3 ms·

Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience. Disagreeing or, worse, choo

Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience. Disagreeing or, worse, choosing not to associate with someone based on what they say is, to gauge from this thread, considered a terrible sin. So: why aren't you out there providing an audience to speech you don't like?

smsm42 10y ago
> Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience. No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely. > Disagreeing or, worse, choosing not to associate with someone based on what they say is, to gauge from this thread, considered a terrible sin. No, it's not. Nobody, including me, ever said disagreeing with Thiel is a "sin", let alone "terrible" one. Demanding that YC shuns him - even though they themselves obviously don't want to do it - because you are disagreeing with him - yes, that would be terrible. > So: why aren't you out there providing an audience to speech you don't like? Because I don't want to?
- uola 10y ago
  > No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely. Thiel voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation. That's his prerogative, but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community. People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of. What do you suggest they do? Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel?
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > Theil voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation. He is right that he doesn't owe anybody anything, but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway. They are easily accessible too. > but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community. Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that? > People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of. Sure, they do. It's not what we are talking about. We are talking about people wanting the situation to be that "not to support Thiel" - including mandatory declaration of such non-support and cutting all ties with him - be the only right possible in this community. I don't want such a community. Such community sucks big time. There's a big diff between "you are allowed to be vegetarian or to eat pork, as you wish" and "if you eat pork, you are outta here and everybody must never speak to you again". First is normal, second sounds like a totalitarian sect. > Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel? Neither is fair or sane.
    - uola 10y ago
      > [...] but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway. As far as I know he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about. > Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that? If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't? In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with. > Neither is fair or sane. If people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel. You seem to expect a scenario where people should dismiss their own opinions so Thiel can enjoy more freedom.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        > he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about. That is kinda vague. His views and ideals are known, he wrote several essays on that AFAIK. > If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't? I don't decide that he is, he is by the fact of the involvement. If he weren't, the calls to purge him would be not necessary. > In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with. Surely, but I see no respect to that right of the YC members - in fact, they are being shamed for exercising this right. > f people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel. Of course they have the right. It's the cause that they are promoting in their exercise of this right - the cause of groupthink, intellectual conformity and intolerance to dissent - that is terrible.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  So, how legally punishable should a boycott be, in your view of the world? And how do you justify, on free-speech grounds, trying to take away the right of people to engage in persuasive speech (hint: that's what it is when someone urges a boycott, or otherwise tries to urge someone to do something)? Finally, are you consistent in this position? Or is it only when the victim is someone you like that you break out the insipid "thoughtcrime" lines?
  - internaut 10y ago
    Ellen Pao is free to boycott Thiel if she wishes. It becomes a gray area when she boycotts third parties. The only reason why it's a gray area though is because she has little to no power over them. A boycott is fair if it is below. Consumers choosing not to buy products, investors deciding not to buy stock, halting a newspaper subscription or not associating with former friends. But a boycott from above is a tyranny. Firing employees for their political views, trying to get your mutual friends to disassociate with your former friend.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      So if it's me calling for a boycott of a bunch of people richer than me, is that OK? All the YC partners, part- or full-time, are richer than me. Because I can say right now: if I ever need another job or want to start a company, I'm not going to work for a YC-funded company or accept money from YC, and I encourage others to do the same. If that means, in your eyes, that I am the most brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despot in the history of brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despots, and will single-handedly destroy the American republic forever by being Literally Worse Than Hitler™, I can live with that. However, I can predict with some certainty that someday somebody's going to do something you don't like, you're going to make an argument that crosses the line you yourself drew, and that I'm going to be really amused when someone gives you the lecture you're giving other people right now, because ultimately the harshest thing I can do to someone like you is hope you someday get to live in a world that holds the values you've espoused.
      - 10y ago
mzw_mzw 10y ago
You are spectacularly missing the point. You are not required to listen to anything Thiel says. But you are required to tolerate the fact that he says things.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Except according to all these eerily-similar HN commenters, if I speak up and say I don't like what he says, or that I'll refuse to associate with him or his supporters, or encourage other people to do the same, well, clutch my pearls and fetch the smelling salts! That's tyranny! Despotism! Bullying! Shaming! Witch hunting! Extortion! Blackmail! Coercion! Censorship! Oppression! Groupthink! Punishing thoughtcrime! So what it seems these folks really want is "Trump and Thiel can say what they want and nobody's allowed to speak up or out against them, and must associate with and financially aid them or else". Which is not how I envision freedom of speech working.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    What was your opinion of the Hollywood blacklists?
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      Given that they were largely government-imposed (in the sense that the government actively threatened businesses who didn't blacklist suspected "Communists"), I don't see an analogy to private individuals advocating for/against particular views or associations. If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it?
      - mzw_mzw 10y ago
        Those "threats" were prominent politicians saying negative things about the businesses. So the blacklists were exactly as "government-imposed" as boycotts of Trump, given the many prominent politicians saying negative things about Trump and his voters today. That is to say, not at all. >If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it? Depends on the reason for the boycott, of course. If he was calling for the boycott of a company because its founder donated to Hillary Clinton, or Jill Stein, or American Socialist Party nominee Mimi Soltysik, or even the Devil himself, then of course I would condemn him for it. I'm sorry to hear you wouldn't have the same resolve. (I'll save you a few minutes of Googling, by the way, and pre-emptively condemn him just in case he has done something like that and I haven't heard about it. Trump is a jackass.)

