Sam Altman: “YC not going to fire someone over support of a candidate”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Sam Altman: “YC not going to fire someone over support of a candidate”
https://twitter.com/sama/status/787741204972658690
276 comments
FWIW, I'm glad YC is taking this stance. Firing someone over their personal political views is very icky. You would be up in arms if your boss fired you because of who you were supporting for president, so why would you wish that upon someone else?
We're not talking about firing, or employees, or personal political views. Otherwise your argument stands.
At issue is the most public endorsement possible (a keynote speech, and then a 1.25M donation) by a YC partner, and YC's refusal to speak out about it, or distance itself from this extraordinary gesture of support.
At issue is the most public endorsement possible (a keynote speech, and then a 1.25M donation) by a YC partner, and YC's refusal to speak out about it, or distance itself from this extraordinary gesture of support.
YC does not (to my knowledge) have a corporate position on the presidential race - I'd welcome any citations where a YC partner, speaking in an official capacity, endorses one of the current presidential candidates. When they have taken corporate political positions, it's usually been narrowly defined, in support of specific legislation that affects the tech industry (eg. anti-SOPA, anti-software-patents, pro-immigration).
The vast majority of YC partners' personal positions are strongly pro-Clinton. You can see that just by following sama, paulg, or paultoo on Twitter.
The vast majority of YC partners' personal positions are strongly pro-Clinton. You can see that just by following sama, paulg, or paultoo on Twitter.
It would suffice for me to see any public reluctance on the part of Paul Graham or Sam Altman to continue to associate professionally with Thiel so long as he is playing this role in American politics.
I don't demand that Altman and Graham know exactly what to do about this. I don't demand that they "fire" Thiel (they can't, as Thiel isn't an employee). I don't even demand that they strike him from the roster of Partners to the Regional Partner of YC. I understand that this stuff is complicated and that there's more going on behind the scenes of these relationships than we know.
Unfortunately, both Altman and Graham are being supportive of Thiel, despite the fact that he donated $1.25MM to Trump's campaign just days ago.
I don't demand that Altman and Graham know exactly what to do about this. I don't demand that they "fire" Thiel (they can't, as Thiel isn't an employee). I don't even demand that they strike him from the roster of Partners to the Regional Partner of YC. I understand that this stuff is complicated and that there's more going on behind the scenes of these relationships than we know.
Unfortunately, both Altman and Graham are being supportive of Thiel, despite the fact that he donated $1.25MM to Trump's campaign just days ago.
I'm curious - is your (and maciej's, if he's still following this thread) position that someone should refuse to associate with anyone who supports Trump? Take Graham and Altman out of the equation - assuming that this is not just a vendetta against YC partners (and the principle of charity compels me to assume that), would you apply this standard to other people you know? Do you have friends and business partners that support Trump, or buy products from Trump-supporting companies?
For me personally - I actually have relatively few people in my life that are Trump supporters. But this is mostly an accident of demographics - I went to an elite liberal arts college in what is literally the most liberal region of the country, I worked at Google, I live in the Bay Area, my mom's from NYC, and my dad's an immigrant. I have friends who have family that are hard-core Trump supporter, as well as family myself.
It would never occur to me to stop associating with them because of their political views, or the political views of their associates. They have their beliefs, I have mine, and we just don't discuss the subjects where we are diametrically opposed. We interact on the common ground that we do have.
According to my principles, the calls for YC to disavow Thiel or stop associating with him are obnoxious for the same reason I believe Trump is unfit to be president. They divide the world into "people like us" and "people against us", and then seek to build a wall between the two groups. If you believe that it should be "us and us" rather than "us vs them", then that includes reaching out to people with whom you disagree and finding the parts that you do agree on.
For me personally - I actually have relatively few people in my life that are Trump supporters. But this is mostly an accident of demographics - I went to an elite liberal arts college in what is literally the most liberal region of the country, I worked at Google, I live in the Bay Area, my mom's from NYC, and my dad's an immigrant. I have friends who have family that are hard-core Trump supporter, as well as family myself.
It would never occur to me to stop associating with them because of their political views, or the political views of their associates. They have their beliefs, I have mine, and we just don't discuss the subjects where we are diametrically opposed. We interact on the common ground that we do have.
According to my principles, the calls for YC to disavow Thiel or stop associating with him are obnoxious for the same reason I believe Trump is unfit to be president. They divide the world into "people like us" and "people against us", and then seek to build a wall between the two groups. If you believe that it should be "us and us" rather than "us vs them", then that includes reaching out to people with whom you disagree and finding the parts that you do agree on.
I appreciate the charitable reading and will try to do likewise.
I see a significant difference between private political opinions (including their expression by voting), and a public political act like a convention keynote speech.
It's important in a pluralistic society that we live and work with people with very different political views. But Thiel doesn't just have his contrarian opinions, he is actively working to promote the candidacy of someone who is a threat to our basic democratic institutions.
To me that's a significant difference, and the reason it calls for a public and forceful response.
I see a significant difference between private political opinions (including their expression by voting), and a public political act like a convention keynote speech.
It's important in a pluralistic society that we live and work with people with very different political views. But Thiel doesn't just have his contrarian opinions, he is actively working to promote the candidacy of someone who is a threat to our basic democratic institutions.
To me that's a significant difference, and the reason it calls for a public and forceful response.
Hmm, interesting. So would it be acceptable if Graham & Altman were more vocal about their support for Clinton? To my mind, they've been pretty vocal already, between their Twitter feeds and published articles about how they sit around Sam Altman's dinner table and discuss ways to defeat Trump. I suspect that Paul Graham may also have donated > $1.25M to Clinton's campaign, based on his recent Tweet about the number of non-profits that could've been funded with the money he's spent defeating Trump. But you're right that this is not covered on the national stage the way Thiel's RNC convention speech or $1.25M donation have. (Much of this may also be because everything that Thiel does that could remotely be spun into the "power-broker behind the scenes, doing evil things" narrative tends to make the press, post-Gawker, which to be fair had much of the same ick-factor as this debate.)
To me, the right answer to bad speech is better speech. It's fine to disassociate from people if you dislike them - but there's a big difference between disliking them and disliking one position they hold, or even more tenuously, disliking the people they associate with. Most people associate with a lot of other people, and these networks grow ever bigger as you get older and more powerful. If you start disqualifying people based on the company they keep, the set of people that you actually like will get both ever-smaller and more monocultural. Some people like that - I suspect many Trump supporters wish the world could be divided into black & white-Christians-who-act-like-us - but I think you'd lose a lot in this.
To me, the right answer to bad speech is better speech. It's fine to disassociate from people if you dislike them - but there's a big difference between disliking them and disliking one position they hold, or even more tenuously, disliking the people they associate with. Most people associate with a lot of other people, and these networks grow ever bigger as you get older and more powerful. If you start disqualifying people based on the company they keep, the set of people that you actually like will get both ever-smaller and more monocultural. Some people like that - I suspect many Trump supporters wish the world could be divided into black & white-Christians-who-act-like-us - but I think you'd lose a lot in this.
I wonder if the difference between us is that you view what Thiel did as speech, where I see it as a major political act, that demands some kind of response.
I don't want Graham and Altman to be more vocal about Clinton, I want them to say something substantive about Thiel, and why (or whether) they are comfortable continuing to do business with him.
I don't want Graham and Altman to be more vocal about Clinton, I want them to say something substantive about Thiel, and why (or whether) they are comfortable continuing to do business with him.
It's quite possible. I do view what Thiel did as speech. For that matter, I view much of what Trump says as speech - I don't believe he will follow through on any of it, if he is elected, and suspect that his first priority in office will be rewriting the tax laws to favor real estate developers and soak financiers. My biggest fear actually isn't what Trump will do as president, it's what his supporters will do once they realize they've been had.
I understand why people think Maciej has a "vendetta" against YC, but I definitely do not. We considered joining YC's last summer session, after Altman generously invited us. I've recommended several startups to YC, over the objections of other friends to some of the same startups, and YC has made money as a result. I'm personal friends with both current and former YC partners, and numerous YC founders. I started a VC-funded startup in '99-'00 and worked for another VC-funded startup for 4 years after that, and attempted to raise money in '05: I am painfully aware of how abusive Silicon Valley was to tech founders prior to YC, and of all the work YC has done to remediate those abuses. I often feel like YC gets a bad rap. In fact: I even feel like Paul Graham often gets a bad rap.
But Paul Graham and Sam Altman are comprehensively wrong about Thiel, and I would be doing them no favors at all to pretend otherwise.
I'm Catholic. I come from an Irish Catholic family. I have at last count 13,492 first cousins. I do not know all the names of my aunts and uncles. But I do know that most of them are... "aggressively" pro-life. Some of them support Trump, because they feel a moral obligation to vote for whomever is going to appoint pro-life judges. I do not hold Trump support against my family.
Despite the fact that half of HN seems to think I'm a Republican, I am not. But I have plenty of Republican friends. Most of them have repudiated Trump and think he's a disaster for the party. But some of them believe in good faith that the cause of limited government is better served by Trump than by Hillary Clinton. I think they're gravely mistaken. But I don't hold that against them.
I'm fine with doing business with any of these people.
However, if you're in the audience at a Trump rally whooping and hollering your approval for Trump's claim that some women are too ugly to have been assaulted by him, I want nothing to do with you, at least until you've repudiated that disgusting notion.
If you're the person telling reporters that you're going to perform much-needed "racial profiling" at polling places on election day, to intimidate minorities from voting, I want nothing to do with you, at least until you've repudiated that disgusting notion.
If you're a billionaire who has stood on the largest imaginable stage and told the nation on live television that Donald Trump is the only honest candidate, and who donated $1.25MM to the Trump campaign after he threatened to jail his political opponent and started a national tour inciting white voters to distrust the votes of minorities in a rigged election, then you aren't a supporter of the Trump campaign. You are part of the Trump campaign. I want nothing to do with you.
Nobody who claims they'll "join the resistance" after Trump wins can coherently argue otherwise.
I don't demand that Altman and Graham sever ties in any formal way with Thiel. I don't know what that would entail or what's going on behind the scenes. But I do require them not to support Thiel publicly --- at least, if they're going to claim to be part of the resistance against Trump. You can't oppose Trump but defend the Trump campaign.
But Paul Graham and Sam Altman are comprehensively wrong about Thiel, and I would be doing them no favors at all to pretend otherwise.
I'm Catholic. I come from an Irish Catholic family. I have at last count 13,492 first cousins. I do not know all the names of my aunts and uncles. But I do know that most of them are... "aggressively" pro-life. Some of them support Trump, because they feel a moral obligation to vote for whomever is going to appoint pro-life judges. I do not hold Trump support against my family.
Despite the fact that half of HN seems to think I'm a Republican, I am not. But I have plenty of Republican friends. Most of them have repudiated Trump and think he's a disaster for the party. But some of them believe in good faith that the cause of limited government is better served by Trump than by Hillary Clinton. I think they're gravely mistaken. But I don't hold that against them.
I'm fine with doing business with any of these people.
However, if you're in the audience at a Trump rally whooping and hollering your approval for Trump's claim that some women are too ugly to have been assaulted by him, I want nothing to do with you, at least until you've repudiated that disgusting notion.
If you're the person telling reporters that you're going to perform much-needed "racial profiling" at polling places on election day, to intimidate minorities from voting, I want nothing to do with you, at least until you've repudiated that disgusting notion.
If you're a billionaire who has stood on the largest imaginable stage and told the nation on live television that Donald Trump is the only honest candidate, and who donated $1.25MM to the Trump campaign after he threatened to jail his political opponent and started a national tour inciting white voters to distrust the votes of minorities in a rigged election, then you aren't a supporter of the Trump campaign. You are part of the Trump campaign. I want nothing to do with you.
Nobody who claims they'll "join the resistance" after Trump wins can coherently argue otherwise.
I don't demand that Altman and Graham sever ties in any formal way with Thiel. I don't know what that would entail or what's going on behind the scenes. But I do require them not to support Thiel publicly --- at least, if they're going to claim to be part of the resistance against Trump. You can't oppose Trump but defend the Trump campaign.
These are difficult issues. I was among those who voted in the online poll for Brendan Eich's ouster, but eventually, after reading every opinion I could find and wrestling with the issue for some time, decided I had been wrong to do so.
There are some interesting parallels between the two cases. In Eich's case, one of the reasons I decided I had been too hasty was that I didn't see anyone accusing him of actual discriminatory behavior as Mozilla's CTO. Apparently he had done well at keeping his politics out of the workplace. That seemed to me an argument for granting him the same consideration.
I don't really understand Thiel's politics. Some of the things he complained about in his RNC speech I understand and agree with as issues, though I don't understand why he thinks Trump is likely to address them. (I do understand why he thinks Hillary is unlikely to, though.) I haven't read any of Thiel's political writings, except for one widely-commented-on piece [0]. He doesn't sound to me like a racist; I'm less sure he's not sexist but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that. His reasons for supporting Trump seem to be highly idiosyncratic. If he's just trying to make the point that there's danger in giving the Democrats too much power, well, I don't disagree with that, though I probably disagree on how much is too much. Anyway, the point is, just as in Eich's case, there seem to be mitigating factors.
Well. I don't know the answer, but I offer the following thoughts. It's easier to demonize someone you don't know personally. That in itself suggests that ostracism should be a weapon of last resort.
But I understand your anger. If I were in YC and Thiel offered to invest in my startup, I don't know whether I would take his money.
[0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
There are some interesting parallels between the two cases. In Eich's case, one of the reasons I decided I had been too hasty was that I didn't see anyone accusing him of actual discriminatory behavior as Mozilla's CTO. Apparently he had done well at keeping his politics out of the workplace. That seemed to me an argument for granting him the same consideration.
I don't really understand Thiel's politics. Some of the things he complained about in his RNC speech I understand and agree with as issues, though I don't understand why he thinks Trump is likely to address them. (I do understand why he thinks Hillary is unlikely to, though.) I haven't read any of Thiel's political writings, except for one widely-commented-on piece [0]. He doesn't sound to me like a racist; I'm less sure he's not sexist but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that. His reasons for supporting Trump seem to be highly idiosyncratic. If he's just trying to make the point that there's danger in giving the Democrats too much power, well, I don't disagree with that, though I probably disagree on how much is too much. Anyway, the point is, just as in Eich's case, there seem to be mitigating factors.
Well. I don't know the answer, but I offer the following thoughts. It's easier to demonize someone you don't know personally. That in itself suggests that ostracism should be a weapon of last resort.
But I understand your anger. If I were in YC and Thiel offered to invest in my startup, I don't know whether I would take his money.
[0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
As I've said elsewhere on the thread: I agree with you about Eich. I have no trouble drawing the line here between Eich and Thiel:
* Eich was ousted from a full-time job. Thiel is not an employee of YC.
* Eich's beliefs were well within the mainstream; Barack Obama campaigned in opposition to marriage equality.
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was quiet. It was mined out of a database and used against him. So far as I can see, he had not made any Mozilla employees uncomfortable. He didn't get on stage at the RNC and use his position at Mozilla to suggest that Silicon Valley opposed marriage equality.
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was relatively insignificant. In addition to being such an important Trump surrogate that his actions make the front page of CNN, Thiel donated millions and bundled millions more to the Trump campaign.
* For that matter, marriage equality is a substantially different issue than Trumpism. Trump believes Muslims, including US citizens, should be prevented from entering the US. He proposes a religious test for entry into the country. He believes his political opponents should be jailed. He is campaigning against the very legitimacy of the election he's running in. Trump is running against the very idea of equality of citizenship. You can't say all those things about the belief that LGBT people should be denied marriage rights --- in fact, you have pretty good evidence of the difference: thankfully, the cause of marriage equality crushed the cause of traditional marriage.
The campaign to oust Eich from his job at Mozilla was wrong. I didn't support it at the time and I don't support it now. I do not feel that way, even a little bit, about the call for Graham and Altman to live up to their own words about Trump.
* Eich was ousted from a full-time job. Thiel is not an employee of YC.
* Eich's beliefs were well within the mainstream; Barack Obama campaigned in opposition to marriage equality.
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was quiet. It was mined out of a database and used against him. So far as I can see, he had not made any Mozilla employees uncomfortable. He didn't get on stage at the RNC and use his position at Mozilla to suggest that Silicon Valley opposed marriage equality.
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was relatively insignificant. In addition to being such an important Trump surrogate that his actions make the front page of CNN, Thiel donated millions and bundled millions more to the Trump campaign.
* For that matter, marriage equality is a substantially different issue than Trumpism. Trump believes Muslims, including US citizens, should be prevented from entering the US. He proposes a religious test for entry into the country. He believes his political opponents should be jailed. He is campaigning against the very legitimacy of the election he's running in. Trump is running against the very idea of equality of citizenship. You can't say all those things about the belief that LGBT people should be denied marriage rights --- in fact, you have pretty good evidence of the difference: thankfully, the cause of marriage equality crushed the cause of traditional marriage.
The campaign to oust Eich from his job at Mozilla was wrong. I didn't support it at the time and I don't support it now. I do not feel that way, even a little bit, about the call for Graham and Altman to live up to their own words about Trump.
> Trump believes Muslims, including US citizens, should be prevented from entering the US.
From Thiel's RNC speech: "Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East."
I am (please read this in dry english english), let us say, not exactly a fan of Mr. Trump.
On the other hand, I'm also ... not exactly a fan ... of bombing the crap out of a shit load of muslims either.
So I'm not honestly sure that one is necessarily as clear cut as it might be, given history.
I'm rooting for Hillary from my side of the pond because of, well, every single other reason you mention and a bunch of others too. But still. I think Thiel's wrong, but I think I can see how he logic-ed himself into his current position.
From Thiel's RNC speech: "Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East."
I am (please read this in dry english english), let us say, not exactly a fan of Mr. Trump.
On the other hand, I'm also ... not exactly a fan ... of bombing the crap out of a shit load of muslims either.
So I'm not honestly sure that one is necessarily as clear cut as it might be, given history.
I'm rooting for Hillary from my side of the pond because of, well, every single other reason you mention and a bunch of others too. But still. I think Thiel's wrong, but I think I can see how he logic-ed himself into his current position.
> Eich's support for Prop 8 was relatively insignificant.
So you will personally fail to condemn a disagreeable action as long as you judge it to be ineffective?
In other words, effective support for immoral ideas (in your view) is the objectionable thing?
So you will personally fail to condemn a disagreeable action as long as you judge it to be ineffective?
In other words, effective support for immoral ideas (in your view) is the objectionable thing?
Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.
* Eich was ousted from a full-time job. Thiel is not an employee of YC.
We don't normally consider CEOs to be the sort of person where we have to worry about their ability to find another job.
* Eich's beliefs were well within the mainstream; Barack Obama campaigned in opposition to marriage equality.
That's a difference of degree, and a smaller one than we would both prefer; Trump did manage to get nominated, after all. I don't think you can say (alas) that Trumpism is completely out of the mainstream in 2016.
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was quiet.
True, but does it really count for much?
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was relatively insignificant.
Another difference of degree. For all we know, Eich may have donated a larger fraction of his bank account than Thiel did.
* For that matter, marriage equality is a substantially different issue than Trumpism.
Marriage equality is one issue and Trump has raised many, that's true. But I think the attitudes in which Prop. 8 support was rooted, and those in which Trumpism is rooted, are essentially identical. For instance, a rearguard action against marriage equality is still being fought in Alabama, and I expect my relatives there are big supporters of both Roy Moore [0] and Trump. In fact it's interesting, now that I think of it, that Trump has not attacked gays; it would certainly play well with much of his audience. Maybe it says something about how far we've come, or maybe he's just too busy attacking Mexicans, Muslims, and women to bother with gays.
