Thinking in absolutes is dangerous and anti-intellectual, that's the whole problem here. Rabidly following an ideology where you will entirely dismiss a person because their privately held beliefs don't align with yours.

There should be context to all decisions making. If the person has extreme views and, most importantly, they are very vocal about it to the point you don't think they'll fit into the culture of your organization, then I see no problem with not hiring them on that basis.

But at the same time if the person is able to treat others respectfully, not force their views on others, and keep personal life and business separated, then I don't see the problem with hiring them regardless of their views.

I'd be more concerned hiring a moderate democrat/republican/green/etc who forced their views on other people on the job, than hiring someone holding (what mainstream society considers) extreme views[^] and rarely talks about it at work.

[^] Note: calling for violence and coercive behavior is another story.

We are talking here about 40-50% of the American electorate not some fringe maniac. If you think those people's opinion should be shunned than your world view seems very restricted to me.

People need to understand, about 43% of eligible electorate are going to Vote for Trump. Its better trying to understand them rather than demonize them. What next, no funding to start-ups in Texas since it voted Trump.

Trump is obnoxious but Stalinist purges are not an answer for it.

Funny you should mention Stalin, because it seems that people on Clinton's side are mostly using free speech to express their disgust, while Trump's camp has literally advocated mass deportation and legislating unsympathetic newspapers out of existence.

Yeah, Clinton's side is all rainbows and ponies. This whole post is about Clinton's side wanting to throw Thiel out because of his views! Like happened to Eich. That doesn't clear Trump in any way, but don't you see both sides are the same? That's the problem!

How could you possibly equate a private company disavowing a single billionaire with the president of the United States harassing and deporting millions of people?

I'm talking about the general principle of shaming. Trump's an idiot - no argument there. Shaming and going after someone because they see _some_ amount of value in a person is not OK. And both sides do it. What I'm calling out is all the finger pointing and name calling, when both sides are doing exactly the same thing as what they're calling others out on. Frankly, I don't see how this country will ever again be united in any real, lasting way because of all the demonification.

> deporting millions of people?

millions of illegal immigrants, as a candidate to immigration myself, following the rules, I see no problem with that.

"Maniac" and "fringe" have no absolute relationship. Look at Hitler. I'm not exaggerating. Let me quote Wikipedia: "On election day, 6 March 1933, the NSDAP's share of the vote increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament."

I'm not equating Trump and Hitler, btw. But Hitler proves that being mainstream means nothing.

Separately, it is also my perception that both men's source of power are somewhat similar. They both have supporters that want an aggressive, authoritarian leader to change things drastically because the current direction isn't working for them. I think that's a dangerous thing to wish for.

> I'm not equating Trump and Hitler, btw. But Hitler proves that being mainstream means nothing.

It means that you better take the position serious and engage in a real discussion. By labeling one side good and the other evil you just drive both sides more into towards the extremes.

We needn't equate shunning people (plural) with choosing not to have a super-high-profile booster in a leadership role.

Not the same thing at all.

I'm torn on the issue of parting ways with someone over them supporting a despicable person.

On one hand, supporting someone who's genocidal or something is bad.

Trump, on the other hand, might be the exact terrible thing this country needs to reign in government. Lets say he wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb off the coast of North Korea. (Borrowing from the most recent Dan Carlin/Common Sense podcast [0])

This would be objectively bad. We should not be nuking anything, anywhere, ever. Period.

If trump-the-president wants to do this, you might really quickly find people talking about the constitutional limits to declare war that Congress is supposed to maintain.

So, they might step in and say "Actually, presidents cannot unilaterally declare war. Oh, and they cannot create internment camps, or do deep packet inspection on the entire internet, or collectivize businesses, etc."

In other words, when a terrible guy gets into office, everyone else might wake up and try to roll back his power. So, it might be a net win, though it's a hell of a gamble to get there.

So, by that line of reasoning, I could see the GOOD that a trump presidency could bring about.

Even if I couldn't, I still don't know what the limit is for donating money to a cause and forcing separation with a company. The free-speech guy in me says it's fine, but... I really don't like trump.

[0] http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/

David Duke is not a major party candidate, for one. And secondly, it is possible to support some of Trump's positions (say, opposition to free trade, stricter immigration policy, etc.) without endorsing his others. It is further possible to believe that his more extreme racist positions are mostly populist rhetoric that would not actually be implemented.

Now, I don't particularly believe those things. But it is possible to hold those views and support him, despite not agreeing with his more racist, misogynistic ones.

Censoring people by expulsion in this way is a very dangerous path to start down. Especially when you don't even really know what Thiel's views are. Support of a candidate is an extremely broad brush.

While I disagree with Peter Thiel's support of Trump, I believe that he is a very smart man, and quite qualified to be a partner with YC. To fire him over his political affiliation would be petty censorship. It's easy to look at somebody like Trump and see the racist, sexist, and xenophobic parts. These attributes aren't naturally shared with Trump's supporters. As Altman said, it would be different if Thiel expressed some sort of bigotry. Also, many states (including California) have laws forbidding retaliation for political practices outside of work.

If someone working for or with YC makes or supports racist and sexist speech, it could easily lead to YC losing credibility among entrepreneurs that aren't white men (and to be fair, among white men as well). In my opinion, that could disqualify him as a partner.

I think in this situation the limit hasn't been reached; with 40+% of the nation's support, the Trump movement isn't fringe. Additionally, many voters intend to vote for him for politically expedient reasons, such as capturing 3 Supreme Court justice appointments for Republican judges.

Despite the objectively horrible viewpoints advanced by the Trump campaign, they do not approach David Duke's viewpoints.

From some points of view, pro-abortion advocacy is an unconscionable violation of human rights and outweighs religious (Muslim profiling) and racial (seizing remittances from Mexican nationals) concerns; it is a rationally-approached choice of a lesser of two evils.

This isn't strict cultural relativism; the argument has merit. I assert that including alternate viewpoints (but prohibiting bigoted / wrongful actions) strengthens institutions. The best demonstration of the strength of a world view is to accept discussion of alternate viewpoints. If we're right, we shouldn't be afraid of the alternative.

> such as capturing 3 Supreme Court justice appointments for Republican judges.

And Peter Thiel might be one of them.

Is Peter Thiel a lawyer? I seem to be missing a large part of this line of thinking.

Yep, J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1992.

The difference is that people who support Trump can't be punished like this precisely because there are so many of them. This kind of social shunning doesn't make sense when 43% of the population would need to be shunned. Shunning people creates exactly the kind of political environment where a dangerous minority like this can continue to exist. When people are angry, they want to be heard. If you deny Trump supporters the chance to be heard, they will stay angry (or worse).

It depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to do effective business, probably not. If your goal is to signal your political allegiance, possibly to not get fired yourself, then yes get them out.

If your goals are a mix of both, weigh and decide.