You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this.
Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.
Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.
Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with the same logical problems as people who believe every word of a holy book is literally true. The linked article is well written sophistry but don't expect sophistry to contain anything rational. If you didn't get to irrational beliefs in a rational logical manner, you're not going to escape from irrational beliefs using rational or logical discussion, which makes debating the specific points of the sophistry pointless.
The right wingers love to do that too, not only the lefties. Call somebody "racist" or "socialist" and you have marked them as so bad that no further dialog is needed (or even possible).
I agree emphatically that this is on both sides. Those of us who have watched with relief and hope the decline of influence of irrational, moralizing, censoring fundamentalist Christians[1] (on the right) are somewhat shocked and disappointed to see such a dramatic uptick of irrational moralizing fundamentalist social justice activists[1] on the left.
[1] Not all of them! But enough to cause harm to society
Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article
By OP I assume you mean me, ie: the guy who submitted the article to HN, not the author.
First, I'm not out for attention, but thanks for that unprompted attack (dick). I submitted this as it seemed wrong that it kept being censored/flagged off HN. Honestly I expected it to be flagged off again, but hoped at least a few more people would get to see it.
For me the real issue isn't so much that Thiel is Trump supporter, but that Sam Altman and PG have both been very vocal in their denouncement of Trump, so keeping Thiel as a partner (not employee, let's be clear about that) seems incongruous at best, and down right spineless at worst.
Don't get me wrong, Donald Trump is huge cunt in my view, but even if I were indifferent to Trump, I'd still feel Thiel and Ycombinator should not be doing business together with such drastically conflicting values.
It's also probably worth mentioning I'm English and live in the UK, and this whole election reminds me of Brexit. Pretty much everyone I spoke to thought it would be a landslide for remain. Hell, even the politicians advocating leave didn't seem to think they'd win. Yet here we are, £GBP in free fall, and no one on either side seems to have any idea what to do next.
Even if it seems unlikely now, Trump could end up as president, and that's scary for a lot of people.
> Sam Altman and PG have both been very vocal in their denouncement of Trump, so keeping Thiel as a partner seems incongruous at best, and down right spineless at worst.
You may have to clarify this for me, because it sounds as if you believe people with different political ideals can never work together, even on something non-political.
It seems the exact opposite to me. Spineless would be cutting ties with Thiel, even though it's against their principles to do so over political affiliation, just because some people who get hysterical over politics want them to.
> "Sam Altman and PG have both been very vocal in their denouncement of Trump, so keeping Thiel as a partner ... seems incongruous at best, and down right spineless at worst"
When people you know to be both intelligent and courageous seem to be doing something crazy and/or spineless, you should ask yourself what presuppositions you differ on.
You seem to hold the presupposition that people cannot work professionally together if they hold divergent political views. Think carefully about the implications of that viewpoint, and whether it's one that others can be assumed to hold.
So it boils down to people who know they live in extreme conformist echo chambers, and think everyone else is trapped in a similar cell, repeatedly are surprised when the isolated echo chamber fails to accurately model reality, and when that happens, its always someone else's fault because some third party are dicks, cunts, have no idea whats going on, or they're scary. The theoretical model, and the echo chamber, are immaculately conceived and error free and the source of the problem is always elsewhere.
Since I can't think of a response better than restating it myself, I think I'll leave it right there? I mean there's really nothing else to say. To paraphrase Newton what doesn't work will continue not to work unless a force is applied.
Their main values are making boatloads of money legally. That unifies Thiel, YC and everybody else.
I don't think Thiel should be ostracized but it would be nice if he was asked to explain his thinking a little more instead of just yelling at him. He is a smart guy, maybe there is something to learn.
I see a lot of Trump supporters doing the same thing as the (mainstream) left is doing here. The entire concept is strange to me, that they would so rabidly support their tribe that they think they've attained some a) of moral superiority or b) their tribe is the only thing stopping the country from total disaster. The truth is a lot more boring than their fantasies. The media feeds into this hysteria though so I don't blame all of them.
> Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.
It used to be the monopoly of the right in US, now it's interesting to see that the left engages in the exact same rhetoric, techniques and tactics. Or maybe they always did, it's just more blatant today how both sides are extreme and if you don't fall in line you're either Satan or worse than Hitler.
>Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil.
That used to be mostly confined to the conservative side of the political spectrum. Now it's spread to the liberal side as well.
I think its the anonymizing nature of the internet. We're not evolved to communicate digitally. Its going to be a rough road here on out for the human race.
Thank you, I couldn't agree more with you. I'd like to add that being a professional means working together with people of diverging opinions.
