> His relationship with Altman is that of an endorsee,

Noted. Should have been careful there.

> and all that's being asked of Altman is that he stop endorsing members of Trump's campaign.

Why? It makes no sense to me. Why can't people have their opinions and agree to disagree on ones they don't agree on. Don't you feel such calls go against free speech?

They can. What they cannot do is work effectively to prevent bigotry, sexism, and the destruction of the American economy and political fabric while simultaneously endorsing and working with people doing the exact opposite. People keep dancing around the fact that Thiel is not simply a Trump supporter, or even just a Trump donor. He is a Trump campaign surrogate --- a member of the campaign.

I considered responding to this, but I'm not sure how to have a meaningful conversation with someone who engages in such hyperbole.

I understand your frustration. The desire to respond in a constructive way is necessary for us to go forward, especially now. For me, a part of that is to try my best to (a) give the people I'm talking to the benefit of the doubt that they're engaging in good faith; and (b) try not to use language that escalates any tensions. Online text discussion makes this especially fraught, given its low-bandwidth: we only get the text, without the benefit of other channels such as voice inflection and body language.

One tool HN provides is the ability to view a user's other comments, which can provide a gauge to measure whether someone is engaging in good faith.

And there's always the choice to not respond. If you think someone is just looking for attention, not responding might be the right course of action. Once people get angry or frustrated, it's probably better to just back off and try again some other time. And in general I'm thinking of myself as well to those I'm engaging with.

Or if you don't think you have something meaningful to add. Sometimes that's hard to do because you think the conversation is important and want to participate.

Please don't interpret anything I've written as criticism of either you or tptacek. For the record, from what I've seen both of you are thoughtful and engaging honestly. I also hope this doesn't come off as preachy. These are just the heuristics I've been using. Some others are Rapoport's rules [0], which I think are really insightful. I'd love to hear how others approach this as well.

I've thought about all these things in writing this comment, and I'm still unsure whether I should click the "reply" button. I do think it's important to try to keep these types of conversations going, and I know I need the practice, so in good faith I'm willing to put my neck out another time.

[0] https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

Valid points. My comment wasn't meant to be "frustration", but steering the conversation back toward productivity. I definitely can see why it came out as frustration, and in that sense I deserve the downvotes (this is not to imply that you were among the downvoters). Thanks for sharing the link.

>Why? It makes no sense to me. Why can't people have their opinions and agree to disagree on ones they don't agree on. Don't you feel such calls go against free speech?

I'm pretty sure this is a fundamental misunderstanding of free speech. Free speech means the governing body can't forbid you from expressing your opinion or punish you for it.

It does not mean other people or organizations can't take action based on their disagreement with your opinions and it doesn't mean expressing an opinion has to be without consequence from anything.

Legally, that's what free speech means, but philosophically Free Speech can certainly be more general than just related to the government.

Voltaire's "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," comes to mind.

We'd generally feel the same way if a company were enforcing completely arbitrary abridgment of free speech on its employees. Or if a private school were (legally) kicking kids out because they supported Black Lives Matter.

I did forget one thing that still falls under free speech (even legally probably), aside from the state not stopping you from expressing your opinion, it should protect your ability to do so. As in, not allowing anyone to silence you, but even that has its boundaries since silencing someone is not the same as not perpetuating what they say.

The examples you gave are ones where the effect on that person's life would be so fundamental that it could easily be considered an intrusion into their rights.

Boycotting a company or choosing to end a business partnership are completely different in that regard.