Can I just say, with respect, that you are not giving off a lot of "I was headed for YC" energy in the first place? Substitute whatever you want for "YC", and bear in mind that for virtually everybody reading this thread that you started here, this is literally all they know about you. Somebody you don't know said something on Twitter you didn't like, you popped up in their mentions, they blocked you, and now you've tried to spin up an HN thread about. You're kind of giving off "OMG, I'm never going to wash this Twitter thread again" vibes.
That was tongue in cheek. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that replying to Paul, and posting that he blocked me here was intended to be humorous and I just enjoyed the irony. Even though most seem to have not gotten my intent (I don't blame them, I did a very poor job setting it), I've still enjoyed most of the discussions that have come from it though!
I do think you're extrapolating incorrectly, as many here have, but that is, at least in part, my fault, for not being clear that my intent was just to have some fun, not desperation or blame. I think of Twitter as a place for memes and trolls, and didn't stop to think that people really care about the words people say there.
But thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Honestly. You seem genuine and kind.
You can do better than YC. It's a sweatshop hoping to turn out lottery winners by funding naive founders and their half-baked ideas, hoping they find something successful. Don't be a serf.
When he was talking about Americans not voting in other countries Mike meant only when they are a noncitizens of that country.
I couldn't imaging anyone truly interpreting his words to mean "If you have citizenship in American and another country you can't now only vote in America", which I think was what Paul was saying Mike meant (I can't see Paul's exact Tweet anymore after being blocked).
The tweet is poorly worded, but you know... it's just Twitter, er, X.
> I may have ruined my chance of ever being backed by YC in the future.
was tongue in cheek, as I don't have any desire to start a start up.
> If anything, this reactionary boring thread ruined that chance.
I thought it was funny, not boring. It got more upvotes in the 45 minutes it wasn't flagged than any other post in the same time frame. But to each their own, I guess.
> Who cannot vote?
> Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents, cannot vote in federal, state, and most local elections.
But even if it wasn’t wrong, the idea behind it is un-American. A country founded on the principle of no taxation without representation which taxes people within its borders while allowing them no voice in that taxation.
Well, you're asking a question that, in a vacuum, isn't political but since it can be considered controversial, and I think you know this, it becomes political. So did you want to debate politics or not?
I was just trying to understand your perspective on laws that forbid allowing non-citizens to vote. I guess I realized I wasn't aware of American citizens who believe non-citizens should be legally allowed to vote in federal elections, and my question about xenophobia was, in retrospect, intended to explore that.
Tangentially related: My father tried to fight taxes on the grounds that they're unconstitutional. He went to prison for 3 years (in part) because of it.
> Any law that prevents taxpayers voting is inconsistent with the principle of no taxation without representation.
That sentence would have been a great response to Mike's tweet.
Thanks for letting me explore some thoughts with you without spiraling into divisive language.
The entire notion of standard passports and border checking (other than "travel permits" within kingdoms) arose after the Constitution of the United States was ratified .. and that specific document isn't the be all to all reference for citizen | government contracts, even the US founders recognised it was "adequate for (their) present" and would require constant attention and fine tuning.
Not paying taxes isn’t “tried to fight taxes on the grounds their unconstitutional”
Your father sounds like someone engaging in crime and lying to those around them that it’s actually a legitimate protest against the system.
In turn drug dealers can tell their families they are simply protesting the unconstitutional restriction on the engagement in a free market of adults demanding goods.
I’m sorry if this comes across as rude I don’t mean to engage in an ad hominem against your father, but the fact that he went to jail for years is a pretty clear indication he wasn’t protesting something or engaging in a political process but was instead engaged in active criminal behavior.
Your blind defense of this behavior tracks well with your blind defense of incorrect political conversation in the twitter thread.
Your political engagement and not your quote is likely why you were blocked on twitter. You should reflect on this instead of trying to incite an online army to defend you based on your interpretation of events.
Personal attacks aren't allowed here, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.
The title is about being blocked by the guy who created this platform, not politics. That's what this thread is about. Political discourse is against HN guidelines, after all. If you want to debate politics here go ahead, I just don't want to, and don't have a strong position on these particular matters either way.
By defending the stance of someone actively engaging in political conversation you are engaging in political conversation.
The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making. This is in itself a political statement. And it’s an incorrect statement. You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political?
What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest.
> By defending the stance of someone actively engaging in political conversation you are engaging in political conversation.
I didn't defend anyone's stance. And obviously, interjecting into a "conversation" (if we can call one person hurling insults at another a conversation?) is joining the conversation, no matter what its about, but I changed the subject when I called out Paul for twisting Mike's words and then insulting him; I told them to be nicer (in a ironically condescending way, yes).
If Mike's tweet said something like:
> iPhone owners don't do reviews of Android phones. Non-iPhone owners shouldn't review Android phones. ...
And Paul came by and said:
> That's not true. iPhone owners who also own Android can review those phones. How can you be a tech reviewer and not know that?
And then I said:
> You should learn to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Would you say I'm now engaging in a technical review conversation? Or am I just being condescending while (pretending) to correct the behavior of someone with 2M followers?
---
> The implication of your response is that there is a genuine/valid point the original poster is making.
