Do you realize how despotic that is? Whether or not you and Sam Altman share the same goals I'd consider it deplorable if he used his power to punish Peter Thiel for his political views. Just because you agree with the underlying root issue doesn't make it any more just -- consider the reverse, if you would. Should Thiel remove acquaintances who support Hillary?
I find it ironic that Thiel, who claims that democracy and capitalism are no longer compatible (and it appears if he were forced to choose he'd ditch democracy) is being defended by calling someone else "despotic".
Actual Thiel quote is "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,"[1]. It is nice to see that capitalism is equated with freedom, that's the right mindset but not what Thiel actually said.
If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom. After all, when slavery was democratically supported in the US, was it still wrong? I think it was. Do you think it is a "despotic" opinion?
>If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom.
An odd choice to equate freedom with capitalism but not with democracy. You are holding the right to control private trade more free than the right of some to representative government; in other words, the freedom of few over many.
Why is it odd? Democracy, strictly meant as rule by the majority, voting, etc. by itself is not freedom. Majority can oppress minority in a very democratic manner. Of course, modern democracy implies many freedoms built in, so when we say "democracy" we should be aware which meaning we consider.
> You are holding the right to control private trade
Capitalism is the opposite of "right to control private trade" - it's the right to own and exchange property voluntarily, without forceful intervention. So it is part of the freedoms. Of course, it can exist in theory without representative government, though in practice such government very soon takes control over economics and thus capitalism can exist only within limits it prescribes.
Unless you're a utopian anarchist some form of government is essential to the operation of society. The alternative to democracy is non-representational government. In other words, democracy may not define freedom by itself, but it's absence is certainly non-free. Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society.
On the other hand there are a number of countries that restrict capitalism in some way but have free societies.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term.
[OT but pretty pathetic that I got downvoted for my previous comment by someone. Tempting to speculate it was (hilariously and ironically) by a Thiel supporter sore at the idea that he might have his views being suppressed.]
There is a large gap between "democracy" and "representation".
I feel this is instinctively understood by every Sanders supporter who claims "we're not in a real democracy!" or "we don't have enough democracy", but they are using the wrong word. They are living in a republic with a democracy but they aren't seriously represented.
Representation is the telos of democracy but it does not always achieve it.
And that is why everybody should become a reactionary. Only by returning to first principals will everybody get what they really want. There's too much cruft!
> Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society.
China. Singapore. Japan. Korea.
All these states have some kind of democracy. Yes, even Communist China does have some democracy. All these states have significant restrictions on it. In the most democratic ones power has been in the same hands about 90% of the time.
> Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term.
Let me help you out. It is certainly the case that the word freedom has become seriously overloaded, much like the word democracy. Most of us see freedom to mean autonomy in this context.
In a practical example if the BBC requires you to pay for a TV license because you own a visual display then your freedom is reduced because your number of choices is being narrowed. You have less autonomy because even if you don't watch TV or the BBC channels you are forced to pay for their services anyway.
Another practical example is I hear the people in Flint are paying for poisoned water and have no choice in the matter otherwise their houses and belongings may be possessed by the state sending debt collectors.
Well, Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel.
And, well, "Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy, and not exactly something with great historical precedents on its side, y'know?
> Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel.
This claim is based on what exactly?
> Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy,
True but why you mention it here? Surely neither Thiel nor anybody here advocated such point of view. So who you are arguing with?
Thiel has openly commented, for example, that he thinks "democratic capitalism" has been harmed, if not outright destroyed, by extending the franchise to women. And of course Trump's own supporters had their "repeal the 19th" trending moment on Twitter over the discovery that women voting could make the difference in their candidate winning or losing.
So... I'm arguing with the public, verifiable actions and statements of Trump and his supporters, among whom one finds Peter Thiel.
