7 ms·

Well there were widespread calls by people to push even Peter Thiel out of silicon valley positions which he holds just because he supported a candidate. His fa

by shklnrj 10y ago

Well there were widespread calls by people to push even Peter Thiel out of silicon valley positions which he holds just because he supported a candidate. His fault - He supported a guy publicly! Even he was seen as criminal. Forget about the average Joe. That's why people wanted confidentiality agreements!

Frondo 10y ago
Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech? Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster? Why shouldn't I be able to call for shklnrj to be fired, so long as I do it through the usual public channels (e.g. are not harassing you or your workplace, etc)? Hopefully, your boss would dismiss me as a nutter. But hey, that's free speech in action.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  I think you're confusing what should be legally allowed with what is moral.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    I'm not saying calling for Thiel's ouster is right. But saying it shouldn't be allowed? Screw that, I like my first amendment.
    - edanm 10y ago
      And I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be allowed, legally. We're saying, it's bad for society that this has become normal. E.g. If you lived in a society that found adultery almost totally acceptible, You could think adultery is wrong, you could not like that society considers it acceptible, but you could still be against making it illegal.
- shklnrj 10y ago
  Very clever. Yes calls for my firing would be under freedom of speech. Agree totally. But a culture in which only one side is able to call for firing because that side's opinion is WRONG leads to a divided society. Imagine people asking for firing of someone because that person supported Hillary Clinton for some reason? In such a society, the side whose voice is silenced by the popular culture would come out to vote strongly for the other side.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    This is false equivalence at it's best. If it was Mitt Romney or John McCain, you might have a point. But this was Trump. Trump openly mocked the disabled. He espoused xenophobic and racist viewpoints. He embraced the KKK's support of him, often retweeting white nationalists. Fuck, he put Steve Bannon, the head of the neo-Nazis as his advisor.
    - rrauenza 10y ago
      I agree with most of the above sentiment, but there's a little more context to the mocking of the disabled reporter. He'd been using those motions to mock people (who are backpedaling) in general for quite some time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgaC0leEb68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgaC0leEb68
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        I don't buy it. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was wrong, and he did it anyway.
      - mcphage 10y ago
        > He'd been using those motions to mock people (who are backpedaling) in general for quite some time Oh, okay. So it's not jus that he's mocking a disabled reporter, but mocks other people as if they were disabled as well. Well, that's just fine, then.
        rrauenza 10y ago
- smallgovt 10y ago
  Of course they do. Nobody is saying you don't have a RIGHT to condemn and criticize. The discussion is around whether you SHOULD be criticizing a person.
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech? Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster? For one because he's got his own free speech rights. But more importantly the parent poster was holding him up as an example of why people tend not to stand up for their opinion when it is not popular. Even a popular silicon valley figure was ostracized for supporting the "wrong" candidate among his peer group. That backlash is exactly what people are afraid of.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    You know what? Backlash is one of the inevitable consequences of having any opinion in a free society. Especially if you're a wealthy, powerful individual with a big platform for pushing your ideas. Especially if they're unpopular ideas among your peer group. Thiel is also a powerful, wealthy individual, with a much bigger platform than most of us will ever have. He's also obviously weathered the storm of being calling for his ouster just fine. I just don't see this as a sign that society needs new rules on protecting people's opinions from criticism. Thiel isn't some delicate snowflake who needs a safe space. He's a grown man who speaks publicly about political things, and will be able to do so for the rest of his life, due to his wealth and power.
    - praneshp 10y ago
      > "He's also obviously weathered the storm of being calling for his ouster just fine." Will you (or I) be able to weather a similar storm?
    - dreaminvm 10y ago
      I think the OP's point was that even someone who is as powerful and wealthy as Thiel could get ostracized in a community of his peers by taking an unpopular position on a political issue, hence the average Joe could do much worse.
- eric-hu 10y ago
  I read root parent comment as being about the break down of thoughtful exchange of ideas and acceptance of views in a democracy. First amendment rights didn't seem to be on the table.
pg314 10y ago
There were calls, yes. But he is still a part-time YC partner and on Facebook's board.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rpearl 10y ago
> He supported a guy publicly! ...You can't just talk about the abstract notion of "supporting" "a guy". A specific thing happened, not the generalized notion of "publicly supporting a candidate". Is he not subject to criticism for his political positions? Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions?
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  > Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions? The line is the one that divides their politics from the rest of their life. You challenge their ideas, you don't harass them or try to get them fired.
  - rpearl 10y ago
    All actions are political, to at least some extent. So that's not a very clear line to draw. Furthermore, you talk about "challenging someone's ideas" without apparently any reference to the the rest of their life, which is... a rather nonsensical. You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma. Certainly in this case we're talking about a financial company (YC)'s input and direction. Does someone who supports policies like the current occupant of the white house belong in a position of influence there? They are being paid in this capacity for their ideas, and therefore challenging their ideas means challenging that relationship.
    - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
      > You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma. Come on, dude. I only ruled out harassment and attempts to get people fired. If you can't think of any other ways to "challenge someone's ideas" on your own, you're beyond help from me.
      - rpearl 10y ago

by shklnrj 10y ago

Frondo 10y ago

Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech? Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster? Why shouldn't I be able to call for shklnrj to be fired, so long as I do it through the usual public channels (e.g. are not harassing you or your workplace, etc)? Hopefully, your boss would dismiss me as a nutter. But hey, that's free speech in action.

