10 ms·

Do you realize how despotic that is? Whether or not you and Sam Altman share the same goals I'd consider it deplorable if he used his power to punish Peter Thie

by ng12 10y ago

Do you realize how despotic that is? Whether or not you and Sam Altman share the same goals I'd consider it deplorable if he used his power to punish Peter Thiel for his political views. Just because you agree with the underlying root issue doesn't make it any more just -- consider the reverse, if you would. Should Thiel remove acquaintances who support Hillary?

tptacek 10y ago
No, I'm sorry, you'll have to do a better job at connecting the dots between political criticism and despotism.
- ng12 10y ago
  Political criticism would be Sam Altman telling Thiel he disagrees with his views, or better yet donating money/time to his own candidate. It becomes despotism when someone uses their role in a non-political organization to silence (yes, donations are free speech) Trump supporters.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > donations are free speech It's a donation so large that it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to participate in the same conversation. I question the decision to categorize it as pure free speech. It's qualitatively different from a $100 donation.
    - weberc2 10y ago
      When liberal pundits get a platform from the NYT, his speech is qualitatively different than the opinion I write in my blog, yet I don't think we should legalize political retribution or censure against pundits who use too large a platform. Hopefully you agree?
    - bigtunacan 10y ago
      So where do you draw the dollar line of protected free speech versus it's ok to punish that person for their political views? $100 dollars is apparently protected free speech by your logic, but $1.25 million dollars is a punishable offense. Is $1000 dollars ok? $10,000?, $100,000? Where are you going to draw the line. Also, by this line of thinking then the converse must also apply; if someone donates to Clinton and someone in a position holding power over them supports Trump then they can equally dole out punishments...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - tikhonj 10y ago
      And a celebrity's Tweet to 10 million followers is speech so large it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to rival. Doesn't mean it's not speech, and doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected—legally and socially.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      No it is not. It's like saying since New York Times has more circulation than my blog they don't get to enjoy the First Amendment like I do. The underlying premise of it is "I'm ok with dissent but only when it does not really matter". No, quite the opposite - it is important to be OK with dissent exactly when it does matter. That's why the First Amendment exists - to protect speech that matters. And it's quite possible for vast majority of Americans to participate - they are doing it right now, before your very eyes, it's an undeniable fact that this is exactly what is happening right now.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        The first amendment protects you from government interference. It doesn't protect people from deciding not to do business with the New York Times because they don't like what the paper says. NYT is definitely big enough to not need that extreme level of protection.
        smsm42 10y ago
        Nobody gets that kind of protection, so the size is irrelevant in each case. That's the point - the size of it only matters if tolerance depends on ineffectiveness.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        There are plenty of people on this page insisting that politics should be countered only with politics, not with shunning. That can be a good policy at a small scale, don't fire people because of how they vote, etc. But it's not a good policy at a large scale, of deciding whether you work with a big corporate institution (or someone with as much money and public face as one).
        smsm42 10y ago
        > There are plenty of people on this page insisting that politics should be countered only with politics, not with shunning In most cases (BOCTAOE) this sounds like a good idea. > But it's not a good policy at a large scale What you mean by large scale? Like when you're state senator or president? Sure, you are welcome to cross that bridge when you come to it :)
    - internaut 10y ago
