It's probably not the same people but it's funny (in kind of a sad sort of way) that you have people arguing for deregulation because you can vote with your wallet if you're morally opposed to something, and for everyone keeping their political opinions out of business at the same time.

Edit: Nevermind. I just went and read some of your other comments out of curiosity and you're a libertarian. It's exactly the same people.

and it's not even a "real" political view. thiel's said all along he views trump as disruptive to a government that's broken. it has very little to do with the positions people get so worked up over.

I am not sure if it is ridiculous. It depends. It's about a line that everyone has to draw and to set. And this also what Marco is trying to mention in his post I guess.

Let's take a more extreme example from history, just for pointing out that there is a line: I hope we could agree that supporting the NSDAP is as far over such a line as imaginable.

Not comparing anyone in this context with the NSDAP, just pointing out that there is such a line, and hiding behind "political free opinion" doesn't help to avoid hard decisions.

It's good that you aren't comparing this current context with our modern view on the NSDAP.

Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in democratic societies.

Wait a second, maybe I can't follow you here. Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?

If so, two questions: - What if someone is supporting someone in none political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour and face disagreement or consequences? - What if someone supports politically the KKK, the IS or any other organisation or party, that you might not agree with?

How about a much more important thing in our constitution: Free speech. Does free speech mean I can say and publicly announce anything, without having to face consequences?

> Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?

Not at all. I was inplying that the consequences should be political as well.

If your children aren't your opinion, try to engage in valuable conversation instead of cutting their allowance. If your neighbor puts up a sign for a candidate you don't like, put up your own sign and don't try to pressure his employer into making him leave.

Democratic societies actively require political variation. Using your physical or economic strength or maybe your status to make people do or state things they don't like is blatantly uncivil.

I'm not an expert on US constitutional law & procedure so you might need to make your own research on their legal specifics in this certain case, but in most western setups I'd bet it's not a very good idea to believe in a legal right which might allow you to publicly announce "anything". But I don't see its relation to our topic here, I think it's probably not essential.

Or Thiel might think that Hillary is a worse option than Trump?

Maybe. Who knows. You should ask him. Pretending to know why he votes for Trump is just wrong.

You assume what he thinks, his state of mind, etc.

Idunno, maybe you should consider accepting that supporting a person does not equate to being that person nor does it imply that both hold the exact same beliefs.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't care enough about US politics to know for sure or assume that you're assertions are correct.

Anyways, the point was not what Trump does, it's almost irrelevant.

Relevant is that one assumed that someone who supported Trump held equal beliefs, which is probably very easy to be shown untrue.

It's a very disgusting and toxic attitude and a very unhealthy world view to hold.

Yeah! He probably hates gays too!

Thiel himself is gay. Surely you don't accuse him of being homophobic?

Yes, supporting somebody that is homophobic is equivalent to being homophobic himself. There are plenty of self-hating gay men out there, including Thiel.

*/s

Yeah, I caught your sarcasm. But the follow-up poster didn't seem to.

The problem is that there are people who genuinely have these opinions. You need to provide additional context, if you want something like this to be read as sarcastic.

There's no reason women can't be sexist, unless you'd assume it applies only to men.

AS for gay people who are homophobic wrt their own - Milo? It does make you question what homophobic means though, or if its application is to broad.

Murder and sexual assault aren't just matters of politics. Peter Thiel has endorsed someone who has advocated both crimes in public.

In this case those personal opinions are widely publicised, and reflect -- rightly or wrongly -- on Y Combinator. At that point it does become a matter of business, as the backlash may end up hurting Y Combinator's business (negative press, founders not applying, investors not willing to work with it, etc.).

Political "opinion" in this case isn't a bubblegum flavor preference.

The presidency of the U.S. isn't a personal matter.

As a matter of fact, it is ;) A system where everyone can personally choose their leaders without external pressure or control is called a democracy.

This is really strange attribute of democracy, that if majority decides (informed or by uninformed that decision be), one can flip from democracy to (let's say) autocracy, but then you dont get to vote in next election if you change your mind, because there will be none.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was to void a scenario like this, by giving enough military power to the people to make impossible for an elected government to switch to autocracy / dictatorship / ... without the approval of the population.

Wether this amendment is still needed, and if it's effective considering the evolution of military technology, is open to discussion, but at least the original constitution tried to avoid this.

Ed said it[1] better than I could, so I'll quote him:

This is a long way of saying to the people who support Trump (and therefore would never read this) that "Let's agree to disagree and keep being friends" is a poor strategy this year. However you've managed to rationalize it in your head, supporting someone so openly and enthusiastically racist, xenophobic, and flat-out mean says a lot about you.

We are long, long past the point of pretending that support for Trump, let alone actual material and financial backing, is a matter of mere "politics" (as if that in itself is some harmless affectation).

Peter Thiel took one look at the failing campaign of a vociferous racist, mysogynist, authoritarian, anti-democratic fascist, and said "I'll give over a million dollars to him."

How can we trust the business and social acumen of a person who makes that kind of decision? Who faced with a losing candidate will throw good money after bad. Who faced with a business landscape that is crawling, desperately, into finally opening its doors to women and minorities, happily funds a man who says you can "grab [women] by the pussy," that "we ought to build a wall" to keep out Hispanics, and openly campaigns for barring Muslims from the country (who, I might point out, are statistically as likely to be South Asian as Arabic, a demographic hardly unrepresented in tech).

You wouldn't find it so bizarre that a man who has swastikas tattooed on his face had trouble finding a job, why do we find it so bizarre that a man who has done far more actual material harm might not be appealing to a business partner?

[1] http://www.ginandtacos.com/2016/10/17/the-difference-between...