6 ms·

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the narrative where support for Trump is a basis for excluding a person from discussion and employment. He's a major party candid

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the narrative where support for Trump is a basis for excluding a person from discussion and employment. He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence! The usual argument runs that this time is unique, that Trump has embraced racism and violence and his major-party status should not bury that. That he is effectively (sometimes "literally") a facist, and should be treated as such. I think it's an inadequate, alarming response. Just about half of voters will back Trump. At that scale, silencing and marginalizing them is impossible, so whether it's moral doesn't really matter. Shunning influences people when it cuts them off from their social circles, but most of the people embracing shunning admit they know 0-1 Trump supporters. It's not going to marginalize anyone, just deepen a divide between the groups. Even if Trump were quite literally Mussolini 2.0, firing and shunning his supporters wouldn't end his candidacy. In fact, refusing to engage with facists has historically pushed them further, letting them build their beliefs unopposed. I respected Altman's explanation. It doesn't matter that Trump is different, or that Thiel donated an exceptional amount (particularly since it was in line with his wealth). Firing people for simple support or donations makes this problem worse, so no amount of importance is a justification.

tptacek 10y ago
Nobody is suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Would anyone be shocked if that came up in Part II? Brendan Eich wouldn't be...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    There's no political argument that you can't turn into a slippery slope like this. You can get to Brendan Eich with just a few more hops from a starting point of "refusing to donate to Trump". So that argument isn't very interesting. What might interest you more is that I agree with you about Brendan Eich. I think Eich's situation is nothing at all like that of Thiel's. Eich was a full-time employee of Mozilla. From what I know of the situation, Eich hadn't made any of his employees at Mozilla uncomfortable. Eich's support for Proposition 8 was quiet: people dug it out of a database to use against him. And while I disagree with the stance he took against marriage equality, opposition to marriage equality doesn't challenge equal access to the channels of democracy. Eich wasn't campaigning to remove the Muslims from our country, or to imprison those who disagree with him. What happened to Eich was wrong. But nothing like that is happening here.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      OK, you'll be shocked. That's fine; politics is a matter of taste. For that reason, it is ever plagued by this sort of fuzzy, tone-policing, last-year-you-could-say-that-but-not-this-year, latest-fashion argument. Most political pundits owe their careers to that insipid bullshit. Personally I'd like both of the candidates under discussion to go jump in a lake, so we could elect someone opposed to the Eternal War on Everything. That's off-narrative, however, so it will be best to avoid both rural Arab weddings and plant-based pain control for some time to come.
- duncanawoods 10y ago
  "First they came for the Billionaires, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Billionaire. Then they came for the..."
  - kevinmchugh 10y ago
    You know who "they" refers to in the original poem, right?
    - duncanawoods 10y ago
      Of course. I also know it started as a left-wing workers movement that moved to the right to gain favour of the wealthy capitalists required to fund its growth which included seizing control over the media. As a European looking from the outside and more than aware of this history, I see the media goose-stepping to the tune of one campaign which uses it to stoke up moral outrage about their opposition of which this story is a current symptom. The candidate that rhymes with history is not the chaotic/offensive TV personality.
      - zeekner 10y ago
        Are you kidding? At no point during that parties history was it ever 'left-wing'. It was partially funded and staffed by the military, and originally organized to push hard against leftist elements in Germany. It primarily appealed to workers as a conservative alternative to leftist politics, quite similar to the conservative party we have today.
