> And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions
I interpreted "repercussions" to mean ad hominem. Peter Theil has his reasons for supporting Trump. But I see the conversation shifting to his transitive guilt of bigotry/misogyny, as opposed to the political motivations for that support. I think this is ad hominem, as it's a focus on the moral scandal and not the political issues.
There are collateral damage to all political decisions you are just more accepting some rather than those the Trump supporters accept.
That doesn't mean they can't have a higher political goal than purely bigotry. In fact I believe both Altman and Thiel shows that you can in fact disagree without shaming.
Peter Thiel supports this man. He donates millions to his campaign. He's a surrogate for the campaign. He stood on stage and endorsed the campaign even as dozens of senior Republicans refused. He donated just last week, so much that he made the front page of CNN, after Trump pivoted to attacking the election itself.
If drones are a major concern of yours, good on you! You, too, should be working as diligently as possible to prevent Donald Trump from killing millions of people in new military strikes.
His rhetorics are not his politicis just like Hillarys rhetorics are not her politics. We will not get rid of Drones by voting on anyone of them.
Which brings me to my point. You are just accepting another kind of problematic foreign policy over another. They are both bad.
And again. I am not voting for any of them. I do not support any of them.
Your claims about Trumps killing millions of people is so absurd. But to use your own argument.
If you really believe Trump will kill millions I have no problem with your defending Hillary only killing hundreds of thousands.
If you are against that you are yourself doing what you accuse Altman for.
Your diplomacy is admirable, but I think there is a deeper issue here. I found your original text to be clear.
A pretty good resource on this can be found by Googling "ad hominem fallacy fallacy".