4 ms·

Of course, Thiel is not a YC employee, so a statement about firing someone is irrelevant.

by zorpner 10y ago

Hydraulix989 10y ago
I'm sure they have each other on speed dial though. Thiel definitely wants to continue to have a fast track towards investing into high-growth YC startups, and YC doesn't want to damage that relationship. This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic society, taking a different (not to say, also completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's livelihood.
- eropple 10y ago
  > This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic country, taking a different (not to say, completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's livelihood. I would not buy a Rift because there is no way on God's green earth that I would reward Palmer Luckey monetarily for supporting "shitposting" even if it was not directly related to the kinds of people (/pol/ dross and others) who have issued death and rape threats to people I know and care about. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening his livelihood". I also don't buy video games made by EA because I think they are a company that has some real bad practices. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening the livelihoods" of everybody who works there. We live as political beings, and that goes beyond what you say to what you do. Buying a USB sound card (which I just did a few moments ago) on Amazon is an expression of multiple political beliefs: that I am okay with large retailers over small ones in some situations, that I am okay with purchasing imported items, particularly from China, given the price of the item (i.e. I'm not willing to pay more than X% for "Made in the USA"). Probably a few others that I don't consciously recognize, at the moment. You can't opt out of being a political creature because you live in a goddamned polity. You can only take responsibility for how your actions impact others, and you can suffer the slings and arrows of what those others believe in return. And there is nothing undemocratic about refusing to associate, monetarily or otherwise, with somebody you don't like. There is something undemocratic about attempting to levy laws saying that they can't participate in the political process. Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    I really don't think it's reasonable to put this level of responsibility on others' actions (yourself? fine). Three years ago, regardless of your political stance, you couldn't drive to work without implicitly supporting foreign oil interests (not everyone can afford housing with great "walk scores"), now you might be able to if you can afford an electric car (still, a pretty unreasonable expectation). Voting? Sure, that's one thing, but buying a USB sound card from an American e-commerce site (which, I really had no reason to doubt you actually did a few moments ago in the first place...)?! What's the politically aboveboard alternative here? Building your own DIY DAC from 'MURICAN-made Texas Instruments components (yeah, I'm sure they have a "morally cleansed" supply chain, too...)? You're taking things to the extreme. Yes, a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane, but let's be realistic here. Given that there is such a fine line between reductio ad absurdum and strawman, my position stated a bit more clearly: Employees' political views shouldn't _completely jeopardize_ their livelihood in the form of causing them to lose their jobs. "Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest." I'll give you that. It probably wasn't fair (even though, as they say, if it smells like a rat...) for me to assume recent actions taken by Facebook towards Palmer were a direct result of his public political activity/views. EDIT: I can't resist casting judgment, but in this day and age of dire social problems like "climate change" and "black lives matter," I think it's telling that your idea of political activism is buying, of all things, a USB sound card.
    - eropple 10y ago
      I think you have tremendously misunderstood my post if you think I was calling buying a USB sound card "political activism." I called it political expression. One of literally dozens, perhaps hundreds expressions I performed today. And those political activities, those actions within the context of my polity, reinforce my views on society (and ambivalence or a lack of give-a-shit is, too, a belief). Now, you are definitely, one hundred percent right that there are cases where there are no good answers and you have to do the best you can with what you have available! But Donald fucking Trump (or Palmer fucking Luckey) have no interests that relate to such things. You don't have to live in TrumpCo housing, you don't have to buy Trump Steaks, you don't have to watch The Apprentice (though that's probably dead now), and you don't have to buy an Oculus Rift. So the idea of castigating people for opting not to support people whose active practices are bad and wrong and should not be promulgated is absolutely bonkers-silly. I compromised when buying that USB sound card because I would, all things being equal, buy a device from a seller who used labor practices and manufacturing practices that I was 100% on-board with--but I couldn't source one in the time I needed and I have a budget, and I needed it for a project whose failure would be more harmful to people I know and interact with on an everyday basis than the marginal harms caused by the purchase. But I thought about it before I did it, and came to the conclusion that it was an acceptable expression of what I actually believe. You express your political beliefs--and your religious beliefs, and your philosophical beliefs--not just by your vote, but by your actions. Every day. It never stops. You can never, ever, ever opt out. These beliefs are your character, and your character is who you are in the dark. Either you do them, or you don't believe them. There's no middle ground. You can't have beliefs and then not practice them (to the best of your ability, with natural accommodations for factors that prevent you from practicing them--like, this is why I emphatically don't cast Oculus employees in a poor light for being unfortunately attached to that company, because most people can't up and quit a job at a moment's notice). If the idea that "the practice of your beliefs is the having of them" is extreme, then we should all off ourselves and let the cockroaches have their shot. But it's not extreme. It's just uncomfortable to have it pointed out that you might not be practicing what you preach. . Moving on--I do think Facebook shoved Luckey in the basement for his political activity. They should. He makes the company look dirty. He makes people who work at Facebook feel less safe because he is making war on them (in the "politics is war by other means" sense of the word) for their ethnicity or their gender. I don't think that it's either incorrect nor pejorative to say that, if not for legal obligations, he probably would have been shitcanned immediately and it would have been for his political activity. And that's OK. When your politics are effectively existential threats towards people, "fuck you" is a pretty okay response. And that goes both ways. Bringing it back to a personal level: I destroy jobs because I'm a computer programmer and that's not a good thing for a lot of people. They can tell me to go fuck myself, they can choose not to interact with me. It's unlikely to have an impact, but they can. So it is up the chain, too. "Free speech" comes with consequences. So it is, and so it must be, or "free speech" is one-way. (Which is really what most--not necessarily you, I'm not a mind reader, but most--people who advocate for tolerance towards conservative and, frankly, reactionary politics are really angling for: the freedom to do unto others.)
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
The argument between DHH and Paul became a hypothetical about firing an employee like that. DHH was very for it.

