Slashdot Mirror
Project Include Drops Y Combinator As Peter Thiel Pledges $1.25 Million To Trump (theverge.com)
Peter Thiel's support for U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has given Silicon Valley a headache. This past weekend, Thiel donated $1.25 million to his campaign, which is driving away partners from Thiel's Silicon Valley accelerator, Y Combinator. Today, Project Include, a community for building meaningful, enduring diversity and inclusion into tech companies, said that it would no longer work with Y Combinator startups. "Thiel's actions are in direct conflict with our values at Project Include," the group's co-founder, Ellen Pao, wrote in a Medium post. "Because of this continued connection to YC, we are compelled to break off our relationship with YC." The Verge reports: Founded in 2005, Y Combinator has incubated some of the biggest tech companies of the past decade, including Airbnb, Dropbox, and Stripe. It faced a barrage of criticism over the weekend for refusing to dissociate itself from Thiel, who took an advisory role with the organization in 2015. In a series of tweets, YC's president stood by Thiel. "Cutting off opposing viewpoints leads to extremism and will not get us the country we want," Sam Altman wrote. "Diversity of opinion is painful but critical to the health of a democratic society. We can't start purging people for political support." In her post, Pao rejected the idea that Thiel's donation could be dismissed as political speech. "We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence," she wrote. "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable. His attacks on black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe."
dropbox? seriously?
He does have sex with men, but he isn't part of the culture. It's disingenuous to call him gay.
I don't need to know the underlying issue. If Ellen Pao is involved, I'm rooting for the other side.
Also really the Clintonazis are getting less and less subtle nowadays.
lucm, indeed.
All this is is more virtue signaling; heaven forbid the other silicon valley lefties do not publicly show their disapproval. It's this public displays that lefties live for, after all.
Founded in 2005, Y Drumpfinator has incubated some of the biggest tech companies of the past decade, including Drumpfbnb, Dropdrumpf, and Drumpfripe. It faced a barrage of criticism over the weekend for refusing to dissociate itself from Thidrumpfel, who took an advisory role with the organization in 2015. In a series of tweets, YD's president stood by Thidrumpfel. "Cutting off opposing viewpoints leads to extremism and will not get us the country we want," Sam Altdrumpf wrote. "Diversity of opinion is painful but critical to the health of a drumpfocratic society. We can't start purging people for political support." In her post, Padrumpfo rejected the idea that Thidrumpfel's donation could be dismissed as political speech. "We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on drumpf policy, this is advocating hatred and violence," she wrote. "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable. His attacks on black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe."
I wasn't aware the "culture" of being gay meant you had to be a blind sheep and vote for every Democrat, no matter how much they hate gay culture...
The funny thing is if you really supported "gay culture" you would vote for Trump. Hillary will not do a thing for gay people because she already has their vote.
Trump meanwhile is fine with gay marriage, and if you voted for Trump it would mean one more Republican in power than there was before who supports people who are gay... Err I mean sleep with other men, since your litmus test would mean that "gay" people were only a subset of men who slept with men whereas Trump supports ALL men who have sex with men, not just a chosen few.
Vote Trump for more sex.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's all you had to say. /non-story
Really quite fucking simply, attack the policies and investigate and report on the politicians. The supporters you leave right the fuck alone because democracy and free choice, you leave the supporters right the fuck alone because otherwise you are anti-democratic, anti-freedom and pro-arsehole.
Don't care who they support as long as they are doing it legally and not seeking to buy elections. That liberal progressives are launching this kind of attack means they are complete and utterly fake Liberal Progressives and are actually corporate stooges, right wing arseholes (jeebus, WTF, I am having to defend right wing supporters from left wing attacks because the left wing attackers are not actually left wing attackers but just right wing fakers pretending to be left wing).
When a politician chooses to call voters deplorable, guess who the deplorable person really is and it ain't those voters being slandered (that politician is also far right and most definitely not a Liberal Progressives, stop fucking lying).
I will always strive to protect voters from corrupt politicians, regardless of whether or not I disagree with the political choices of those voters, I am not a fake left winger.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Why did I never hear of it before seeing this story? Have I been living under a rock? Did I miss something important?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Is this the same Ellen Pao that sued for sexual harassment against a guy who she actually had sex with?
The libtard democrats have got to be some of the most intolerant people around. All this because Thiel donated to Trump? What a bunch of horseshit. Anyone who blindly supports HRC and tries to stigmatize supporters of her opponent are typical hypocrite scumbags.
And not trying to bomb an apartment complex in Kansas or setting a Reichstag fire in North Carolina.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's important to remember that even if you hate Trump, a lot of people really do support him, and their reasons aren't all irrational. I am willing to bet that the reason Peter Thiel supports Trump has nothing to do with homophobia, or even hate. Attacking his supporters like this does nothing but shut down communication, which is the only way we can ever overcome our differences.
That goes for Clinton supporters, too.
Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
Peter Thiel is proving that even idiots can become billionaires.
Ellen Pao should cut ties with the American public, because a large portion of them support Trump and therefore she equates them with "advocating hatred and violence" and "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people".
Incidentally, Hillary also strikes fear in the hearts of many people, and makes them feel unsafe.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
From their website:
We want to help. For those CEOs who care about these issues but are overwhelmed by the choices, we want to provide our perspectives, recommendations, materials, and tools to help CEOs and their teams build a concrete strategy, framework, and plan with specific actions.
If you're a CEO of a startup and you invite Project Include into your company, you will never ever be able to diverge from their "recommendations" because if you do you'll be branded a racist, misogynist, etc., etc. You'll lose control to hire whoever you want to fill a job position; to contract with other companies or clients that don't have diversity quotas, or conduct other business related matters without running it though Project Include's framework.
