5 ms·

The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the Left, despite

The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the Left, despite still considering myself socially liberal. Speaking for myself, I hit a point where I realized that any slight questioning or dissent of the general ideology was returned with vehement backlash by the left. I would consider most undecided voters to be sane, rational people with good consciences because I admit that both candidates have their warts and what it all boils down to is what would best for the country. With that said, the undecided voter knows better than to even think about publicly expressing that they might consider voting Trump, out of fear of having their property stolen or burned, reputation tarnished, etc. The left has been hijacked by extreme left-wing groups taking the podium from classical liberals, and the party itself is imploding under the repeated revelations from Wikileaks and Project Veritas. It truly is an election that will go down in history.

matthewmcg 10y ago
How is Peter Thiel being silenced or banned? He's choosing to publicize his support of Trump and others are choosing to criticize it.
- brickmort 10y ago
  For instance, a recent article in The Advocate stated he was no longer a part of the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump: http://archive.is/kTlTL http://archive.is/kTlTL Also, Facebook endured alot of external backlash for continuing to have him on the Board, so much that Facebook had to release a statement to address it: http://s13.postimg.org/ohe1sci6f/mmexport1476831885441.jpg http://s13.postimg.org/ohe1sci6f/mmexport1476831885441.jpg
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    "For instance, a recent article in The Advocate stated he was no longer a part of the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump: http://archive.is/kTlTL" http://archive.is/kTlTL" Are you asserting that people have to associate with others they don't agree with in terms of ideologies? Because I'm sorry but I'm not inviting my alcoholic fundie uncle to the cookout. He's an ass and he has poor taste in beer. Joking aside, the freedom of association is a civil right just as much as free speech. If I don't want to associate with anyone that's my right. And it's a right that extends to private organizations. If the Advocate wants to mock Peter Thiel or otherwise not ever invite him to their events that's their right. Conversely, Thiel is free to do the same without interference. Why is this a problem with you? Do you want force people to associate with each other when they would better off not associating at all?
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  According to the alt-right you have to listen to their side or else you're censoring them. Also, if you ban them from your own web forums, mailing lists, or private venues that too is evil evil censorship (aka no freedom of association for you).
- belak 10y ago
  He isn't being silenced or banned as far as I know, but there were multiple people calling for his removal as a part-time partner with YCombinator. Sam Altman summed it up and explained his decision in his blog: http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election
tdb7893 10y ago
I haven't heard rumors of the party imploding except from sources on the right so I'll be interested to see if it actually happens. Also I haven't found the left taken over by crazy people except on the internet but of course that's what it's going to seem like when you are talking to people on twitter and tumblr
norea-armozel 10y ago
"The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the Left, despite still considering myself socially liberal." Being banned on social media or not invited to a conference isn't illegal since your free to speak and associate with whom you wish. If Twitter/Facebook or some private organization doesn't want to associate with you doesn't mean you're forced to not speak. You just can't speak with or through them. As for the rest of your comment it just smacks of naivety of someone who's not studied political history. First, classical liberalism use to be the left but ceased to be the left the moment it shifted rightward toward sympathizing with fascists as what happened in countries like Germany under the Weimer Republic. Second, left-wing groups that you deem extreme in the United States are fairly moderate in terms of global left-right politics. Asking for LGBT people to be added to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't extreme. If such legal extensions are extreme to you then you need to ask yourself if you're actually a liberal and not some Burkean libertarian conservative.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Torgo 10y ago
  I hope people noticed that you reserve for yourself the right to exclude people you disagree with based on private property and freedom of association but then restrict them from doing the same to you by categorizing yourself under a federal anti-discrimination law.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    The civil rights act of 1964 doesn't put obligations on private parties to contract with other private parties since said private parties by definition are private. Meaning that if I operate a club or some sort of prayer group I'm privileged to exclude or include anyone of my choosing so long as the fellow members of that group agree with my decision. Federal law on this is very clear and something that no one can argue otherwise. There's hundreds of cases like this which the federal government looks at and concludes rightly the scope of the Civil Rights Act limits them. So, if I want to exclude Peter Thiel from my prayer group I can god damn can and will, and there's nothing little Pete can do about it under federal law.
kafkaesq 10y ago
The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" No one's talking about "silencing" or "banning" him. That's quite a severe misattribution of what people are actually saying.

