
Shame on Y Combinator - MattBearman
http://www.marco.org/2016/10/17/shame-on-y-combinator
======
sctb
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.

------
ThomPete
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.

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
dlss
I don't know if you followed what happened to the Atheist community in the US,
but its downfall was essentially the kind of witch hunt you're trying to
incite. The level of virtue signaling demanded gradually increases until no
one is left in the community. This invariably happens because the question
you're asking ("does intolerant belief X threaten society?") has no absolute
answer, so there is always a higher level of purity to declare a community
standard.

When I was younger I used to watch The Daily Show and laugh at how dumb the
conservatives where -- they were trying to suppress rock and roll for fear of
the devil's influence, etc. As I grew older I came to realize it wasn't
conservatives generally who were the awful/dumb ones, it was a particular kind
of person in a context where they felt they could dictate to others what was
ethically right. Moral fashion police if you will.

I've lately seen more and more Moral Fashion Police on the democratic side of
the isle, and I find it considerably more awful (it's closer to home). You
might even say that I view these people as intolerant to the point that they
threaten society.

However I wouldn't in a million years fire someone or yell at them, hate them,
etc for being fashion police, even though I think they threaten society.
Experience is the best teacher, and sometimes a person needs to make mistakes
/ destroy something beautiful in order to find the next level of
understanding. Maybe for you that means destroying YC (though I hope you
fail), and maybe for Trump voters that means (in a small way) destroying the
US Government. I just wish you both wouldn't.

~~~
tptacek
If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American
democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to
disagree.

But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman.
They do not agree with you. They _aggressively_ don't agree with you. They
compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about
Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse
Thiel.

I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.

~~~
hueving
>They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator.

A bit childish, considering the slot the candidate is running for is not in a
dictatorship. If you think Trump could convert the US to a dictatorship, I
would like to see the evidence supporting this.

~~~
fisherjeff
No one has the influence to convert the US to anything overnight. However, I
do think that normalizing the language of authoritarianism can have long-term
negative effects on our democratic process.

~~~
ThomPete
The same thing can be said about the normalization of globalization and
technological progress which allowed the politicians and the companies who pay
for their campaigns to trade jobs for cheap flat screens.

Ignoring one just because the other is more obvious isn't any better in my
book.

~~~
fisherjeff
No need to assume that I'm ignoring anything. I'm willing to accept
globalization and technological progress despite their many imperfections
because they have real, tangible benefits to humanity. On the other hand, the
only person that stands to gain from authoritarianism is its leader.

~~~
ThomPete
Yeah so you are willing to accept the collateral damage of those who don't
stand to benefit and whose lives are being destroyed from that. This is just
another version of the same. Not better, not worse, just different.

------
webXL
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.

~~~
idlewords
Bullying implies a power relationship where Thiel is weak, and strong people
are ganging up on him. But Thiel is a powerful man.

This is just debate. Huge, internet-clogging amounts of debate.

~~~
inimino
People are calling for the severing of working relationships based on the
guy's politics, which is perhaps not a textbook definition of bullying but
more than just debate.

Sadly the concept of civil debate seems to have been lost somewhere along the
way.

------
brlewis
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._

~~~
zerohm
This comment deserves more attention.

~~~
bonaldi
Yes, because how else are we going to hear the views of white billionaires?

------
apsec112
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.

~~~
Bartweiss
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.

~~~
tptacek
Nobody is suggesting excluding Trump supporters from employment.

~~~
prh8
It seems like most people want YC to cut Thiel off, which would be very
similar to that. David Heinemeier Hansson and Ellen Pao have advocated for
virtually that exact scenario.

~~~
tptacek
Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost
literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling
Altman: rethink the endorsement.

~~~
prh8
And once that happens, that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote
for Trump. I understand that Thiel's involvement with YC is not "employment,"
but the point is that 1) yes, people _are_ suggesting excluding Trump
supporters from employment and 2) high visibility people doing so would have a
massive ripple effect on everybody else. It's just another thing that goes
from "that's insane and you can't do that" to "these other companies have done
it, so it's no big deal."

~~~
rmc
> _that legitimizes DHH firing Basecamp employees who vote for Trump_

Except that democratic voting systems are set up to make to make it impossible
to prove who you voted for.

~~~
prh8
Yes, of course. I should have said "support" instead of "vote for."

------
fareesh
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.

~~~
skywhopper
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.

~~~
massysett
" is to make a statement that these are the things Thiel is okay with
advocating."

Clinton supporters are never held to this standard.

No one calls on Clinton supporters to publicly disavow her statement about the
"basket of deplorables". Clinton also shipped classified information to her
basement server and destroyed thousands of records when under subpoena. No one
claims that Clinton supporters are supporting this behavior. Indeed, it seems
just fine for Clinton voters to support her despite her activities which were,
at best, "extremely reckless." Clinton supporters can say that, despite her
flaws, they will vote for her.

But for some reason, any Trump voter automatically supports every bad thing he
ever did.

~~~
widowlark
Because those things aren't even close to being on the same level.

------
thght
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!

~~~
Upvoter33
Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One
candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned
those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people
don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

~~~
nugget
Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has
effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most
corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If
people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit
acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will
argue that she's not corrupt and has been investigated and cleared of all
charges, just as Trump's supporters will argue that he has a 40 year history
of helping women and minorities shatter glass ceilings in the construction
industry, and therefore is likely not a racist or a misogynist, rather just an
''equal opportunity asshole''. I think this election cycle is much more about
voting against the candidate you hate, than for the candidate you love, which
should make election day all the more exciting since the normal polling and
turnout models could be totally off the mark.

~~~
chourobin
In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to
back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

~~~
rfrank
"hasn't been a single shred."

[http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-
Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf](http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-
Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf)

~~~
zimpenfish
Worth pointing out that GAI was co-founded by a STEPHEN K. BANNON which,
coincidentally, is the same STEPHEN K. BANNON that runs Breitbart and is
currently the campaign chairman for DONALD J. TRUMP.

Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.

~~~
rfrank
Do you have an actual comment on the content of the report, or just low level
FUD about its source?

This comment is actually pretty hilarious given the fact that Teneo Holdings,
mentioned in the report, was founded by ex Bill Clinton staffers, and had Bill
Clinton and Tony Blair as 2 of it's original 3 advisors. Huma Abedin is
presently on the Teneo payroll.

If those sorts of ties between people are problematic to you, then you must
ABSOLUTELY HATE the Clintons, because the same type of arrangement is how
literally everyone close to them got there.

------
adpoe
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?

~~~
leurfete
We've been headed toward one party statehood for awhile. The American project
has failed.

"Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate
representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only
a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are
aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class
has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few
Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a
vehicle in electoral politics."

[http://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-
perils-...](http://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-
revolution/)

~~~
kls
I was really hoping that Gödel was wrong when he said that he found a logical
loophole in the constitution that would allow for a dictatorship. But I
believe we are figuring out what that loophole was.

------
trabant00
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.

------
ipatriot
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.

------
ww520
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.

~~~
clavalle
Should all views be accepted as equally valid?

Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is
that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences?

Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views
as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions
and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push our own
judgements.

~~~
ww520
> Should all views be accepted as equally valid?

Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity
anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem
is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of
oppression.

~~~
clavalle
>Who's the judge for validity anyway?

The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority
with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of
expression.

To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate
assault on freedom and liberty.

>when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.

There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is
speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a
view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for
holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of
one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging
an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of
the above, no.

Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.

Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the
law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic
society.

~~~
ww520
> To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate
> assault on freedom and liberty.

I think we are in agreement here.

> Should all views be accepted as equally valid?

> Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.

These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious,
and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones
you don't like.

The hallmark of a democratic society is to ensure opposing views can be spoken
without fear of repercussion.

However, the right to express yourself doesn't mean the right to harass and
bully the people expressing the opposing views.

Oppression happens when you bully people just because their view. Oppression
happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their
view. Oppression happens when you harass their friends/family/relationship
just because their view.

If you want to advocate your view and policy, state exactly how great they are
and what benefits they bring. If you want to express how terrible the opposing
view, state exactly how bad they are. Don't bully the people. Express your
opposition to their VIEW, not the individual.

~~~
clavalle
>Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just
because their view.

I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under
our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to
influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose
that influence. It is a double edged sword.

~~~
ww520
That's why we have election rules attempting to restrict money influence in
the system for BOTH sides, or at least to make it a level playing field.

Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It
is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express
their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their
view. How about their food?

If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform.
And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.

~~~
clavalle
Thiel is donating millions to influence an election. I don't know where the
slippery slope is but we're nowhere near the edge.

If Thiel has used his market power to express his view, then so can the rest
of the market actors can use the same power to express theirs. Individuals
should be able to use all available information to decide to spend their
limited resources supporting. Thiel has decided to send a very strong signal
to the market. People and organizations that decide to associate with Thiel
also provide information to the market.

Should market actors completely ignore this specific class of information when
making decisions? Knowing that resources that flow in Thiel's direction will
be used to work against my preferred government policies, policies that may
very well have a negative impact on my wellbeing, should I allow my resources
to flow that direction anyway? It seems foolish and arbitrary to ignore that
segment of reality.

------
jchiu1106
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.

------
kybernetyk
Why do people need to drag their personal opinions into business matters?

Demanding someone gets fire/removed just because they have a different
political opinion than you is ridiculous.

~~~
elias12
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.

~~~
fwn
It's good that you aren't comparing this current context with our modern view
on the NSDAP.

Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through
non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in
democratic societies.

~~~
elias12
Wait a second, maybe I can't follow you here. Are you saying that there should
be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting,
because it is in political context?

If so, two questions: \- What if someone is supporting someone in none
political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be
defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour
and face disagreement or consequences? \- What if someone supports politically
the KKK, the IS or any other organisation or party, that you might not agree
with?

How about a much more important thing in our constitution: Free speech. Does
free speech mean I can say and publicly announce anything, without having to
face consequences?

~~~
fwn
> Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who
> someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?

Not at all. I was inplying that the consequences should be political as well.

If your children aren't your opinion, try to engage in valuable conversation
instead of cutting their allowance. If your neighbor puts up a sign for a
candidate you don't like, put up your own sign and don't try to pressure his
employer into making him leave.

Democratic societies actively require political variation. Using your physical
or economic strength or maybe your status to make people do or state things
they don't like is blatantly uncivil.

I'm not an expert on US constitutional law & procedure so you might need to
make your own research on their legal specifics in this certain case, but in
most western setups I'd bet it's not a very good idea to believe in a legal
right which might allow you to publicly announce "anything". But I don't see
its relation to our topic here, I think it's probably not essential.

------
iamnothere
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.

~~~
skywhopper
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.

~~~
obj-g
So, we'll leave it up to you to decide then? When someone is uniquely toxic or
not?

------
jaypaulynice
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."

~~~
lintiness
so much fear of reprisal that you have to qualify with "I'm not a Trump
supporter". political discourse here is as bad or worse than it is anywhere.

~~~
7Z7
>so much fear of reprisal

That's a bit dramatic. It wasn't fear of reprisal, it was disclosure of bias.

------
mathattack
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.

------
jondubois
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.

------
dibstern
Hi Marco.

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
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".

~~~
jshevek
You make excellent points. Marco is not alone in this. There is a subculture
in the US that is so full of their own self righteousness, they are unable to
take a fair look at themselves. No matter where we sit on the political
spectrum, we as a larger culture need to take this more seriously. Thank you
for offering your perspective as an outsider.

------
amasad
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.

[1]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/peter-thiel-trump-
ha...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/peter-thiel-trump-has-taught-
us-this-years-most-important-political-
lesson/2016/09/06/84df8182-738c-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?utm_term=.976b8d6074fc)

------
hoodoof
I'm no Trumpist and no fan of Thiel, but I believe anyone can place their vote
where-ever they want.

I may not agree with him but I would fight to the end for his right to vote
for Trump if he wants.

~~~
cyborgx7
To be fair, OP doesn't take issue with who Thiel is voting for.

~~~
Kiro
Did we read the same post?

~~~
cyborgx7
>Thiel, a non-employee (a “part-time partner”), is directly supporting Donald
Trump at a massive scale — over a million dollars! — after we’ve learned even
more of Trump’s horrendous statements, positions, and past actions than we
could’ve ever imagined.

I'm not sure but there is no mention of voting anywhere in the article.

~~~
akvadrako
Fine, swap "vote" for "support". Allowing people to vote for candidates but
not support them is just mincing words.

~~~
Dylan16807
It's really not. You don't "vote" for someone so hard you personally become an
important part of the campaign.

------
bobjordan
Conservatives have a right to their own set of values, like anti-abortion,
faith-based education issues, smaller government, reduced taxes, etc., and
they have a right to back whatever candidate aligns with their values. I'm a
liberal but it is amazing to me to read these types of articles, from other
liberals with zero tolerance for the alternative viewpoint. There should not
even be a decision to be made here. It takes all kinds of people or else it
would not be America. It is not acceptable to persecute people based on their
political choices.

