6 ms·

> To them, supporting Trump and Clinton are equally bad No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them.

by maratd 10y ago

> To them, supporting Trump and Clinton are equally bad No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically. That's disgusting and people who support that sort of witch hunt should be ashamed of themselves. I vehemently disagree with his choice of who to support during this election, but I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society.

archagon 10y ago
In a normal political climate I would agree, but I have to ask: is there a line? Is there any line? I think most people could imagine a political affiliation that they would want absolutely no association with. If Trump was a bit more murdery like Duterte, would it be OK to disavow his supporters then?
braythwayt 10y ago
In short, you say "people who support that sort of witch hunt" are intolerant, and that there is no place for them here. So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved. Another matter of interest is the nature of the power imbalance of lack of same. The original witch hunts, McCarthyism, and other struggles involved a very powerful entity depriving individual citizens of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a career. There is a massive difference between "So-and-so engineer cannot work in this industry because a VC finds their political views repugnant," and, "I choose not to do business with a billionaire who is actively conspiring to bring democracy down." One is punching down, the other is punching up, or perhaps sideways.
- exolymph 10y ago
  Yeah, "destroying a person for their political views" does not apply in this case at all. Peter Thiel is a BILLIONAIRE.
  - InclinedPlane 10y ago
    For values of "destroying" equal to "refusing to do business with".
  - vsl 10y ago
    So it's open season for bullying, witch hunts and any other behavior we'd normally label as bad? If WE do it to a RICH person, it's all right?
- bitewhite 10y ago
  "So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved". No, OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. The statements "Thiel should be fired because of his political views" and "Thiels's political views should have no place in a civil society" are entirely different things. Political discourse has a special sanctity in American culture and I, personally, think that is one of our greatest strengths. Firing an employee due to their political views is fundamentally at odds with this idea and there are laws in place to protect employees from political retaliation. Although a company might be threatened by an employee running for political office, campaigning for a candidate or participating in fundraising or a political advocacy group, an employer should not be empowered to fire that employee. To do so would invite fundamentally undemocratic forces into our political system. e.g. a company feels threatened by candidate A, employees must support candidate B else they are fired.
  - braythwayt 10y ago
    I think the second half of your comment is aligned with the second half of mine, so I will just reply to the first half of your comment. > OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on > the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. There is exclusion, and there is exclusion. The essay does not discuss stripping Mr. Thiel of his citizenship. It discusses doing business with Mr. Thiel, and the claim is that not doing business with Mr. Thiel on account of his support for Mr. Trump is a form of exclusion, and by your summary, that is wrong. There is no more extreme position than claiming that all forms of "political ideology" are equally valid, and that all forms of "exclusion" are wrong. Some people's political ideology calls for the murder of innocent civilians. I gladly refuse to do business with them, and I reject the notion that it is wrong to exclude them. Likewise, as I pointed out, not all forms of exclusion are equivalent. If we say that all forms of exclusion are wrong, you rob me of my free will. You force me to buy advertising from Reddit or Stormfront. You demand that I work for Mr. Thiel. Or to sell my products to the RNC... Whether I want to or not. This is the exact same argument as the one for religious freedom. Must a baker bake a cake for a lesbian couple? If so, we deprive the baker of their freedom of choice. If not, we deprive the couple of equal treatment. We cannot grant one right without depriving somebody else of another. So in the end, we have to apply some judgment, we have to pick some line and say that things on far on this side are wrong, things far on that side are right, and things close to the line are vexing questions that must be debated. I personally can accept arguments that in this particular case, it is ok to do business with Mr. Thiel, or arguments that in this particular case that it is not. But the unambiguous argument that all forms of political ideology must be protected is not one I support, and nor is the one that all forms of exclusion are unambiguously wrong.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