matthewmcg 10y ago

How is Peter Thiel being silenced or banned? He's choosing to publicize his support of Trump and others are choosing to criticize it.

brickmort 10y ago
For instance, a recent article in The Advocate stated he was no longer a part of the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump: http://archive.is/kTlTL http://archive.is/kTlTL Also, Facebook endured alot of external backlash for continuing to have him on the Board, so much that Facebook had to release a statement to address it: http://s13.postimg.org/ohe1sci6f/mmexport1476831885441.jpg http://s13.postimg.org/ohe1sci6f/mmexport1476831885441.jpg
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  "For instance, a recent article in The Advocate stated he was no longer a part of the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump: http://archive.is/kTlTL" http://archive.is/kTlTL" Are you asserting that people have to associate with others they don't agree with in terms of ideologies? Because I'm sorry but I'm not inviting my alcoholic fundie uncle to the cookout. He's an ass and he has poor taste in beer. Joking aside, the freedom of association is a civil right just as much as free speech. If I don't want to associate with anyone that's my right. And it's a right that extends to private organizations. If the Advocate wants to mock Peter Thiel or otherwise not ever invite him to their events that's their right. Conversely, Thiel is free to do the same without interference. Why is this a problem with you? Do you want force people to associate with each other when they would better off not associating at all?
norea-armozel 10y ago
According to the alt-right you have to listen to their side or else you're censoring them. Also, if you ban them from your own web forums, mailing lists, or private venues that too is evil evil censorship (aka no freedom of association for you).
belak 10y ago
He isn't being silenced or banned as far as I know, but there were multiple people calling for his removal as a part-time partner with YCombinator. Sam Altman summed it up and explained his decision in his blog: http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election

tdb7893 10y ago

I haven't heard rumors of the party imploding except from sources on the right so I'll be interested to see if it actually happens. Also I haven't found the left taken over by crazy people except on the internet but of course that's what it's going to seem like when you are talking to people on twitter and tumblr

norea-armozel 10y ago

"The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the Left, despite still considering myself socially liberal." Being banned on social media or not invited to a conference isn't illegal since your free to speak and associate with whom you wish. If Twitter/Facebook or some private organization doesn't want to associate with you doesn't mean you're forced to not speak. You just can't speak with or through them. As for the rest of your comment it just smacks of naivety of someone who's not studied political history. First, classical liberalism use to be the left but ceased to be the left the moment it shifted rightward toward sympathizing with fascists as what happened in countries like Germany under the Weimer Republic. Second, left-wing groups that you deem extreme in the United States are fairly moderate in terms of global left-right politics. Asking for LGBT people to be added to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't extreme. If such legal extensions are extreme to you then you need to ask yourself if you're actually a liberal and not some Burkean libertarian conservative.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Torgo 10y ago
I hope people noticed that you reserve for yourself the right to exclude people you disagree with based on private property and freedom of association but then restrict them from doing the same to you by categorizing yourself under a federal anti-discrimination law.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  The civil rights act of 1964 doesn't put obligations on private parties to contract with other private parties since said private parties by definition are private. Meaning that if I operate a club or some sort of prayer group I'm privileged to exclude or include anyone of my choosing so long as the fellow members of that group agree with my decision. Federal law on this is very clear and something that no one can argue otherwise. There's hundreds of cases like this which the federal government looks at and concludes rightly the scope of the Civil Rights Act limits them. So, if I want to exclude Peter Thiel from my prayer group I can god damn can and will, and there's nothing little Pete can do about it under federal law.

kafkaesq 10y ago

The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" No one's talking about "silencing" or "banning" him. That's quite a severe misattribution of what people are actually saying.