We've turned off user flags again for this story because the rule of HN moderation is to moderate threads less when they're critical of YC or YC-funded startups. Please be respectful of your fellow community members in the discussion—such divisive issues are threatening and our first duty is to protect the community.
Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing.
It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get.
In reality however it's much more complicated. For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years.
A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on.
Marcos is all about form. Trumps form is admittedly not pretty but there are some important issues and for Theil a different political goal than Trump which isn't represented by Hillary. If you can't understand that then you make the mistakes of Marco et all. You confuse rhetorics with whats at stake.
If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency.
Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships.
So don't be the very thing your object to.
And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions. Life is complicated and it happens all the time not just around election. There are many good reasons to be against Trump or Peter Theils endorsement of him, Marcos reasons just arent any of them. They are purely superficial understanding of what's really at stake here.
That is in fact not a fundamental principle of democracy. There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions". What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs threaten society.
You may not believe Trump is a real thread to society. I disagree. So far, so good. The issue here is: Sam Altman and Paul Graham disagree too. Both of them compare Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin. Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.
Sam Altman cannot coherently believe this while supporting Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign. Even most leaders of the Republican party refused to get on stage at the RNC to support Trump. Thiel did. When he did, he used his time to claim that Donald Trump was the only honest candidate in the race. He bundled millions of dollars of donations for Trump. And, just last week, after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote, Thiel donated $1.25MM more.
Nobody denies Sam Altman's right to support Peter Thiel, or, for that matter, Thiel's right to support Trump. But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.
This is so wise and respectful. I really appreciate this comment.
Someone supporting Trump does not imply that they are sexist or racist. The issues are complex. Ultimately, if an employee has shown nothing but respect for fellow coworkers and is performing their job adequately, then I don't think you have a good reason to fire them.
What if I fired an employee for donating to a church? Or to the Clinton campaign? Regardless of the legality of the action, I would never do this. I believe it would be dishonorable. Now, if the employee were causing problems at work, then this is an entirely different situation.
We must respect each other's differences. Firing Marcos would only succeed in alienating him, further entrenching him in his perspective.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Firing someone on the basis of a political donation (to a major candidate, nonetheless) seems pretty hateful to me.
Respect for the parent commenter, and Sam Altman for doing (what I think) is the difficult but honorable thing.
To support your position it's more complex than it appears I'm going to repost this article that correctly describes many issues leading to Trump support:
It's from an entertainment site but many claims in here are exactly what rural people tell me in person in 3 states plus online in a few more. That Duck Dynasty treated and portrayed them positively is why that show exploded in popularity to great confusion of many liberals. Trump is tapping into concerns of half the country that doesn't exist or is "a bunch of fucktards" in the minds of many (most?) city-dwelling and liberal Americans. I actually took time to listen to them to find many of their positions make more sense when you actually understand their lifestyle, businesses, upbringing, etc. My agreement was a mix with mostly disagreement but I saw where they're coming from. Shit like Trump's rise doesn't happen in a vacuum.
The sooner liberals and Silicon Valley start understanding rural America the better. They'll be able to target them with better political candidates, businesses, etc. There might also be increased cooperation instead of fighting. We might get more Trumps in the future if the disconnect remains and continues to increase.
"the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions"
I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff. Marco is not saying that supporting Trump should be illegal, he is saying that supporting Trump is shameful, and that supporting someone who supports Trump at such scale is shameful too.
I'm pretty sure a huge portion of Trump's support is from people that are essentially single issue tax and supreme court voters (for the presidential election). Or even a Yuuuge portion. Jerry Falwell Jr. isn't struggling or left out of the political process.
I also don't understand what everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions is supposed to mean. If someone repeatedly says stupid things, one of the repercussions is that I'm going to start thinking they aren't very thoughtful. Do they have a right to not be judged by me? Or are you referring to some grayer area of repercussions that they should not have to face?