Both candidates' slogans are deeply ironic (Stronger Together and Make America Great Again) in light of the division and alienation the election is fostering. The US media are radicalizing the people for the sake of votes.
I hope Thiel doesn't stress himself over such outrage. I wish him well.
You are correct that supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, and on many occasions I continue to do business with companies headed by people who back political ideals I disagree with. However, I HAVE discontinued business with companies that directly support groups I disagree with (Chick-fil-a being a small, but easy example) - I don't care what people do with their own funds, but once a companies name is attached to a donation or lobbying effort it's completely reasonable to hold them accountable for their actions in my eyes.
Unfortunately, even with this mental separation I try to maintain it falls into shades of gray when there isn't a clear separation between the business and the individual.
What? People get fired over personal choices all the time. If I leered at women at the office, then told them it was fine because they secretly liked it, I'd be out in no time. It's a personal choice to do that, and to support a candidate who does the same, but the company can absolutely take your choices into account when figuring out who isn't needed.
Although to be fair, it's not clearcut. If you quietly say you support someone who is openly harassing colleagues, that is basically harassment by proxy. Being less direct could actually be worse, since it's passive-aggressive.
I agree, it's not that clearcut and you provided a great counterexample to my argument. My example was intended for mostly disjoint private and professional spheres but I did not specify it.
The question of whether every eligible individual in a democratic state should be allowed to support political candidates with millions of dollars in funding is a contentious one, and my understanding is that the answer in most developed countries is "no, you're not allowed to do that."
Nationally title 7 only protects you from the following: sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There might be local state laws that protect you from politics, but no national law.
Given the era it was written in "race, color, national origin, and religion" were seen as a way of defining and carpet bombing the entire "ancestry" topic. If they just listed "ancestry" there would be wiggle room with what is the definition in order to discriminate on ancestry. For the purposes of the legal system the definition of ancestry in that context is all of race, color, national origin, religion.
Interesting political affiliation isn't seen as ancestry although in practice it most certainly is. We like to LARP that elections are fair because people decide, when the reality is most of the population is born into party affiliation and boundaries are gerrymandered such that almost none of the public gets to actually decide anything ever. What I'm getting at is we LARP that the people have a voice and a crucial part of the LARPing is we must pretend political affiliation is NOT dominated almost entirely by ancestry. If for example "all black people vote for party X" that would imply black people are not part of a representative democracy where leaders are selected by voting etc, which is totally badthink thoughtcrime to even consider as a physics style thought experiment or mathematical inductive reasoning. So obviously politics can't be a protected class in a "democracy" like the USA.
If you think that's out there, consider something like sharia law [1][2] where the law is based on religion. In some regions, you can get arrested for things you don't even understand.
First, it's not generally illegal to fire people over political beliefs. More importantly, though, Peter Thiel isn't an employee of Y Combinator --- as Altman himself has been at pains to point out.
I don't disagree with you, man, but you also have to realize this wound never fully healed after our Civil War ended in 1865.
You look at a map of the "red states" and they are very much what is remaining of the Confederate States of America. The red states in the west are where these racist losers fled to after the war to get away from all the freed blacks.
The fact that Trump is calling the election "rigged" and essentially egging on an armed rebellion after election day - well that just might happen because it already did a very long time ago.
Voter registration is already public in many states (and searchable online). While that doesn't include actual votes, it does include party affiliation which is obviously a strong indicator. Beyond some extreme exceptions, you can't even opt-out of being listed in this publicly searchable database which includes your home address as well. In other words, voting is hardly anonymous even today.
And even that doesn't account for recent massive scale (191M people) leaks [1].
That information is available (historically) from the third-party voting scraper sites (e.g. http://ohiovoters.info/). If there is a way of preventing it from being collected, I'm not sure how to do it.
Anonymous voting ("the australian ballot") doesn't exist to protect you from your public opinions. It exists to allow people who don't want to express their opinions in public from being coerced when they make their choice and to negate the power of bribery to influence elections. If no one can prove you voted for the right candidate, it's less enticing to hand people money to do so. American elections weren't secret in the past. This was a fix that was put in to throw a wrench in political machines ("vote for this guy or I'll break your legs") and quid pro quo fueled campaigns ("here's $100 bucks if you vote for my candidate").
You'll have to do a better job of connecting those dots for me, because I do not see the connection between criticizing someone for endorsing a member of the Trump campaign and working to eliminate the anonymous vote.
Incidentally? Elimination of the anonymous vote? That's something Peter Thiel probably actually believes in. He believes democracy is a failed experiment, and the extension of the franchise to women harmed society. He believes, in general, that more voting worsens outcomes.
Almost nobody will agree with the idea that in an ideal world built upon the "marketplace of ideas" that someone should be constrained from expressing political opinions for fear of losing their employment.