Progressives have been bigoted fascists from day one (see Woodrow Wilson's Presidency).
When a politician chooses to call voters deplorable, guess who the deplorable person really is and it ain't those voters being slandered
So what you're saying is that politicians should always pander to voters, and never stand by their own moral principles in rejecting the vicious howls of the rampaging mob?
This does seem to be a generic statement, rather than a particular grievance, so I just want to know if I am reading you right.
Who gives a shit, its Ellen Pao.
On that point, here are a couple of more examples.
Democrats hired protesters to get into fights at Trump rallys, to give the appearance that Trump supporters are violent thugs.
From that article, note that one of the hired protesters filed suit against a Trump supporter claiming that she was punched in the face. The first cited article has a secret recording of the person hired to orchestrate the fights, where he mentions that the protester was one of his group.
(And here she is after the incident, smiling, with no evidence of bruising or injury.)
Also of note, Scott Adams got shadowbanned from twitter, for no apparent reason, and has seen invitations for speaking go from several per month (for decades) to none. He estimates that blogging about the election has cost him $1 million in speaking fees alone.
And of course, after all that people started leaving fake bad reviews of his book.
Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election. We don't put naked statues of Hillary in cities, or have billboards of her kissing Huma Abedin, or make comparisons of her to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, or Cthulhu.
This is the 3-week mark where all civil discourse goes to hell, both IRL and on this blog.
Expect things to get much *much* worse.
'nuff said.
>Also I'm totally gay and hiding it, gay gay gay, but if you out me
Thiel was in Saudi Arabia when the Gawker article came out. Literally put his life in danger.
Thought she got completely discredited, how in hell did she get another job making more than minimum wage?
Project Include? More like Project Usurp.
all, and claims to stand for free speech people on the left are going out of their way to show that they are just as bigoted and unwilling to cooperate as they claim the people on the right are. I am starting to wonder if we would not be better off as two (or more) countries.
I understand that YC is a group of venture capitalists. What the heck does Pao's group actually provide for their partners? Their website makes it sound like they're diversity consultants, but this is the kind of thing that Slashdot should have included in the summary. Is Pao's group actually helping startups, or is this just an activist group glomming on and getting some publicity?
SiVal loves it some socjus I guess.. Not much different than mozilla firing brendan eich because he donated "the wrong way", making some special snowflakes "feel uncomfortable." The fact ellen pao is involved should not surprise anyone.
Anyone who engenders hate against any group is capable of targeting you too.
We better know who the veeps are, although the party is in charge, not the person. But with Queen Hillary taking warfarin for god only knows what reasons (she is in good health, isn't she??), I would want to vote for the Veeps.
Another four years of socialism...
Pao not messing with your startup sounds like a substantial benefit to me. Thiel got his money's worth right there.
Looking at Pao's staff, I'd also suggest that she work on diversity at her own company a bit before lecturing others.
Is there evidence that the NC firebombing was in fact a false flag op?
I too find it suspicious, but haven't seen any supporting evidence as yet.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I doubt that we're going to get any before the election. I can't imagine North Carolina law enforcement is going to bust their ass on this one.
You are welcome on my lawn.
imdb being targeted by anonymous retard kids from brazil for profit. one is the classic turd helena and her crooked cop daddy. and you know the rule: there's no such a thing known as an honest cop on brazil.
Anyone who engenders hate against any group
And THAT is why I'm not voting for Clinton.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I won't be voting for Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton and I'm part of a minority both candidates have targeted. The idea that one can't contribute to whatever campaigns they like or speak freely goes against the very notion of freedom and liberty. I don't like Donald Trump, but I wouldn't stop doing business with somebody because they do. To attack someone for that is morally wrong. It would be wrong to attack someone for supporting Hitler too and I'd have been in one of those concentration camps had I lived at that time in Germany.
Humorously, I, a minority, was attacked in a similar way for defending Jacob Appelbaum (signed a letter in defence of him here: https://ourresponse.org/) whom the Tor Project found complaints to be unfounded. Then a publicity campaign to end his career came out and totally an utterly without any foundation or evidence managed to end it. It's little more than mob rule by people who want a nanny state.
I want a free state. I don't want 'hate crime' laws which do little but amplify the power of the state to victimise a minority view point (ie those who hate people like me). You don't need hate crime laws to prosecute someone for killing another human being and one excuse for violence is no better than another (including government and the government is the best at creating real victims out of people, by real I mean they use violence, theft, and so on to achieve political goals, of which may be admirable or not, but for which are achieved via immoral means, violence, theft, etc). Everybody should be treated equally and you shouldn't favour black people, LGBT folks, or Mexicans.
If you want to live in a free society the only way we're going to accomplish that is if more people join the free state migration project (we're a good way to taking over New Hampshire, a low population state, 10% of 20,000 signers have moved, plus more already were here, and we don't need to dominate the population, just have an undue influence on it):
http://www.freestateproject.org/
I for one was relieved to see one my SJW queen's behind this muscular message against the evil 50% of the people in this country that are stupid, intolerant, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, impotent and frankly should be gassed. Long live Hillary!
But really I couldn't care less what Ellen Pao says or does.
Also, this Silicon Valley groupthink requirement is getting ridiculous.
#DeleteChrome
Not just that, Democrats of the DNC have been giving his Perfume "Success by Trump" bad revues just to spite him.
"Success By Trump captures the spirit of the driven man. The scent is an inspiring blend of fresh juniper and iced red currant, brushed with hints of coriander. As it evolves, the mix of frozen ginger, fresh bamboo leaves and geranium emerge taking center stage, while a masculine combination of rich vetiver, tonka bean, birchwood and musk create a powerful presence throughout wear."
