3 ms·

“We care deeply about diversity,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in an internal Facebook post to employees. “That’s easy to say when it means standing up for ideas you ag

“We care deeply about diversity,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in an internal Facebook post to employees. “That’s easy to say when it means standing up for ideas you agree with. It’s a lot harder when it means standing up for the rights of people with different viewpoints to say what they care about. That’s even more important.” This could not be more on point. I respect Mark Zuckerberg more for saying this. We may not agree with what people say, but we should fight for their right to say it.

quasse 10y ago
A lot of people conflate the right to free speech with the right to have no repercussions for your speech. If people choose not to do business with Peter Thiel because of his political views they aren't infringing on his right to free speech. It doesn't really make sense for them to do, especially if they are making that decision on behalf of a publicly traded company, but no one is infringing his first amendment rights.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- flukus 10y ago
  The logical conclusion of that is two parallel economies, one for conservatives and one for progressives/liberals.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
beefield 10y ago
I agree - up to a certain point. I think Popper has formulated this well[1]: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." And even below that limit, even if I stand by the right of people to say stupid and irrespectable things, I stand also by _my_ right to argue them that those things are stupid and irrespectable. (This also means that I am quite open to discuss why this view is wrong. One a bit uncomfortable idea is that this way of thinking may increase polarization of the discussion/society, which is about the last thing we need.) [1] https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
- quasse 10y ago
  The problem is that in the current political climate, all anyone does is call the other party a stupid, intolerant, crooked bigot. People are calling Trump and his supporters intolerant bigots and then people on the other side of the argument call them crooked shills who are afraid of opposing ideas and are going to steal the election. You can see it happening in these comments too. It allows people on both sides of the debate to shield themselves behind a persecution complex that prevents their ideas and actions from being examined. I think it's one of the worst tactics related to the extreme polarization of American politics when it comes to the death of rational discourse.
- cgag 10y ago
  I feel like Thiel and any other people who deviate from the SF party line are the ones who should be thinking the way Popper does in that quote. I think that was how you meant it to be read but I'm not sure. That they're unable to reason with the people who seek to destroy them, because they've thought unthinkable thoughts. I haven't read much about why Thiel supports Trump, but I'm willing to entertain arguments that whatever he likes about Trump (hypothetically economic policy?) is more important than his sexism. I feel like most people aren't.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  That quote from Popper is straight-up idealist non-sense. The problems I see are: 1. Popper assumes that tolerant and intolerant ideas are easily distinguishable, not intermingled, and that there exists some sort of undisputed authority to make the distinction. Example: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 2. Suppression of "intolerance" excuse has often been abused by brutal authoritarians to exercise their power. 3. Suppression of ideas deemed "intolerant" often dismisses real underlying issues. For example, some "racist ideas" in this us election cycle are rooted in the fact that there are real "losers" in globalization. It's a lot easier to dismiss someone as a racist than it is to understand and emphasize with where these feelings are actually coming from and try to fix the issue. I believe that racism is more often that not, the symptom of real problems.
  - beefield 10y ago
cageface 10y ago
Who is taking away Thiel's right to say what he wants or support any candidate he wants? The issue is whether or not YC should partner with somebody who's making a very substantial campaign contribution to the most toxic candidate in living memory.
- Agustus 10y ago
  Could you elaborate on what makes him toxic as a candidate in your mind?

quasse 10y ago

A lot of people conflate the right to free speech with the right to have no repercussions for your speech. If people choose not to do business with Peter Thiel because of his political views they aren't infringing on his right to free speech. It doesn't really make sense for them to do, especially if they are making that decision on behalf of a publicly traded company, but no one is infringing his first amendment rights.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
flukus 10y ago
The logical conclusion of that is two parallel economies, one for conservatives and one for progressives/liberals.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

beefield 10y ago

I agree - up to a certain point. I think Popper has formulated this well[1]: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." And even below that limit, even if I stand by the right of people to say stupid and irrespectable things, I stand also by _my_ right to argue them that those things are stupid and irrespectable. (This also means that I am quite open to discuss why this view is wrong. One a bit uncomfortable idea is that this way of thinking may increase polarization of the discussion/society, which is about the last thing we need.) [1] https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

quasse 10y ago
The problem is that in the current political climate, all anyone does is call the other party a stupid, intolerant, crooked bigot. People are calling Trump and his supporters intolerant bigots and then people on the other side of the argument call them crooked shills who are afraid of opposing ideas and are going to steal the election. You can see it happening in these comments too. It allows people on both sides of the debate to shield themselves behind a persecution complex that prevents their ideas and actions from being examined. I think it's one of the worst tactics related to the extreme polarization of American politics when it comes to the death of rational discourse.
cgag 10y ago
I feel like Thiel and any other people who deviate from the SF party line are the ones who should be thinking the way Popper does in that quote. I think that was how you meant it to be read but I'm not sure. That they're unable to reason with the people who seek to destroy them, because they've thought unthinkable thoughts. I haven't read much about why Thiel supports Trump, but I'm willing to entertain arguments that whatever he likes about Trump (hypothetically economic policy?) is more important than his sexism. I feel like most people aren't.
spaceflunky 10y ago
That quote from Popper is straight-up idealist non-sense. The problems I see are: 1. Popper assumes that tolerant and intolerant ideas are easily distinguishable, not intermingled, and that there exists some sort of undisputed authority to make the distinction. Example: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 2. Suppression of "intolerance" excuse has often been abused by brutal authoritarians to exercise their power. 3. Suppression of ideas deemed "intolerant" often dismisses real underlying issues. For example, some "racist ideas" in this us election cycle are rooted in the fact that there are real "losers" in globalization. It's a lot easier to dismiss someone as a racist than it is to understand and emphasize with where these feelings are actually coming from and try to fix the issue. I believe that racism is more often that not, the symptom of real problems.
- beefield 10y ago

cageface 10y ago

Who is taking away Thiel's right to say what he wants or support any candidate he wants? The issue is whether or not YC should partner with somebody who's making a very substantial campaign contribution to the most toxic candidate in living memory.

Agustus 10y ago
Could you elaborate on what makes him toxic as a candidate in your mind?