
Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions - beardicus
https://medium.com/projectinclude/peter-thiel-yc-and-hard-decisions-2b91bab83764#.f8k645921
======
dfabulich
There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting
investors.

Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo
Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
[https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-
supportin...](https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supporting-
companies-no-longer-allowed-at-yc-demo-day/)

Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they
think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"

The obvious answer to that question would be, "their track record as investors
could demonstrate that." But no, in 2011, if you supported SOPA, you're out,
_regardless of your track record_.

I think it's fair to ask whether, if Peter Thiel is so clueless as to donate
$1.25 million to Donald Trump _today_ , after so much of his dirty laundry has
come to light and after this has been reflected in the polls, how could he be
a good investor?

If it was the right decision for SOPA, it's right decision today.

~~~
untog
IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation.
He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even
happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire
election is "rigged".

He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you
need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him.

Thiel, of course, does not think "freedom and democracy are compatible":
[https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/education-libertarian)

~~~
nostromo
For what it's worth, I haven't heard many complaints about Bernie Sanders
claiming elections are bought.

> We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to
> buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality
> right now. [1]

(He also is fond of claiming "the system" is rigged, if not elections
directly.)

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-
bil...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-billionaire-
class-in-launching-2016-bid-against-
clinton/2015/04/30/4849fe32-ef3a-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html)

~~~
tptacek
That's because Bernie Sanders is not in fact claiming that the election is
rigged. In fact: he's been a reliable support of Clinton since the primaries
ended.

~~~
pjwal
And therefore, he's a good guy now? lol.

------
archagon
Based on the awful things Trump has said and (apparently) done, it should be
blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your
usual political rivalry. Pao is right: "this isn’t a disagreement on tax
policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Quite literally at times! (I
might give a pass to the people following the party line or acting on
incomplete information, but Thiel knows _exactly_ what he's supporting.)

And yet, in the previous HN thread on the topic, I see dozens of voices loudly
defending the right for Thiel to prop up Trump's demagoguery without
consequence. To them, supporting Trump or Clinton is equally bad, even though
the things Trump routinely says are downright terrifying[1] and dangerous to
the fabric of our country. For the first time in my life, I'm actually
expecting to see violence on election day.

This fledgeling authoritarian streak within the tech community really disturbs
me.

[1]:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/)

~~~
maratd
> To them, supporting Trump and Clinton are equally bad

No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if
we disagree with them.

A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion
in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically.

That's disgusting and people who support that sort of witch hunt should be
ashamed of themselves.

I vehemently disagree with his choice of who to support during this election,
but I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of
intolerance should have no place in a civil society.

~~~
braythwayt
In short, you say "people who support that sort of witch hunt" are intolerant,
and that there is no place for them here. So... you are in favour of excluding
people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of
intolerance and whose repugnance is involved.

Another matter of interest is the nature of the power imbalance of lack of
same. The original witch hunts, McCarthyism, and other struggles involved a
very powerful entity depriving individual citizens of their rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of a career.

There is a massive difference between "So-and-so engineer cannot work in this
industry because a VC finds their political views repugnant," and, "I choose
not to do business with a billionaire who is actively conspiring to bring
democracy down."

One is punching down, the other is punching up, or perhaps sideways.

~~~
exolymph
Yeah, "destroying a person for their political views" does not apply in this
case at all. Peter Thiel is a BILLIONAIRE.

~~~
InclinedPlane
For values of "destroying" equal to "refusing to do business with".

------
hood_syntax
I am disappointed with Thiel's decision to donate money to Donald Trump, but I
don't care what Ellen Pao or her organization thinks about it. It's their
prerogative, but I laughed at the tagline 'Sometimes hard decisions aren't
that hard after all'. I don't believe an attempt to pressure outside parties
into severing business ties with someone because of their questionable
political judgement should be treated as if it is some sort of noble crusade
e.g.

> We have hope for YC;... Today it is clear our values are not aligned.

And make no mistake, it's either an attempt to pressure YC or a PR play for
the organization (possibly both)

~~~
timehastoldme
Or it's a stand against a movement which opposes their moral principles. To
Pao (and, to the extent that it matters, me), D. Trump's movement is so vile
that any prominent supporters of it waive their right to being tolerated. I am
sure you'd agree that doing so would be acceptable if Thiel supported Strom
Thurmond, Viktor Orban, or Mao Zedong; it's just a matter of how bad D. Trump
is.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Strom Thurmond"

How about Hillary Clinton's "friend and mentor", a man of "eloquence and
nobility" (her actual words) Robert C. Byrd? You know, "KKK Kleagle" Byrd?
"Tried to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act" Byrd? "I shall never fight in
the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand
times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see
this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the
blackest specimen from the wilds." Byrd?

Remember him?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA)

~~~
paulv
Nope.