> Thiel has openly commented, for example, that he thinks "democratic capitalism" has been harmed, if not outright destroyed, by extending the franchise to women
Actual quote:
The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.[1]
As we can see, especially if we read the whole article and grasp the context, Thiel is not arguing that women voting per se is bad. He is arguing that the consequences of woman suffrage and other changes since 1920s were summarily bad, because it led to increase of government intervention.
Imagine somebody saying "last redistricting led to Trump supporters now having majority in my state's Senate, this is awful" - do you think he argues against Trump voters having voting rights or against concept of electoral districts? He is unhappy with the outcome, not the process that led to it.
Thus, it is clear that what Thiel objects is removal of freedoms and not giving it to somebody who is "not like him".
Part of the reason I've mostly checked out of political discussion is because it's so partisan. I flat out don't believe half the things people claim Trump said. In most cases either the quote is cherry picked or the context is flat out misconstrued.
I've lost count of how many times I've seen outrage at something Hilary or Trump said or wrote, only to conclude what was said was reasonable and the outrage was manufactured for and by stupid people.
That's some interesting goal-post moving you're doing there, from "women are problematic voters" to "this district's voting is problematic". Here, let me help you with something Trump hasn't said directly, but has implied repeatedly over the last week: "black people have the right to vote, this is awful".
(a) Pretty sure that's not what "despotism" means.
(b) Pretty sure Thiel isn't going to shut up no matter what Sam Altman does.
(c) Pretty sure political criticism doesn't mean "the kinds of criticism I am comfortable hearing" --- in fact, pretty sure John Stuart Mill specifically warns against using discomfort as a litmus test for criticism.
(d) Pretty sure Thiel did more than simply donate to Donald Trump.
(e) Pretty sure the declaration that YC is a "non-political organization" is one you made, not one that YC did, and further pretty sure that nobody at YC agrees that their actions are cabined by your (so-far-unstated) definition of what a "non-political organization" is.
(f) Pretty sure YC has already threatened to blacklist organizations that disagree with them politically.
Oh, I could go on, and on, and on. But do we really need to?
I really suggest you take each of these points in turn and consider how you would feel if the candidate in question was HRC instead of Trump.
You're also missing the issue. It's not so much about Thiel but the message it sends: your professional career is at stake if you support the wrong candidate. I do not support Trump but I find that completely unacceptable.
I don't give a damn who you vote for in the privacy of the voting booth, and I'm not going to go digging in your background to figure out who you might have voted for. But when you make an announcement to the world that "This is what I am for", I'm damn well going to judge you for it.
Go right ahead and judge all you want. The question is, are you then going to try to get that person fired for the crime of stating their beliefs in public?
@jowiar: when you adopt that stance, you really have to be sure you are on the "right" side of every important position. I hope you are and will be so that you never have to face tangible oppression for your beliefs.
I was bullied out of my Catholic youth group in high school for my beliefs (read: A bunch of people I had considered friends started calling me a baby killer). It happens. It pushed me to hanging out with better people (read: The new youth minister was a total tool. He replaced a great guy).
Consequences of being on the "wrong" side of things will cause people to think first and speak later, rather than loudly stake out territory without thinking things through. I'm all for that.
Sure, but is it okay with you if these "consequences" are being unable to work and provide for one's family? Because that's the sort of "consequences" the media -- and useful idiots like the author of the original article -- are ordering us to believe are appropriate for disagreeing with their politics.
Woe is me, poor little billionaire, unable to work because I managed to find more money than most people will see in their lives burning a hole in my pocket and, in my billionaire wisdom, thought it was worth trying to elect the closest thing the US has seen to Benito Mussolini.
Look, I didn't like GW Bush, I didn't like Mitt Romney, but I would not shun folks who voted for them, or donated to their campaigns. Donald Trump is running on a platform centered around the belief that certain people deserve fewer rights than others. Donating to the Prop 8 campaign was taking an explicit position that certain people deserve fewer rights than others.
"Political beliefs" is another word for "opinions", and the crazy thing about opinions is you can change them. And the ones that you hold reflect on you.
