6 ms·

>Anyone in a position of power who took a look at Trump and didn't recoil with disgust needs to be exiled from civil society. I don't like Trump, but fighting

>Anyone in a position of power who took a look at Trump and didn't recoil with disgust needs to be exiled from civil society. I don't like Trump, but fighting him isn't worth going against the very principles we fight for. People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we?

MusaTheRedGuard 10y ago
People have a right to their beliefs, and those beliefs sometimes have strong social consequences.
jowiar 10y ago
People have a right to choose who they (do or don't) associate with. And people have a right to judge those based on who they deem worthy of association. Thiel can believe what he wants. He can say what he wants. Mostly it shows he's a cowardly little narcissistic shit. And it's damn telling when folks still keep him around.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kasey_junk 10y ago
I'm not sure of any nominal principle that says we have to do business with, work for or to invite to things people who behave abhorrently. That Thiel can get a table at a restaurant in SV proves all the talk about changing the world tech leaders do is so much nonsense.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  It's crazy that you can't see how hypocritical you are: you ate literally saying that restaurants shouls ban thiel because he supports a person who bans people. Look in a mirror once in a while, buddy
  - kasey_junk 10y ago
    There is a significant difference between voluntary association and compulsory exclusion through use of force. It's not even partially hypocritical to claim one is ok & the other isn't.
  - ebola1717 10y ago
    Are you really comparing divestment to segregation????????????? You realize the reason segregation was wrong was because it was based on someone's skin color, not the actions they've taken?
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      That's true. However, people were sent to concentration camps for their actions and beliefs, and we all think that's wrong...
      - tptacek 10y ago
        You are now literally reprising a joke from Season 1 of Silicon Valley.
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        Am I? Huh. Also, does that invalidate my point? I mean, I don't think it does, but I figured I might as well ask...
- concinds 10y ago
  Do you believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay customers? You and plenty of people in this thread seem to confuse "behave" and "say". "While Trump's"enemies take him literally not seriously & friends seriously not literally", the wise looks at his acts & acts only. No words." --NNTaleb Ostracizing others for their words is incredibly immature, petty, and vindictive. And ironically, ostracizing is an act, not words, so it does expose your character.
  - kasey_junk 10y ago
    > Do you believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay customers? I don't believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for anyone. I do believe that if they want the protections of the legal system, they must follow the same protections for others, even if they find them abhorrent. A principled stand against those protections does not mean they get to do that at no cost to themselves. If "person who supports an abhorrent ideology" is a protected class in SV restaurant service law, I rescind my call to ban him from getting a table, and change it to "let him eat alone". > Ostracizing others for their words is incredibly immature, petty, and vindictive. And ironically, ostracizing is an act, not words, so it does expose your character. No its not. Its a basic component of all human interactions. We all choose to associate or not with people based on their beliefs. Those associations are powerful multipliers for both success and failure in this world. That there is not a penalty for unwanted behavior in a given society is not a mark of value. Finally, giving money to someone is also an act, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Thiel has exposed his character, he is not welcome at my house and I won't work for him.
    - concinds 10y ago
      > If "person who supports an abhorrent ideology" is a protected class in SV restaurant service law, I rescind my call to ban him from getting a table, and change it to "let him eat alone". Political ideologies are legally protected against discrimination in California. But even if they weren't, why judge someone by their beliefs? The only reason you would is if you think support for Trump is a moral defect, with no exceptions. In other words you're not against him because of his political beliefs, but because of your (not universal) beliefs about what is moral and what isn't. > We all choose to associate or not with people based on their beliefs. Disagree. Most people judge others on social status and personal character, neither of which have any link to political ideologies or personal beliefs. > he is not welcome at my house and I won't work for him That's a fine personal decision, but there's a huge leap between "I don't want to be involved with him" and "everybody else should ostracize him, or they are just as evil as him". The former is "live and let live", and the latter is "the world should bow to me".
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  That's different from being exiled from civil society.
ebola1717 10y ago
Thiel donated $1.25 MILLION to the Trump campaign. This isn't holding him accountable for his "beliefs" or even his "speech" - this is holding him accountable for helping to cause this mess we're in.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  For the third time, that's different from being exiled from civil society.
- ihsw 10y ago
  He's fixing the mess we're in.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    I disagree...
yks 10y ago
DJT and his associates hint that only a subset of the population have a right to their beliefs, others should keep their mouths shut. That seems like a problem worth going against and it may become acute rather sooner than later.
fictioncircle 10y ago
> People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we? When the person's actions are directly and publicly detrimental to the business interests, the investor/backer/employee is at odds with the rest of the group and yeah at that point its not just a belief but a question of the self-interest of the business being at odds with one of its investor/employee/backers. Let us be honest here, Thiel is also backing a man that has no trouble firing people who aren't Yesmen. If that is the sort of standard he wants applied to other people, it should apply to him as well. There comes up a point when the pile of problems extends simply beyond belief but realized action in the real world that directly impacts other people. It is at that point, action is always taken in any situation. Please do not simply call this a 'belief' at this point when Thiel's goals and the related actions are realized in the manner he desired.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  That's different from saying he should be exiled from civil society.
cobralibre 10y ago
> People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we? Politics is a process of conflict and negotiation between varied, competing interests. In a liberal democracy, "people have a right to their beliefs" is the starting point for that process, not the endpoint.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Yes, but it's a starting point we shouldn't loose sight of.