Again, no, there is no implication of right or wrong doing because I criticized a guy for insulting someone else; I'm sorry you have that impression (or maybe you just want to argue with someone, which is fine, I just don't want to talk politics).
That said, I think there _is_ a genuine/valid point to what Mike said -- admitting that ideas contrary to your own have merit does not mean you agree with them, rather, it's a mark of intellectual honesty and maturity. Even communism and anarchy have merit, but I don't agree with those ideologies either. (dang it, cherry_tree, you've got me talking about politics! cut it out!)
> This is in itself a political statement.. And it’s an incorrect statement.
Was Mike precise in his choice of words? No. Technically correct (the best kind of correct!)? Also, no. But incorrect in the _context_ of the whole Tweet? Absolutely not. American citizens (who aren't citizens of another country) don't vote in those foreign elections (well, some probably have before, but not at the same magnitude Mike is worried about). If you and Paul don't think that's what Mike originally meant then you have a problem parsing English language.
> You defended someone who was wrong in a political conversation and you’re expecting people to back you up because you quoted something non-political?
No, I didn't defend anyone. I'd say I criticized Paul for his pedantry. And I didn't think random Internet strangers would back me up on anything. I also didn't think anyone would want to debate citizen/non-citizen voting rights with me over this either. But life can full of fun surprises!
> What you are doing in that twitter thread and in this thread are intellectually dishonest.
No, it isn't. It really just feels like you are projecting some disdain you have towards some group of people onto me, who you don't know.
---
Anyway, the whole point of posting about this to HN was because I thought there was some humorous irony to it. I feel no ill-contempt towards Paul, Mike, you, or anyone else here. It's been fun (just stop trying to pull me into hot-topic politics please).
What is his point that he is making by pointing out this fact?
Genuine question: do you think every line in Mike Lee's tweet is an independent fact that should be taken as totally unconnected, and happen to be in the same post by chance?
I replied to Paul because he took a single line in Mike's tweet as an independent statement without considering the context, and then turned around and insulted the OPs intelligence.
I'll try to break it down for you because your being so genuine.
I've explained the first line already. The next line follows up by saying that noncitizens (people who are not American citizens specifically) shouldn’t have the right to vote in U.S. elections. It then calls for the passage of something called the SAVE ACT, which Mike wants to be included in the upcoming September spending bill, to prevent noncitizens from voting. Finally, the tweet encourages people who agree with this idea to share the message with others, amplifying its reach.
I don't think I can break it down any further without coming off as patronizing.
And I hope it's very clear that I'm not reading the lines in the tweet as separate unconnected ideas.
So I don't know what is really going on, but I do enjoy reading and trying to better understand these complex topics, but I don't want to debate you on this, from either side.
If you are really just itching to debate on this topic, you should ask ChatGPT to do that with you; I've responded enough on here that you can probably get it to reply in my style of writing and pretend it's me, if you really wanted (I'd actually love to _read_ the debate if you actually do this!).
---
Aside:
I found a website that attempts to give a "Bias Rating" to publishers:
This website is obviously not going to be foolproof, and probably even has some bias itself in its ratings. I'm not suggesting these "Bias Ratings" have any bearing on the legitimacy of the studies above, I just found it interesting so I thought I'd share it with you.
Haha, very true. I don't think I'll ever seek VC again. I just don't see myself going back to full-time grind a founder of a start up requires. Though I doubt he'll remember me even if I did.
Now what I really want to know is if quoting the guidelines is what made him block me, or saying that I didn't know who he was, that did the trick.
(I'll admit here that I did know who he was, I just thought he was coming off as a self-important dilettante, and that saying I didn't know would make for a mildly humorous tweet).
I'd have blocked you too. You showed up in his mentions to send an annoying message to him. I don't follow him; especially in a political season like the one we're in now, his feed is just going to annoy me. That's what you should have done, if you need to bend his idiosyncratic politics in your idiosyncratic direction: not followed him in the first place.
People should block more. Try it. It's healthy.
Later
Also: I don't believe he wrote or had anything to do with the guideline you quoted at him.
I follow Elon, and Elon retweeted Mike, and then I clicked through and saw a verified user's comment (Paul). I just thought he was being very pedantic/rude for someone with 2M followers, and I am fond of this HN guideline, so I pasted it in and hit send thinking it was just a little funny, condescending, and trollish. Wasn't until later, after it got some engagement that I realized it was Paul of YCombinator. I'm not mad he blocked me, I just like the irony.
I like to intentionally follow people who have (rational) views I don't agree with, or just don't understand. Even so, I do find enjoyment in smashing that block button myself from time to time.
> I don't believe he wrote or had anything to do with the guideline you quoted at him.
Perhaps he didn't take part in writing it. But I disagree that he doesn't have anything to do with it, since he takes credit for the site existing. I dodn't think it really matters though. And I didn't realize it was him until after I replied, so I can't claim that's why I posted it.
This is kind of funny how Hacker News differs from Twitter. To some extent, if you make informal rules, all the popular accounts out there will be unified by those rules:
* Initiate flamebait. Prefer generic tangents. Follow internet tropes.
* Use Twitter for political or ideological battle.
* When disagreeing, call names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3"
* Post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. Don't send emails anywhere, nobody will read them anyways.
This is probably not considered On-Topic for HN, but posting about it here just feels appropriate.