Another matter of interest is the nature of the power imbalance of lack of same. The original witch hunts, McCarthyism, and other struggles involved a very powerful entity depriving individual citizens of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a career.
There is a massive difference between "So-and-so engineer cannot work in this industry because a VC finds their political views repugnant," and, "I choose not to do business with a billionaire who is actively conspiring to bring democracy down."
One is punching down, the other is punching up, or perhaps sideways.
No, OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. The statements "Thiel should be fired because of his political views" and "Thiels's political views should have no place in a civil society" are entirely different things. Political discourse has a special sanctity in American culture and I, personally, think that is one of our greatest strengths. Firing an employee due to their political views is fundamentally at odds with this idea and there are laws in place to protect employees from political retaliation. Although a company might be threatened by an employee running for political office, campaigning for a candidate or participating in fundraising or a political advocacy group, an employer should not be empowered to fire that employee. To do so would invite fundamentally undemocratic forces into our political system. e.g. a company feels threatened by candidate A, employees must support candidate B else they are fired.
> OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on
> the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong.
There is no more extreme position than claiming that all forms of "political ideology" are equally valid, and that all forms of "exclusion" are wrong.
Some people's political ideology calls for the murder of innocent civilians. I gladly refuse to do business with them, and I reject the notion that it is wrong to exclude them.
Likewise, as I pointed out, not all forms of exclusion are equivalent. If we say that all forms of exclusion are wrong, you rob me of my free will. You force me to buy advertising from Reddit or Stormfront. You demand that I work for Mr. Thiel. Or to sell my products to the RNC... Whether I want to or not.
This is the exact same argument as the one for religious freedom. Must a baker bake a cake for a lesbian couple? If so, we deprive the baker of their freedom of choice. If not, we deprive the couple of equal treatment.
We cannot grant one right without depriving somebody else of another. So in the end, we have to apply some judgment, we have to pick some line and say that things on far on this side are wrong, things far on that side are right, and things close to the line are vexing questions that must be debated.
I personally can accept arguments that in this particular case, it is ok to do business with Mr. Thiel, or arguments that in this particular case that it is not.
But the unambiguous argument that all forms of political ideology must be protected is not one I support, and nor is the one that all forms of exclusion are unambiguously wrong.
Get off your high horse, Thiel is not going to be destroyed if YC distances itself from him, bloke's got "fuck you money" a hundred times over, nothing could "destroy" him short of institutional assault, and even then possibly not.
And you're advocating for tolerating intolerance whose end-result is the destruction of tolerance.
> I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society.
So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance? Against a billionaire shovelling money to white supremacist and fascist ideologies to boot?
This isn't just about Thiel. It's about everyone else too. If you create those sorts of standards, they'll apply to everyone.
How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating.
> So you're perfectly fine tolerating intolerance but you can't tolerate the intolerance of intolerance?
Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.
Not if they call me a "faggot" on the street.
Even then.
Be an activist, go out and vote, fight for yourself, but don't attack others because they said something you didn't like.
(Yes...Im being facetious... discussions centered around "freedom" are meaningless because of how subjective the term is.)
How about you try getting chased out of a subway station after midnight getting called a "faggot" and we'll talk.
And people say that the SF tech class is out of touch.
FWIW, I think there's a difference between repugnant opinions and insults, so "faggot" is not a good example, but you're twisting OP's words dishonestly.
Though as we've seen recently, there are a lot of people who say, e.g., in the flower shop / bakery trope, "I don't have a problem with gay people, but my religion prohibits me from serving them."
In such a case, do you really need an epithet to read hate? Do you really need to hear the N word to know that people are racist? It's, at best, a very privileged (and at worst, an entirely naive) POV to suggest that you do.
You were so victimized I'm sorry.
To call someone "faggot" is indeed to threaten violence. The word originally meant "burning stick"; that's why a lit cigarette is sometimes called a "fag". By calling someone "faggot", one is saying they should be burned alive.
I'm not condoning the use of hateful language or threats. I just find your example problematic.
It is specifically and precisely about Thiel. As others have noted, YC has distanced itself from relationships for political reasons in the past.
