←back to thread

YC: Requests for Startups

(www.ycombinator.com)
514 points sarimkx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
eltondegeneres ◴[] No.39373199[source]
Jared Friedman and Gustaf Alströmer want to make it easier to kill other human beings, and turn a profit while doing it. Shame on them and anyone else who works on "defense technology."

> I have told my sons that they are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or glee. I have also told them not to work for companies which make massacre machinery, and to express contempt for people who think we need machinery like that.

Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut (p. 19)

replies(5): >>39373269 #>>39373383 #>>39374258 #>>39374400 #>>39375687 #
nonethewiser ◴[] No.39373269[source]
In your opinion, should we not have any defense technology?
replies(1): >>39373464 #
mandmandam ◴[] No.39373464[source]
There's probably some middle ground between no defense tech whatsoever, and trillion dollar illegal wars and genocides.

Every American - and the rest of the world too - is paying that very real debt. We're all paying the opportunity cost too, and the societal cost. It will be paid for generations, and many of the true costs are incalculable.

Some very few people are making a tonne of money, and here, YC is saying they want a piece of that. I feel like they're not getting dragged enough for it tbh.

Right this moment the US is being investigated by the world's highest court for complicity in genocide. And YC is openly asking to invest in companies that directly enable and support such action.

replies(1): >>39373576 #
nonethewiser ◴[] No.39373576[source]
> There's probably some middle ground between no defense tech whatsoever, and trillion dollar illegal wars and genocides.

There is obviously middle ground. Which is why categorically condemning defense spending is indefensible.

What are you referring to as genocide?

replies(1): >>39373681 #
mandmandam ◴[] No.39373681[source]
> Which is why categorically condemning defense spending is indefensible.

That doesn't actually follow.

> What are you referring to as genocide?

Take your pick.

replies(1): >>39374058 #
1. nonethewiser ◴[] No.39374058[source]
>> Which is why categorically condemning defense spending is indefensible.

>That doesn't actually follow.

It does. If some defense is OK, then some defense spending is OK. In order to categorically reject defense spending as the original commenter did, then you must categorically reject defense.

> Take your pick.

Of what?