What's not to like?? Coriander, juniper, ginger. It's a masculine fragrance for a hardworking man who wants to be taken seriously.
Their fake negative reviews have caused Perfumania Holdings, Inc. the maker of his perfume to report losses quarter after quarter! So they're undermining an American brand company! I bet they're buying froo froo French or worse Chinese brands.
http://www.barrons.com/quote/stock/us/xnas/perf/financials
It's because Clinton is a crackhead that they're doing this. Trump was right, she belongs in jail. You can't have civil discourse with a crackhead. They don't know what success is. Success is tonka beans.
I'm not sure Ellen Pao promising she won't have anything to do with your startups from now on is quite the punishment she seems to think it is.
I did my Master's thesis on one of the lesser known Clinton scandals--corporate donations in exchange for changes to US technology export policies. The point of my research was not the scandal itself, but the impact on national security. Hillary Clinton's deep involvement led me to research the many other "gates" she has been involved with, most of which are well publicized, but not always understood. I firmly believe that she and her husband have committed multiple criminal acts that have jeopardized US economic and national security, while advancing their own wealth and power. My biggest concern with the thorough dismantling of Trump and all the vitriol directed toward him, deserved as it may be, is that it seems to have distracted the public memory of what scoundrels the Clintons are. I sincerely hope that should she be elected president, the public not lose sight of her scandalous past and hold her to the tight scrutiny she has earned.
Nobody else has the balls to publish anything negative about Clinton, no matter how damning or well-sourced. Desperate times, desperate measures. Read between the lines, like Soviet citizens did with Pravda.
And *I* wasn't aware that a penis in a rectum is "sex".
That is DEFINITELY not what *she* said!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While all of us believe in the ideas of free speech
Everyone says this... few actually mean it.
and open platforms, we draw a line here. We agree that people shouldnâ(TM)t be fired for their political views, but
this isnâ(TM)t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence
Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable
Roughly half the voting country will be advocating hatred, violence and giving power to Trump when they go to the polls and vote Trump in the next few weeks including roughly 3 million who gave him money.
Doesn't that blow your mind? How do you sleep at night knowing close to half the country is a basket of ***ist ***phobe advocates of hatred and violence?
How can you not be constantly "triggered" knowing half the country actively supports Trump by voting for and advocating for him? You must be "terrified" beyond words. It must make you physically ill. How can you "feel safe"?
The deplorables aren't the ones who just like Trump's tax proposals better or think Washington needs an outsider.
No, the basket of deplorables is filled with KKK members, neo-nazis, people who want to repeal the 19th Amendment, and so on.
Face it -- a whole hell of a lot of Trump supporters believe nonsense like Obama wasn't born in this country, the election is rigged against him, and Hillary has some secret crippling disease.
dom
Everything you just complained about is even worse at Breitbart since Andrew Breitbart died.
The website is now literally run by Trump's campaign staff. No, really, Steve Bannon is both executive chairman at Breitbart and CEO of Donald Trump presidential campaign.
I notice you didn't say that the claims made were false.
Was that on purpose?
Why do the people who scream "diversity" really hate Diversity of Opinion ? (the only diversity that actually matters!).
It is interesting to see Chairman Pao's hand in this - she has become an even more intolerant "Thought Crime" fascist. Time to remind her what Free Speech actually means.
Well ... there is a correlation between debt/deficit and women's liberation.
Just saying. Women cost the government far more than men.
In fact... men don't cost the government anything. They're net payers of taxes.
Women are net tax recipients.
The numbers are what the numbers are, no matter how politically incorrect the conversation.
Trump doesn't have any.
But you'll talk your theory up.
Go team.
Did she promise you a cabinet position, or better kneepads or something?
Oddly enough that is why a lot of people support Trump; they have no job or a job that barely pays the bills and FEEL Unsafe.
You base that on your own biases, not on evidence. This is because evidence says that Hillary's team has been inciting violence here. I mean, we have videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And if you look up the woman in the video, well, you can see that she's on Hillary's payroll. I mean, unless you're going to say the FEC is lying now? Just look at how they paid her to be at the protests and what she did there:
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb...
And here's the leak to tie it together: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
It's on video. We saw her in the Arizona protests, blocking the road. It was in the media. How, pray tell, are you going to make this one out to be a false flag?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Did I miss something? Y Combinator used to be Paul Graham's organization. I searched the Wikipedia article and couldn't even find Peter Thiel mentioned. I never heard him mentioned in conjunction with Y Combinator until just very recently. What exactly is his relation to it?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
If the US were to completely withdraw from military projection, it would lose a lot of diplomatic clout; It is the threat of economic OR military consequences that gives diplomacy its teeth.
Lets just have the democrats be the ruling party of the United States. They can take care of everyone for the greater good. The party leaders will determine what is in the interest of the community... We can call it "communism".
Seriously, this blacklisting of people for even daring to support anything but the democrats has grown grotesque.
And to make things sadder, we have evidence that the democrats rigged their primaries to get Hillary the nomination. Which means you're not merely a bastard for voting for something besides the democrats but you're also a bastard for voting for the democratic candidate that wasn't picked by the party bosses.
That's fucked up, gents. And if you keep buying into this shit, then the democracy is gone. We're all back to being peasants again as we will have proven ourselves to be unworthy of being anything more than that.
Cue the gaggle of retarded ACs that will either call me a literal nazi for suggesting that democracy requires freedom of speech, freedom of political thought, and freedom to express that in a politically effective way... and if they don't call me a Nazi they'll instead suggest I'm a brain washed sub human zombie because I don't do exactly what I'm told to do by our lords and masters.