That Trump's and by extension Theil's actions have a very real set of consequences has NOTHING to do with democracy. The government is not taking action against them, we the people are. The very idea of democracy is that it's the expressed will of the people, filtered through mechanics to make it possible to administrate. In this case the will of a great number of people, including Marco according to the post, is remove support from people who choose to say these damaging things. It's not an incomplete understanding, it's that in their value system, the things being said can have no possible balance and anyone supporting them represents a clear danger to what they feel makes a democratic country great. That you would suggest a lack of understanding and try and use that to defend the very people moving to limit and harm democracy in the USA is condescending and harmful in my opinion. Of course everyone is feel to support who they wish but no one is free from dealing with the fall out from standing with the hateful and bigoted.
Yes. This is the similar point about Brexit. When the Brexit vote was on, instead of seeing that the Brexit leave people had some points that they wanted address, the remain people vilified them. Making sure that none of the points they wanted to get across was address. This furthered the gap and caused the divide.
The people who voted Brexit leave were disillusioned voters who think the current system is bad and their voices weren't being heard. But the remain camp instead of listening to them, pushed them away. The leave vote was a form of dissent from people who were upset with the current system. Yes they might have been racists amongst them, but they courted people who were excluded.
I disagree. I think Marco’s point, which I strongly agree with, is that donating to Trump goes beyond just supporting a political candidate that you don’t happen to agree with. The fact that Trump has some valid policy ideas is completely besides the point. Amongst other things he is inciting racial and ethnic hatred, undermining trust in American democracy, encouraging violence and legitimising sexual assault. When you donate to Trump you are supporting this behaviour just as much as his policy ideas. This is the problem and is what is completely immoral in my opinion.
I think I should also mention that I am not a US citizen and do not live in the US so I speak as an outsider here.
Does he really represent that group of people? Or does he appeal to them because no one actually represents them? I think he's there for himself and whoever will give people the impression that he's winning.
Obviously there are many disillusioned people but I certainly don't think Trump is the best option for them. I'd like to see far more real attention and representation given to the crowd you speak of.
Shame on Marco. I can't stand Trump, but I also can't stand this ganging up on Thiel. I guess the fact that he's a billionaire means he can be bullied, but this political bullying has a chilling effect that leads to the lackluster choices we get for president every four years.
Thiel sees Hillary as a bigger threat to his interests than Trump. To prefer an outcome does not imply you favor all aspects of that outcome. As arrogant and simple-minded as Trump comes across, he didn't stay wealthy without delegating his authority, and there would be violence to no-end if he appointed racists and sexists to high-level positions. That egomaniac ultimately seeks admiration, and the threat of "deporting illegals" was most-likely (you never know and that's why I'm not voting for the guy) a strategy to get the nomination.
Instead of Thiel, we should be admonishing our media, which couldn't have hand-picked two more controversial figures and allowed themselves to be manipulated at every step. We should be admonishing Hillary and Trump supporters who turn a blind eye to their unethical tactics and ends justify the means mindset. The ends (aka political payback) usually just result in more corruption and more things to fix with government. We need to stop this cycle. We can start buy turning off the TV, and considering a third party.
Thanks, Marco, for drawing my attention to Sam Altman's great blog post. More people should take Sam's attitude:
The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less.
We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I’d like to find out, because we have to include everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020.
Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands. The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Demanding that Trump supporters be fired tells everyone that the "elites" are a) scared of Trump, b) can't win through arguments and have to resort to intimidation, and c) are a powerful, dangerous group which is hostile to average people, who need someone to protect them from this sinister force. Which is all, of course, exactly what Donald Trump wants them to believe.
Daily newspapers have endorsed Clinton by a margin of 147 to 2. It should be obvious, over a year after the Trump campaign started, that anyone voting for Trump isn't going to be dissuaded by yet another article calling him racist. Indeed, I think many Trump supporters back him because of all the articles calling him racist. "They" must be scared of Trump (the logic goes), or else "they" wouldn't spend so much effort attacking him, so Trump must be the only "truly independent" candidate who will "fight the system".
