Project Include Drops Y Combinator As Peter Thiel Pledges $1.25 Million To Trump (theverge.com) 636
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."
Ellen Pao (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ellen Pao (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [youtube.com].
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If that happens the future will be like Firefly in that we'll all have to learn how to speak Chinese if we want to buy or sell anything. Do you REALLY want the US to have an economy smaller than Luxemburg?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that Trump cannot be pinned on any of the issues and does not really deliver on promises much,
Wait... What? What promises are you talking about? Unlike Clinton, Trump has not ever been a part of politics (directly). There's yet to be any broken promises from him.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ellen Pao (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that Trump cannot be pinned on any of the issues and does not really deliver on promises much,
Wait... What? What promises are you talking about? Unlike Clinton, Trump has not ever been a part of politics (directly). There's yet to be any broken promises from him.
That's an interesting way of spinning the fact that Trump has no political experience.
It's like saying that as someone with no medical qualifications whatsoever I'd make a good doctor because I haven't killed any patients yet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tso what?
Re:Ellen Pao (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ellen Pao is involved, I'm rooting for the other side
Ah yes, the maturity level of a twelve year old typical of many Slashdot posters, and moderators too evidently.
Pretty much the maturity level of Project Include towards Y Combinator, wouldn't you say? Or is it only considered childish if it's against something you support?
Re:Ellen Pao (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between calling your opponent a nazi or calling your opponent a 12-year old
Re:Ellen Pao (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody afraid of Trump is moron. Yes, he's sexist, he's racist, and he's just a complete jerk - but he hasn't "attacked" anyone, or threatened to implement any policies that should make anybody feel "threatened." He's not fueled by hate, he's fueled by greed and a sense of self grandeur, and when has he ever encouraged violence?
What people are afraid of is him becoming President and having his finger on foreign policy (and the nuclear button).
virtue signaling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:virtue signaling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Funny enough it's the same people who watch movies like Trumbo and are outraged by the actions of the HUAC and McCarthy. Bunch of hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care of someone votes for Trump, or for Hillary either. However given them $1.25 is a terrible waste of money. The smart investor would say "screw it, I'm spending my money on a ballot initiative instead of either of those bozos".
Re: (Score:2)
Virtue Signalling. Birtherism. Dog Whistle. Criminals. Rapists. Birth of a Nation. Alt Right.
Tax Returns. No Tax Returns. Bankruptcy. Big Tax Writeoff.
Delegitimize. Jail Her. Rigged.
Citizens United. Koch. Adelson. Money = Free Speech.
Bragging about groping.
Character.
How Sound Reasonable Politics Is Mean to Happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And not trying to bomb an apartment complex in Kansas or setting a Reichstag fire in North Carolina.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia did it? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?... [youtube.com]
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... [fec.gov]
And here's the leak to tie it together: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... [wikileaks.org]
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're trying to tell me that Hillary pays people that work for her campaign?
Lock her up.
Re: (Score:2)
> Wait, you're trying to tell me that Hillary pays people that work for her campaign?
Should I have realized that violence was your idea of normal campaign work? It kind of proves whose payroll she's on and then you can see the video of her talking about creating violence. I mean, you're already blaming people for a "Reichstag fire" when we have Democrats on Hillary's payroll on video creating violence.
Might want to re-examine that one a bit. I note that you did not, because you could not, argue with a
Re:Russia did it? (Score:5, Informative)
Almost forgot to give you the pictures connecting them: https://i.sli.mg/dNBRek.png [i.sli.mg]
And here's the YouTube video of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
She starts to appear around 17:35. Feel free to dispute any of the facts here, if you can. You can see it's the same person right down to the mole on her chest.
Re: (Score:2)
That goes for Clinton supporters, too.
More examples (Score:2, Interesting)
On that point, here are a couple of more examples.
Democrats hired protesters to get into fights [breitbart.com] 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 [breitbart.com] 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 [breitbart.com] after the incident, smiling, w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election.
That may be, but Trump is still a dangerous psychopath, far more dangerous than Clinton (who is, admittedly, pretty bad as far as candidates go).
Re:More examples (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election.
