7 ms·

You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a person

by _hao 10y ago

You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.

dnadler 10y ago
It's also generally illegal to fire someone over political beliefs, if I recall correctly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- samfisher83 10y ago
  Nationally title 7 only protects you from the following: sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There might be local state laws that protect you from politics, but no national law.
  - jobigoud 10y ago
    Religion is held higher than other forms of opinions like political stance? Weird.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      A consequence of living in a country founded on freedom from religious persecution, something that Trump's supporters badly need to be reminded of.
    - VLM 10y ago
      Given the era it was written in "race, color, national origin, and religion" were seen as a way of defining and carpet bombing the entire "ancestry" topic. If they just listed "ancestry" there would be wiggle room with what is the definition in order to discriminate on ancestry. For the purposes of the legal system the definition of ancestry in that context is all of race, color, national origin, religion. Interesting political affiliation isn't seen as ancestry although in practice it most certainly is. We like to LARP that elections are fair because people decide, when the reality is most of the population is born into party affiliation and boundaries are gerrymandered such that almost none of the public gets to actually decide anything ever. What I'm getting at is we LARP that the people have a voice and a crucial part of the LARPing is we must pretend political affiliation is NOT dominated almost entirely by ancestry. If for example "all black people vote for party X" that would imply black people are not part of a representative democracy where leaders are selected by voting etc, which is totally badthink thoughtcrime to even consider as a physics style thought experiment or mathematical inductive reasoning. So obviously politics can't be a protected class in a "democracy" like the USA.
    - chris_7 10y ago
      It seems especially terrible that a religious belief that "gay people should be executed" is more protected than, um, being a gay person.
    - tedmiston 10y ago
      If you think that's out there, consider something like sharia law [1][2] where the law is based on religion. In some regions, you can get arrested for things you don't even understand. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law
- feedjoelpie 10y ago
  He's not an employee.
- akerro 10y ago
  Eghm egmm Brendan Eich eghmm
- tptacek 10y ago
  First, it's not generally illegal to fire people over political beliefs. More importantly, though, Peter Thiel isn't an employee of Y Combinator --- as Altman himself has been at pains to point out.
maxxxxx 10y ago
Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.
- dmix 10y ago
  I see a lot of Trump supporters doing the same thing as the (mainstream) left is doing here. The entire concept is strange to me, that they would so rabidly support their tribe that they think they've attained some a) of moral superiority or b) their tribe is the only thing stopping the country from total disaster. The truth is a lot more boring than their fantasies. The media feeds into this hysteria though so I don't blame all of them.
- VLM 10y ago
  Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with the same logical problems as people who believe every word of a holy book is literally true. The linked article is well written sophistry but don't expect sophistry to contain anything rational. If you didn't get to irrational beliefs in a rational logical manner, you're not going to escape from irrational beliefs using rational or logical discussion, which makes debating the specific points of the sophistry pointless.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    The right wingers love to do that too, not only the lefties. Call somebody "racist" or "socialist" and you have marked them as so bad that no further dialog is needed (or even possible).
    - jshevek 10y ago
tomgp 10y ago
By donating millions of $ you cross the line from speech to action.
- fullofit 10y ago
  Why the fuck is it even legal to donate $1.25 million? Thanks Citizens United.
  - fullofit 10y ago
    Downvoted by people who believe the amount of speech you can have is proportional to your bank account balance.
    - lotharbot 10y ago
      if you read Citizens United carefully, you'll see the point of the decision is actually the opposite. The wealthy can afford whole media companies, and otherwise have a great deal of ability to put information out into the general public, without ever stepping afoul of election laws. But, as has been in precedent in US law since at least the 1790s [0], groups of people also have the right to be "united for a special purpose" [1]. "[T]he individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons" [2]. This applies to "[unions], associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life" and "It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to [those groups] during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community" [3]. That's what Citizens United established. Here's a key snippet from Kennedy's majority opinion: "wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful." [0] The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College, 7 Va. 573; 1790 [1] Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1886 [2] Scalia's concurrence, Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 [3] United States v. United Auto Workers, 1957
bbctol 10y ago
What? People get fired over personal choices all the time. If I leered at women at the office, then told them it was fine because they secretly liked it, I'd be out in no time. It's a personal choice to do that, and to support a candidate who does the same, but the company can absolutely take your choices into account when figuring out who isn't needed.
- fsloth 10y ago
  There is a difference between having private non-conforming opinions and openly harassing colleagues. Only the latter is an obvious lack of virtue.
  - akvadrako 10y ago
    Although to be fair, it's not clearcut. If you quietly say you support someone who is openly harassing colleagues, that is basically harassment by proxy. Being less direct could actually be worse, since it's passive-aggressive. I'm not implying that applies in this case.
    - fsloth 10y ago
      I agree, it's not that clearcut and you provided a great counterexample to my argument. My example was intended for mostly disjoint private and professional spheres but I did not specify it.
Red_Tarsius 10y ago
Thank you, I couldn't agree more with you. I'd like to add that being a professional means working together with people of diverging opinions. Both candidates' slogans are deeply ironic (Stronger Together and Make America Great Again) in light of the division and alienation the election is fostering. The US media are radicalizing the people for the sake of votes. I hope Thiel doesn't stress himself over such outrage. I wish him well.
tptacek 10y ago
Adult life is full of personal choices that adults are required to be accountable for.
- hueving 10y ago
  Then perhaps you'd like to get rid of anonymous voting?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, I would not like to get rid of anonymous voting. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer.
    - hueving 10y ago
      But you would like to punish people who are publicly backing a candidate. Not very consistent.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        You'll have to do a better job of connecting those dots for me, because I do not see the connection between criticizing someone for endorsing a member of the Trump campaign and working to eliminate the anonymous vote. Incidentally? Elimination of the anonymous vote? That's something Peter Thiel probably actually believes in. He believes democracy is a failed experiment, and the extension of the franchise to women harmed society. He believes, in general, that more voting worsens outcomes.
      - bbctol 10y ago
        Can you not see the difference between judging people for their public positions and making it illegal for their positions to be private?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tedmiston 10y ago
gugiserman 10y ago
Thanks, man.
snuxoll 10y ago
You are correct that supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, and on many occasions I continue to do business with companies headed by people who back political ideals I disagree with. However, I HAVE discontinued business with companies that directly support groups I disagree with (Chick-fil-a being a small, but easy example) - I don't care what people do with their own funds, but once a companies name is attached to a donation or lobbying effort it's completely reasonable to hold them accountable for their actions in my eyes. Unfortunately, even with this mental separation I try to maintain it falls into shades of gray when there isn't a clear separation between the business and the individual.
repler 10y ago
I don't disagree with you, man, but you also have to realize this wound never fully healed after our Civil War ended in 1865. You look at a map of the "red states" and they are very much what is remaining of the Confederate States of America. The red states in the west are where these racist losers fled to after the war to get away from all the freed blacks. The fact that Trump is calling the election "rigged" and essentially egging on an armed rebellion after election day - well that just might happen because it already did a very long time ago.
mikeash 10y ago
The question of whether every eligible individual in a democratic state should be allowed to support political candidates with millions of dollars in funding is a contentious one, and my understanding is that the answer in most developed countries is "no, you're not allowed to do that."