People... I'm not saying you have to vote one way or the other on anything. Vote your own personal conscience. However, that very sentiment I issue there is predicated on the perpetuation of our republic. Should the republic be subverted to such an extent that the will of the people is truly meaningless... Your opinion about anything will at that point equal zero. Your feelings or interests or will or thoughts... of no value. So for the preservation of your own ability to even matter in the first place... I would ask you consider whether you should be voting for a political agenda that goes out of its way to silence any dissent. Today that opposition might be someone you disagree with... but tomorrow that might be you. And when that rolls through who will be there to save you? Because what we're seeing out of the modern DNC... is fascism. We're seeing orchestrated "brown shirt" type operations. Collisions between industry, government, law enforcement, foreign governments, the media.
I'm not saying you have to change the way you feel about any particular issue. I rather draw your attention to the character of the modern DNC... to their morality and ethics. This is who apparently many of us wish to rule the United States. "these" people.
if anyone is at all curious, my own desire is to devolve powers to the states and out of the Federal Government. Let Oregon run Oregon. Let Maine run Maine. Concentrating all that power in Washington is going to lead to an Emperor, a civil war, a grand national collapse, some combination of the above, or various other unpleasant consequences I haven't enumerated.
This is not sustainable. It has to stop. The level of corruption on display is crying out for some response... and it will come. From the top or the bottom... from without or within. This is going to end one way or another. I believe the best solution is to reduce the value of the prize so that there are fewer assholes drawn to the power. Absent that... I think we're headed for bad times. And I don't think vilifying what remains of the democracy is helping.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Supporting Trump is about stopping Hillary Clinton, which isn't the worst judgment call that anyone could make in their lives.
True, Trump is horrid, but then Hillary . . . she's even worse.
Seriously, how could you look at Clinton and contend that anything but her and her campaign is "the darkness"? She isn't going to do anything but run the country into the ground as she siphons off wealth and distributes it to her cronies. That's who she is, that's what she does.
If the Dems had wanted a left-wing woman with policies close to (but not quite as liberal as) Bernie Sanders' they should have run Elizabeth Warren who at least has scintilla of credibility. Everyone knows what Hillary is after, what she does, and so forth. She truly is as bad as all the critics make her out to be, and she's playing up the Trump-is-a-racist angle since she knows she can't win on her own.
Warren would be winning double digits on a clean campaign. What a terrible mistake the Democrats have made here.
Clinton is as vile (and racist) a Human as any person (if you can call her that) on the planet. After calling young 'black' men "super predators" to assist a FALSE conviction of a bunch of kids for a gang rape in a NY park (much later the REAL rapist was discovered), she went on to describe the long standing 'black' population in Libya as "Gaddaffi's mercenaries", which led to a much under-reported mass slaughter during the mad war-monger's destruction of that nation.
Only today, in preparation for Clinton's war in Syria (where the Human Race better pray the Russians back down, else it's WW3), the UK government began the process of banning RT (the Russia Today news service).
Trump is a standard 'alpha male' business man, of a right wing LIBERAL pursasion- whose 'tabloid' outbursts are just an act meant to project a characture of an ideal everyman Republican candidate. He would be as harmless in office as other 'showbiz' types like Ventura, Schwartzennegge(sp?), or Eastwood. His 'attitude' to women differs not one jot from every other male president. However, Bill Clinton is the only mass rapist, since slavery ended, to be president.
Clinton is a female Tony Blair- a black-hearted pure evil entity. The plan was for the Republican party to run a hopeless candidate against her to guarantee her victory (the two party system is an illusion). Trump blew this plan apart, which is why the mainstream media has run this unprecedented 'hate' campaign against Trump, proving once and for all that the media machine is simply the propaganda arm of the Deep State, 1984 fashion. Even now, with the utterly rigged 'polls', we have no idea how well Trump is doing- but given the massive rise of co-ordinated vitriol against him, Google et al must be reporting back that Trump still looks like he's going to win.
When did he attack Jews? He attacked the media and large banking/investment groups, but that's not the same as attacking Jews.
Shut up you sack of dog shit.
Trump doesn't have any.
Of course he hasn't. He cannot stick to one standpoint long enough for it to be considered a policy. He has the attention span of a goldfish and changes his "truth of the day" to whatever he fancies right now no matter the consequences.
is a vote for WW3
Actually, what they're doing is the definition of liberal progressivism, also known as "regressive liberalism". I had to look it up because I wanted to know why I, a traditional liberal (free as in speech), was getting lumped in with all the "check your privilege" types. And while I agree that it appears anti-democratic for one company to severe ties with another due to ideological differences, both parties are exercising their freedom of choice. Believe it or not, it's actually logically consistent. It's just one more casualty of this toxic election.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
The last thing any startup needs is a pack of Ellen Pao's incompetent guilt-peddlers distracting people from the work they need to do.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm curious, do you think Trump got the money he has by being generous to people other than himself?
I only ask as you said you think Clinton would take money for herself and her 'cronies', but I can't think of many super rich folk who don't essentially follow that ethos themselves.
"We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence,"
Is it just me or is she actually saying "We shouldn't fire people for political beliefs, but let's fire people for their political beliefs" ? As head of a company focused on making money off diversity and inclusivity, Pao doesn't seem very inclusive of diverse views.
Really? Technology export policies are the stupidest goddamn thing since the 220-volt rubber duck. They hamstring American productivity while turning the keys to the future, almost literally, over to China.
If I thought that Clinton would get rid of EAR and ITAR, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, just for that reason alone.
Incidentally, Hillary also strikes fear in the hearts of many people, and makes them feel unsafe.