Wait, what? When I search google for "trump supporters" (and I really haven't been googling trump stuff) I get "Trump Supporter: 'Hillary Needs To Be Taken Out'", "Trump's supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies", "Why Trump supporters are getting so violent", and "The Night Trump Supporters "Found Me Out" As A Jew" on the first page of results. On page two I get "Maybe it was the photo of the guyâ"attending a Trump rally with his wife and small childrenâ"who opted to wear a âoeShe's a Cunt. Vote Trumpâ ..." as well as "Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist" and of course "Armed Donald Trump supporters caught menacing Democratic campaign office".
You're a liar.
We don't put naked statues of Hillary in cities,
There's plenty of naked Hillary memes.
or have billboards of her kissing Huma Abedin, or make comparisons of her to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, or Cthulhu.
What? Yes you do. You (since you want to be part of a group) compare her to hitler, stalin, and satan all the time. I see that shit daily. Sadly, often comments on my friends' posts.
Expect things to get much *much* worse.
So you mean Trump supporters will move up from assault and promoting genocide? Do you mean they will actually start murdering people?
I'm not a fan of the DNC, but you're spouting obvious falsehoods. Is it just trolling, do you want these nonsensical ideas debunks, or what?
Re: More examples (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They are mean to Hillary. They are bad.
Hur
Durr
Yes, seriously (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yes, seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
They gave it a bare minimum of coverage. As an example: most people don't know about wikileaks revelations, about immunity deals, about lying to the FBI, about destruction of evidence. Why is it that some dude gets prison time for merely taking a picture in the vicinity of something classified, yet HRC deliberately mishandles top secret info and gets off scot free?
Re:More examples (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] is both executive chairman at Breitbart and CEO of Donald Trump presidential campaign.
Was that on purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Was that on purpose? (Score:4, Informative)
I'll say it. I only bothered to look at the first link, but it's mostly based on references to other Breitbart articles and a video interview with someone who claims to be in the know but doesn't establish any credentials.
In other words it's the usual crap from Breitbart, utterly worthless without independent verification. Breitbart has a history of editing videos and so forth, verification is essential and lacking here.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't have any.
WTF is "Project Include"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why did I never hear of it before seeing this story? Have I been living under a rock? Did I miss something important?
Re:WTF is "Project Include"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF is "Project Include"? (Score:4, Funny)
Did I miss something important?
its just a mess of h-files. it might be important, or it might not, depending on what you are trying to build...
Re: (Score:2)
Your UID suggests that you might be too old to care very much about each passing fad. Project Include appears to be the corporate version of Dr. Kevorkian. Any company that is looking to exit this reality consults with them, and they are prescribed a poison pill. The poison then shuts down the productive organs of the company, transfers shareholder wealth to SJW causes, and the company then gradually fades away.
Hmm. Did Twitter work with them recently? Or is that the work of a copycat?
Ellen Pao (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ellen Pao (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same Ellen Pao that sued for sexual harassment against a guy who she actually had sex with?
I'm not sure about that, but it is the Ellen Pao who did poorly at her job and couldn't accept criticism, so she started a gender discrimination lawsuit.
It turns out she was just not that good at her job, but after failing at Reddit she has found a way to make a living from being a woman.
Re:Ellen Pao (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Ellen Pao should cut ties with the American public (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
People care what SJW Wllen Pao thinks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough with the SJW bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What does Project Include do? (Score:2)
an unexpected benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [projectinclude.org], I'd also suggest that she work on diversity at her own company a bit before lecturing others.
Re:an unexpected benefit (Score:4, Insightful)
holy shit - ALL women in her staff?
yeah, that's real 'diversity' right there.
as long as there are no white men, its ok. amiright?
damn, not even a token penis in the whole crowd.
I didn't think much of that pao woman before, but I think much less of her now. didn't even think it was possible.
Re: (Score:3)
It's only gender discrimination if it happens to a woman.
It's also only sexual assault if I think it is, even if I have been sleeping with the guy.
- Ellen.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, nobody ever complains about companies having a preponderance of males.
I was intending to do that thing where you hyperlink each word in a phrase to a different article supporting that phrase, but I couldn't be bothered, and frankly, it's unnecessary unless you're being deliberately ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
What? I'm sure some of the various ethnic-group females are lesbian. What other diversity is there?
I'm not a fan of Trump (Score:2)
But really I couldn't care less what Ellen Pao says or does.
Also, this Silicon Valley groupthink requirement is getting ridiculous.
That's Supposed to be a Deterent, Right? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Providing aid and comfort to Hitler (Score:2)
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 ad
I'm a little confused (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So you just stopped when you didn't find anything on WP?