A better argument might be that Prop. 8 was just a return to the status quo ante, while Trumpism is an existential threat to the nation. Why a smart man like Peter Thiel can't see that is beyond me too. But I can see the argument that Thiel is not evil, just deluded.
(P.S. You're a brave man, using asterisks on HN :-)
[0] http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/10/lawyer_t...
* Eich was ousted from a full-time job. Thiel is not an employee of YC.
We don't normally consider CEOs to be the sort of person where we have to worry about their ability to find another job.
* Eich's beliefs were well within the mainstream; Barack Obama campaigned in opposition to marriage equality.
That's a difference of degree, and a smaller one than we would both prefer; Trump did manage to get nominated, after all. I don't think you can say (alas) that Trumpism is completely out of the mainstream in 2016.
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was quiet.
True, but does it really count for much?
* Eich's support for Prop 8 was relatively insignificant.
Another difference of degree. For all we know, Eich may have donated a larger fraction of his bank account than Thiel did.
* For that matter, marriage equality is a substantially different issue than Trumpism.
Marriage equality is one issue and Trump has raised many, that's true. But I think the attitudes in which Prop. 8 support was rooted, and those in which Trumpism is rooted, are essentially identical. For instance, a rearguard action against marriage equality is still being fought in Alabama, and I expect my relatives there are big supporters of both Roy Moore [0] and Trump. In fact it's interesting, now that I think of it, that Trump has not attacked gays; it would certainly play well with much of his audience. Maybe it says something about how far we've come, or maybe he's just too busy attacking Mexicans, Muslims, and women to bother with gays.
A better argument might be that Prop. 8 was just a return to the status quo ante, while Trumpism is an existential threat to the nation. Why a smart man like Peter Thiel can't see that is beyond me too. But I can see the argument that Thiel is not evil, just deluded.
(P.S. You're a brave man, using asterisks on HN :-)
[0] http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/10/lawyer_t...
Shifty of you to imply both that I can go jobless and potentially unhirable on short notice, and that the lowest possible four figure dollar amount might also be more of my liquid net worth than Thiel's donation is to his bank account balance. One or the other, not both!
I think we've had a loss of context here. I wasn't speaking against you; I was replying to Thomas's argument that the situation with YC and Thiel is fundamentally different from that with Mozilla and you.
Are you really going to tell me you think YC should dissociate from Thiel? I grant your point -- my argument had a bug -- but I would think you would support the spirit in which I offered it.
Anyway, since you're here in person, let me say to you directly: I'm sorry I signed that OkCupid petition.
Are you really going to tell me you think YC should dissociate from Thiel? I grant your point -- my argument had a bug -- but I would think you would support the spirit in which I offered it.
Anyway, since you're here in person, let me say to you directly: I'm sorry I signed that OkCupid petition.
Thanks. You know that Yagan and OkCupid were just going for the PR, playing with social media outrage fire.
IAC (Ok's parent co) was doing a deal with Mozilla, I'm pretty sure we could have backed them off, had I remained.
I can't say more right now, but I'll note that a headhunter linked-in-mailed me late in 2014 asking if I wanted to be CTO of Match/Ok/etc. -- the IAC dating services.
https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/543545707152429056
Too funny!
IAC (Ok's parent co) was doing a deal with Mozilla, I'm pretty sure we could have backed them off, had I remained.
I can't say more right now, but I'll note that a headhunter linked-in-mailed me late in 2014 asking if I wanted to be CTO of Match/Ok/etc. -- the IAC dating services.
https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/543545707152429056
Too funny!
It's not so much that Thiel is deluded.
What I think leaves many of us aghast is the entitlement and lack of empathy it takes for wealthy white men to not see what Trump and his supporters will and are doing to many of our friends and family. At this point they are willfully blind, but because it doesn't affect them personally, that makes it ok.
When Trump and/or his surrogates angrily scream that the election is being stolen (by black people), that black people voting is illegitimate, that it's ok to jail your political opponents, that the current president is illegitimate because he's black, or he didn't rape her because she's not hot enough, it makes it fundamentally not ok to support him. Romney or Bush really didn't make similar claims.
People who support Trump with speeches and money should be shunned.
What I think leaves many of us aghast is the entitlement and lack of empathy it takes for wealthy white men to not see what Trump and his supporters will and are doing to many of our friends and family. At this point they are willfully blind, but because it doesn't affect them personally, that makes it ok.
When Trump and/or his surrogates angrily scream that the election is being stolen (by black people), that black people voting is illegitimate, that it's ok to jail your political opponents, that the current president is illegitimate because he's black, or he didn't rape her because she's not hot enough, it makes it fundamentally not ok to support him. Romney or Bush really didn't make similar claims.
People who support Trump with speeches and money should be shunned.
I like your thoughtful reply and agree with you, but want to point out that you are drawing somewhat arbitrary lines here on what is fine and what is not fine in supporting Trump. For example, wouldn't you agree that any of your cousins who support Trump -- the ones you are in good terms with now, if they had Thiel-money, they probably would have donated a million or two to him?
If I had a cousin who donated millions to Donald Trump, I assume we would not be on good terms afterwards. You've zeroed in on something implicit in my argument: yes, with escalating power in society comes escalating responsibility not to do harm.
Another way to look at it is: any cousin of mine hooting and hollering about black folks and "too-ugly" assault victims is no friend of mine, either.
Another way to look at it is: any cousin of mine hooting and hollering about black folks and "too-ugly" assault victims is no friend of mine, either.
I'm struggling with understanding your position. It's okay for your cousins (or whomever) to be sympathetic to political leaders as long as they don't act on those sympathies? If I believe that Trump is the lesser of two evils, why is it inappropriate to donate my time and money to his campaign? And why should that support be held against me professionally while others support Hillary's campaign with impunity?
"Hooting and hollering" at offensive speech is different than deciding Trump represents a better option than Hillary and defeating her is worth spending millions of dollars.
And how should any of this be connected to one's professional opportunities?
Hillary's a bully and a crook, but I'll maintain relationships with anyone who votes for her. Trump is a terrible human being and a clown, but likewise I'll maintain relationships with people who vote for him. People who laugh at "she's too ugly to assault" I already don't speak to... independent of their political leanings.
"Hooting and hollering" at offensive speech is different than deciding Trump represents a better option than Hillary and defeating her is worth spending millions of dollars.
And how should any of this be connected to one's professional opportunities?
Hillary's a bully and a crook, but I'll maintain relationships with anyone who votes for her. Trump is a terrible human being and a clown, but likewise I'll maintain relationships with people who vote for him. People who laugh at "she's too ugly to assault" I already don't speak to... independent of their political leanings.
> You've zeroed in on something implicit in my argument: yes, with escalating power in society comes escalating responsibility not to do harm.
So you're more a consequentialist than a deontologist, okay.
So you're more a consequentialist than a deontologist, okay.
I'm very much not a consequentialist. Like I said, I'm Catholic. I'm about as deontological as you can get and still be a software developer.
Well, you're at least somewhat consequentialist because you've just said you'll judge a person differently depending on what means and resources are available to them. You're okay with your cousin supporting Trump (and giving his campaign a paltry $20USD donation?) but you're not okay with them if they were richer and were giving the campaign a $2M donation. Where am I misunderstanding you?
That someone with the means to donate $2MM necessarily has not only a better understanding of the harm they're doing, but also the responsibility to further their understanding. My hypothetical cousins might donate to Trump believing they're supporting a pro-life candidate, not realizing that Trump has probably paid for no small number of abortions himself. My nonexistent hypothetical billionaire cousin cannot claim to be ignorant to what Trump really is, especially if he's brought into the inner circle of the Trump campaign itself.
Thiel knows Trump is a horrible person. He donated $1.25MM the day after Trump made national news for campaigning on the illegitimacy of the election itself, and for claiming that the women accusing him were too ugly to have been assault victims.
Thiel knows Trump is a horrible person. He donated $1.25MM the day after Trump made national news for campaigning on the illegitimacy of the election itself, and for claiming that the women accusing him were too ugly to have been assault victims.
Regardless if I agree or not I can understand your opinions about Thiel being free to support Trump politically. What I can't understand is why he should be able to continue his association with YC without even answering questions. YC supposedly uninvited supporters of SOPA from demo day, but when you're actively trying to elect someone to the highest office in the country you don't even have to explain what you mean? I don't really see how you can have a democratic society when people can't even be held accountable for fundamental things.
Isn't the fact that they're making it clear that they're against Trump enough? Why do you think they need to also be against Thiel, "just" because of his political activities?
Clearly everyone would find it incredibly wrong if someone would withdraw support for someone just because they supported Hillary Clinton, and while most people here think Trump is much worse, he is the head of one of the 2 major parties. You might not like it, but his actions and views do represent a significant portion of the mainstream (which is why this isn't the same as supporting someone from the KKK, which does thankfully lie outside the mainstream).
Note: I am in no way endorsing or defending Trump, or Thiel.
Clearly everyone would find it incredibly wrong if someone would withdraw support for someone just because they supported Hillary Clinton, and while most people here think Trump is much worse, he is the head of one of the 2 major parties. You might not like it, but his actions and views do represent a significant portion of the mainstream (which is why this isn't the same as supporting someone from the KKK, which does thankfully lie outside the mainstream).
Note: I am in no way endorsing or defending Trump, or Thiel.
In a real way, Thiel is Trump. He's a part of Trump's political campaign. He's no mere supporter: he's a surrogate. He was placed on stage at the RNC to suggest to the world that Silicon Valley supported Trump. His recent donation to Trump is still on the front page of CNN.
You cannot coherently oppose Trump and support Trump's political campaign.
Let me put it this way:
According to the logic that Altman and Graham are using, if Donald Trump himself were a "part-time partner" at YC, they would be unable to disassociate themselves from him.
You cannot coherently oppose Trump and support Trump's political campaign.
Let me put it this way:
According to the logic that Altman and Graham are using, if Donald Trump himself were a "part-time partner" at YC, they would be unable to disassociate themselves from him.
He's not, though. There are still boundaries between individuals even when individuals come out in support of someone.
There's certainly a line where someone stops being "just" a supporter and becomes something more. E.g. a big complaint against Brendan Eich was that he wasn't just anti-gay-rights, he actually contributed money for the Prop 8 fight.
The big question is where that line should be drawn. You say Thiel is a Trump surrogate, but I'm not so sure. Then again, he did donate a substantial amount of money in the last few days, so maybe he really is close enough to the campaign to act as a surrogate, especialy since he is being explicitly given as an example of someone from Silicon Valley who is supporting Trump.
It's a hard question - I'm not sure, personally.
"You cannot coherently oppose Trump and support Trump's political campaign."
Well this part I don't really agree with. A big part of democracy is coherently opposing other people's ideas, while not opposing their right to voice those ideas.
The big question is where that line should be drawn. You say Thiel is a Trump surrogate, but I'm not so sure. Then again, he did donate a substantial amount of money in the last few days, so maybe he really is close enough to the campaign to act as a surrogate, especialy since he is being explicitly given as an example of someone from Silicon Valley who is supporting Trump.
It's a hard question - I'm not sure, personally.
"You cannot coherently oppose Trump and support Trump's political campaign."
Well this part I don't really agree with. A big part of democracy is coherently opposing other people's ideas, while not opposing their right to voice those ideas.
Let me make this even more fun for you: I have a real problem with what happened to Brendan Eich. From what I understand, there wasn't a major effort inside Mozilla to oust him --- he did not make his own employees feel uncomfortable. His relationship with Mozilla was employer/employee. His support for Prop 8 was quiet, and, painful as it is for us to recognize this now, very much in the American mainstream: Barack Obama ran in 2008 opposing marriage equality.
[deleted]
Mate, stop it. We all know that the whole thing is just marketing for you, like PC bros from South Park that want to get some "puss". This behaviour breeds support for Trump. People feel they are being attack.
The issue of firing aside, I think most people could easily imagine a political figure whose supporters they would outright disavow and want nothing to do with. To me and many, many others, Trump is unequivocally past that line. When a candidate stands before violent, cheering crowds and promises to tear up the constitution, the people propping him up need to be held fully and publicly accountable.
Something missing in the hundreds (thousands?) of comments on this is why Thiel supports Trump.
The bottom line is that Thiel believes the 'positives' of a Trump presidency would outweigh the negatives.
The expected value is positive versus a status quo Clinton administration so he should support Trump.
He lays his priority set out quite clearly in his RNC speech: http://time.com/4417679/republican-convention-peter-thiel-tr... and if you agree with his central premises of a structurally broken economy, excessive foreign intervention etc then tbh Trump is the only viable candidate even after recent headlines, particularly if you believe in the strength of US institutions to curb any excesses.
If Thiel's position were based on hatred then I think it would be another story, but as it is, again given acceptance of the possibility of his central premises being correct and Trump being a 'viable' (as in could win vs Stein or Johnson) major party candidate his support is rational.
Across America Trump will win fifty million votes or more and while some of them may be deplorables voting for deplorable reasons, many will be voting based on implicit expected value metrics.
The bottom line is that Thiel believes the 'positives' of a Trump presidency would outweigh the negatives.
The expected value is positive versus a status quo Clinton administration so he should support Trump.
He lays his priority set out quite clearly in his RNC speech: http://time.com/4417679/republican-convention-peter-thiel-tr... and if you agree with his central premises of a structurally broken economy, excessive foreign intervention etc then tbh Trump is the only viable candidate even after recent headlines, particularly if you believe in the strength of US institutions to curb any excesses.
If Thiel's position were based on hatred then I think it would be another story, but as it is, again given acceptance of the possibility of his central premises being correct and Trump being a 'viable' (as in could win vs Stein or Johnson) major party candidate his support is rational.
Across America Trump will win fifty million votes or more and while some of them may be deplorables voting for deplorable reasons, many will be voting based on implicit expected value metrics.
You're right, Thiel's position isn't based on hatred – it's based on indifference. It's based on being privileged enough that Trump's hatefulness doesn't and won't personally affect him. I don't see how that's any better.
You don't see how it's better to be indifferent to the plight of minorities (which is just your characterization of Thiel, by the way) than it is to promote hatred of those groups?
It's not about Thiel being indifferent to the issue in general as a passive observer. He's actively making things worse by supporting Trump, and he's indifferent about that. He's willing to take his policy wins in exchange for helping make a serial sexual assaulter president. Helping Trump become president is promoting hatred. Whether Thiel himself feels any particular hatred doesn't seem all that relevant.
>serial sexual assaulter president
Allegedly, in the same way that HRC is allegedly a rapist apologist and allegedly threatened a rape victim of her husband. I don't understand why Clinton supporters try to ignore this but harp on Trump constantly. The supporters on both sides use tremendously dishonest hyperbole and it makes everyone look like ignorant, brainless assholes.
How about sticking to talking points that are of real substance? Apparently we're too busy screaming at each other about how Trump wants to fuck all non-whites to death and Hillary is actually Lord Voldemort.
Allegedly, in the same way that HRC is allegedly a rapist apologist and allegedly threatened a rape victim of her husband. I don't understand why Clinton supporters try to ignore this but harp on Trump constantly. The supporters on both sides use tremendously dishonest hyperbole and it makes everyone look like ignorant, brainless assholes.
How about sticking to talking points that are of real substance? Apparently we're too busy screaming at each other about how Trump wants to fuck all non-whites to death and Hillary is actually Lord Voldemort.
The stuff about Trump is mostly verifiably true beyond reasonable doubt. ("I like to assault women.", dozens of women in his circles: "Yeah he does that.")
The stuff about Clinton is mostly verifiably false. (see Snopes for example http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau...)
That's the difference.
The stuff about Clinton is mostly verifiably false. (see Snopes for example http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau...)
That's the difference.
While it may perhaps be true, you shouldn't put it in quotes if he didn't say it.
Yeah, no one has incentive to lie during this campaign, and no one has ever lied during this campaign. Let's go ahead and treat everything everyone says as fact. Good point. /s
"Serial sexual assaulter" isn't hyperbole, and I'm not screaming. fletom's comment is correct. It's not just an allegation when it's on record for everyone to listen to.
One could argue the success of most companies in SV are based in part on indifference.
Disruption creates many losers as well as winners, not everything is a positive sum game.
Indifference towards second order impacts due to a focus on the primary goal (economy is really really bad about to explode etc) is pretty common.
I think Thiel does acknowledge some of the ugliness though looking at his speech, he's just focused on the necessity for immediate change versus status quo/gradual shifts & calls for him to be disavowed for doing so still don't ring quite true.
Disruption creates many losers as well as winners, not everything is a positive sum game.
Indifference towards second order impacts due to a focus on the primary goal (economy is really really bad about to explode etc) is pretty common.
I think Thiel does acknowledge some of the ugliness though looking at his speech, he's just focused on the necessity for immediate change versus status quo/gradual shifts & calls for him to be disavowed for doing so still don't ring quite true.
It isn't a given that Trump is objectively hateful or that Trump's expressed words will personally affect any given American. Your point of view, while a wonderful work of emotionally-charged rhetoric, is not legitimate.
I don't get what you're trying to say. What does "objectively hateful" mean? You think the president's words don't affect Americans?
After George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, I don't understand how the Republican Party is the one to vote for if you're concerned with "excessive foreign intervention".
How many countries have we bombed and/or invaded since 2008?
We haven't invaded any and we've drawn out troops down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The mere fact that it has to be said is concerning. Even more so when it is happening at an institution that is among the most meritocratic in SV. It speaks volume about the depth and toxicity of some self-reinforcing militant feedback loops.
It is quite interesting that it is so dangerous for your career to hold "alternative" views (wrt. to mainstream ideologies there) in a place that has cultish adoration of diversity as an end in itself.
Even more so interesting to see American progressives wear the clothes of puritanism and McCarthysm. The fascist menace is threatening American society! Quick! You must make sure that those two engineers who have said they would vote Trump lose their jobs! The fascists want to infiltrate every layer of society to bring down the glorious progress. Call this hotline and get them arrested and tried for treason against Progress. Otherwise, brace yourself to hear the drums of nationalism beat again and bring the world on the brinks of genocide. If you are not with us you are against us!
Anyway, good on Sam for not taking part in that collective hysteria. I must say the hang-over from the current kool-aid binge drinking party is going to be harsh. So far this attitude of shaming people for not embracing the beautiful and unquestionable axiology of Progress has only been furthermore polarization and resentment.
If you want to allow companies to fire their employees based on the political stance they take during a national election; you should, by the same logic, allow them to discriminate based on gender, age or ethnicity. Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their human management practices.
Which, of course, does not fly well when it starts impacting you negatively because you do not hold the "right" opinions.
It is quite interesting that it is so dangerous for your career to hold "alternative" views (wrt. to mainstream ideologies there) in a place that has cultish adoration of diversity as an end in itself.
Even more so interesting to see American progressives wear the clothes of puritanism and McCarthysm. The fascist menace is threatening American society! Quick! You must make sure that those two engineers who have said they would vote Trump lose their jobs! The fascists want to infiltrate every layer of society to bring down the glorious progress. Call this hotline and get them arrested and tried for treason against Progress. Otherwise, brace yourself to hear the drums of nationalism beat again and bring the world on the brinks of genocide. If you are not with us you are against us!
Anyway, good on Sam for not taking part in that collective hysteria. I must say the hang-over from the current kool-aid binge drinking party is going to be harsh. So far this attitude of shaming people for not embracing the beautiful and unquestionable axiology of Progress has only been furthermore polarization and resentment.
If you want to allow companies to fire their employees based on the political stance they take during a national election; you should, by the same logic, allow them to discriminate based on gender, age or ethnicity. Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their human management practices.
Which, of course, does not fly well when it starts impacting you negatively because you do not hold the "right" opinions.
> Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their human management practices.