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a
thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't
erase what happened." \-- Robert Byrd

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP
President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an
active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights
Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that
advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda,
doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on
many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of
the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his
support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton,
Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy
and Policy."

[http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-
klan/](http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/)

~~~
Turing_Machine
Strom Thurmond also repudiated his earlier racism, but that didn't stop the OP
from using him as a litmus test.

Why is that?

~~~
purephase
You'll need to source that. Despite some evidence in his later actions, Strom
never vocally repudiated his earlier racism. I couldn't find any sources on
it.

His filibuster against the Civil Rights Act put him in this position. Had he
succeeded, his impact would have been far more detrimental to the rights of
those protected under the act today then anything Byrd had/has done.

Both are disagreeable sorts, but Strom's lasting impact would have been much,
much worse.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"His filibuster against the Civil Rights Act put him in this position."

"His"? Singular?

Both Byrd and Thurmond attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act, so I
don't know where you're getting "anything Byrd had done" from.

~~~
purephase
I should have been more specific. The 24 hour marathon filibuster, the longest
in history, put him in this position. There were others who filibustered the
Civil Rights Act bills, but none of them made such a dramatic show of it.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Byrd filibustered for 14 hours. Sorry, that might demonstrate that Thurmond
had better bladder control, but that's about it.

------
natrius
Cleaving off 40% of America is not a recipe for progress. When Trump shows his
people how they're getting blacklisted from the economy, that isn't going to
make them want to riot _less_. Our culture of progress has become entirely
about excluding dissenters until they submit, _and it 's not working anymore_.
We've given up on convincing the people who have all the weapons, and now
we're going to start hurting them economically. Good luck, y'all.

~~~
sulam
There are two larges groups of people who are voting for Trump regardless of
anything he does (as he said: he could shoot people down on 5th avenue and
these people would still vote for him). The largest group of them are
Republicans who will always vote Republican. My beef with these people is that
I wish they were a little more loyal to our country's values than they were to
their party, but fundamentally I've got no real problem with them.

The second group are all white nationalists. They honestly believe that Obama
is a Muslim, that Jews control the banks and media, that immigration is bad
for the country, etc.

These people I have no problem with blacklisting.

~~~
debacle
What percentage of the population do you think really identifies as white
nationalist?

~~~
sulam
Out of the 40% that support Trump, the numbers I've seen are that roughly 10%
support his identity politics. They might not call themselves white
nationalists, but they are attracted by someone "telling it like it is" with
respect to immigrants, inner cities, etc.

IOW, a very large part of Trump's core supporters are simply Republicans that
will vote for him because he is at the top of the Republican ticket. They
would also have voted for Rubio or even Kasich. They don't like a number of
things he's said or done, but they will vote for the Republican before they
vote for a Democrat (especially Hillary Clinton).

The minority, though, are not really Republicans -- they are truly a right
wing nationalist cohort that is very attuned to things like Trump's "David
Duke who?" initial response to his endorsement.

With respect to the other comment about Republicans reaching out to these
people: the Southern strategy is a 50-yr old strategy that the Republican
party has consciously and publicly tried to move away from in the last 8 years
as demographics have made it less and less likely to deliver the Whitehouse.
Yes these people have been loosely attached to the Republican party, but as
the Republican party moves away from them, they've also moved away from it.

The natural thing, if we didn't have a legally supported two-party system,
would be for a Marie Le Pen style nationalist party to form behind Trump.

------
grandalf
This would be fine if HRC supporters were also going to be marginalized for
advocating the use of drone warfare, warrantless wiretapping, and all the many
deeply troubling things about HRC's policy ideas.

While I could never bring myself to vote for Trump or HRC, I am profoundly
disappointed that anyone would advocate marginalizing Thiel for simply
participating in democracy.

Thiel's donation is a a drop in the bucket. His personal endorsement will
likely influence few people. But the chilling effect of not having the "right"
beliefs will effect many. Shame on Ellen Pao for advocating this sort of
illiberal thinking.

~~~
alexbeloi
> drone warfare, warrantless wiretapping

I find myself in a position that there are things that I dislike about both
nominee's policies (in that they are the same or both suck), and things that I
exclusively dislike about Trump's policies but not the other way around.

Can you give me some examples to balance the scales?