Who, specifically, is Thiel harassing? Let's have some names, since you seem so confident in your accusation.
>"Political beliefs" is another word for "opinions", and the crazy thing about opinions is you can change them. And the ones that you hold reflect on you.
Exactly. All those screenwriters have to do is change their opinions about Communism, and they're good to go.
Depending on what their beliefs are, I may well choose not to engage in business with them, or hang out where they hang out, or whatnot. Others may choose to do the same. This may result in firing. So it goes.
Exactly. Because those writers and directors held Communist views, Hollywood executives chose not to engage in business with them. That may have resulted in firing. So it goes.
Sorry, I am really not too concerned about the career implications of suggesting that someone who owns multiple McLarens stop endorsing someone who could plausibly purchase McLaren Automotive.
Again, that's not what we're talking about. Suggest away, until you're blue in the face. I encourage it. The problem is when you advocate actionable, tangible retribution against people not listening to those suggestions.
Well, we're not exactly talking about HRC either. Focus, don't dilute the topic. There are actual words by PG, SA that can be compared to Thiel's. The dissonance between them is the problem here, especially as relates to YC policies.
tl;dr: does YC doing nothing about Thiel mean "culture fit" is dead as a concept?
Who's talking about feeling uncomfortable? We're talking about actively punishing people for their political opinions. I can't tell if you're deliberately misreading the discussion.
Are you categorically opposed to punishing people for political opinions, or is it a matter of crossing a certain threshold? For instance, what if Trump had openly advocated putting Muslims in "internment camps" and Thiel had donated a billion dollars to his campaign? Would you still believe that severing a business relationship with him would be immoral?
But Trump HADN'T suggested that; and THAT is why it is immoral. He's a major party candidate supported by 40% of the American population, not Adolph Hitler.
So in your opinion is there any logically-possible situation in which it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views? Have you ever done it yourself? Do you feel morally obligated to be a business partner of people who support Hillary Clinton, since to choose not to would "punish" and "silence" their speech?
> it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views
For you? A lot of situations are morally acceptable. For you to demand others to do it, even though they clearly not inclined to? Very narrow set of situations, mostly involving heinous crimes.
Citizen! You have attempted to influence the thoughts or actions of another! Hold position and await the arrival of constables who will arrest you for violating the Anti-Groupthink Act 2016!
Your thoughts jump to police and coercion all the time. Why is that? Nobody is trying to coerce you to anything, unless you see other individuals voluntarily associating as some kind of coercion on you.
People discussing with whom they will or will not associate is, in this very HN thread, referred to as "tyranny", "despotism", "blackmail", "extortion", and of course you yourself went for the oppression/"thoughtcrime" angle.
Yet one satirical comment lampooning it is "jump to police and coercion all the time" and "why is that".
I suggest you get checked out, you've got more projection going on than an overbooked IMAX theater.
So it's OK to speak as long as you don't try to persuade someone of something?
If somebody's up on a soapbox giving speeches about their views, and I disagree with their views, should I not get up on my own soapbox and explain why I disagree and think people shouldn't buy that other guy's arguments?
If I think someone has a poor business history, should I keep silent when somebody else considers a partnership? Or should I speak up and say "I think that's a bad partnership" and try to persuade them?
You seem to have a view of speech being allowed so long as the first speaker is privileged never to be disagreed with by a later speaker, and never to have anyone try to persuade others not to accept the first speaker's argument. That's not how free speech works.
You are over-generalizing. Trying to persuade others in "something" is completely fine. Unless "something" happens to be "let's institute groupthink and shun anybody who dares to disagree with our views" and then it's terrible. Not the fact of persuading is terrible, but the content of this particular persuasion.
So... people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world.
Or is it a percentage thing? When 50.0000001% of a group of people share an opinion, would you like the police to swoop in and start forcibly preventing speech just in case more people might be persuaded of the idea and join the "groupthink"?