If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong (cries of "Godwin!" go here). I mean, money's money, right? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to be profitable, and genocide is just a political question, on which the German people have spoken (and even if they didn't, again, whether democracy is good or not is also a political question).
But no, it doesn't work that way. We do actually expect corporations to be political to some extent. The only real question here is what that extent is. I don't really have a problem drawing the line at someone like Trump. If you do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is misdirected.
Unless, of course, you really do think that IBM was in the right.
If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong (cries of "Godwin!" go here). I mean, money's money, right? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to be profitable, and genocide is just a political question, on which the German people have spoken (and even if they didn't, again, whether democracy is good or not is also a political question).
But no, it doesn't work that way. We do actually expect corporations to be political to some extent. The only real question here is what that extent is. I don't really have a problem drawing the line at someone like Trump. If you do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is misdirected.
Unless, of course, you really do think that IBM was in the right.
> to their human management practices.
You (perhaps unconsciously) did not address the full assertion which precisely refers to human management practices where the two atomic operations (so to speak) are hiring (append) and firing (remove).
To settle according to what ethical framework corporations must abide when they do business with other entities is a vast topic that goes well beyond the particular scope of this HN thread. In case I was not clear, by politically neutral agents I am referring to the fashion by which corporations consume and exchange human capital within a defined social body. This is not the same as saying that a company is apolitical; since they do that all the time (through lobbying on single-issue bills etc.).
>If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong
As I said, this is off-topic. Though I am a bit amused by how you justify your own authoritarianism (motivated by your morals) by pointing to Trump's supposed. Do you also think that it was unethical for journalists to let Trump participate to the debate? After all, it provides a platform for his rancid, heinous, dangerous, seditious, genocidal ideas for millions of Americans to hear. Or that hunting down and firing the three (let's be generous and say four) software engineers that support Trump at company X is a necessary condition to prevent <literally_genocide> or <literally_Hitler> taking power.
It is rarely a good idea to crackdown on individuals because they hold a set of beliefs that does not fit your schema for "Good and honourable things to believe in". Especially during an election period where plurality is a necessary condition for democracy to work.
You (perhaps unconsciously) did not address the full assertion which precisely refers to human management practices where the two atomic operations (so to speak) are hiring (append) and firing (remove).
To settle according to what ethical framework corporations must abide when they do business with other entities is a vast topic that goes well beyond the particular scope of this HN thread. In case I was not clear, by politically neutral agents I am referring to the fashion by which corporations consume and exchange human capital within a defined social body. This is not the same as saying that a company is apolitical; since they do that all the time (through lobbying on single-issue bills etc.).
>If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong
As I said, this is off-topic. Though I am a bit amused by how you justify your own authoritarianism (motivated by your morals) by pointing to Trump's supposed. Do you also think that it was unethical for journalists to let Trump participate to the debate? After all, it provides a platform for his rancid, heinous, dangerous, seditious, genocidal ideas for millions of Americans to hear. Or that hunting down and firing the three (let's be generous and say four) software engineers that support Trump at company X is a necessary condition to prevent <literally_genocide> or <literally_Hitler> taking power.
It is rarely a good idea to crackdown on individuals because they hold a set of beliefs that does not fit your schema for "Good and honourable things to believe in". Especially during an election period where plurality is a necessary condition for democracy to work.
Reading other comments, it appears that I haven't made my point clearly enough, and most responses aren't quite to what I had in mind. So let me clarify.
I was specifically addressing the assertion that corporations should get a free pass on any indirect political effects of their business decisions, because they're apolitical by definition. IBM was a counterexample to that - their decision to sell their goods and services to Germany was very much a business decision, but it was also unavoidably political (as would be any other decision - if they refused the sale, it would have also been political).
Hence, corporations are not politically neutral agents. From there follows that they are responsible for the political consequences of their actions. The degree of indirection involved reduces said responsibility, and can remove it entirely if it's remote enough; the important point is that this is a matter of degree, and not an absolute.
So we can agree to disagree where the appropriate line for such responsibility lies, so long as we agree that there is a line. But when you argue about where to draw said line, "corporation is a politically neutral agent" (or, to rephrase it in more familiar terms, "nothing personal, just business") is not an argument in support of any particular placement. It has to be decided on other grounds - for most people, I'd imagine it would be their subjective utilitarian assessment of how damaging the resulting politics are, or can potentially be.
I was specifically addressing the assertion that corporations should get a free pass on any indirect political effects of their business decisions, because they're apolitical by definition. IBM was a counterexample to that - their decision to sell their goods and services to Germany was very much a business decision, but it was also unavoidably political (as would be any other decision - if they refused the sale, it would have also been political).
Hence, corporations are not politically neutral agents. From there follows that they are responsible for the political consequences of their actions. The degree of indirection involved reduces said responsibility, and can remove it entirely if it's remote enough; the important point is that this is a matter of degree, and not an absolute.
So we can agree to disagree where the appropriate line for such responsibility lies, so long as we agree that there is a line. But when you argue about where to draw said line, "corporation is a politically neutral agent" (or, to rephrase it in more familiar terms, "nothing personal, just business") is not an argument in support of any particular placement. It has to be decided on other grounds - for most people, I'd imagine it would be their subjective utilitarian assessment of how damaging the resulting politics are, or can potentially be.
There is no such thing as full isolation when you're interacting with people. Different interactions have a different degree of it, but it is always possible to overcome it with taint by association, if the original taint is strong enough. At some level, a person cannot be my friend. At another level, I would be uncomfortable being around them in general. At another, even indirect financial or other support is unacceptable. And so on.
No, I don't think companies should be firing individuals merely for expressing their desire to vote for Trump - although depending on what the company does, it may be a prudent business decision. But there are degrees of support that go beyond voting.
Note that I did not, and do not, call for any government actions pertaining to this. It's all in the realm of private choices, exercising one's freedom of speech and freedom of association. I don't see how this has anything to do with authoritarianism. Trump's platform, in contrast, is widespread state-sponsored discrimination, so I stand by my assertion that it is authoritarian.
No, I don't think companies should be firing individuals merely for expressing their desire to vote for Trump - although depending on what the company does, it may be a prudent business decision. But there are degrees of support that go beyond voting.
Note that I did not, and do not, call for any government actions pertaining to this. It's all in the realm of private choices, exercising one's freedom of speech and freedom of association. I don't see how this has anything to do with authoritarianism. Trump's platform, in contrast, is widespread state-sponsored discrimination, so I stand by my assertion that it is authoritarian.
There's also a distinction between the corporation's position and the position of the individuals that make up the corporation. Politics are not transitive: just because you believe something does not mean your business partner believes it, nor should it.
Would have been nice for Brenden Wich when he was burned on a stake for his support for Prop 8.
Yeah, and I think what happened to Brendan Eich was pretty terrible as well.
What is the correct response to someone like Brendan though?
To monetarily support a movement that seeks to take away this right is morally reprehensible. As another poster said in this thread: with escalating power in society comes escalating responsibility not to do harm. I have high respect for Eich for his accomplishments, but I still think that it was important that somehow in some way it was made clear by society that this is not acceptable -- especially for someone in a high position. Let's reframe this situation to make it more powerful: support Eich was against the right to marry across racial lines. Then certainly you would be for his firing, right? But it's the same thing, only that we need 50 more years to efface the stigma that still exists with gay marriage so that saying you're against gay marriage is as bad as saying you're against interracial marriage.
You now you have the benefit of hindsight, what do you think would have been the ideal response to Brendan -- both by Mozilla and by the community? Curious to hear your thoughts.
To monetarily support a movement that seeks to take away this right is morally reprehensible. As another poster said in this thread: with escalating power in society comes escalating responsibility not to do harm. I have high respect for Eich for his accomplishments, but I still think that it was important that somehow in some way it was made clear by society that this is not acceptable -- especially for someone in a high position. Let's reframe this situation to make it more powerful: support Eich was against the right to marry across racial lines. Then certainly you would be for his firing, right? But it's the same thing, only that we need 50 more years to efface the stigma that still exists with gay marriage so that saying you're against gay marriage is as bad as saying you're against interracial marriage.
You now you have the benefit of hindsight, what do you think would have been the ideal response to Brendan -- both by Mozilla and by the community? Curious to hear your thoughts.
A correct response would be to let people think what they want as long as they do not threaten public order or support criminal activities. It is not up to you to decide what is right or wrong.
>is morally reprehensible.
And I think that this is the heart of the issue here. That you want to punish people for holding certain beliefs.
Would it be ok to fire someone because they are not a strict adherent of veganism while you are? After all, if you consider it morally reprehensible to kill innocent animals you are only left to contemplate the evilness of those who partakes in those activities. And evilness must be fought right? So fire that person.
>Being fired was an appropriate response in my eyes. Let's reframe this situation to make it more powerful: support Eich was against the right to marry across racial lines. Then certainly you would be for his firing, right?
Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of legalism in the West. It establishes that an individual is innocent until proven otherwise. Holding a certain belief does not make you mechanically guilty of a crime. Partaking in a criminal activity does. Has this person hindered the enforcement of democratic laws because of their beliefs? Is this person a sworn public servant representing the state? No. Then why should that person be fired for disagreeing with you?
To broaden the discussion, we could take the example of eugenism which the catholic church has fought tough and nails during a time it was considered futurist and full of potential. Nowadays, the consensus is to consider it an unethical and reprehensible practice. My point being: the consensus changes and not linearly. What is accepted today might be looked back as an aberration or a crime against common sense. The only way you can guarantee that a society's morality is not reified is by allowing dissenting opinions to exist as long as they are passive and part of a discussion.
Yes, that means being potentially exposed to some nasty things (according to you) but you will survive it. Trust me, you will.
>is morally reprehensible.
And I think that this is the heart of the issue here. That you want to punish people for holding certain beliefs.
Would it be ok to fire someone because they are not a strict adherent of veganism while you are? After all, if you consider it morally reprehensible to kill innocent animals you are only left to contemplate the evilness of those who partakes in those activities. And evilness must be fought right? So fire that person.
>Being fired was an appropriate response in my eyes. Let's reframe this situation to make it more powerful: support Eich was against the right to marry across racial lines. Then certainly you would be for his firing, right?
Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of legalism in the West. It establishes that an individual is innocent until proven otherwise. Holding a certain belief does not make you mechanically guilty of a crime. Partaking in a criminal activity does. Has this person hindered the enforcement of democratic laws because of their beliefs? Is this person a sworn public servant representing the state? No. Then why should that person be fired for disagreeing with you?
To broaden the discussion, we could take the example of eugenism which the catholic church has fought tough and nails during a time it was considered futurist and full of potential. Nowadays, the consensus is to consider it an unethical and reprehensible practice. My point being: the consensus changes and not linearly. What is accepted today might be looked back as an aberration or a crime against common sense. The only way you can guarantee that a society's morality is not reified is by allowing dissenting opinions to exist as long as they are passive and part of a discussion.
Yes, that means being potentially exposed to some nasty things (according to you) but you will survive it. Trust me, you will.
> And I think that this is the heart of the issue here. That you want to punish people for holding certain beliefs.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean their opinion is less valid. Because an opinion is political doesn't mean it doesn't affect peoples trust and not wanting someone in a position of power when you don't trust them is a valid opinion just as much as the opposite. Innocent until proven otherwise is a legal concept, free speech instead emphasizes everyone right to have their own opinion regardless of its merit.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean their opinion is less valid. Because an opinion is political doesn't mean it doesn't affect peoples trust and not wanting someone in a position of power when you don't trust them is a valid opinion just as much as the opposite. Innocent until proven otherwise is a legal concept, free speech instead emphasizes everyone right to have their own opinion regardless of its merit.
[deleted]
It would have been a proper response if he publicized his donation, I think. Since he didn't, it wasn't.
There's a difference between being neutral on political questions and being neutral on crimes against humanity. Knowingly and deliberately assisting in a genocide is illegal; supporting fringe political candidates is fortunately not.
A fringe candidate who advocates for war crimes and dismantling the democratic institutions of America. I think you're giving Trump too much of a pass here.
Can you name a politician at the national level with an executive position or foreign-policy-related legislative position who doesn't advocate war crimes?
I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm giving Trump supporters a pass, because I believe it's possible to support a candidate without supporting every position they espouse. (In fact, with Trump's many contradictory statements, this is guaranteed for any of his supporters!)
If one of your employees advocates for genocide, go ahead and fire them. If one of your employees supports a candidate who advocates for genocide -- well, it might call into question their judgment, but maybe they like the rest of the platform and think that the call for genocide is mere hyperbole.
If one of your employees advocates for genocide, go ahead and fire them. If one of your employees supports a candidate who advocates for genocide -- well, it might call into question their judgment, but maybe they like the rest of the platform and think that the call for genocide is mere hyperbole.
The crux of this whole situation rests on how "bad" a person considers Trump and by proxy Trump supporters. At the extreme end if an employee was fired for supporting literal Nazis would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely.
Let's bring it to be less extreme. Is it "ok" for an employee to be reprimanded for supporting the KKK? What about David Duke who formerly led the KKK? What about if they are a member of Stormfront?
There are groups and positions that cross a line that is acceptable and that line is different for each person. We can delegate to the government - I.e. Groups that are "officially" designated as hate groups - but many people don't.
There are many people (Trump supporters AND critics) that interpret some of Trump's most defining and consistent policies as racist, sexist, islamaphobic and xenophobic. So Trump to many people is beyond their line of acceptability. And therefore the supporters are too.
The messiness of the situation is that it is so subjective despite there being an objective component to it (objective is: unacceptable opinions should not be tolerated. Subjective is: what is unacceptable?)
Let's bring it to be less extreme. Is it "ok" for an employee to be reprimanded for supporting the KKK? What about David Duke who formerly led the KKK? What about if they are a member of Stormfront?
There are groups and positions that cross a line that is acceptable and that line is different for each person. We can delegate to the government - I.e. Groups that are "officially" designated as hate groups - but many people don't.
There are many people (Trump supporters AND critics) that interpret some of Trump's most defining and consistent policies as racist, sexist, islamaphobic and xenophobic. So Trump to many people is beyond their line of acceptability. And therefore the supporters are too.
The messiness of the situation is that it is so subjective despite there being an objective component to it (objective is: unacceptable opinions should not be tolerated. Subjective is: what is unacceptable?)
how "bad" a person considers Trump and by proxy Trump supporters
Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights; the fact that a candidate is reprehensible does not justify exercising collective punishment against his supporters.
At the extreme end if an employee was fired for supporting literal Nazis would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely.
I don't know if there is a National Socialist party in the USA, but if there was then I don't think anyone should be fired for supporting their political activities.
Of course, if a National Socialist party included a paramilitary wing which was carrying out violent attacks on political enemies, supporting them would no longer be a matter of supporting a political organization; it would be supporting a criminal organization, which is certainly not a constitutionally protected right.
Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights; the fact that a candidate is reprehensible does not justify exercising collective punishment against his supporters.
At the extreme end if an employee was fired for supporting literal Nazis would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely.
I don't know if there is a National Socialist party in the USA, but if there was then I don't think anyone should be fired for supporting their political activities.
Of course, if a National Socialist party included a paramilitary wing which was carrying out violent attacks on political enemies, supporting them would no longer be a matter of supporting a political organization; it would be supporting a criminal organization, which is certainly not a constitutionally protected right.
>> Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights
First Amendment is a constitutionally protected right. It is perfectly legal to say something "all Jews should be gassed" at a public rally. Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?
We're not talking about laws here, note. No-one is saying that we should jail those people or fine them. We're talking about private actions - ostracism, boycott, and other forms of (ironically) exercising one's individual freedom of speech and of association.
First Amendment is a constitutionally protected right. It is perfectly legal to say something "all Jews should be gassed" at a public rally. Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?
We're not talking about laws here, note. No-one is saying that we should jail those people or fine them. We're talking about private actions - ostracism, boycott, and other forms of (ironically) exercising one's individual freedom of speech and of association.
Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?
Of course not. We should absolutely hold Trump responsible for what he says. The disagreement here is whether we should hold Trump supporters responsible for what Trump says.
(And I'm not sure if saying "all Jews should be gassed" is legal; in Canada it would probably fall under hate speech laws on the basis of inciting violence, but the USA has stronger protection of free speech rights. Per Brandenburg, it may be that "all Jews should be gassed" would be legal but "we should beat up the Jews" wouldn't, in that the latter advocates more imminent violence.)
Of course not. We should absolutely hold Trump responsible for what he says. The disagreement here is whether we should hold Trump supporters responsible for what Trump says.
(And I'm not sure if saying "all Jews should be gassed" is legal; in Canada it would probably fall under hate speech laws on the basis of inciting violence, but the USA has stronger protection of free speech rights. Per Brandenburg, it may be that "all Jews should be gassed" would be legal but "we should beat up the Jews" wouldn't, in that the latter advocates more imminent violence.)
I'm pretty sure it would be legal in US. Something like "let's go gas some Jews" would be getting into the imminence territory, but the blanket statement of desire is protected speech.
As for your main point; I think that saying that we're holding Trump supporters responsible for what he says is not really correct. We're holding them responsible for what they say by the act of supporting him and/or his platform.
And the platform is always a thing under consideration. Even someone who's supporting Trump because "Hillary is worse" is still making a relative comparison between his platform and hers, which is a political statement - and I don't see why they should get a pass on being responsible for that statement and its implications.
It all becomes a lot less ambiguous if you pick some specific thing instead of discussing it in abstract, and spell out all the consequences in full. Say, I know quite a few people who are going to vote for Trump for the sole reason that they consider him better on gun rights. But when you account for his "law & order" dogwhistling, and unpack it, what they're really saying then is, "my right to own a semi-automatic firearm is more important than this black dude's right to be treated with dignity by the police and the courts". Some people actually find it acceptable even when worded that way, but I'm not one of them.
As for your main point; I think that saying that we're holding Trump supporters responsible for what he says is not really correct. We're holding them responsible for what they say by the act of supporting him and/or his platform.
And the platform is always a thing under consideration. Even someone who's supporting Trump because "Hillary is worse" is still making a relative comparison between his platform and hers, which is a political statement - and I don't see why they should get a pass on being responsible for that statement and its implications.
It all becomes a lot less ambiguous if you pick some specific thing instead of discussing it in abstract, and spell out all the consequences in full. Say, I know quite a few people who are going to vote for Trump for the sole reason that they consider him better on gun rights. But when you account for his "law & order" dogwhistling, and unpack it, what they're really saying then is, "my right to own a semi-automatic firearm is more important than this black dude's right to be treated with dignity by the police and the courts". Some people actually find it acceptable even when worded that way, but I'm not one of them.
Out of curiosity, can you explain why you think there is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate and no such right to support a criminal organization (assuming by "support" you mean simply voicing support and not actually funding or committing crimes yourself)? It sounds good to me, but I can't think of where the constitution actually says that.
Of course, the real problem I have with your comment is that you say "collective punishment" is not justified. I'm not so sure I agree. I have no problem with collective action like boycotts, even if the boycott is in response to a perfectly legal action. This is just basic economic freedom and freedom of association. Perhaps you're speaking specifically about terminating someone's employment, which does have some specific legal protections.
Of course, the real problem I have with your comment is that you say "collective punishment" is not justified. I'm not so sure I agree. I have no problem with collective action like boycotts, even if the boycott is in response to a perfectly legal action. This is just basic economic freedom and freedom of association. Perhaps you're speaking specifically about terminating someone's employment, which does have some specific legal protections.