You got that right. Her war-mongering is really worrying.
Grab them by th pussy = ok
Grab them by the wallet = not ok
Yeah, fuck off, PC nazis.
Thiel was in Saudi Arabia when the Gawker article came out. Literally put his life in danger.
So? He's not a Saudi citizen so unless he was caught there fucking other men, why would they harm him, a wealthy American?
Fuck, over here in Europe, we're scared bejesus-style that Secretary-of-State Bomb-Everyone H. Clinton will be your next president.
She's supported and goaded the destabilisation of several countries already, with the connivance of God-Bless-The-Nobel-Laureate Dronestrike-The-Fuckers Obama, arming, financing and training terrorists willy-nilly.
It's not looking very positive for anyone when Trump represents the world's best chance of avoiding a nuclear exchange.
It's just that the connotations changed over time, making "marriage" somehow a religious thing, with "civil union" being the same thing in practice - minus the religious connotations.
Thus, he switched his support for what seemed like a viable option. A bird in hand now.
From TFA:
Later years offered greater clarity - and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.
As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. ..."
I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.
I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.
He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.
What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. â¦
I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. â¦
Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.
Guy is a politician and a government official.
It's his job to find a compromise and push a consensus in the best interest of the citizens.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Reddit needed to make a policy change to keep the site profitable. They knew the changes would make fedora wearing neckbeards like yourself start foaming at the mouth so they made her the "fall guy". The changes were enacted and your anger was directed towards her instead of the site. Mission accomplished.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
More and more, on more and more issues that even tangentially impinge on White Male Privilege, Slashdot postings start to read like a thread on Stormfront.
Yes the KKK, a proud and historic sub organization of the Democratic party.
You should avoid mixing business and politics even though they're closely intertwined. Never pledge support for any party or candidate. Instead, pledge support for actions proposed by any candidate or party.
Hillary does - let's ignore the Constitution on a few points, and do what she and her cronies want.
Umm, no.
We can only hope that if she wins that the repubs hold Congress to keep her under control.
Does Peter Thiel care?
Does anyone else at Y Combinator care?
I've never heard of Project Include, do they contribute anything of value?
Frankly, I have ZERO fucks to give about Project Include, or what anyone thinks of Peter Thiel's political leanings or contributions.
Seriously Slashdot, WHO FUCKING CARES?
So you're a euro and are upset with Americans trying to take a different path than the Europeans and proud of their distinct traditions and philosophies?
This is why increasingly we are disinterested in subsidizing your own freedom.
Shitting on the US is not in your interest, sport. The EU is collapsing and you are weak. You have a resurgent Russia to the East, a resurgent Islamic agenda to the south east... and your population and culture are so compromised that if a real nasty shock hits you... Well, god help you because I sure as fuck won't.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This is one of the best comments I have ever read on the subject of politics at /. and I'm grateful you called it out. These totalitarian tactics by the DNC and its operatives will lead to a breaking up of this republic in one way or another pretty much along the lines of whatever color the states lean today.
Might want to read up on Supreme Court rulings. Political donations are political speech and are protected by the First Amendment. Last time I checked Trump wasn't advocating for the take over of Syria.
This is a fine example of liberal tolerance, diversity, and inclusion.
What ever happened to respecting each others opinions even if we disagree, and having intelligent discourse about those disagreements?
Nowadays it seems like it's about nothing more than punishing nonconformance.
I guess when Ellen Pao talks about encouraging tolerance and diversity, she doesn't mean tolerance of other political views. Dissidence will not be tolerated.
(jeebus, WTF, I am having to defend right wing supporters from left wing attacks because the left wing attackers are not actually left wing attackers but just right wing fakers pretending to be left wing).
What does this even mean? "Right wing fakers"? I've seen this sentiment from a lot of Democrats in the US. If they don't agree with you, you must be right-wing. What kind of doublethink is that shit?
Supporting Trump is about stopping Hillary Clinton, which isn't the worst judgment call that anyone could make in their lives.
Worst? Perhaps not. There are decisons with immediately lethal consequences. Seems a pretty poor one, nonetheless.
True, Trump is horrid, but then Hillary . . . she's even worse.
That's what we've been told about Hillary since the nineties. And her husband. And Obama. And Carter. Yet somehow, it fails to take.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to be bent on convincing the world of his base vulgarity and viciousness. He wants to go beyond horrid.
Seriously, how could you look at Clinton and contend that anything but her and her campaign is "the darkness"? She isn't going to do anything but run the country into the ground as she siphons off wealth and distributes it to her cronies. That's who she is, that's what she does.
Man, you couldn't have a worse case for that if you tried. Her husband's administration had nowhere near the scandals and foibles of Bush or Reagan, yet you want us to believe this again.
When her opponent is Trump, a man who has made his career on gleeful pronouncements of greed and avarice? You complain the Democrats should have run Warren...who is just as despised on the right, to be honest, but don't seem to be able to state the problem with Trump?
If the Dems had wanted a left-wing woman with policies close to (but not quite as liberal as) Bernie Sanders' they should have run Elizabeth Warren who at least has scintilla of credibility.
Yeah, you don't know how badly Warren is hated, do you? But she wasn't running anyway.
Everyone knows what Hillary is after, what she does, and so forth.
So basically, you're running with Hillary is the devil meme because you can't offer anything else? We just all must know how terrible she is, for reasons.
I may think she's a moderate politician with little in the way of courage, but given the way the coubntry is balanced, that is not a bad thing.
She truly is as bad as all the critics make her out to be,
All of them? You don't think any of them go too far, or flat-out make shit up?
and she's playing up the Trump-is-a-racist angle since she knows she can't win on her own.