by _hao 10y ago

dnadler 10y ago

It's also generally illegal to fire someone over political beliefs, if I recall correctly.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
samfisher83 10y ago
Nationally title 7 only protects you from the following: sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There might be local state laws that protect you from politics, but no national law.
- jobigoud 10y ago
  Religion is held higher than other forms of opinions like political stance? Weird.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    A consequence of living in a country founded on freedom from religious persecution, something that Trump's supporters badly need to be reminded of.
  - VLM 10y ago
    Given the era it was written in "race, color, national origin, and religion" were seen as a way of defining and carpet bombing the entire "ancestry" topic. If they just listed "ancestry" there would be wiggle room with what is the definition in order to discriminate on ancestry. For the purposes of the legal system the definition of ancestry in that context is all of race, color, national origin, religion. Interesting political affiliation isn't seen as ancestry although in practice it most certainly is. We like to LARP that elections are fair because people decide, when the reality is most of the population is born into party affiliation and boundaries are gerrymandered such that almost none of the public gets to actually decide anything ever. What I'm getting at is we LARP that the people have a voice and a crucial part of the LARPing is we must pretend political affiliation is NOT dominated almost entirely by ancestry. If for example "all black people vote for party X" that would imply black people are not part of a representative democracy where leaders are selected by voting etc, which is totally badthink thoughtcrime to even consider as a physics style thought experiment or mathematical inductive reasoning. So obviously politics can't be a protected class in a "democracy" like the USA.
  - chris_7 10y ago
    It seems especially terrible that a religious belief that "gay people should be executed" is more protected than, um, being a gay person.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    If you think that's out there, consider something like sharia law [1][2] where the law is based on religion. In some regions, you can get arrested for things you don't even understand. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law
feedjoelpie 10y ago
He's not an employee.
akerro 10y ago
Eghm egmm Brendan Eich eghmm
tptacek 10y ago
First, it's not generally illegal to fire people over political beliefs. More importantly, though, Peter Thiel isn't an employee of Y Combinator --- as Altman himself has been at pains to point out.

maxxxxx 10y ago

Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.