No, I blabbed on Slashdot, like any good Slashdot reader. What'd you expect me to do, RTFM? :)
(The truth is I found the statement in the article that Thiel became an adviser in 2015, but I still thought it might make for a good discussion and went on and posted it anyway.)
Why have ademocracy at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, this blacklisting of people for even daring to support anything but the democrats has grown grotesque.
Dismiss this as a nitpick, but that's not accurate. It's blacklisting of people for even daring to support Trump, unless you have evidence that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein supporters are also being blacklisted.
Also, I disagree with you singling out the Democrats for actions that the Republicans are also guilty of, but that's an entirely different discussion. Full disclosure: I rarely vote for candidates put forth by either of the two major parties, and this year will be no exception.
Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same thing happened in the UK with Brexit.
You mean, people not voting the way they were told to?
Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Same thing happened in the UK with Brexit.
You mean, people not voting the way they were told to?
Oh no, they voted very much the way they were told to. Powerful messages full of outright lies riding on the back of racism combined with abusing a political event in a country at the other side of the union is a very powerful message, much more so than "life's not as bad as the other side say and we don't know what will happen if we leave". The marketing did exactly what it was supposed to, it's just a shame that the Remainers thought they were safe enough to not have a scary marketing campaign of lies as
Is there no slef-awareness left? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?... [youtube.com]
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:4, Informative)
The racism thing is probably because be refuses to dissociate himself with white supremacists and other overt, proud racists.
Re: (Score:3)
he's done a lot more than that.
https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:4, Insightful)
True, there is just so much stuff I had actually temporarily forgotten about the "Miss Housekeeping" thing. Trump is actually quite racist.
Now, just watch as people respond trying to claim that "Miss Housekeeping" isn't racist.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is actually. By their very definitions.
Not by people on the receiving end of that shit, it is not. That's privilege talking coming from you.
Re: "Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. Someone of another another race is not necessarily a foreigner... Or perhaps you've never visited the US?
Re: (Score:3)
so youre the coward who has confused facts with flamebait?
these things he has said and done. the source is irrelevant. they can verified through just about any source except maybe breitbart, and only because they're now working for him openly.
Re: "Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:3)
He didn't say that. He said that there were rapists, etc coming across the border - and in the same breath he said he was sure there were good people too. "There are criminals among those evading border controls" != "all Mexicans are rapists"
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually no, no it isn't. The people looking for shelter from western countries are the people Daesh is currently throwing of buildings and massacring.
You created a failed state and a power vacuum in the middle-east, which lead to the rise of a theocratic quasi-nation of murderous madmen who're killing their own countrymen and fellow muslims en masse, and then when this population of civilians escape helloholes like Aleppo in hopes of not getting blown to bits amidst all of the fighting, people put them in the same category as the heinous murderers that they're escaping from. It's ridiculous.
Now is it true that Daesh is trying to sneak some guys in with this flood of people? Yes, absolutely it's true. But does that mean that because a tiny fraction of the wave of immigrants might be evil, the west should abandon all shreds of humanism and let the civilians be crushed by conflict? Have you seen the shape Aleppo is in?
We're at a point, wherein we here in Finland with 1/50th of US population have taken as much refugees as the US (10 000), and we had NOTHING to do with starting this conflict in the first place, and the US is supposed to be the 'land of the brave' and somehow the epitome of western morality? If so, stop being a bunch of pussies and take some responsibility for your own actions and do something to help the people whose lives your well intentioned but horribly executed nation building exercise has totally fucked up.
Or should we just give up on you guys and amend that with 'unless they're brown people escaping a conflict we started, in that case FUCK THEM!'?
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden has 1/30th of the USA's population, and we've taken in 25,000 this year alone (so far). And that's down from previous years.
Source [migrationsverket.se]
And no, I'm not trying to start a dick-waving contest, just pointing out that Finland is not alone in this regard.
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're terrified on behalf of gay people, of which you are not. Somehow I suspect an ulterior political motive to that statement.
"Terrified" implies a threat. If you can find a Mike Pence position, or a position of any non-marginal Christian group at all, that rises to the level of a -threat-, do post it.
Mainstream Christianity won't do anything more aggressive to gay people than object to modifications to Christianity that would be satisfied when it no longer has any religious content. The only people r
Re: (Score:2)
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...
GP is mocking this recent article: http://www.advocate.com/commen... [advocate.com]
Which makes the argument that yes - if you don't blindly vote Democrat, you can no longer call yourself gay. Ridiculous I know, and the author is getting rightly castigated in the comments.