~~~
lsh123
Vote 3rd party, really

------
xupybd
Wow, the world is getting way too fractured between left and right. Reading
that, the YC folks make out that Trump is a monster and any affiliation with
him is evil. Come on, try to understand why people are supporting him. I don't
think it's racism and sexism that's driving this, it's the wedge between left
and right. Combine that with the two party system and people find themselves
with little choice. When you vilify everyone on the other side there is little
chance they'll come over to yours.

~~~
jshevek
Thank you for posting this. To my view, partisans on both sides are roughly
comparable. Some of their manipulative tactics differ in the specifics, but
they are both dishonest and both harmful to society.

------
551199
And people with this kind of thinking are considered to be the good guys? SNL
writer Chris Kelly "How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who
votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?"[0]

Seriously pause to think that.

This fabricated outrage created by media & Clinton campaign of Trump's
'alleged' doings is quite concerning. At the same time there are Wikileaks
collusion, media enabled terrorism, GOP, and some shady doings of agitating
violence by the Democrats shown in today's leak. None reported by the msn[1]

[0][http://archive.is/NiRJ4](http://archive.is/NiRJ4)
[1][http://regated.com/2016/10/project-veritas-clinton-camp-
corr...](http://regated.com/2016/10/project-veritas-clinton-camp-corruption/)

~~~
masklinn
> This fabricated outrage created by media & Clinton campaign of Trump's
> 'alleged' doings is quite concerning.

You mean the serial sexual assault which he basically confessed to multiple
times unprompted (bus tape, stern show, …), and to which his only defences are
a british lunatic (who "confessed" to being a child pimp for british cabinet
members at 17) and that his accusers are too ugly for him to assault?

Let us get this straight: you think it's necessary to _fabricate_ outrage over
a man who believes the issue in being accused of sexual assault is he's
accused of sexually assaulting " _uggos_ "?

~~~
551199
You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual
sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on.

Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table"
Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016'[0]

[0][https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928)

~~~
masklinn
> You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual
> sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on.

1\. Trump was not hammering anything, accusing Hillary for Bill's infidelity
has never been a hammer over the 20 years it's been used (in fact it's usually
backfired). The strategy was flopping as irrelevant even amongst republicans.
Reminder: Bill is not running for president.

2\. Kenneth Starr's investigation dropped all of these accusations back when
it was trying to find anything to pin on him, none of them were credible, the
only thing they got in the end was infidelity in a consensual relationship

3\. And Trump's bringing up of Bill was only a flippant attempt to direct
people away from his Access Hollywood tape.

> Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table"
> Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016'
> [https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928)

Er… so? That reads like a criticism ad prep:

> This will be a microsite

Which I guess they ended up not having to run since Trump has been providing
the quotes directly.

~~~
551199
Clintons say they are running as a team. You can't take the good without the
bad.

You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual
assault should not be believed. BUT Trumps alleged should be believed. Hillary
stated all rape victims have a right to be believed.

In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been
raped?

~~~
masklinn
> You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual
> assault should not be believed.

I never said that, no. What I did say was that their claims were investigated
by Starr who had every reason to use them if he could, and he didn't.

> BUT Trumps alleged should be believed.

See there are a few big differences here. Trump's history of bragging about
sexually assaulting women, the coherence of the accusations and Trump's MO,
that Gloria Allred has decided to get involved, and that these are not 20+
years old accusations which were already dropped.

> In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been
> raped?

You do understand that "we should believe [people] saying they have been
raped" means "trust but verify" right? The allegations against Clinton were
extensively checked two decades ago by people working against Clinton who had
every reason to use these accusation, and they judged them not worth pursuing.

Not that the move makes any sense either way, if assault accusations against
one candidate's SO are impeachable offenses, what are assault accusations
agains the other candidate _directly_?

------
DavidHm
What exactly is their relationship with YC?

The article is a bit murky. They "invited" YC to contribute, but do not
actually say whether YC agreed.

Forgive the cynicism, but if it turns out that YC was not contributing in any
way to Project Include, this is just empty bluster.

------
hedgew
This obviously wasn't a hard decision for them. In the article she's doing her
best to demonize Thiel and Trump without even trying to empathize.

It also reads like she's trying to associate this project with big names like
YC and Thiel.. but if I'm reading correctly all "Project Include" has done is
"actively invite YC to contribute". The cynic in me says that this is a simple
political power play and a marketing trick in one. Nothing to do with actually
helping people and society, which would involve understanding and sympathy for
all sides; even your political enemies.

------
lhnz
How can you distance yourself from Thiel if he has shown no interest in being
connected to you?