(also, funny thing, there's a lot of diversity in the anti-Thiel/anti-Trump opinions, but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump, so maybe consider carefully who you'd like to accuse of groupthink. Oh wait, crap, I just tried to persuade someone to take an action; never mind, I'll see myself off to the labor camp)
> people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world.
Oh, surely they can. I just won't be a part of a groupthink community and would oppose the effort of turning whole technology community into such. If you want to organize "Trump haters of Silicon Valley" meetup, feel free to. As long as you are not going to demand that "Trump lovers of Silicon Valley" meetup is shut down and meetup.com deletes their account. See the difference?
> Or is it a percentage thing?
It's not a percentage thing, it's a mindset thing. The fact that you turn to police and coercion all the time is another sign. The point is that we need to be open to coexisting with people that disagree with us, and that's a good thing. The urge to run for a safe space and surround oneself with a warm fuzzy cloak of groupthink is a natural one, but it's not a good thing if you want a healthy and intellectually honest and vibrant community around you.
> but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump,
Of course, people that agree with you are all independent intellectual powerhouses, and people that disagree with you are all mindless drones zombified by Evil Powers. Funny how it happens like that all the time, eh?
Funny. People suggest exercising their right to associate or not, freely as they choose, and exercising their right to use persuasive speech, and you equate it to the use of force, to censorship, to silencing.
And double funny: it started with trying to persuade someone to disassociate from the campaign/supporters of a man who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism he doesn't like.
I don't see anything funny with it. It's not the fact they speak or associate that is a problem. It's the goal of that speech and association - ensure that voicing dissent and disagreeing with orthodoxy would endanger one's economic and social well-being, to the point that nobody dares to do so.
> who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism
This is, of course, despicable and should be condemned. I certainly think it's one of the worst qualities in Trump and understand how that could be a deal-breaker for people not to vote for him.
On the other hand, he is running against the candidate who has promised to use not just private libel law, but the full force of federal government regulatory machine to suppress the speech of her political opponents (and when I say "her opponents" I am not being rhetorical - it's the speech against her personally that she found so objectionable that needed the First Amendment to be overridden). And who was the member of the administration that was documented to use federal government to oppress political opponents.
So I can also understand how for other people it can look prudent to choose the lesser evil (private lawsuits) over the bigger evil (systematic governmental oppression).
In any case, both positions are legitimate and should be debated and put forward on the market of ideas. The idea, however, that association with one of these must make you a pariah - I don't think that will market very well. Or that I want to visit a market where it markets well.
It's way beyond mere feeling uncomfortable, it's building a community based on groupthink and intolerance to dissent. At this point, plain uncomfortable is a distant dream we yearn for.
Okay, now we're talking. So what's the maximum amount of money someone is allowed to have before they are no longer allowed to express political opinions you, personally, don't like? $10 million? $1 million? $100,000?
Well, what if Thiel supports David Duke or comes out as a holocaust denier -- would you still claim that Thiel's professional career can't be at stake?
First, Trump is supported by roughly 40% of likely voters, not all Americans. Second, just because a belief is widely held doesn't automatically make it more acceptable than it would be if it were less common.
> [Sam's] continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020
> (b) Pretty sure Thiel isn't going to shut up no matter what Sam Altman does.
The seeming dissonance here is interesting to me. Can you explain in more detail what outcome you're expecting will occur if Thiel is removed from YC, and how that will impact the election?
(b) Then what's the point? Just hurt Thiel? Demand virtue signal from Altman? Ritual purity?
(c) Surely so, but I am inclined to draw the distinction between "policies X advocating are wrong" and "Y must shun X for advocating the policies or be shunned himself". The first promotes the conversation, the second shuts it down.
pg: Several of those companies send people to Demo Day, and when I saw the list I thought: we should stop inviting them. So yes, we'll remove anyone from those companies from the Demo Day invite list.
