, an investor who often participates in Y Combinator, is donating $1.25 million to Donald Trump's political efforts, which has incited outrage among the tech community with many calling for Y Combinator to sever ties with Thiel.

Y Combinator has apparently decided not to. President Sam Altman defended this position in a blog post, framed as a Clinton endorsement, that begins with a partial overview of how reprehensible and dangerous Trump is, but ends with a defense of continuing Thiel's involvement in Y Combinator that's effectively framed as a free-speech or tolerance issue.

I completely agree with Arment.

One thing doesn't sit entirely right with me about this, though. Y Combinator is getting a decent amount of flack for this, and rightly so - a sexual assaulter like Trump should be in prison, not in the White House. However, where's all the outrage about Tim Cook organising fundraisers for Donald Trump's political party? Why is that fact almost silently swept under the rug and brushed aside, but Y Combinator gets skewered for doing the same thing? Why is Tim Cook supporting Donald Trump okay, but Y Combinator not cutting ties with someone supporting Donald Trump not okay?

Is it, perhaps, because Apple and Tim Cook get graded on a curve, to use a phrase popular in the Apple blogosphere?

It's almost as inconsistent as iOS. I guess that runs deeper than I thought.

Permalink for comment 635742
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "Sexual assault"
by cade on Wed 19th Oct 2016 22:41 UTC in reply to "Sexual assault"
Member since:

Yeah, I was surprised too with this "sexual assaulter" wording (or claim ?).

Looks like euro-male (too-sensitive male ?) Thom would rather complain about Trump's "verbals" than Bill Clinton's physical indiscretions. It's as if Trump's "verbals" trump, pardon the pun, Hillary's war crimes.

Hillary represents a player in the establishment that has maintained a blow-back impaired (driven ?) foreign policy setup. This is the establishment that found it okay to be complicit in the starvation/murder of ~500,000 Iraqi childen during the sanctions imposed on Saddam back in 1990's (remember the Madeline Albright interview at around 1999 where she implied to the journalist that "yes" it was worth the risk to have those "casualties" in an attempt to topple Saddam).

How about the "Benghazi" coverup ?
How about the downing of Libya ?

If Trump represents a fracture from this establishment leading to avoidance of irresponsible conflict/blowback, servicing of the US debt, and other "good" things ..... then I think Trump's past faults concerning his lady-talk-lingo would be the least of our worries.

OTOH, we have the alpha-male Trump in the USA and the lack of a broad presence of alpha-males in the european-country-prime-minister category in addition to the many problems Europe is facing now.

Hmmmm ... get's you thinking.

Do you really think Trump's past "verbals" warrants
an attack from practically the whole mainstream media establishment (MME) ? Bill Clinton did worse.

I believe the MME and their government/etc. friends, powers-that-be (PTB), are worried about the "unknown"-ness of a Trump presidency.

Will Trump be a game changer or will Trump be the same as the "system" that has existed during the preceding decades ?

Such a "dilemma" for the PTB.

Time till tell ......

Reply Parent Score: -1