If you don't believe me, look at eg. this comment on /r/The_Donald, which was voted up to #1 on a recent Peter Thiel article:
"True story. I once hung out with a group of lesbians (most my friends are male), and when they found out I didn't agree with them politically, they told me they were taking away my dyke card. Thankfully there are a LOT of gays who give no fucks about the 'lgbtqjseflelkf community', and just live their lives like anyone else. This article is nothing more than typical democrat tactics. 'YOU'RE NOT A REAL <insert minority> UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE SAY.' REMEMBER IF TRUMP WEREN'T A REAL THREAT, THEY WOULDN'T BE THIS DESPERATE." (emphasis in original)
The same tactics have been used against Trump over and over and over, for more than a year now, and his support is still pretty much where it was during the summer. Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over and over, and expecting different results.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the narrative where support for Trump is a basis for excluding a person from discussion and employment. He's a major party candidate, supported (if sometimes disliked) by roughly half the population. That's not a number of people you can fire or silence!
The usual argument runs that this time is unique, that Trump has embraced racism and violence and his major-party status should not bury that. That he is effectively (sometimes "literally") a facist, and should be treated as such. I think it's an inadequate, alarming response.
Just about half of voters will back Trump. At that scale, silencing and marginalizing them is impossible, so whether it's moral doesn't really matter. Shunning influences people when it cuts them off from their social circles, but most of the people embracing shunning admit they know 0-1 Trump supporters. It's not going to marginalize anyone, just deepen a divide between the groups.
Even if Trump were quite literally Mussolini 2.0, firing and shunning his supporters wouldn't end his candidacy. In fact, refusing to engage with facists has historically pushed them further, letting them build their beliefs unopposed.
I respected Altman's explanation. It doesn't matter that Trump is different, or that Thiel donated an exceptional amount (particularly since it was in line with his wealth). Firing people for simple support or donations makes this problem worse, so no amount of importance is a justification.
>Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands.
I'm not sure that's true. Trump is a narcissist who wants to be loved. He's not trying to be hated.
What these posts do is create or reinforce cultural and political divide in a very ugly way. The message is that if you're a Trump supporter you're immoral and because you're immoral there's no way to compromise with you. The author may get brownie points from other members in his bubble, but his attitude is destructive and should be stopped. All you're doing is incentivising lying about political beliefs and further radicalizing conservatives.
the alternative to denouncing outright support for racist and sexist position is accepting it as normal political speech, which sounds worse.
There's this trope that attacking this position doesn't harm (or even helps) Trump, but polling has shown the contrary. The scandals involving his comments about women, about the muslim veteran, his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, have always been followed by drops in polling for him. His tax policies, a bit less so.
Talking about how Trump's positions are terrible cause his numbers to go down. If that's not effective political speech, I don't know what is.
Trump's support is way down from the summer. 538 had Trump and Clinton pretty much even at the end of July. Right now they predict an 87.4% chance of a Clinton victory, with about a 7% difference in the popular vote (which, for modern elections, is a pretty big margin).
The highly partisan nature of American politics puts a pretty hard floor on what any major candidate can expect for support. The Democrats or Republicans could run a half-eaten bagel for President and they would still get about 40% of the vote. It's no coincidence that this is about the level where Trump is polling right now.
Sure, posts like this just reinforce Trump supporters' beliefs. But so what? They're going to vote for him anyway. 80% of the electorate knew which way they were going to vote before the primaries even began. Nothing is going to sway them. What matters is convincing the 20% in the middle. They're rejecting Trump pretty hard right now, and pointing out how horrible he is certainly seems to be helping.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!
To me, these attitudes (and their general acceptance + support) are just as worrying as Donald's own attitudes and supporters.
One of the strangest things about human nature--at least that I've seen--is that when we vehemently resist something we detest we often produce its mirror image.
It's honestly extremely frightening to think that making a political donation to a major-party candidate you support could cost you your livelihood in this country. Those are not the principles America was founded on. (It's not even like McCarthyism anymore where they were persecuting a small minority party. We want to blacklist people for being __Republican__? Really?)
This is exactly how Democracy becomes eroded and one party systems emerge. And the fact that more people don't see that is quite chilling.
What's that old American saying? Something like: "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That's the America I grew up in. What happened to it?