It's never going to be this easy to delegitimise someone when they are widely
known as being more credible than yourself.

If YC was to pull out it would be a loss for their startups. It should be the
founder's choice whether they wish to deprive themselves of Thiel's money or
insight to make a political point.

------
darkengine
Some serious absolutism on display in this piece. Thiel isn't supporting a
fringe candidate; most of the polls right now have a difference between Trump
and Clinton smaller than the margin of error. To make the claim that a
candidate backed by around 50% of the country is deplorable enough that we
should completely divest from his supporters, is silly.

------
blfr
_At Project Include, our mission is to give everyone a fair chance to succeed
in the workplace. “Everyone” means all groups to us, but we draw a line at
individuals who fund violence and hate._

And you denounce... Thiel? Hillary Clinton made material contributions to
starting two seemingly random wars in Libya and Syria with hundreds of
thousands of victims. That doesn't count as funding violence? What about her
supporters which appears to be everyone else.

~~~
HaloZero
Most sitting presidents and secretary of states in the past 50 years have had
to call for violence against other nations. It's part of the role and maybe
she's made mistakes. But there's a difference between Secretary of State
allowing an airstrike and being a owner of a company inciting others to
violence.

~~~
blfr
So she is OK with killing thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands but
mean comments are a cause for purges? It's either dishonest or insane.

The difference is that one of these doesn't matter.

~~~
ceejayoz
Trump's comments include a promise to commit _war crimes_ (targeting the
families of terror suspects).

------
yanilkr
Peter Theil had a long term vision for the world where others failed to see
such future. I see similar line of reasoning for Peter Theil's support.

1\. If you think that business people can govern better than Politicians or
want to achieve an environment where it gets easier and acceptable for
business leaders to seek political offices, this is a huge step in that
direction. China already took this step of inviting people who succeed in
business to participate in governance. If Trump can do it, so can every other
business person who thinks they are better than Trump. If Trump wins this, I
guarantee you next season its going to be more qualified people running for
office and if Trump loses, we still would have made progress in that
direction.

2\. Peter Theil's support for Trump gave him (gay guy) a platform to speak at
a republican convention. This is a huge progress for everyone when republicans
are standing up for gay people. It makes it easy for other people to reach out
and co-operate with each other.

3\. Peter Theil getting into politics allows something like a Y-combinator(not
the news site but a complete accelerator) for politics possible otherwise it
would just be more lawyers running again and again. Just like YC grooms tech
leaders, Theil's expertise into this venture could groom next generation
governing leaders.

What ever your politics are, this is progress.

~~~
wetmore
I think many people here and elsewhere would strongly disagree with the
premise in your first point.

------
mootothemax
Hang on - Thiel thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote, and has written
unambiguously as much?

How on earth is _that_ not the argument for dropping him?

From another angle, _how on earth_ can you trust someone's advice if they
truly and honestly think like that?

I'm honestly shocked YC can champion women founders while having someone like
this involved as a partner.

Just shocking.

And so, so disappointing.

~~~
yuvadam
> 'the extension of the franchise to women has rendered the notion of
> “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron'

[https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/education-libertarian)

~~~
hiringmanager
He's saying that women tend not to vote libertarian, not that they shouldn't
be allowed to vote.

Why misrepresent this (as so many have in this page) when we can all follow
the link and read for ourselves?

More context: " The 1920s were the last decade in American history during
which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast
increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women
— two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have
rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon
to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that
politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great
task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms —
from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos
that guides so-called “social democracy.”

So, he literally says he doesn't despair this.

------
siegecraft
Diversity and inclusion, but only for those people whose politics we agree
with? (A rhetorical question, it's always been that way).

~~~
etjossem
By strongly opposing a candidate that promises to do things like deport all
Muslims, absolutely.

Some political platforms are inherently non-inclusive and Trump's is one of
them.

~~~
vsl
The irony is rich in this one.

~~~
etjossem
I am completely morally comfortable with the idea of YC opposing a $1.25
million handout to the candidate of mass deportation.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are
not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the
intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." \-
Karl Popper

------
kyrre
Has Ellen Pao (and Project Include) spoken out against her husbands alleged
Ponzi scheme? His alleged actions seems to be in direct conflict with the
values of any wholesome tech company.

~~~
braythwayt
That's a textbook deflection right there, and also a logical fallacy.

------
4ad
> Diversity and inclusion are hard, especially in tech. Doing them right means
> agreeing on values

No, it means accepting to disagree on values. Pretty much by definition.

> calling out bad behavior

So creating needless conflict.

