Around 40% of Americans support Trump. Can you reasonably declare that 40% of society is a danger to itself?
You win over people with empathy and reasoned appeals to shared values, not firing them and refusing to associate at all with them -- that just drives them further away.
Yes.
Has 40% been on the wrong side of slavery, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights?
Has more progress been made through war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or empathy/reasoned appeals?
There is a time for empathy, a time to ignore, and a time to fight. It's not a matter of percentage, it's a matter of wrong. Unfortunately, we don't usually have a consensus on what views are wrong until decades later.
> Has more progress been made through
war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or
empathy/reasoned appeals?
> it's a matter of wrong.
This sort of comment is displaying that same kind of attitude, an attitude which is actually dangerous to society. If your side is encouraging violence, and your opposition knows you are encouraging violence, then it is only rational for them to also consider violence and to adopt a first-strike policy. This leads to actual civil war. War is the opposite of progress -- it's the destruction of capital, families, and individual. That's regressive.
The people who oppose these things are not monsters. They have lives as rich and meaningful as your own. They attend church, they donate to charity, they tuck their children into bed at night. They are __not__ some radical fringe minority, hell-bent on imposing an ideology upon the world.
We are all basically decent people. Our democracy is destroyed when one group believes it has a moral license to incite violence to achieve its ends rather than work in the system. When that happens, we have stopped listening.
When we stop listening, we stop learning.
I haven't picked a side on this thread and I haven't encouraged violence. I pointed out that empathy isn't always the solution. I wonder if your comment also applies to American conflicts in the Middle-East.
I do empathize with Graham/Atman's position and many of the commenters here.
1) We all agree firing an employee over politics is wrong.
2) Graham/Altman say Thiel is basically an employee and ending the part-time partnership is basically firing him. We should take their word.
3) If Trump is as bad as Graham/Altman describe, Thiel actually isn't an employee, and smart/rich guys with great lawyers couldn't figure out how to distance themselves, it will look bad.
But "if" arguments are weak. There is disagreement over how bad Trump is, I think time will tell. In the meantime, from a PR standpoint, I think Y Combinator didn't handle this well. Keeping Thiel on board didn't cause this outrage, Atman's explanation and Graham's Twitter arguments did.
Empathy and fighting weren't my only options, ignore is a choice. I wonder if Atman/Graham had stayed silent for three more weeks until the election is over, would this have blown over. I also wonder how hard they fought to keep Project Include as a partner.
You can bully people into a resentful silence temporarily with war, assassinations, violence, riots, (angry) protests. But if you want to build something that lasts and doesn't require an army of policemen to keep it in power, you have to go with the empathy and reasoned appeals.
> We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat to society.
This is too easy. You just declare "this guy poses threat to society" and you don't have to play by the rules anymore.