Does YC have a page of their particular positions on various political matters which guides their decisions on which non-profits to support and which ones not to? I'm genuinely interested in reading a "platform" as it were on what YC believes and is willing to support.
Yes this is somewhat dangerous for YC. I would like to see that this was planned before November and their support was not determined by who the president turned out to be. Combined with the outspoken politics of Paul Graham1, I get the feeling people who identify as conservatives may not feel welcome at YC.
EDIT: I changed "conservatives" to "people who identify as conservatives" to clarify. Some replies below referred to the philosophical conservatism, which is somewhat different.
I think neither PG's tweets nor this ACLU post are actually against the broad ideas of conservatism.
If you believe in individual freedom, small government, low taxes, and heavy use of market solutions, I haven't seen anything from YC that runs against those ideas.
The issues YC seems to oppose are nativism/xenophobia and authoritarianism. Opposition to the former is a wholly rational decision to preserve YC's access to the best international founders, and authoritarianism presents slightly more round-about problems for YC in reduced press freedom and tighter relationships between large corporations and government, both of which make life more difficult for startups.
Lastly, there exists a wing of American conservatism which is significantly more racist, sexist, and homophobic than the national average. I think you're right, that group would not feel welcome at YC nor should they. Their exclusion is based on their personal views, which they are capable of changing. Their inclusion would make others feel excluded on the basis of immutable traits, which is far worse in my opinion.
> Lastly, there exists a wing of American conservatism which is significantly more racist, sexist, and homophobic than the national average. I think you're right, that group would not feel welcome at YC nor should they. Their exclusion is based on their personal views, which they are capable of changing. Their inclusion would make others feel excluded on the basis of immutable traits, which is far worse in my opinion.
I'm not sure which "wing" of conservatism you are speaking of but I'm neither "alt-right" but my views are likely to be labeled as something like "homophobic." I get the feeling that national average you speak of isn't really average so much as it's left-leaning and acceptable in your views.
I do agree that there are people who are vehemently and dangerously bigoted and I gladly condemn them. However, there are people who have extremely reasoned yet different beliefs than most people you'd likely find at YC.
If the left is going to continue to preach "inclusivity" and "diversity" then it would behoove them to actually ensure that there are those things rather than limited everyone to a particular worldview that makes people feel comfortable.
"I'm not sure which 'wing' of conservatism you are speaking of but I'm neither 'alt-right' but my views are likely to be labeled as something like 'homophobic'....If the left is going to continue to preach 'inclusivity' and 'diversity' then it would behoove them to actually ensure that there are those things rather than limited everyone to a particular worldview that makes people feel comfortable."
The leader of YC is a gay man. A number of YC founders are also gay.
I bring this up not because it comes up a lot, but because you seem to view homophobia as an "opinion" that should be respected by gay people as "inclusive" and "diverse". You can certainly believe that, but you're not likely to get anywhere with it.
The issue I have is that what some people consider "homophobic" isn't really homophobic at all. For example:
Not homophobic:
* Having a deeply held belief that homosexuality is wrong.
* Being for laws that provide freedom of conscience.
* Being against laws that elevate people to a protected class.
Actually Homophobic:
* Conspiring against, starting rumors about, or otherwise attempting to defame someone simply because they are gay.
* Verbally or physically assaulting someone simply because they "look gay".
* Believing that anyone who claims to be LGBT isn't really a person (or is somehow lesser) because they aren't like you.
I'm not getting caught up in semantics. If you have a "deeply held belief that homosexuality is wrong", then you probably shouldn't be surprised if a group of people that includes homosexuals doesn't want to include you if you express that view, and/or act on your belief.
But sure, obviously, anything you want to think in your own head and not express publicly is fairly immune to labels. I'm thinking things right now, for example.
So you're OK with blatant discrimination by a certain group of people against one or more people with deeply held beliefs? Are you saying that if a group of Muslims or Christians came to YC that they "shouldn't be surprised" if they were rejected because they made a point to express that they held orthodox beliefs?