> and sometimes firing people

If people are too different from you, fire them! Great for diversity!

I wish these people would have the guts and sincerity to call their agenda
what it really is, because diverse, it is not.

~~~
vsl
Thanks for saying this. As a non-American it's incredibly frustrating for me
to keep hearing all this diversity BS talk, yet it's always always only skin-
shallow attributes and no diversity in things like opinions or politics is
ever tolerated... in the name of diversity.

Is this some US thing or are there really so many so obvious hypocrites out
there?

------
yadongwen
> this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and
> violence.

There are still around 40% people voting for Trump and many donating to him,
so you mean they are also advocating hatred and violence?

What you believe could be different from others. People can choose different
perspectives to see and understand the world. We should encourage different
ideas and voices. This post could be downvoted too because I'm supporting and
encouraging different voices.

~~~
Delmania
> There are still around 40% people voting for Trump and many donating to him,
> so you mean they are also advocating hatred and violence?

At this point, I'd have to say yes, given Trump's actions the past few days.
His supporters are openly committing sedition[1]. If you don't believe and
hatred and violence, and you still support him, I'd have to say that's a case
of superior orders. The man is intentionally inciting fear and violence.

Encouraging different opinions and voices are fine, but there is a limit. When
that voice is actively encouraging harm to others based on unfounded
allegations, it makes sense to cut it off, as it is not driving the
conversation forward.

1-
[https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-
trump-warnings-conspiracy-rig-election-are-stoking-anger-among-his-
followers/LcCY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html)

------
n00b101
It may be worth noting that Goldman Sachs recently banned all of its partners
from donating to the Trump ticket, as of September 1, 2016. They can still
donate to Clinton. [1]

NOTE: Technically, they banned contributions "to state and local candidates
running for office, as well as state or local officials running for federal
office." as of September 1, 2016. Since Mike Pence is a sitting state
official, it means that Goldman partners can't contribute to the Trump-Pence
ticket.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/07/goldman-sachs-
donati...](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/07/goldman-sachs-donations-
trump-clinton_n_11898982.html)

------
applecore
_> Because of [Peter Thiel's] continued connection to YC, we are compelled to
break off our relationship with YC._

What exactly was the relationship between Project Include and YC prior to
this?

------
stronsay
I don't get how you can be so cognizant of the problem of misaligned values
while at the same time having an unquestionable faith in the value of
diversity. How can you avoid cognitive dissonance here, except through a very
shallow understanding of diversity that assumes all people or groups of people
hold roughly the same values and beliefs and that where they differ, the
difference never results in unresolvable incompatibility?

------
jackfrodo
Kudos to Project Include for making this decision. This sends a clear signal
that there is a growing (or at least increasingly vocalized) segment of the
tech community that won't stand for a guy like Thiel to be a "captain" of this
industry. I believe in the long run, he's holding us back.

------
bcheung
Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. It's unlikely he is supportive of Trump's /
Republican's bigotry, but more an issue of practicality since he doesn't like
the alternative.

I also find it ironic that something called Project Include is upset because
someone is supporting a party that a huge percentage of the country is going
to vote for. YC had nothing to do with Thiel's donation and you dissociate
from them when there are 2 degrees of separation? That is not inclusion.

------
georgemonck
_this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and
violence._

I think some "both-sides-ism" is in order here.

From the perspective of the right, the left is also advocating hatred,
violence and is also trying to do an end-around to thwart democracy. Consider:

\- The riots we've had in four different cities, riots that occurred before
the facts of the case were even known, and which white people were being
specifically targeted for violence --
[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/milwaukee-
pro...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/milwaukee-protests-
asian-american-black-lives-matter-214184)

\- Michelle Obama's support of Beyonce's Black Panthers homage at the Super
Bowl (if you are unfamiliar with how destructive the Panthers and the movement
associated with it were, you can start here [https://devinhelton.com/hate-
group-history](https://devinhelton.com/hate-group-history) )

\- The left's strategy of "electing a new people" \-- favoring mass
immigration from Mexico because it will help push liberal policies. This was
stated openly in Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal" and you see articles
all the time about it (for example
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-
nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?utm_term=.20447ffc0ee3) )

\- The continued scapegoating of "white men" and "structural racism" as being
the source of problems for minorities, even when you do a deep dive on the
statistics and the situations that is clearly not the problem.

\- Selective enforcement of the law, going after Republican associated people
in groups, such as the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin (
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-
shame...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-shame-i-
thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french) ), the IRS going after tea party
groups, or the adminsitration trumping up charges against Peter Thiel's
Palantir company

There are serious issues at stake, and a lot of bad behavior on both sides.
The only way a two-party system works, is if when one party wins, it doesn't
try to punish people who supported the wrong side.