~~~
idlewords
Political debate in the US has traditionally taken place in a framework of
shared values. Some of these are: you accept electoral defeat, you nominate
people with a basic minimum of human decency, and overt bigotry is not
acceptable.

Within that framework, people have sharp disagreements over issues, some of
them life-or-death (like abortion). But the framework is something that was
sacrosanct, until this election.

The problem many people, including conservatives, have with Trump is that he
breaks basic norms around how our democracy should work, and represents a
threat to it. That's why Thiel's vocal support for his candidacy is so
troubling. It's not just a case of someone whose politics I disagree with,
it's someone financing the destruction of the whole apparatus those politics
take place within.

~~~
trentmb
> and overt bigotry is not acceptable.

I'm scared to ask- is this really true?

~~~
joshmn
I'd personally like to think we've gotten better as a society over the years.

~~~
trentmb
Clumsy on my part- I was asking historically.

~~~
joshmn
Pardoned!

------
rsp1984
The number of indirections here is incredible and I'm amazed nobody has
pointed it out yet. In essence the post says: Shame on YC because

\- a non-employee / part time partner of YC has

\- supported a presidential candidate who

\- has, a decade ago, said things that (besides reflecting badly on his
character)

\- if realized in action

\- would constitute sexual harassment

Now if it was practice at YC to sexually harass people I'd say yea, shame on
YC. But this is ridiculous. If we were to accept indirect arguments like in
the post then it would be equally valid to say:

\- Shame on the HN community because it

\- Supports a site operated by YC which

\- ...

------
droithomme
Are we going to talk about the election on Hacker News now? Seems most
submissions deemed political have been blackholed, correct? And I think that's
fine. But if we're opening the gates, lets open them wide and not just post
the same garbage that can be read anywhere else.

For example, let's talk about something ignored by most of the mainstream like
this excellent investigative report that came out yesterday. It concerns those
Chicago riots where Sanders supporters supposedly committed violent acts and
shut down the Trump speech there. Well turns out that this and many other
violent acts, riots, and even possibly acts of terrorism (which is defined as
violence in the furtherance of political aims, which this was), were
coordinated, organized and paid for by the Clinton campaign itself, all nicely
documented with proof in federal disclosure forms showing that the violent
rioters were paid Clinton operatives.

[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/17/new_okeefe...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/17/new_okeefe_video_clinton_campaign_dnc_coordinated_with_organizations_to_beat_up_trump_supporters.html)

I voted for Sanders in the primary. I'm voting for Stein in a few weeks. I
don't really appreciate politicians hiring people to commit acts of political
terrorism and blaming it on Sanders supporters like myself.

So let's talk about this since we are going to talk about politics on HN now.

~~~
mrschwabe
Excellent point, but to discuss politics on HN is a waste of time as there
isn't an easy way to know who you are talking to - the same type of operatives
you refer too are also crawling HN and pretty much every other popular social
media space. Marco is either completely oblivious to the phenomena (and has
bought into their narrative hook, line and sinker) or perhaps he himself is
also artificially incentivized.

The same could be assumed about Sam Altman who yesterday wrote an equally
damning article (damning to himself IMO).

I am not accusing anybody, and certainly would not and am not jumping to a
conclusion based on a single article - and would welcome Marco and Sam's
rebuttal - but am instead looking at the larger picture here... there are
reports[1] of popular YouTubers being offered $$$ to endorse Hilary and so
it's not too much of a stretch to assume they would also pay prominent people
in tech too (and not to mention Hollywood as well of course).

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjpp270dI0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjpp270dI0)

~~~
narrowrail
It seems you just accused sama of taking payment from Clinton's campaign for
his blog post yesterday. I know you said you are not, but you did.

This is why politics should be banned from HN until the election is over.

~~~
mrschwabe
Being aware of a certain possibility, and pointing out this possibility for
others to see, is not an accusation - particularly because I said and as you
acknowledged it was not intended as accusation nor did I jump to that
conclusion personally.

------
sosodaft
from: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-
po...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-
spectrum-quiz/)

2\. The anchor of a major news network donates lots of money to organizations
fighting against gay marriage, and in his spare time he writes editorials
arguing that homosexuals are weakening the moral fabric of the country. The
news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior and fire the
anchor.

a) This is acceptable; the news network is acting within their rights and
according to their principles

b) This is outrageous; people should be judged on the quality of their work
and not their political beliefs

12\. The principal of a private school is a member of Planned Parenthood and,
off-duty, speaks out about contraception and the morning after pill. The board
of the private school decides this is inappropriate given the school’s
commitment to abstinence and moral education and asks the principal to stop
these speaking engagements or step down from his position.

a) The school board is acting within its rights; they can insist on a
principal who shares their values

b) The school board should back off; it’s none of their business what he does
in his free time

If you answer these questions differently, you need to try to apply your so-
called principles consistently. This article is bullshit for the same reason
the Brendan Eich affair was bullshit--if the situation were reversed, the same
people calling for Brendan Eich's head would have been ardently defending
someone who had been fired for donating to marijuana legalization or
something. As long as he's not discriminating or smoking weed in the
workplace, etc., YOU SHOULD NOT PERSECUTE SOMEONE FOR HIS BELIEFS or how they
affect his political contributions.

~~~
pko722
Sigh. People keep bringing up Brendan Eich. What happened there is very
simple: a good chunk of Mozilla PR and marketing is about freedom. Software
and online freedom, yes, but the word "freedom" is used a fair bit. Eich
monetarily supported a cause that aimed to take away freedom for a certain
class of people. This is incongruent for the face of an organization that has
freedom one of its core messages.

Mozilla is fairly unique in tech world in this regard. Nearly all other
companies don't really talk about freedom. If Eich was the CEO of any of those
other companies, his donation would not (and should not) have mattered. If
Eich had remained CTO of Mozilla, his donation would not have mattered either,
as the CTO is not the face of the organization. The CEO's beliefs, however, do
need to align with the core messaging of the company.

As for those who say that in 2008, opposing gay marriage was a mainstream
view, and even Obama opposed it: in 2012, Obama publicly went on the record
that his views had shifted to support. The Mozilla/Eich thing went down in
2014, and Eich had an opportunity to communicate that he'd changed his views.
If he did that sincerely, he'd likely be CEO of Mozilla today. Instead he
stood by his 2008 views, reaffirming that he's on the wrong side of history.

~~~
ryanobjc
ALSO his inability to handle the controversy demonstrated his lack of CEO
abilities.

~~~
BrendanEich
You don't know what went on during my ten days as CEO, but that won't stop you
from disparaging my CEO abilities without actual evidence, will it? Talk to
@christi3k or @lsblakk or others who supported me before you disparage, if you
care about testimony from people who were there.

Important update (should go without saying): that I left does not prove
anything about CEO abilities. There's only one line I do say about why I left,
and it is vague. You can find it on my blog from 3 April 2014, I'm not
repeating it here.

------
_hao
You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting
quite ridiculous arguing over this.

Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to
every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be
fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-
productive.

~~~
maxxxxx
Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they
think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil
person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why
there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.

~~~
VLM
Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral
signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked
to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the
progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and
smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked
article is literally true end up with the same logical problems as people who
believe every word of a holy book is literally true. The linked article is
well written sophistry but don't expect sophistry to contain anything
rational. If you didn't get to irrational beliefs in a rational logical
manner, you're not going to escape from irrational beliefs using rational or
logical discussion, which makes debating the specific points of the sophistry
pointless.

~~~
MattBearman

        Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article
    

By OP I assume you mean me, ie: the guy who submitted the article to HN, not
the author.

First, I'm not out for attention, but thanks for that unprompted attack
(dick). I submitted this as it seemed wrong that it kept being
censored/flagged off HN. Honestly I expected it to be flagged off again, but
hoped at least a few more people would get to see it.

For me the real issue isn't so much that Thiel is Trump supporter, but that
Sam Altman and PG have both been very vocal in their denouncement of Trump, so
keeping Thiel as a partner (not employee, let's be clear about that) seems
incongruous at best, and down right spineless at worst.

Don't get me wrong, Donald Trump is huge cunt in my view, but even if I were
indifferent to Trump, I'd still feel Thiel and Ycombinator should not be doing
business together with such drastically conflicting values.

It's also probably worth mentioning I'm English and live in the UK, and this
whole election reminds me of Brexit. Pretty much everyone I spoke to thought
it would be a landslide for remain. Hell, even the politicians advocating
leave didn't seem to think they'd win. Yet here we are, £GBP in free fall, and
no one on either side seems to have any idea what to do next.

Even if it seems unlikely now, Trump could end up as president, and that's
scary for a lot of people.

~~~
AKrumbach
> Sam Altman and PG have both been very vocal in their denouncement of Trump,
> so keeping Thiel as a partner seems incongruous at best, and down right
> spineless at worst.

You may have to clarify this for me, because it sounds as if you believe
people with different political ideals can _never_ work together, even on
something non-political.

~~~
psyc
It seems the exact opposite to me. Spineless would be cutting ties with Thiel,
even though it's against their principles to do so over political affiliation,
just because some people who get hysterical over politics want them to.

------
_pius
In this thread and others I've seen this:

 _Shouldn 't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?_

Of course they do. But a surprising number of “free speech” and “free market”
people don’t seem to understand how either works.

Individuals have a right to support white nationalists.

Individuals also have a right not to do business with those who support white
nationalists.

Individuals _also_ have the right to organize protests against those who
support white nationalists.

Let's be clear: defending the right to support a white nationalist while
denouncing the right to protest against one isn’t courage, it’s sophistry.

~~~
xaa
You are correct that all of those are rights. The question here is what is the
course of action that will lead to the best outcome?

People who believe YC should disassociate from Thiel are doing so based on the
belief that the consequences of not doing so would be to promote a Trump
presidency, which would have bad consequences to a variety of minority groups,
etc.

People who believe YC should not disassociate from Thiel (I am one of them)
would assert that doing so would set up or perpetuate a norm in which it is
acceptable to ostracize people for unpopular opinions (unpopular relative to a
certain community or context). Brendan Eich was another semi-recent example of
this.

The effect of this, I believe, would be to: a) further balkanize and polarize
our politics, and b) to exert chilling effects discouraging people from airing
unpopular opinions, which in turn would inhibit an open marketplace of ideas,
which, I believe, is necessary for progress. I believe individuals and
societies can only grow by being exposed to a variety of ideas, some of which
they disagree with, and ostracizing people who disagree would prevent this
from being possible.

So both sides are arguing there are negative consequences they are trying to
avoid. Which side an individual will come down on, I suspect, will depend on
how much weight they place on each type of negative outcome.

As a personal aside, I know what it is like to have to be ostracized for
holding an unpopular opinion. I am an atheist in a deeply red and religious
state. I have tried to "come out" and quickly had to "get back in the closet"
based on the intensity of ostracism I received. So I admit this kind of thing
has made me more sympathetic to people holding unpopular opinions.

------
projectileboy
Replace "Thiel" with "communism" and much of this article (and many of these
comments) could be taken from the 1950s. McCarthyism is unacceptable from the
right or the left.

~~~
smt88
McCarthyism was not about firing rich people for donating massive amounts of
money to public political candidates. There is no similarity here.

~~~
projectileboy
So, none of the Hollywood writers who were blacklisted were rich? And none of
them donated time or money to Communist causes? The intolerance is almost
exactly the same.

~~~
smt88
I don't have a problem with a private company, such as YC or a production
company, firing someone for publicly donating a massive amount of money to a
political candidate.

McCarthyism was different because:

1\. Many of the people who were fired, blacklisted, or persecuted were only
_suspected_ communists.

2\. Somewhat related: if any of the blacklisted people were rich enough to do
so, they didn't _publicly_ donate their day's equivalent of $1.25M to any
communist cause.

3\. There is no threat of violence, prison, or losing his livelihood for Thiel
in this case.

~~~
lotharbot
> _" Many of the people who were fired, blacklisted, or persecuted were only
> suspected communists"_

would it have been OK to fire, blacklist, or persecute them if they had been
_actual_ communists, then?

~~~
smt88
It would have been OK with me to fire (and only fire) them if they were actual
communists. Political beliefs are not a protected class in the United States.

------
gondo
It puzzles me how come in USA people are considering only 2 candidates to
chose from. At this stage it looks like people are not voting for the
candidate they agree with, they are choosing the candidate they disagree with
the most and then voting for the other one. This is only 1 step better than
how it used to be in USSR where people had an option to chose essentially only
1 party. (sure officially there were more parties, as there are more
candidates in USA, but it wasn't a real option in reality). Still far away
from European democracies where each election you have multiple parties
competing.

~~~
smt88
Your characterization of this election is wrong.

43% of Americans approve of Clinton[1].

33% approve of Trump[2].

That means the vast majority of Americans are not choosing the lesser of two
evils. They actively like one candidate or the other (or both).