Living through communism in an eastern european country and getting the real freedom to vote and support who we want changed everything .
And this is why I simply cannot understand this. Educated people from countries which I associate with a strong democracy are asking, no, demanding political discrimination. This is illegal in any civilized country and for obvious reasons. And they do it in the name of progress too!
I must control my impulse of getting angry and calling names, but the fact is you are ignorant spoiled children who take your freedom for granted and would trade it for simple feelings of holier than though.
I am 100% in favor of Sam Altman's decision for the following reasons: 1. Trump is offensive, racist, sexist and a terrible human being all around. I am Mexican, and I hate his guts and everything about him. However, I believe in what Voltaire once smartly said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I do not agree at all with Peter Thiel's decision to support Trump in the RNC or with money, but I defend his right to express himself. 2. Sam Altman and Paul Graham have done a lot to defeat Trump and elect Hillary as president. One of their part time partners supports Trump, that is not indicative of YC's political view. 3. Peter Thiel is a business man, and investor therefore that is what I focus on, his book which is fantastic and his work on facebook, can't judge him unfairly on everything, just because he supports Trump. He has a brilliant business mind and that is why he is a part time partner at YC and that is in the arena he should be judged.
I am strongly in favor of free speech. Peter should be scrutinized and debated, not fired. Sam Altman does not deserve any nonsense because of this.
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.
Shame on you, Marco Arment, for calling for someone's head because you don't like their political position. Whatever happened to the land of "I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to death your right to say it" or "Give me freedom or give me death"? Or it is, as it turns out for you, that it's the land of the free only for people who agree with you?
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I applaud YC's decision not to sever ties with someone because of their personal opinion. And Marco Arment should feel ashamed for trying to oust people with different political opinion than his and undermine the cherished principle of freedom of speech.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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?
There are some brilliant people working in this industry whose politics I abhor. That doesn't mean that we can't, don't, or won't work well together, or even that we have to leave politics at the door. I've had some great conversations with people who I strongly disagree with politically -- frustrating, yes, but still highly interesting and worthwhile for mutual understanding.
This trend of naming, shaming, and excluding political opponents has got to end. We've been here before (even as recently as the GWB / War on Terror era), and it is absolutely toxic for an open and democratic society.
I agree with you in general, but Trump is uniquely toxic. Every day he says more and more hateful and disturbing things, and threatens our open and democratic society with his constant railing against the rigged election and encouragement to supporters to go intimidate voters in typically-Democratic districts. This is not just a political difference. Trump is truly dangerous.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but all the YC shaming is terrible. You're advocating for dictatorship where only one political view matters.
Wikipedia: "A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens."
There's an interesting dichotomy when people talk about this election. The same folks who accuse Trump of being divisive, then demand folks break ties with all Trump supporters.
I detest Trump, but I understand a certain aspect of his followers. (I know several intelligent Trump followers. They do exist.) Their core premise is, "We want to push Reset on the crony capitalism in Washington, and if it takes a terminally flawed candidate to destroy the establishment, so be it." In this light, things like "He's never done the job before", "He's a Pervert", "He lies a bunch" don't hurt him. And when Republican leadership abandons him, it strengthens his cause. (Yes, there's racism too, but let's leave that to the side for now) Yes, Trump is reprehensible, but you can appreciate that the disaffected are rallying behind him with "Let's not have 4 more years of the rich bailing themselves out and bringing cheap competition in for our jobs."
YC can join the Facebook drama queens who unfriend people with opposing political views, but that's childish. Better to engage the opposition, and allow people to support whatever politicians they want out in the open.
I disagree with the author of this article. If anything, this article just shows how powerful the media is and how it can influence people to have such extreme thoughts about things which they actually know very little about.
Trump is not guilty of sexual harassment - That is hearsay; media propaganda. Yes, he said nasty things, but it doesn't mean anything about his ability to do a good job as a president.
I think he is probably a rotten person, but I think everyone in politics is just as rotten anyway. To pretend that Hillary Clinton is a saint is wrong - Personally, I think that she is every bit as rotten as Trump - But she is really good at hiding/suppressing it.