marcoperaza 10y ago
I think you're confusing what should be legally allowed with what is moral.
- Frondo 10y ago
  I'm not saying calling for Thiel's ouster is right. But saying it shouldn't be allowed? Screw that, I like my first amendment.
  - edanm 10y ago
    And I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be allowed, legally. We're saying, it's bad for society that this has become normal. E.g. If you lived in a society that found adultery almost totally acceptible, You could think adultery is wrong, you could not like that society considers it acceptible, but you could still be against making it illegal.
shklnrj 10y ago
Very clever. Yes calls for my firing would be under freedom of speech. Agree totally. But a culture in which only one side is able to call for firing because that side's opinion is WRONG leads to a divided society. Imagine people asking for firing of someone because that person supported Hillary Clinton for some reason? In such a society, the side whose voice is silenced by the popular culture would come out to vote strongly for the other side.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  This is false equivalence at it's best. If it was Mitt Romney or John McCain, you might have a point. But this was Trump. Trump openly mocked the disabled. He espoused xenophobic and racist viewpoints. He embraced the KKK's support of him, often retweeting white nationalists. Fuck, he put Steve Bannon, the head of the neo-Nazis as his advisor.
  - rrauenza 10y ago
    I agree with most of the above sentiment, but there's a little more context to the mocking of the disabled reporter. He'd been using those motions to mock people (who are backpedaling) in general for quite some time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgaC0leEb68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgaC0leEb68
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      I don't buy it. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was wrong, and he did it anyway.
    - mcphage 10y ago
      > He'd been using those motions to mock people (who are backpedaling) in general for quite some time Oh, okay. So it's not jus that he's mocking a disabled reporter, but mocks other people as if they were disabled as well. Well, that's just fine, then.
      - rrauenza 10y ago
smallgovt 10y ago
Of course they do. Nobody is saying you don't have a RIGHT to condemn and criticize. The discussion is around whether you SHOULD be criticizing a person.
phkahler 10y ago
>> Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech? Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster? For one because he's got his own free speech rights. But more importantly the parent poster was holding him up as an example of why people tend not to stand up for their opinion when it is not popular. Even a popular silicon valley figure was ostracized for supporting the "wrong" candidate among his peer group. That backlash is exactly what people are afraid of.
- Frondo 10y ago
  You know what? Backlash is one of the inevitable consequences of having any opinion in a free society. Especially if you're a wealthy, powerful individual with a big platform for pushing your ideas. Especially if they're unpopular ideas among your peer group. Thiel is also a powerful, wealthy individual, with a much bigger platform than most of us will ever have. He's also obviously weathered the storm of being calling for his ouster just fine. I just don't see this as a sign that society needs new rules on protecting people's opinions from criticism. Thiel isn't some delicate snowflake who needs a safe space. He's a grown man who speaks publicly about political things, and will be able to do so for the rest of his life, due to his wealth and power.
  - praneshp 10y ago
    > "He's also obviously weathered the storm of being calling for his ouster just fine." Will you (or I) be able to weather a similar storm?
  - dreaminvm 10y ago
    I think the OP's point was that even someone who is as powerful and wealthy as Thiel could get ostracized in a community of his peers by taking an unpopular position on a political issue, hence the average Joe could do much worse.
eric-hu 10y ago
I read root parent comment as being about the break down of thoughtful exchange of ideas and acceptance of views in a democracy. First amendment rights didn't seem to be on the table.

pg314 10y ago

There were calls, yes. But he is still a part-time YC partner and on Facebook's board.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rpearl 10y ago

> He supported a guy publicly! ...You can't just talk about the abstract notion of "supporting" "a guy". A specific thing happened, not the generalized notion of "publicly supporting a candidate". Is he not subject to criticism for his political positions? Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions?

DashRattlesnake 10y ago
> Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions? The line is the one that divides their politics from the rest of their life. You challenge their ideas, you don't harass them or try to get them fired.
- rpearl 10y ago
  All actions are political, to at least some extent. So that's not a very clear line to draw. Furthermore, you talk about "challenging someone's ideas" without apparently any reference to the the rest of their life, which is... a rather nonsensical. You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma. Certainly in this case we're talking about a financial company (YC)'s input and direction. Does someone who supports policies like the current occupant of the white house belong in a position of influence there? They are being paid in this capacity for their ideas, and therefore challenging their ideas means challenging that relationship.
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    > You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma. Come on, dude. I only ruled out harassment and attempts to get people fired. If you can't think of any other ways to "challenge someone's ideas" on your own, you're beyond help from me.
    - rpearl 10y ago