------
ikeboy
Tl;dr

>We agree that people shouldn’t be fired for their political views, but

~~~
Delmania
The problem is that this election is not about a difference of opinions over
the fundamental issues. It's become a spite-driven, rage-fueled, all out fear
mongering and hate breeding spectacle.

Trump's supporters have, in some cases, started talking open revolt if he
doesn't win. On Twitter, there was a hashtag of #RepealThe19th, which
essentially said they wanted to disenfranchise women in efforts to ensure
Trump is supported.

This isn't necessarily new from constituents, but at the very least, the
candidates have drawn the line. McCain is reported to have told a woman than
Obama is good Christian family man with whom he had fundamental policy
disagreements.

Trump is threatening to throw Hillary in jail, and is attempting to use her
husbands (known) indiscretions as ammunition. Campaigns get vicious, but in
this case, Trump is actively feeding the hatred and paranoia.

~~~
AlexB138
Or the fire bombing of a GOP headquarters and physical assault of Trump
supporters at rallies. Both of those are significantly more serious than
people saying mean things on twitter. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for
either candidate, but your examples are incredibly one sided.

~~~
Delmania
I won't comment on the physical assault, but I do know there are no identified
suspects in the firebombing. It's a bit premature to blame Trump's opposition.

~~~
AlexB138
The words "Nazi Republicans get out of town or else" were spray painted on an
adjacent building. Are you suggesting someone who didn't oppose Republicans,
and their candidate, did that?

~~~
Delmania
Let me repeat this again so we're absolutely clear: there have been NO
identified suspects in this case and NO reported leads. It is too premature to
guess anyone's motives.

------
nzjrs
I'm not an American. I would rather not miss out on his presence as an
investor at Demo day because of this ridiculous culture war your country is in
and continues to escalate.

------
marcoperaza
Oh the delicious irony. Let's carry out a purge based on political opinions...
in the name of diversity!

~~~
arvinjoar
The humanitarian with the guillotine...

------
bluedino
I'm not sure what to think about the fact that someone can be 'blacklisted' in
tech because their stance on an issue isn't aligned with the majority of the
community, or they have voiced an opinion for or against a political
candidate.

------
unethical_ban
What has Project Include, or Ellen Pao, accomplished? What has YC and its
funded projects accomplished?

~~~
huslage
I'm not sure how that question is in any way relevant.

------
392c91e8165b
Not only does Pao expect everyone she works with to agree with her on her
Important Concern, but also she expects the Important Concern to override all
other potential considerations that might go into a person's decision on whom
to support. That is a lot to ask for. There are after all only 2 effective
choices.

------
mmanfrin
There are some exceptionally toxic comments below.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Indeed. This may be the thread that gets me to leave HN for good. It feels
like being inside a history book. It would be fascinating if it weren't so
unsettling.

------
NicolasAlvarino
I would not be surprised if Thiel does not care about Trump's policies or
character, but only about ending democracy and reducing the role of goverment,
thus making the world "safe of capitalism": [https://www.cato-
unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-
unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian)

------
hsod
Project Include is disassociating with YC because YC is associated with Peter
Thiel who is associated with Donald Trump who advocates hatred and violence.

Are we to draw a principle from this? Is PI arguing that dissociation from
those who advocate hatred and violence is not only a moral imperative, but
_transitive_?

What about all the CEOs of YC companies? Are they obligated to disassociate?
If they don't, are we as customers obligated to dissociate from them? If we
don't, are the people in our lives obligated to disassociate from us?

As far as I can tell, this post contains no explicit generalizable principle
for imperative disassociation. Probably because that's a really hard thing to
create.

What's easy is taking a strong stand on a hyper-specific situation where the
bad guys are caricatures and your target audience already agrees with you.
It's just not very interesting.

------
ominous
I am at a loss.

Is this the kind of reasoning that would make someone not read Ender's Game
due to the opinions [0] of the writer?

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Views_about_h...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Views_about_homosexuality)

------
vowelless
> but we draw a line at individuals who fund violence and hate.

(removing video as valid concerns were raised)

Although, isn't there evidence that more violence has occurred against trump
supporters than anyone else?

I am not a supporter by any measure (for one, I'm form the middle east), but
I'm trying to understand Paos quote.