I'm failing to see how that isn't blatantly hypocritical.
Homosexuality in other members of the YC community doesn't affect you. Their private actions don't affect their peers at all, and the fact of their attraction to the same sex doesn't preclude anyone else from participating in YC.
If you think homosexuality is wrong but you keep that to yourself and don't let it influence your business decisions, your private beliefs will also have no effect on other YC founders, and you'll be welcome in the community.
If a gay man said "I believe heterosexuality is wrong and I reserve the right to not do business with heterosexuals to keep my conscience free" they wouldn't be included because that's blatantly discriminatory.
A gay man saying "I don't want to work with people who believe my sexuality is wrong and reserve the right not to do business with me because of it" that's just a rational choice to avoid people who want to punish them for something that only matters to them and their partners.
Mutual tolerance isn't a hard concept. Tolerating others' intolerance of you is not part of it.
I don't think that's a significant issue. Ycombinator's political positioning goes beyond a one line statement "We oppose nativism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism."
The partners in their individual capacities largely stick to statements on specific issues, and YC itself mostly promotes specific organizations and policies, eg permissive immigration rules for entrepreneurs. There's little ambiguity in those statements and actions, so it's up to every individual applicant to determine whether the sum indicates an overall culture they could enjoy.
If you have a specific YC action/statement which you think runs counter to a conservative position outside of nativism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, the HN readers would probably enjoy reading it so they can weigh its meaning for themselves.
* Much of pg's writing leans libertarian or even conservative.
* Many conservatives do not support Trump's policies. Conservativism is traditionally about preserving stable society and carefully evaluating changes before radically changing society.
I think many took a wait-and-see approach to Trump. Sure, he was bombastic during the campaign and said a lot of bad things, but he's a screwd businessman. Surely he will get some decent advisors and not breaks things.
The last week has made it clear that is not the case. Trump and Bannon are determined to reshape society in their own image, and that is really scary. It is clear Trump's executive orders have not been run past anyone sensible, and they make no attempts to limit unnecessary damage to people's lives.
They are; the party loyals use softer language (like John McCain), but there are plenty who owe trump nothing and are a bit louder (like the Koch Brothers)
We'll see how much the Koch brothers care in the mid-terms; if they're not pressuring senators and congressmen to oppose trump at the risk of primary challenges, we'll see that either their loudness is only about his tone, or that they are powerless to fight Trump's base.
There are like two dozen actual "conservative" true believers in America, and most of them (Bill Kristol, David Frum, etc) hold some pretty odious views about things like war and torture.
> I think many took a wait-and-see approach to Trump. Sure, he was bombastic during the campaign and said a lot of bad things, but he's a screwed businessman. Surely he will get some decent advisors and not breaks things.
The unfortunate thing is that the ACLU should be non-partisan and only fighting for those who are having their rights threatened. It just so happens that in the last week or so, it was Conservatives doing the threatening. There aren't a lot of incidents in recent memory of liberals taking away rights from folks, so you get a slant of ACLU vs Conservatives. The irony of wanting a small government I guess.
Theoretically, yes. However, the ACLU has historically been perceived (especially by the right-wing) as a left-wing organization, since it stood for things like racial equality, religious equality, and most importantly the end to (mostly anti-Communist) restrictions on political expression.
Hence the attacks on Dukakis for being a member of the ACLU during his election campaign, and his joking self-labeling as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" (in reference to McCarthy's references to "card-carrying Communists").
EDIT: And for yet more historical background - it was originally founded (as the Civil Liberties Bureau) to defend anti-war speech and conscientious objection during World War I, which were mostly left-wing and far-left-wing phenomena. Post-war, in addition to serving as an ethnically-neutral counterpart to ethnic civil-liberties organizations such as the ADL (Jewish) and the NAACP (African-American), it spent a lot of time defending free political speech. And the free political speech that was most under attack through its seminal period in the 1920s was labor organizing and socialist politics. (Because of the phenomenon of white-supremacist Southern Democrats, minority-rights issues did not necessarily line up with party politics, but they were indeed perceived as left-right issues in the sense that racial equality was considered a far-left position.)