Milton Firedman's most famous work is Capitalism and Freedom and yet within that work, he completely rejects Hollywood blacklists (or "boycotts" if you prefer). If you consider his main point is that under communism, people are un-free, it seems odd that he would sympathize with avowed members of American communist party, who would ultimately like to bring communism to the US, and in Friedman's eyes, result in societal catastrophe. Doubly so given the power of persuasion that Hollywood writers wield. So why does he reject the ability of studio execs to simply exercise their freedom of association, and not contract with blacklisted writers?
The problem in Friedman's eyes is that this boycott reduces to collusion. And under collusion, the benfits of free market dry up: for example, in the free market you can shop your script, no matter who you are, and if your product is good, you could make a living out of it. When firms collude to establish acceptable political beleifs as a pre-condition to an economic exchange, you have reduced the economic freedom of everyone who is not wealthy enough to establish a movie studio for themselves. In effect, you have by-passed democracy ("one person, one vote") and moved to [benevolent] oligarchy ("one chairman, one vote"). As the old saying goes - you're freedom to swing your elbows ends where my nose begins, and so too with economic association. If you would starve a man until he renounced his political preferences - even if you deem them antithetical to the good of society - you're no better than Stalin.
The problem in Friedman's eyes is that this boycott reduces to collusion. And under collusion, the benfits of free market dry up: for example, in the free market you can shop your script, no matter who you are, and if your product is good, you could make a living out of it. When firms collude to establish acceptable political beleifs as a pre-condition to an economic exchange, you have reduced the economic freedom of everyone who is not wealthy enough to establish a movie studio for themselves. In effect, you have by-passed democracy ("one person, one vote") and moved to [benevolent] oligarchy ("one chairman, one vote"). As the old saying goes - you're freedom to swing your elbows ends where my nose begins, and so too with economic association. If you would starve a man until he renounced his political preferences - even if you deem them antithetical to the good of society - you're no better than Stalin.
So a political organization has to commit a crime before being seen as unacceptable? At that point may it already be too late (org has too much power)
If a political organization has not committed a crime, then what they are doing is legal and then they have the constitutional right to do it.
Legally, yes. Whether that is socially acceptable or not is another matter.
National Socialist Order of America is perfectly legal, for example. But I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the notion that being a member of it should be socially acceptable, and that people should just respect your choices.
National Socialist Order of America is perfectly legal, for example. But I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the notion that being a member of it should be socially acceptable, and that people should just respect your choices.
> There are many people (Trump supporters AND critics) that interpret some of Trump's most defining and consistent policies as racist, sexist, islamaphobic and xenophobic. So Trump to many people is beyond their line of acceptability. And therefore the supporters are too.
Wouldn't that qualify these people at least as racist as Trump could possibly be himself ?
Where is the limit for these people, by the way ? Not buying stuff from people with some "unacceptable" political orientation ? How about religious orientation ? How about people who feel men and women aren't equal because of religious affiliation ? How about muslims who espouse the "kill anyone leaving islam" rule of that religion ?
We should not care if we are to have a well-functioning politcial system. Doesn't seem either party is interested in that, but still.
Wouldn't that qualify these people at least as racist as Trump could possibly be himself ?
Where is the limit for these people, by the way ? Not buying stuff from people with some "unacceptable" political orientation ? How about religious orientation ? How about people who feel men and women aren't equal because of religious affiliation ? How about muslims who espouse the "kill anyone leaving islam" rule of that religion ?
We should not care if we are to have a well-functioning politcial system. Doesn't seem either party is interested in that, but still.
> I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm giving Trump supporters a pass, because I believe it's possible to support a candidate without supporting every position they espouse.
I have held that position for a while, but it became untenable due to the sheer number of outright awful positions that Trump espouses. It's no longer possible to say, "yeah, this one thing isn't nice, but there's still a net benefit".
At this point, there's no rational way to conclude that anything about Trump candidacy has a net benefit, unless you subscribe to some of his more abhorrent notions about religion, race etc - e.g. people of the "I'm not a racist, but there's something about blacks that makes them commit crimes and riot" persuasion, say. Or "I'm for freedom of religion, but Islam is a death cult". And so on.
So no. I don't buy into that whole "the call for genocide is mere hyperbole" thing. It would require such a manifest lapse of judgment to be realistic, that I would demand strong evidence of such in other matters to accept it.
I have held that position for a while, but it became untenable due to the sheer number of outright awful positions that Trump espouses. It's no longer possible to say, "yeah, this one thing isn't nice, but there's still a net benefit".
At this point, there's no rational way to conclude that anything about Trump candidacy has a net benefit, unless you subscribe to some of his more abhorrent notions about religion, race etc - e.g. people of the "I'm not a racist, but there's something about blacks that makes them commit crimes and riot" persuasion, say. Or "I'm for freedom of religion, but Islam is a death cult". And so on.
So no. I don't buy into that whole "the call for genocide is mere hyperbole" thing. It would require such a manifest lapse of judgment to be realistic, that I would demand strong evidence of such in other matters to accept it.
You realize that you're calling for the excommunication of 40% of America, right? That is not a productive thing. I consider Trumpism a real threat to my life, but Trump supporters are fine with me. Once a bad idea spreads too far, you can't isolate it. You have to engage it productively.
I agree that however hateful and ridiculous he gets, Trump is not a nazi. I roll my eyes whenever someone calls him a nazi or implies he is a nazi. For example, this guy : https://twitter.com/paulg/status/785769454516916228?lang=fr
I think there's a contradiction in PG's (and Sam Altman's) public attitude towards Trump and their attitude regarding Thiel.
I mean either Trump is beyond the pale, in which case they should not associate themselves with any of his supporters, or he is not, in which case they should cut the goddamn hyperbole.
I think there's a contradiction in PG's (and Sam Altman's) public attitude towards Trump and their attitude regarding Thiel.
I mean either Trump is beyond the pale, in which case they should not associate themselves with any of his supporters, or he is not, in which case they should cut the goddamn hyperbole.
Freedom is the right to be wrong. Freedom of speech isn't fought at Michaelangelo's David; its fought at Larry Flynt's Hustler.
The fact that these arguments always seem to require one said to make up crazy nonsense is pretty telling. He advocates nothing of the sort.
Trump advocates killing the families of terrorists.
http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-trump-says-kill-terror...
He also advocates torture.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5775d740e4b04164640f6597
http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-trump-says-kill-terror...
He also advocates torture.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5775d740e4b04164640f6597
These are things that we do already. I'm not sure that admitting it openly turns someone into the second coming of Stalin.
Ok? Neither of those are war crimes or dismantle US democracy, which are the claims in question.
Per Common Article 3 of Geneva Conventions, killing families of terrorists and torture are war crime.
No, try reading it. We do both of those things all the time. Where's the war crimes trials? Those are only war crimes under certain circumstances.
he wants to jail journalists and his political opponents and he's been actively undermining the legitimacy of the electoral process for weeks
i don't know how to describe that other than he wants to 'dismantle US democracy'
i don't know how to describe that other than he wants to 'dismantle US democracy'
He wants to jail Clinton, because she has committed numerous felonies. And how has he been "actively undermining the legitimacy of the electoral process"? That's what Clinton did, remember? You know those Podesta emails that proved what everyone with a brain already knew? That Sanders never had a chance and the DNC had it rigged from the start?
[deleted]
Whether something is a crime against humanity or not is also a political question, strictly speaking. How many countries have refused to recognize the Armenian genocide for the sake of some political gain, again?
> There's a difference between being neutral on political questions and being neutral on crimes against humanity
For this to be true, there would have to be some non-political definition of "crimes against humanity".
For this to be true, there would have to be some non-political definition of "crimes against humanity".
[deleted]
it wasn't illegal in the country where it took place
"If you do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is misdirected."
On the contrary. Self-described Marxist regimes murdered over 100 million people in the last century (far more than the Nazis). So by your reasoning it's okay to fire anyone who's a Marxist?
On the contrary. Self-described Marxist regimes murdered over 100 million people in the last century (far more than the Nazis). So by your reasoning it's okay to fire anyone who's a Marxist?
Marxism itself is not a political platform. It's a philosophical and socioeconomic school of thought with some particular axioms and methodology. None of these involve, or directly lead to, mass murder.
Specific political ideologies that use Marxism as a philosophical basis for their platforms, like Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, are responsible for mass murder. And yes, I would consider it okay to privately discriminate against people who publicly espouse such ideology.
Specific political ideologies that use Marxism as a philosophical basis for their platforms, like Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, are responsible for mass murder. And yes, I would consider it okay to privately discriminate against people who publicly espouse such ideology.
"None of these involve, or directly lead to, mass murder."
So it's sheer coincidence that it has led to starvation, slavery, and mass murder every time it's been implemented?
100 million dead bodies is enough to convince me that it's a bad idea.
I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on you at this point.
So it's sheer coincidence that it has led to starvation, slavery, and mass murder every time it's been implemented?
100 million dead bodies is enough to convince me that it's a bad idea.
I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on you at this point.
> So it's sheer coincidence that it has led to starvation, slavery, and mass murder every time it's been implemented?
No. It's the consequence of the fact that all that have been implemented are offshoots of one particular political ideology, namely Marxism-Leninism. And that is the case because it was the only Marxist-inspired ideology that was brutal enough to prevail against attempts to suppress it - more liberal-minded Marxists that put more emphasis on democracy, such as the German Spartacus League, were violently suppressed.
After that initial period, practically every left-wing movement was quickly co-opted by Soviet Russia / USSR, if not created by them outright, and so it inherited the ideology. In some cases, viable alternatives were also violently suppressed by Soviet agents (as was the case with e.g. anarchists in Spain during the Civil War).
Stalinism, Maoism etc are all derivatives of that same system.
No. It's the consequence of the fact that all that have been implemented are offshoots of one particular political ideology, namely Marxism-Leninism. And that is the case because it was the only Marxist-inspired ideology that was brutal enough to prevail against attempts to suppress it - more liberal-minded Marxists that put more emphasis on democracy, such as the German Spartacus League, were violently suppressed.
After that initial period, practically every left-wing movement was quickly co-opted by Soviet Russia / USSR, if not created by them outright, and so it inherited the ideology. In some cases, viable alternatives were also violently suppressed by Soviet agents (as was the case with e.g. anarchists in Spain during the Civil War).
Stalinism, Maoism etc are all derivatives of that same system.
Marxist philosophies have been implemented in many European countries in the form of social democracy.
Socialism and Marxism are not synonymous, no matter how much you would like to pretend that's the case.
Socialism and Marxism are not synonymous, no matter how much you would like to pretend that's the case.
Edit: in my original post, I said that "self-described Marxist regimes murdered 100 million people".
Which of the social democracies you mentioned explicitly describes itself as Marxist?
Socialism and Marxism are not synonymous, no matter how much you would like to pretend that's the case.
Edit: in my original post, I said that "self-described Marxist regimes murdered 100 million people".
Which of the social democracies you mentioned explicitly describes itself as Marxist?
This argument can hardly apply when the choice is between "politics as usual" and "carpet bomb the constitution". Your fascism screed might be intended to come off as sarcastic, but Trump has literally threatened to deport legal citizens, kill innocent civilians abroad, shut down unfriendly newspapers, and imprison his political rivals. I wonder: what sort of rhetoric would it take for people to recognize the seeds of fascism?
And no, corporations are certainly not politically neutral agents, for better or for worse. In fact, I'd say they're among the most powerful players in shaping the future of the world.
And no, corporations are certainly not politically neutral agents, for better or for worse. In fact, I'd say they're among the most powerful players in shaping the future of the world.
Your logic resembles that which says people who use Copyleft licenses are not truly committed to Freedom because they don't allow use of their code in non-free programs.
Being committed to diversity-- or freedom, or any ideal--does not mean you have to be nice toward or even tolerate the antithesis of that ideal.
Being committed to diversity-- or freedom, or any ideal--does not mean you have to be nice toward or even tolerate the antithesis of that ideal.
Citizens United basically allows corporations to compel political participation of their employees regardless of their politics.
No, unions do that. Corporations do not extract money from their employees for political purposes.
I'll just leave this here: http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-grow...
Unions are a completely different aspect of employment.
Unions are a completely different aspect of employment.
If you are outraged by corporate political ideology being forced on employees, then surely you are outraged over union political platforms that go above and beyond the objectives of a union (to maximize compensation) and serve to increase labor competition and depress wages, right?
At a union shop, a worker has no choice but to financially support the political agenda of the union, even if that agenda runs counter to the worker's best interest and/or ideals.
Exactly. The. Same.
Public sector unions take this further by creating a system in which management and labor are both operating under the union banner in a complete conflict of interest.
The whole situation is fucked and there is zero moral high ground in picking a side, much like our Presidential candidates.
At a union shop, a worker has no choice but to financially support the political agenda of the union, even if that agenda runs counter to the worker's best interest and/or ideals.
Exactly. The. Same.
Public sector unions take this further by creating a system in which management and labor are both operating under the union banner in a complete conflict of interest.
The whole situation is fucked and there is zero moral high ground in picking a side, much like our Presidential candidates.
> It speaks volume about the depth and toxicity of some self-reinforcing militant feedback loops.
telling a corporation to sanction, discipline, or fire a partner is not militant.
the only militant behavior is coming from Trump, when he talks about dropping HRC's security detail and seeing what happens.
diversity of opinion is important, but advocacy of violence and worse - the commission of sexual violence against women - is not.
I'm not certain that ending Thiele's partnership is warranted - I don't know enough about the facts. But this is more than just an "unpopular opinion".
telling a corporation to sanction, discipline, or fire a partner is not militant.
the only militant behavior is coming from Trump, when he talks about dropping HRC's security detail and seeing what happens.
diversity of opinion is important, but advocacy of violence and worse - the commission of sexual violence against women - is not.
I'm not certain that ending Thiele's partnership is warranted - I don't know enough about the facts. But this is more than just an "unpopular opinion".
This detente we have where we don't fire people for their political views is extremely valuable, and we should be very very wary about breaking it.
100% agree.
But there is a point at which a candidate /is/ too extreme. All we're doing is having a discussion about where that point is.
Do you disagree that that point exists?
It's funny to see my comments laden with downvotes from (presumably) the people who wanted to respect diversity of opinion.
But there is a point at which a candidate /is/ too extreme. All we're doing is having a discussion about where that point is.
Do you disagree that that point exists?
It's funny to see my comments laden with downvotes from (presumably) the people who wanted to respect diversity of opinion.
It's time for the moderates to come out and say it: we won't be defoo'ing or firing people for supporting Hillary and we won't be defoo'ing or firing people for supporting Trump.
Or Johnson or Stein or Harambe, for that matter.
Or Johnson or Stein or Harambe, for that matter.
Sort of off topic, I agree with your sentiment. However, has the word defoo'ing come to have a broader or more generic meaning? I was under the impression that defoo stood for "departure from family of origin" specifically.
Oh, I had no idea — where did this word come from? In what circles is this word popular?
Stefan Molyneux of Free Domain Radio coined the term. http://defoo.org/defoo/
He's sort of an anarcho capitalist voluntaryist turned men's rights advocate who has some pretty extreme viewpoints, one of which is that if your family of origin doesn't agree with your beliefs you should completely detach and disengage from them. Stop all contact. I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but it was interesting to see the term used here.
He's sort of an anarcho capitalist voluntaryist turned men's rights advocate who has some pretty extreme viewpoints, one of which is that if your family of origin doesn't agree with your beliefs you should completely detach and disengage from them. Stop all contact. I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but it was interesting to see the term used here.
I think this is just the de- prefix with the generic placeholder "foo".
Well defoo means abandoning your family and cutting all ties. So it would fit here if you extended the meaning a little to mean cutting ties with any relation not specifically family.
As bad as Donald is, he just isn't bad enough to take this severe of an action against a supporter . It would be anti-American at its worst.
I agree. This is the candidate of a major political party.
Calling for the elimination of positions of those you disagree with is only going to make the world a more polar place.
We need more discussions and less calls for firing people or imprisoning them, from both sides.
Calling for the elimination of positions of those you disagree with is only going to make the world a more polar place.
We need more discussions and less calls for firing people or imprisoning them, from both sides.
Agreed. If someone is acting as a political surrogate, even if I think the candidate is awful, as long as it's not interfering with their work and they're not explicitly representing the company I don't see the problem.
I also wonder if DHH has the same thoughts if someone is a Hillary candidate.
I also wonder if DHH has the same thoughts if someone is a Hillary candidate.
> He just isn't bad enough to take this severe of an action against a supporter.
He's expressed just about every bigoted position there is (against races, religions, and women). He's expressed just about every fascist position there is (jailing political opponent, killing/torturing innocents, shutting down press outlets). What would Donald have to do?
He's expressed just about every bigoted position there is (against races, religions, and women). He's expressed just about every fascist position there is (jailing political opponent, killing/torturing innocents, shutting down press outlets). What would Donald have to do?
I dunno, firing people for debatably legal reasons seems fairly american to me.
Also I'm not sure that "firing" is an accurate word here. Theil isn't really an employee is he?
Also I'm not sure that "firing" is an accurate word here. Theil isn't really an employee is he?
Firing the person making the comments isn't the same as firing someone who supports a party and the candidate regardless.
"He just isn't bad enough"? Have you listened to the garbage coming out of his mouth? At this point, I almost fear to ask: what would be bad enough? Someone outright advocating for genocide?
Here's context for anyone having a hard time following on Twitter:
https://storify.com/gkoberger/dhh-yc
https://storify.com/gkoberger/dhh-yc
Paul Graham (@paulg) = former head of YC
David Heinemeier Hansson (@dhh) = creator of basecamp/rails
Sam Altman (@sama) = current head of YC
Peter Thiel (@peterthiel) = part-time parter at YC, well-known investor, current Trump surrogate who just donated $1.25MM DHH: Although Thiel would already have been on a Performance Improvement Plan
for his legal wars against the press. So easy move
Thiel is a YC partner, not an employee they can fire. And what people like me are calling for is for YC to disavow him.
It's much easier to defend "we won't fire an employee for his beliefs", but it is also intellectually dishonest.
It's much easier to defend "we won't fire an employee for his beliefs", but it is also intellectually dishonest.
You seem to continue to try to deliberately misunderstand this, but he is not a YC partner.
He is a part-time partner, which means he spends a small fraction of his time advising YC companies, but does not have equity in YC.
He is a part-time partner, which means he spends a small fraction of his time advising YC companies, but does not have equity in YC.
The word partner is in his job title. From my perspective, this looks like the worst kind of weasely quibbling.
The broader point is that Thiel does not come home from a hard day's work at the bit mines, counting on the YC paycheck to get him through the next payday. He's your business partner, however construed.
The broader point is that Thiel does not come home from a hard day's work at the bit mines, counting on the YC paycheck to get him through the next payday. He's your business partner, however construed.
I'm not understanding what exactly you want.
If you're saying Sam should come out and say he disagrees with Thiel, he's already said he finds Trump repugnant. Are you saying that in addition to this, he also has to say, "I now draw attention to the fact that by opposing Trump, I am hereby disagreeing with my partner who supports him"? Why? And could it possibly also be because YC has other people in it, and disavowing a partner of YC by himself would be acting irresponsibly toward his partners?
If you're saying YC as an institution should disavow Thiel's actions, is every company expected to choose a political stance, then disavow any partners who act against it? For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to an individual's tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that his organization hasn't done the same, and call it a lack of moral courage.
It's also disingenuous to suggest, as you do in your tweets where you warn women and Muslims against joining YC, that because one of their partners donated to Trump and spoke at his convention, YC as an institution is now somehow poisoned with the views typical of a Trump supporter. Presumably Thiel was added as a partner for the simple reason that he is a valuable source of advice for startups. He can still be one as a keynote speaker for Trump. Besides, most people who endorse candidates, even people who act as keynote speakers, don't agree completely with their candidate, which further weakens your argument.
