4 ms·

Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we wo

Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak. If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge. But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the weak, nor is it a case of the powerful purging voices from discourse. It's a choice, simple as that. Agree, disagree, fine. But it's not a purge, and it's not oppression.

DougN7 10y ago
What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.
- braythwayt 10y ago
  Great discussion to be had, but you seem to be working this towards a slippery slope argument that if we don't choose to do business with billionaires to give millions and stump at the RNC convention, it won't be long before we're firing 43% of the workforce. I can accept that YC may choose not to cut Mr. Thiel loose, but I'm not convinced that there is a moral imperative not to cut him loose.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    Where does it stop though? Where is the line where you say "I disagree with you, therefore I will not associate with you"? There is definitely a line. Supporting a candidate who says a lot of stuff probably isn't it. I knew people who were against Obama because his religious leader had said something that could be construed to be pro-satan. Obama is not a 100% mirror (or even a tiny bit) that religious leader. Not supporting Trump for what he says seems fine - he's 100% responsible for what he says. Not supporting someone else, who supports Trump, is not OK. That other person has separate thoughts, and input from hundreds/thousands of other people. It's like saying if you support someone who supports Clinton, you support top secret emails being on everyone's private servers. It's a tiny slice of the whole. Or, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
olalonde 10y ago
I doubt you'd be saying the same if a VC was blacklisted for supporting Hillary.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  False equivalence though since Hillary isn't Trump, I don't like Hillary much either but I dislike her less than Trump. It's a lose/lose situation but the potential losses are large on one side than the other.
  - olalonde 10y ago
    I understood the argument as "it's OK to blacklist people because of their political views if they are powerful" in which case it's fair to question whether that belief would hold for a different set of political views. As you might have guessed, I think blacklisting people based on their political views is a slippery slope and shouldn't be done even to powerful people (especially for political positions that are actually mainstream). I'm not a fan of Trump/Hillary either.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      This seems to imply that all political views are equal. They're not. For example, "Jews are a race of parasites that should be exterminated" is a political view, very popular in some countries back in the day (and in some other countries even today). I don't have any problem blacklisting people who believe in that, and act to make those beliefs a reality, even if the acts themselves are legal (e.g. funding a political campaign to gain power). Do you?
      - olalonde 10y ago
        Can't disagree with that. I guess I should have nuanced my own position a bit, how about: we shouldn't blacklist people based on their political beliefs if those beliefs are shared by nearly half the population and are in no way genocidal? I'd extend the same logic to religion because they both tend to be completely inconsequential at work.

DougN7 10y ago

What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.

braythwayt 10y ago
Great discussion to be had, but you seem to be working this towards a slippery slope argument that if we don't choose to do business with billionaires to give millions and stump at the RNC convention, it won't be long before we're firing 43% of the workforce. I can accept that YC may choose not to cut Mr. Thiel loose, but I'm not convinced that there is a moral imperative not to cut him loose.
- DougN7 10y ago
  Where does it stop though? Where is the line where you say "I disagree with you, therefore I will not associate with you"? There is definitely a line. Supporting a candidate who says a lot of stuff probably isn't it. I knew people who were against Obama because his religious leader had said something that could be construed to be pro-satan. Obama is not a 100% mirror (or even a tiny bit) that religious leader. Not supporting Trump for what he says seems fine - he's 100% responsible for what he says. Not supporting someone else, who supports Trump, is not OK. That other person has separate thoughts, and input from hundreds/thousands of other people. It's like saying if you support someone who supports Clinton, you support top secret emails being on everyone's private servers. It's a tiny slice of the whole. Or, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".

olalonde 10y ago

I doubt you'd be saying the same if a VC was blacklisted for supporting Hillary.

noir_lord 10y ago
False equivalence though since Hillary isn't Trump, I don't like Hillary much either but I dislike her less than Trump. It's a lose/lose situation but the potential losses are large on one side than the other.
- olalonde 10y ago
  I understood the argument as "it's OK to blacklist people because of their political views if they are powerful" in which case it's fair to question whether that belief would hold for a different set of political views. As you might have guessed, I think blacklisting people based on their political views is a slippery slope and shouldn't be done even to powerful people (especially for political positions that are actually mainstream). I'm not a fan of Trump/Hillary either.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    This seems to imply that all political views are equal. They're not. For example, "Jews are a race of parasites that should be exterminated" is a political view, very popular in some countries back in the day (and in some other countries even today). I don't have any problem blacklisting people who believe in that, and act to make those beliefs a reality, even if the acts themselves are legal (e.g. funding a political campaign to gain power). Do you?
    - olalonde 10y ago
      Can't disagree with that. I guess I should have nuanced my own position a bit, how about: we shouldn't blacklist people based on their political beliefs if those beliefs are shared by nearly half the population and are in no way genocidal? I'd extend the same logic to religion because they both tend to be completely inconsequential at work.