```
The ACLU has been criticized by liberals, such as when it excluded Communists from its leadership ranks, when it defended Neo-Nazis, when it declined to defend Paul Robeson, or when it opposed the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.[62][63] Conversely, it has been criticized by conservatives, such as when it argued against official prayer in public schools, or when it opposed the Patriot Act.[64] The ACLU has supported conservative figures such as Rush Limbaugh, George Wallace, Henry Ford, and Oliver North; and it has supported liberal figures such as Dick Gregory, Rockwell Kent, and Dr. Benjamin Spock.[18][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]
A major source of criticism are legal cases in which the ACLU represents an individual or organization that promotes offensive or unpopular viewpoints, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, North American Man/Boy Love Association, or Westboro Baptist Church. The ACLU responded to these criticisms by stating "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive."[72]
```
Seems like ACLU historically has not cared about partisan politics, left vs right, and care most about their mission of defending civil liberties, and individual rights.
I didn't mean to imply that the ACLU sees its mission as a partisan, or that they follow partisan lines on pursuing cases; just that they have predominantly pursued leftist cases (because that's where civil rights were historically most seriously infringed) and that therefore that support for it is seen as a partisan act.
Says something about the as state of (particularly right-wing) American politics, IMO.
Yes I agree the ACLU should be (and IMHO is) non-partisan. It's just that if YC appears to fund and partner with the ACLU only when conservatives gain power, that will be negative for YC.
Not if there is some inciting incident that coincided with conservatives gaining power, like, say, a partial Muslim ban. In that case it wouldn't be an attack on conservatism as an "identity" but against certain specific policies that are being carried out by conservatives.
Some good evidence against your interpretation of YC's actions here as simple partisan attack:
* YC did not partner with the ACLU on election day, or on inauguration day, but only after a partial Muslim ban became the law of the land.
* YC quasi-defended Peter Thiel and allowed him to remain as a partner in the face of pretty strong pushback from the left.
Many conservatives, from traditional big government conservatives like John McCain and Dick Cheney to small government advocates like the Koch brothers are coming out against this change. It is not a clean partisan divide.
Don't let the people kissing up because they have to work with him fool you. This is broadly alarming in many conservative circles too.
Authoritarians are very possibly not welcome. Non-authoritarian members of the religious right, cultural conservatives, etc. are very likely welcome. (And of course any variety of libertarian.)
I think that depends, and the issue is more complicated than you make out. To play devil's advocate, consider the conflict between freedom of association (or religious freedom) and anti-discrimination laws. You could argue that valuing either is a pro-liberty stance. The notion of liberty is kind of difficult to pin down when you're talking about interactions between free individuals.
There are some people out there that are culturally conservative personally, but don't believe in forcing their beliefs on other via laws. Not many, but they do exist. And they generally vote libertarian.
> I get the feeling conservatives may not feel welcome at YC.
What we are seeing over the last week and what is expected to be coming from the Trump administration in the near future have little to do with liberal vs. conservative. I know many conservatives who are outright horrified by what they are seeing.
Did any president before a few days ago denied the entry to green card residents? No? Well they may think it's a sign of things to come so it's rational to start supporting the ACLU now; and sure there are another million problems they turned a blind eye before, doesn't mean they have to turn a blind eye to all the problems forever
That is being thrown around a lot and actually isn't true. Thiel did not accidentally back Trump and backing Trump isn't contradictory with being a libertarian. (However, claiming that Trump is perfectly adheres to libertarian principles would be.)
Compare Donald Trump to Ron and Rand Paul, which are the prime examples of what libertarianism is (unlike Gary Johnson), there is a lot of overlap: free market healthcare, strong borders, deportation of illegal aliens, deregulations, tax cuts and tax code simplifications. There are disagreements on free trade (and please note that TPP is "free trade", not free trade) and NSA spying.