I can only hope that the author was paid enough be the Clinton campaign to make writing such tripe worthwhile.
People downvoting GP must be unaware of this push in doctrine.
And THAT.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who engenders hate against any group
And THAT is why I'm not voting for Clinton [nbcnews.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You didn't leave something out [bbc.com], did you?
Re:Trump is fine with gay marriage... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, with Hillary "marriage is between one man and one woman", she has already targeted us.
She only changed her tune when the majority of Americans started favoring gay marriage and her strategists worked out that it was now politically expedient for her to switch her position.
And that's what all her "public positions" are like: carefully crafted messages to voting blocs; once she's in power, she won't give a fuck about any of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, politicians change opinions often. Even Trump who is only marginally a politician. However most politicians change their opinions when public opinions change. Trump on the other hand changes his opinions every time he wakes up from a nap.
Not a Hillary fan, but you would at least hope that politicians are able to change their minds when the general public changes their minds as well. Do you really want a politician out there who say "I was in favor eugenics in 1936, and I'm not going to change my m
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want a politician out there who say "I was in favor eugenics in 1936, and I'm not going to change my mind just because it's 2016!"
Sure. Eugenics makes way more sense in 2016 than it did in 1936. Back then, the only way to change the gene pool was sterilization or extermination. Now, we can just directly edit defects out of our DNA.
Re:Trump is fine with gay marriage... (Score:4, Informative)
You are aware, I hope, that Planned Parenthood and the Abortion Industry for the most part was founded by Eugenicists? The stats even show them following forward with their program. There are a HELL of a lot more black babies aborted than their percentage of the population would suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's what all her "public positions" are like: carefully crafted messages to voting blocs; once she's in power, she won't give a fuck about any of that.
Our election is, once again, between A) "candidate who says what I like to hear, but probably won't do it" and B) "candidate who says what I hate and will certainly do it".
I agree that Clinton is clearly option A), but that is still not enough of an argument to support option B).
Also, don't Supreme Court judges change their mind based on popular opinion? (e.g., gay marriage)
Re:Trump is fine with gay marriage... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Obama's case is more interesting. In 1996, running for Illinois state Senate, he was pro gay marriage. Later, when he was running for US Senate and the presidency, he was anti. In 2012 he switched back to pro.
source [politifact.com]
He was clearly always pro gay marriage... (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score:4, Informative)
Or you know, maybe because we heard Trump bragging about assaulting women, then denying it, pretending it was "locker room talk", and then we've seen almost a dozen women come forward and say he assaulted them. Then there's the recordings of him boasting about how he he would deliberately go backstage to peep at the Miss Teen Universe contestants, and the recordings of him (in his sixties) claiming he'd soon be dating 10 and 12 year old girls.
Clearly, it's all the crooked press. How dare they play unedited recordings of Trump talking.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, like how if you anally rape someone, it doesn't count as rape because it's not sex.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you murder a known-homosexual ambassador in, say, Benghazi, there's no homophobia at all involved, it's about a youtube video.
(the Benghazi incident happened the week right before Obama's re-election, it made perfect sense for Hillary to provide cover the way she did)
Re:He isn't really gay (Score:5, Insightful)
He does have sex with men, but he isn't part of the culture. It's disingenuous to call him gay.
Since when does a sexual orientation require you becoming part of a particular culture?
Re:He isn't really gay (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, a few of decades ago, men who had sex with men and were found out really did suffer horrific oppression even in the US, and even more so abroad. Democrats, the social justice movement, and the American left were indeed quite helpful in ending that very real oppression. But now that discrimination against homosexuals is not much of a problem anymore, these people are going overboard and are starting to hurt the people they used to help.
Hillary Clinton, however, only changed her public position when it was politically beneficial to her and didn't make any difference to gay rights anymore. Given her history, any gay man or lesbian who votes for Hillary is a fool. Politicians won't stop taking advantage of us like that unless we make them pay a steep price.
Re: (Score:3)
Given her history, any gay man or lesbian who votes for Hillary is a fool.
Ah! But the question is -- is that same gay man or lesbian a bigger or smaller fool if they vote for Trump?
That's where this election is at...
Re: (Score:2)
I disliked Thiel long before the current election cycle began.
FWIW, Ellen Pao doesn't impress me much, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Biggest tech companies? (Score:4, Insightful)