1\. [http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-
clinton...](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-
favorable-rating) 2\. [https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-
trump-f...](https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-
favorable-rating)

~~~
jazzyk
Huffington Post, seriously?

Per ABC News (which is still pro-Clinton), they are both equally unpopular:

[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-
hig...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-
trump/story?id=41752050)

~~~
smt88
Huffington Post is a respected poll aggregator. Also, I wasn't showing you
unpopularity. I was showing you popularity. Those are different.

------
zobzu
The people manipulation machine is so well tuned. The internet has failed us.

People think hating trump supporters is the cool thing to do and probably
would put their life on the line against him. How crazy is that?

No longer is one even attempting to respect or even research another point of
view. No time for that. Don't you realize that the only goal is to divide the
people and remove focus from what actually matters?

The whole US politics is now about showing how the other candidate character
is the most horrible and any lie is fair game, on any side.

The owner of basically all media wins the war - and thats not exactly
surprising either.

------
philjackson
Imagine working in a world where when you disagree with the way someone votes
or supports a political character, you tried to get them fired. No one would
have a job anymore.

------
jacquesm
Altman has it right, as much as Trump is reprehensible what candidate the
partners of YC support has no bearing on whether or not a _business_
relationship should be broken up. Politics are a private matter, just as
religion, your sexuality, who you choose as a significant other and so on.

Thiel has had the guts to publicly come out in support for one of two very
reprehensible candidates, one who I would be happy not to see become president
of the most powerful country in the world (privately I wonder if these two are
really the best people America could come up with to lead the country but
that's another matter). At the same time I'm not so conceited that I would
call for others to dissociate themselves from a working relationship with
Peter Thiel though _I_ will happily dissociate myself from him (easy for me to
say, I have no business dealings with Peter Thiel, so probably I should say
'would').

Freedom is all about how _you_ live your life, not about telling others how
they should live theirs and what they should and should not do and even if I
would be happy to see Altman (and by extention YC) dissociate himself from
Peter Thiel I would not stoop to the point of asking or demanding of him that
he do so, it's his life, his business and any kind of cognitive dissonance
between what he sees as a serious threat to America as we know it
today/continued association with a supporter of that threat is entirely his
own.

I've always had a real problem with people telling others how they should live
their lives, decide for yourself what you want and leave other people out of
it.

People telling other people how they should live is why there is religious
persecution, why LGBT people can't marry and why political dissent is
repressed in many places. This behavior has no place in an advanced society.
Peter Thiel should be free to support whichever candidate he feels like and
Sam Altman should be free to associate himself and YC with Peter Thiel.

------
shruubi
This kind of thinking is why even as a heavily left-leaning person, I have a
real problem with the current attitude of the social-justice movement.

I believe Sam is right, Trump is a reprehensible person who has done horrific
things and has no right being president. But just because I find him and a
large majority of his supporters as ignorant, racist, homophobic and hate-
filled people doesn't mean I have any right to exclude or excommunicate them
just for their beliefs.

It sets a dangerous precedent to work towards silencing and vilifying a party
whom you disagree with, and while it seems fine when from your point of view
it is for the greater good, what happens when someone who works to silence and
vilify you claims it is for the greater good?

On top of which, it makes us no better than the ultra-conservative
isolationists to vilify and excommunicate based upon belief. Don't believe me?
Just look at the language and justification used by Trump and his supporters
and compare it to the language that we left-leaning use against Trump and his
supporters.

A true democracy means every person, no matter how repugnant, gets their voice
heard. A truly diverse community means that all people, no matter their race,
sexual orientation or their political beliefs deserve to be heard. And a truly
free society allows for the free exchange of ideas and beliefs, what defines
us as people is our ability to recognize what is morally right or wrong in
those ideas and rather than vilify, try to educate.

------
cabalamat
There are two separate questions here:

Q1. Is Trump a spectacularly bad candidate, i.e. would he turn the USA intor a
dictatorship, start a nuclear war, or do somethnig else equally damaging to
society?

Q2. If Y Combinator shunned Thiel for supporting Trump, would that make a
Trump presidency less likely?

If the answer to Q2 is no, as I suspect it is, then it doesn't much matter
what the answer to Q1 is.

If we end up with a culture where people are shunned or lose their jobs for
their political beliefs (e.g. Brendan Eich) or for who they associate with,
that can only coarsen political debatre in the USA, in the long term making it
more likely that it does become a dictatorship, something the people doing the
shunning want to avoid.

~~~
cabalamat
In fact if Q1=yes and YC shunning Thiel would make it more likely that Trump
would win, which it might well do as it plays into Trump's anti-establishment
narrative, then people opposed to Trump should very much insist on YC not
shunning Thiel.

------
giis
Removing someone from business just you have difference with their political
view is wrong. Suppose lets take this next level:

\- In Restaurant people refuse to serve someone because his political view is
different- Will it be great?

\- Theil decides to fire employee's from his business because they don't agree
with his political views. - Does that sounds good?

\- For example, companies like uber/airbnb decides to serve only people who
agree with the political view of their founders?

~~~
exclusiv
Fully agree - it should really be a protected clause for employment.

Let's say the 50% that support the left controls all the jobs as an example.
Then you can fire the opposition if you don't fall in line and do what you're
told. That's a scary thought.

I'm third party but I find it amusing and disturbing to watch both sides. If
you can't understand why people don't like Hillary you're not being honest or
open with yourself. The same goes for Trump.

------
Dan_JiuJitsu
I for one support Y Combinator's commitment to tolerance. Tolerance is sadly
lacking in today's political discourse. Like many, I find Donald Trump
distasteful, but to call for the removal of an investor for supporting a
candidate one disagrees with is both intolerant and small minded. A
pluralistic democracy depends on both tolerance and civility for its' very
existence. It's more than a little ironic to me that people critical of Donald
Trump for, essentially, being intolerant are now expressing that criticism in
the form of intolerance by calling for the banishment of his supporters.

------
fsloth
As a non-US outsider:

Would there be such a ruckus if this was about some other VC fund that bore
more right-wing cultural flavors and they had a markable member who donated
vast sums of money to the democrat nominee?

A rational person would not discriminate against someone because they do not
support the same football club. I fail to see how this is any different.

------
zenobit256
I see the divide in this country growing every day.

We aren't electing a king or queen.

It's a single political position that's checked by the House and Senate.

And yet because of the media, because of the Republicans, because of the
Democrats, we're no longer Americans. We're a people who are being played
against each other for revenue in a popularity contest.

I've never seen people act so terribly to each other on such a normalized
scale. The polarization scares me.

Divided we fall.

~~~
exclusiv
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation
whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin
Franklin)

The only thing that separates us from other countries is our Constitution.

When you have the federal government doing things outside the Constitution
that should be legally left to the states, you end up with some really
polarizing things that are applied to the whole country. That gets nasty.

I'm a states right supporter in a left leaning state. Not saying the right
doesn't do this either, but the left gets very emotional if you disagree. They
try to shut you down, gang up, think you're a bad person or an idiot if you
disagree. When I disagree, it's usually because it's a state issue that they
want to ram down the whole country. They often have a complete disdain for the
Constitution and have no idea what a republic is.

------
FussyZeus
While I agree with a lot of what Marco says in spirit, there is a HUGE point
that Altman makes as well:

> 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.
> […]

This one sentence I think fully encapsulates why the Republican base has gone
to the extremes it has. They don't give a damn about who Trump is or the awful
things he does because he is _listening to them_ , something the coastal
intellectuals haven't done for decades.

Speaking as someone from one of the flyover states, I'd probably be supporting
Trump too had I not come around to a lot more progressive viewpoints. The fact
is yes a lot of what these people believe is wrong and backward, but just
ignoring them and pretending that having the middle of the country doing
nothing but hard labor and drugs is ok is exactly what got us here. Nobody
gives a damn about the middle states outside of election year. Every year
rural economies tank harder and harder but because it isn't a sexy problem
like Shale Oil nobody gives a shit.

These people have been marginalized, ignored, and abandoned during some of the
hardest economic transitional periods, and they're tired of it. You'd be
voting for any candidate who at least gave the passing appearance of giving a
damn about you were you left in that situation.

Edit: Misattributed the quote.

~~~
makomk
Not even just ignoring large chunks of the country, but actively arguing that
their problems don't exist and that anyone who thinks otherwise is just making
excuses for racism: [https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-
there-f...](https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-from-
here/)

~~~
FussyZeus
Correct, this is huge and cannot be overstated.

Also that's an excellent article, thanks.

------
surfmike
I'm against Trump but this holier-than-thou grandstanding demanding shunning
anyone who supports Trump is tiring and small-minded. It's a symptom of a
society intolerant of other political beliefs. Moreover, do you think
ostracizing 40% of society for their political beliefs is really going to
improve our political future? It's easier to cut out people we disagree with
than arguing with their beliefs (civilly).

Let's take the high road and stick to impassioned, reasoned arguments against
Trump's beliefs and actions.

~~~
deeth_starr
Dude, go see the comments in reddit /r/the_donald and then get back to me.

I hope that the "40%" (more likely 20%) will come back to rational thinking,
but we will see. I consider myself a left leaning centrist, and I like some
things Donald says, but it's only because a broken watch is right twice a day.

~~~
surfmike
The Reddit and Twitter trolls are terrifying. But are you saying all (or even
most) of the >40% of Americans that will vote for Trump are as bad as them?

We'll see what the final percentage is but 538 is polling Trump at around 42%
today.

------
HeavyStorm
I'm not American. I live far away from the country and have zero influence on
its politics.

However, America has a deep influence on the whole world, and, of course, it's
president is very relevant for all nations in this planet. So I follow the
political scenario closely.

As (hopefully) many, I'm completely against Trump. He's irresponsible, most of
the ideals he spread are harmful to (my understanding of the) development of
mankind, etc. I really hope that he isn't elected under any circumstances.

Still, it seems to me that Marco doesn't understand democracy, freedom of
speech, belief, and a number of other values that are as important to mankind
as those Trump poses a risk to. As a person should (has to) be free to vote to
whomever they wish, also they are free to support that same individual.

Punishing such support is about the same as threating The Republic for
supporting Clinton.

------
Nadya
I could write a mirrored copy for "How dare you support a warmongering,
nation-selling, unpatriotic woman like Hillary." but these sorts of attacks
are pointless in the end. No US-based company should be supporting Hillary.
They don't have the best interest of the nation at heart, they have the best
interest of their wallets instead.

I'm wondering when the far-left is going to wake up and realize by alienating
their fellow countrymen with attacks and namecalling they are creating a
larger problem, not solving it. You don't win over people's hearts by calling
them bigots and sexists (especially when accusations like that get thrown
around because of "manspreading" or "microaggressions").

Both political sides are allowing themselves to be manipulated so heavily by
the media, and that there is an increasingly dangerous gap between "us" and
"them" mentality going on in the States. I'm actually _genuinely concerned_
for the day of the election. Regardless of who wins, people have fanned the
flames so much that I'm glad I live in a small rural area. Regardless of Trump
or Hillary I'm expecting riots on the streets of many cities/regions.

I shouldn't be expecting that - and blog posts like this one only fan the
flames ever higher.

------
KanyeBest
PG's essay "What you can't say" springs to mind:

>It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people
believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that
you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

------
redthrowaway
There seems to be this progressive instinct to claim that it's not enough for
people to believe the same things I do, or support the same people I do, but
instead everyone must always denounce the people I do in the ways I dictate or
be shamed and boycotted. This instinct is divisive and damaging, and drives
away erstwhile allies.

Posts like Pao's and this one, which are intended to enforce a progressive
orthodoxy through the application of massive negative pressure, are far less
effective in winning over converts than its authors suppose. A lighter touch
would be _far_ more effective.

------
jazzyk
Any form of ostracism based on someone's political views scares the hell out
of me.

It constitutes an attempt to suppress political discourse and ultimately,
freedom of speech.

Disappointing to see many in the tech industry not understanding this.

~~~
thatswrong0
This opinion makes zero sense to me.

People are allowed to have opinions, and people are allowed to criticize those
opinions. If you're going to publicly support something (like, say, with a
million dollar donation), you should expect public feedback about said
support.

There's no suppression of the freedom of speech happening here - Marco is
expressing an opinion about an opinion.

By your logic, we should accept all opinions as valid and not critize any of
them because that would be "suppression" of the freedom of speech. But clearly
all opinions are not valid - and people on HN seems to have no problem
(rightfully) critizing sexism and other discrimination in the workplace. And
people are criticizing Trump (and his supporters) for the same thing.

~~~
jazzyk
Criticizing/arguing is fine.

But expelling Thiel from YC (a company which has nothing to do with politics),
because of his views, is a form of punishment and discourages others from
expressing their political opinions, in fear of the same happening to them.

So, it _is_ suppression of free speech, through _actions_ (not words) designed
to intimidate.

~~~
thatswrong0
That's still not suppression of free speech.

I know this is cliché, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from
consequence. I can exercise my freedom of speech at my employer and repeatedly
say terribly insulting and disparaging things to my coworkers. My employer can
then fire me. Would you say my employer is suppressing my freedom of speech?

The answer is obviously no. I still can speak freely, just not while
voluntarily associated in a contract with my previous employer. I wouldn't say
my coworkers intimidated me into being fired by my employer - I brought it
upon myself by saying terrible things.

I see that as the same thing as this Thiel situation, except it's even more
public. Instead of just insulting coworkers, Thiel is publicly (implicitly)
(to some people) (in a large way) supporting discrimination and sexism. I'm
not saying I would necessarily expel him, but I would have serious
reservations about working with someone who could possibly do that, even if
it's somewhat unrelated to the job.

~~~
uola
As far as I know, freedom of speech protects you from the government. Since YC
is not the government freedom of speech isn't applicable, but anti-
discrimination or employment law could be. In fact if the government would
limit YCs freedom to not associate with Theil, as guaranteed by freedom of
speech, that could technically be a greater violation of rights. This is why
some libertarians think that private discrimination should be legal.

> In short, we should condone private — but not government — discrimination,
> even if the rationale is that a service provider simply doesn’t want to deal
> with the persons seeking service. That rationale — however offensive it may
> be in some circumstances — is implicit in our right not to associate, which
> is the flip side of our constitutional right of association, guaranteed by
> the First Amendment.

[http://www.cato.org/policy-
report/marchapril-2016/libertaria...](http://www.cato.org/policy-
report/marchapril-2016/libertarianism-right-discriminate)

But I don't have the best understanding of US laws.

------
fweespeech
Honestly, YC's position is reasonable.

> Some have said that YC should terminate its relationship with Peter over
> this. But as repugnant as Trump is to many of us, we are not going to fire
> someone over his or her support of a political candidate. As far as we know,
> that would be unprecedented for supporting a major party nominee, and a
> dangerous path to start down (of course, if Peter said some of the things
> Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator).

Employment should not be based on political beliefs.

> Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human
> decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president.

Similarly, that is a pretty clear statement that Trump isn't a conservative
and I'd say that is honestly all YC needed to do.

------
presidentender
Am I to understand that diversity of opinion is only acceptable when all the
various diverse opinions are compatible with your morality?

~~~
jshevek
Yes. This is correct. Please look carefully at where and from whom you see
that attitude - there is an obvious pattern.

------
schalab
Please dont invade this last bastion of rationality with emotional claptrap.
Moral belligerence is not an argument.

------
retrogradeorbit
Marcos here, line many, falls for the classic myth. That change can come to
America via the ballot box. That it matters who you vote for. That the
election makes a difference. How many times do we need to be reminded that
this isn't true? How many elections of false hope gone nowhere do we need to
see?

I'll say it again as I have innumerable times before. It does not matter one
bit who gets elected president.

As Emma Goldman once quipped, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it
illegal."

~~~
wrecursion
As long as the majority of the population is bickering amongst themselves over
one thing or another, the system is working as intended.

------
ghufran_syed
I wonder if the author also thinks that YC should reject founders who support
trump? Just add a little question to the application form:"Do you now, or have
you ever, supported Donald Trump?" The next stage could be "Do you now, or
have you ever, associated with a Trump supporter?" \- "if so, please list
their names here so we can keep YC pure by excluding them from YC, and pass
their names to the re-education brigades"

What could possibly go wrong? :)

------
ceterum_censeo
If Thiel donated $1.25M to the NRA, would this lead to the same calls for YC
to distance themselves from Thiel? Where does this end?

~~~
benmcnelly
I heard the NRA is a a racist, sexist bigot with rapidly mounting allegations
of multiple sexual assaults! I don't know who this ceterun_censeo guy is,
however, I reckon he obviously is supporting people who support Trump. Light
the pitchforks! Shame him on twitbook!*

* I feel like I have to explicitly mark this post as sarcasm for fear of peoples stupidity. I listed some other things (like find out where he works) and it just made me sick, I couldn't do it, even in sarcasm and jest. I hope after the dust settles people remember how to be decent again.

------
mangeletti
tl;dr

The OP feels that if somebody disagrees with his political view point they
should be silenced and oustered, and have their life ruined.

People like Marco are ruinous to society.

~~~
jshevek
> People like Marco are ruinous to society

Yes, and ignoring people like Marcos shows integrity on Altman's part. We
should never let despicable people like Marcos hold us hostage.

------
calebm
"Funding Trump, especially at this scale, represents general support of what
Trump has said and done." \- That's a pretty big logical leap. Would a person
who supports Hillary "generally support" flippant top-secret email handling?

Let's be logical: I think we can all agree that a person can support a
candidate while not supporting every word they speak or action they take.

~~~
HelloNurse
Thinking there is a lot of good in "what Trump has said and done", that his
horribly racist, sexist and insane opinions and ideas are an acceptable price,
and that Clinton would be a worse president is a legitimate opinion, but
comparing Clinton's reckless behaviour to Trump's reckless statements is not.
Forgiving past errors isn't the same as accepting future policies. Imprudent
and illegal use of email is only a mistake, it doesn't represent a political
program or opinion or stance, except for the generic disregard for the law
that is implied by breaking it.

~~~
nathanaldensr
Did you really just write "Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a
mistake?" My lying eyes must be deceiving me! Not only did you just write that
illegal acts are "mistakes," but you also placed political opinions over the
legality of actions. You effectively declared that political rhetoric is worse
than actual illegal activity.

Go commit a crime 1/100th of the scale of HRC's and see if the uncaring
justice system allows you to get away with it as a "mistake."

~~~
HelloNurse
Pragmatically, political "rhetoric" is more important than crimes. For
example, which candidate is more likely to maintain a good relationship
between USA and Mexico? Not the one who wants Mexico to pay for a great wall.
It doesn't depend on how illegally and immorally they behaved in the past.

------
Overtonwindow
Threatening someones job, or pushing for exclusion based on their political
beliefs, is a dangerous precedent. This tactic has been used to exclude people
for their gender, race, and sexuality in the past. I don't care if the person
working with me is a neo nazi or a hillary supporter or a Trump whack job. As
long as they do their job, and dont' do anything that infringes on my ability
to get my job done, I don't really care. Leave other people alone and let them
believe what they want to believe.

------
stuffedBelly
I wish more thinking could be put into their words when people write political
posts like this. As much as I'd like to see healthy debates over presidential
candidates of choice, this post is not written to facilitate conversation
between two sides. Using strong moral indicators ("shame"), finger-pointing to
specific influential targets (YC and Thiel) and staying on superficial
rhetoric, the author deliberately wrote the post in a way to try policing over
people with opposite political belief, leaving no room for argument.

If the targets were not influential or the title gave out the blog content
(e.g.shame on my neighbor for being a Trump supporter), it would be treated
like yet another personal rant against Trump. If the post presented
comprehensive but complicated political analysis, it would loose a big chunk
of the intended audiences. I applaud for Marco's ability to convey his
political opinion to big audience through a simple blog post. That said, if
you are used to performing critical thinking whenever you read stuff, this
post is probably not for you.

This post doesn't give people much constructive material to argue over aside
from fueling more potential verbal violence. The same goes for most media
political pieces. They are political snacks, cheap to grab and quick to
consume, but too many snacks are bad for health, in this case, bad for
decision making.

------
byuu
Citizens United and McCutcheon were such disasters for our democracy.
Hopelessly partisan 5-4 votes from the USSC as well. No surprise given the way
big money usually leans.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech, no matter what five people
in robes say.

The problem here isn't who Thiel supports, it's that he has the ability to
throw $1,250,000 on a whim to that person. Very, very, _very_ few people can
do that.

The reason millionaires and billionaires funnel so much money into elections
isn't for the hell of it. It's because they know that money buys advertising,
attack ads, etc. They know it helps their side win. Because yes, there are
many stupid people in this country who are easily swayed by these tactics.

Yes, we all know it's not a guarantee that the candidate with the most money
wins. But wealthy people (mostly) aren't stupid: they wouldn't be spending the
money if they knew it wouldn't sway any votes.

It's not about buying the election, it's about increasing their chances of
winning. An analogy would be buying 1000000 raffle tickets instead of 1 like
most other people get. But our entire democracy is based around the idea of
one person, one vote. Allowing unlimited money into politics effectively gives
_vastly_ more votes to the wealthy.

Get the money out of politics and it's no longer an issue how big of a piece
of shit Thiel is. He can like whoever he wants to and I couldn't care less. Oh
shoot, I hope he doesn't see this and start bankrolling vendetta lawsuits
against me now :/

~~~
civilian
If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of
speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the
goals of freedom of speech & press? Citizens United is solid in my book.

If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets
like Fox or WaPo? They're clearly biased and have an agenda, their biased
reporting acts as a contribution to a campaign. But they're businesses, and
what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should.

~~~
byuu
> If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like?

You already can't spend it to buy grenades, chemical weapons, illegal drugs,
etc. You should not be able to spend it to influence elections either. I just
explained why.

It's not 'fair', sure. But a lot of things aren't fair thanks to stupid people
being stupid. Most recreational drugs are outlawed to protect the idiots that
can't handle it. (Well, that's the narrative anyway. We'll sidestep the racial
undertones, benefits to big pharma, etc.) Because otherwise, those idiots can
go on to do the rest of us great harm. There are a lot of stupid people who
are swayed by bullshit political attack ads (said attacks are deplorable from
both sides), so we need some way to minimize that damage. Campaign
contribution laws were not a perfect solution, but at least a stopgap measure.
Now the floodgates are wide open.

> If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media
> outlets like Fox or WaPo?

They operated long before Citizens United came down. They concern me as well,
as does MSNBC, RT, Al Jazeera, etc.

It's probably not possible to get fully unbiased news, but we've definitely
gotten _way worse_ in recent years on partisanship in news. And regardless of
which party you support, you have to agree that the divide between us is
becoming increasingly toxic and dangerous. The media is in large part to blame
for stirring that up for their ratings.

Of course, even without news, the internet and social media are a big problem
now too. Everyone simply follows like-minded people, blocks those they
disagree with, and live in echo chambers to reinforce and polarize people even
more. It's ... really starting to get very dangerous :/

> what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should.

Agreed. Not that it'd matter anymore :(

~~~
didgeoridoo
Genuine questions here:

Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates?

If so, how is this not spending money (paper, ink, time) to influence
elections?

If not, how is this not an unacceptable limitation on free speech?

And, (to address a common objection to this line of reasoning), if "bona fide
media organizations" get special free speech protections not available to the
rest of us, who decides who is a "journalist" and who is an amateur?

~~~
byuu
Before this goes on too long, I'd like to stress that I don't have all the
perfect answers in life. I don't think my views are perfect, but they are what
I believe.

I know that often, how things 'should' be require laws that are basically
impossible to write. But I really don't think I am being that unreasonable to
say there's something grossly unfair about one person being able to pour in
millions of dollars into an election to sway votes his way.

> Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates?

That's a definite gray area. I can see arguments for and against that.

At least with a newspaper, people are actively choosing to buy it (barring it
being in a vending machine with the endorsement on the front page.) It's
usually pretty well known and clear that NYT runs liberal, and NYP runs
conservative.

I don't get that choice with giant billboards as I drive around town. You can
argue I can change the channel, but I don't really get that choice with TV and
radio ads, either.

I'm sorry, but like with complex issues (eg abortion), I don't have a perfect
answer for you on this point. Any choice is going to come with consequences.
But that doesn't mean I think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater
and have a cash free-for-all in our elections.

~~~
civilian
Good answer. So, what we're really boiling down to, is that it's unfair that
Peter Thiel has more influence than other people?

~~~
byuu
Correct. That was what I was getting at with one vote, one person and buying
more raffle tickets than another for a drawing. Money = votes, otherwise there
wouldn't be so much money in play.

It's not a true democracy when the rich (whether that be the Koch brothers or
George Soros) indirectly get way more voting power than the lower and middle
classes get.

If people weren't swayed by obvious attack ads, then I wouldn't care how much
money people wanted to throw away on elections. And indeed, they wouldn't
throw any away, because it would be a total waste then.

~~~
inimino
There will always be ways to use a million dollars to promote a particular
perspective. Maybe wealth inequality is what's really bothering you?

~~~
byuu
Yes. If everyone had the same amount of money, then we wouldn't have needed
campaign finance laws. (We effectively don't have them now.)

I'm not even advocating for everyone to have an exactly equal amount of money.
Hard work should be rewarded. But I don't think there's anything the Koch
brothers do that entitles them to hundreds of _billions_ of dollars; when the
poorest workers bust their asses for 80 hours a week and only earn $15,000 a
year. That isn't a fair and just society. We can do much better. And we used
to do way better. Income inequality has increasingly soared out of control for
decades now.

------
lsh123
What concerns me the most is not HRC or Trump. I will vote for neither and I
don't believe that either of them will make a big difference. However a big
divide in American society is the real problem. I grew up on Soviet Union and
it Communist Party was the one and only ideology pushed down everyone throats.
The ideology was more important than people (see for just one of many
examples:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov)).

With the D and R camps right now I see exactly the same - the ideology becomes
more important than anything else. For example, in this discussion "support
for candidate X" factor is considered more important than personal and
business relationship between people. This is exactly how Communist Party
wanted the people to behave. I don't like it at all.

Instead of working _together_ , the D and R camps push supporters to the
extremes. Unfortunately, if this continues then things will go really badly. I
am really looking for a force/person who can unite the people instead of
dividing them.

------
rasabatino
What a load of bullshit. If an investor of a known Republican centered
industry, let's say a gun manufacturer, donated 1.25M to Hillary's campaign,
Marco would be saying praises of him while the people in the gun lobby would
be calling for that investors head.

This election cycle has brought the worst out of everyone in the US. I
regarded people like @sacca and @marcoarment in a much higher esteem before
this began.

------
Entangled
Political apartheid. We've seen it. It won't end well.

Shame on Marco.

~~~
webXL
Where did we see political-only apartheid? I agree it's not sustainable.

------
totony
Classic american politics: shame people on their political views. Don't argue,
you'd risk understanding differing views. Better off cutting all ties with
them and remain in your idiotic ignorance.

~~~
ptaipale
I somwhow don't think it's "classic". I think it is a fairly modern phenomenon
(coming along with "safe spaces", "no platforming" and so on).

"Classic" would be something more along the well-known quote attributed to
Voltaire about disagreeing wholeheartedly but defending the freedom of speech
of the differing view.

And this Thiel shaming is the exact opposite of that Voltaire thing.

------
adrianratnapala
Ok it's true if you cut off dealings with anyone who supports the a candidate
you hate, then you are not violating any laws worth obeying, let alone the US
constitution.

You are merely being a dickhead.

Do we really want to live in a world all ordinary aspects of life a reduced to
a grand show of public piety, and worse, one where we compete to show our
willingess to punish the heretics?

------
bobsgame
I wish that more smart people would not demonize either party and instead
analyze and dissect each platform and weigh the potential benefits and
consequences of them.

It is much more convincing to read actual facts about the platforms, and it's
a lot more constructive.

With the brain power here, we might even be able to make constructive
suggestions and possibly even influence either party's policies so that
regardless of the outcome it works in everyone's favor.

If we can point out that some component of Hillary's plan or Trump's plan will
surely lead to disaster in some way, that itself may have the political power
to influence revision in a positive way, especially right now since both
candidates are searching for weaknesses in each other's campaigns.

This is one of the most intelligent communities in the world, so let's be
constructive.

~~~
DasIch
The problem is that Trump doesn't offer much in policy, even when it comes to
policy he actually talks about and this doesn't just affect the things he
wants to keep secret from ISIS. He also contradicts himself quite a lot and
when he touches upon policy in his talking points it's often times
questionable whether he's even aware of the actual policies he's referring to
and to what degree.

There is just no basis for an actual discussion or comparison on policy
details.

~~~
Chris2048
This might be a good strategy. What good does it do? People generally evaluate
a candidate on policy last.

On the other hand, the best changes would be the most controversial, so
probably wouldn't help his campaign.

------
surfmike
I think the core of this dispute is the question: How do we deal with those we
deeply disagree with? Ostracism, shunning, and preaching? Or vocally opposing
their beliefs, as civilly and constructively as you can?

America is increasingly settling into two tribes who seem to believe in the
first option.

------
test6554
The moment you disagree with someone's free speech is precisely the moment
when that freedom needs to be defended the most. You can disagree with the
contents of the speech, but not with the freedom to express ones self.

Shame on Marco, but I'm proud he has the right to speak his mind.

------
grandalf
Anyone who thinks Trump is the only racist in the running for the US
presidency need only watch this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc)

------
obj-g
I don't wanna see this crap in my HN.

~~~
jessaustin
I agree; I don't know why _everyone_ hasn't flagged this already.

------
k26dr
Despite my disagreement with him, Peter Thiel has a right to hold an opinion
on which candidate he supports, and the right to donate to the candidate of
his choice. It's a presidential election. You can't call it a fair election if
as a society, we're threatening to punish people for supporting one candidate
over another.

------
wang_li
When did Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition change its name to Project Include?
These are the exact same extortionate tactics that Jackson and Sharpton have
been peddling for decades.

[http://www.skeptictank.org/gen4/gen02379.htm](http://www.skeptictank.org/gen4/gen02379.htm)

------
yellowapple
Translation: "Shame on Y Combinator for not punishing someone for supporting a
candidate I don't like".

I don't like Trump, either (in fact, I rather strongly dislike him), but that
doesn't mean I inherently dislike his supporters just because they happened to
pick one of two evils in this shitfest of an election.

------
yannbe
2 points : \- Peter Thiel has a right to support trump. The common
misconception is that for something to be a right it should be morally right
as well. This is not the case. Having the right to do something doesn't mean
it is morally right to do so. \- You can support a subset of someone's ideas
without agreeing to all of his ideas. For example, I think Socrates is a great
guy but I don't agree with a lot of what he says.

The backlash towards Thiel is an interesting sociological phenomenon. It seems
that the pressure to conform is extremely high in the tech community.

------
DigitalSea
This is a tricky situation. While many universally agree Trump is dangerous in
his opinions and viewpoints on many issues, you can't just severe ties with an
investor because of their political affiliation. Thiel might be supporting a
candidate with racist and bigotry views, but this is his choice. When it comes
to business, you should never make things personal and I think worrying about
someone's political affiliation is definitely making it personal.

Might not be the most popular opinion, but I think Sam made the right call
here.

~~~
idlewords
By Altman's own argument, there's a line Thiel could cross that would make YC
sever ties with him. All it would take is for Thiel to repeat some of the
things Trump said.

So having a YC partner fund hate speech is okay, as long as it's by proxy.
This is a baffling stance.

~~~
DigitalSea
There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and
repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate. As far as
I know, Thiel has done nothing but make a donation, he isn't forcing his views
on anyone at YC nor publicly parroting/endorsing things Trump is saying.

In this instance Thiel has done nothing more than make a donation to a
political candidate many don't like.

~~~
ceejayoz
> There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and
> repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate.

There is, indeed. Donating over a million dollars that can be used for ads
repeating racist, ignorant, and bigoted Trump statements falls squarely in the
latter category.

------
gdubs
There's a stunning degree of false equivalence happening here with regard to
Trump.

Trump is not Romney or McCain. It's not a left/liberal-only claim that Trump
is dangerously unfit to be president. There are scores of republican national
security experts who have written open letters, come out publicly against him,
etc.

To claim he's just another side of a coin is absurd. This guy is out there, as
we speak, dangerously fanning the conspiracy that the election will be rigged.

The decision by YC sent a signal about diversity of opinions. But, it sent
other signals as well. One is that it further normalizes Trump. One can make a
strong argument that of the signals YC could have sent, the latter is worse.

Where's the line? Would Trump need to literally have been a klan member for it
to be okay for an organization to say, you know what, we're not going to
associate with people publicly supporting this guy? Somewhere there's a line,
and many of us believe it was crossed a long time ago.

The other thing is, Thiel is not going to be 'unfairly silenced' if YC were to
cut ties. He's a vocal billionaire who in our current system of money and
politics has a megaphone far larger than most. It's disingenuous to equate YC
cutting ties with Thiel to firing an employee over their personal political
beliefs. It's a privilege to serve on a board at that level, and there should
be a higher moral standard.

~~~
clifanatic
> Trump is not Romney or McCain.

And in four years, when the Republicans elect candidate X, you'll say "X is
not Trump or Romney, he's literally Satan."

------
Zarath
Man the left just excels at doublethink. "Tolerance only when we like what you
say!" "A voice for the marginalized, as long as the marginalized are women and
minorities!"

------
pdog
I admire YC for continuing to stand up for the principle and practice of free
speech.

------
permatech
Wouldn't this sort of behavior play into Trump's view of 'the system' being
rigged against him? Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible
opinions?

~~~
po
David Duke probably thinks "the system" is rigged against him too... and if
you include private institutions in your definition of 'the system' it is and
should be. If you hold reprehensible views (though technically legal), then
society punishes you. As it has every right to. Trump will complain no matter
what, that has zero weight. When someone who cries wolf like Trump isn't
complaining, then something is terribly wrong.

> Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?

Yes. And society at large has every right to punish and socially ostracize
these who hold abhorrent views.

I feel like technically minded people get mixed up between "we withhold from
the government - the institution in our lives with absolute power - the right
to silence citizens" and "we expect the private companies/organizations we
support to use their influence to better society, not ruin it."

------
rebootthesystem
American politics have become radioactive. Intelligent people stay as far away
from it as possible. Because getting involved and becoming visible can mean
the end of you in more than one form.

We will never have a good government if good people fear the process and the
media so much so that they move-on and devote their lives to more productive
pursuits.

Imagine you are not perfect, decide to run for office and are subjected to the
kind of media attacks we see escalate to lower lows every election? Who in
their right mind wants a part of that?

To some degree one has to admire Trump for enduring the massive campaign
against him. A lesser person would have imploded a long time ago. This isn't
an endorsement as much as it is recognition of a fact.

What is happening in this election is despicable. The two main candidates are
hardly the best this country can produce. And it is our fault. Entirely our
fault. Not theirs.

My guess is it will have to get far worst before people wake up and realize we
have been in an "emperor has no clothes" environment for decades.

This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. This is about a government taken
over by some of the most despicable self-serving people around. Ambulance
chasers who would not amount to much had they not gone into government.

Not sure how this will fix itself, if ever.

------
tremendo
If Trump is your enemy, like he is mine, fight Trump. To fight and berate
others for a twice-removed association is not just stupid, it's lazy, and a
waste of your and everyone's time. I see 500+ comments here but no convincing
anyone. Perhaps you feel impotent and that you can only shout platitudes onto
deaf ears. Think harder, act smarter. Vote, and get those you can influence
directly to vote. This thread right here, is not the way.

------
danielmorozoff
The whole discussion brings to mind George Orwell.

'Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'

I believe US democracy is founded on similar notions, and underscores the
necessity of this dialogue. Thank you HN for supporting this open forum.

------
ume123
Because of extreme overuse, I think that now roughly half of the country don't
care about being called racist or sexist anymore. Congratulations.

In fact, in certain circumstances it's actually a pretty good evidence that
something "interesting" is being said and someone is trying to silence it,
like how searching for grayed out comments in HN is the first thing I do in
threads like this.

------
crystaln
Thiel is not supportung Trump because of Trump's racism and sexism. He is
supporting Trump because of his policies and disruptive capacity. This is the
difference between supporting a candidate and attributing everything a
candidate does to the supporter.

Hillary Clinton is a war criminal by many standards. Should all Clinton
supporters sever ties with YC?

------
mdotk
If Trump is elected President of the United States will the author disown the
United States?

------
evanmoran
It takes great bravery to allow your beliefs to affect your bottom line. Thiel
has demonstrated this bravery by spending his time, money and reputation on
Trump.

Now it's Altman’s turn. If he truly believes that "This election is
exceptional. Donald Trump represents an unprecedented threat to America", then
Marco is correct that supporting Thiel is against his beliefs. Good on Marco
for calling it out to us so eloquently.

Obviously, Thiel is very influential and parting ways with him would be a big
deal. It's likely it would cost Altman time, money and reputation. It's
possible Thiel will hold a grudge and that will have unknown ramifications
that might hurt YC and others.

This is why it's brave.

Business leaders often pretend they aren't choosing a side, when they always
are. Be brave Altman. We'll support you.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _Be brave Altman. We 'll support you_

Do you support him whether he cuts ties with Thiel or not?

------
baldfat
Character Quality often overlooked: Respectfulness. I definite it as how do we
treat people we disagree with?

We lack this in society as a whole. Respectfulness

------
jondubois
I see it as a good thing that Trump is so foolishly blatant - You can SEE all
the filth - It's all right there in plain sight. His ego is so huge, he
couldn't even censor himself if his life depended on it; he is the perfect
public figure.

------
phlakaton
I believe that Trump is uniquely unfit for office, more than any major
presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

I believe, though I cannot prove, that should Trump be elected, he stands a
well better than average chance of being an existential threat to our
republic. So I do not take this election lightly at all.

That being said, I believe Mr. Thiel may say has he likes and spend his money
where he likes, though his choice of candidate, like for many Republican
voters, disappoints me greatly. I do not believe he speaks for YC in doing so,
and I do not expect YC to terminate their relationship with him for him doing
so.

I see no shame in this.

------
Steeeve
Was somebody under the impression that there are no conservatives involved in
funding and creating startups?

If you live in a world where you think you only have to deal with people who
follow your political ideology, I feel sorry for you.

------
fixxer
Who stands to lose more if Theil were to no longer be affiliated with YC? Is
YC a social endeavor with a political agenda, or a program for entrepreneurs?

If the former, might want to tell the investors. Start with John Meriwether.
;)

------
carapace
When Barbara Bush and I are on the same side of this it's not a political
purge, it's a matter of basic human decency. The Trump candidacy is a litmus
test of basic civil sanity. Supporting it is insane.