dmix 10y ago
I see a lot of Trump supporters doing the same thing as the (mainstream) left is doing here. The entire concept is strange to me, that they would so rabidly support their tribe that they think they've attained some a) of moral superiority or b) their tribe is the only thing stopping the country from total disaster. The truth is a lot more boring than their fantasies. The media feeds into this hysteria though so I don't blame all of them.
VLM 10y ago
Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with the same logical problems as people who believe every word of a holy book is literally true. The linked article is well written sophistry but don't expect sophistry to contain anything rational. If you didn't get to irrational beliefs in a rational logical manner, you're not going to escape from irrational beliefs using rational or logical discussion, which makes debating the specific points of the sophistry pointless.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  The right wingers love to do that too, not only the lefties. Call somebody "racist" or "socialist" and you have marked them as so bad that no further dialog is needed (or even possible).
  - jshevek 10y ago

tomgp 10y ago

By donating millions of $ you cross the line from speech to action.

fullofit 10y ago
Why the fuck is it even legal to donate $1.25 million? Thanks Citizens United.
- fullofit 10y ago
  Downvoted by people who believe the amount of speech you can have is proportional to your bank account balance.
  - lotharbot 10y ago
    if you read Citizens United carefully, you'll see the point of the decision is actually the opposite. The wealthy can afford whole media companies, and otherwise have a great deal of ability to put information out into the general public, without ever stepping afoul of election laws. But, as has been in precedent in US law since at least the 1790s [0], groups of people also have the right to be "united for a special purpose" [1]. "[T]he individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons" [2]. This applies to "[unions], associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life" and "It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to [those groups] during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community" [3]. That's what Citizens United established. Here's a key snippet from Kennedy's majority opinion: "wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful." [0] The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College, 7 Va. 573; 1790 [1] Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1886 [2] Scalia's concurrence, Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 [3] United States v. United Auto Workers, 1957

bbctol 10y ago

What? People get fired over personal choices all the time. If I leered at women at the office, then told them it was fine because they secretly liked it, I'd be out in no time. It's a personal choice to do that, and to support a candidate who does the same, but the company can absolutely take your choices into account when figuring out who isn't needed.

fsloth 10y ago
There is a difference between having private non-conforming opinions and openly harassing colleagues. Only the latter is an obvious lack of virtue.
- akvadrako 10y ago
  Although to be fair, it's not clearcut. If you quietly say you support someone who is openly harassing colleagues, that is basically harassment by proxy. Being less direct could actually be worse, since it's passive-aggressive. I'm not implying that applies in this case.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    I agree, it's not that clearcut and you provided a great counterexample to my argument. My example was intended for mostly disjoint private and professional spheres but I did not specify it.

Red_Tarsius 10y ago

Thank you, I couldn't agree more with you. I'd like to add that being a professional means working together with people of diverging opinions. Both candidates' slogans are deeply ironic (Stronger Together and Make America Great Again) in light of the division and alienation the election is fostering. The US media are radicalizing the people for the sake of votes. I hope Thiel doesn't stress himself over such outrage. I wish him well.

tptacek 10y ago

Adult life is full of personal choices that adults are required to be accountable for.

hueving 10y ago
Then perhaps you'd like to get rid of anonymous voting?
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, I would not like to get rid of anonymous voting. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer.
  - hueving 10y ago
    But you would like to punish people who are publicly backing a candidate. Not very consistent.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You'll have to do a better job of connecting those dots for me, because I do not see the connection between criticizing someone for endorsing a member of the Trump campaign and working to eliminate the anonymous vote. Incidentally? Elimination of the anonymous vote? That's something Peter Thiel probably actually believes in. He believes democracy is a failed experiment, and the extension of the franchise to women harmed society. He believes, in general, that more voting worsens outcomes.
    - bbctol 10y ago
      Can you not see the difference between judging people for their public positions and making it illegal for their positions to be private?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tedmiston 10y ago

gugiserman 10y ago

Thanks, man.

snuxoll 10y ago

You are correct that supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, and on many occasions I continue to do business with companies headed by people who back political ideals I disagree with. However, I HAVE discontinued business with companies that directly support groups I disagree with (Chick-fil-a being a small, but easy example) - I don't care what people do with their own funds, but once a companies name is attached to a donation or lobbying effort it's completely reasonable to hold them accountable for their actions in my eyes. Unfortunately, even with this mental separation I try to maintain it falls into shades of gray when there isn't a clear separation between the business and the individual.

repler 10y ago

I don't disagree with you, man, but you also have to realize this wound never fully healed after our Civil War ended in 1865. You look at a map of the "red states" and they are very much what is remaining of the Confederate States of America. The red states in the west are where these racist losers fled to after the war to get away from all the freed blacks. The fact that Trump is calling the election "rigged" and essentially egging on an armed rebellion after election day - well that just might happen because it already did a very long time ago.

mikeash 10y ago

The question of whether every eligible individual in a democratic state should be allowed to support political candidates with millions of dollars in funding is a contentious one, and my understanding is that the answer in most developed countries is "no, you're not allowed to do that."