What would you do if David Duke was on the board of directors for your company?
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
I don't think YC would be "destroying" Thiel by cutting ties with him as a partner. And, the argument here is that support of Trump goes a bridge beyond simply expressing disagreeable political views - he is literally encouraging election day violence and trying to delegitimize our Democracy. There has to come a point where toxic and hateful views are no longer tolerated as "political". It is admittedly a slippery slope, but one we're being dragged down whether we like it or not.
masklinn 10y ago
> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him, bloke's got "fuck you money" a hundred times over, nothing could "destroy" him short of institutional assault, and even then possibly not. And you're advocating for tolerating intolerance whose end-result is the destruction of tolerance. > I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society. So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance? Against a billionaire shovelling money to white supremacist and fascist ideologies to boot?
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  > "So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance?" I wish there were such a thing as HN gold, that sums things up perfectly.
  - FeepingCreature 10y ago
    I can tolerate it, I just don't like it. I'm not going to fire someone for advocating firing people they don't like. Even though the irony would be damn sweet.
- maratd 10y ago
  > Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him This isn't just about Thiel. It's about everyone else too. If you create those sorts of standards, they'll apply to everyone. How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating. > So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance? Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.
  - aiig 10y ago
    > Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant. Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street.
jowiar 10y ago
> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. And this is some seriously oppressing bullshit that has (wittingly or not) prolonged white/male supremacy. People creating a space that makes it very clear that non-white, non-males aren't welcome, then well-meaning "moderates" going along with it because, well, I'm not going to judge him for his politics. It's how the US even came to be, founded on a compromise that was fundamentally designed to promise that slavery would never be repealed. Here's the deal. Having a don't-ask, don't tell policy regarding your votes in a voting booth is fine. But the minute you write a big fucking check to a big fucking fascist (or anyone else), you forfeit any right to not suffer consequences for your actions. Sure, the government can't (and shouldn't) impose penalties. But I'm damn sure going to judge you, and judge those who continue to associate with you (because they are saying that maintaining your friendship is worth alienating others).
- bcheung 10y ago
  To take his support of the Republican party to mean that he is against non-white, non-males is dishonest and straw man. If you have some evidence then present it. Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. Clearly he doesn't support everything in Trump and the Republican party.
  - jowiar 10y ago
    That wasn't the argument I was making. What I was saying is that a policy of "We will allow people to express their political views free of judgement and consequence" only really works when "political views" is taken to mean "things we're saying about people who aren't in the room".
    - bcheung 10y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. Any political view usually affects all people in any room. Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.
aiig 10y ago
> A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically. Even if you're an active supporter of David Duke? Must we tolerate the (frequently violent) intolerance of others?
alexbeloi 10y ago
>A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically. * Job: agreed * board seat: disagreed, board members are elected to represent the shareholders, companies voice their political opinions through political contributions. If those opinions aren't reflective of the shareholders, then that's a valid reason for their removal. * public event: agreed. * private event: disagreed. Distasteful to do something like this, but private events are private events.