You mean Trump is beating the racist drum since he knows that is what his supporters want to hear. And so are his surrogates like Giuliani.
Warren would be winning double digits on a clean campaign. What a terrible mistake the Democrats have made here.
Now ask yourself why Trump isn't a mistake. He's losing by almost double digits, and may well be in a crater by election day.
I'll wait for your answer.
Me, I'm getting more and more inclined to think Hillary rigged the GOP election. If not for the fervent support from people I don't believe are actors, I'd be sure of it. As it stands, I only hope that Trump is the infection that the GOP needs to purge itself.
Imagine conservatives refusing to deal with a company because a female employee had an abortion. Why is the same behavior acceptable from the left. I consider myself to be part of the left and I am disgusted.
Trump doesn't have any.
But I'm voting for Trump because of his policies: BUILD WALL DEPORT ILLEGALS BAN MUSLIMS BOMB ISIS BEAT CHINA STOP TPP.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Ellen Pao, your 5 minutes are long over. You tried to pull this victimizing, 'think of everyone but the white men' routine before, and it blew up in your face when it came to light that YOU were the problem all along. Please move on with your life. You're not a social justice warrior, you're a gods damned bully, and a predator.
Another shill pretending to speak for Europeans, when in fact most Europeans are aghast that we'd even let someone like Trump get the nomination.
For one thing, he's promised to withdraw from NATO. The only Europeans that are anxious to see that happen are Putin and his circle of mobsters.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Oh, I thought we had shills from Correcting the Record in online discussions. Where is the Trump equivalent?
So you advocate a new Russian Empire encompassing most of the continent, a European Caliphate, or a bit of each, eh? Thanks for letting us know where you stand.
Oh, the irony of a so-called inclusive project that seeks to exclude folks it disagrees with thus proving that inclusivity is not their goal but rather the power to force others to do their bidding.
Apparently diversity only relates to skin color, gender, and sexual orientation. No need to worry about diversity of opinion, beliefs, or political or moral outlooks on life. Those can only stunt your operations. Just skin color (preferably NOT white), gender (prefer NOT male) and sexual orientation (prefer not heterosexual) are what can get you diversity.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nope! Every single racist Democrat left and joined the Republicans. The Democrat party of today is as pure as the driven snow.
It's not necessarily that Breitbart makes false claims. I mean, sure, plenty of them are.
The rest are just half-truths.
They are trying to make it sound like the left is offended by Trumps use of the word "pussy", rather than his admission to criminal sexual assault.
No. we see right through it.
I'm waiting for the next incarnation of the Weather Underground from the 1970s.
These liberal faggots are reaching that level of crazy again.
Wasn't Clinton that started the fund. I have nothing against most other Democrats.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They going to Hate.
Go Trump. I am only for Trump because he is an outsider and I am tired of the Clinton machine robbing and lying and cheating their way through life. Tired of her choices killing good people.
This reminds me a bit of the novel Jennifer Government.
In the future, I wonder if the way we will put pressure on our politicians is by using our money to pressure commercial entities to support the candidates we do or don't like. Pepsi might be who you buy if you're a Democrat. Dell is for Republicans, etc.
We know they're all bought and paid for, but we can switch brands if they end up backing the wrong politicians. That would have them get smarter about who they support, etc.
Pao has been drinking the Koolaid for way too long.
Trust me, Hillary hates everyone, including minorities, just as much as Trump... she just puts on a happy face and pretends not to. And the Sheeple eat it up all day long.
Had a friend start a company. She was looking to brand herself as empowering women in a men dominated industry by hiring all women and wanted to not only advertise and broadcast that fact but get grants for said same purpose.
Not wanting to get into an argument I simply said to watch what she said or how explicit she was as I'm pretty sure that doing so isn't exactly legal.
I've noticed it elsewhere as well, where over the past several years the pendulum has swung in the totally other direction. Where almost all management and most hires are women now. Is this the end result of affirmative action, or just the other side of unconscious decision making processes where women start to outnumber men in manager (hiring) roles?
To further this argument, calling out political supporters is basically McCarthyism revisited. I'm not sure the "left" wants to revisit that era.
On the other hand, maybe this behavior is a natural reaction of narcissistic people holding the upper hand (aka the instinct to "bully"). The instinct of the bully is to attempt to undermine any support for the person being bullied by calling out and shaming/shunning anyone that shows any support for the target. By maintaining a culture of fear, the bully is able to project their power and further their agenda.
It may be natural, but we can be better than that. We *should* be better than that.
Boycotts, divestment, and disassociation are not at all undemocratic. And they are perfectly legitimate expressions of disagreement.
Look... you or anyone else absolutely have the right to be an asshole. Your own freedom of speech gives you that right. Your freedom of association gives you the right to support assholes. But you're not entitled to anything at all beyond that. *I* have the absolute right not to give you my money. My own freedom of association absolutely gives me the right not to support assholes. My own freedom of speech gives me the right to say so. You (or Donald Trump or Peter Thiel or Y-Combinator) are not at all entitled to anything from ME. And it's not undemocratic for me to associate with better people or to give my money to better businesses.
Imagine all the people...
Nope, David Duke is still a Republican.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I just note that we seem to be hearing quite a lot from anonymous cowards purporting to speak on behalf of all Europeans, claiming to support Trump while regurgitating Kremlin views.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Actually, what they're doing is the definition of liberal progressivism, also known as "regressive liberalism". I had to look it up because I wanted to know why I, a traditional liberal (free as in speech), was getting lumped in with all the "check your privilege" types. And while I agree that it appears anti-democratic for one company to severe ties with another due to ideological differences, both parties are exercising their freedom of choice. Believe it or not, it's actually logically consistent. It's just one more casualty of this toxic election.