Upvoted, thanks for a sensible statement (though I disagree, mostly on the basis of the free trade and police-state points which you rightly mentioned).
I don't think it's fair to call the Pauls more central examples of libertarianism than Johnson. They're more moderate on most things but also have a strong strain of cultural conservative that cuts against the libertarian strain.
that depends entirely on whether you view a global job market as intrinsic to libertarianism. For nationalist libertarians, Trump's economic focus would presumably be a good thing.
as far as I've seen, a global job market has resulted in more exploitation than prosperity. Most of the profit seems to go to international businesses that have little interest in giving back to their host nation in the form of jobs or taxes.
That's not entirely a coherent combination of labels; the closest thing in the real USA to that seems to be bog-standard conservatives who selectively deploy libertarian rhetoric against programs they oppose.
>That's not entirely a coherent combination of labels
what is incoherent about it? Both libertarianism and nationalism are vast repositories of political thought that can be combined in any number of ways. Libertarianism at its core does not require forfeiting national interests, nor do national interests require forfeiting a global economy founded on capitalist principles.
The two labels seem to come from completely different cores to me. Namely, libertarianism stresses autonomy, personal liberty, and individual self determination. Nationalism tends to in contrast endorse a more collectivist viewpoint.
The reaction to Trump's executive order actually seems to personify the inherent conflict between the two sides -- while a lot of conservatives (including, I would say, those with more nationalistic viewpoints) approve of the executive order, the libertarian side so far seems to be pretty vocal about their disapproval.
I suppose it depends on what you value most within each political sphere and how you decide to splice the two together. For example, Trump wants to lower taxes across the board, and reduce regulation - both staple libertarian positions. He also wants strong borders and to invest in public infrastructure - both nationalist positions. There are some conflicts between these positions, but they aren't in any way incompatible in my opinion.
I think the assent/dissent situation around Trump is a lot more complex than "conservatives for, libertarians against", precisely because his platform consists of a mix of ideological positions. He has almost nothing in common with neoconservatives (which seems to have been a big hitter for public appeal), and both conservatives and libertarians seem to differ depending on their concern for specific libertarian policies. Hence the fracturing of the GOP, with as many representatives condemning him as supporting him. After all, the GOP is nothing if not a grab-bag of varying political positions.
The ACLU didn't have $24m burning a hole in their pocket four months ago.
Also, conservatives need to get off their "persecuted" high horse for a second and take a look around themselves. Donald Trump is the one butt-fumbling his way into empowering organizations like the ACLU by scaring the shit out of right-minded people. As these groups experience spikes in popularity and cash, they're going to reach out and start working on new initiatives.
The ACLU, in the past week, received as much $ in online donation as it has over the past six years.
Cash talks and bullshit walks. Tell me, if you're a free-market conservative, why YC or the ACLU should disregard such a resonating and clear message from the market.
one opinion: there's nothing wrong with YC supporting the ACLU or even openly opposing Trump, but consider any Trump supporters (either public or private) that they currently work with. How can they be sure that they won't be discriminated against if YC has taken a stance against their political beliefs? And for those supporters who were planning on applying to YC, how can they know that YC will treat them neutrally?
If YC wants to be politically oriented, they can and should, but it strikes me as something they should be open about.
I don't think there's any neutrality in the process and we shouldn't pretend there is.
Participating in YC is assenting to American capitalism and working to enrich YC investors, which is a political act. Cooperating with Peter Thiel is a political act. Expanding the labor supply in markets with unions is a political act. Disrupting healthcare is a political act. Employment under H1B visas is political.
YC can admit [your candidate here] supporters and say 'we won't discriminate based upon your political affiliations or your vote' but they will absolutely discriminate against each other's political aims because of the political ramifications of the any work done by technologists.
> Participating in YC is assenting to American capitalism and working to enrich YC investors, which is a political act.