I don't know the context of that decision but I'm fairly sure even if pg is being inconsistent that two wrongs would not make a right so I hate seeing that kind of rebuttal being handed out as if it's a QED. It is not. It's whataboutism.
It's a donation so large that it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to participate in the same conversation. I question the decision to categorize it as pure free speech. It's qualitatively different from a $100 donation.
No it is not. It's like saying since New York Times has more circulation than my blog they don't get to enjoy the First Amendment like I do. The underlying premise of it is "I'm ok with dissent but only when it does not really matter". No, quite the opposite - it is important to be OK with dissent exactly when it does matter. That's why the First Amendment exists - to protect speech that matters.
And it's quite possible for vast majority of Americans to participate - they are doing it right now, before your very eyes, it's an undeniable fact that this is exactly what is happening right now.
The first amendment protects you from government interference. It doesn't protect people from deciding not to do business with the New York Times because they don't like what the paper says. NYT is definitely big enough to not need that extreme level of protection.
Nobody gets that kind of protection, so the size is irrelevant in each case. That's the point - the size of it only matters if tolerance depends on ineffectiveness.
There are plenty of people on this page insisting that politics should be countered only with politics, not with shunning. That can be a good policy at a small scale, don't fire people because of how they vote, etc. But it's not a good policy at a large scale, of deciding whether you work with a big corporate institution (or someone with as much money and public face as one).
One qualifier would be giving a full speech at either the democrat or republican convention. That's intentionally putting yourself into the political system, and it's okay if people make business decisions based on it.
I think it's stupid to make business decisions based on just that (of course, the content of the speech matters - e.g. if you are a coal miner and the speaker says she will bankrupt coal miners, it's prudent for you to exercise extreme caution in dealing with such person). But that's not where we are at. We are at people trying to shame YC into making business decisions they obviously don't want to make based on shaming mob's political preferences.
Sorry, you probably wanted to make a point but it makes no sense. Nobody said free speech requires to force anybody to read anything, and certainly Thiel's donation did not force anybody to do anything. Well, except for the obvjous thing of all citizens being forced to accept whoever is elected president, but that's the question of legitimacy of government which Thiel has nothing to do with.
Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience. Disagreeing or, worse, choosing not to associate with someone based on what they say is, to gauge from this thread, considered a terrible sin.
So: why aren't you out there providing an audience to speech you don't like?
> Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience.
No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely.
> Disagreeing or, worse, choosing not to associate with someone based on what they say is, to gauge from this thread, considered a terrible sin.
No, it's not. Nobody, including me, ever said disagreeing with Thiel is a "sin", let alone "terrible" one. Demanding that YC shuns him - even though they themselves obviously don't want to do it - because you are disagreeing with him - yes, that would be terrible.
> So: why aren't you out there providing an audience to speech you don't like?
> No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely.
Thiel voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation. That's his prerogative, but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community. People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of. What do you suggest they do? Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel?
> Theil voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation.
He is right that he doesn't owe anybody anything, but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway. They are easily accessible too.
> but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community.
Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that?
> People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of.
Sure, they do. It's not what we are talking about. We are talking about people wanting the situation to be that "not to support Thiel" - including mandatory declaration of such non-support and cutting all ties with him - be the only right possible in this community. I don't want such a community. Such community sucks big time.
There's a big diff between "you are allowed to be vegetarian or to eat pork, as you wish" and "if you eat pork, you are outta here and everybody must never speak to you again". First is normal, second sounds like a totalitarian sect.
> Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel?
> [...] but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway.
As far as I know he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about.
> Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that?
If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't? In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with.
> Neither is fair or sane.
If people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel. You seem to expect a scenario where people should dismiss their own opinions so Thiel can enjoy more freedom.
> he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about.
That is kinda vague. His views and ideals are known, he wrote several essays on that AFAIK.
> If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't?