      > it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to participate in the same conversation But isn't the majority of funding Trump is receiving coming from small donations from lots of Americans? I get that money in politics is a frequent source of concern but this doesn't look like one of those occasions.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    (a) Pretty sure that's not what "despotism" means. (b) Pretty sure Thiel isn't going to shut up no matter what Sam Altman does. (c) Pretty sure political criticism doesn't mean "the kinds of criticism I am comfortable hearing" --- in fact, pretty sure John Stuart Mill specifically warns against using discomfort as a litmus test for criticism. (d) Pretty sure Thiel did more than simply donate to Donald Trump. (e) Pretty sure the declaration that YC is a "non-political organization" is one you made, not one that YC did, and further pretty sure that nobody at YC agrees that their actions are cabined by your (so-far-unstated) definition of what a "non-political organization" is. (f) Pretty sure YC has already threatened to blacklist organizations that disagree with them politically. Oh, I could go on, and on, and on. But do we really need to?
    - ng12 10y ago
      I really suggest you take each of these points in turn and consider how you would feel if the candidate in question was HRC instead of Trump. You're also missing the issue. It's not so much about Thiel but the message it sends: your professional career is at stake if you support the wrong candidate. I do not support Trump but I find that completely unacceptable.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Sorry, I am really not too concerned about the career implications of suggesting that someone who owns multiple McLarens stop endorsing someone who could plausibly purchase McLaren Automotive.
        ng12 10y ago
        Again, that's not what we're talking about. Suggest away, until you're blue in the face. I encourage it. The problem is when you advocate actionable, tangible retribution against people not listening to those suggestions.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Suggest away, we say, as long as you don't suggest something that makes us uncomfortable.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    > yes, donations are free speech Donations are free speech with respect to the government. No one is questioning Thiel's free speech rights. People are responding with more free speech as is their right. No one is silencing Trump supporters. Democracy is not a safe space.
  - spdustin 10y ago
    I'm sorry, I do not understand how Thiel or any other Trump supporter would be harmed if Sam or Paul exercised their rights to terminate their relationship with him. It would be an act of expression, would it not, to abrogate their partnership? Are you suggesting a chilling effect similar to that caused by surveillance? Honestly, there's so much vitriol being hosed on everything this election touches, if one stops and looks objectively at the YC/Thiel equation, is it any more than this: Thiel's views are not compatible with the culture that YC espouses (citations already offered in other comments). Thiel has exercised his right to express his beliefs by supporting a particular political candidate, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. YC has the right to express their beliefs by ending their agreement with Thiel, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's therefore a purely ethical choice, which by definition, is subjective, and either results in YC exercising their right to express themselves freely, or YC opting to withhold that expression without giving up their right to any future expression. I don't support YC's position in this matter, but I do support their right to have one. I don't support Thiel or Trump either, but I do support the rights that enable their expression. It is my right to expression that enables me to speak out, and hope, yes, to change the minds of others; not to convince anyone to agree with me, mind you, but to be honest with themselves, and to be principled in their actions.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
I find it ironic that Thiel, who claims that democracy and capitalism are no longer compatible (and it appears if he were forced to choose he'd ditch democracy) is being defended by calling someone else "despotic".
- smsm42 10y ago
  Actual Thiel quote is "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,"[1]. It is nice to see that capitalism is equated with freedom, that's the right mindset but not what Thiel actually said. If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom. After all, when slavery was democratically supported in the US, was it still wrong? I think it was. Do you think it is a "despotic" opinion? [1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/paypal-founder-peter-thiel-continues-tout-anti-government-manifesto https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Well, Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel. And, well, "Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy, and not exactly something with great historical precedents on its side, y'know?
    - life_is_short 10y ago
      There are great historical precedents. The first democracy, Athenian democracy, allowed only 50,000 out of 300,000 citizens to vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel. This claim is based on what exactly? > Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy, True but why you mention it here? Surely neither Thiel nor anybody here advocated such point of view. So who you are arguing with?

