5 ms·
I agree with the thrust of your point - that organizations like YC should be allowed to uninvite or refuse to collaborate with people they are diametrically opp
by dsacco 10y ago
I agree with the thrust of your point - that organizations like YC should be allowed to uninvite or refuse to collaborate with people they are diametrically opposed to for political reasons.
However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. I agree organizations have every right to not affiliate themselves with those investors, but in the real world there are plenty of examples of investors who hold controversial political views.
Logically, there is no a priori reason why "Thiel is a good investor." and "Thiel strongly endorses Trump." cannot both be true. To go further, I don't see an a priori reason why an investor with political views that are antagonistic to the industry he focuses on cannot be a very good investor. It might not be likely, but on its own I do not agree with using politics as a criterion for investing performance. That's silly - just look at investing performance directly.
To go even further, I think it would be disingenuous for groups like YC to announce they will distance themselves from investors they disagree with because "How could they be qualified investors if they hold this opinion?" That's masking the real reason for not affiliating with them, and in my opinion they shouldn't have to mask that anyway.
I also think using that sort of language establishes a precedent that makes the industry less inclusive to people with opposing political views. Much of the tech industry is progressive and liberal, but it would be ridiculous if this was applied to potential founders. Should founders who support SOPA or Trump not be admitted to YC if they are well into a startup that will most likely become the next Google?
Put another way, if you read Zero to One and you found it to be very insightful and full of legitimately good ideas, would you call it into question after learning that Thiel supports Trump? Doesn't that strike you as an ad hominem? Sure, Thiel's political views might be relevant or worth noting as an investor, but they certainly do not define his investment performance.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoAs to your final point: either the hypothetical founders do not have the support network from YC and simply cannot become the next Big Thing (and someone else at YC/SV does it instead), or they find a different support network - possibly in a different state or country - and the market hums along. It's not a great tragedy either way.
- threatofrain 10y agoSOPA is not a solely political affair; it has substantive intersections with the technology industry. Paul Graham simply talks as if he sees the economic / technological outcome of SOPA so clearly that anyone else who think otherwise either has contradictory interests or is ignorant. I'm not commenting on whether Paul Graham is accurate or inaccurate, modest or arrogant, but I'm not surprised that someone of his position holds strong views on his pet predictors.
- sdenton4 10y agoHaving Thiel on the board is a statement that intolerance based on race, gender, or religion is tolerable by yc. This in turn chills applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males.
- xupybd 10y agoWhy is it okay to call out white western males, but to focus down on any other gender and race with a negative statement like that would be seen as intolerant?
- st3v3r 10y agoHistorical context.
- bbctol 10y agoWhat's negative about saying this would "chill applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males'? If Thiel was supporting a candidate who was chauvinistically in favor of black women, it would be fine to worry about people from other backgrounds being excluded. But he isn't (in part because such a candidate doesn't exist.)
- xupybd 10y agoI guess my point is a bit of a straw man, but I'd expect backlash if someone did make a statement like "chill applications from startups working on problems not relating to black women". This is probably just me making assumptions.
- sdenton4 10y agoHaving Thiel on the board is a statement that intolerance based on race, gender, or religion is tolerable by yc. This in turn chills applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males.
- e40 10y agoHowever, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. Even extreme ones? Can you brush everything Trump has done under political cover? I really think that's going too far.
- ilostmykeys 10y agoYou cannot be in a startup that is the next Google and be a supporter of someone who is a proven pathological liar and pu$$y grabbing sexual predator. That simply defies logic, if not the rules of common decency, and you need to be good at logic to be Google, or anyone (other than Trump)
- edanm 10y agoWell that's just a ridiculous claim. Are you literally saying that no (successful) startup has ever been founded by anyone who is a pathological liar and a sexual predator? I'd love for you to be right, but I really, really doubt it. And as is often pointed out by women, sexually predatory behavior is much more common than most men realize. (not sure if you are a man or woman, but putting it out there for other people, mostly because I also tend to forget this point).
- ilostmykeys 10y agoYou're being ludicrous. A million startups can be founded by pathological pu$$y grabing liars but that does not make them the next Google. Does Monsanto have pathological liars at the top, sure but they're not Google. To be Google you're head has to be screwed on right.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]