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.
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.