Most Trump supporters don't want to vote for him because they think he is a nice person (and I'm sure that Thiel doesn't either) - They just think that he is capable of doing a great job as a president and they think that this is more important than his personality.
(1) Seek to understand, then seek to be understood.
If we want to eliminate misguided beliefs, convince anyone who thinks sexual assault and racism is okay, etc., you need to first understand them, and have them feel as though they are understood. It's a basic rule of effective communication. No one will listen to your criticisms of their arguments if they are not convinced that you have understood what they are saying and show empathy towards their position. So, a dialogue wherein all parties work together to develop shared understandings will be far more effective than the demonisation of a section of society.
(2) Supporting Trump doesn't necessarily mean Peter supports Trump's more bigoted and/or inappropriate views. This is Peter Thiel we're talking about. Peter gets excited by thinking differently to other people. If thinking differently were a sex act, it would be Peter's fetish. Peter would support a candidate only if he believes it's what the country needs to help bring back a time of growth and optimism that he thinks has been lost long ago (see: Zero to One). Now, remember, just because Peter believes something, doesn't mean that it's right (see: Clarium Capital).
So, it is my view that Sam is right in supporting the sharing of vastly different ideas, views and understandings. Thiel hasn't specifically supported any of Trump's shameful views, as you aptly describe them, so his only 'crime' is to believe that a protectionist moron (he'll perceive him differently) can do anything positive for the country - a belief that might be mistaken, but is by no means a crime or something to cause shame.
Stop demonising Trump supporters. You'll never convince idiots of anything by addressing them as such.
Non American here. Inability to even comprehend why calls to punish one person because it supports option that I don't like (that's allegedly full of ism-s) equates to me being as narrow minded as the side I am attacking... is very dangerous. Marco is not doing any favor to his favorite this way. Narrow mindedness, no matter how well packaged, stays narrow mindedness. Dragging YC in this is again just a reflection of inability to see how this looks on the outside.
As we say in this part of the world "just don't defend me any more please".
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.
[+] [-] sctb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThomPete|9 years ago|reply
It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get.
In reality however it's much more complicated. For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on.
Marcos is all about form. Trumps form is admittedly not pretty but there are some important issues and for Theil a different political goal than Trump which isn't represented by Hillary. If you can't understand that then you make the mistakes of Marco et all. You confuse rhetorics with whats at stake.
If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency.
Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships.
So don't be the very thing your object to.
And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions. Life is complicated and it happens all the time not just around election. There are many good reasons to be against Trump or Peter Theils endorsement of him, Marcos reasons just arent any of them. They are purely superficial understanding of what's really at stake here.
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
You may not believe Trump is a real thread to society. I disagree. So far, so good. The issue here is: Sam Altman and Paul Graham disagree too. Both of them compare Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin. Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.
Sam Altman cannot coherently believe this while supporting Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign. Even most leaders of the Republican party refused to get on stage at the RNC to support Trump. Thiel did. When he did, he used his time to claim that Donald Trump was the only honest candidate in the race. He bundled millions of dollars of donations for Trump. And, just last week, after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote, Thiel donated $1.25MM more.
Nobody denies Sam Altman's right to support Peter Thiel, or, for that matter, Thiel's right to support Trump. But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.
[+] [-] madmax96|9 years ago|reply
Someone supporting Trump does not imply that they are sexist or racist. The issues are complex. Ultimately, if an employee has shown nothing but respect for fellow coworkers and is performing their job adequately, then I don't think you have a good reason to fire them.
What if I fired an employee for donating to a church? Or to the Clinton campaign? Regardless of the legality of the action, I would never do this. I believe it would be dishonorable. Now, if the employee were causing problems at work, then this is an entirely different situation.
We must respect each other's differences. Firing Marcos would only succeed in alienating him, further entrenching him in his perspective.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Firing someone on the basis of a political donation (to a major candidate, nonetheless) seems pretty hateful to me.
Respect for the parent commenter, and Sam Altman for doing (what I think) is the difficult but honorable thing.