~~~
ikeboy
>Due to his videos of ACORN workers allegedly aiding a couple in criminal
planning, the U.S. Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit. The
national scandal resulted in the non-profit also losing most private funding
before investigations were completed. In March 2010, ACORN was close to
bankruptcy and had to close most of its offices.[1] Shortly after, the
California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government
Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The
Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of
ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. A
preliminary probe by the GAO found that ACORN had managed its federal funds
appropriately.[2][3]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe)

Let's be a little more skeptical this time around, shall we?

~~~
hindsightbias
Particularly ironic since Thiel provided funding to O'Keefe.

------
CN7R
I question the integrity of the author who wrote this article, but if people
truly have an issue with Peter Thiel donating to the Republican candidate,
then just stop giving him money—blacklist him, not YC. However, that's not
going to happen anytime soon. Better than disagreeing with someone spending
their money, why don't people collectively donate to the other candidate then?
That's not the conclusion the author comes to and hence in my opinion this
seems to be a company taking advantage of a situation for free PR.

------
gregpardo
I wish more companies would cut ties with Ellen. She's a joke. In summary, "I
know we support diversity but not the kind of diversity where you support a
candidate I don't like."

------
jimsojim
I keep getting back to this thought that a lot of what Peter does is to make a
point about contrarianism - that is to stay a consistent contrarian (publicly
atleast).

------
dredmorbius
"Money doesn't talk, it swears."

\-- Some Nobel Prize dude.

------
funkysquid
"donating $1.25 million is a lot more than speech"

It's somewhat easy to argue that someone should not face professional
repercussions for their support of a candidate. It's harder to argue that they
should be able to donate 463x what a typical person might (assuming a generous
$2.7k not using Super PACs).

~~~
drivingmenuts
Thiel is a billionaire. If the worst things that Trump and his followers have
advocated for come to pass, he most likely won't face any consequences that
people of lesser means will.

------
mlinsey
Trump is uniquely dangerous and I would fully endorse YC cutting ties with
prominent supporters/backers of his...if that would do anything concrete to
reduce Trump's chances of winning the presidency, by even one epsilon. I don't
Thiel doing office hours for YC companies gives him any sort of tactical
advantage he could parlay into assisting Donald Trump's campaign, though I'm
willing to entertain arguments otherwise.

It seems more like the argument is that people would like to disassociate with
Trump backers as a matter of basic moral principle; that Trump has made
himself such a symbol of hatred, racism, xenophobia etc that organizations
should shun working with his supporters to send a message that they don't
agree with that hatred, racism, and xenophobia. I think that would be quite a
reasonable gesture (and I understand why Ellen is trying to do the same thing
here). But so is taking public stances against Trump in other forms, including
Sam's post re: trump on the YC blog, and his project voteplz.org, a project
which, given the lesser likelihood of Democratic-leaning demographic groups to
turn out, will probably do orders of magnitude more damage to Trump than
Theil's office hours will help him.

I'd like to see more of a focus on what the tech industry can do in the next
three weeks to stop Donald Trump from being president, and a little less focus
on which companies can prove their moral purity by shunning Trump supporters.

And if we're really doing the latter, isn't going after Palantir, Founders
Fund's LPs+ portfolio companies a much more logical place to start? I really
hope (and I mean this earnestly, not saying it to make an argument) for the
sake of the broader cause of diversity in the tech industry that Project
Include is not planning to disassociate with all the companies on this page:
[http://foundersfund.com/portfolio/](http://foundersfund.com/portfolio/)

~~~
gist
> I would fully endorse YC cutting ties with prominent supporters/backers of
> his...

But why only prominent? And if not where does this go? Do you now ask anyone
who does business in any way shape or form (vendors, employees, YC applicants,
the cleaning crew etc.) what their political or personal views are and then
cut ties with them as a result? Or is the line arbitrary "we know it when we
see it". Kind of like a boycott?

------
ummjackson
Bravo, 100% behind severing ties with YC until they break ties with bigot
Peter Thiel. Bigotry != difference of opinion. It's inciting violence and
hatred, which is different and very dangerous.

~~~
vsl
No evidence of Thiel inciting anything. Plenty of inciting of hatred against
him on display here, though...

------
yanilkr
No matter who you are or what you are trying to succeed in tech industry, How
about you make news for accomplishments like Peter Theil?

------
fatdog
The fool's reproach, it is a kingly title. I like how YC let her feel like it
was her decision. Well played.

------
sparkling
tl;dr: i am going to push my hurt feelings onto everybody else

Grow up Ellen.