With a number of layers of indirection, maybe. Capitalism is a system of economic organisation and is not inherently political. The wide variety of both left-leaning and right-leaning capitalist countries speaks to that.
what I mean when I say political is overt politics. You can argue that "the personal is political" or "everything is political" but there's a considerable difference in granularity between agreeing to work with a libertarian or trying to improve the healthcare industry, and donating money to an anti-Trump cause. Donating to the ACLU is an act of political affiliation given their recent spotlight, whereas simply agreeing to work with Thiel or employing a H1B worker is an economic act in the frame of capitalism.
If capitalism is not political because it's just a system of economic organization, then it's not political to dismantle capitalism and institute a socialist economy.
Economic systems are SO radically political that people used 'socialist' as a slur against Obama. McCarthyism. CIA overthrow of democratically-elected socialist governments. Not political?
Not to pick on Peter Thiel, but he's a convenient and recent example. He donated $1.25M to Trump. He wouldn't have had $1.25M to donate to Trump if people didn't earn that money for him. You can cast it as wishy-washy, indirect, etc. but at the end of the day that check cleared.
socialism is a political system that demands a particular economic system - a planned economy. A planned economy in itself is not political, in that it's a specific way of organising labour. A barter or gift economy are also economic models, neither of which are inherently tied to a political system.
"Socialist" as a slur for Obama was in reference to the political act of taxation and wealth redistribution. Neither of these things are capitalist, and the term "socialist" has a somewhat different meaning to the original political system, when it comes to American politics. American "socialism" is more akin to social democracy i.e. a capitalism-driven welfare state. At least, that's my understanding.
McCarthyism was political, nothing to do with economics. The CIA interfered with other countries' political process (i.e. staging a coup).
The whole idea of capitalism is that people join together in free association to trade for mutual benefit. The responsibility ends there. If I buy your goods and then somewhere down the line you decide to use that cash to buy a weapon and kill someone, I am in no way responsible for that because it is a separate transaction that I did not enter into. Ergo, trading with Thiel is not a political act that can somehow be ratified retrospectively. It is an economic act. If your agreement was "I'll trade with you on the condition that you donate the profits to Trump", then it becomes political. From my perspective, the distinction is pretty clear to be honest.
> If I buy your goods and then somewhere down the line you decide to use that cash to buy a weapon and kill someone, I am in no way responsible for that because it is a separate transaction that I did not enter into.
That argument might work until you try to convince any other person. If you're buying cocaine from FARC, what did you expect them to do?
Similarly all the profound libertarian arguments on this thread will last up until they need $500k for cancer treatment and end up an indentured servant to a future billionaire hedge-fund AI.
> That argument might work until you try to convince any other person. If you're buying cocaine from FARC, what did you expect them to do?
even throwing FARC or cocaine into that equation muddies the water because cocaine is illegal (and thus inherently a political purchase) and FARC are known for their violent tactics and thus when you purchase from them you are wilfully accepting that your money may be used for violence (unless you aren't aware of what FARC does when you enter the transaction).
If you want to get into the ambiguities of terrorism and drugs, then what about your average joe buying some weed from their local dealer? If you know that dealer works with a cartel then by buying from him you are knowingly funding the cartel. If you have no idea whether he works with a cartel or not, then you can't be said to be knowingly funding the cartel - you are just participating in a transaction. The alternative as I see it is to suggest that everyone who smokes marijuana illegally is pro-cartel or pro-terror, or at least is OK with the idea that their money may be used for violence.
> Similarly all the profound libertarian arguments on this thread will last up until they need $500k for cancer treatment and end up an indentured servant to a future billionaire hedge-fund AI.
this is literally the entire point of the insurance industry - to absorb black swan risks. Do you think that insurance would not exist in a libertarian society? Plus, by reintroducing supply and demand into the medical industry you would likely see those obscene costs fall drastically when no-one can afford $500k for treatment, especially with reduced government bureaucracy and regulation increasing costs.
> McCarthy hunted down communists (supposed and actual).
yes, and communism is a political belief. Political persecution is a political action, not an economic one.
> It appears to me that you are conflating 'socialism' with 'planned economy' and 'capitalism' with 'free market'.