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|9 years ago|reply
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...
It's from an entertainment site but many claims in here are exactly what rural people tell me in person in 3 states plus online in a few more. That Duck Dynasty treated and portrayed them positively is why that show exploded in popularity to great confusion of many liberals. Trump is tapping into concerns of half the country that doesn't exist or is "a bunch of fucktards" in the minds of many (most?) city-dwelling and liberal Americans. I actually took time to listen to them to find many of their positions make more sense when you actually understand their lifestyle, businesses, upbringing, etc. My agreement was a mix with mostly disagreement but I saw where they're coming from. Shit like Trump's rise doesn't happen in a vacuum.
The sooner liberals and Silicon Valley start understanding rural America the better. They'll be able to target them with better political candidates, businesses, etc. There might also be increased cooperation instead of fighting. We might get more Trumps in the future if the disconnect remains and continues to increase.
[+] [-] galactus|9 years ago|reply
I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff. Marco is not saying that supporting Trump should be illegal, he is saying that supporting Trump is shameful, and that supporting someone who supports Trump at such scale is shameful too.
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
I also don't understand what everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions is supposed to mean. If someone repeatedly says stupid things, one of the repercussions is that I'm going to start thinking they aren't very thoughtful. Do they have a right to not be judged by me? Or are you referring to some grayer area of repercussions that they should not have to face?
[+] [-] jaegerpicker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalore|9 years ago|reply
The people who voted Brexit leave were disillusioned voters who think the current system is bad and their voices weren't being heard. But the remain camp instead of listening to them, pushed them away. The leave vote was a form of dissent from people who were upset with the current system. Yes they might have been racists amongst them, but they courted people who were excluded.
[+] [-] d7oaks|9 years ago|reply
I think I should also mention that I am not a US citizen and do not live in the US so I speak as an outsider here.
[+] [-] prawn|9 years ago|reply
Obviously there are many disillusioned people but I certainly don't think Trump is the best option for them. I'd like to see far more real attention and representation given to the crowd you speak of.
[+] [-] webXL|9 years ago|reply
Thiel sees Hillary as a bigger threat to his interests than Trump. To prefer an outcome does not imply you favor all aspects of that outcome. As arrogant and simple-minded as Trump comes across, he didn't stay wealthy without delegating his authority, and there would be violence to no-end if he appointed racists and sexists to high-level positions. That egomaniac ultimately seeks admiration, and the threat of "deporting illegals" was most-likely (you never know and that's why I'm not voting for the guy) a strategy to get the nomination.
Instead of Thiel, we should be admonishing our media, which couldn't have hand-picked two more controversial figures and allowed themselves to be manipulated at every step. We should be admonishing Hillary and Trump supporters who turn a blind eye to their unethical tactics and ends justify the means mindset. The ends (aka political payback) usually just result in more corruption and more things to fix with government. We need to stop this cycle. We can start buy turning off the TV, and considering a third party.
[+] [-] brlewis|9 years ago|reply
The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less.
We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I’d like to find out, because we have to include everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020.
[+] [-] apsec112|9 years ago|reply
Daily newspapers have endorsed Clinton by a margin of 147 to 2. It should be obvious, over a year after the Trump campaign started, that anyone voting for Trump isn't going to be dissuaded by yet another article calling him racist. Indeed, I think many Trump supporters back him because of all the articles calling him racist. "They" must be scared of Trump (the logic goes), or else "they" wouldn't spend so much effort attacking him, so Trump must be the only "truly independent" candidate who will "fight the system".
If you don't believe me, look at eg. this comment on /r/The_Donald, which was voted up to #1 on a recent Peter Thiel article:
"True story. I once hung out with a group of lesbians (most my friends are male), and when they found out I didn't agree with them politically, they told me they were taking away my dyke card. Thankfully there are a LOT of gays who give no fucks about the 'lgbtqjseflelkf community', and just live their lives like anyone else. This article is nothing more than typical democrat tactics. 'YOU'RE NOT A REAL <insert minority> UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE SAY.' REMEMBER IF TRUMP WEREN'T A REAL THREAT, THEY WOULDN'T BE THIS DESPERATE." (emphasis in original)
The same tactics have been used against Trump over and over and over, for more than a year now, and his support is still pretty much where it was during the summer. Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over and over, and expecting different results.
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
The usual argument runs that this time is unique, that Trump has embraced racism and violence and his major-party status should not bury that. That he is effectively (sometimes "literally") a facist, and should be treated as such. I think it's an inadequate, alarming response.
Just about half of voters will back Trump. At that scale, silencing and marginalizing them is impossible, so whether it's moral doesn't really matter. Shunning influences people when it cuts them off from their social circles, but most of the people embracing shunning admit they know 0-1 Trump supporters. It's not going to marginalize anyone, just deepen a divide between the groups.
Even if Trump were quite literally Mussolini 2.0, firing and shunning his supporters wouldn't end his candidacy. In fact, refusing to engage with facists has historically pushed them further, letting them build their beliefs unopposed.
I respected Altman's explanation. It doesn't matter that Trump is different, or that Thiel donated an exceptional amount (particularly since it was in line with his wealth). Firing people for simple support or donations makes this problem worse, so no amount of importance is a justification.
[+] [-] cerebrum|9 years ago|reply
Yes there is in fact a campaign of elites against Trump, in case you don't believe that I suggest taking a look at the recent wikileaks.
[+] [-] macspoofing|9 years ago|reply
I'm not sure that's true. Trump is a narcissist who wants to be loved. He's not trying to be hated.
What these posts do is create or reinforce cultural and political divide in a very ugly way. The message is that if you're a Trump supporter you're immoral and because you're immoral there's no way to compromise with you. The author may get brownie points from other members in his bubble, but his attitude is destructive and should be stopped. All you're doing is incentivising lying about political beliefs and further radicalizing conservatives.
[+] [-] rtpg|9 years ago|reply
There's this trope that attacking this position doesn't harm (or even helps) Trump, but polling has shown the contrary. The scandals involving his comments about women, about the muslim veteran, his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, have always been followed by drops in polling for him. His tax policies, a bit less so.
Talking about how Trump's positions are terrible cause his numbers to go down. If that's not effective political speech, I don't know what is.
EDIT: Nate Silver made this point better than me in a mini-tweetstorm (tweet-shower?) https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/784777881482170368
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
The highly partisan nature of American politics puts a pretty hard floor on what any major candidate can expect for support. The Democrats or Republicans could run a half-eaten bagel for President and they would still get about 40% of the vote. It's no coincidence that this is about the level where Trump is polling right now.
Sure, posts like this just reinforce Trump supporters' beliefs. But so what? They're going to vote for him anyway. 80% of the electorate knew which way they were going to vote before the primaries even began. Nothing is going to sway them. What matters is convincing the 20% in the middle. They're rejecting Trump pretty hard right now, and pointing out how horrible he is certainly seems to be helping.
[+] [-] PopsiclePete|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fareesh|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mping|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] smt88|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pron|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] skywhopper|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jarcane|9 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] thght|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adpoe|9 years ago|reply
One of the strangest things about human nature--at least that I've seen--is that when we vehemently resist something we detest we often produce its mirror image.
It's honestly extremely frightening to think that making a political donation to a major-party candidate you support could cost you your livelihood in this country. Those are not the principles America was founded on. (It's not even like McCarthyism anymore where they were persecuting a small minority party. We want to blacklist people for being __Republican__? Really?)
This is exactly how Democracy becomes eroded and one party systems emerge. And the fact that more people don't see that is quite chilling.
What's that old American saying? Something like: "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That's the America I grew up in. What happened to it?
[+] [-] trabant00|9 years ago|reply
And this is why I simply cannot understand this. Educated people from countries which I associate with a strong democracy are asking, no, demanding political discrimination. This is illegal in any civilized country and for obvious reasons. And they do it in the name of progress too!
I must control my impulse of getting angry and calling names, but the fact is you are ignorant spoiled children who take your freedom for granted and would trade it for simple feelings of holier than though.
[+] [-] ipatriot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ww520|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jchiu1106|9 years ago|reply
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I applaud YC's decision not to sever ties with someone because of their personal opinion. And Marco Arment should feel ashamed for trying to oust people with different political opinion than his and undermine the cherished principle of freedom of speech.
[+] [-] kybernetyk|9 years ago|reply
Demanding someone gets fire/removed just because they have a different political opinion than you is ridiculous.
[+] [-] cyborgx7|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lintiness|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elias12|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] DasIch|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smt88|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zmb_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbrock|9 years ago|reply
The presidency of the U.S. isn't a personal matter.
[+] [-] jarcane|9 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] iamnothere|9 years ago|reply
This trend of naming, shaming, and excluding political opponents has got to end. We've been here before (even as recently as the GWB / War on Terror era), and it is absolutely toxic for an open and democratic society.
[+] [-] skywhopper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaypaulynice|9 years ago|reply
Wikipedia: "A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens."
[+] [-] mathattack|9 years ago|reply
I detest Trump, but I understand a certain aspect of his followers. (I know several intelligent Trump followers. They do exist.) Their core premise is, "We want to push Reset on the crony capitalism in Washington, and if it takes a terminally flawed candidate to destroy the establishment, so be it." In this light, things like "He's never done the job before", "He's a Pervert", "He lies a bunch" don't hurt him. And when Republican leadership abandons him, it strengthens his cause. (Yes, there's racism too, but let's leave that to the side for now) Yes, Trump is reprehensible, but you can appreciate that the disaffected are rallying behind him with "Let's not have 4 more years of the rich bailing themselves out and bringing cheap competition in for our jobs."
YC can join the Facebook drama queens who unfriend people with opposing political views, but that's childish. Better to engage the opposition, and allow people to support whatever politicians they want out in the open.
[+] [-] jondubois|9 years ago|reply
Trump is not guilty of sexual harassment - That is hearsay; media propaganda. Yes, he said nasty things, but it doesn't mean anything about his ability to do a good job as a president.
I think he is probably a rotten person, but I think everyone in politics is just as rotten anyway. To pretend that Hillary Clinton is a saint is wrong - Personally, I think that she is every bit as rotten as Trump - But she is really good at hiding/suppressing it.
Most Trump supporters don't want to vote for him because they think he is a nice person (and I'm sure that Thiel doesn't either) - They just think that he is capable of doing a great job as a president and they think that this is more important than his personality.
[+] [-] dibstern|9 years ago|reply
I disagree with you for a couple reasons.
(1) Seek to understand, then seek to be understood. If we want to eliminate misguided beliefs, convince anyone who thinks sexual assault and racism is okay, etc., you need to first understand them, and have them feel as though they are understood. It's a basic rule of effective communication. No one will listen to your criticisms of their arguments if they are not convinced that you have understood what they are saying and show empathy towards their position. So, a dialogue wherein all parties work together to develop shared understandings will be far more effective than the demonisation of a section of society.
(2) Supporting Trump doesn't necessarily mean Peter supports Trump's more bigoted and/or inappropriate views. This is Peter Thiel we're talking about. Peter gets excited by thinking differently to other people. If thinking differently were a sex act, it would be Peter's fetish. Peter would support a candidate only if he believes it's what the country needs to help bring back a time of growth and optimism that he thinks has been lost long ago (see: Zero to One). Now, remember, just because Peter believes something, doesn't mean that it's right (see: Clarium Capital).
So, it is my view that Sam is right in supporting the sharing of vastly different ideas, views and understandings. Thiel hasn't specifically supported any of Trump's shameful views, as you aptly describe them, so his only 'crime' is to believe that a protectionist moron (he'll perceive him differently) can do anything positive for the country - a belief that might be mistaken, but is by no means a crime or something to cause shame.
Stop demonising Trump supporters. You'll never convince idiots of anything by addressing them as such.
[+] [-] binaryapparatus|9 years ago|reply
As we say in this part of the world "just don't defend me any more please".
[+] [-] amasad|9 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/peter-thiel-trump-ha...