Finally, I sometimes read your tweets, and I noticed you tweeted https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/787756601281085440 to Paul Graham's wife. Your usual sense of humor becomes weirdly aggressive when you write about YC, like you really want to pick a fight. What's your problem with them?
If you're saying Sam should come out and say he disagrees with Thiel, he's already said he finds Trump repugnant. Are you saying that in addition to this, he also has to say, "I now draw attention to the fact that by opposing Trump, I am hereby disagreeing with my partner who supports him"? Why? And could it possibly also be because YC has other people in it, and disavowing a partner of YC by himself would be acting irresponsibly toward his partners?
If you're saying YC as an institution should disavow Thiel's actions, is every company expected to choose a political stance, then disavow any partners who act against it? For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to an individual's tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that his organization hasn't done the same, and call it a lack of moral courage.
It's also disingenuous to suggest, as you do in your tweets where you warn women and Muslims against joining YC, that because one of their partners donated to Trump and spoke at his convention, YC as an institution is now somehow poisoned with the views typical of a Trump supporter. Presumably Thiel was added as a partner for the simple reason that he is a valuable source of advice for startups. He can still be one as a keynote speaker for Trump. Besides, most people who endorse candidates, even people who act as keynote speakers, don't agree completely with their candidate, which further weakens your argument.
Finally, I sometimes read your tweets, and I noticed you tweeted https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/787756601281085440 to Paul Graham's wife. Your usual sense of humor becomes weirdly aggressive when you write about YC, like you really want to pick a fight. What's your problem with them?
I think that YC, in its official capacity, should disavow Thiel. I think it's morally incoherent for YC partners to declare Trump a national emergency and a threat to the republic while continuing to do business with one of his greatest backers, and not acknowledging the conflict.
For whatever reason, YC has chosen to stay silent while one of its partners pours resources into a candidacy outside the bounds of normal political discourse in the US. This silence is very weird, especially considering the individual partners' alarmist comments about Trump.
I don't think YC became poisoned with Thiel's views the moment he expressed them. They were poisoned by his views when they chose not to react in any way, and maintain their silence. I wonder what women, Muslims, veterans, etc. in this thread feel about the matter.
To the point that Thiel doesn't completely endorse his candidate, I believe that argument is substantially weakened by his 1.25M donation coming after multiple accusations of sexual assault. Clearly Thiel is comfy enough in his support to disregard this, and the parade of horrors that preceded it.
I accept that I may be starting to sound a bit nasty. I consider what is happening a display of spinelessness, and the arguments being marshaled in its defense disingenuous. It makes me angry.
For whatever reason, YC has chosen to stay silent while one of its partners pours resources into a candidacy outside the bounds of normal political discourse in the US. This silence is very weird, especially considering the individual partners' alarmist comments about Trump.
I don't think YC became poisoned with Thiel's views the moment he expressed them. They were poisoned by his views when they chose not to react in any way, and maintain their silence. I wonder what women, Muslims, veterans, etc. in this thread feel about the matter.
To the point that Thiel doesn't completely endorse his candidate, I believe that argument is substantially weakened by his 1.25M donation coming after multiple accusations of sexual assault. Clearly Thiel is comfy enough in his support to disregard this, and the parade of horrors that preceded it.
I accept that I may be starting to sound a bit nasty. I consider what is happening a display of spinelessness, and the arguments being marshaled in its defense disingenuous. It makes me angry.
I understand where you're coming from, but you didn't address this point:
> For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to an individual's tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that his organization hasn't done the same, and call it a lack of moral courage.
YC has multiple partners, and for them to disavow Thiel as a whole would require them to conspire, behind Thiel's back, to reach an agreement on this. That seems iffy. Is it really not enough that Sam has individually come out against Trump? Is it really moral incoherence that he hasn't rallied his entire organization behind him on this?
I do wonder whether female and Muslim YC founders ever receive advice from Thiel, and how they feel about it. But I suspect most accept that he's a smart guy, and that at the end of the day, they can part ways in disagreement but a few pieces of good advice richer. Or maybe not. I'd be interested in hearing about someone's experience here.
> For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to an individual's tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that his organization hasn't done the same, and call it a lack of moral courage.
YC has multiple partners, and for them to disavow Thiel as a whole would require them to conspire, behind Thiel's back, to reach an agreement on this. That seems iffy. Is it really not enough that Sam has individually come out against Trump? Is it really moral incoherence that he hasn't rallied his entire organization behind him on this?
I do wonder whether female and Muslim YC founders ever receive advice from Thiel, and how they feel about it. But I suspect most accept that he's a smart guy, and that at the end of the day, they can part ways in disagreement but a few pieces of good advice richer. Or maybe not. I'd be interested in hearing about someone's experience here.
I take your point that YC has some kind of governance structure, a bunch of partners, and it may not be feasible to publish a statement on company letterhead, figuratively speaking.
What I'm after is some kind of statement from Altman or Graham about Thiel, his involvement in supporting Trump, and their (presumable) discomfort at having such person be a partner in YC.
An acknowledgement of the situation, rather than the tacit silence we've had so far. What we have right now is Altman and Graham saying a Trump presidency would be disastrous, and not commenting at all about continuing to do business with one of Trump's key backers.
That's weird.
What I'm after is some kind of statement from Altman or Graham about Thiel, his involvement in supporting Trump, and their (presumable) discomfort at having such person be a partner in YC.
An acknowledgement of the situation, rather than the tacit silence we've had so far. What we have right now is Altman and Graham saying a Trump presidency would be disastrous, and not commenting at all about continuing to do business with one of Trump's key backers.
That's weird.
It's disingenuous to suggest, as you do in your tweets where you warn women and Muslims against joining YC, that because one of their partners donated to Trump and spoke at his convention, YC as an institution is now somehow poisoned with the views typical of a Trump supporter. Presumably Thiel was added as a partner for the simple reason that he is a valuable source of advice for startups.
This is answering the wrong question. The point as I took it of idlewords' warning is rather, if you are a woman, or a Muslim, do you really want to work with a company where you might be expected to deal with Thiel as a consultant?
You say so yourself, as did sama and paulg: Thiel's role in YC is to advise startups who enter into the program.
Were I a woman, I would be uncomfortable taking money from YC on the contingency that I would have to do business with someone who believes that my gender being given the right to vote undermines the entirety of democracy.
Were I a Muslim or a Mexican, I would be uncomfortable taking money from an organization that might expect me to share business information with a man who has spent millions of his own money supporting a candidate who believes that people of my religion or race should be registered with the government and deported en masse.
Indeed, why should I, or anyone, want to do business with someone who hates them? Who sees them as subhuman? Or, since I'm sure you're about to rush to equivocate on this, at least actively campaigns for, delegates for, and finances, a political machine that does so?
idlewords' advice was, frankly, exactly right. If you are a Muslim, or a Mexican, or a woman, you should think very carefully about applying for YC, knowing that Peter Thiel is the kind of advisor you may be expected to cooperate with as a contingency of your funding.
This is answering the wrong question. The point as I took it of idlewords' warning is rather, if you are a woman, or a Muslim, do you really want to work with a company where you might be expected to deal with Thiel as a consultant?
You say so yourself, as did sama and paulg: Thiel's role in YC is to advise startups who enter into the program.
Were I a woman, I would be uncomfortable taking money from YC on the contingency that I would have to do business with someone who believes that my gender being given the right to vote undermines the entirety of democracy.
Were I a Muslim or a Mexican, I would be uncomfortable taking money from an organization that might expect me to share business information with a man who has spent millions of his own money supporting a candidate who believes that people of my religion or race should be registered with the government and deported en masse.
Indeed, why should I, or anyone, want to do business with someone who hates them? Who sees them as subhuman? Or, since I'm sure you're about to rush to equivocate on this, at least actively campaigns for, delegates for, and finances, a political machine that does so?
idlewords' advice was, frankly, exactly right. If you are a Muslim, or a Mexican, or a woman, you should think very carefully about applying for YC, knowing that Peter Thiel is the kind of advisor you may be expected to cooperate with as a contingency of your funding.
I always thought YC founders were allowed to choose which partners they wanted to work with. If not, you're right.
Edit: Sam just posted https://twitter.com/sama/status/787794988855812096.
Edit: Sam just posted https://twitter.com/sama/status/787794988855812096.
Are you okay if minority-run and immigrant startups feel less welcome at a company with a part time partner who funds an anti-immigrant-focused presidential campaign?
Do you think it should be clearer that YC violently disagrees with those views of the candidate your part time partner gives (some money he got from YC) to?
(Assuming YC as a business doesn't think Muslims and refugees and other immigrants should be kept out of the country.)
Do you think it should be clearer that YC violently disagrees with those views of the candidate your part time partner gives (some money he got from YC) to?
(Assuming YC as a business doesn't think Muslims and refugees and other immigrants should be kept out of the country.)
I know everyone else is picking this comment apart, but I see a glimmer of potential progress in it.
When you say that the distinction between "part time partner" and "partner" is an important one, can I also take you to mean that you would be reluctant to allow Thiel to extend his role in YC into full partnership, if he should want to do that in the future? At least, not while he continues to play the kind of role in American politics that he's playing today?
When you say that the distinction between "part time partner" and "partner" is an important one, can I also take you to mean that you would be reluctant to allow Thiel to extend his role in YC into full partnership, if he should want to do that in the future? At least, not while he continues to play the kind of role in American politics that he's playing today?
For the downvoters who do not get it: let's presume a woman gets into YC and Thiel advises her. It's a one-on-one. Do you think it's unreasonable if the woman begins to think whether Thiel "only" supports with money and words Trump or is an ardent follower of his action and makes a crude pass at her or worse? Given the power situation here, do you think a victim would come forward? Aware of the answer of this question, do you think a woman would want to get into YC in the first place? Is it a safe place for women after this? Educate me if I am wrong, not just downvote blindly, thanks!
I guess I don't understand. Part-time is a modifier on the nature of the partnership, isn't it? It's different than being a full-time partner, but wouldn't it be a subset of "partner"?
I understand the confusion since they share a word, but they are entirely different. EG part-time partners don't have a legal vote in the direction of YC.
If anything this makes -- should have made -- taking a principled stand drastically easier.
It also doesn't follow that a defense then could ever be "we won't fire..." He's not an employee nor a YC vote-carrier nor an equity holder that you seemingly can fire.
It also doesn't follow that a defense then could ever be "we won't fire..." He's not an employee nor a YC vote-carrier nor an equity holder that you seemingly can fire.
EG part-time partners don't have a legal vote in the direction of YC.
So, much like how he interacts with the Trump campaign, he provides capital in exchange for...?
So, much like how he interacts with the Trump campaign, he provides capital in exchange for...?
So it would be fairer to say "Part-time Partner" is the name of a role, like "Limited Partner", that sounds like a variation of Partner but is in fact a completely different role with different duties and privileges? This sounds very likely but is hard to deduce from the blog posts.
[EDIT: To be more specific:
Here (https://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups) you mention:
"My hope is that YC has enough leverage at this point to make it clear that [inappropriate behavior towards female founders] is unacceptable and we will not continue to work with investors who do it."
The whole post is great and speaks to the role you (meaning YC in general) feel it is important to play in supporting women, minority and more generally, 'outsider' founders. The quote illustrates you've not ruled out severing business ties to investors who make 'outsider' founders uncomfortable.
Here (http://blog.samaltman.com/trump), you are talking about Trump:
"Demagogic hate-mongers lead down terrible paths. It would be particularly embarrassing for us to fall for this[.]"
In the same piece about Trump, you reference Trump's policy regarding 'outsiders' in particular, and the famous quote, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." You also state "This would be a good time for us all—even Republicans, especially Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump—to start speaking up."
The primary confusion is that, despite the fact "[you]’ve supported some Republicans in the past", you _aren't_ speaking up and clarifying the impact of a major Trump surrogate with a potentially misleading(?) title within YC itself.
So while some others are indicating you're engaged in pedantry, I am actually very interested in the exact role of various YC partner or partner-esque people. I think this is a case where details might matter, but so far YC has been oddly silent.
To the extent such a confusion can be averted, I'd be interested in your thoughts, but appreciate this can be quite a needle to thread.]
[EDIT: To be more specific:
Here (https://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups) you mention:
"My hope is that YC has enough leverage at this point to make it clear that [inappropriate behavior towards female founders] is unacceptable and we will not continue to work with investors who do it."
The whole post is great and speaks to the role you (meaning YC in general) feel it is important to play in supporting women, minority and more generally, 'outsider' founders. The quote illustrates you've not ruled out severing business ties to investors who make 'outsider' founders uncomfortable.
Here (http://blog.samaltman.com/trump), you are talking about Trump:
"Demagogic hate-mongers lead down terrible paths. It would be particularly embarrassing for us to fall for this[.]"
In the same piece about Trump, you reference Trump's policy regarding 'outsiders' in particular, and the famous quote, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." You also state "This would be a good time for us all—even Republicans, especially Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump—to start speaking up."
The primary confusion is that, despite the fact "[you]’ve supported some Republicans in the past", you _aren't_ speaking up and clarifying the impact of a major Trump surrogate with a potentially misleading(?) title within YC itself.
So while some others are indicating you're engaged in pedantry, I am actually very interested in the exact role of various YC partner or partner-esque people. I think this is a case where details might matter, but so far YC has been oddly silent.
To the extent such a confusion can be averted, I'd be interested in your thoughts, but appreciate this can be quite a needle to thread.]
EG part-time partners don't have a legal vote in the direction of YC.
Are "part-time partners" employees?
Are "part-time partners" employees?
Ah, the nit pick defense! And a weak one at that.
As any sort of 'partner' is he representative of the world you folks are out to create and the values you stand for?
Because if not your organisation is being judged on who you say are members of your team; part-time, equity supported or otherwise.
Because if not your organisation is being judged on who you say are members of your team; part-time, equity supported or otherwise.
That doesn't make him an employee - so your talk of "firing" him is still misleading.
[deleted]
> he spends a small fraction of his time advising YC companies
And you are comfortable with him doing so? What if the YC company is led by a Muslim woman? Do you think she would be comfortable advised by a person who aligns with Trump? Honestly, after the Gizmodo affair you should've cut ties with him which should've been rather easy: not an employee, not an owner, so why don't you say, we do not want to do anything to do with this person? Where does this stop? What can one do that would make you disavow him? Because clearly being a danger to free speech himself and endorsing and financing the biggest danger to the republic right now is not enough for you.
And you are comfortable with him doing so? What if the YC company is led by a Muslim woman? Do you think she would be comfortable advised by a person who aligns with Trump? Honestly, after the Gizmodo affair you should've cut ties with him which should've been rather easy: not an employee, not an owner, so why don't you say, we do not want to do anything to do with this person? Where does this stop? What can one do that would make you disavow him? Because clearly being a danger to free speech himself and endorsing and financing the biggest danger to the republic right now is not enough for you.
Not saying it's the same or that anyone should be fired for their beliefs etc, but YC has taken some political stances in the past. https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin...
Well, of course that's not the same. Thiel just thinks giving women the right to vote was democracy's greatest mistake. That's just a small thing to be brushed aside. But SOPA was something that could actually damage the economic prospects of corporations! Obviously you must take a stand when it's something that's actually important!
If the preceding barrage of sarcasm didn't make it clear enough, I'm quite disgusted with sama and Hacker News right now. Taking the high road like this is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. Hacker News can gregariously see past these faults because they're not in the crosshairs, but if Shanley Kane were a YC partner and saying "all men support rape culture, even if indirectly", there's no friggin way this comment section would be so sanguine.
If the preceding barrage of sarcasm didn't make it clear enough, I'm quite disgusted with sama and Hacker News right now. Taking the high road like this is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. Hacker News can gregariously see past these faults because they're not in the crosshairs, but if Shanley Kane were a YC partner and saying "all men support rape culture, even if indirectly", there's no friggin way this comment section would be so sanguine.
> Thiel just thinks giving women the right to vote was democracy's greatest mistake.
He's claimed not to actually think that [0]. Statistically, few women are Libertarians, and arguably, he was just referencing this point, which is apparently familiar to the Libertarian community, if not to the rest of us.
[0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage...
He's claimed not to actually think that [0]. Statistically, few women are Libertarians, and arguably, he was just referencing this point, which is apparently familiar to the Libertarian community, if not to the rest of us.
[0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage...
Brendan Eich[1] was essentially fired for supporting Prop 8 and he only donated $1,000. What frustrates me the most is the pure hypocrisy of liberal activists.
It is a dangerous precedent for left wing politics to adopt. What if right wing executives started calling for employees that support Hillary to be fired or publicly shaming them on Twitter? How it that any different?
My argument is not with Trump, because I am not voting for him and personally think he is an orangutan. My argument is with the utter hypocrisy of liberal activists.
[1] "Critics of Eich within Mozilla tweeted to gay activists that he had donated $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California until 2013, when it was declared unconstitutional and marriages were allowed to resume. Eich stood by his decision to fund the campaign, but wrote on his blog that he was sorry for “causing pain” and pledged to promote equality at Mozilla. Gay activists created an online shaming campaign against Eich, with OkCupid declaring they would block access to the Firefox browser unless he stepped down."
It is a dangerous precedent for left wing politics to adopt. What if right wing executives started calling for employees that support Hillary to be fired or publicly shaming them on Twitter? How it that any different?
My argument is not with Trump, because I am not voting for him and personally think he is an orangutan. My argument is with the utter hypocrisy of liberal activists.
[1] "Critics of Eich within Mozilla tweeted to gay activists that he had donated $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California until 2013, when it was declared unconstitutional and marriages were allowed to resume. Eich stood by his decision to fund the campaign, but wrote on his blog that he was sorry for “causing pain” and pledged to promote equality at Mozilla. Gay activists created an online shaming campaign against Eich, with OkCupid declaring they would block access to the Firefox browser unless he stepped down."
I'm confused, is this not a perfect example of the free market in action? Is this not exactly what conservatives suggest will (should) happen when we allow discrimination based on religious or personal views. They suggest that private individuals and organizations will refuse to work with those companies whose views they disagree with, and that in turn will force the companies to adapt or perish.
Is that not exactly what happened here? OkCupid refused to do work with Mozilla based on Mozilla's (CEO's) beliefs, and this led to action on the part of Mozilla.
I'm not sure how you can call this a liberal action when it is essentially what the right espouses as 'the way things should be'.
Is that not exactly what happened here? OkCupid refused to do work with Mozilla based on Mozilla's (CEO's) beliefs, and this led to action on the part of Mozilla.
I'm not sure how you can call this a liberal action when it is essentially what the right espouses as 'the way things should be'.
Brendan Eich's "firing" was such bullshit, I would have loved to see Mozilla's path had he gotten to actually work the job. I don't think we would have seen Brave, but Firefox/Mozilla may have had a resurgence under him we aren't seeing under current leadership.
Brendan Eich was damaging his company's reputation and, ultimately, economic prospects, by taking a public stance against marriage equality. His resignation is not a moral issue, his public support of the marriage equality ban was economically damaging to the company.
When a CEO's freedom of speech damages their company economically, what are shareholders supposed to do? Bear the cost so that the CEO can express their views?
When a CEO's freedom of speech damages their company economically, what are shareholders supposed to do? Bear the cost so that the CEO can express their views?
(Slight nitpick: Mozilla Corporation only has one financial shareholder, the Mozilla Foundation. It's a for-profit corporation that's a wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. It has stakeholders it answers to, such as the board of directors, but no shareholders.)
Just to clarify - his support wasn't public. It was a private donation, which was made public via journalists IIRC. As far as I know, he never publicly commented on the issue, at least before the firing.
Campaign contributions are public. His contribution to Prop 8 was always public. You can access all campaign contributions above $100, it's just a matter of downloading a file.