------
jpetso
Excerpt from the current Hacker News top 30:

2\. China's Shenzhou 11 blasts off on space station mission (101 points, 3h
ago)

7\. Quantum computers: 10-fold boost in stability achieved (63 points, 4h ago)

30\. Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions (this thread) (348 points, 2h ago)

I recognize that the Hacker News ranking algorithm takes more criteria into
account than just current number of points and time posted, but this is an
instance where a little extra transparency in the ranking model would help to
show that this is not an arbitrary moderated downrank.

~~~
sctb
This thread received a large number of user flags and was also heavily
penalized by the software flamewar detector, but we've turned that off.

See also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12729270](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12729270).

------
sctb
> _The Nazis and white nationalists that have rallied to him are a lost
> cause._

It's important that we avoid deliberately inflammatory statements like this on
controversial issues—they serve only to disrupt already-sensitive threads.

~~~
notJim
Which part is inflammatory? Are you saying white nationalists haven't rallied
to him, or that they are not a lost cause?

~~~
sctb
I apologize for having misread your comment as suggesting that all those who
rallied to him were Nazis. It was the use of that word that confused me,
because I read it as a judgement rather than identifying a group of currently-
living individuals in the US.

------
aaroninsf
Denounce and reject Thiel.

Do it now.

There should be consequences, no matter who you are. Lines must drawn, and
this is the clearest articulation I have seen to date as why Thiel must go.

------
Alex3917
> His attacks on Black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women,
> and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and
> encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe.

Let's assume that not only is Trump a rapist, but that he's keeping a few
women tied up in his basement. Even in this scenario, is this worse than
Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two
countries where rape is currently legal? Especially since she did this after
receiving 25M+ in donations to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, and
apparently a 1M dollar check from Qatar for Bill's birthday, so it's hard to
even argue that it was out of any sort of realpolitik.

Similarly, is Trump making overtly racist statements really worse (with
respect to race issues) than Hillary voting to invade Iraq even after Scott
Ritter and Hans Blix said that they had no weapons of mass destruction?

There's no question that Trump's overt sexism and racism is extraordinary
problematic. But, as someone who isn't even a Trump supporter/voter, I'm
struggling to understand how people find it so much more objectionable than
all of the systemic human rights abuses that have already occurred under
Hillary. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump, but the idea that
he's so much worse for women and minorities seems to be more of a media
creation than based in reality.

Even if you assume that something imminently bad is going to happen to
minorities if Trump is elected, from an ethical and social justice
perspective, if bad things are going to happen that are of our own making, it
seems like those bad things should be happening to people within the U.S.
rather than abroad.

I don't mean to in any way make light of what are extremely serious issues,
but in my humble opinion the idea that Trump is automatically more racist
because he says racist things is complete bullshit. Maybe he is worse, but I
think the situation is far more nuanced than the media would have you believe.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi
Arabia and Qatar

Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is
personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially
considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama.

>Hillary voting to invade Iraq

Her own floor speech before her vote said she was voting yes precisely to give
Bush leverage to reinstitute inspections, not as a blank check to war.

The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way
as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd.

~~~
Alex3917
> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an
> increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased
> across the board under Obama.

"In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the
sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in
Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of
state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been 'a top priority' for
Clinton personally."

[http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-
weapons...](http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-
deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187)

> The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way
> as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd.

Absolutely, but as a society I'm not comfortable with just writing off a
million deaths under the guise of "it's complicated." In my personal opinion,
making the comparison and deciding that Hillary is less bad is completely
reasonable, but not making the comparison at all is what's absurd.

~~~
hackinthebochs
Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the
state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies"
and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed
growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or
her urging?

It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of
millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money
was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the
U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in
recent memory.

------
liveoneggs
It's right there in the article:

> Money is power.

------
quonn
The right way to do this would have been to simply drop the association with
YC and give a minimalistic explanation when somebody would ask.

But this would not have served the actual purpose which was to attack Thiel
(YC is just collateral damage). This should have been done in some blogs
posts, possibly on the personal blogs of the participants of this project.

------
masterponomo
Looks like Mr. Thiel will have to content himself with being inclusive on his
own, or at least not as part of Ms. Pao's exclusionary inclusion organization.
Her post made me think of a quote about "all right-thinking people" that I
remembered incorrectly as something from (serious) political science, but it
turned out to be from Monty Python. Thus discredited, I will not include it
here, but will exclude it. Edit: Oh wait, I see that Orwell had a good
statement about right-thinking orthodoxy, and Monty Python did an excellent
parody of it. [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/499753-at-any-given-
moment-t...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/499753-at-any-given-moment-there-
is-an-orthodoxy-a-body) [http://www.montypython.net/scripts/right-
think.php](http://www.montypython.net/scripts/right-think.php)

