7 ms·
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 missi
by 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 agoSorry, 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 agoAgain, 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 agoSuggest away, we say, as long as you don't suggest something that makes us uncomfortable.
- ng12 10y agoWho's talking about feeling uncomfortable? We're talking about actively punishing people for their political opinions. I can't tell if you're deliberately misreading the discussion.
- ubernostrum 10y agoSo in your opinion is there any logically-possible situation in which it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views? Have you ever done it yourself? Do you feel morally obligated to be a business partner of people who support Hillary Clinton, since to choose not to would "punish" and "silence" their speech?
- jacquesm 10y agoI'm perfectly ok with that, I'm just not ok with pushing others to do likewise.
- ubernostrum 10y agoSo it's OK to speak as long as you don't try to persuade someone of something? If somebody's up on a soapbox giving speeches about their views, and I disagree with their views, should I not get up on my own soapbox and explain why I disagree and think people shouldn't buy that other guy's arguments? If I think someone has a poor business history, should I keep silent when somebody else considers a partnership? Or should I speak up and say "I think that's a bad partnership" and try to persuade them? You seem to have a view of speech being allowed so long as the first speaker is privileged never to be disagreed with by a later speaker, and never to have anyone try to persuade others not to accept the first speaker's argument. That's not how free speech works.
- smsm42 10y agoYou are over-generalizing. Trying to persuade others in "something" is completely fine. Unless "something" happens to be "let's institute groupthink and shun anybody who dares to disagree with our views" and then it's terrible. Not the fact of persuading is terrible, but the content of this particular persuasion.
- ubernostrum 10y agoSo... people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world. Or is it a percentage thing? When 50.0000001% of a group of people share an opinion, would you like the police to swoop in and start forcibly preventing speech just in case more people might be persuaded of the idea and join the "groupthink"? (also, funny thing, there's a lot of diversity in the anti-Thiel/anti-Trump opinions, but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump, so maybe consider carefully who you'd like to accuse of groupthink. Oh wait, crap, I just tried to persuade someone to take an action; never mind, I'll see myself off to the labor camp)
- md224 10y agoAre you categorically opposed to punishing people for political opinions, or is it a matter of crossing a certain threshold? For instance, what if Trump had openly advocated putting Muslims in "internment camps" and Thiel had donated a billion dollars to his campaign? Would you still believe that severing a business relationship with him would be immoral?
- Hydraulix989 10y agoBut Trump HADN'T suggested that; and THAT is why it is immoral. He's a major party candidate supported by 40% of the American population, not Adolph Hitler.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- smsm42 10y agoIt's way beyond mere feeling uncomfortable, it's building a community based on groupthink and intolerance to dissent. At this point, plain uncomfortable is a distant dream we yearn for.
- rhizome 10y agoWell, we're not exactly talking about HRC either. Focus, don't dilute the topic. There are actual words by PG, SA that can be compared to Thiel's. The dissonance between them is the problem here, especially as relates to YC policies. tl;dr: does YC doing nothing about Thiel mean "culture fit" is dead as a concept?
- mzw_mzw 10y agoOkay, now we're talking. So what's the maximum amount of money someone is allowed to have before they are no longer allowed to express political opinions you, personally, don't like? $10 million? $1 million? $100,000?
- jowiar 10y agoI don't give a damn who you vote for in the privacy of the voting booth, and I'm not going to go digging in your background to figure out who you might have voted for. But when you make an announcement to the world that "This is what I am for", I'm damn well going to judge you for it.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoGo right ahead and judge all you want. The question is, are you then going to try to get that person fired for the crime of stating their beliefs in public?
- jowiar 10y agoDepending on what their beliefs are, I may well choose not to engage in business with them, or hang out where they hang out, or whatnot. Others may choose to do the same. This may result in firing. So it goes.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoExactly. Because those writers and directors held Communist views, Hollywood executives chose not to engage in business with them. That may have resulted in firing. So it goes. Or is that different somehow?
- partisan 10y ago@jowiar: when you adopt that stance, you really have to be sure you are on the "right" side of every important position. I hope you are and will be so that you never have to face tangible oppression for your beliefs.
- jowiar 10y agoI was bullied out of my Catholic youth group in high school for my beliefs (read: A bunch of people I had considered friends started calling me a baby killer). It happens. It pushed me to hanging out with better people (read: The new youth minister was a total tool. He replaced a great guy). Consequences of being on the "wrong" side of things will cause people to think first and speak later, rather than loudly stake out territory without thinking things through. I'm all for that.
- kwisatzh 10y agoWell, what if Thiel supports David Duke or comes out as a holocaust denier -- would you still claim that Thiel's professional career can't be at stake?
- Hydraulix989 10y agoThere's a difference between David Duke and a mainstream party candidate supported by roughly 40% of the American population.
- subsection1h 10y agoFirst, Trump is supported by roughly 40% of likely voters, not all Americans. Second, just because a belief is widely held doesn't automatically make it more acceptable than it would be if it were less common.
- oska 10y agoIn the July 1932 German Federal Election, the National Socialist German Workers Party received 37.3% of the vote. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_...