Edit: the Supreme Court judged that political contributions are a form of political speech. That is the reasoning behind striking down limitations to contribute. [1]
If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court?
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-...
Edit: the Supreme Court judged that political contributions are a form of political speech. That is the reasoning behind striking down limitations to contribute. [1]
If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court?
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-...
> If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court?
Yes, along with the majority of the country.
Yes, along with the majority of the country.
>When a CEO's freedom of speech damages their company economically, what are shareholders supposed to do?
A fair question, but Mozilla has no shareholders. It is a non-profit[0][1].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
A fair question, but Mozilla has no shareholders. It is a non-profit[0][1].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
>His resignation is not a moral issue, his public support of the marriage equality ban was economically damaging to the company.
That's funny, Mozilla is just getting worse and worse since he was forced to leave.
That's funny, Mozilla is just getting worse and worse since he was forced to leave.
Hypocrisy is the perfect word for it.
Calling such people "liberal" is a betrayal of the basic meaning of the term, IMO. They're the illiberal left, nothing more.
That's correct assuming you are referring to distinctions among "classical liberalism"[0], the more recent "social liberalism"[1], and related branches of liberalism.
In fact the tenets of classic liberal principles is more or less congruent with the ideology of American conservatism[2] again as contrasted with "social" and related forms of conservatism[3].
The extremes of the "social" variants of liberal and conservative thought define the appearance of the virulent modern versions of "left" and "right" wing politically-polarized positions.
Worth pointing out that other dichotomies of Republican/Democrat, populist/globalist construction are context-dependent and frequently orthogonal to a stance within the classic conservative/liberal political spectrum.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_Sta... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
In fact the tenets of classic liberal principles is more or less congruent with the ideology of American conservatism[2] again as contrasted with "social" and related forms of conservatism[3].
The extremes of the "social" variants of liberal and conservative thought define the appearance of the virulent modern versions of "left" and "right" wing politically-polarized positions.
Worth pointing out that other dichotomies of Republican/Democrat, populist/globalist construction are context-dependent and frequently orthogonal to a stance within the classic conservative/liberal political spectrum.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_Sta... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Say someone was fired for supporting Clinton in this election by a company run by a supported of Trump.
Would it make news?
Freedom of thought and speech was what America was founded on, so they say.
Would it make news?
Freedom of thought and speech was what America was founded on, so they say.
Political affiliations are protected classes in some states. Source: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimina...
Completely agree and my point, but my comment got downvoted immediately.
Political views are one aspect of a person, but they do not define that person. Thiel himself understands this. When he was a law school classmate with Alex Karp (now CEO of Palantir), they constantly argued bitterly over politics, because Karp held an extremely liberal point of view. They were also very good friends and have clearly maintained a very good business relationship.
I personally despise Trump, but I agree with Sam -- other people's political views don't really matter to me. Hopefully after this election ends, everyone can calm down and keep things in context. Business and politics are separate.
I personally despise Trump, but I agree with Sam -- other people's political views don't really matter to me. Hopefully after this election ends, everyone can calm down and keep things in context. Business and politics are separate.
Honestly it might be best to flag this thread until Sam's post comes. Otherwise we're going to have people arguing about whatever side with an incomplete context.
Edit: I see I'm being down voted but this tweet stream has about 4 different, intersecting contexts to deal with especially regarding people trying to pressure YC to drop their partnership with Peter and DHH saying he'd fire an employee for being a political surrogate for Trump.
But fine. Let's argue about one specific, tiny piece here and then we can do this all over again when Sam's post comes out.
Edit: I see I'm being down voted but this tweet stream has about 4 different, intersecting contexts to deal with especially regarding people trying to pressure YC to drop their partnership with Peter and DHH saying he'd fire an employee for being a political surrogate for Trump.
But fine. Let's argue about one specific, tiny piece here and then we can do this all over again when Sam's post comes out.
I think we pretty much have all the context we need on Trump, Thiel's views towards Trump, pg and sama's views of the Trump situation, Thiel's role at YC. It's all public information. Everybody should be able to express judgment on YC's way forward at this point.
I would appreciate some context and background as to what's going on, certainly. Twitter makes it pretty hard to backtrack through multiple conversations to figure out what started a particular thread.
Basically DHH (guy who basically created Ruby on Rails and Basecamp) complained to Sam about their partnership with Peter Thiel since he just donated over a $1 million to the Trump campaign. DHH, in his argument with Paul G, said that he would have fired an employee who was a Trump surrogate.
Lots of people supporting each person and it's basically a political shit show after that with some people saying you can't fire someone just for their political beliefs and others say Trump is an edge cased monster that should be handled differently.
That was my understanding of it but I missed some of the beginning. There were also big names that I can't find now that seemed to be retweeting each one in support.
Seems messy.
Lots of people supporting each person and it's basically a political shit show after that with some people saying you can't fire someone just for their political beliefs and others say Trump is an edge cased monster that should be handled differently.
That was my understanding of it but I missed some of the beginning. There were also big names that I can't find now that seemed to be retweeting each one in support.
Seems messy.
Persecuting people who hold unpopular or incorrect ideas has a very, very long history. Pushing them out of jobs, imprisonment, torture, even killing them have all been tried, over and over.
But all that did was drive the holders of those ideas underground. I don't know of anyone who actually changed their ideas due to persecution.
Free expression in the marketplace of ideas is how to persuade people, not persecution.
But all that did was drive the holders of those ideas underground. I don't know of anyone who actually changed their ideas due to persecution.
Free expression in the marketplace of ideas is how to persuade people, not persecution.
That wasn't really the issue that was raised, speaking of intellectual dishonesty. Plenty of companies withdrew advertising from the RNC over Trump. Business partnership is a contractual relationship between equals, not a hierarchical one with superiors and subordinates.
Also, a reminder of what I personally think about Trump from early this summer:
http://blog.samaltman.com/trump
http://blog.samaltman.com/trump
So why do you continue to do business with one of his greatest supporters?
At some point, these are just empty words. It would be less galling if you weren't an alarmist about Trump.
At some point, these are just empty words. It would be less galling if you weren't an alarmist about Trump.
Can you explain how you think YC cutting off ties with Peter Thiel would decrease the likelihood (even infinitesimally) that Donald Trump becomes president? There are a number of tangible things an individual could do to help defeat Trump, but personally shunning a Trump supporter (even one as prominent as Thiel) seems more like a gesture designed to signal your own purity as opposed to doing anything concrete to prevent Trump from becoming president. If anything, it would probably be used as further evidence by the most conservative 30% of the country that Silicon Valley is their enemy.
I don't think it would have any effect on the election. The real importance is to people in our industry, and young people who are thinking of entering our industry.
EDIT: This comment has substantial problems, though I think the conclusion is still essentially correct; see discussion below
Because that's liberalism. Separating concerns like this is the sort of thing that is fundamental to a liberal society.
Trump is a serious problem. He is fundamentally illiberal. But what sort of victory is it if we defeat Trump and give up on liberalism anyway? Yeah, that whole Enlightenment project, let's just toss that right out, because we need to do so to preserve the Enlightenment. Destroying the village is a wonderful way of saving it. Instead of rule by reactionary tyrants who determine what you can and can't say, we'll have rule by leftist tyrants who determine what you can and can't say! Such an improvement.
It does us no good to become the enemy in order to defeat it. And, what, are we to believe that this transformation is temporary? That oh sure maybe we'll fight dirty this time, but next time and in all the future times it will all be OK, liberal society will just come right back? No way. It is so much easier to destroy than to create. This sort of viciousness, of splitting everything into "us" and "them" and demanding that the "us" be in absolute control of everything... that's natural. That's human nature. To get people of different groups to live together without immediately going for each other's throats, to build the structures that allow that to occur, that takes work. We start down that road, we brush those supports aside, we're not coming back anytime soon.
And again -- the Trumpers are very, very, wrong, but if we use dirty tricks to go after them, all they'll see is that we're using dirty tricks to go after them. It's a mistake to think that our behavior doesn't influence theirs. If we break the "no firing people for political reasons" rule, then so will they. The eventual endpoint of all this is a split society where Democrats can only buy from Democrats and Republicans can only buy from Republicans... or maybe it's another 30-years war. I think "don't start another 30-years war" is a good rule. (Which is another reason not to vote Trump, because he'll try to go after the Muslims and the Mexicans, and then... but you know that already.)
In short, defeating Trump is important, but that's only part of what it's going to take to prevent a descent into illiberalism.
( Or maybe I'd be better off just linking to Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co... )
EDIT: Rereading, the final link is not actually appropriate in this case, given how much of a threat Donald Trump actually is. That said, I think my position is still basically correct due to the reasons I give in the grandchild comment.
Because that's liberalism. Separating concerns like this is the sort of thing that is fundamental to a liberal society.
Trump is a serious problem. He is fundamentally illiberal. But what sort of victory is it if we defeat Trump and give up on liberalism anyway? Yeah, that whole Enlightenment project, let's just toss that right out, because we need to do so to preserve the Enlightenment. Destroying the village is a wonderful way of saving it. Instead of rule by reactionary tyrants who determine what you can and can't say, we'll have rule by leftist tyrants who determine what you can and can't say! Such an improvement.
It does us no good to become the enemy in order to defeat it. And, what, are we to believe that this transformation is temporary? That oh sure maybe we'll fight dirty this time, but next time and in all the future times it will all be OK, liberal society will just come right back? No way. It is so much easier to destroy than to create. This sort of viciousness, of splitting everything into "us" and "them" and demanding that the "us" be in absolute control of everything... that's natural. That's human nature. To get people of different groups to live together without immediately going for each other's throats, to build the structures that allow that to occur, that takes work. We start down that road, we brush those supports aside, we're not coming back anytime soon.
And again -- the Trumpers are very, very, wrong, but if we use dirty tricks to go after them, all they'll see is that we're using dirty tricks to go after them. It's a mistake to think that our behavior doesn't influence theirs. If we break the "no firing people for political reasons" rule, then so will they. The eventual endpoint of all this is a split society where Democrats can only buy from Democrats and Republicans can only buy from Republicans... or maybe it's another 30-years war. I think "don't start another 30-years war" is a good rule. (Which is another reason not to vote Trump, because he'll try to go after the Muslims and the Mexicans, and then... but you know that already.)
In short, defeating Trump is important, but that's only part of what it's going to take to prevent a descent into illiberalism.
( Or maybe I'd be better off just linking to Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co... )
EDIT: Rereading, the final link is not actually appropriate in this case, given how much of a threat Donald Trump actually is. That said, I think my position is still basically correct due to the reasons I give in the grandchild comment.
No, it's not.
Any sufficiently complicated HN argument contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden implementation of half of John Rawls. This is a perfect example.
It is not liberalism to stand idly by while an intolerant faction attempts to seize political power. We are required to tolerate intolerance only as long as it doesn't pose a threat to the safety of society. In a just society, even if we can agree on little else, we should all be able to agree on about equality of citizenship and equality of opportunity. Trump campaigns, actively and enthusiastically, against these principles. He is, according to Sam Wang's predictive models, within the "strike zone" of potentially being elected President.
Were Trump like David Duke from 10 years ago, we'd be required to tolerate him despite his obvious intolerance towards us. But he's not: he's captured the support of tens of millions of American voters, all of whom are themselves enthusiastically supporting a platform that would create a religious test for entrance to the US, the "liberalization" of libel laws that would allow Trump to sue the New York Times for printing the claims of his sexual assault victims, and the incarceration of his political opponent. You don't have to take my word for this: that's what Paul Graham and Sam Altman think about him as well.
Trump is a real, urgent threat to the fabric of our civil society. We are obligated not to be passive about him. Society has a right to defend itself.
Any sufficiently complicated HN argument contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden implementation of half of John Rawls. This is a perfect example.
It is not liberalism to stand idly by while an intolerant faction attempts to seize political power. We are required to tolerate intolerance only as long as it doesn't pose a threat to the safety of society. In a just society, even if we can agree on little else, we should all be able to agree on about equality of citizenship and equality of opportunity. Trump campaigns, actively and enthusiastically, against these principles. He is, according to Sam Wang's predictive models, within the "strike zone" of potentially being elected President.
Were Trump like David Duke from 10 years ago, we'd be required to tolerate him despite his obvious intolerance towards us. But he's not: he's captured the support of tens of millions of American voters, all of whom are themselves enthusiastically supporting a platform that would create a religious test for entrance to the US, the "liberalization" of libel laws that would allow Trump to sue the New York Times for printing the claims of his sexual assault victims, and the incarceration of his political opponent. You don't have to take my word for this: that's what Paul Graham and Sam Altman think about him as well.
Trump is a real, urgent threat to the fabric of our civil society. We are obligated not to be passive about him. Society has a right to defend itself.
So, if we weren't in such a sorry state already, I'd actually be in complete agreement with you.
Ideally, yes, we'd distinguish between the more object-level norms and the meta-level norms required to defend them. And then we would do exactly as you say. It would be very nice to be able to do that.
You're absolutely right that I've conflated these above. There is a reason I did that, and I should have been explicit about that, but it is certainly not correct in general to do so like I did above.
The reason I didn't distinguish these above is because the defense system only works if it clearly is just a temporary defense system, if people in general are clear on the distinction. We ought to be able to say, "Nope, sorry, you're fundamentally illiberal, so we're not required to play nice with you," turn the cannon on them, and have it generally understood what we're doing. It would be a big relief.
The actual political situation is that the water has been muddied substantially. A large portion of what was the liberal faction has been captured by the illiberal left. A large amount of the population was never liberal anyway and won't get the distinction. Lots of people have been going around saying that the thing that makes Trump fundamentally different is... any number of things that are not the key reason Trump needs to be stopped.
In such a case, where most people likely won't see this crucial distinction, attempting to invoke this defense system is likely to appear no different than just abandoning liberalism. And if we allow it to look like we are, well, everyone else will then take that as an excuse.
I would really like to fire that cannon. We ought to be able to fire that cannon. This is, as you say, the exact sort of situation it was meant for! But it looks to me like nobody ever bothered to tie it down properly.
(If Trump stood more of a chance of victory, it might even be worth it. As it is, I'm not seeing it.)
Ideally, yes, we'd distinguish between the more object-level norms and the meta-level norms required to defend them. And then we would do exactly as you say. It would be very nice to be able to do that.
You're absolutely right that I've conflated these above. There is a reason I did that, and I should have been explicit about that, but it is certainly not correct in general to do so like I did above.
The reason I didn't distinguish these above is because the defense system only works if it clearly is just a temporary defense system, if people in general are clear on the distinction. We ought to be able to say, "Nope, sorry, you're fundamentally illiberal, so we're not required to play nice with you," turn the cannon on them, and have it generally understood what we're doing. It would be a big relief.
The actual political situation is that the water has been muddied substantially. A large portion of what was the liberal faction has been captured by the illiberal left. A large amount of the population was never liberal anyway and won't get the distinction. Lots of people have been going around saying that the thing that makes Trump fundamentally different is... any number of things that are not the key reason Trump needs to be stopped.
In such a case, where most people likely won't see this crucial distinction, attempting to invoke this defense system is likely to appear no different than just abandoning liberalism. And if we allow it to look like we are, well, everyone else will then take that as an excuse.
I would really like to fire that cannon. We ought to be able to fire that cannon. This is, as you say, the exact sort of situation it was meant for! But it looks to me like nobody ever bothered to tie it down properly.
(If Trump stood more of a chance of victory, it might even be worth it. As it is, I'm not seeing it.)
[deleted]
Sam, probably best to let this whole thing blow over.
People are not here to have an impartial, rational discussion... unfortunately...
People are not here to have an impartial, rational discussion... unfortunately...
Sometimes it's hard to follow the logic of conversations on Twitter. In this case, I'm pretty sure the original question posed by DHH was simply: has Thiel put more money into Trump's candidacy, or investing in promising YC startups[1]?
Seems a fair and legitimate question.
How it devolved into "at what point do you fire someone for their political activities?" is an interesting sidetrack; however, I think it's still ancillary to the original question.
Seems a fair and legitimate question.
How it devolved into "at what point do you fire someone for their political activities?" is an interesting sidetrack; however, I think it's still ancillary to the original question.
[1] https://twitter.com/dhh/status/787547255259758592This is why we have a secret ballot voting system in the US.
Of course, Thiel is not a YC employee, so a statement about firing someone is irrelevant.
The argument between DHH and Paul became a hypothetical about firing an employee like that. DHH was very for it.
I'm sure they have each other on speed dial though.
Thiel definitely wants to continue to have a fast track towards investing into high-growth YC startups, and YC doesn't want to damage that relationship.
This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic society, taking a different (not to say, also completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's livelihood.
Thiel definitely wants to continue to have a fast track towards investing into high-growth YC startups, and YC doesn't want to damage that relationship.
This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic society, taking a different (not to say, also completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's livelihood.
> This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic country, taking a different (not to say, completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's livelihood.
I would not buy a Rift because there is no way on God's green earth that I would reward Palmer Luckey monetarily for supporting "shitposting" even if it was not directly related to the kinds of people (/pol/ dross and others) who have issued death and rape threats to people I know and care about. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening his livelihood". I also don't buy video games made by EA because I think they are a company that has some real bad practices. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening the livelihoods" of everybody who works there. We live as political beings, and that goes beyond what you say to what you do. Buying a USB sound card (which I just did a few moments ago) on Amazon is an expression of multiple political beliefs: that I am okay with large retailers over small ones in some situations, that I am okay with purchasing imported items, particularly from China, given the price of the item (i.e. I'm not willing to pay more than X% for "Made in the USA"). Probably a few others that I don't consciously recognize, at the moment. You can't opt out of being a political creature because you live in a goddamned polity. You can only take responsibility for how your actions impact others, and you can suffer the slings and arrows of what those others believe in return.
And there is nothing undemocratic about refusing to associate, monetarily or otherwise, with somebody you don't like. There is something undemocratic about attempting to levy laws saying that they can't participate in the political process. Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest.
I would not buy a Rift because there is no way on God's green earth that I would reward Palmer Luckey monetarily for supporting "shitposting" even if it was not directly related to the kinds of people (/pol/ dross and others) who have issued death and rape threats to people I know and care about. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening his livelihood". I also don't buy video games made by EA because I think they are a company that has some real bad practices. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening the livelihoods" of everybody who works there. We live as political beings, and that goes beyond what you say to what you do. Buying a USB sound card (which I just did a few moments ago) on Amazon is an expression of multiple political beliefs: that I am okay with large retailers over small ones in some situations, that I am okay with purchasing imported items, particularly from China, given the price of the item (i.e. I'm not willing to pay more than X% for "Made in the USA"). Probably a few others that I don't consciously recognize, at the moment. You can't opt out of being a political creature because you live in a goddamned polity. You can only take responsibility for how your actions impact others, and you can suffer the slings and arrows of what those others believe in return.
And there is nothing undemocratic about refusing to associate, monetarily or otherwise, with somebody you don't like. There is something undemocratic about attempting to levy laws saying that they can't participate in the political process. Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest.
I really don't think it's reasonable to put this level of responsibility on others' actions (yourself? fine). Three years ago, regardless of your political stance, you couldn't drive to work without implicitly supporting foreign oil interests (not everyone can afford housing with great "walk scores"), now you might be able to if you can afford an electric car (still, a pretty unreasonable expectation).
Voting? Sure, that's one thing, but buying a USB sound card from an American e-commerce site (which, I really had no reason to doubt you actually did a few moments ago in the first place...)?!
What's the politically aboveboard alternative here? Building your own DIY DAC from 'MURICAN-made Texas Instruments components (yeah, I'm sure they have a "morally cleansed" supply chain, too...)?
You're taking things to the extreme. Yes, a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane, but let's be realistic here.