by maratd 10y ago

archagon 10y ago

In a normal political climate I would agree, but I have to ask: is there a line? Is there any line? I think most people could imagine a political affiliation that they would want absolutely no association with. If Trump was a bit more murdery like Duterte, would it be OK to disavow his supporters then?

braythwayt 10y ago

In short, you say "people who support that sort of witch hunt" are intolerant, and that there is no place for them here. So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved. Another matter of interest is the nature of the power imbalance of lack of same. The original witch hunts, McCarthyism, and other struggles involved a very powerful entity depriving individual citizens of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a career. There is a massive difference between "So-and-so engineer cannot work in this industry because a VC finds their political views repugnant," and, "I choose not to do business with a billionaire who is actively conspiring to bring democracy down." One is punching down, the other is punching up, or perhaps sideways.

exolymph 10y ago
Yeah, "destroying a person for their political views" does not apply in this case at all. Peter Thiel is a BILLIONAIRE.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  For values of "destroying" equal to "refusing to do business with".
- vsl 10y ago
  So it's open season for bullying, witch hunts and any other behavior we'd normally label as bad? If WE do it to a RICH person, it's all right?
bitewhite 10y ago
"So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved". No, OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. The statements "Thiel should be fired because of his political views" and "Thiels's political views should have no place in a civil society" are entirely different things. Political discourse has a special sanctity in American culture and I, personally, think that is one of our greatest strengths. Firing an employee due to their political views is fundamentally at odds with this idea and there are laws in place to protect employees from political retaliation. Although a company might be threatened by an employee running for political office, campaigning for a candidate or participating in fundraising or a political advocacy group, an employer should not be empowered to fire that employee. To do so would invite fundamentally undemocratic forces into our political system. e.g. a company feels threatened by candidate A, employees must support candidate B else they are fired.
- braythwayt 10y ago
  I think the second half of your comment is aligned with the second half of mine, so I will just reply to the first half of your comment. > OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on > the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. There is exclusion, and there is exclusion. The essay does not discuss stripping Mr. Thiel of his citizenship. It discusses doing business with Mr. Thiel, and the claim is that not doing business with Mr. Thiel on account of his support for Mr. Trump is a form of exclusion, and by your summary, that is wrong. There is no more extreme position than claiming that all forms of "political ideology" are equally valid, and that all forms of "exclusion" are wrong. Some people's political ideology calls for the murder of innocent civilians. I gladly refuse to do business with them, and I reject the notion that it is wrong to exclude them. Likewise, as I pointed out, not all forms of exclusion are equivalent. If we say that all forms of exclusion are wrong, you rob me of my free will. You force me to buy advertising from Reddit or Stormfront. You demand that I work for Mr. Thiel. Or to sell my products to the RNC... Whether I want to or not. This is the exact same argument as the one for religious freedom. Must a baker bake a cake for a lesbian couple? If so, we deprive the baker of their freedom of choice. If not, we deprive the couple of equal treatment. We cannot grant one right without depriving somebody else of another. So in the end, we have to apply some judgment, we have to pick some line and say that things on far on this side are wrong, things far on that side are right, and things close to the line are vexing questions that must be debated. I personally can accept arguments that in this particular case, it is ok to do business with Mr. Thiel, or arguments that in this particular case that it is not. But the unambiguous argument that all forms of political ideology must be protected is not one I support, and nor is the one that all forms of exclusion are unambiguously wrong.

InclinedPlane 10y ago

What would you do if David Duke was on the board of directors for your company?

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

I don't think YC would be "destroying" Thiel by cutting ties with him as a partner. And, the argument here is that support of Trump goes a bridge beyond simply expressing disagreeable political views - he is literally encouraging election day violence and trying to delegitimize our Democracy. There has to come a point where toxic and hateful views are no longer tolerated as "political". It is admittedly a slippery slope, but one we're being dragged down whether we like it or not.

masklinn 10y ago

> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him, bloke's got "fuck you money" a hundred times over, nothing could "destroy" him short of institutional assault, and even then possibly not. And you're advocating for tolerating intolerance whose end-result is the destruction of tolerance. > I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society. So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance? Against a billionaire shovelling money to white supremacist and fascist ideologies to boot?

InclinedPlane 10y ago
> "So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance?" I wish there were such a thing as HN gold, that sums things up perfectly.
- FeepingCreature 10y ago
  I can tolerate it, I just don't like it. I'm not going to fire someone for advocating firing people they don't like. Even though the irony would be damn sweet.
maratd 10y ago
> Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him This isn't just about Thiel. It's about everyone else too. If you create those sorts of standards, they'll apply to everyone. How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating. > So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance? Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.
- aiig 10y ago
  > Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant. Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street.

jowiar 10y ago

> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. And this is some seriously oppressing bullshit that has (wittingly or not) prolonged white/male supremacy. People creating a space that makes it very clear that non-white, non-males aren't welcome, then well-meaning "moderates" going along with it because, well, I'm not going to judge him for his politics. It's how the US even came to be, founded on a compromise that was fundamentally designed to promise that slavery would never be repealed. Here's the deal. Having a don't-ask, don't tell policy regarding your votes in a voting booth is fine. But the minute you write a big fucking check to a big fucking fascist (or anyone else), you forfeit any right to not suffer consequences for your actions. Sure, the government can't (and shouldn't) impose penalties. But I'm damn sure going to judge you, and judge those who continue to associate with you (because they are saying that maintaining your friendship is worth alienating others).

bcheung 10y ago
To take his support of the Republican party to mean that he is against non-white, non-males is dishonest and straw man. If you have some evidence then present it. Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. Clearly he doesn't support everything in Trump and the Republican party.
- jowiar 10y ago
  That wasn't the argument I was making. What I was saying is that a policy of "We will allow people to express their political views free of judgement and consequence" only really works when "political views" is taken to mean "things we're saying about people who aren't in the room".
  - bcheung 10y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. Any political view usually affects all people in any room. Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.

aiig 10y ago

> A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically. Even if you're an active supporter of David Duke? Must we tolerate the (frequently violent) intolerance of others?

alexbeloi 10y ago

>A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically. * Job: agreed * board seat: disagreed, board members are elected to represent the shareholders, companies voice their political opinions through political contributions. If those opinions aren't reflective of the shareholders, then that's a valid reason for their removal. * public event: agreed. * private event: disagreed. Distasteful to do something like this, but private events are private events.