That's simply because being a partisan is not a federally protected class... Actually, it's kind of weird that being a partisan isn't federally protected after that whole McCarthyism thing, but I guess that whole thing is a distant memory...
Blaming all startups now in or that came out of the incubator is completely and totally unjust. Thiel's private political decision, much as I disapprove, is not their responsibility or any of their doing. So punishing these startups for that is not just.
Pao rejected the idea that Thiel's donation could be dismissed as political speech. "We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence," she wrote. "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable. His attacks on black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe."
Pao ignores the fact that just like all the unsubstantiated claims against Trump by people who have worked with him Hillary has a list of accusers as well like her former Chef who says she call a staff member the N-word. Then we have now a nearly endless trail of documentation proving that the DNC arranged for violence at Trump rallies. Hillary can't be conclusively tied to that but given Schultz proved to be in her pocket in terms of rigging the primary elections against Bernie, its hard to imaging Hillary was not at least aware. Keep in mind Hillary never denounced the DNC for the racist e-mails, election tampering, possible voter fraud etc. The media somehow gives her a pass on this while Trump is 'required' by the media to explicit denounce any unsavory groups that endorse him.
Pao plainly does not have a deep understanding of this issues if she thinks making a campaign contribution to a major party candidate isn't political speech. If nothing else the argument you are supporting the platform and agenda not the man holds. People like Pao disgust me! She basically condemns anyone who does not agree with her and destroys them thru manufactured outrage. She does this knowing full well that the outrage machine happens to be aligned with here political views so she does not have to worry about this back firing.
We know the truth Ellen, you are where you are because people are afraid of you will accuse them of being misogynists or racists, or whatever people are most upset about next week and your media buddies will help you pile on and rail road that person no matter what the facts are. My guess is you have done this your entire career, you have probably been at it since before college. There are plenty of successful female executives out there who succeed by being good at what they do, people like you taint their achievements. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Sorry, the last time somebody tried to do that, they were a bunch of conservative bigots who were pissed off at losing a election so bad they went into full-on armed insurrection. It turned out badly for them, and discredited the practice. Though even with that, they still got another century of racially oriented abuse and oppression.
Besides, if you look at heat maps rather than just bicolor ones, you can see the real diversity. You'd have to do it on a house to house basis.
Sorry, no Jesusland for you. It'll never work. And globalisation is coming.
a joke, that's what they are
At least no one can accuse Project Include of being inclusive. That would be terrible. That would mean that they support tolerance, which would cause their world view to implode. I understand that they are better for supporting someone whose husband is a sexual predator, and is also a racist, and not disassociating from themselves. How inclusive of them.
He's got things he's bitching about not solutions thus no policies.
That you actually believe the wall thing is a bit of a worry though. Why do you believe the wall thing? Have you ever been outside a city or do you just have utterly no idea of what sort of scale is being spoken about?
How, exactly, do you 'attack the policies' when one side changes them as often as he changes his underwear? When he and his campaign manager and his VP nominee will all say radically different things on the same day, and then deny that there is any disagreement between them?
The trouble with Trump is not that he's the world's biggest douche, and virulently against basic democratic values such as respecting dissent and accepting the outcome of a free election. It's that he's so totally fucking incoherent it's impossible to tell what he claims to be for. His supporters even use this as a reason to support him. They say "of course he won't do what he says, what he really means is $MORE_REASONABLE_POSITION_I_JUST_ENTIRELY_MADE_UP _AND_AM_PROJECTING_ONTO_TRUMP_ON_NO_BASIS_WHATEVER." If you want to see how this works, just read Scott Adams' blog.
You spelled Trump incorrectly.
Google "donald trump constitution fail" for many details.
Here is a good article to show that Trump is the one you should be taking about but have been conned by a childish "she's doing it too" playground argument:
http://www.politico.com/magazi...
The Chinamen have a pretty sweet wall. WE CAN'T LET THE CHINESE BEAT US ON WALLS.
(fuck the lameness filter)
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You have it backwards. Old "India" which was a wide variety of states from moderately sized sultanates and empires, to small city-states and principalities was eventually united under British rule. Sorta. They did officially have an independence under the Emperor of India, namely the British monarch.
This was eliminated when the nations of India and Pakistan were formed, out of disparate blocks into a minimum of states.
Sorry I thought you were serious above. It's getting very difficult to tell the difference between some Trump advocates and a joke.
No, I'm serious, I want a wall. I think the idea that we can build the interstate highway system, send a man to the moon, but HOLY SHIT A WALL THAT'S CRAZY TALK is a ridiculous argument. Walls aren't hard.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
She ran Reddit into the ground by making it a hotbed of liberal idiocy and now she's trying to fuck up Silicon Valley.
This country is a joke.
Pax Vobiscum
Dumbass, check out your history. It was Republicans that gave women the vote. It was Republicans that freed the slaves, It was Republicans that sent in the Army to allow black school kids to go to a white school. It was Republicans that tried to pass the voting rights act, which Johnson defeated - THREE times! He later signed it kicking and screaming saying - "I'll have those N****** voting for democrats for the next 200 years." True, look it up.
Truth hurts when you know you've been lied to all your life I bet.
Than a tolerance advocate who disagrees with you.
It used to be if someone disagreed, you just chalked it up to differences unless it directly applied to the subject at hand.
I've gotten more hate from the Tolerance Police over small issues of difference than I have from racist relatives over my choice of friends.
Let that sink in: the actual racists are more tolerant of what other people do than the "inclusive" people.
This statement equally applies to Hillary Clinton.
Both are absolutely unacceptable, and I can not in good conscience vote for either of them, and won't.