Given that there is such a fine line between reductio ad absurdum and strawman, my position stated a bit more clearly:
Employees' political views shouldn't _completely jeopardize_ their livelihood in the form of causing them to lose their jobs.
"Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest."
I'll give you that. It probably wasn't fair (even though, as they say, if it smells like a rat...) for me to assume recent actions taken by Facebook towards Palmer were a direct result of his public political activity/views.
EDIT: I can't resist casting judgment, but in this day and age of dire social problems like "climate change" and "black lives matter," I think it's telling that your idea of political activism is buying, of all things, a USB sound card.
Voting? Sure, that's one thing, but buying a USB sound card from an American e-commerce site (which, I really had no reason to doubt you actually did a few moments ago in the first place...)?!
What's the politically aboveboard alternative here? Building your own DIY DAC from 'MURICAN-made Texas Instruments components (yeah, I'm sure they have a "morally cleansed" supply chain, too...)?
You're taking things to the extreme. Yes, a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane, but let's be realistic here.
Given that there is such a fine line between reductio ad absurdum and strawman, my position stated a bit more clearly:
Employees' political views shouldn't _completely jeopardize_ their livelihood in the form of causing them to lose their jobs.
"Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest."
I'll give you that. It probably wasn't fair (even though, as they say, if it smells like a rat...) for me to assume recent actions taken by Facebook towards Palmer were a direct result of his public political activity/views.
EDIT: I can't resist casting judgment, but in this day and age of dire social problems like "climate change" and "black lives matter," I think it's telling that your idea of political activism is buying, of all things, a USB sound card.
The claim is that even something trivial like buying the card is a political act, not that it is activism.
Wait, what's the difference between a political act and political ACTivism?
For me, intent. Saying that buying the drive is a political act is a recognition that there are consequences to the system that makes it available. But there's not necessarily any intent to engage with those consequences when a drive is purchased.
Writing the manufacturer a letter questioning their practices would be activism, it is done with the intent to change the consequences. I guess you could also engage with the intent to prevent change.
Writing the manufacturer a letter questioning their practices would be activism, it is done with the intent to change the consequences. I guess you could also engage with the intent to prevent change.
Activism is an attempt to effect or advocate for the effecting of change in your polity. A political act is just an action with repercussions in your polity. (But this is why I used the word expression.)
How doesn't that contradict your argument? Shouldn't buying a USB sound card be considered activism? I'm not sure where to draw the line (since both your definitions have repercussions, in particular, you seem to be much more acutely aware of them than the average person in everyday scenarios, making your actions arguably activism).
Actions with an inextricably political component (which is to say, damned near everything) requires awareness and an understanding of what it encourages and reifies in order to be a decent human, but they are not taken with the political consequence as a primary motivator.
When engaging in activism, the political consequence is the point.
When engaging in activism, the political consequence is the point.
I think you have tremendously misunderstood my post if you think I was calling buying a USB sound card "political activism." I called it political expression. One of literally dozens, perhaps hundreds expressions I performed today. And those political activities, those actions within the context of my polity, reinforce my views on society (and ambivalence or a lack of give-a-shit is, too, a belief). Now, you are definitely, one hundred percent right that there are cases where there are no good answers and you have to do the best you can with what you have available! But Donald fucking Trump (or Palmer fucking Luckey) have no interests that relate to such things. You don't have to live in TrumpCo housing, you don't have to buy Trump Steaks, you don't have to watch The Apprentice (though that's probably dead now), and you don't have to buy an Oculus Rift. So the idea of castigating people for opting not to support people whose active practices are bad and wrong and should not be promulgated is absolutely bonkers-silly. I compromised when buying that USB sound card because I would, all things being equal, buy a device from a seller who used labor practices and manufacturing practices that I was 100% on-board with--but I couldn't source one in the time I needed and I have a budget, and I needed it for a project whose failure would be more harmful to people I know and interact with on an everyday basis than the marginal harms caused by the purchase. But I thought about it before I did it, and came to the conclusion that it was an acceptable expression of what I actually believe.
You express your political beliefs--and your religious beliefs, and your philosophical beliefs--not just by your vote, but by your actions. Every day. It never stops. You can never, ever, ever opt out. These beliefs are your character, and your character is who you are in the dark. Either you do them, or you don't believe them. There's no middle ground. You can't have beliefs and then not practice them (to the best of your ability, with natural accommodations for factors that prevent you from practicing them--like, this is why I emphatically don't cast Oculus employees in a poor light for being unfortunately attached to that company, because most people can't up and quit a job at a moment's notice).
If the idea that "the practice of your beliefs is the having of them" is extreme, then we should all off ourselves and let the cockroaches have their shot. But it's not extreme. It's just uncomfortable to have it pointed out that you might not be practicing what you preach.
.
Moving on--I do think Facebook shoved Luckey in the basement for his political activity. They should. He makes the company look dirty. He makes people who work at Facebook feel less safe because he is making war on them (in the "politics is war by other means" sense of the word) for their ethnicity or their gender. I don't think that it's either incorrect nor pejorative to say that, if not for legal obligations, he probably would have been shitcanned immediately and it would have been for his political activity. And that's OK. When your politics are effectively existential threats towards people, "fuck you" is a pretty okay response. And that goes both ways. Bringing it back to a personal level: I destroy jobs because I'm a computer programmer and that's not a good thing for a lot of people. They can tell me to go fuck myself, they can choose not to interact with me. It's unlikely to have an impact, but they can. So it is up the chain, too.
"Free speech" comes with consequences. So it is, and so it must be, or "free speech" is one-way. (Which is really what most--not necessarily you, I'm not a mind reader, but most--people who advocate for tolerance towards conservative and, frankly, reactionary politics are really angling for: the freedom to do unto others.)
You express your political beliefs--and your religious beliefs, and your philosophical beliefs--not just by your vote, but by your actions. Every day. It never stops. You can never, ever, ever opt out. These beliefs are your character, and your character is who you are in the dark. Either you do them, or you don't believe them. There's no middle ground. You can't have beliefs and then not practice them (to the best of your ability, with natural accommodations for factors that prevent you from practicing them--like, this is why I emphatically don't cast Oculus employees in a poor light for being unfortunately attached to that company, because most people can't up and quit a job at a moment's notice).
If the idea that "the practice of your beliefs is the having of them" is extreme, then we should all off ourselves and let the cockroaches have their shot. But it's not extreme. It's just uncomfortable to have it pointed out that you might not be practicing what you preach.
.
Moving on--I do think Facebook shoved Luckey in the basement for his political activity. They should. He makes the company look dirty. He makes people who work at Facebook feel less safe because he is making war on them (in the "politics is war by other means" sense of the word) for their ethnicity or their gender. I don't think that it's either incorrect nor pejorative to say that, if not for legal obligations, he probably would have been shitcanned immediately and it would have been for his political activity. And that's OK. When your politics are effectively existential threats towards people, "fuck you" is a pretty okay response. And that goes both ways. Bringing it back to a personal level: I destroy jobs because I'm a computer programmer and that's not a good thing for a lot of people. They can tell me to go fuck myself, they can choose not to interact with me. It's unlikely to have an impact, but they can. So it is up the chain, too.
"Free speech" comes with consequences. So it is, and so it must be, or "free speech" is one-way. (Which is really what most--not necessarily you, I'm not a mind reader, but most--people who advocate for tolerance towards conservative and, frankly, reactionary politics are really angling for: the freedom to do unto others.)
I think people take symbolism too seriously. I won't argue that it never matters what message an organization sends, but people should stop apophenically inferring messages where there are none. This would include, for example, adopting the charitable explanation that Thiel was hired as a source of valuable advice to YC startups, not because YC supports Trump.
I'd like a serious answer to this, actually: why does this matter?
I'd like a serious answer to this, actually: why does this matter?
Hm, I paused for a second before using that word. Did I use it wrong?
No, not at all, it's just that it's a word I'd never seen before and so I figured better to add a link for those who also haven't seen it used before.
Google comes up with 400 results for it, and this is the first time it's used on HN.
Google comes up with 400 results for it, and this is the first time it's used on HN.
Sam believes Trump bears similarities to Hitler (http://blog.samaltman.com/trump). So:
Trump:Hitler::Thiel:?
When you write something like this:
In the words of Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." This would be a good time for us all—even Republicans, especially Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump—to start speaking up.
And then do nothing, it just comes off as sanctimonious and hypocritical.
Trump:Hitler::Thiel:?
When you write something like this:
In the words of Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." This would be a good time for us all—even Republicans, especially Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump—to start speaking up.
And then do nothing, it just comes off as sanctimonious and hypocritical.
So I'm I right in thinking that there is a call to 'punish' some people due to their (albeit unpopular with many) political views? That doesn't seem very progressive or civilised...undemocratic even.
There are (at least) two views to this, I think. One view is that the personal and business aspects of a persons life are separate and one shouldn't necessarily affect the other, which is the argument that Sam Altman is making here. The second view is that they are definitely linked, and allowing someone to do something morally reprehensible (if you consider supporting Donald Trump that) means that they aren't with the vision of the company and it's fine to fire them.
The reality is that it depends on the level of the person in the organization (as well as the organization itself, but that's not part of this argument). For example, if a janitor supports Donald Trump, that doesn't really affect the business because no one outside the organization thinks that the janitor is representative of the organization as a whole. However, if a C-level employee did something that's considered morally reprehensible, it can affect the business because people associate the business with the people that run it.
In this case, I don't agree that Thiel should be "fired" because people wouldn't immediately associate Thiel with the company and he doesn't "work" full time with them (he's a part time partner). If Sam Altman had come out in support of Trump with a donation that would be a different story.
The reality is that it depends on the level of the person in the organization (as well as the organization itself, but that's not part of this argument). For example, if a janitor supports Donald Trump, that doesn't really affect the business because no one outside the organization thinks that the janitor is representative of the organization as a whole. However, if a C-level employee did something that's considered morally reprehensible, it can affect the business because people associate the business with the people that run it.
In this case, I don't agree that Thiel should be "fired" because people wouldn't immediately associate Thiel with the company and he doesn't "work" full time with them (he's a part time partner). If Sam Altman had come out in support of Trump with a donation that would be a different story.
What justice Roberts said about forming opinions [0] holds true For me and anything "Trump"
My gut is one thing but when i actually write (type) it out I get surprised how I change my opinion.
I can't find a cspan interview where he was even more open about how the act of writing out opinions often makes one change your initial thoughts
[0] http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2661589&page=1
My gut is one thing but when i actually write (type) it out I get surprised how I change my opinion.
I can't find a cspan interview where he was even more open about how the act of writing out opinions often makes one change your initial thoughts
[0] http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2661589&page=1
[deleted]
Why don't people see Thiel as SV's insurance ? If (atheist-god forbid) trump wins, you have an enthusiastic supporter and firm SV believer by his side (who also happens to be gay) to contain the wild beast. Would you rather have some evangelical nutjob who would put fig leaves on your porn?
[deleted]
Is it me, or is making this about "firing" a bit of slight-of-hand. Thiel is a partner, not an employee. Choosing who to partner with isn't the same as firing an employee.
If YC continues to partner with Thiel, everything they say about promoting women in tech is bullshit.
If YC continues to partner with Thiel, everything they say about promoting women in tech is bullshit.
I don't know where I stand on this issue but to see people defending this as 'persecuting someone for their political views' seems a little odd. Thiel is openly supporting and funding a presidential candidate piping hate in to your country's population in the form of racism, misogyny etc etc - This is not a political view everyone, it is hate speech. This is not political to me. Thiel is funding a hate machine and helping him stay on the biggest platform in the world so he can continue.
What is political about that?
In the UK you could say you support the British National party because they want free school tuition but a large part of their platform is racist - and discredited because of it.
I try and be fairly neutral and absolutely find 'justice warrior' type stances to be awful, unjust and discriminatory. I just don't see how this can be defended. Propaganda and hatred should not be called 'political' to make it OK that some rich guy gave him a ton of cash.
What is political about that?
In the UK you could say you support the British National party because they want free school tuition but a large part of their platform is racist - and discredited because of it.
I try and be fairly neutral and absolutely find 'justice warrior' type stances to be awful, unjust and discriminatory. I just don't see how this can be defended. Propaganda and hatred should not be called 'political' to make it OK that some rich guy gave him a ton of cash.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Am I missing something? What's this about?
There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.
Don't lie with dogs. Don't take money from Andreessen if you think Snowden was a hero. Don't continue to partner with Thiel after he continues to support Trump after revelations of sexual predation put to rest that any of this is just folksy bluntness. Trump is the most dangerous candidate I've ever seen. MSNBC has reported that he's contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against ISIS.
Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC, and frankly surprising given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping first and money second.
Don't lie with dogs. Don't take money from Andreessen if you think Snowden was a hero. Don't continue to partner with Thiel after he continues to support Trump after revelations of sexual predation put to rest that any of this is just folksy bluntness. Trump is the most dangerous candidate I've ever seen. MSNBC has reported that he's contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against ISIS.
Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC, and frankly surprising given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping first and money second.
> Don't lie with dogs. Don't take money from Andreessen if you think Snowden was a hero. Don't continue to partner with Thiel after he continues to support Trump after revelations of sexual predation put to rest that any of this is just folksy bluntness.
This is just silly. For most people, even the most angelic, ideal political figure has done things and made decisions that people can credibly consider to be "evil". If someone from Code Pink told me that Hillary Clinton's consistent, unwarranted hawkishness meant that she had the blood of 100s of thousands on her hands and was irredeemable, I'm not convinced I could mount a credible defense of her actions (again, I think you could find such a decision for most politicians). The idea that I should fire every Hillary supporter because of this is beyond ridiculous (and it's hardly a slam-dunk case that hundreds of thousands dead in (e.g.) Iraq is a lesser sin that whatever Andreesen and Trump have done).
To be clear, I'm not endorsing the above point of view, but rather pointing out how doomed to collapse your model of the world is. Punishing people for supporting political figures who you think are irredeemable is disgusting, and it's insane to me that it's not immediately obvious to you that this is a weapon that can be pointed in every direction.
This is just silly. For most people, even the most angelic, ideal political figure has done things and made decisions that people can credibly consider to be "evil". If someone from Code Pink told me that Hillary Clinton's consistent, unwarranted hawkishness meant that she had the blood of 100s of thousands on her hands and was irredeemable, I'm not convinced I could mount a credible defense of her actions (again, I think you could find such a decision for most politicians). The idea that I should fire every Hillary supporter because of this is beyond ridiculous (and it's hardly a slam-dunk case that hundreds of thousands dead in (e.g.) Iraq is a lesser sin that whatever Andreesen and Trump have done).
To be clear, I'm not endorsing the above point of view, but rather pointing out how doomed to collapse your model of the world is. Punishing people for supporting political figures who you think are irredeemable is disgusting, and it's insane to me that it's not immediately obvious to you that this is a weapon that can be pointed in every direction.
This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men. There are dictators that rise, and there are would-be dictators that were resisted strongly enough before hand to stop their rise in the first place.
Hillary Clinton is not a dictator. Thiel is not an employee. I do treat people differently based on their actions and who they support and you should to. Putin didn't just walk up to the Kremlin and tell them he was going to seize power, he was able to do it because people let him, then he seized the press to complete his control over the information Russians have access to.
Hillary Clinton is not a dictator. Thiel is not an employee. I do treat people differently based on their actions and who they support and you should to. Putin didn't just walk up to the Kremlin and tell them he was going to seize power, he was able to do it because people let him, then he seized the press to complete his control over the information Russians have access to.
> This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men.
There is no universal agreement on how to categorize every action into "evil" or "not evil". Those of us who are capable of understanding society as being larger than our tiny little bubble are aware that there are people on the other side of each issue that feel just as strongly about their points. For every person who claims Trump is "clearly evil", you can find a person who claims Hillary is. These claims per se are worth approximately nothing, particularly when you expect other people to act based on your interpretation of what evil is. 60 years ago you'd find people openly stating that interracial marriage was evil; 100 years ago being insufficiently religious was evil. I find it extraordinarily childish when people take the position that they can fight dirty because they claim they have the moral high ground. News flash: _everyone thinks they're on the moral high ground_.
Look, I don't even like the guy, and from the beginning of the election season Clinton has had my vote, but this existential total-war approach to politics is disgusting.
> Hillary Clinton is not a dictator
When exactly were you imbued with the divine right to decide that 1) being "a dictator" is the only relevant factor for demanding that people divest from supporting a candidate and 2) Trump is a dictator (using a definition of "dictator" that literally nobody else in the universe uses)?
If someone claimed that Hillary Clinton was pro-rape and pro-rape-culture for attacking victims of sexual assault[1] and that justified demands that someone else cut ties with a Clinton-supporting "part-time partner" of their firm, I'd find it just as abhorrent.
Your bar for cutting ties with someone is that they support a political candidate that _you_ find evil (or more evil than the alternative). Given that your voice isn't worth anything more than anyone else in the country, this ends up reducing to "people are obligated to cut ties with any figure for whom at least one random dude thinks they're evil". I hope it's clear how nonsensical that is.
There is no universal agreement on how to categorize every action into "evil" or "not evil". Those of us who are capable of understanding society as being larger than our tiny little bubble are aware that there are people on the other side of each issue that feel just as strongly about their points. For every person who claims Trump is "clearly evil", you can find a person who claims Hillary is. These claims per se are worth approximately nothing, particularly when you expect other people to act based on your interpretation of what evil is. 60 years ago you'd find people openly stating that interracial marriage was evil; 100 years ago being insufficiently religious was evil. I find it extraordinarily childish when people take the position that they can fight dirty because they claim they have the moral high ground. News flash: _everyone thinks they're on the moral high ground_.
Look, I don't even like the guy, and from the beginning of the election season Clinton has had my vote, but this existential total-war approach to politics is disgusting.
> Hillary Clinton is not a dictator
When exactly were you imbued with the divine right to decide that 1) being "a dictator" is the only relevant factor for demanding that people divest from supporting a candidate and 2) Trump is a dictator (using a definition of "dictator" that literally nobody else in the universe uses)?
If someone claimed that Hillary Clinton was pro-rape and pro-rape-culture for attacking victims of sexual assault[1] and that justified demands that someone else cut ties with a Clinton-supporting "part-time partner" of their firm, I'd find it just as abhorrent.
Your bar for cutting ties with someone is that they support a political candidate that _you_ find evil (or more evil than the alternative). Given that your voice isn't worth anything more than anyone else in the country, this ends up reducing to "people are obligated to cut ties with any figure for whom at least one random dude thinks they're evil". I hope it's clear how nonsensical that is.
So should we despise people who support Hillary too? She's no pure angel either.
If Hillary (or Trump) say things so despicable that could reasonably get you fired if you weren't repeating a presidential candidate, then we should despise anyone who repeats those words or explicitly supports those words.
I'm not currently aware of things that Hillary said that would be considered independently reprehensible if my coworker said them, but if I missed it I'd like to hear it, but if such statements exist I would have no problem saying anyone who repeated such statements should be despised.
If someone says they support some weird tax plan, it also doesn't matter whether some mainstream candidate proposed it, that is simply never grounds for disciplinary action. If someone says that women simply don't belong in the board room, that is grounds for disciplinary regardless of which party candidate said it before you.
I'm not currently aware of things that Hillary said that would be considered independently reprehensible if my coworker said them, but if I missed it I'd like to hear it, but if such statements exist I would have no problem saying anyone who repeated such statements should be despised.
If someone says they support some weird tax plan, it also doesn't matter whether some mainstream candidate proposed it, that is simply never grounds for disciplinary action. If someone says that women simply don't belong in the board room, that is grounds for disciplinary regardless of which party candidate said it before you.
