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."
Is this the same Ellen Pao that sued for sexual harassment against a guy who she actually had sex with?
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.
Yes, and her black husband sued the building where they live for racial discrimination because the board refuse to let him buy a FOURTH condo in the building.
Those are real people, isn't that amazing.
lucm, indeed.
No, 'gayness' is an affectation. You can have sex with whomever you want and you don't have to adopt the beliefs of any particular subculture.
But if you want to posture as a member of an oppressed subculture and get the benefits of belonging to said group, you join up and there's a whole prefab identity waiting for you to put it on.
Anything projected onto the Clintons could only make them appear better. Seriously, they are as low as it gets.
Dramatic Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting "Anarchy" At Trump Rallies.
THIS is what the Clinton campaign does. Not too hard to believe these are the same types of agents she has working for her that pulled that terrorist firebombing of the GOP office.
Anyone who knows that this is how things work and STILL supports her, is a monster. Don't like Trump? Fine, don't vote for him. But if you vote for the DNC, you've got no morals. You are supporting evil.
Keep an eye on NBC's Matt Lauer. He apparently "embarrassed" Hillary by asking her an interview question that she wasn't fed the answer to ahead of time and she is furious about it and went on a tirade and screamed about having him fired.
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?
This is one of the things I find the most annoying about Trump's detractors. They stick labels on shit that make no fucking sense.
Is Trump bigoted? Yes.
Is Trump xenophobic? Yes.
Is Trump islamophobic? Yes.
Is Trump sexist? Yes.
Is Trump racist? No.
Is Trump homophobic? No.
But yet he gets accused of the later two often anyways. (No, I'm not a Trump supporter.)
What's especially annoying about it is that most of the time when the media (and/or social media) calls "racist", it actually isn't, and you roll your eyes, which makes it so that when actual racist things happen, you tend to just want to ignore it because they're probably either making shit up or grossly misinterpreting somebody's actions. Take this for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, I mean people on the anti-establishment side, the Leave campaigners who pushed a message similar to Trump's - blaming immigrants and promising to keep them out, claiming to not be part of the political elite and established ruling class.
While they do have some legitimate points about those things, the problem is that the way they framed their arguments created massive division. Not just political disagreement, it goes far beyond that. One side is outraged at what they see as overt xenophobia and closed-mindedness, the other is upset that they think their legitimate complaints are being ignored or branded racist.
On top of that, the changes that the Leave side were proposing, which we now have to live with, are economy-breaking and almost impossible to undo. They are so huge and their on-going nature means that neither side can move on after the result, they both have to continue the fight - either to salvage the situation with independence/cancelling Brexit/soft Brexit or ensuring a hard Brexit/deporting foreigners depending on the side.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC