This is a tricky situation. While many universally agree Trump is dangerous in his opinions and viewpoints on many issues, you can't just severe ties with an investor because of their political affiliation. Thiel might be supporting a candidate with racist and bigotry views, but this is his choice. When it comes to business, you should never make things personal and I think worrying about someone's political affiliation is definitely making it personal.
Might not be the most popular opinion, but I think Sam made the right call here.
I agree, Digital. I think Sam's comment, "We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political candidate. That’s not how things are done in this country" hits the issue spot on. If anything, maybe Mr. Thiel and Mr. Altman ought to have a serious conversation on the issue, but Thiel has undoubtedly contributed significantly to ycom.
By Altman's own argument, there's a line Thiel could cross that would make YC sever ties with him. All it would take is for Thiel to repeat some of the things Trump said.
So having a YC partner fund hate speech is okay, as long as it's by proxy. This is a baffling stance.
There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate. As far as I know, Thiel has done nothing but make a donation, he isn't forcing his views on anyone at YC nor publicly parroting/endorsing things Trump is saying.
In this instance Thiel has done nothing more than make a donation to a political candidate many don't like.
> There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate.
There is, indeed. Donating over a million dollars that can be used for ads repeating racist, ignorant, and bigoted Trump statements falls squarely in the latter category.
Wouldn't this sort of behavior play into Trump's view of 'the system' being rigged against him? Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?
David Duke probably thinks "the system" is rigged against him too... and if you include private institutions in your definition of 'the system' it is and should be. If you hold reprehensible views (though technically legal), then society punishes you. As it has every right to. Trump will complain no matter what, that has zero weight. When someone who cries wolf like Trump isn't complaining, then something is terribly wrong.
> Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?
Yes. And society at large has every right to punish and socially ostracize these who hold abhorrent views.
I feel like technically minded people get mixed up between "we withhold from the government - the institution in our lives with absolute power - the right to silence citizens" and "we expect the private companies/organizations we support to use their influence to better society, not ruin it."
In any case, I don't see anyone denouncing the right to protest, just the protest itself, which is the next turtle on the way down from your sentiment.
You are correct that all of those are rights. The question here is what is the course of action that will lead to the best outcome?
People who believe YC should disassociate from Thiel are doing so based on the belief that the consequences of not doing so would be to promote a Trump presidency, which would have bad consequences to a variety of minority groups, etc.
People who believe YC should not disassociate from Thiel (I am one of them) would assert that doing so would set up or perpetuate a norm in which it is acceptable to ostracize people for unpopular opinions (unpopular relative to a certain community or context). Brendan Eich was another semi-recent example of this.
The effect of this, I believe, would be to: a) further balkanize and polarize our politics, and b) to exert chilling effects discouraging people from airing unpopular opinions, which in turn would inhibit an open marketplace of ideas, which, I believe, is necessary for progress. I believe individuals and societies can only grow by being exposed to a variety of ideas, some of which they disagree with, and ostracizing people who disagree would prevent this from being possible.
So both sides are arguing there are negative consequences they are trying to avoid. Which side an individual will come down on, I suspect, will depend on how much weight they place on each type of negative outcome.
As a personal aside, I know what it is like to have to be ostracized for holding an unpopular opinion. I am an atheist in a deeply red and religious state. I have tried to "come out" and quickly had to "get back in the closet" based on the intensity of ostracism I received. So I admit this kind of thing has made me more sympathetic to people holding unpopular opinions.
Conservatives have a right to their own set of values, like anti-abortion, faith-based education issues, smaller government, reduced taxes, etc., and they have a right to back whatever candidate aligns with their values. I'm a liberal but it is amazing to me to read these types of articles, from other liberals with zero tolerance for the alternative viewpoint. There should not even be a decision to be made here. It takes all kinds of people or else it would not be America. It is not acceptable to persecute people based on their political choices.
Of course they have that right. Others have the right to criticize them for exercising it.
The issue here is also not Trump's supposed conservatism (which I, frankly, doubt heavily), but that he brags about sexual assault and is advocating for some pretty fascist shit.
YC states Trump's words would get him kicked out of YC. Color me baffled as to why spending over a million dollars to support those words isn't considered similarly bad (if not worse).
Political debate in the US has traditionally taken place in a framework of shared values. Some of these are: you accept electoral defeat, you nominate people with a basic minimum of human decency, and overt bigotry is not acceptable.
Within that framework, people have sharp disagreements over issues, some of them life-or-death (like abortion). But the framework is something that was sacrosanct, until this election.
The problem many people, including conservatives, have with Trump is that he breaks basic norms around how our democracy should work, and represents a threat to it. That's why Thiel's vocal support for his candidacy is so troubling. It's not just a case of someone whose politics I disagree with, it's someone financing the destruction of the whole apparatus those politics take place within.
Thank you for posting this. I'm also a liberal, but when such politically divergent people as Ralph Nader and Rush Limbaugh are (shockingly) speaking out against the same kinds of social disease, it's time to take notice. Something has gone very wrong on the left.
There's also the entire argument that Thiel doesn't really support Donald Trump, and that this donation is more of a strategic move that is coherent with increasing Ted Cruz's chances of election in 2020. Cruz got as close to a public denouncement of Trump as possible, and he will probably need the support of many of his voters (who knows if they'll even remember, doubt it) to be able to secure a victory. Thiel could perhaps be the trump card necessary as support, as he double counts as both a gay man and someone who remained "loyal" to Trump. I think that Thiel's opinions on how the world should look are more in line with Cruz's, and he himself has called Cruz "very smart". I don't know a lot about politics or Peter Thiel, but to think that a former chess champion and fairly renowned silicon Valley figurehead legitimately supports Trump is a little outlandish. The odds of there being an ulterior motive are far greater than the opposite. Not to mention that he probably saw all the negative PR coming, as well as the resulting dissociations. He probably believes it was all worth it.
LOL.. Whaaaaa... Perhaps, just perhaps, someone can see that while Trump isn't perfect, he's better than the absolute and obvious corruption of Hillary.
Shame on you Marco for choosing blatant corruption over idiocy.
This doesn't belong on HN. People should be allowed to make their political choices as they please & as is their right to do so. It isn't YC voting in the election and YC doesn't compel people to vote a certain way.
Taking down or not is up to the site operator. HN is a privately run site. The operators can decide which content they want or don't to see on their site.
Yes it is but there is some irony that HN are ok to defend Theil based on freedom of speech but they're are not extending the same courtesy to Marco for criticizing them about it. Seems HN maybe as thin skinned as Trump.
This still shouldn't be on HN. I'm not from the US and I am totally fed up with both pro and anti Trump/Clinton propaganda that spews out to cover all of the world, and I don't want to see it here, at least particularly when it's just "stories about politics, or crime, or sports" and particularly not "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." as the HN guidelines put it.
I'd rather fight for Thiel's right to say and work for his opinion.
I'd agree, with a tiny caveat. I couldn't care less about US politics, think neither candidate is likely to change much that affects me or mine, and think the US president's power is vastly overstated.
Where I disagree is that I think the real problem lies in the reactionary posts, like Pao's Medium post and this one. These I think are a very real threat to me and mine.
These ideas - that things that aren't focussed on hacking code together to create businesses, that distract not from adjacent to the topic but from within, these are the problem.
That's the crazy part here to me. Forget the politics, the people reacting to politics and wanting things in the HN sphere to change are (trying?) to have very real impacts on things I care about, and none of that is, AFAICT, in any way shape or form positive.
Trump, Clinton and the US election hasn't helped one person hack together any code, and neither has the post linked to, but only one of them is part of the industry that is directly involved in hacking together any code, and that part, that part is the issue.
If the community flags it, the community flags it. I haven't flagged any of these Thiel stories until now. I've seen enough the past few days. I get what people feel, think, and [don't] support. I don't care to keep reading this over and over again.
>Thiel, a non-employee (a “part-time partner”), is directly supporting Donald Trump at a massive scale — over a million dollars! — after we’ve learned even more of Trump’s horrendous statements, positions, and past actions than we could’ve ever imagined.
I'm not sure but there is no mention of voting anywhere in the article.
Just one quick comment, because these discussions always go there: This is not about Hillary. Whatever the family Clinton did or not did, it doesn't matter.
This is about someone who supports Donald Trump in a significant way, and the person Donald Trump and his potential negative impact on our society.
I don't agree. Clinton is the other choice. What people are doing is weighing up the negatives and positives of each candidate and decide who to support.
I wish that more smart people would not demonize either party and instead analyze and dissect each platform and weigh the potential benefits and consequences of them.
It is much more convincing to read actual facts about the platforms, and it's a lot more constructive.
With the brain power here, we might even be able to make constructive suggestions and possibly even influence either party's policies so that regardless of the outcome it works in everyone's favor.
If we can point out that some component of Hillary's plan or Trump's plan will surely lead to disaster in some way, that itself may have the political power to influence revision in a positive way, especially right now since both candidates are searching for weaknesses in each other's campaigns.
This is one of the most intelligent communities in the world, so let's be constructive.
The problem is that Trump doesn't offer much in policy, even when it comes to policy he actually talks about and this doesn't just affect the things he wants to keep secret from ISIS. He also contradicts himself quite a lot and when he touches upon policy in his talking points it's often times questionable whether he's even aware of the actual policies he's referring to and to what degree.
There is just no basis for an actual discussion or comparison on policy details.
This. The whole process has turned into character analysis and character assasination, rather than whose policies make the most sense for America. Both parties and the media are to blame.
There's a ton I personally dislike in the published GOP platform (eliminating the EPA, walking from Kyoto, completing the Keystone, defunding Amtrak, etc, etc) that bears discussion, rather than judging and yelling who's less evil.
This is really strange attribute of democracy, that if majority decides (informed or by uninformed that decision be), one can flip from democracy to (let's say) autocracy, but then you dont get to vote in next election if you change your mind, because there will be none.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was to void a scenario like this, by giving enough military power to the people to make impossible for an elected government to switch to autocracy / dictatorship / ... without the approval of the population.
Wether this amendment is still needed, and if it's effective considering the evolution of military technology, is open to discussion, but at least the original constitution tried to avoid this.
It's probably not the same people but it's funny (in kind of a sad sort of way) that you have people arguing for deregulation because you can vote with your wallet if you're morally opposed to something, and for everyone keeping their political opinions out of business at the same time.
Edit: Nevermind. I just went and read some of your other comments out of curiosity and you're a libertarian. It's exactly the same people.
I am not sure if it is ridiculous. It depends. It's about a line that everyone has to draw and to set. And this also what Marco is trying to mention in his post I guess.
Let's take a more extreme example from history, just for pointing out that there is a line: I hope we could agree that supporting the NSDAP is as far over such a line as imaginable.
Not comparing anyone in this context with the NSDAP, just pointing out that there is such a line, and hiding behind "political free opinion" doesn't help to avoid hard decisions.
It's good that you aren't comparing this current context with our modern view on the NSDAP.
Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in democratic societies.
Wait a second, maybe I can't follow you here.
Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?
If so, two questions:
- What if someone is supporting someone in none political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour and face disagreement or consequences?
- What if someone supports politically the KKK, the IS or any other organisation or party, that you might not agree with?
How about a much more important thing in our constitution: Free speech. Does free speech mean I can say and publicly announce anything, without having to face consequences?
> Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?
Not at all. I was inplying that the consequences should be political as well.
If your children aren't your opinion, try to engage in valuable conversation instead of cutting their allowance. If your neighbor puts up a sign for a candidate you don't like, put up your own sign and don't try to pressure his employer into making him leave.
Democratic societies actively require political variation. Using your physical or economic strength or maybe your status to make people do or state things they don't like is blatantly uncivil.
I'm not an expert on US constitutional law & procedure so you might need to make your own research on their legal specifics in this certain case, but in most western setups I'd bet it's not a very good idea to believe in a legal right which might allow you to publicly announce "anything". But I don't see its relation to our topic here, I think it's probably not essential.
Thiel's support of Trump shows that Thiel is a sexist and a racist. If YC wants to attract startups with founders who aren't white men, this is a problem. If startups in YC want to attract employees who aren't white men, this is a problem.
Or Thiel might think that Hillary is a worse option than Trump?
Maybe. Who knows. You should ask him. Pretending to know why he votes for Trump is just wrong.
You assume what he thinks, his state of mind, etc.
Idunno, maybe you should consider accepting that supporting a person does not equate to being that person nor does it imply that both hold the exact same beliefs.
I don't need to assume anything about what he things. Trump is clearly, unambiguously and objectively a sexist racist xenophobe. Human rights provide a line a lower bound of values we all agree on must not ever be crossed, Trump does so eagerly.
Pence is on the ticket. You don't put him on the ticket unless you are homophobic and sexist. Pence has proven himself to be truly outstanding in these areas.
The problem is that there are people who genuinely have these opinions. You need to provide additional context, if you want something like this to be read as sarcastic.
Yes, supporting somebody that is homophobic is equivalent to being homophobic himself. There are plenty of self-hating gay men out there, including Thiel.
Ed said it[1] better than I could, so I'll quote him:
This is a long way of saying to the people who support Trump (and therefore would never read this) that "Let's agree to disagree and keep being friends" is a poor strategy this year. However you've managed to rationalize it in your head, supporting someone so openly and enthusiastically racist, xenophobic, and flat-out mean says a lot about you.
We are long, long past the point of pretending that support for Trump, let alone actual material and financial backing, is a matter of mere "politics" (as if that in itself is some harmless affectation).
Peter Thiel took one look at the failing campaign of a vociferous racist, mysogynist, authoritarian, anti-democratic fascist, and said "I'll give over a million dollars to him."
How can we trust the business and social acumen of a person who makes that kind of decision? Who faced with a losing candidate will throw good money after bad. Who faced with a business landscape that is crawling, desperately, into finally opening its doors to women and minorities, happily funds a man who says you can "grab [women] by the pussy," that "we ought to build a wall" to keep out Hispanics, and openly campaigns for barring Muslims from the country (who, I might point out, are statistically as likely to be South Asian as Arabic, a demographic hardly unrepresented in tech).
You wouldn't find it so bizarre that a man who has swastikas tattooed on his face had trouble finding a job, why do we find it so bizarre that a man who has done far more actual material harm might not be appealing to a business partner?
In this case those personal opinions are widely publicised, and reflect -- rightly or wrongly -- on Y Combinator. At that point it does become a matter of business, as the backlash may end up hurting Y Combinator's business (negative press, founders not applying, investors not willing to work with it, etc.).
and it's not even a "real" political view. thiel's said all along he views trump as disruptive to a government that's broken. it has very little to do with the positions people get so worked up over.
HN admins - if you're going to shut this one down as well, could I appeal to you to at least give a reasoning why? Killing posts like these without for example dang providing at least a quick reasoning why leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
Flagged is one thing, a previous discussion was additionally set as "dead". As far as I know that can only be done by an admin, no? If it was all an automatic thing done by the system, then I have no issue with it.
BTW, it looks like they turned off the flagged state of this post and are giving the discussion a chance. Well done. Let's hope the comments here don't devolve into silly political bashing...
Indeed it does. Flags are disabled here, and now we get a long and extensive back and forth of all the sorts of arguments normally shut down as bigoted tout court.
Excuses from above about it being good for the community strikes me as eerily similar to the "national security" argument: in order to defend a free community from those who seek to harm it, we don't need to uphold the principles that it was founded upon. Hm.
I flagged the last post. I flagged this post. The vast majority of people don't care. Peter Theil is probably a completely fine human being and has valid reasons for supporting Trump, and I'm much more concerned about the people who feel that is donation alone is enough to vilify him.
Peter Thiel's support for Trump seems instrumental and not an end-in-itself[1]. I disagree with it and think it's stupid. But if he was my business partner and told me that he had good reasons to think that the long-term utility of a Trump president outweighs the unpleasantness and negative side-effects then I would argue with him and try to talk him out of it. Thinking about it in this way, shunning him seems to be an extreme thing to do.
This is a disgrace to punish someone just because they have different view. Kudos to Y Cominator to not cave in. Peter Thiel is free to support and donate to whoever candidate he feels strong about. If you don't like it, donate to the other candidate. Dragging it into business and people life is so Mccarthyism.
Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences?
Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push our own judgements.
Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression.
To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty.
>when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of the above, no.
Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.
Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic society.
> To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty.
I think we are in agreement here.
> Should all views be accepted as equally valid?
> Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.
These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious, and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones you don't like.
The hallmark of a democratic society is to ensure opposing views can be spoken without fear of repercussion.
However, the right to express yourself doesn't mean the right to harass and bully the people expressing the opposing views.
Oppression happens when you bully people just because their view. Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. Oppression happens when you harass their friends/family/relationship just because their view.
If you want to advocate your view and policy, state exactly how great they are and what benefits they bring. If you want to express how terrible the opposing view, state exactly how bad they are. Don't bully the people. Express your opposition to their VIEW, not the individual.
>Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view.
I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose that influence. It is a double edged sword.
That's why we have election rules attempting to restrict money influence in the system for BOTH sides, or at least to make it a level playing field.
Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their view. How about their food?
If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform. And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.
Thiel is donating millions to influence an election. I don't know where the slippery slope is but we're nowhere near the edge.
If Thiel has used his market power to express his view, then so can the rest of the market actors can use the same power to express theirs. Individuals should be able to use all available information to decide to spend their limited resources supporting. Thiel has decided to send a very strong signal to the market. People and organizations that decide to associate with Thiel also provide information to the market.
Should market actors completely ignore this specific class of information when making decisions? Knowing that resources that flow in Thiel's direction will be used to work against my preferred government policies, policies that may very well have a negative impact on my wellbeing, should I allow my resources to flow that direction anyway? It seems foolish and arbitrary to ignore that segment of reality.
I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate.
It is entirely possibly that some people support Trump because of his crass and divisive rhetoric, and it's also entirely possible that some people support Trump because of his stance on trade. Is it really anyone's place to demand that another voter change the list of priorities that determine their choice of candidate? Does that not fundamentally alter the intended functioning of the way voting in a democracy ought to work?
I am all for constructive debate on why the policies and character of one candidate makes them more suitable for holding a particular government post, but to suggest that one ought to resort to intimidation, ostracism, marginalizing and other such methods because of an individual's personal choice to prioritize a candidate's agreeable stance on one issue, over a disagreeable stance of another, seems very dangerous to me.
During his campaign, President Obama famously claimed that he felt marriage was a union that ought to be between a man and a woman. Most would consider this to be a highly regressive view, yet voted for him because he was their preferred choice on a whole lot of issues. Campaign officials like David Axelrod later revealed that he took this position publicly for political expediency. Regardless of whether this is true, if one were to suggest marginalizing Obama voters in the way that is being suggested here, I am confident that there would be very little semblance of a community left.
Some particular beliefs are critical. If a candidate is perfect and a genius, but for example is against (for example) women voting, this is critical for endorsement, even though he may be perfect in every other sense.
Likewise, if your friend is from a different party than you, you may still be friends, but if he is a member of the KKK I guess that draws the line. Tolerance is not supposed to be infinite.
What people are finding out is that the line is different for everyone.
And of course, its the election for President. Everything gets blown out of proportion.
Why? Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general.
There is a good reason why we have separation of power and why we have a complex political system in which even the president needs political capital to do things.
That said i think it's highly unlikely that there will be such hypothetical candidate that i can agree with on 99% 90% or even 50% of the issues and they'll be say a member of the KKK.
> Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general.
We don't know what powers the Executive Branch has now or will have. It evolves. FDR drastically expanded the power of the President, and he almost took over the Judicial Branch by appointing a bunch of new Supreme Court justices.
The next POTUS will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and possibly more, which would give him/her enormous power over many decades of US law.
FDR asked Congress to expand the Supreme Court and institute an age limit for justices, but Congress said no. So that was a failure of expansion of Presidential power. But while FDR is a good example in a lot of other ways, most Presidents have managed to expand their power, but Congress can check them if they choose to do so. See the current situation with the Supreme Court, where the Senate is actually reducing the power of the President.
I think you also overestimate the control Presidents have over the justices they nominate, which is to say, none. Anthony Kennedy was supposed to be "Bork through the back door" when Reagan nominated him, but he's been one of the more liberal justices of the past 30 years. Or see how Roberts has, in a couple of key cases, broken with his fellow conservative GOP appointees.
Like the other poster mentioned FDR might be a good example for checks and balances rather than some unfettered expansion of power.
While we might not know what power the executive branch will have in 50 or 100 years we know what power it has now, and we know what power it can have in 4 years unless you really think "Emperor Trump" is a possibility.
Also while POTUS does appoint chief justices they still need to be confirmed by congress.
And regardless of what is going on neither branch of government can go against the constitution, at least not to any major extent before being reigned down.
P.S.
It's more than likely that the US had presidents recently that had pretty negative opinions about a certain population including women, I would refer you to the Nixon tapes to see just how "disgusting" a president can be in a private environment.
And while I'm fully aware that Nixon is one of the least loved presidents I don't think he was an outlier, just some one who got caught.
P.S.
I don't support Trump, I'm not an American, I don't understand how Trump even got into the race in the first place yet alone became a nominee, but I do not support any type of political oppression and thought policing.
Some beliefs are critical, but the important part here is that the line is different for everyone.
I think a lot of people would support a 'perfect' presidential candidate who opposed women's suffrage, simply because they would never get that change through Congress. That's not an idle example, I've heard people say "sure, but Trump's crazy stuff won't pass and I like some of the things he could actually get through Congress."
Even the KKK example isn't totally convincing to me. Daryl Davis is the usual example - a black blues singer who got to know Klansmen and tried to talk them out of their positions. He had a hood collection from all his successes, and there's an argument that he effectively broke the Maryland clan.
Obviously that doesn't obligate anyone to stay friends with someone in the KKK. You don't need to tolerate things you find abhorrent. But I'm genuinely frightened by the recent push to limit how far it's acceptable to extend tolerance.
If someone is consistently pushing back on the ideas you have a problem with (as Davis did), I think it's harmful to demand that they stop associating with the people who hold those ideas.
> I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate.
Endorsement is one thing. Donating a massive amount of money is something entirely different. Not many people are willing to part with $1.25M for someone they don't fanatically support.
And either way, that's not the point. The point is that, while most candidates have deep flaws, Trump has flaws that cannot be overlooked or explained away by political differences.
These include: racism (for which he has lost lawsuits), advocating sexual assault, and suggesting that Hillary Clinton be assassinated.
The absolute amount is not meaningless because it has an effect in the real world.
It buys a certain amount of airtime, organizers' time, etc. Thiel said, "I'm not going to do X numbers of hours of work for you, but I'm going to donate them to your campaign."
That number of hours is staggeringly high, by the way: equivalent to 30+ years of full-time work by unskilled laborers.
I'm replying to the general concept that it's a lot of money for a campaign. It's really not. While it's a good amount from a specific person, this specific person has a lot of money.
> Trump has flaws that cannot be overlooked or explained away by political differences
You are right, and many take this view. The issue is whether or not one ought to be marginalized for _not_ taking this view. If we are allowed to cherry pick the worst in a candidate (Trump offers a lot to pick from) and define their entire candidacy, and further extend this to say that all of those who support him, with either a vote or with money, must necessarily share in this horrible worldview, then I believe that to be an oversimplification.
What's effectively being said here is that this person has been immoral in the past, and there is a strong likelihood of him being immoral in the future. Those who are not willing to pre-judge him for the immoral actions he is likely to commit, should be ostracized. I think that's wrong.
You mean why are we giving a hard time to all those people who join the KKK just because they look good in white?
But seriously, I don't think the demand to "sever ties" with Thiel is the right (it does have the slight scent of a purge), or the smart one to make (it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon). In fact, it pretty much ensures that the debate be diverted to that, especially when many in the crowd are, for one reason or another, fixated on their ideas of free speech. It isn't a hypothesis, either, but precisely what happened time and again in the relevant "community". But YC is influential in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas, for one reason or another, take hold on some from time to time, and yet YC has often stayed silent (or faint) on such issues, even when they claim to disagree with them, while being quite vocal about political issues like SOPA and visas that affect the powerful SV players.
> it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon
Why frame it like this? It is "silencing opposing views", whether a bandwagon exists or not, so is bad in itself. You seem to imply the only problem is that people care about the issue - that's a good thing!
> in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas
SV is a liberal and leftist hotspot, so those ideas also take hold. Are you pondering why any none-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there? Maybe there a degree of subjectivity in it?
> yet YC has often stayed silent (or faint) on such issues
Possibly for good reason. There is a lot of animosity towards the tech crowd there, and beating them up about diversity in tech is a common pastime.
Remember the PG misquoting? He should have just refused to talk about the subject.
Well, I'm not 100% sure that telling your billionaire buddy that since he's become a politician in a movement that you view as dangerous to your country and its people perhaps you shouldn't do business together for a while, qualifies as silencing his views. Still, I don't think it was right to demand this of YC.
> Are you pondering why any non-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there?
I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold anywhere, I'm just saying that perhaps people of influence who oppose those views may want to speak up a bit more vocally. Maybe it's even their duty.
> Possibly for good reason. There is a lot of animosity towards the tech crowd there
So Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people but in reminding them that they're hungry?
He hasn't "become a politician", it isn't proposed "for a while".
> I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold
We were talking about "various racist and misogynistic ideas", not "supremacist views". Are you talking about any view you see as subjectively racist/misogynist, or only specific ones?
> Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people
Antoinette's famous comment was glib and not intended to help, versus PGs sincere willingness to discuss sex issues; Also, she was a monarch is a brutal reign, if you want to compare than to the SV tech industry, go ahead.
> We were talking about "various racist and misogynistic ideas", not "supremacist views". Are you talking about any view you see as subjectively racist/misogynist, or only specific ones?
There is not much room for subjectivity when extreme views are concerned, certainly no more than in any other moral question. Either you think an equal power distribution among the races and the sexes is a desirable, high-priority goal or you don't. There's room for subjectivity in the means of achieving that goal and in its exact priority, but not in recognizing it as one. In any event, Trump's movement is certainly much more supremacist than any other mainstream and establishment conservative movement in recent history, and leaders at YC have said they regard it as abhorrent.
> Also, she was a monarch
Here we come to the question of whether government is the only external power affecting people's lives, or that there are a multitude of powers. It has been firmly established that the latter view is the correct one. The moral responsibility of an unelected and unconstitutional government to its subjects stems from the fact it has power over them (as it is not formally obligated to do a specific job); every other power has similar responsibility, from the same moral argument, to a degree commensurate with its influence.
> There is not much room for subjectivity when extreme views are concerned, certainly no more than in any other moral question
I'm not sure what you mean by "moral question". I mean the difficulty in deriving someones intent. for example, som people would see "voting for Trump" as "extreme view" and "racism".
> Either you think an equal power distribution among the races and the sexes is a desirable, high-priority goal or you don't
There so much about that that isn't binary. 'Priority' is one, continuous dimension. Implementation is another.
> Trump's movement is certainly much more supremacist
More supremacist? You don't think that's binary?
> Here we come to the question
No we don't, here we come to the conclusion that your comparison of the SV tech crowd to a 17th century French monarch is a poor one; You spun this out to another issue yourself.
> It has been firmly established
Again with the weasel terms. Who, when, how?!? Even 1 + 1 = 2 needs a basis
I think TechCrunch's breakdown[1] rather does a good job of summing up all the times Thiel has made it plain that he and Trump have a lot more in common that the SV technolibertarian set here seems willing to admit.
Thiel is providing material aid and support for a man whose policies are as close to fascism as makes no difference, and he himself has been openly critical of immigration, women's suffrage, freedom of the press, and even the very concept of democracy itself, not even to mention his past association with cryptofascists like Moldbug.
YC's idiotic line in the sand about "well, as long as it technically wasn't Thiel who said it" isn't even true. Thiel has sad plenty of ugly shit himself, even besides providing active material support to others who have.
Peter Thiel is doing just fine. If Y Combinator walked away from him, he would not be hurt or marginalized or ostracized in the least. This is not about persecuting people who vote for Trump.
But to support Trump with an enormous sum of money _after_ Trump has revealed himself to be willing to resort to borderline anti-Semitic slurs, to welcome the support of the white supremacy movement, to call for locking up his political opponent, to threaten the free press, to call for an end to Bill of Rights protections for accused criminals, to pre-emptively claim that the election is rigged, that voting fraud is rampant and to encourage his supporters to intimidate voters, to promise to ban an entire religion, and to brag about sexual assault in professional situations is to make a statement that these are the things Thiel is okay with advocating. Whatever other positions Trump might have that Thiel supports, these things are part of the package. Trump is not just a normal candidate. He's a true threat to our democracy.
The responses he provokes are also a threat to democracy.
It's important not to become that which you oppose by calling for opponents to be punished in some way (e.g. be locked up, or lose their job) because of their beliefs.
He's doing his best to convince people that the results of the election will be fraudulent. He has hinted that his supporters might want to assassinate his opponent. That's what a threat to democracy looks like.
Saying that a business might want to reconsider who they work with because of the political donations made by a partner is not remotely a threat to democracy.
" is to make a statement that these are the things Thiel is okay with advocating."
Clinton supporters are never held to this standard.
No one calls on Clinton supporters to publicly disavow her statement about the "basket of deplorables". Clinton also shipped classified information to her basement server and destroyed thousands of records when under subpoena. No one claims that Clinton supporters are supporting this behavior. Indeed, it seems just fine for Clinton voters to support her despite her activities which were, at best, "extremely reckless." Clinton supporters can say that, despite her flaws, they will vote for her.
But for some reason, any Trump voter automatically supports every bad thing he ever did.
> This is not about persecuting people who vote for Trump.
No, if you look at the arguments being made and the people making the arguments, it's clear that "this" in the larger sense is exactly about ostracising people who support Trump. Thiel himself is just the target of the moment.
So Trump has a lot of problems, but it looks like he is not corrupt. Hillary, on the other hand, is fully with corruption. I really don't like/agree with YC priorities (I'm not an American, which is even more disturbing to see someone that laughs about killing others country president been endorsed/elected)
Are you joking? Trump is _transparently_ corrupt. The Trump Foundation exists to serve as a tax shield, funneling donor money to Trump and his family personally. C.f. the allegations of corruption toward Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, which are laughably indistinct and incomparable. If corruption is what you care about, then Hillary Clinton is _inarguably_ the superior candidate.
So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm.
I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it fascinating how easily people manage to rationalize things.
I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.
> So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm.
Well there's obviously a spectrum but I think it's absolutely inarguable that Trump's foundation is a tax dodge and that Trump is transparently corrupt; and I think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices, but yes absolutely the allegations against her are without proof.
> I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.
Of course nobody is overlooking problems, and your attempts at equivocation are transparently concern trolling. But it's pretty inarguable that "whatever problems exist with the Clintons" are speculative and completely incomparable with "whatever problems exist with Trump".
> think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices
The Director of the FBI said exactly that, but that there was no malicious intent and thus no crime. Why an investigative body is making a recommendation about charges notwithstanding, when it comes to national secrets, nobody else gets the benefit of the doubt re: mens rea, it's generally interpreted as strict liability. Why did former Secretary Clinton get a seemingly free pass on this one, while members of the rank-and-file military do not? I suspect it's because they're in the rank-and-file.
I don't understand how Americans don't care about Hillary's lies. (actually, I do, it's called mass media manipulation, but you guys, of all modern societies in the world, should be one of few capable of fighting it).
Hillary Clinton simple says that she made a mistake and nobody asks why did she used a private email server?
I think this is a huge trap, but would things go a little better for Trump if he admits that it was all a misunderstanding and he is a reformed man now?
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
EDIT: That said, I don't NECESSARILY believe that the Clintons have absolutely, for sure been up to no good. But I am a little suspicious, given the facts that the FBI found. There's plenty of stuff that they could do to exonerate themselves. I just suspect it won't happen, especially since the FBI has seen fit to say "no bad intent so no crime"
The funny thing is that the same corrupt media that paints others presidents as "dictators" and "murderers" is helping Killary, painting Trump with tons of colors.
It's not lazy. It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line. What would Trump have to do before supporting him is unacceptable to YC?
But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.
"It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line."
That's actually very lazy. It's shifting the burden of "drawing the line" on the other side.
It's the "well, why don't we just kill toddlers as well? Where do you draw the line?" in an abortion argument.
It's the "why don't we just give 12 year old's automatic assault weapons" or "why don't we disarm the police and military as well" in a gun control debate.
It's the "So why don't we just tax corporations 100% of their income" in a corporate tax debate.
Trump has started heavily implying that the election will be rigged, Russia-style. He repeats Info Wars propaganda sillyness. He's come out to say that the elections will be stolen from true Americans by illegal immigrants. He's called for beating protestors.
Some of his positions are more a question of form rather than function compared to the political mainstream. His comments on muslims immigrating into the country are not far from the Republican Party mainstream, unfortunately.
But beyond his policies, he has been openly hostile to the concept of functioning democracy. There's a lazy comparison to be made to Hitler, but that's because Hitler also subverted the system through a cult of personality.
I know some people oppose him for his policies, but it feels internally inconsistent (you'd have to boycott most Republican supporters). But surely using strategies to undermine the legitimacy of the election results (that in a different country would be an obvious lead-up to a coup d'etat) is something we can all get behind as a bad thing.
I wouldn't go so far to say that Trump and Hitler are one and the same, but you can draw similarities in the rise of nationalism in both campaigns and their impact on the electorate.
Even if Hitler isn't used as an example (it is a rather extreme one), say David Duke ran for president and Peter Thiel donated to his campaign. Would YC cut ties with Peter then?
I'm just curious to know where YC thinks the line is, and if there is even one.
Or, without saying the H word, what if Thiel was openly a white supremacist, member of and contributor to the KKK? Would that be completely okay? Would that be "just politics"?
It puzzles me how come in USA people are considering only 2 candidates to chose from. At this stage it looks like people are not voting for the candidate they agree with, they are choosing the candidate they disagree with the most and then voting for the other one. This is only 1 step better than how it used to be in USSR where people had an option to chose essentially only 1 party. (sure officially there were more parties, as there are more candidates in USA, but it wasn't a real option in reality). Still far away from European democracies where each election you have multiple parties competing.
this charts (as many published polls) are based on very small samples. asking 1000-3000 people. yes those people are selected to sample the whole spectrum, but if they are always the same people, you can not claim that they are representative anymore. as simply by asking the poll questions you are turning group of people who "don't care about the election" into the group "was forced to think about election and now have an opinion".
Those polls don't necessarily mean that people aren't choosing the lesser of two evils. Those questions aren't asked in a vacuum. Most of the polls ask about people's opinion of the candidates in a Clinton vs Trump context. Even if that wasn't the case, people might still feel that they have to support one candidate over the other.
It's hard to make people throw away their biases and ask themselves why they really support something.
your statement is non-sensical. what, did you add together 43 + 33 = 76 therefore the majority are satisfied?
that's crazy talk. the best case scenario is that 43% of the electorate is satisfied. both candidates are very very far away from being acceptable to a majority of the entire electorate.
In France there is a two step election : during the first round, people choose between multiple candidates (around 10). The two candidates with the most votes are selected to go to the second round, where people choose the next president.
There is a saying that during the first round you vote for your favourite candidates, while during the second you vote against the one you don't want to see in office.
I heard an interesting idea which would be to place always a "none of the above" option on the ballot for any position, and in the event that option took majority, all candidates listed would be disqualified completely, and new ballot would need to be made.
Short of revolution, we aren't ever going to see a representative democracy here, because the two parties in power have us perfectly divided 50/50, and the status quo benefits them both greatly.
this seems to be a problem of presidential democracy (voting for 1 man). parliamentary democracy, where people are voting for a party and even specifically for multiple people nominated by the party, is solving this problem.
Right, but how do we get the US to move to a system of proportional voting and power? We're never going to get a president+congress that is controlled by one party to vote and pass new laws / ratify new amendments that change the system such that they'll no longer be in control. And we can't get the current two parties to agree on whether the sun is hot or not, let alone on radically changing the way our democracy works.
The cynic in me suspects that, despite all the fiery rhetoric, both parties are in fact very happy with the status quo and the partisan divide that exists in this country. Aside from a few battleground states/areas, most seats are perfectly safe. Mississippi isn't going blue, and California isn't going red.
I don't think your opinion is cynical. Don't be afraid to draw logical conclusions. Don't allow political correctness to make you feel sorry for, you know, using your brain. You're not the problem here; the red-vs-blue crowd is.
The most obvious avenue is to promote ballot propositions to change the voting mechanism, in states that allow this, like California. California recently changed to "open primaries", for example. (A bad idea, that one, but approval voting or score voting could go through the same way.)
It'd need to get pushed from outside the major parties, I guess by someone genuinely public-spirited, since the benefit is very diffuse and long-term. Unless some Machiavelli can figure out an angle -- I sure can't. Once it's had a toehold in a couple states for a few election cycles, though, I think there's a good chance it'd spread, because it seems hard to argue against once it's on the table as a serious option. (Maybe the strongest move then for the parties would be to muddy the waters with instant runoff voting and other such complications.)
(I think approval voting is more 'American' than proportional representation and haven't really thought about how we'd move to proportional rep, but there's the same first step available.)
1,413 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 373 ms ] threadMight not be the most popular opinion, but I think Sam made the right call here.
So having a YC partner fund hate speech is okay, as long as it's by proxy. This is a baffling stance.
In this instance Thiel has done nothing more than make a donation to a political candidate many don't like.
There is, indeed. Donating over a million dollars that can be used for ads repeating racist, ignorant, and bigoted Trump statements falls squarely in the latter category.
He had the speaking slot right before Trump at the RNC convention, if I remember correctly.
That's part of democracy and free speech.
> Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?
Yes. And society at large has every right to punish and socially ostracize these who hold abhorrent views.
I feel like technically minded people get mixed up between "we withhold from the government - the institution in our lives with absolute power - the right to silence citizens" and "we expect the private companies/organizations we support to use their influence to better society, not ruin it."
Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?
Of course they do. But a surprising number of “free speech” and “free market” people don’t seem to understand how either works.
Individuals have a right to support white nationalists.
Individuals also have a right not to do business with those who support white nationalists.
Individuals also have the right to organize protests against those who support white nationalists.
Let's be clear: defending the right to support a white nationalist while denouncing the right to protest against one isn’t courage, it’s sophistry.
In any case, I don't see anyone denouncing the right to protest, just the protest itself, which is the next turtle on the way down from your sentiment.
People who believe YC should disassociate from Thiel are doing so based on the belief that the consequences of not doing so would be to promote a Trump presidency, which would have bad consequences to a variety of minority groups, etc.
People who believe YC should not disassociate from Thiel (I am one of them) would assert that doing so would set up or perpetuate a norm in which it is acceptable to ostracize people for unpopular opinions (unpopular relative to a certain community or context). Brendan Eich was another semi-recent example of this.
The effect of this, I believe, would be to: a) further balkanize and polarize our politics, and b) to exert chilling effects discouraging people from airing unpopular opinions, which in turn would inhibit an open marketplace of ideas, which, I believe, is necessary for progress. I believe individuals and societies can only grow by being exposed to a variety of ideas, some of which they disagree with, and ostracizing people who disagree would prevent this from being possible.
