3 ms·

Any form of ostracism based on someone's political views scares the hell out of me. It constitutes an attempt to suppress political discourse and ultimately, f

by jazzyk 10y ago

Any form of ostracism based on someone's political views scares the hell out of me. It constitutes an attempt to suppress political discourse and ultimately, freedom of speech. Disappointing to see many in the tech industry not understanding this.

thatswrong0 10y ago
This opinion makes zero sense to me. People are allowed to have opinions, and people are allowed to criticize those opinions. If you're going to publicly support something (like, say, with a million dollar donation), you should expect public feedback about said support. There's no suppression of the freedom of speech happening here - Marco is expressing an opinion about an opinion. By your logic, we should accept all opinions as valid and not critize any of them because that would be "suppression" of the freedom of speech. But clearly all opinions are not valid - and people on HN seems to have no problem (rightfully) critizing sexism and other discrimination in the workplace. And people are criticizing Trump (and his supporters) for the same thing.
- jazzyk 10y ago
  Criticizing/arguing is fine. But expelling Thiel from YC (a company which has nothing to do with politics), because of his views, is a form of punishment and discourages others from expressing their political opinions, in fear of the same happening to them. So, it is suppression of free speech, through actions (not words) designed to intimidate.
  - thatswrong0 10y ago
    That's still not suppression of free speech. I know this is cliché, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. I can exercise my freedom of speech at my employer and repeatedly say terribly insulting and disparaging things to my coworkers. My employer can then fire me. Would you say my employer is suppressing my freedom of speech? The answer is obviously no. I still can speak freely, just not while voluntarily associated in a contract with my previous employer. I wouldn't say my coworkers intimidated me into being fired by my employer - I brought it upon myself by saying terrible things. I see that as the same thing as this Thiel situation, except it's even more public. Instead of just insulting coworkers, Thiel is publicly (implicitly) (to some people) (in a large way) supporting discrimination and sexism. I'm not saying I would necessarily expel him, but I would have serious reservations about working with someone who could possibly do that, even if it's somewhat unrelated to the job.
    - uola 10y ago
      As far as I know, freedom of speech protects you from the government. Since YC is not the government freedom of speech isn't applicable, but anti-discrimination or employment law could be. In fact if the government would limit YCs freedom to not associate with Theil, as guaranteed by freedom of speech, that could technically be a greater violation of rights. This is why some libertarians think that private discrimination should be legal. > In short, we should condone private — but not government — discrimination, even if the rationale is that a service provider simply doesn’t want to deal with the persons seeking service. That rationale — however offensive it may be in some circumstances — is implicit in our right not to associate, which is the flip side of our constitutional right of association, guaranteed by the First Amendment. http://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2016/libertarianism-right-discriminate http://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2016/libertaria... But I don't have the best understanding of US laws.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Indeed, "free speech" is a narrower issue. This issue is merely one of tolerance, and whether or not it is possible for people to continue to work together while respectfully disagreeing on political matters or whether we would prefer to divide further and eventually have separate Republican and Democratic economies.

by jazzyk 10y ago

thatswrong0 10y ago

This opinion makes zero sense to me. People are allowed to have opinions, and people are allowed to criticize those opinions. If you're going to publicly support something (like, say, with a million dollar donation), you should expect public feedback about said support. There's no suppression of the freedom of speech happening here - Marco is expressing an opinion about an opinion. By your logic, we should accept all opinions as valid and not critize any of them because that would be "suppression" of the freedom of speech. But clearly all opinions are not valid - and people on HN seems to have no problem (rightfully) critizing sexism and other discrimination in the workplace. And people are criticizing Trump (and his supporters) for the same thing.

jazzyk 10y ago
Criticizing/arguing is fine. But expelling Thiel from YC (a company which has nothing to do with politics), because of his views, is a form of punishment and discourages others from expressing their political opinions, in fear of the same happening to them. So, it is suppression of free speech, through actions (not words) designed to intimidate.
- thatswrong0 10y ago
  That's still not suppression of free speech. I know this is cliché, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. I can exercise my freedom of speech at my employer and repeatedly say terribly insulting and disparaging things to my coworkers. My employer can then fire me. Would you say my employer is suppressing my freedom of speech? The answer is obviously no. I still can speak freely, just not while voluntarily associated in a contract with my previous employer. I wouldn't say my coworkers intimidated me into being fired by my employer - I brought it upon myself by saying terrible things. I see that as the same thing as this Thiel situation, except it's even more public. Instead of just insulting coworkers, Thiel is publicly (implicitly) (to some people) (in a large way) supporting discrimination and sexism. I'm not saying I would necessarily expel him, but I would have serious reservations about working with someone who could possibly do that, even if it's somewhat unrelated to the job.
  - uola 10y ago
    As far as I know, freedom of speech protects you from the government. Since YC is not the government freedom of speech isn't applicable, but anti-discrimination or employment law could be. In fact if the government would limit YCs freedom to not associate with Theil, as guaranteed by freedom of speech, that could technically be a greater violation of rights. This is why some libertarians think that private discrimination should be legal. > In short, we should condone private — but not government — discrimination, even if the rationale is that a service provider simply doesn’t want to deal with the persons seeking service. That rationale — however offensive it may be in some circumstances — is implicit in our right not to associate, which is the flip side of our constitutional right of association, guaranteed by the First Amendment. http://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2016/libertarianism-right-discriminate http://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2016/libertaria... But I don't have the best understanding of US laws.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Indeed, "free speech" is a narrower issue. This issue is merely one of tolerance, and whether or not it is possible for people to continue to work together while respectfully disagreeing on political matters or whether we would prefer to divide further and eventually have separate Republican and Democratic economies.