        duncanawoods 10y ago
        >> At no point during that parties history was it ever 'left-wing' What?! Of course it was - history time: the small feller with moustaches joined an anti-capitalist workers party. It's in the name - it was socialist but nationalist so anti-communist but still decidedly to the left of say the DNC today. Check the manifesto including things like banning rentiers, seizing land, obligating pensions and this little gem "We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government" etc. The moral is that its not where you start, its where you go that matters. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto
- prh8 10y ago
  It seems like most people want YC to cut Thiel off, which would be very similar to that. David Heinemeier Hansson and Ellen Pao have advocated for virtually that exact scenario.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling Altman: rethink the endorsement.
    - prh8 10y ago
      And once that happens, that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump. I understand that Thiel's involvement with YC is not "employment," but the point is that 1) yes, people are suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment and 2) high visibility people doing so would have a massive ripple effect on everybody else. It's just another thing that goes from "that's insane and you can't do that" to "these other companies have done it, so it's no big deal."
      - tptacek 10y ago
        You can construct a slippery slope out of any argument. I can get you to "DHH fires Basecamp employees" from "refusal to donate to Donald Trump" in just a few more steps. So that argument is not compelling. It's more productive for us to concentrate on the arguments that are actually being made. You don't have to, of course, but I don't think you'll get very far otherwise.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - rmc 10y ago
        > that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump Except that democratic voting systems are set up to make to make it impossible to prove who you voted for.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- undersuit 10y ago
  Wasn't that the exact reason many developers cancelled Oculus Rift support unless Facebook severed ties with Palmer Luckey?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I wasn't aware that there was a boycott of Oculus over Palmer Luckey, but man, that's heartening to hear. I have to admit that I would not have picked "political integrity" over "access to VR toys" in that particular sparring match. Good for those developers! Boycotts are a form of speech. The right to criticize is inalienable.
    - surfmike 10y ago
      First, the argument isn't over whether Graham and Altman can drop ties to Thiel, it's whether they should. Second, if you think that firing an employee for their political beliefs is a straw man, you should be standing up for Palmer Luckey in this case.
Cabal 10y ago
He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence! Are you sure? Prop 8 was _passed_ (i.e. it was voted in favor of by more than half of California's population), and yet we still regularly hold witch hunts for people that supported it. I've actually been asked about it on a job application.
- xcoivuoiu 10y ago
  > I've actually been asked about it on a job application. It seems like that's probably illegal, though here's hopefully some nuance: It probably shouldn't be illegal. The parts of the civil rights legislation that reach into the private sector should be probably be repealed/sunsetted. It should be sufficient to have the government actually recognize/implement equal protection under the law. E.g., if the KKK burns down the local shop that serves people of color or is owned by a person of color, the police should bring the KKK members to justice. To keep going, while it shouldn't be illegal, it shouldn't be encouraged either. The employer has their right to free expression and voluntary association but they should strive/remain-vigilant to uphold the spirit of free speech and tolerance even if the law does not compel them to. For those with such self-discipline, their reward is access to the broader, richer market of rational peoples of every stripe.