Of course, Thiel is not a YC employee, so a statement about firing someone is irrelevant.

by zorpner 10y ago

Of course, Thiel is not a YC employee, so a statement about firing someone is irrelevant.

I'm sure they have each other on speed dial though. Thiel definitely wants to continue to have a fast track towards investing into high-growth YC startups, and YC doesn't want to damage that relationship. This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic society, taking a different (not to say, also completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's livelihood.

eropple 10y ago
> This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic country, taking a different (not to say, completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's livelihood. I would not buy a Rift because there is no way on God's green earth that I would reward Palmer Luckey monetarily for supporting "shitposting" even if it was not directly related to the kinds of people (/pol/ dross and others) who have issued death and rape threats to people I know and care about. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening his livelihood". I also don't buy video games made by EA because I think they are a company that has some real bad practices. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening the livelihoods" of everybody who works there. We live as political beings, and that goes beyond what you say to what you do. Buying a USB sound card (which I just did a few moments ago) on Amazon is an expression of multiple political beliefs: that I am okay with large retailers over small ones in some situations, that I am okay with purchasing imported items, particularly from China, given the price of the item (i.e. I'm not willing to pay more than X% for "Made in the USA"). Probably a few others that I don't consciously recognize, at the moment. You can't opt out of being a political creature because you live in a goddamned polity. You can only take responsibility for how your actions impact others, and you can suffer the slings and arrows of what those others believe in return. And there is nothing undemocratic about refusing to associate, monetarily or otherwise, with somebody you don't like. There is something undemocratic about attempting to levy laws saying that they can't participate in the political process. Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  I really don't think it's reasonable to put this level of responsibility on others' actions (yourself? fine). Three years ago, regardless of your political stance, you couldn't drive to work without implicitly supporting foreign oil interests (not everyone can afford housing with great "walk scores"), now you might be able to if you can afford an electric car (still, a pretty unreasonable expectation). Voting? Sure, that's one thing, but buying a USB sound card from an American e-commerce site (which, I really had no reason to doubt you actually did a few moments ago in the first place...)?! What's the politically aboveboard alternative here? Building your own DIY DAC from 'MURICAN-made Texas Instruments components (yeah, I'm sure they have a "morally cleansed" supply chain, too...)? You're taking things to the extreme. Yes, a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane, but let's be realistic here. Given that there is such a fine line between reductio ad absurdum and strawman, my position stated a bit more clearly: Employees' political views shouldn't _completely jeopardize_ their livelihood in the form of causing them to lose their jobs. "Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest." I'll give you that. It probably wasn't fair (even though, as they say, if it smells like a rat...) for me to assume recent actions taken by Facebook towards Palmer were a direct result of his public political activity/views. EDIT: I can't resist casting judgment, but in this day and age of dire social problems like "climate change" and "black lives matter," I think it's telling that your idea of political activism is buying, of all things, a USB sound card.