smsm42 10y ago

> Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience. No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely. > Disagreeing or, worse, choosing not to associate with someone based on what they say is, to gauge from this thread, considered a terrible sin. No, it's not. Nobody, including me, ever said disagreeing with Thiel is a "sin", let alone "terrible" one. Demanding that YC shuns him - even though they themselves obviously don't want to do it - because you are disagreeing with him - yes, that would be terrible. > So: why aren't you out there providing an audience to speech you don't like? Because I don't want to?

uola 10y ago
> No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely. Thiel voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation. That's his prerogative, but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community. People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of. What do you suggest they do? Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel?
- smsm42 10y ago
  > Theil voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation. He is right that he doesn't owe anybody anything, but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway. They are easily accessible too. > but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community. Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that? > People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of. Sure, they do. It's not what we are talking about. We are talking about people wanting the situation to be that "not to support Thiel" - including mandatory declaration of such non-support and cutting all ties with him - be the only right possible in this community. I don't want such a community. Such community sucks big time. There's a big diff between "you are allowed to be vegetarian or to eat pork, as you wish" and "if you eat pork, you are outta here and everybody must never speak to you again". First is normal, second sounds like a totalitarian sect. > Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel? Neither is fair or sane.
  - uola 10y ago
    > [...] but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway. As far as I know he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about. > Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that? If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't? In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with. > Neither is fair or sane. If people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel. You seem to expect a scenario where people should dismiss their own opinions so Thiel can enjoy more freedom.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about. That is kinda vague. His views and ideals are known, he wrote several essays on that AFAIK. > If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't? I don't decide that he is, he is by the fact of the involvement. If he weren't, the calls to purge him would be not necessary. > In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with. Surely, but I see no respect to that right of the YC members - in fact, they are being shamed for exercising this right. > f people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel. Of course they have the right. It's the cause that they are promoting in their exercise of this right - the cause of groupthink, intellectual conformity and intolerance to dissent - that is terrible.
ubernostrum 10y ago
So, how legally punishable should a boycott be, in your view of the world? And how do you justify, on free-speech grounds, trying to take away the right of people to engage in persuasive speech (hint: that's what it is when someone urges a boycott, or otherwise tries to urge someone to do something)? Finally, are you consistent in this position? Or is it only when the victim is someone you like that you break out the insipid "thoughtcrime" lines?
- internaut 10y ago
  Ellen Pao is free to boycott Thiel if she wishes. It becomes a gray area when she boycotts third parties. The only reason why it's a gray area though is because she has little to no power over them. A boycott is fair if it is below. Consumers choosing not to buy products, investors deciding not to buy stock, halting a newspaper subscription or not associating with former friends. But a boycott from above is a tyranny. Firing employees for their political views, trying to get your mutual friends to disassociate with your former friend.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    So if it's me calling for a boycott of a bunch of people richer than me, is that OK? All the YC partners, part- or full-time, are richer than me. Because I can say right now: if I ever need another job or want to start a company, I'm not going to work for a YC-funded company or accept money from YC, and I encourage others to do the same. If that means, in your eyes, that I am the most brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despot in the history of brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despots, and will single-handedly destroy the American republic forever by being Literally Worse Than Hitler™, I can live with that. However, I can predict with some certainty that someday somebody's going to do something you don't like, you're going to make an argument that crosses the line you yourself drew, and that I'm going to be really amused when someone gives you the lecture you're giving other people right now, because ultimately the harshest thing I can do to someone like you is hope you someday get to live in a world that holds the values you've espoused.
    - 10y ago

mzw_mzw 10y ago

You are spectacularly missing the point. You are not required to listen to anything Thiel says. But you are required to tolerate the fact that he says things.

ubernostrum 10y ago
Except according to all these eerily-similar HN commenters, if I speak up and say I don't like what he says, or that I'll refuse to associate with him or his supporters, or encourage other people to do the same, well, clutch my pearls and fetch the smelling salts! That's tyranny! Despotism! Bullying! Shaming! Witch hunting! Extortion! Blackmail! Coercion! Censorship! Oppression! Groupthink! Punishing thoughtcrime! So what it seems these folks really want is "Trump and Thiel can say what they want and nobody's allowed to speak up or out against them, and must associate with and financially aid them or else". Which is not how I envision freedom of speech working.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  What was your opinion of the Hollywood blacklists?
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Given that they were largely government-imposed (in the sense that the government actively threatened businesses who didn't blacklist suspected "Communists"), I don't see an analogy to private individuals advocating for/against particular views or associations. If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it?
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      Those "threats" were prominent politicians saying negative things about the businesses. So the blacklists were exactly as "government-imposed" as boycotts of Trump, given the many prominent politicians saying negative things about Trump and his voters today. That is to say, not at all. >If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it? Depends on the reason for the boycott, of course. If he was calling for the boycott of a company because its founder donated to Hillary Clinton, or Jill Stein, or American Socialist Party nominee Mimi Soltysik, or even the Devil himself, then of course I would condemn him for it. I'm sorry to hear you wouldn't have the same resolve. (I'll save you a few minutes of Googling, by the way, and pre-emptively condemn him just in case he has done something like that and I haven't heard about it. Trump is a jackass.)