I'm not saying it was you, but folks on HN have defended the rights of people to publish rape fantasy. That, in my opinion, is at least as bad, and probably worse. No one called for them to lose their jobs. The hypocrisy is hard to deal with.
Hillary has some views and statements that I find reprehensible, but the contrast with Trump would make most of my complaints seem silly.
Yes, but Hillary has done some despicable things, like defending a child rapist (and laughing about it).
Certainly no angel, but doesn't promote hate either. Absence of hail is not sunshine.
The only difference between Hillary and Trump is her corruption is complicated enough to sweep under a rug.
She doesn't openly advocate corruption. If you seek leadership in your organization and that leader openly advocates corruption, then that's a clear red flag. For the rest, trust due process and facts.
ps: I'm Canadian, I couldn't care less. In most provinces, both candidates would be considered center-right and hawkish war-mongers. edit: I do care, in terms of avoiding populism and war, but I'm not a strong Clinton advocate either. Just a concerned neighbour.
ps: I'm Canadian, I couldn't care less. In most provinces, both candidates would be considered center-right and hawkish war-mongers. edit: I do care, in terms of avoiding populism and war, but I'm not a strong Clinton advocate either. Just a concerned neighbour.
Moral accusations aside (after all, no politician has a clean slate), I'm really curious why you think it's a good idea to mix politics and business?
Personally, though, I think both candidates have their fair share of dirt. Here in California, we are pretty shielded from the other side. I've been home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (where pg is from) for the past month working remotely, and it has been a real eye-opener hearing the other side of the story.
Full disclosure: I'm voting for Hillary.
> "given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping first and money second"
Can you elaborate? Not that I disagree with you, but I am curious what your thoughts are.
> "Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC"
I strongly disagree ("BUT {mainstream political candidate} is, represents, or supports X" isn't a valid rebuttal either, no matter what X is -- supporting said candidate should never justify an employer jeopardizing one's livelihood in a _truly_ democratic society; McCarthyism is a great analogy).
Personally, though, I think both candidates have their fair share of dirt. Here in California, we are pretty shielded from the other side. I've been home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (where pg is from) for the past month working remotely, and it has been a real eye-opener hearing the other side of the story.
Full disclosure: I'm voting for Hillary.
> "given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping first and money second"
Can you elaborate? Not that I disagree with you, but I am curious what your thoughts are.
> "Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC"
I strongly disagree ("BUT {mainstream political candidate} is, represents, or supports X" isn't a valid rebuttal either, no matter what X is -- supporting said candidate should never justify an employer jeopardizing one's livelihood in a _truly_ democratic society; McCarthyism is a great analogy).
Because the stakes are different this time. You can support anyone, even Ted Cruz and I'll continue to do business with you, while disagreeing with almost everything you say. But Trump threatens the survival of American democracy. Trump threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is.
This is the kind of familiar diatribe I am talking about, that I've heard over and over again about every Republican Party candidate:
"But Bush threatens the survival of American democracy. Bush threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is."
^ Does this ring a bell to you? It should.
No need for exaggerated inflammatory language.
Yes, I don't like Trump at all either, but just vote for Hillary like I am, instead of issuing an opinionated ad hominem attack. You're better than that. There's no reason to believe almost half of our fellow American population is behind a fascist dictator.
"But Bush threatens the survival of American democracy. Bush threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is."
^ Does this ring a bell to you? It should.
No need for exaggerated inflammatory language.
Yes, I don't like Trump at all either, but just vote for Hillary like I am, instead of issuing an opinionated ad hominem attack. You're better than that. There's no reason to believe almost half of our fellow American population is behind a fascist dictator.
You are correct in that the rhetoric used regarding Bush was in retrospect overheated, though it cannot be forgotten that George W. Bush is a literal-not-fictional war criminal by most reasonable readings of international law; Bush was by no means even a mediocre politician but ranks comfortably in the bottom ten of American presidents, ever. He earned every drop of rancor he got.
Trump is a difference of kind, not degree. He is an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite (and not in the "don't agree with Israel, AIPAC says you're an anti-Semite" fashion but the actual, "happy to imply that Jews secretly run the world" anti-Semite position). He has admitted to sexual assault on tape and tries to discredit those with claims against him by implying that the women in question are too ugly to assault. He is actively attempting to undermine trust in American elections by claiming that all of the polls are lying and that the only way he can lose is that the election is rigged. He is the venal id of the reactionary right and he is different from anything that came before. These are not things that have been done even by Republicans. They are not merely things that can be waved away with muddy gray-fallacy middle-ground thinking; that Trump's candidacy is credible in the face of the literal daily drop of another crime or another attempt to undermine the electoral system in which he is participating is an incipient threat to that system.
This is not a game of Internet gotcha-fallacy where victory goes to the first person who can quote a bit of Latin they don't understand, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" in the first place. It is a moral argument to character. People aren't saying that arguments made by to Trump or Trump's supporters are invalid because they're blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes, they're saying that Trump and Trump's supporters are abjectly terrifying and blisteringly unqualified to be anywhere near the levers of power to a degree heretofore unseen because they are blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes. What they are is why the argument is made.
Trump is a difference of kind, not degree. He is an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite (and not in the "don't agree with Israel, AIPAC says you're an anti-Semite" fashion but the actual, "happy to imply that Jews secretly run the world" anti-Semite position). He has admitted to sexual assault on tape and tries to discredit those with claims against him by implying that the women in question are too ugly to assault. He is actively attempting to undermine trust in American elections by claiming that all of the polls are lying and that the only way he can lose is that the election is rigged. He is the venal id of the reactionary right and he is different from anything that came before. These are not things that have been done even by Republicans. They are not merely things that can be waved away with muddy gray-fallacy middle-ground thinking; that Trump's candidacy is credible in the face of the literal daily drop of another crime or another attempt to undermine the electoral system in which he is participating is an incipient threat to that system.
This is not a game of Internet gotcha-fallacy where victory goes to the first person who can quote a bit of Latin they don't understand, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" in the first place. It is a moral argument to character. People aren't saying that arguments made by to Trump or Trump's supporters are invalid because they're blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes, they're saying that Trump and Trump's supporters are abjectly terrifying and blisteringly unqualified to be anywhere near the levers of power to a degree heretofore unseen because they are blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes. What they are is why the argument is made.
Yes, there is no fallacious reasoning if one takes your well-written hyperbole literally, but given that it is just exaggeration, these arguments are still invalid attacks on character.
Regardless, I'm not here to defend Trump (at risk of contradicting myself, I actually agree with everything you say about his character, even if they are "ad hominem" attacks); my position is still that someone shouldn't lose their job over supporting a mainstream political candidate; that is not Democratic, and reeks of infringing on one's First Amendment rights.
If we're in North Korea, yes, you should at the very least get fired (and also sentenced to hard labor) over your political views; but this is America.
The one aspect of diversity that the Valley needs to work on improving is tolerance of alternative (read: mainstream Republican Party) political views -- it has only gotten worse here over time.
I can't possibly see how anyone aware of these principles at stake can somehow feel justified in undermining them.
Regardless, I'm not here to defend Trump (at risk of contradicting myself, I actually agree with everything you say about his character, even if they are "ad hominem" attacks); my position is still that someone shouldn't lose their job over supporting a mainstream political candidate; that is not Democratic, and reeks of infringing on one's First Amendment rights.
If we're in North Korea, yes, you should at the very least get fired (and also sentenced to hard labor) over your political views; but this is America.
The one aspect of diversity that the Valley needs to work on improving is tolerance of alternative (read: mainstream Republican Party) political views -- it has only gotten worse here over time.
I can't possibly see how anyone aware of these principles at stake can somehow feel justified in undermining them.
Because they're not being undermined. No private citizen is required to associate with any other private citizen except for the provision of protected classes in the course of public service or public business (and that is not an obligation of the patron, but rather an obligation of the business; a business is required to accept the custom of a black man, a black man is not required to patronize the Klan).
What I am saying only has become even slightly controversial as the reactionary right has lost power and the ability to exert their desired mores in society. Political activity earns political response, and if you want to make a case for the lack of ethics of such a thing I invite you to make it instead of just claim the end result.
What I am saying only has become even slightly controversial as the reactionary right has lost power and the ability to exert their desired mores in society. Political activity earns political response, and if you want to make a case for the lack of ethics of such a thing I invite you to make it instead of just claim the end result.
Okay, so a public business shouldn't fire someone for having dissenting political views -- that is discrimination, and it is the same kind of discrimination as any other: racial, sexual, etc. We're not talking about Altman and Thiel's friendship here.
In fact, there are laws:
California
The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies.
(^ note: IANAL, and this is not a legal threat against ANYONE)
So it looks like the governing body of the State of California is in majority agreement with our position.
In fact, there are laws:
California
The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies.
(^ note: IANAL, and this is not a legal threat against ANYONE)
So it looks like the governing body of the State of California is in majority agreement with our position.
You're making a mistake that seems to be common in the US. You're assuming politics can just be excluded or ignored somehow. It's an idea that is utterly ridiculous.
Politics is about designing how humans live together. Everything you do or say that somehow has an effect on another human being, whether it is direct or indirect, whether it changes or reaffirms the status quo is political.
Continueing to do business with Thiel is just as political as to stop doing business with him. To pretend otherwise only shows both how privileged and ignorant of politics you are.
Politics is about designing how humans live together. Everything you do or say that somehow has an effect on another human being, whether it is direct or indirect, whether it changes or reaffirms the status quo is political.
Continueing to do business with Thiel is just as political as to stop doing business with him. To pretend otherwise only shows both how privileged and ignorant of politics you are.
/s/politics/government
Yes, and I'm not talking about "social politics" which pervade every social interaction (given we're still very much a tribal species); I'm talking about governing politics -- which political party someone belongs to, which candidate they support, which mainstream opinions they have, etc.
Yes, and I'm not talking about "social politics" which pervade every social interaction (given we're still very much a tribal species); I'm talking about governing politics -- which political party someone belongs to, which candidate they support, which mainstream opinions they have, etc.
The difference between the two is merely one of scale and often not even that. This election shows this especially well. Gay marriage, abortion and many other issues that are "social politics" are very much on the table.
The main issues are things like immigration, trade, health care, foreign policy, etc.
These social issues are mainly used around election time to polarize and to win voters:
Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008 http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/
No matter who is elected, you're going to end up with the same social policies trending towards progress: pro-choice, legal gay marriage, legal marijuana, etc.
if Trump ends up in the White House (thankfully he most likely won't), it will look more or less like every other presidency. Trump's "Facism" (or whatever you want to call it) will end up effectively being the same thing (nothing) as Obama's "Change".
Remember, we have things like multiple branches of government, checks and balances, and the Constitution; we're not going to just devolve into Nazi Germany because Trump was elected President (contrary to any FUD). THAT is just crazy talk.
I've seen ads every year put out by opposing candidates asserting the demise of our society as we know it should said opposition get elected. Every year, it happens...
These social issues are mainly used around election time to polarize and to win voters:
Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008 http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/
No matter who is elected, you're going to end up with the same social policies trending towards progress: pro-choice, legal gay marriage, legal marijuana, etc.
if Trump ends up in the White House (thankfully he most likely won't), it will look more or less like every other presidency. Trump's "Facism" (or whatever you want to call it) will end up effectively being the same thing (nothing) as Obama's "Change".
Remember, we have things like multiple branches of government, checks and balances, and the Constitution; we're not going to just devolve into Nazi Germany because Trump was elected President (contrary to any FUD). THAT is just crazy talk.
I've seen ads every year put out by opposing candidates asserting the demise of our society as we know it should said opposition get elected. Every year, it happens...
[deleted]
[deleted]
>There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.
Doesn't having to base your argument on lies like this undermine it?
Doesn't having to base your argument on lies like this undermine it?
> There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.
Do you realize that the media that is telling you this has also lied to you on just about everything else in the past (e.g, Afghanistan, Iraq, ...)?
Why would you believe anything liars say?
CNN is now effectively nothing more than the Clinton News Network.
I'm voting for Trump because Trump is the candidate the establishment is actively trying to destroy. And virtually every story the mainstream media has produced on Trump can be debunked.
Do you realize that the media that is telling you this has also lied to you on just about everything else in the past (e.g, Afghanistan, Iraq, ...)?
Why would you believe anything liars say?
CNN is now effectively nothing more than the Clinton News Network.
I'm voting for Trump because Trump is the candidate the establishment is actively trying to destroy. And virtually every story the mainstream media has produced on Trump can be debunked.
I am sincerely happy to see most of HN is taking the stance of defending Thiel--by doing it, they are simply defending the freedom to back the candidate you like, and not the one that the industry wants you to like.
I have a Twitter stream of hundreds of developers from different backgrounds and it was like 99% pro-Hillary--by defending Trump you would get spanked. Something was really wrong there, and this conversation we are having proves it.
And I can't help but wonder if Thiel did this just so this conversation would spark. It simply is brilliant.
I have a Twitter stream of hundreds of developers from different backgrounds and it was like 99% pro-Hillary--by defending Trump you would get spanked. Something was really wrong there, and this conversation we are having proves it.
And I can't help but wonder if Thiel did this just so this conversation would spark. It simply is brilliant.
[deleted]
The only difference between trump and Hillary is her corruption is complicated enough people like you can brush it under the rug and feel good about yourselves.
That crosses into personal attack, and that's not allowed on HN, so please don't do it. More precisely: please scrupulously avoid it.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721084 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721084 and marked it off-topic.
If I resubmit without the tail comment will it remain? Edit:Amended a new comment to stick to the point
[deleted]
dep_b(3)
[deleted](1)
If Thiel were the CEO of a corporation he could be held to violate his fiduciary duty by giving the corporation bad press by supporting someone like Trump.
Trump has made a lot of enemies in the United States: minorities, gays, women, people who don't want to see the democratic institutions of America taken apart. He has also willingly built a coalition of outspoken neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other individuals. It'd be like if a CEO threw his outspoken support behind David Duke, spoke at his rallies, and donated 1.25 million dollars to his campaign. That's what's happening here. You don't think shareholders wouldn't have a problem with that?
"Yeah, stigmatize us in the eyes of society, that's great for business."
People aren't being realistic when they say business people should just have carte blanche to say whatever they want. They owe their shareholders, partners, and employees a duty of care to not bring ridiculously bad press to their organization.
If the people at YC don't care about this bad press, and the business it will likely lose, then that's their business. But to say that it never happens in the business world shows a lack of understanding how things work.
Trump has made a lot of enemies in the United States: minorities, gays, women, people who don't want to see the democratic institutions of America taken apart. He has also willingly built a coalition of outspoken neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other individuals. It'd be like if a CEO threw his outspoken support behind David Duke, spoke at his rallies, and donated 1.25 million dollars to his campaign. That's what's happening here. You don't think shareholders wouldn't have a problem with that?
"Yeah, stigmatize us in the eyes of society, that's great for business."
People aren't being realistic when they say business people should just have carte blanche to say whatever they want. They owe their shareholders, partners, and employees a duty of care to not bring ridiculously bad press to their organization.
If the people at YC don't care about this bad press, and the business it will likely lose, then that's their business. But to say that it never happens in the business world shows a lack of understanding how things work.
Really? There are CEOs who support Trump. [1] How many of them have sued (much less successfully sued) for breach of fiduciary duty?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_president...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_president...
Just because it hasn't happened in these cases doesn't mean there isn't a case for it yet. It's very complex. That's why people pay lawyers.
The point I'm making here is that the business world isn't a universe where people can 100% of the time support an outspoken racist, anti-semitic, Islamaphobic, misogynistic, sexual predator authoritarian who wants to put an end to American democracy.
Imagine if the CEO of Coca Cola did what Peter Thiel did. You wouldn't think he wouldn't be out on his butt?
It's a case by case basis, but saying "business therefor you can say and support whoever you want" is wrong. It's up to YC to do as they wish, I just wanted to point out that things are a little more nuanced here.
The point I'm making here is that the business world isn't a universe where people can 100% of the time support an outspoken racist, anti-semitic, Islamaphobic, misogynistic, sexual predator authoritarian who wants to put an end to American democracy.
Imagine if the CEO of Coca Cola did what Peter Thiel did. You wouldn't think he wouldn't be out on his butt?
It's a case by case basis, but saying "business therefor you can say and support whoever you want" is wrong. It's up to YC to do as they wish, I just wanted to point out that things are a little more nuanced here.
You made a very specific claim in your first sentence, that supporting Trump constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. Considering how quickly shareholder lawsuits follow announcements of mergers, I would expect lawyers to be circling these CEOs already. Please cite a single example of a CEO under threat of breaching fiduciary duty for supporting Trump.
What? No I didn't. I wrote "he could be". It's right there.
I think that's a pretty novel legal theory, that CEOs have a fiduciary duty to not say things that might upset people.
If a new CEO of Coca-Cola made a speech announcing a proud partnership with the KKK or Al Qaeda and ran an ad campaign informing the public then sure I imagine that'd be a lawsuit. Coca Cola would never disassociate its brand, every reasonable person could predict the forthcoming disaster and every shareholder would want to recoup their losses.
So yes, CEOs do have a duty to avoid saying certain things, sometimes. Does it extend to Trump? Not quite, I don't think, but the very idea of it is not unreasonable.
So yes, CEOs do have a duty to avoid saying certain things, sometimes. Does it extend to Trump? Not quite, I don't think, but the very idea of it is not unreasonable.
It's not really that novel; it's the same underlying issue behind anything that would tarnish a brand.
Last time I looked, Trump's support and Clinton's support were pretty close to evenly split (Clinton slightly ahead in most polls, but not by that much).
Why is supporting Trump more "tarnishing" than supporting Clinton?
I understand that you don't like Trump (which is fine, I don't much like him either), but why do your opinions get to control? Do you think there aren't people who find Clinton equally repugnant, or even more so? I assure you that there are (I'm not voting for either, myself).
But, you know, the money of Trump supporters is just as green as the money of Clinton supporters, if you want to cast it solely in terms of fiduciary duty. Probably even more so, since I would expect that the median Trump supporter is wealthier than the median Clinton supporter.
Why is supporting Trump more "tarnishing" than supporting Clinton?
I understand that you don't like Trump (which is fine, I don't much like him either), but why do your opinions get to control? Do you think there aren't people who find Clinton equally repugnant, or even more so? I assure you that there are (I'm not voting for either, myself).
But, you know, the money of Trump supporters is just as green as the money of Clinton supporters, if you want to cast it solely in terms of fiduciary duty. Probably even more so, since I would expect that the median Trump supporter is wealthier than the median Clinton supporter.
I don't know, I think most of the money is on the left side of the aisle this cycle. Clinton has firmly grasped the title of "establishment" ie status quo, and status quo is good for the wealthy. Many, many wealthy republicans have flipped, IIRC from polls I think Trump's poor white base would dominate the median income.
Agree wrt the rest.
Agree wrt the rest.
Can we all cut the shit?
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're all acting like idiots. Terminating someone over political ideology is the single most fascist, fear-mongering, and un-freedom idea one can possibly have!
Half of you support someone who says mean things - the other half of you support someone who does mean things.
You're both wrong, and right!!! Arguing otherwise is simply to be blind to one's own prejudices, rational or not!
Supporting someone being terminated simply because of political ideology is incomprehensibly insane for a people who tout themselves as "free"!
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're all acting like idiots. Terminating someone over political ideology is the single most fascist, fear-mongering, and un-freedom idea one can possibly have!
Half of you support someone who says mean things - the other half of you support someone who does mean things.
You're both wrong, and right!!! Arguing otherwise is simply to be blind to one's own prejudices, rational or not!
Supporting someone being terminated simply because of political ideology is incomprehensibly insane for a people who tout themselves as "free"!