by ng12 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

No, I'm sorry, you'll have to do a better job at connecting the dots between political criticism and despotism.

ng12 10y ago
Political criticism would be Sam Altman telling Thiel he disagrees with his views, or better yet donating money/time to his own candidate. It becomes despotism when someone uses their role in a non-political organization to silence (yes, donations are free speech) Trump supporters.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > donations are free speech It's a donation so large that it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to participate in the same conversation. I question the decision to categorize it as pure free speech. It's qualitatively different from a $100 donation.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    When liberal pundits get a platform from the NYT, his speech is qualitatively different than the opinion I write in my blog, yet I don't think we should legalize political retribution or censure against pundits who use too large a platform. Hopefully you agree?
  - bigtunacan 10y ago
    So where do you draw the dollar line of protected free speech versus it's ok to punish that person for their political views? $100 dollars is apparently protected free speech by your logic, but $1.25 million dollars is a punishable offense. Is $1000 dollars ok? $10,000?, $100,000? Where are you going to draw the line. Also, by this line of thinking then the converse must also apply; if someone donates to Clinton and someone in a position holding power over them supports Trump then they can equally dole out punishments...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - tikhonj 10y ago
    And a celebrity's Tweet to 10 million followers is speech so large it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to rival. Doesn't mean it's not speech, and doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected—legally and socially.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    No it is not. It's like saying since New York Times has more circulation than my blog they don't get to enjoy the First Amendment like I do. The underlying premise of it is "I'm ok with dissent but only when it does not really matter". No, quite the opposite - it is important to be OK with dissent exactly when it does matter. That's why the First Amendment exists - to protect speech that matters. And it's quite possible for vast majority of Americans to participate - they are doing it right now, before your very eyes, it's an undeniable fact that this is exactly what is happening right now.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      The first amendment protects you from government interference. It doesn't protect people from deciding not to do business with the New York Times because they don't like what the paper says. NYT is definitely big enough to not need that extreme level of protection.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        Nobody gets that kind of protection, so the size is irrelevant in each case. That's the point - the size of it only matters if tolerance depends on ineffectiveness.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        There are plenty of people on this page insisting that politics should be countered only with politics, not with shunning. That can be a good policy at a small scale, don't fire people because of how they vote, etc. But it's not a good policy at a large scale, of deciding whether you work with a big corporate institution (or someone with as much money and public face as one).
        smsm42 10y ago
        > There are plenty of people on this page insisting that politics should be countered only with politics, not with shunning In most cases (BOCTAOE) this sounds like a good idea. > But it's not a good policy at a large scale What you mean by large scale? Like when you're state senator or president? Sure, you are welcome to cross that bridge when you come to it :)
  - internaut 10y ago
    > it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to participate in the same conversation But isn't the majority of funding Trump is receiving coming from small donations from lots of Americans? I get that money in politics is a frequent source of concern but this doesn't look like one of those occasions.
- tptacek 10y ago
  (a) Pretty sure that's not what "despotism" means. (b) Pretty sure Thiel isn't going to shut up no matter what Sam Altman does. (c) Pretty sure political criticism doesn't mean "the kinds of criticism I am comfortable hearing" --- in fact, pretty sure John Stuart Mill specifically warns against using discomfort as a litmus test for criticism. (d) Pretty sure Thiel did more than simply donate to Donald Trump. (e) Pretty sure the declaration that YC is a "non-political organization" is one you made, not one that YC did, and further pretty sure that nobody at YC agrees that their actions are cabined by your (so-far-unstated) definition of what a "non-political organization" is. (f) Pretty sure YC has already threatened to blacklist organizations that disagree with them politically. Oh, I could go on, and on, and on. But do we really need to?
  - ng12 10y ago
    I really suggest you take each of these points in turn and consider how you would feel if the candidate in question was HRC instead of Trump. You're also missing the issue. It's not so much about Thiel but the message it sends: your professional career is at stake if you support the wrong candidate. I do not support Trump but I find that completely unacceptable.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Sorry, I am really not too concerned about the career implications of suggesting that someone who owns multiple McLarens stop endorsing someone who could plausibly purchase McLaren Automotive.
      - ng12 10y ago
        Again, that's not what we're talking about. Suggest away, until you're blue in the face. I encourage it. The problem is when you advocate actionable, tangible retribution against people not listening to those suggestions.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Suggest away, we say, as long as you don't suggest something that makes us uncomfortable.
- CalChris 10y ago
  > yes, donations are free speech Donations are free speech with respect to the government. No one is questioning Thiel's free speech rights. People are responding with more free speech as is their right. No one is silencing Trump supporters. Democracy is not a safe space.
- spdustin 10y ago
  I'm sorry, I do not understand how Thiel or any other Trump supporter would be harmed if Sam or Paul exercised their rights to terminate their relationship with him. It would be an act of expression, would it not, to abrogate their partnership? Are you suggesting a chilling effect similar to that caused by surveillance? Honestly, there's so much vitriol being hosed on everything this election touches, if one stops and looks objectively at the YC/Thiel equation, is it any more than this: Thiel's views are not compatible with the culture that YC espouses (citations already offered in other comments). Thiel has exercised his right to express his beliefs by supporting a particular political candidate, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. YC has the right to express their beliefs by ending their agreement with Thiel, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's therefore a purely ethical choice, which by definition, is subjective, and either results in YC exercising their right to express themselves freely, or YC opting to withhold that expression without giving up their right to any future expression. I don't support YC's position in this matter, but I do support their right to have one. I don't support Thiel or Trump either, but I do support the rights that enable their expression. It is my right to expression that enables me to speak out, and hope, yes, to change the minds of others; not to convince anyone to agree with me, mind you, but to be honest with themselves, and to be principled in their actions.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

I find it ironic that Thiel, who claims that democracy and capitalism are no longer compatible (and it appears if he were forced to choose he'd ditch democracy) is being defended by calling someone else "despotic".

smsm42 10y ago
Actual Thiel quote is "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,"[1]. It is nice to see that capitalism is equated with freedom, that's the right mindset but not what Thiel actually said. If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom. After all, when slavery was democratically supported in the US, was it still wrong? I think it was. Do you think it is a "despotic" opinion? [1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/paypal-founder-peter-thiel-continues-tout-anti-government-manifesto https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Well, Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel. And, well, "Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy, and not exactly something with great historical precedents on its side, y'know?
  - life_is_short 10y ago
    There are great historical precedents. The first democracy, Athenian democracy, allowed only 50,000 out of 300,000 citizens to vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel. This claim is based on what exactly? > Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy, True but why you mention it here? Surely neither Thiel nor anybody here advocated such point of view. So who you are arguing with?