------
masterponomo
Sam Altman has already stated what Peter is allowed to say (and presumably
think) as a condition of his continued association with YC. There was a recent
spate of articles by and about Sam Altman, including a probing interview by
his brother (presumably in lieu of a blatantly self-serving monologue by the
subject). So we kind of know Sam's viewpoint and his tendency toward defining
who can say and do what at YC and on HN. I would call that shameful in a
public commons, but this is a private enterprise, and Sam is free to set the
boundaries in Sam's world.

------
swah
I am an outsider, but I don't understand why Wikileaks doesn't leak into
CNN.com and friends in the MSM?

or something like this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY)
?

Nothing bad sticks to the democrat candidate. I'm not talking about proofs,
but about headlines that get written all the time for clicks. Where are those
for Hillary? Not on CNN, nytimes, etc.

Every day there is a new headline about how Trump winning would destroy the
universe. Where should I read the news? Politico? Infowars?

~~~
forgetsusername
> _Every day there is a new headline about how Trump winning would destroy the
> universe._

I'm also an outsider (Canadian). It seems like an endless stream of anti-Trump
news everywhere I go. Yet HN had a thread just the other day with people
commenting about how "unfair" things are towards Clinton. I don't get it,
either.

------
jansenv
Shame on this political shaming. Not everyone has to agree with you.

------
return0
Someone had to do it. What a delightful clickbait subject to remind people
that you exist.

------
metaphorm
is this a call for censorship, exclusion, and ostracism on the basis of
political preferences? shame on the author.

------
skoocda
During extensive, complex discussions like these, it becomes readily apparent
that while the HN/Reddit-style threaded text forum is the best format I know
of, it's still woefully inadequate.

There will soon be 1000 comments on this page- none of which are merely simple
thoughts. Nobody could read them all and still maintain a cohesive, holistic
perspective on all the issues presented. Most of the comments themselves
splinter into anecdotal tangents, and surely every comment has overlap with
another comment here. But, should any comment be omitted from consideration? I
think not, because every opinion presented holds unique value. We, as mere
humans, just can't consider each one individually. Not at internet scale.

While it's a precarious use of ML, we really do need computational synthesis
and analysis to draw trends from these discussions. We all know ML recognizes
and reinforces biases- so we shouldn't be training a classifier by using HN's
sentiment as a baseline. That said, we need a solution here, ideally soon.
Until that happens, I won't be wasting my time dropping 2 cents into a
bottomless void.

~~~
inimino
> every opinion presented holds unique value.

Most of the comments here are actually repeating the same few opinions over
and over in different words. For example, about half the top-level comments
here are a variation of "shame on the author".

A system that consolidates duplicated sentiments would probably cut this page
down to size, but ML is not even remotely up to the task. A system based on
human review could do so, however.

------
youforpresident
I don't think that a person, president or not, is to play a crucial role.
Society has a dynamic in which a president is only a mirror for you to watch
yourself. Perhaps the mirror show you something that you don't want to see and
you can try to clean it or hide it, but that mirror just show how society is
for real. I sincerely and literaly think that we should get used to watch
candidates for presidency to be nuked in tv, as in a big brother show, no more
secrets allowed. We should see clearly and understand deeply that we are just
human animals and nothing more. A candidate for presidency should be able to
show some kind of humor, witful ideas, clear thinking, some catastrophic
behaviour and be able to inspire some trust. I believe that nothing more can
be expected.

For those looking forward for a better future, the challenge is not in
choosing your president, but in becoming your best friend.

Any of you can be the best president, I am sure of it, just awake, get up in
the morning and see yourself in the mirror for real.

Edited for clarity of mind.

------
crimsonalucard
Many people think this election is different from all the past elections but
I'm telling you:

When Trump or Hillary become president nothing will change in your daily
lives. Mostly everything you do will remain the same.

So this election matters almost as much your favorite sport team winning some
stupid sport which is to say it's a matter of life or death.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I'm getting flashbacks from 2000. I would hope we could learn from history,
but alas, history tells us otherwise.

------
Dowwie
So if I publicly attack a Y Combinator legend the HN community gets to fight
about politics?

In that case, I'll just leave this debate between Hedges and Reicht for
everyone here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4cXH3Fil8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4cXH3Fil8)

------
brandonmowat
I would encourage people to look at the similarities between Sam's decision
not to punish Thiel and this: [https://www.gofundme.com/reopen-a-nc-
republican-office-2ukup...](https://www.gofundme.com/reopen-a-nc-republican-
office-2ukuprzy)

------
scandox
Bit off topic: does $1.25 million really seem like that much money? I mean I
accept it is a huge sum of money in a normal context, but in this context
(donations to political parties) is it really exceptional?

I mean I've heard of wealthy men losing multiples of that at Poker.

~~~
ceejayoz
If I'm reading
[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N0002386...](https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864)
correctly, it's a good 1.5% of _all_ pro-Trump money spending (currently
$84,640,147) in this election.

------
poshli
I was one of those "I loathe your opinion but I will defend to the death your
right to say it" people when it came to Trump right up until now.

He's started claiming that if he loses the election, it'll be because of voter
fraud, which is indefensible.

------
smonff
I don't know why there is so much hype on debating if companies got sexism and
racism or other oppression issues: they do have some, period. And it should be
strongly improved.

If we pretend the contrary, we really have to question ourselves.

------
daveheq
Wit so I'm supposed to be enraged because Y Combinator won't cut ties with an
associate who supported a candidate some people don't like? There's no shame
here. Hillary's got her own dirt too so should everyone who associates with
either candidate be ashamed?

There's nothing heinous or shameful about supporting a presidential candidate;
I don't want either to be President but it's ridiculous to hold Y Combinator
accountable for an associate's political choice, those people expecting
otherwise should be ashamed.

------
ryguytilidie
Can someone help me follow the logic whereby its "facist" or "hypocritical"
for people to find fault in someone who is supporting an admitted sexual
predator and racist?

------
nabla9
Trump support is not free-speech, tolerance issue or diversity issue, it's
political issue.

As I understand it, Thiel is one of the 10 or so part time partners in
Ycombinator. He is also board member of Facebook, so shame on Facebook.

I don't think Thiel's involvement puts large shame on Y Combinator, but at the
same time I don't condone political activism that tries to isolate Thiel and
his money by shaming his partners. Business is not politically neutral zone.

------
nothrows
no one should be shamed or fired for their political beliefs. go fuck yourself
marco.org

------
polyfields
Because of these pussified posts, I am voting for Trump.

------
bambax
> [Altman] _If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no
> longer be part of Y Combinator._

In the US, at least since Citizens United, money is speech. By donating to his
campaign and vocally supporting Trump, Thiel IS SAYING what Trump says.

Also, Thiel is no friend to freedom of speech or freedom of the press. That
should have disqualified him earlier, even before this whole Trump affair.

~~~
inimino
> Thiel IS SAYING what Trump says

No, he is supporting his presidential bid. That's all.

------
StudyAnimal
I personally respect, and am thankful for the fact that people exist that have
opinions that differ, even a lot, from mine. Especially on moral issues. I
find it pretty immoral to have too much faith in ones moral framework. I will
do business with anyone especially those with different political or other
opinions than mine, they are usually more interesting conversations.

------
defen
Maybe YC is worried that if they boot Thiel, and Trump wins, he'll be
vindictive enough and powerful enough to crush YC. Like, it would be a real
shame if the Attorney General started looking into Fair Housing violations by
AirBnB, or if Dropbox suddenly lost the government connections it's been
cultivating by putting Condi Rice on their board.

~~~
walshemj
If Trump wins I suspect that the H1B program would be an obvious target for
him.

And from experience in the UK referendum some recent immigrants are going to
get killed as a result of the way Trump is poisoning the political arena.

------
sytelus
I strongly believe that businesses should stay out of politics - no matter
what the rhetorics and controversies are. They are built by efforts of lot of
different people and someone at the top shouldn't get to decide what is good
for everybody. It's bad enough that editorial boards of major news media goes
out and openly endorse political leader. That completely destroys their
neutralism and ability to serve news without bias. Its equally bad that that
outgoing president who is supposed to stay out of politics is now using his
powerful position to change the election.

Fundamental principle of democracy is that _you have to trust the people to
make the right choice_. If you can't then you shouldn't have democracy. The
argument that the big powerful entities are expected to forcefully shut down
the candidate because he/she is deemed not "normal" or morally corrupt is bad
for democracy. You need to let _people_ decide that with their _vote_.

So the last thing we want is businesses start firing their employees for
holding different political beliefs. May be there is a red line somewhere, for
example, real Nazi party coming in to existence without any pretense
whatsoever. It would make sense then if POTUS, businesses and major media
openly rebels against it. But outside of those extreme cases where do you draw
that line is anyone's guess and convenience. Y-Combinator is doing absolutely
the right thing for the current situation, IMO.

PS: I do not endorse any candidates at this point. Above statements are NOT
the endorsement for Trump or anyone else. This is what I believe should be the
core principles for functional democracy that allows for different opinions.

------
blackflame7000
Unemployment is really going to skyrocket if we start firing people for which
presidential candidate they vote for.

------
throwaway1892
I disagree with Marco on the fact that keeping Thiel at YC is against
diversity. Sam Altman is accepting to work with someone with opposite
political views, which require a lot of courage.

How can you stand for diversity if you refuse to accept to work with people
who have different opinions (and opposing opinions)?

------
michaelgrosner2
> one wonders what YC would do if PT invested in an app that celebrated and
> enabled racism, bigotry, assault.

[https://twitter.com/lautenbach/status/788197878133030912](https://twitter.com/lautenbach/status/788197878133030912)

------
throw7
Did or would Sam Altman support Brendan Eich when he was mozilla's CEO and
accused of homophobia?

------
EdSharkey
This is a free speech country. People can associate with whomever they want.
Celebrate that we can say and write deplorable things to one another. Peter
Thiel can do what he wants with his millions, _celebrate_ that. You can
moralize about how nuts Thiel is to do that, I celebrate you for that.

On the right, I've been told God will judge me if I don't vote Trump (not
biblical - I told them where to go.) On the left, I've seen violence and vile
hate directed at trumpsters.

Everyone calm down, please. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree
100% on Trump v. Clinton. Don't try to ruin people's lives or be a hater over
someone's opinions. Other people have dimensions, and life is never black and
white. Always be civil, just shake your head in cases like this and say,
"well, I simply don't know where your head is on this one."

We can settle our disagreements at the ballot box.

Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Trump or Clinton for (in my opinion) obvious
reasons, and I'm not emotional about either.

------
librvf
Response to Sam Altman's post:

 _A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy. He has no
real plan to restore economic growth._

The truth is that no one knows for sure what will be best for the American
economy for the next four years. There are too many variables and too much
unpredictability to know for certain what a Trump president would look like.

 _His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American
innovation would suffer._

This is a fallacy. The country is already divided over immigration, and has
been for a long time. The prevalence of this kind of fallacious rhetoric from
elites like Sam Altman is precisely why the nationalist faction chose Trump to
lead them. In order to counter this kind of deceptive propaganda, they needed
someone willing to use equally powerful rhetoric in their favor.

Also, the claim that his policies are racist is simply not true. They are not
racist.

 _But the man himself is even more dangerous than his policies. He 's erratic,
abusive, and prone to fits of rage._

Sam cites no evidence and makes no argument to back up these exceptional
claims. I have been watching Trump for an entire year, and I have not observed
any erratic or "abusive" behavior. At least, nothing exceptional that wasn't
already directed at him. Sure, he savaged his GOP rivals with name-calling and
theatrics. But they had already called him a clown, a sideshow, a circus. So
it's OK to call Trump names but not OK to for him to respond in kind?

Trump supporters see this hypocrisy and understand that Trump is doing what he
needs to do to win the election.

 _He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and
immigrants, and I believe this reason alone more than disqualifies him to be
president. My godson’s father, who is Mexican by birth and fears being
deported or worse, is who convinced me to spend a significant amount of time
working on this election at the beginning of this year, when Trump still
seemed like an unlikely possibility._

More blatantly fallacious reasoning. Because a Mexican national fears
deportation (why?), suddenly Trump is a threat to all women minorities and
immigrants?

Ridiculous fallacy. This is why Trump must use the rhetoric he does, because
his opponents are so full of shit that they don't even realize it.

 _Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human
decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president._

I'll grant that Trump shows little explicit respect for the Constitution. But
Hillary doesn't either. No one's respecting the constitution because no one
(Sam Altman) has been demanding it. There's nothing in the Constitution that
guarantees immigration to anyone who wants it, which so far is the only issue
he has identified that has not been a grossly biased representation.

Speaking of which, "human decency." Again, another extreme claim with
absolutely NO argument or evidence to back it up. Altman boldy claims that
Trump shows little respect for human decency, and yet anyone who has actually
watched Trump interact with his supporters all year long shows that he is
overflwing with of decency. People love him, he makes them feel good just to
be around him. Here Altman is appealing to popular prejudice about Trump,
which has been reinforced repeatedly by others like him in his echo chamber.

It's one thing to not waste time justifying claims for which the evidence is
abundant and easily found. But there's no such evidence for these claims.
There's a lot of other people saying similarly bad things that also have no
evidence. So there's a clear reason why this perception exists. But I see no
real argument.

As for fearing for national security? Again just another emotional appeal with
no justification. What about Hillary actively antagonizing Russia? Speaking
recklessly of no-fly zones over Syria, which our own Generals claim would mean
going to war with Russia. This fear just seems ignorant.

 _Though I don’t ascribe all positions of a politician to his or her
supporters, I do not understand how one continues to support someone who brags
about sexual assault, calls for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the US, or any number or other disqualifying statements. I will
continue to try to change both of their minds._

First thing: if Sam Altman wants to understand, then he needs to learn how to
listen. Trump never bragged about sexual assault, and to claim he did is a
lie. Everyone repeating this is also lying. If you actually want to
understand, the first thing you need to do is admit your interpretation of
this is wrong. If you can't do that, you'll never make any progress towards
understanding.

As for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US? Immigration
is not a right. There's no amendment that says anyone anywhere has the right
to come to this country. We have the right (and some would say duty) to
restrict entry to anyone for any reason. The fact is that Muslims tend to hold
very different values than Americans (Sam Altman might want to ask what Peter
thinks about Muslim's beliefs on homosexuality), and there there are Muslim
organizations who have made an explicit goal of destroying Western European
civilization through a combination of settlement, violence, and propaganda.
You can't say that about any other major religion in the world.

And so of all the "basket of deplorables", that is the one I will admit to. I
am not racist, at least, no more than anyone can be in the US given the amount
of race-baiting done by corporate media. I am not sexist. I'm not homophobic
or anti-semitic.

But I am an Islamaphobe. Islam scares me. The religion itself scares me as
does the activities of its leaders-- the so-called moderates as well as the
extremists. It scares me more than any other major religion in the world. No
other religion of significant size has the same combination of intolerance,
subversiveness, violence, conquest, and hostility to those outside the faith.
I look at the character of Islamic civilization, and I know without a doubt
that I do would not want to live under those values. While I totally
understand that it's possible to interpret the Quran and Hadith in less
violent and aggressive ways, and that most Muslims are just ordinary people
who want to live happy and healthy lives, that's not the trend in the world
today. There's not a single Islamic country that I would want to live in.

You won't see me harassing anyone or trying to deny American Muslims their 1st
amendment rights. It's not hatred I feel. I'll never condone "hate speech" or
"hate crimes." I do not fear ordinary Muslims, individually. I am not even
opposed to having a solid and stable minority of American Muslims in
perpetuity. But I most emphatically do not think we should be inviting
substantial numbers of them into the country. We are not prepared to
assimilate them and once there are sufficient numbers of them in the country
they will start agitating to impose their political will on everyone else,
which is likely to include political violence.

------
sparkzilla
From these discussions, are we to take it that YC will not invest in founders
who support Trump?