tptacek 10y ago

Nobody is suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment.

jessaustin 10y ago
Would anyone be shocked if that came up in Part II? Brendan Eich wouldn't be...
- tptacek 10y ago
  There's no political argument that you can't turn into a slippery slope like this. You can get to Brendan Eich with just a few more hops from a starting point of "refusing to donate to Trump". So that argument isn't very interesting. What might interest you more is that I agree with you about Brendan Eich. I think Eich's situation is nothing at all like that of Thiel's. Eich was a full-time employee of Mozilla. From what I know of the situation, Eich hadn't made any of his employees at Mozilla uncomfortable. Eich's support for Proposition 8 was quiet: people dug it out of a database to use against him. And while I disagree with the stance he took against marriage equality, opposition to marriage equality doesn't challenge equal access to the channels of democracy. Eich wasn't campaigning to remove the Muslims from our country, or to imprison those who disagree with him. What happened to Eich was wrong. But nothing like that is happening here.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    OK, you'll be shocked. That's fine; politics is a matter of taste. For that reason, it is ever plagued by this sort of fuzzy, tone-policing, last-year-you-could-say-that-but-not-this-year, latest-fashion argument. Most political pundits owe their careers to that insipid bullshit. Personally I'd like both of the candidates under discussion to go jump in a lake, so we could elect someone opposed to the Eternal War on Everything. That's off-narrative, however, so it will be best to avoid both rural Arab weddings and plant-based pain control for some time to come.
duncanawoods 10y ago
"First they came for the Billionaires, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Billionaire. Then they came for the..."
- kevinmchugh 10y ago
  You know who "they" refers to in the original poem, right?
  - duncanawoods 10y ago
    Of course. I also know it started as a left-wing workers movement that moved to the right to gain favour of the wealthy capitalists required to fund its growth which included seizing control over the media. As a European looking from the outside and more than aware of this history, I see the media goose-stepping to the tune of one campaign which uses it to stoke up moral outrage about their opposition of which this story is a current symptom. The candidate that rhymes with history is not the chaotic/offensive TV personality.
    - zeekner 10y ago
      Are you kidding? At no point during that parties history was it ever 'left-wing'. It was partially funded and staffed by the military, and originally organized to push hard against leftist elements in Germany. It primarily appealed to workers as a conservative alternative to leftist politics, quite similar to the conservative party we have today.
      - duncanawoods 10y ago
        >> At no point during that parties history was it ever 'left-wing' What?! Of course it was - history time: the small feller with moustaches joined an anti-capitalist workers party. It's in the name - it was socialist but nationalist so anti-communist but still decidedly to the left of say the DNC today. Check the manifesto including things like banning rentiers, seizing land, obligating pensions and this little gem "We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government" etc. The moral is that its not where you start, its where you go that matters. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto
prh8 10y ago
It seems like most people want YC to cut Thiel off, which would be very similar to that. David Heinemeier Hansson and Ellen Pao have advocated for virtually that exact scenario.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling Altman: rethink the endorsement.
  - prh8 10y ago
    And once that happens, that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump. I understand that Thiel's involvement with YC is not "employment," but the point is that 1) yes, people are suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment and 2) high visibility people doing so would have a massive ripple effect on everybody else. It's just another thing that goes from "that's insane and you can't do that" to "these other companies have done it, so it's no big deal."
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You can construct a slippery slope out of any argument. I can get you to "DHH fires Basecamp employees" from "refusal to donate to Donald Trump" in just a few more steps. So that argument is not compelling. It's more productive for us to concentrate on the arguments that are actually being made. You don't have to, of course, but I don't think you'll get very far otherwise.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - rmc 10y ago
      > that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump Except that democratic voting systems are set up to make to make it impossible to prove who you voted for.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
undersuit 10y ago
Wasn't that the exact reason many developers cancelled Oculus Rift support unless Facebook severed ties with Palmer Luckey?
- tptacek 10y ago
  I wasn't aware that there was a boycott of Oculus over Palmer Luckey, but man, that's heartening to hear. I have to admit that I would not have picked "political integrity" over "access to VR toys" in that particular sparring match. Good for those developers! Boycotts are a form of speech. The right to criticize is inalienable.
  - surfmike 10y ago
    First, the argument isn't over whether Graham and Altman can drop ties to Thiel, it's whether they should. Second, if you think that firing an employee for their political beliefs is a straw man, you should be standing up for Palmer Luckey in this case.

Cabal 10y ago

He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence! Are you sure? Prop 8 was _passed_ (i.e. it was voted in favor of by more than half of California's population), and yet we still regularly hold witch hunts for people that supported it. I've actually been asked about it on a job application.

xcoivuoiu 10y ago
> I've actually been asked about it on a job application. It seems like that's probably illegal, though here's hopefully some nuance: It probably shouldn't be illegal. The parts of the civil rights legislation that reach into the private sector should be probably be repealed/sunsetted. It should be sufficient to have the government actually recognize/implement equal protection under the law. E.g., if the KKK burns down the local shop that serves people of color or is owned by a person of color, the police should bring the KKK members to justice. To keep going, while it shouldn't be illegal, it shouldn't be encouraged either. The employer has their right to free expression and voluntary association but they should strive/remain-vigilant to uphold the spirit of free speech and tolerance even if the law does not compel them to. For those with such self-discipline, their reward is access to the broader, richer market of rational peoples of every stripe.