I don't decide that he is, he is by the fact of the involvement. If he weren't, the calls to purge him would be not necessary.
> In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with.
Surely, but I see no respect to that right of the YC members - in fact, they are being shamed for exercising this right.
> f people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel.
Of course they have the right. It's the cause that they are promoting in their exercise of this right - the cause of groupthink, intellectual conformity and intolerance to dissent - that is terrible.
So, how legally punishable should a boycott be, in your view of the world?
And how do you justify, on free-speech grounds, trying to take away the right of people to engage in persuasive speech (hint: that's what it is when someone urges a boycott, or otherwise tries to urge someone to do something)?
Finally, are you consistent in this position? Or is it only when the victim is someone you like that you break out the insipid "thoughtcrime" lines?
Ellen Pao is free to boycott Thiel if she wishes. It becomes a gray area when she boycotts third parties. The only reason why it's a gray area though is because she has little to no power over them.
A boycott is fair if it is below. Consumers choosing not to buy products, investors deciding not to buy stock, halting a newspaper subscription or not associating with former friends.
But a boycott from above is a tyranny. Firing employees for their political views, trying to get your mutual friends to disassociate with your former friend.
So if it's me calling for a boycott of a bunch of people richer than me, is that OK? All the YC partners, part- or full-time, are richer than me.
Because I can say right now: if I ever need another job or want to start a company, I'm not going to work for a YC-funded company or accept money from YC, and I encourage others to do the same. If that means, in your eyes, that I am the most brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despot in the history of brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despots, and will single-handedly destroy the American republic forever by being Literally Worse Than Hitler™, I can live with that.
However, I can predict with some certainty that someday somebody's going to do something you don't like, you're going to make an argument that crosses the line you yourself drew, and that I'm going to be really amused when someone gives you the lecture you're giving other people right now, because ultimately the harshest thing I can do to someone like you is hope you someday get to live in a world that holds the values you've espoused.
> So if it's me calling for a boycott of a bunch of people richer than me, is that OK? All the YC partners, part- or full-time, are richer than me.
Not advocating it of course, but you are within your rights to do so. It is not illegal or immoral. A boycott is very different to an employer punishing employees with firings for their political views.
That said; I also believe (not talking legal, this is my opinion) employers are within their rights to hire whoever they wish. Particularly they are not obligated to hire people who they believe will disrupt their company. It is best practice to separate politics from business, and still be aware that humans are political animals at the same time, I hope that makes sense.
Ellen Pao is unlikely to hire a libertarian, technocommerialist or neoreactionary but that is okay. However she cannot advocate against them by blackmailing other people, that would be stepping over the line. It would be wrong were Peter Thiel to lean on companies to fire Democrats and hippies, though he is highly suspicious about hippies.
> However, I can predict with some certainty that someday somebody's going to do something you don't like, you're going to make an argument that crosses the line you yourself drew, and that I'm going to be really amused when someone gives you the lecture you're giving other people right now, because ultimately the harshest thing I can do to someone like you is hope you someday get to live in a world that holds the values you've espoused.
Maybe. I cannot know future-me. However I do know I'm content for Communists to exist and they represent the furthest political position from mine.
My position is that exit (voting with feet) is preferable to voice (voting/media), so that if we have lots of variety intellectually and people are free to move from one position to another it shall produce more productive outcomes. That means that even groups of people I heavily dislike would have room to spread their wings.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with our political ideas but since they will be located in an independent Seastead or SEZ (similar to the factions in the Diamond Age) the fallout from awful policies won't affect me personally. At most interventions would only occur if people were being prevented from leaving. I think this would produce interesting results and a faster political evolution than the world witnesses today. After all I'm sure you'll agree, it is highly likely we both have strongly held priors that are false, but cannot know it until it is demonstrated. With competition and natural selection we can be more scientific about politics.
You are spectacularly missing the point. You are not required to listen to anything Thiel says. But you are required to tolerate the fact that he says things.