~~~
quantumhobbit
YC seems to be sticking with Thiel, so founders should be safe regardless of
their views. As it probably should be.

I would hope that YC already avoids founders who act like Trump though.

------
sk5t
According to the USSC, money in politics is speech. Now, Trump's speech is
also Thiel's speech. The only remaining question should be if YC partners are
able to keep that position while saying and supporting harmful and often false
ideas.

------
yohann305
We cannot deny the overwhelming amount of value P. Thiel and M. Arment has
brought to this world. Politics is ugly and divides people instead of bringing
them together. The Hacker News community is all about technological progress,
which is based on science, and as such, do not let your subjectivity cloud
your judgment.

Do you think the world would be a better place by removing Thiel because of
his political position? Asking to fire Thiel is as insane as asking to fire
the 40% of Americans backing Trump (based on latest poll results:
[http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/latest-polls-show-
tr...](http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/latest-polls-show-trump-behind-
clinton-the-2016-drivers-seat))

I wish you guys would put all your vigorous efforts on revamping the political
system than pointing fingers at invaluable people.

------
puppetmaster3
And this just out - adding to my other post:

[http://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/788121240036896768](http://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/788121240036896768)

------
jaoued
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
This surely is an off-topic on HN.

------
pmdulaney
I'm distrustful of anyone who has a headline (or placard) that starts with the
words "Shame on ..." It usually prefaces some soft-headed socialist sentiment.

------
treebeard901
Is it so crazy to say that Thiel is free to support whatever candidate he
wants... While Graham and Altman are free to choose who they do business with?

------
echaozh
I am not a US citizen and definitely not familiar with all its laws and rules
and such. I do wonder, if one thinks endorsing Trump is punishable, shouldn't
they bring up a legal case? If it is not against the law, why cannot it be
done?

If Trump is a new Hitler, shouldn't there be a legal way to put him out of the
election? If his campaign is legal, why all the fuss? Just don't vote for him.
Isn't that exactly why you Americans hold elections?

You want democracy and elections, you got to live with the outcomes. You may
get what you don't want.

~~~
hysan
> Just don't vote for him. Isn't that exactly why you Americans hold
> elections?

This is a loaded question and a good one at that. To put it simply, the
presidential election is particularly unique compared to other elections in
the US because of several intertwining factors.

1) Unless under exceptional circumstances, the US presidential voting system
will always devolve into a 2 party race. Because of this, "choice" is much
more of an illusion than people are taught to believe in the US.

2) The manner of choosing party representatives (Trump, Clinton) can be gamed
or rigged. For the parties, this is to unify support and strengthen the chance
that the president will at least be "on your side" (left, right) even if you
don't support all of that candidates particular stances. This sounds great,
but this tosses all of the niche voters, which is a broad net because people
are forced to be in one of these two parties to not have a wasted vote in the
presidential election, to the side and forces them to pick a lesser of two
evils.

3) The presidential election is unique in that it uses an electoral college
system. When you vote, you are __not __voting for the president. You are
voting for someone to vote on your behalf and hoping that they follow through
(yes, oversimplified but it is how it works at the most basic level). This is
why you can predict the outcome of the race based on just how a few swing
states vote. It 's also why your vote doesn't really matter if you are not in
one of these swing states.

And these are just the obvious problems in the __presidential election__
system in the US. Voting for representatives, Senate and House, are just as
bad in other ways (gerrymandering being the big issue). So no, it's not really
as simple as not voting for Trump (or any other candidate for that matter).

On another note, most Americans do not understand how the system truly works
and the flaws. On top of that, if you live inside the US or obtain most of
your news via US media outlets, I've found that there is a huge bias and
attempt to ignore certain realities. As someone who works and lives abroad
consuming news that's not even in English, it was clear early on that Trump
was going to win the primaries and that Clinton in particular would have a
hard time against Trump. The vocal reaction to the current situation is
exactly what you should expect.

------
quantumhobbit
I don't know what the right thing for YC to do here is. But whatever it is can
wait until after the election.

The last thing you want is to enable Trump to concoct a narrative that
"crooked Hillary" is forcing businesses to discriminate against Trump
supporters.

Trump is an existential threat to democracy and Thiel is disgusting for
supporting him, but it looks like he will lose. However he is claiming that
the election will be rigged against him. This is incredibly dangerous and YC
firing Thiel could be like pouring gasoline onto a fire.

------
ganessh
Shame on us for making this post to the front page.

~~~
inimino
Outrage, one way or the other, generates engagement. News outlets know it, now
so do we.

If there's some value in the discussion, it is that most of us actually do
know people with differing political views, and we somehow learn to live and
work together.

------
HelloNurse
Maybe Y Combinator considers "unsupporting" Ellen Pao important enough to side
with Peter Thiel and, indirectly, Donald Trump.

------
EGreg
As with Title I vs Title II and other crap like this, this is just a symptom
of a bigger problem: we have only two choices. Both times, YC got dragged into
a situation where people demand they sever ties and punish people for their
political views.

In our first-past-the-post system, even if Hitler and Mao were the nominees of
the 2 parties, would the 3rd party get even 15% of the vote?

[https://twitter.com/GregMozart/status/788448482264768512](https://twitter.com/GregMozart/status/788448482264768512)

I am very happy with YC's decision not to sever ties with people based on
their support of a political position that a large (over 20%) portion of the
population seems to have. The way that was done with Brendan Eich at Mozilla.
There should be some separation between the workplace and a person's personal
politics.

These people themselves are not killers, rapists, they do not exercise their
own power to coerce others etc. They don't endorse every single bad thing
their candidate does.

For the record, I think Trump is not very interested in learning about
nuances, half the time it's not clear what he is really saying, almost never
reconsiders his position, instead he just easily disavows his own statements,
and that alone disqualifies him. But should I cut business ties with every
Hillary supporter because I believe they are for brinksmanship and escalating
the threat of a nuclear war with Russia? Many are. But that has such a small
effect on the good we can do together, in the actual sphere of our
collaboration. If I want to do something about the doomsday clock, cutting
ties with my coworkers is _very, very far down the list of effective things to
do_.

Even in your personal life, realize that arguing about politics is like
arguing about astronomy -- the odds are overwhelming that you can't really
change anything in the current election. So if your significant other likes a
different baseball team, that's not nearly as important as shared values about
how you're going to raise your children, or basic respect to human beings, or
other things in your _real life_.

I don't live in California, and I know New York State (where I live) will vote
Democratic as it always has, same as Cali. But we embrace political diversity
much more than California, it seems. It may be more OK to publicly disinvite
Douglas Crockford from a conference for his own personal behavior (I
personally think it is ridiculous, but still), than to disinvite someone for
mainstream political views or support for another candidate.

But as I said, this is all a symptom of our first-past-the-post system:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

------
Lawtonfogle
So by Marcos own logic does anyone who support Hillary support slut shaming 12
year old girls who have been raped?

------
bonaldi
The most damning thing to me about this is that Peter Thiel is content to let
YC take the flack for him. He knows he's damaging them; that partners are
walking away from YC, and it's down to him.

A decent person would walk away at that point, to save YC and take the heat on
themselves.

He doesn't. Which makes it all the more odd that sama will still go to bat for
someone he a) disagrees with and b) wouldn't do the same in return.

~~~
inimino
He should support the political ostracism by making it easier for everyone by
ostracising himself? What an odd definition you must have of "decent".

~~~
bonaldi
The political ostracism has happened - people are already distancing
themselves from him. It's a given here.

I'm saying he should limit the damage of it to himself, rather than letting
his friends be dragged down with him, yes.

By forcing YC to stand with him, he has dragged them into his fight and undone
a lot of their previous good work.

~~~
inimino
Surely there are adversaries so fearsome that the noble thing is to cut ties
and avoid collateral damage, but a mob of angry partisans on the internet
shouldn't be one of them.

To do that would mean giving up on civil political disagreement and sets a
terrible precedent.

I don't think any good work is being undone here but perhaps you could say
some political capital is being spent defending the free and open exchange of
ideas.

------
lstroud
Irony...advocating discrimination against Trump supporters because you believe
they advocate discrimination.

------
fullofit
Racism, sexism, calling the election "rigged", saying you are going to
prosecute your opponent, accusing them of being on drugs, bragging about
sexual assault...

These are not political views. It's just absurdity, and supporting such a
person with $1.25 million absolutely makes me question your judgement.

------
ravinpm
now there is no difference between you and the so called trump supporters. You
are asking others to take a stand on behalf of your moral values or bunch who
share your values. Come to the developing countries who call themselves
democracy and you can see it be absued by their supporters who have the very
same notion as you. There is no difference between them(some are uneducated)
and you(educated).I hope you are one those guys who can be brainwashed easily
or there is no difference between you and those who get brainwashed. Either
make your system strong or soon a combination of adam sutler(Vendetta movie)
and father's mask(Equlibrium movie) or person with veil will screw everyone
using the very same system.

------
deeth_starr
While I don't agree w/ Marco on all his points, I think Thiel should go.

Trump/Thiel are racists against multiculturalism. This is the life blood of
California and the tech sector. I say this as an old white guy.

------
fizixer
The size of this thread, and the split of opinions, is a clear indication to
me that this goes beyond the single decision of "Whether or not keep Thiel on
board".

I would like to bring your attention to that bigger issue (sorry if this
comment is useless to you in making up your mind about Thiel).

I consider myself a transhumanist, a futurologist, a technologist, that sort
of thing. I got into this about 3 years ago. And I've done a lot of
thinking/reading on this topic, and I've tried my best to gauge the perception
about technology in the eyes of non-techies, especially economists, and
politicians.

And my conclusion is that, except for a few, economists and politicians are
hopelessly lagging behind the fast pace of socio-economic change. I also
predicted that within a matter of years, we're headed for a serious social
disruption of an unpredictable nature.

Here is my thesis: 2016 is the beginning of that socially disruptive era. And
it's all due to technological progress and automation-driven-unemployment!

If you think it's only about the 2016 US election, and things will settle down
within weeks after November 8 election of Clinton, you would be misguided. Of
course the election fever will settle down, but not the frustration behind it,
which is growing like a frog in a slowly boiling water. I can tell you right
now, the 2018 election season would be worse, and 2020 season would be far
worse!

Case in point: Have you seen the statistics related to self-driving cars and
trucks? Arguably it'll put 3 million truckers out of work. This will happen
within a matter of months, not years, not decades. What do you think would
happen when all of a sudden 3 million people are without means to put food on
their table? Something that would make you forget Trump!

You might ask, we don't have self-driving cars yet why do we have social
disruption? Well, self-driving cars is a poster-child of automation. It's
something that's easy to understand and relate to. There is a ton of subtle,
behind-the-scenes, automation going on, that is indirectly making harder for
humans to utilize their skills for making money. Smart-phone and related apps,
news article bots, automated warehousing like Amazon Kivy, Uber/Lyft, Airbnb,
Etsy, vertical farming, solar and wind power, on, and on, and on. But more
importantly:

Social disruption is not a step function but a logistic curve. It's not that
we'll have zero disruption until self-driving trucks are available for retail
purchasing, and after that we'll have full disruption. Instead, it's a sign of
things to come, and we're off the zero-level, and slowly rising up the S-curve
of the logistic function.

Please think of this problem in a bigger context. If technologists cannot do
this, economists and politicians definitely can't.

------
jfe
true tolerance tolerates the intolerant.

------
rhapsodic
This exemplifies a disturbing tactic of the left, demonizing anyone who holds
differing political views, attempting to turn them into social pariahs,
causing them whatever harm they're able to within the law.

I happen to think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in federal
prison. I think the only reason she's not being prosecuted is that the current
administration is corrupt, and views laws as weapons to be used against
political opponents rather than a set of rules to be applied equally to all
citizens. I am of the opinion that her "foundation" that accepted "donations"
from countries that had business before the US State Department while she was
running, it, is basically a money-laundering operation for bribes. I believe
the woman who accused her husband of viciously and violently raping her in a
hotel room was telling the truth, and I think those Democrats who are throwing
fits over Trump's crude statements and sketchy allegations of his impropriety
are hypocrites, considering the way they defended Bill Clinton and elevated
him to the status of Elder Party Statesman after he left office.

And yet I think people should be free to publicly support Hillary Clinton's
bid for POTUS without having their livelihoods come under attack.