> How would you like it if your boss read your comment and then decided to fire you as a result? That's the kind of society you're creating.
Yeah except no, see there are two issues with your assertions:
1. Thiel is not employed by YC and not in a position of weakness or dependency.
2. I live in a country where you can't just tell employees to get fucked without providing a very good reason. My boss being on record firing me for my comments would net me a few years worth of income.
> Yes. Living in a liberal and free society means tolerating views you find repugnant.
But not that other people can find them intolerable? Only repugnant views are worth expressing and defending? That's an⦠interesting point of view, and one with which I emphatically disagree.
No. The same rules should apply to anyone, regardless on income. Thiel has the same right to express his icky views as you do, without fear of losing his job or partnership.
No, it isn't. As your mentality takes root, there is nothing stopping others from doing it to absolutely everyone.
> I live in a country where you can't just tell employees to get fucked
You live in a country where more and more people aren't employees at all.
> Only repugnant views are worth expressing and defending?
Whatever views you want to express, feel free to express them. However, only repugnant views need to be tolerated by definition.
If I say the sky is blue, nobody is going to persecute me for that. However, if I say something that isn't popular or is repugnant, it is at that point that I would need to be tolerated. That's the definition of tolerance. Withstanding something you don't like.
I wish there were such a thing as HN gold, that sums things up perfectly.
I'm not going to fire someone for advocating firing people they don't like. Even though the irony would be damn sweet.
And this is some seriously oppressing bullshit that has (wittingly or not) prolonged white/male supremacy. People creating a space that makes it very clear that non-white, non-males aren't welcome, then well-meaning "moderates" going along with it because, well, I'm not going to judge him for his politics. It's how the US even came to be, founded on a compromise that was fundamentally designed to promise that slavery would never be repealed.
Here's the deal. Having a don't-ask, don't tell policy regarding your votes in a voting booth is fine. But the minute you write a big fucking check to a big fucking fascist (or anyone else), you forfeit any right to not suffer consequences for your actions. Sure, the government can't (and shouldn't) impose penalties. But I'm damn sure going to judge you, and judge those who continue to associate with you (because they are saying that maintaining your friendship is worth alienating others).
Some people find that deplorable.
There is a similar dynamic in play with Trump's support from evangelicals. His personal choices are nearly 100% at odds with their social conservatism, but many evangelicals seem ok with this as long as he nominates a judge that will repeal Roe vs. Wade.
Such evangelicals probably aren't really in favour of Trump, but are willing to throw many people under the bus to get what they want as well.
So... I agree that Thiel may not explicitly support everything Trump advocates (who really could), but all the same, it is valid to criticize him for the things he is willing to tolerate to get what he wants.
He's both Libertarian and gay, both are extremely socially liberal. Why do you say he is socially conservative? I'm not seeing that.
A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues but that is just because there are only 2 choices (my bedroom vs my wallet).
A vote for either party is throwing everyone from the other party under the bus, isn't it?
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-o...
But that's the problem. Who exactly are affected by these "Social issues"? (Hint: It's not rich white guys).
Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.
Get a bunch of straight folks in a room and discuss AIDS research funding.
Get a bunch of white folks in a room and discuss police treatment of African-Americans.
Get a bunch of 5th-generation Americans in a room and discuss funding for ESL programs in schools.
And, the argument here is that support of Trump goes a bridge beyond simply expressing disagreeable political views - he is literally encouraging election day violence and trying to delegitimize our Democracy. There has to come a point where toxic and hateful views are no longer tolerated as "political". It is admittedly a slippery slope, but one we're being dragged down whether we like it or not.
* Job: agreed
* board seat: disagreed, board members are elected to represent the shareholders, companies voice their political opinions through political contributions. If those opinions aren't reflective of the shareholders, then that's a valid reason for their removal.
* public event: agreed.
* private event: disagreed. Distasteful to do something like this, but private events are private events.
Even if you're an active supporter of David Duke? Must we tolerate the (frequently violent) intolerance of others?
No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them.
A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically.
That's disgusting and people who support that sort of witch hunt should be ashamed of themselves.
I vehemently disagree with his choice of who to support during this election, but I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society.