Except according to all these eerily-similar HN commenters, if I speak up and say I don't like what he says, or that I'll refuse to associate with him or his supporters, or encourage other people to do the same, well, clutch my pearls and fetch the smelling salts! That's tyranny! Despotism! Bullying! Shaming! Witch hunting! Extortion! Blackmail! Coercion! Censorship! Oppression! Groupthink! Punishing thoughtcrime!
So what it seems these folks really want is "Trump and Thiel can say what they want and nobody's allowed to speak up or out against them, and must associate with and financially aid them or else". Which is not how I envision freedom of speech working.
Given that they were largely government-imposed (in the sense that the government actively threatened businesses who didn't blacklist suspected "Communists"), I don't see an analogy to private individuals advocating for/against particular views or associations.
If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it?
Those "threats" were prominent politicians saying negative things about the businesses. So the blacklists were exactly as "government-imposed" as boycotts of Trump, given the many prominent politicians saying negative things about Trump and his voters today.
That is to say, not at all.
>If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it?
Depends on the reason for the boycott, of course. If he was calling for the boycott of a company because its founder donated to Hillary Clinton, or Jill Stein, or American Socialist Party nominee Mimi Soltysik, or even the Devil himself, then of course I would condemn him for it. I'm sorry to hear you wouldn't have the same resolve.
(I'll save you a few minutes of Googling, by the way, and pre-emptively condemn him just in case he has done something like that and I haven't heard about it. Trump is a jackass.)
Ah yes, "politicians saying negative things". That's a nice euphemism for "Congressional hearings".
Let me just ask, then: were you this vocal and this active on the internet when the whole "people don't want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples" stuff was making news, and lots of people were showing support for the cake-bakers and encouraging association/disassociation based on "beliefs"?
Just asking because despite claims, an awful lot of y'all who make these arguments seem to be inconsistent on that stuff (I think pg describes it as a "blind spot").
So where do you draw the dollar line of protected free speech versus it's ok to punish that person for their political views?
$100 dollars is apparently protected free speech by your logic, but $1.25 million dollars is a punishable offense.
Is $1000 dollars ok? $10,000?, $100,000? Where are you going to draw the line.
Also, by this line of thinking then the converse must also apply; if someone donates to Clinton and someone in a position holding power over them supports Trump then they can equally dole out punishments...
When liberal pundits get a platform from the NYT, his speech is qualitatively different than the opinion I write in my blog, yet I don't think we should legalize political retribution or censure against pundits who use too large a platform. Hopefully you agree?
And a celebrity's Tweet to 10 million followers is speech so large it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to rival. Doesn't mean it's not speech, and doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected—legally and socially.
Donations are free speech with respect to the government. No one is questioning Thiel's free speech rights. People are responding with more free speech as is their right. No one is silencing Trump supporters.
I'm sorry, I do not understand how Thiel or any other Trump supporter would be harmed if Sam or Paul exercised their rights to terminate their relationship with him. It would be an act of expression, would it not, to abrogate their partnership? Are you suggesting a chilling effect similar to that caused by surveillance?
Honestly, there's so much vitriol being hosed on everything this election touches, if one stops and looks objectively at the YC/Thiel equation, is it any more than this:
Thiel's views are not compatible with the culture that YC espouses (citations already offered in other comments). Thiel has exercised his right to express his beliefs by supporting a particular political candidate, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. YC has the right to express their beliefs by ending their agreement with Thiel, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's therefore a purely ethical choice, which by definition, is subjective, and either results in YC exercising their right to express themselves freely, or YC opting to withhold that expression without giving up their right to any future expression.
I don't support YC's position in this matter, but I do support their right to have one. I don't support Thiel or Trump either, but I do support the rights that enable their expression. It is my right to expression that enables me to speak out, and hope, yes, to change the minds of others; not to convince anyone to agree with me, mind you, but to be honest with themselves, and to be principled in their actions.
