4 ms·

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 tha

by 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.
    - prh8 10y ago
      Yes, of course. I should have said "support" instead of "vote for."
- ng12 10y ago
  How would that make you feel if you were a YC-funded founder who happened to support Trump? The semantics of Thiel's relationship with YC doesn't change anything.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You think the idea that Altman disavowing Thiel would make Trump supporters uncomfortable will persuade me to stop asking Altman to disavow Thiel?
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      It should. It's extremely bad to exclude people for disagreeing with their political positions. We need to learn how to disagree politely and civilly, and how to keep our disagreements from bleeding over into our total personal evaluation of the opposing person. That's applicable to both sides. Our civilization and democracy depends on mutual toleration and an ability to separate the personal from the partisan. Cutting people off only further isolates them. If you really want to convert Trump supporters, you have to show them the error of their ways gradually, just like with everything else. Writing them off as irredeemable based on their political preferences is not only inadvisable, but fundamentally destructive of the binding social fabric of the republic.
    - ng12 10y ago
      There's a line there. If Altman wants to express support for another candidate or express disagreement with Thiel's views -- great! The political process at work. What is not okay is him using his position of power to seek retribution against Thiel for his views. YC is not a political organization. It's not about making Trump supporters uncomfortable, it's about making them afraid to exercise their right to free speech. To be clear, I am not a Trump supporter, but dehumanizing Trump supporters is not a productive approach.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      This feels like exactly the thing that's been dismissed as an unrealistic slippery slope elsewhere in the thread. When the narrative was "Thiel's connection to YC is about prestige, so YC should sever that connection to preserve its reputation", I found it basically reasonable. But if the narrative is "Disavowing Thiel will make Trump-supporting founders uncomfortable with coming to YC, or uncomfortable admitting their support?" Then we've jumped to punishing people professionally for being in a group comprising 40%+ of the country. Hounding founders who support Trump (who, perhaps, don't even donate or like many of his views) seems to go straight into the awful kind of patronage/exclusion politics that's being condemned here.

by 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.
  - prh8 10y ago
    Yes, of course. I should have said "support" instead of "vote for."
ng12 10y ago
How would that make you feel if you were a YC-funded founder who happened to support Trump? The semantics of Thiel's relationship with YC doesn't change anything.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You think the idea that Altman disavowing Thiel would make Trump supporters uncomfortable will persuade me to stop asking Altman to disavow Thiel?
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    It should. It's extremely bad to exclude people for disagreeing with their political positions. We need to learn how to disagree politely and civilly, and how to keep our disagreements from bleeding over into our total personal evaluation of the opposing person. That's applicable to both sides. Our civilization and democracy depends on mutual toleration and an ability to separate the personal from the partisan. Cutting people off only further isolates them. If you really want to convert Trump supporters, you have to show them the error of their ways gradually, just like with everything else. Writing them off as irredeemable based on their political preferences is not only inadvisable, but fundamentally destructive of the binding social fabric of the republic.
  - ng12 10y ago
    There's a line there. If Altman wants to express support for another candidate or express disagreement with Thiel's views -- great! The political process at work. What is not okay is him using his position of power to seek retribution against Thiel for his views. YC is not a political organization. It's not about making Trump supporters uncomfortable, it's about making them afraid to exercise their right to free speech. To be clear, I am not a Trump supporter, but dehumanizing Trump supporters is not a productive approach.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    This feels like exactly the thing that's been dismissed as an unrealistic slippery slope elsewhere in the thread. When the narrative was "Thiel's connection to YC is about prestige, so YC should sever that connection to preserve its reputation", I found it basically reasonable. But if the narrative is "Disavowing Thiel will make Trump-supporting founders uncomfortable with coming to YC, or uncomfortable admitting their support?" Then we've jumped to punishing people professionally for being in a group comprising 40%+ of the country. Hounding founders who support Trump (who, perhaps, don't even donate or like many of his views) seems to go straight into the awful kind of patronage/exclusion politics that's being condemned here.