In fact this being so is a primary driver of Trump's anti-PC appeal.
Nobody is losing their employment in this discussion. Thiel doesn't even have equity in YC. His part-time partner status is a marketing arrangement, a co-endorsement. All that Sam Altman is being asked to do is to reconsider endorsing Thiel.
Meanwhile, all sorts of misconceptions are behind the appeal of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a monster. I do not think reasonable people are required to change their behavior to assuage the misconceptions of his deluded followers.
You think this a damning argument. But no reasonable reader thinks we couldn't blow the thread up to 1000 more comments, each choc-a-bloc with vivid details, about the terrible flaws of Donald Trump.
The reason I'm not taking the bait is that the debate on this thread isn't about Donald Trump, and I'm not going to help you muddy the waters.
No, I mean what I've said repeatedly. If you support Donald Trump, or even just think he's no worse than Hillary Clinton, I'll agree to disagree with you and move on. But Sam Altman does not agree with you. Sam Altman compares Donald Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin.
The debate is about whether Altman can continue to endorse an important member of Trump's campaign while still believing that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. If Altman is sanguine about a Trump presidency, his support for Thiel is understandable. I don't think that he is.
Fair enough re: employment, but if we shift "employed by" to "do business with" it's still the same discussion.
A theme going on here is a binary state regarding how we should treat individuals and consider their positions. This idea of "endorsing" Thiel means you are supporting all of his political views and not just his business views. That if one supports Trump one is all-in on all of his positions.
For example, many of Trump's supporters are identifying with his economic message. They may find his immigration stance to be distasteful but the overriding concern is the economy, so they are willing to suck it up. Trump's bloc isn't a monolithic group with shared priorities.
Altman's position on this is exactly correct- expressing his disagreement with Thiel but with the maturity to quash the urge to run away from or "punish" Thiel. We would be better off as a society if we all adopted this mindset.
If we shift "employment" to "do business with", we have formulated an argument that boycotts are unethical. So, no, I don't think that gets us anywhere.
Boycotts are designed to force a _business_ to change behavior.
If we extend this into the realm of the individual and political speech, it is a totally different animal with clear dangers for freedom of expression.
I am not myself sure if I would consider it a moral failing to "boycott" an individual as a pressure tactic in these circumstances (or more like misguided social engineering) but it is definitely laudable to take a more nuanced view as Altman and YC have done.
Businesses are made of people. But your argument is even less coherent than that. When people boycotted Nestle, they were supporting a campaign whose intended impact could have put thousands of people out of work, many of whom had no opposition at all to the boycotter's ideas. Boycotting a company is an even more grave act than criticizing some dude with more than one McLaren about endorsing a Trump campaign surrogate who could most likely buy McLaren Automotive. But we tolerate and accept boycotts, as we must, because they are a form of political speech.
It is totally fine to take action against a business; that the business is comprised of people who have no direct input into the actions of the entity and may face consequences of the actions against it should not be an important consideration of where you choose to spend your money.
A counterexample would be a situation where someone went and figured out that most of Nestle's employees were supporting Trump and then boycotted the business as a way to pressure those employees into altering their positions. That is much closer to being morally objectionable.
Outside of that, Altman _has_ criticized Thiel's views, directly. The disagreement seems to be about what to do afterwards. He is simply not willing to cut him off for this disagreement. If this way of thinking was a social norm, you would eliminate "anti-PC" griping which is important to a good chunk of Trump supporters, and you would likely see positive social change happen more rapidly (e.g. if this was the norm 50 years ago you might have seen more movement on gay marriage, etc. if people could pipe up without fear of being fired (or "boycotted")).
We have seen many examples in the last decade of "enemies of the left" being fired and no platformed for their views. This campaign targeting Thiel appears to be a product of the same value system, so it is understandable that some people consider it relevant to the discussion.
I reallyreally hate to wade into this, but can you define either "enemies of the left", "the left" or give explicit examples of what you are describing?
if you read Citizens United carefully, you'll see the point of the decision is actually the opposite. The wealthy can afford whole media companies, and otherwise have a great deal of ability to put information out into the general public, without ever stepping afoul of election laws. But, as has been in precedent in US law since at least the 1790s [0], groups of people also have the right to be "united for a special purpose" [1]. "[T]he individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons" [2]. This applies to "[unions], associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life" and "It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to [those groups] during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community" [3]. That's what Citizens United established. Here's a key snippet from Kennedy's majority opinion:
"wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."
[0] The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College, 7 Va. 573; 1790
[1] Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1886
[2] Scalia's concurrence, Citizens United v. FEC, 2010
Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.