I'm currently wavering between voting for Johnson, or writing in Cthulhu.
But this witch-hunt going after anyone who expresses support for Trump is outright fascism.
"An individual may give a maximum of: $2,700 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections. $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC."
Please explain how an individual can give such a large sum to a campaign and not violate the law?
Ok had to click through to the actual NYT article, it is split between a number of pacs and the campaign. So I guess I am to believe Trump won't be beholden to his few high ticket donors?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
"Project Include" is excluding someone because they are different.
Yes, I know they are excluding Y Combinator because The Donald is the antithesis of diversity and, therefore, his followers have no place in an org whose sole purpose is to champion diversity. However, you still have to admit the irony in a project named "Include" turning out to be exclusive.
Thad [unknown] said, "You don't have to like a person to support their First Amendment rights. If the First Amendment only applied to people we like, there'd be no need for a First Amendment at all."
Look up the southern strategy and their current racist nominee.
The parties ideology flipped in the 60's.
You might want to check your history. Today's Republican party has nothing in common with the party of Lincoln except the desire to suspend the constitution.
Captcha: Grabber
... You're the morons that created that situation.
The mishandling of Russian relations and the abandonment of Iraq lead to the current situation.
You people take no responsibility for anything.
Russia is a great power in the world and the cold war is over. We have an opportunity to ally and cooperate on common interests. The Europeans especially in the West are of almost no military value at this point. If we want aid in securing strategic peace in Eurasia, then we are greatly benefited by cooperation with Russia. Add to that, Eastern Europe which generally has a fierce determination to remain independent. We can use their interest to remain free... which we will support and reinforce as a bulwark against any future Russian adventurism whilst directing Russian power either to keep their sphere stable or to advance them into the middle east and various other places to maintain stability.
As to the Islamic Caliphate, that would be the stupid Fabians fucking that one up. Remember the Arab Spring? Remember Libya? Remember who left Iraq thus creating ISIS in the first place?
As to European Caliphates... that is the EU and Merkel. They opened their doors. They intentionally brought in hundreds of thousands of people that they didn't know, didn't vet, and by any half way rational estimation they had to know were full of radicals.
They did that. Not the US. And how you put that at the feet of Trump is baffling.
What is more, both Obama and Merkel are if anything doubling down on the whole thing. So if you want it continue... elect Hillary. Because she's going to try and do that to the US as well. We're already seeing forced settlements of "Syrian" refugees in the US contrary to the wishes of the local communities. They are given housing, they are given food... and everything is paid for with your tax dollars.
Look, keep it up. I'm not going to stay here whilst my country is destroyed around me. The Pacific is full of beautiful tropical islands. I will leave and sip fruity drinks with island girls if you idiots keep this crap up.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Did you read a different article than the one I read? I read an article that said a group decided to stop funding something because they didn't like the politics of someone associated with that something. You are claiming that the DNC is somehow involved with this, and I have not seen anything to support that. Do you have a source to the contrary?
So, can you do a net effect of this behavior on the social and political environment of area, the industry, and the nation?
Because what you're saying is that a chilling of the political climate where anyone that is a threat to the one party rule of the united states is effectively exiled or silenced is fine... So long as you do it a certain way.
So... one party rule is fine I guess. All hail Empress Clinton and her scion Chesley who will one day give birth to the future kings and queens of the Kingdom of America.
We either have a republic where people have freedom of expression or we don't. You want to play the game of "well they're just deciding"... fine... same thing happened with the Mozilla CEO. This is a pattern.
Humans have evolved to recognize patterns. It is a survival trait. Its one of the things we're good at. You're either bad at something that everyone else on this planet is good at... or you're just pretending to be stupid.
Which is it?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It appears that someone just asked you to provide a source to support your claim that the democratic party is behind this venture capitalist group's decision to stop funding something. It is agreed that the venture capitalists dropped their funding because the funded were connected to Trump, but the article that this story references never shows any evidence to support your claim that the democrats directly drove this.
You did not provide a source to support your claim, so it is reasonable to expect at this point that you have no such source. Why are you opposed to venture capitalists making their own decisions on what to fund?
We either have a republic where people have freedom of expression or we don't.
So apparently you either prefer one where they do not, or you have imagined out of thin air that we currently exist in one where they do not? Because you most certainly have not provided a source to support the notion that we actually are living in one like that.
Humans have evolved to recognize patterns.
Recognizing and imagining are not the same thing. Do you have evidence to support the democrats actually being behind this, or do you just simply want them to be behind it, and you are substituting your wishes for reality?
I didn't say the DNC ordered it so asking for evidence of a claim I didn't make is a strawman. I ignore strawmen. What you noticed was me not engaging with a logical fallacy.
As to sources, you're now conflating the strawman with a different argument tirely which means you're issuing your own strawman. I'm only noting that because you apparently don't know what a strawman is or why I'm not obligated to take it seriously.
As to patterns, what claim have I made that you can quote that relates to this issue that I have to validate. Keep in mind, if you demand any such thing I'll note some kind of claim you've made and demand a source as well just to discourage you from attempting to bog me down with link searching. A lot of people on these sorts of boards like to use that as a tactic. They just ask for sources for everything... why the sun rises in the east and then why it sets in the west. Why is water wet. Citation needed! Etc etc. And to contain that, I'm going to hold you to whatever standard you hold me to. You are not my auditor, you are not a judge, you're just another person on the internet. And if you want to play games, then I'll treat you as such.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
FYI, Hillary isn't quite a billionaire, but frankly isn't far behind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So, when you talk about Trump's money, it makes people wonder if you are willfully blind, or just ignorant.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?