  - eropple 10y ago
    I think you have tremendously misunderstood my post if you think I was calling buying a USB sound card "political activism." I called it political expression. One of literally dozens, perhaps hundreds expressions I performed today. And those political activities, those actions within the context of my polity, reinforce my views on society (and ambivalence or a lack of give-a-shit is, too, a belief). Now, you are definitely, one hundred percent right that there are cases where there are no good answers and you have to do the best you can with what you have available! But Donald fucking Trump (or Palmer fucking Luckey) have no interests that relate to such things. You don't have to live in TrumpCo housing, you don't have to buy Trump Steaks, you don't have to watch The Apprentice (though that's probably dead now), and you don't have to buy an Oculus Rift. So the idea of castigating people for opting not to support people whose active practices are bad and wrong and should not be promulgated is absolutely bonkers-silly. I compromised when buying that USB sound card because I would, all things being equal, buy a device from a seller who used labor practices and manufacturing practices that I was 100% on-board with--but I couldn't source one in the time I needed and I have a budget, and I needed it for a project whose failure would be more harmful to people I know and interact with on an everyday basis than the marginal harms caused by the purchase. But I thought about it before I did it, and came to the conclusion that it was an acceptable expression of what I actually believe. You express your political beliefs--and your religious beliefs, and your philosophical beliefs--not just by your vote, but by your actions. Every day. It never stops. You can never, ever, ever opt out. These beliefs are your character, and your character is who you are in the dark. Either you do them, or you don't believe them. There's no middle ground. You can't have beliefs and then not practice them (to the best of your ability, with natural accommodations for factors that prevent you from practicing them--like, this is why I emphatically don't cast Oculus employees in a poor light for being unfortunately attached to that company, because most people can't up and quit a job at a moment's notice). If the idea that "the practice of your beliefs is the having of them" is extreme, then we should all off ourselves and let the cockroaches have their shot. But it's not extreme. It's just uncomfortable to have it pointed out that you might not be practicing what you preach. . Moving on--I do think Facebook shoved Luckey in the basement for his political activity. They should. He makes the company look dirty. He makes people who work at Facebook feel less safe because he is making war on them (in the "politics is war by other means" sense of the word) for their ethnicity or their gender. I don't think that it's either incorrect nor pejorative to say that, if not for legal obligations, he probably would have been shitcanned immediately and it would have been for his political activity. And that's OK. When your politics are effectively existential threats towards people, "fuck you" is a pretty okay response. And that goes both ways. Bringing it back to a personal level: I destroy jobs because I'm a computer programmer and that's not a good thing for a lot of people. They can tell me to go fuck myself, they can choose not to interact with me. It's unlikely to have an impact, but they can. So it is up the chain, too. "Free speech" comes with consequences. So it is, and so it must be, or "free speech" is one-way. (Which is really what most--not necessarily you, I'm not a mind reader, but most--people who advocate for tolerance towards conservative and, frankly, reactionary politics are really angling for: the freedom to do unto others.)

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

The argument between DHH and Paul became a hypothetical about firing an employee like that. DHH was very for it.