MusaTheRedGuard 10y ago

People have a right to their beliefs, and those beliefs sometimes have strong social consequences.

jowiar 10y ago

People have a right to choose who they (do or don't) associate with. And people have a right to judge those based on who they deem worthy of association. Thiel can believe what he wants. He can say what he wants. Mostly it shows he's a cowardly little narcissistic shit. And it's damn telling when folks still keep him around.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kasey_junk 10y ago

I'm not sure of any nominal principle that says we have to do business with, work for or to invite to things people who behave abhorrently. That Thiel can get a table at a restaurant in SV proves all the talk about changing the world tech leaders do is so much nonsense.

ryanx435 10y ago
It's crazy that you can't see how hypocritical you are: you ate literally saying that restaurants shouls ban thiel because he supports a person who bans people. Look in a mirror once in a while, buddy
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  There is a significant difference between voluntary association and compulsory exclusion through use of force. It's not even partially hypocritical to claim one is ok & the other isn't.
- ebola1717 10y ago
  Are you really comparing divestment to segregation????????????? You realize the reason segregation was wrong was because it was based on someone's skin color, not the actions they've taken?
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    That's true. However, people were sent to concentration camps for their actions and beliefs, and we all think that's wrong...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You are now literally reprising a joke from Season 1 of Silicon Valley.
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        Am I? Huh. Also, does that invalidate my point? I mean, I don't think it does, but I figured I might as well ask...
concinds 10y ago
Do you believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay customers? You and plenty of people in this thread seem to confuse "behave" and "say". "While Trump's"enemies take him literally not seriously & friends seriously not literally", the wise looks at his acts & acts only. No words." --NNTaleb Ostracizing others for their words is incredibly immature, petty, and vindictive. And ironically, ostracizing is an act, not words, so it does expose your character.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  > Do you believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay customers? I don't believe Christian bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for anyone. I do believe that if they want the protections of the legal system, they must follow the same protections for others, even if they find them abhorrent. A principled stand against those protections does not mean they get to do that at no cost to themselves. If "person who supports an abhorrent ideology" is a protected class in SV restaurant service law, I rescind my call to ban him from getting a table, and change it to "let him eat alone". > Ostracizing others for their words is incredibly immature, petty, and vindictive. And ironically, ostracizing is an act, not words, so it does expose your character. No its not. Its a basic component of all human interactions. We all choose to associate or not with people based on their beliefs. Those associations are powerful multipliers for both success and failure in this world. That there is not a penalty for unwanted behavior in a given society is not a mark of value. Finally, giving money to someone is also an act, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Thiel has exposed his character, he is not welcome at my house and I won't work for him.
  - concinds 10y ago
    > If "person who supports an abhorrent ideology" is a protected class in SV restaurant service law, I rescind my call to ban him from getting a table, and change it to "let him eat alone". Political ideologies are legally protected against discrimination in California. But even if they weren't, why judge someone by their beliefs? The only reason you would is if you think support for Trump is a moral defect, with no exceptions. In other words you're not against him because of his political beliefs, but because of your (not universal) beliefs about what is moral and what isn't. > We all choose to associate or not with people based on their beliefs. Disagree. Most people judge others on social status and personal character, neither of which have any link to political ideologies or personal beliefs. > he is not welcome at my house and I won't work for him That's a fine personal decision, but there's a huge leap between "I don't want to be involved with him" and "everybody else should ostracize him, or they are just as evil as him". The former is "live and let live", and the latter is "the world should bow to me".
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
That's different from being exiled from civil society.

ebola1717 10y ago

Thiel donated $1.25 MILLION to the Trump campaign. This isn't holding him accountable for his "beliefs" or even his "speech" - this is holding him accountable for helping to cause this mess we're in.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
For the third time, that's different from being exiled from civil society.
ihsw 10y ago
He's fixing the mess we're in.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  I disagree...

yks 10y ago

DJT and his associates hint that only a subset of the population have a right to their beliefs, others should keep their mouths shut. That seems like a problem worth going against and it may become acute rather sooner than later.

fictioncircle 10y ago

> People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we? When the person's actions are directly and publicly detrimental to the business interests, the investor/backer/employee is at odds with the rest of the group and yeah at that point its not just a belief but a question of the self-interest of the business being at odds with one of its investor/employee/backers. Let us be honest here, Thiel is also backing a man that has no trouble firing people who aren't Yesmen. If that is the sort of standard he wants applied to other people, it should apply to him as well. There comes up a point when the pile of problems extends simply beyond belief but realized action in the real world that directly impacts other people. It is at that point, action is always taken in any situation. Please do not simply call this a 'belief' at this point when Thiel's goals and the related actions are realized in the manner he desired.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
That's different from saying he should be exiled from civil society.

cobralibre 10y ago

> People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we? Politics is a process of conflict and negotiation between varied, competing interests. In a liberal democracy, "people have a right to their beliefs" is the starting point for that process, not the endpoint.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Yes, but it's a starting point we shouldn't loose sight of.