I don't believe I am. The premise of capitalism is mutually beneficial trade of privately owned and produced goods. I think you are confusing capitalism and social democracy, in that social democracy adds burdens onto the capitalist economy (for example, taxes and regulations) for the benefit of society at large and to counteract the problems that free-market capitalism can create (exploitation, the tragedy of the commons, etc).
> Combined with the outspoken politics of Paul Graham1, I get the feeling people who identify as conservatives may not feel welcome at YC.
Peter Thiel is still a partner at YC. So there is someone high-profile openly allied with Trump at YC, YC is not as radical left-wing as some people try to paint it.
So they're not going to have to use eminent domain to purchase the land to build the wall?
A lot of conservative landowners on the border are very much against the idea, and private property ownership is part of the reason the current fence has gaps in it.
Ya know, some of us are fine with defending our borders but realize that the image of a big wall in our head is a lot nicer than the reality of seizing land and spending billions ineffectively.
I have a degree in political science. I run in a number of highly educated circles, generally from left to libertarian. I can assure you, without any shadow of a doubt, that
> Among most people with an education conservatives are not really welcome right now
is untrue.
I don't think that most educated people lump Trumpian ignorance and the politics of idiocy with conservatism; the two traditions have completely different origin stories and share relatively little philosophical or political underpinnings. It is precisely people in the academic community who are most keen to recognize this.
Yes, they are. The thing that really put them on the map was decades ago, when they defended the right of Nazis to march in the heavily Jewish community of Skokie, IL.
Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats.
It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.
The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant.
For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.
The ACLU has not defended the Nazi cause; the ACLU has defended the cause of free speech and peaceable assembly, even when those speaking and assembling peaceably are themselves Nazis.
What would that meaningfully look like? Can you come up with an example? The majority of the ACLU cases are filed against a government or individual representing the government, so perhaps you can find one where it's against a Democratic administration or official.
An example: Forbes argues that the ACLU explicitly refused to take a position against free-speech infinging anti-religious-defamation resolution at the UN, even though they have taken public stances on many international resolutions more aligned with the left.
Another example: Techdirt argues that ACLU fails to defend free speech of wedding photographer who violated equal protection legislation by refusing photograph gay wedding.
Right off, I want to clearly state that I'm not a lawyer, so my ability to judge the merits of these cases is very suspect. To the point where I'm hesitant to attempt to address them at all for fear of appearing exceedingly ignorant.
With the UN resolution, I see the inconsistency between their avowed reason for not joining the other groups (we don't get involved in international issues). The rest of the article is speculation as to the real reason why, on which I think reasonable people can disagree on. It's not clear to me that this is a clear-cut case of consistent anti-conservative bias. For example, I can imagine without too much difficulty American religious conservatives wanting protection from defamation of religion.
For the wedding photography case, I don't think it's a free speech issue: I think it's a protected-class issue which falls under the Civil Rights Act and its extensions, as in this instance the wedding photographer is acting as a business providing a service, and depending on the jurisdiction, the couple may be a protected class. I'm exceedingly unsure about this whole area of law, though, I'd defer to just about anyone. I don't know how judges decide the balance between free speech and the Civil Rights Act, though I'm sure there's precedent and guidelines.
Yea, I don't know nearly enough about these cases to have an opinion. But this is what strategic differential vigor would look like: lots of cases like that, slanted toward one party, with each case having a plausible justification, yet in aggregate being hard to defend. But I have no idea if there actually is such a slant (rather than there being a similar number of cases in the opposite direction).
Exactly. I meant to include exactly this. Thanks again for the links. I did see that the author of one of the articles, Wendy Kaminer, used to work at the ACLU and does make claims of ethical decline at the ACLU.
Her 2009 book Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity and the ACLU critiques what she regards as the ACLU’s ethical decline, ideological hypocrisy, and descent into groupthink.
> In 2003, during her tenure on the national board, she became a strong critic of the ACLU leadership and was centrally involved in a series of controversies that culminated in a highly publicized effort to prohibit board members from criticizing the ACLU.