So both sides are arguing there are negative consequences they are trying to avoid. Which side an individual will come down on, I suspect, will depend on how much weight they place on each type of negative outcome.
As a personal aside, I know what it is like to have to be ostracized for holding an unpopular opinion. I am an atheist in a deeply red and religious state. I have tried to "come out" and quickly had to "get back in the closet" based on the intensity of ostracism I received. So I admit this kind of thing has made me more sympathetic to people holding unpopular opinions.
The issue here is also not Trump's supposed conservatism (which I, frankly, doubt heavily), but that he brags about sexual assault and is advocating for some pretty fascist shit.
YC states Trump's words would get him kicked out of YC. Color me baffled as to why spending over a million dollars to support those words isn't considered similarly bad (if not worse).
Within that framework, people have sharp disagreements over issues, some of them life-or-death (like abortion). But the framework is something that was sacrosanct, until this election.
The problem many people, including conservatives, have with Trump is that he breaks basic norms around how our democracy should work, and represents a threat to it. That's why Thiel's vocal support for his candidacy is so troubling. It's not just a case of someone whose politics I disagree with, it's someone financing the destruction of the whole apparatus those politics take place within.
I'm scared to ask- is this really true?
https://twitter.com/lautenbach/status/788197878133030912
Shame on you Marco for choosing blatant corruption over idiocy.
So there's no "right thing" here, really.
Freedom of speech protects you from the government. It does not force someone to publish your blog posts on their website if they dont' want to.
I'd rather fight for Thiel's right to say and work for his opinion.
Where I disagree is that I think the real problem lies in the reactionary posts, like Pao's Medium post and this one. These I think are a very real threat to me and mine.
These ideas - that things that aren't focussed on hacking code together to create businesses, that distract not from adjacent to the topic but from within, these are the problem.
That's the crazy part here to me. Forget the politics, the people reacting to politics and wanting things in the HN sphere to change are (trying?) to have very real impacts on things I care about, and none of that is, AFAICT, in any way shape or form positive.
Trump, Clinton and the US election hasn't helped one person hack together any code, and neither has the post linked to, but only one of them is part of the industry that is directly involved in hacking together any code, and that part, that part is the issue.
And apparently enough people think that it should be on HN that the topic continues to appear even after flaggings.
I may not agree with him but I would fight to the end for his right to vote for Trump if he wants.
I'm not sure but there is no mention of voting anywhere in the article.
This isn't issue and you pretending to be merely derails the discussion.
It is much more convincing to read actual facts about the platforms, and it's a lot more constructive.
With the brain power here, we might even be able to make constructive suggestions and possibly even influence either party's policies so that regardless of the outcome it works in everyone's favor.
If we can point out that some component of Hillary's plan or Trump's plan will surely lead to disaster in some way, that itself may have the political power to influence revision in a positive way, especially right now since both candidates are searching for weaknesses in each other's campaigns.
This is one of the most intelligent communities in the world, so let's be constructive.
There is just no basis for an actual discussion or comparison on policy details.
On the other hand, the best changes would be the most controversial, so probably wouldn't help his campaign.
There's a ton I personally dislike in the published GOP platform (eliminating the EPA, walking from Kyoto, completing the Keystone, defunding Amtrak, etc, etc) that bears discussion, rather than judging and yelling who's less evil.
Demanding someone gets fire/removed just because they have a different political opinion than you is ridiculous.
The presidency of the U.S. isn't a personal matter.
Wether this amendment is still needed, and if it's effective considering the evolution of military technology, is open to discussion, but at least the original constitution tried to avoid this.
Edit: Nevermind. I just went and read some of your other comments out of curiosity and you're a libertarian. It's exactly the same people.
Let's take a more extreme example from history, just for pointing out that there is a line: I hope we could agree that supporting the NSDAP is as far over such a line as imaginable.
Not comparing anyone in this context with the NSDAP, just pointing out that there is such a line, and hiding behind "political free opinion" doesn't help to avoid hard decisions.
Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in democratic societies.
If so, two questions: - What if someone is supporting someone in none political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour and face disagreement or consequences? - What if someone supports politically the KKK, the IS or any other organisation or party, that you might not agree with?
How about a much more important thing in our constitution: Free speech. Does free speech mean I can say and publicly announce anything, without having to face consequences?
Not at all. I was inplying that the consequences should be political as well.
If your children aren't your opinion, try to engage in valuable conversation instead of cutting their allowance. If your neighbor puts up a sign for a candidate you don't like, put up your own sign and don't try to pressure his employer into making him leave.
Democratic societies actively require political variation. Using your physical or economic strength or maybe your status to make people do or state things they don't like is blatantly uncivil.
I'm not an expert on US constitutional law & procedure so you might need to make your own research on their legal specifics in this certain case, but in most western setups I'd bet it's not a very good idea to believe in a legal right which might allow you to publicly announce "anything". But I don't see its relation to our topic here, I think it's probably not essential.
Maybe. Who knows. You should ask him. Pretending to know why he votes for Trump is just wrong.
You assume what he thinks, his state of mind, etc.
Idunno, maybe you should consider accepting that supporting a person does not equate to being that person nor does it imply that both hold the exact same beliefs.
Nothing can justify this.
Anyways, the point was not what Trump does, it's almost irrelevant.
Relevant is that one assumed that someone who supported Trump held equal beliefs, which is probably very easy to be shown untrue.
It's a very disgusting and toxic attitude and a very unhealthy world view to hold.
AS for gay people who are homophobic wrt their own - Milo? It does make you question what homophobic means though, or if its application is to broad.
This is a long way of saying to the people who support Trump (and therefore would never read this) that "Let's agree to disagree and keep being friends" is a poor strategy this year. However you've managed to rationalize it in your head, supporting someone so openly and enthusiastically racist, xenophobic, and flat-out mean says a lot about you.
We are long, long past the point of pretending that support for Trump, let alone actual material and financial backing, is a matter of mere "politics" (as if that in itself is some harmless affectation).
Peter Thiel took one look at the failing campaign of a vociferous racist, mysogynist, authoritarian, anti-democratic fascist, and said "I'll give over a million dollars to him."
How can we trust the business and social acumen of a person who makes that kind of decision? Who faced with a losing candidate will throw good money after bad. Who faced with a business landscape that is crawling, desperately, into finally opening its doors to women and minorities, happily funds a man who says you can "grab [women] by the pussy," that "we ought to build a wall" to keep out Hispanics, and openly campaigns for barring Muslims from the country (who, I might point out, are statistically as likely to be South Asian as Arabic, a demographic hardly unrepresented in tech).
You wouldn't find it so bizarre that a man who has swastikas tattooed on his face had trouble finding a job, why do we find it so bizarre that a man who has done far more actual material harm might not be appealing to a business partner?
[1] http://www.ginandtacos.com/2016/10/17/the-difference-between...
I would hope that YC already avoids founders who act like Trump though.
BTW, it looks like they turned off the flagged state of this post and are giving the discussion a chance. Well done. Let's hope the comments here don't devolve into silly political bashing...
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
There's nothing very interesting in vilifying Thiel.
Excuses from above about it being good for the community strikes me as eerily similar to the "national security" argument: in order to defend a free community from those who seek to harm it, we don't need to uphold the principles that it was founded upon. Hm.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/peter-thiel-trump-ha...
Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences?
Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push our own judgements.
Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression.
To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty.
>when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of the above, no.
Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.
Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic society.
I think we are in agreement here.
> Should all views be accepted as equally valid?
> Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.
These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious, and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones you don't like.
The hallmark of a democratic society is to ensure opposing views can be spoken without fear of repercussion.
However, the right to express yourself doesn't mean the right to harass and bully the people expressing the opposing views.
Oppression happens when you bully people just because their view. Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. Oppression happens when you harass their friends/family/relationship just because their view.
If you want to advocate your view and policy, state exactly how great they are and what benefits they bring. If you want to express how terrible the opposing view, state exactly how bad they are. Don't bully the people. Express your opposition to their VIEW, not the individual.
I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose that influence. It is a double edged sword.
Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their view. How about their food?
