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.

>Woe is me, poor little billionaire...

What's the monetary threshold beyond which it's okay to harass people and fire them for their jobs for their political beliefs? Let's have a number.

The number where you use it to harass 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.

>The number where you use it to harass others?

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.

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.

Or is that different somehow?

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?

Suggest away, we say, as long as you don't suggest something that makes us uncomfortable.

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.

I'm perfectly ok with that, I'm just not ok with pushing others to do likewise.

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.

You can try to persuade someone but I think public shaming and blackmail are across the line.

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?

In the July 1932 German Federal Election, the National Socialist German Workers Party received 37.3% of the vote. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_...

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.