If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform. And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.
If Thiel has used his market power to express his view, then so can the rest of the market actors can use the same power to express theirs. Individuals should be able to use all available information to decide to spend their limited resources supporting. Thiel has decided to send a very strong signal to the market. People and organizations that decide to associate with Thiel also provide information to the market.
Should market actors completely ignore this specific class of information when making decisions? Knowing that resources that flow in Thiel's direction will be used to work against my preferred government policies, policies that may very well have a negative impact on my wellbeing, should I allow my resources to flow that direction anyway? It seems foolish and arbitrary to ignore that segment of reality.
It is entirely possibly that some people support Trump because of his crass and divisive rhetoric, and it's also entirely possible that some people support Trump because of his stance on trade. Is it really anyone's place to demand that another voter change the list of priorities that determine their choice of candidate? Does that not fundamentally alter the intended functioning of the way voting in a democracy ought to work?
I am all for constructive debate on why the policies and character of one candidate makes them more suitable for holding a particular government post, but to suggest that one ought to resort to intimidation, ostracism, marginalizing and other such methods because of an individual's personal choice to prioritize a candidate's agreeable stance on one issue, over a disagreeable stance of another, seems very dangerous to me.
During his campaign, President Obama famously claimed that he felt marriage was a union that ought to be between a man and a woman. Most would consider this to be a highly regressive view, yet voted for him because he was their preferred choice on a whole lot of issues. Campaign officials like David Axelrod later revealed that he took this position publicly for political expediency. Regardless of whether this is true, if one were to suggest marginalizing Obama voters in the way that is being suggested here, I am confident that there would be very little semblance of a community left.
Likewise, if your friend is from a different party than you, you may still be friends, but if he is a member of the KKK I guess that draws the line. Tolerance is not supposed to be infinite.
What people are finding out is that the line is different for everyone. And of course, its the election for President. Everything gets blown out of proportion.
There is a good reason why we have separation of power and why we have a complex political system in which even the president needs political capital to do things.
That said i think it's highly unlikely that there will be such hypothetical candidate that i can agree with on 99% 90% or even 50% of the issues and they'll be say a member of the KKK.
We don't know what powers the Executive Branch has now or will have. It evolves. FDR drastically expanded the power of the President, and he almost took over the Judicial Branch by appointing a bunch of new Supreme Court justices.
The next POTUS will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and possibly more, which would give him/her enormous power over many decades of US law.
I think you also overestimate the control Presidents have over the justices they nominate, which is to say, none. Anthony Kennedy was supposed to be "Bork through the back door" when Reagan nominated him, but he's been one of the more liberal justices of the past 30 years. Or see how Roberts has, in a couple of key cases, broken with his fellow conservative GOP appointees.
While we might not know what power the executive branch will have in 50 or 100 years we know what power it has now, and we know what power it can have in 4 years unless you really think "Emperor Trump" is a possibility.
Also while POTUS does appoint chief justices they still need to be confirmed by congress.
And regardless of what is going on neither branch of government can go against the constitution, at least not to any major extent before being reigned down.
P.S. It's more than likely that the US had presidents recently that had pretty negative opinions about a certain population including women, I would refer you to the Nixon tapes to see just how "disgusting" a president can be in a private environment. And while I'm fully aware that Nixon is one of the least loved presidents I don't think he was an outlier, just some one who got caught.
P.S. I don't support Trump, I'm not an American, I don't understand how Trump even got into the race in the first place yet alone became a nominee, but I do not support any type of political oppression and thought policing.
I think a lot of people would support a 'perfect' presidential candidate who opposed women's suffrage, simply because they would never get that change through Congress. That's not an idle example, I've heard people say "sure, but Trump's crazy stuff won't pass and I like some of the things he could actually get through Congress."
Even the KKK example isn't totally convincing to me. Daryl Davis is the usual example - a black blues singer who got to know Klansmen and tried to talk them out of their positions. He had a hood collection from all his successes, and there's an argument that he effectively broke the Maryland clan.
Obviously that doesn't obligate anyone to stay friends with someone in the KKK. You don't need to tolerate things you find abhorrent. But I'm genuinely frightened by the recent push to limit how far it's acceptable to extend tolerance.
If someone is consistently pushing back on the ideas you have a problem with (as Davis did), I think it's harmful to demand that they stop associating with the people who hold those ideas.
Endorsement is one thing. Donating a massive amount of money is something entirely different. Not many people are willing to part with $1.25M for someone they don't fanatically support.
And either way, that's not the point. The point is that, while most candidates have deep flaws, Trump has flaws that cannot be overlooked or explained away by political differences.
These include: racism (for which he has lost lawsuits), advocating sexual assault, and suggesting that Hillary Clinton be assassinated.
It buys a certain amount of airtime, organizers' time, etc. Thiel said, "I'm not going to do X numbers of hours of work for you, but I'm going to donate them to your campaign."
That number of hours is staggeringly high, by the way: equivalent to 30+ years of full-time work by unskilled laborers.
Right, I think GP was replying to your earlier statement that:
> Not many people are willing to part with $1.25M for someone they don't fanatically support.
Rather than trying to minimize the 1.25M
Hillary has multiple people over a million. These are private individuals too. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-16/leaked-list-hillary...
You are right, and many take this view. The issue is whether or not one ought to be marginalized for _not_ taking this view. If we are allowed to cherry pick the worst in a candidate (Trump offers a lot to pick from) and define their entire candidacy, and further extend this to say that all of those who support him, with either a vote or with money, must necessarily share in this horrible worldview, then I believe that to be an oversimplification.
What's effectively being said here is that this person has been immoral in the past, and there is a strong likelihood of him being immoral in the future. Those who are not willing to pre-judge him for the immoral actions he is likely to commit, should be ostracized. I think that's wrong.
But seriously, I don't think the demand to "sever ties" with Thiel is the right (it does have the slight scent of a purge), or the smart one to make (it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon). In fact, it pretty much ensures that the debate be diverted to that, especially when many in the crowd are, for one reason or another, fixated on their ideas of free speech. It isn't a hypothesis, either, but precisely what happened time and again in the relevant "community". But YC is influential in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas, for one reason or another, take hold on some from time to time, and yet YC has often stayed silent (or faint) on such issues, even when they claim to disagree with them, while being quite vocal about political issues like SOPA and visas that affect the powerful SV players.
Why frame it like this? It is "silencing opposing views", whether a bandwagon exists or not, so is bad in itself. You seem to imply the only problem is that people care about the issue - that's a good thing!
> in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas
SV is a liberal and leftist hotspot, so those ideas also take hold. Are you pondering why any none-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there? Maybe there a degree of subjectivity in it?
> yet YC has often stayed silent (or faint) on such issues
Possibly for good reason. There is a lot of animosity towards the tech crowd there, and beating them up about diversity in tech is a common pastime.
Remember the PG misquoting? He should have just refused to talk about the subject.
Well, I'm not 100% sure that telling your billionaire buddy that since he's become a politician in a movement that you view as dangerous to your country and its people perhaps you shouldn't do business together for a while, qualifies as silencing his views. Still, I don't think it was right to demand this of YC.
> Are you pondering why any non-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there?
I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold anywhere, I'm just saying that perhaps people of influence who oppose those views may want to speak up a bit more vocally. Maybe it's even their duty.
> Possibly for good reason. There is a lot of animosity towards the tech crowd there
So Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people but in reminding them that they're hungry?
> I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold
We were talking about "various racist and misogynistic ideas", not "supremacist views". Are you talking about any view you see as subjectively racist/misogynist, or only specific ones?
> Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people
Antoinette's famous comment was glib and not intended to help, versus PGs sincere willingness to discuss sex issues; Also, she was a monarch is a brutal reign, if you want to compare than to the SV tech industry, go ahead.
There is not much room for subjectivity when extreme views are concerned, certainly no more than in any other moral question. Either you think an equal power distribution among the races and the sexes is a desirable, high-priority goal or you don't. There's room for subjectivity in the means of achieving that goal and in its exact priority, but not in recognizing it as one. In any event, Trump's movement is certainly much more supremacist than any other mainstream and establishment conservative movement in recent history, and leaders at YC have said they regard it as abhorrent.
> Also, she was a monarch
Here we come to the question of whether government is the only external power affecting people's lives, or that there are a multitude of powers. It has been firmly established that the latter view is the correct one. The moral responsibility of an unelected and unconstitutional government to its subjects stems from the fact it has power over them (as it is not formally obligated to do a specific job); every other power has similar responsibility, from the same moral argument, to a degree commensurate with its influence.
I'm not sure what you mean by "moral question". I mean the difficulty in deriving someones intent. for example, som people would see "voting for Trump" as "extreme view" and "racism".
> Either you think an equal power distribution among the races and the sexes is a desirable, high-priority goal or you don't
There so much about that that isn't binary. 'Priority' is one, continuous dimension. Implementation is another.
> Trump's movement is certainly much more supremacist
More supremacist? You don't think that's binary?
> Here we come to the question
No we don't, here we come to the conclusion that your comparison of the SV tech crowd to a 17th century French monarch is a poor one; You spun this out to another issue yourself.
> It has been firmly established
Again with the weasel terms. Who, when, how?!? Even 1 + 1 = 2 needs a basis
http://tinyurl.com/1and1is2
Thiel is providing material aid and support for a man whose policies are as close to fascism as makes no difference, and he himself has been openly critical of immigration, women's suffrage, freedom of the press, and even the very concept of democracy itself, not even to mention his past association with cryptofascists like Moldbug.
YC's idiotic line in the sand about "well, as long as it technically wasn't Thiel who said it" isn't even true. Thiel has sad plenty of ugly shit himself, even besides providing active material support to others who have.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/17/trump-silicon-valley-surro...
But to support Trump with an enormous sum of money _after_ Trump has revealed himself to be willing to resort to borderline anti-Semitic slurs, to welcome the support of the white supremacy movement, to call for locking up his political opponent, to threaten the free press, to call for an end to Bill of Rights protections for accused criminals, to pre-emptively claim that the election is rigged, that voting fraud is rampant and to encourage his supporters to intimidate voters, to promise to ban an entire religion, and to brag about sexual assault in professional situations is to make a statement that these are the things Thiel is okay with advocating. Whatever other positions Trump might have that Thiel supports, these things are part of the package. Trump is not just a normal candidate. He's a true threat to our democracy.
The responses he provokes are also a threat to democracy.
It's important not to become that which you oppose by calling for opponents to be punished in some way (e.g. be locked up, or lose their job) because of their beliefs.
Saying that a business might want to reconsider who they work with because of the political donations made by a partner is not remotely a threat to democracy.
Clinton supporters are never held to this standard.
No one calls on Clinton supporters to publicly disavow her statement about the "basket of deplorables". Clinton also shipped classified information to her basement server and destroyed thousands of records when under subpoena. No one claims that Clinton supporters are supporting this behavior. Indeed, it seems just fine for Clinton voters to support her despite her activities which were, at best, "extremely reckless." Clinton supporters can say that, despite her flaws, they will vote for her.
But for some reason, any Trump voter automatically supports every bad thing he ever did.
No, if you look at the arguments being made and the people making the arguments, it's clear that "this" in the larger sense is exactly about ostracising people who support Trump. Thiel himself is just the target of the moment.
I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it fascinating how easily people manage to rationalize things.
I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.
Well there's obviously a spectrum but I think it's absolutely inarguable that Trump's foundation is a tax dodge and that Trump is transparently corrupt; and I think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices, but yes absolutely the allegations against her are without proof.
> I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.
Of course nobody is overlooking problems, and your attempts at equivocation are transparently concern trolling. But it's pretty inarguable that "whatever problems exist with the Clintons" are speculative and completely incomparable with "whatever problems exist with Trump".
The Director of the FBI said exactly that, but that there was no malicious intent and thus no crime. Why an investigative body is making a recommendation about charges notwithstanding, when it comes to national secrets, nobody else gets the benefit of the doubt re: mens rea, it's generally interpreted as strict liability. Why did former Secretary Clinton get a seemingly free pass on this one, while members of the rank-and-file military do not? I suspect it's because they're in the rank-and-file.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/292064-troops-using-clinto...
Hillary Clinton simple says that she made a mistake and nobody asks why did she used a private email server? I think this is a huge trap, but would things go a little better for Trump if he admits that it was all a misunderstanding and he is a reformed man now?
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-les...
EDIT: That said, I don't NECESSARILY believe that the Clintons have absolutely, for sure been up to no good. But I am a little suspicious, given the facts that the FBI found. There's plenty of stuff that they could do to exonerate themselves. I just suspect it won't happen, especially since the FBI has seen fit to say "no bad intent so no crime"
Also, you should read more about Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/06/ho...
Should a company dissociate with a business partner/board member/investor because he supported an extremist's political campaign?
But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.
That's actually very lazy. It's shifting the burden of "drawing the line" on the other side.
It's the "well, why don't we just kill toddlers as well? Where do you draw the line?" in an abortion argument. It's the "why don't we just give 12 year old's automatic assault weapons" or "why don't we disarm the police and military as well" in a gun control debate. It's the "So why don't we just tax corporations 100% of their income" in a corporate tax debate.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Trump has started heavily implying that the election will be rigged, Russia-style. He repeats Info Wars propaganda sillyness. He's come out to say that the elections will be stolen from true Americans by illegal immigrants. He's called for beating protestors.
Some of his positions are more a question of form rather than function compared to the political mainstream. His comments on muslims immigrating into the country are not far from the Republican Party mainstream, unfortunately.
But beyond his policies, he has been openly hostile to the concept of functioning democracy. There's a lazy comparison to be made to Hitler, but that's because Hitler also subverted the system through a cult of personality.
I know some people oppose him for his policies, but it feels internally inconsistent (you'd have to boycott most Republican supporters). But surely using strategies to undermine the legitimacy of the election results (that in a different country would be an obvious lead-up to a coup d'etat) is something we can all get behind as a bad thing.
I wouldn't go so far to say that Trump and Hitler are one and the same, but you can draw similarities in the rise of nationalism in both campaigns and their impact on the electorate.
Even if Hitler isn't used as an example (it is a rather extreme one), say David Duke ran for president and Peter Thiel donated to his campaign. Would YC cut ties with Peter then?
I'm just curious to know where YC thinks the line is, and if there is even one.
43% of Americans approve of Clinton[1].
33% approve of Trump[2].
That means the vast majority of Americans are not choosing the lesser of two evils. They actively like one candidate or the other (or both).
1. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton... 2. https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-f...
Per ABC News (which is still pro-Clinton), they are both equally unpopular:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-hig...
It's hard to make people throw away their biases and ask themselves why they really support something.
that's crazy talk. the best case scenario is that 43% of the electorate is satisfied. both candidates are very very far away from being acceptable to a majority of the entire electorate.
There is a saying that during the first round you vote for your favourite candidates, while during the second you vote against the one you don't want to see in office.
This seems to be what is happening now in the US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Short of revolution, we aren't ever going to see a representative democracy here, because the two parties in power have us perfectly divided 50/50, and the status quo benefits them both greatly.
The cynic in me suspects that, despite all the fiery rhetoric, both parties are in fact very happy with the status quo and the partisan divide that exists in this country. Aside from a few battleground states/areas, most seats are perfectly safe. Mississippi isn't going blue, and California isn't going red.
It'd need to get pushed from outside the major parties, I guess by someone genuinely public-spirited, since the benefit is very diffuse and long-term. Unless some Machiavelli can figure out an angle -- I sure can't. Once it's had a toehold in a couple states for a few election cycles, though, I think there's a good chance it'd spread, because it seems hard to argue against once it's on the table as a serious option. (Maybe the strongest move then for the parties would be to muddy the waters with instant runoff voting and other such complications.)
(I think approval voting is more 'American' than proportional representation and haven't really thought about how we'd move to proportional rep, but there's the same first step available.)