~~~
zxcvvcxz
This is exactly why as a former independent I am going with the Republicans
this time around. Although I do tend to side with them on more issues, it's
the way the Dems conduct themselves that has completely turned me off of them:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY)

~~~
rudolf0
It's sentiments like this that still give Trump a serious shot at winning,
even if more scandals about him are unveiled. I hate both but am voting for
Clinton, but can very much understand your position.

The whole "basket of deplorables", virtue signalling, moral superiority thing
turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

------
meira
So Trump has a lot of problems, but it looks like he is not corrupt. Hillary,
on the other hand, is fully with corruption. I really don't like/agree with YC
priorities (I'm not an American, which is even more disturbing to see someone
that laughs about killing others country president been endorsed/elected)

~~~
sagichmal
Are you joking? Trump is _transparently_ corrupt. The Trump Foundation exists
to serve as a tax shield, funneling donor money to Trump and his family
personally. C.f. the allegations of corruption toward Clinton and the Clinton
Foundation, which are laughably indistinct and incomparable. If corruption is
what you care about, then Hillary Clinton is _inarguably_ the superior
candidate.

~~~
msandford
So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is
mere allegations? Hmmmm.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it
fascinating how easily people manage to rationalize things.

I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate
denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook'
whatever problems exist with the Clintons.

~~~
sagichmal
> So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is
> mere allegations? Hmmmm.

Well there's obviously a spectrum but I think it's absolutely inarguable that
Trump's foundation is a tax dodge and that Trump is transparently corrupt; and
I think _at worst_ you can say that Clinton made some bad choices, but yes
absolutely the allegations against her are without proof.

> I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a
> climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to
> 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.

Of course nobody is overlooking problems, and your attempts at equivocation
are transparently concern trolling. But it's pretty inarguable that "whatever
problems exist with the Clintons" are speculative and completely incomparable
with "whatever problems exist with Trump".

~~~
msandford
> think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices

The Director of the FBI said exactly that, but that there was no malicious
intent and thus no crime. Why an investigative body is making a recommendation
about charges notwithstanding, when it comes to national secrets, nobody else
gets the benefit of the doubt re: mens rea, it's generally interpreted as
strict liability. Why did former Secretary Clinton get a seemingly free pass
on this one, while members of the rank-and-file military do not? I suspect
it's because they're in the rank-and-file.

[http://thehill.com/policy/defense/292064-troops-using-
clinto...](http://thehill.com/policy/defense/292064-troops-using-clinton-
defense-in-classified-information-cases)

~~~
meira
I don't understand how Americans don't care about Hillary's lies. (actually, I
do, it's called mass media manipulation, but you guys, of all modern societies
in the world, should be one of few capable of fighting it).

Hillary Clinton simple says that she made a mistake and nobody asks why did
she used a private email server? I think this is a huge trap, but would things
go a little better for Trump if he admits that it was all a misunderstanding
and he is a reformed man now?

~~~
msandford
It's basically just like Carl Sagan said:

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long
enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer
interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s
simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.
Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-
les...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-lessons-of-
history-is-this-if)

EDIT: That said, I don't NECESSARILY believe that the Clintons have
absolutely, for sure been up to no good. But I am a little suspicious, given
the facts that the FBI found. There's plenty of stuff that they could do to
exonerate themselves. I just suspect it won't happen, especially since the FBI
has seen fit to say "no bad intent so no crime"

------
stewartUK
Please, do the right thing, and don't take it down again.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinat...](https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinator_censors_marco_arment_for_his_opinion/)

~~~
ptaipale
This still shouldn't be on HN. I'm not from the US and I am totally fed up
with both pro and anti Trump/Clinton propaganda that spews out to cover all of
the world, and I don't want to see it here, at least particularly when it's
just _" stories about politics, or crime, or sports"_ and particularly not _"
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."_ as the HN guidelines put it.

I'd rather fight for Thiel's right to say and work for his opinion.

~~~
T2_t2
I'd agree, with a tiny caveat. I couldn't care less about US politics, think
neither candidate is likely to change much that affects me or mine, and think
the US president's power is vastly overstated.

Where I disagree is that I think the real problem lies in the reactionary
posts, like Pao's Medium post and this one. These I think are a very real
threat to me and mine.

These ideas - that things that aren't focussed on hacking code together to
create businesses, that distract not from adjacent to the topic but from
within, these are the problem.

That's the crazy part here to me. Forget the politics, the people reacting to
politics and wanting things in the HN sphere to change are (trying?) to have
very real impacts on things I care about, and none of that is, AFAICT, in any
way shape or form positive.

Trump, Clinton and the US election hasn't helped one person hack together any
code, and neither has the post linked to, but only one of them is part of the
industry that is directly involved in hacking together any code, and that
part, that part is the issue.

------
rfrank
"Can't we just drone the guy?" \- Hillary Clinton, on Assange.

~~~
etjossem
The basis for this is claimed to be anonymous "State Department sources," by
way of a single blog which does nothing but print right-wing hatchet jobs
(True Pundit). Considering the lack of credibility in True Pundit's other
posts, it would not shock me if the quote was fabricated.

Please do your research before posting unverified quotes as fact.

------
zxcvvcxz
Shame on Democrats:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY)

Also:

> Altman’s framing of Thiel’s Trump support as a diversity issue isn’t just
> incorrect — it’s a harmful distortion that reveals a deep misunderstanding
> of the tech industry’s actual diversity issues. (I don’t and can’t fully
> understand our diversity problem, but I at least won’t pretend to.)

What on Earth does this even mean? There's something wrong, I can't have a
different opinion, but you can't even understand or explain it? Give me a
fucking break.

------
EJTH
"Oh no, someone supports a political agenda different from mine. I'd better
bring out the cannons and shame anything even remotely related to this person,
because I don't agree with his political views!"

------
lightedman
Shame on all of you for daring to criticize a person's freedom of speech and
participation.

And I'm willing to bet the majority of people posting in this thread are
Americans, which makes this whole conversation even more head-shaking for me.

Not a Christian, but "pull the plank from thine own eye" seems to be the most
appropriate thing to say to every last one of you here.

~~~
throwaway_415
It is a criticism of fascism, nazism, racism and sexual assault.

------
xname2
My observation:

\- most trump supporters hate the corrupted system, the establishment, but
they do not generally hate average hillary supporters.

\- most hillary supporters hate trump and trump supporters.

------
smokedoutraider
No shame on Marcos, Pao, and anyone else taking a this stupid stance against
those who disagree with them. Supporting Trump is perfectly fine, as is
supporting Clinton. Calling for the heads of those on opposing sides of the
isle is what is truly disgraceful and the whole lot of you acting like
petulant children are just pathetic and dangerously misguided.

------
gjolund
Another post about purging Trump supporters from the workplace.

Is it SV that causes people to view the world in black and white?

What a surprise, one of the least inclusive industries on the planet is trying
to exclude more people.

------
oldmanjay
Wag, fingers, wag, then gawp in wonder at the backfire leading to more trumps.

------
ythl
That moment when [https://xkcd.com/1357](https://xkcd.com/1357) gets taken too
far and people are afraid of voicing anything but the current, popular,
politically correct opinions for fear of losing their careers.

~~~
fernandotakai
honestly, i myself feel like that. i don't voice my general opinion on many
threads because there's always a random person that decides that my opinion is
a disgrace so it's better to email his employee to let them know.

------
jjawssd
"We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political
candidate. That’s not how things are done in this country."

What a crazy idea!

------
kartman
I am glad Trump has run, spoken and reached this point.

We each now know and can remember going forward, if we so choose, how all the
people we assign respect to acted when it mattered.

(And we should remember the actual meaningful actions with long term $ impact
to the actor. Not get guiled by the arguments skillfully couching intent and
rationalizing the actions).

------
creo
Tell me one thing YC community: What american politics topics are doing on
worldwide tech-focused site?

~~~
oldmanjay
If anything, this is a silicon valley tech site that is so compelling it has a
worldwide audience. Not really the same thing.

Plus if you live somewhere in the world, American politics affects you because
we have such immense power.

------
mzw_mzw
No, shame on Marco, barking orders to other people about what politics they
should or should not support. If one cannot be a professional and calmly
interact with people who have wildly varying opinions, even opinions one finds
despicable, one should not be in an industry whose very foundation is
diversity of thought.

------
MaxfordAndSons
To be charitable, you're full of shit. Does Hillary encourage violence at
rallies? Does she stoke resentment at minority outgroups for political gain?
Does she threaten to imprison her political opponents? Is she preemptively
calling the election fraudulent and encouraging polling place intimidation and
violence?

Also you mixed up "kind" and "degree". The difference between them is, in
fact, one of kind. Sure, she's a bit of a corporatist shill, but that's par
for the course for most presidents since the 1900s. The case against her is
built from years of strident exaggerations and lies, amplified by misogyny.
She's a completely normal, if less than thrilling, politician. The case
against Trump is sufficiently built on things he's said in public in just the
last few months alone. He's an American proto-fascist.

~~~
dang
> _To be charitable, you 're full of shit._

You can't comment like this on HN. Please don't do it again, regardless of how
wrong someone is. Commenters here should post civilly and substantively, or
not at all.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12735736](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12735736)
and marked it off-topic.

------
dschiptsov
In the 21th century educated techies should understand that Trump is not a
mere candidate, but a product of a set of image makers, speech writers,
psychologists and whole bunch of deceptive and manipulative techniques
applied.

Basically, it is a well crafted frontman (same as in a rock band) to appeal to
less educated majority. This explains all the sexism and masculinity, bravado
and jokes - all this reflects what the majority of any given population would
appreciate, but not necessarily publicly approve.

In a society which is famous for its well crafted, researched in psychology
departments, deceptive advertising techniques, all what Trump does should be
familiar and transparent - the same primitive manipulations everyone is using
to sell the crap to each other.

Trump is a product of applied psychology, designed to obtain majority of
votes. Do not even try to fancy that hipsters, vegans, etc. leave alone the
ivvy league students, constitutes the majority of US population.

So, some people take their chances, betting on that this primitive but sound
strategy could win. Consider this as just a form of a risky investment.

------
throwaway274739
If you vote for Trump, you are supporting a racist, misogynistic,
Islamophobic, anti-LGBTQ fascist. You are in fact voting against the very
principles of equality, liberty and diversity that this country was founded
on. As such voting for -- much less, actually supporting Drumpf -- means you
are endorsing violence against huge portions of the American public (e.g.,
sexual assault against women, imprisonment of Muslims, Latinos, etc).

Therefore, not only is there nothing wrong with forward looking organizations
for excluding people as dispicable as Trump supporters, they have a
responsibility to do so for the safety of their members who happen to be
LGBTQ, Muslim, female, People of Color and basically anyone else who isn't a
straight white male.

It's 2016, about damn time we send a message to the bigots that their hate is
no longer okay and we're not going to tolerate it anymore. End. Of.
Discussion.

~~~
tnones
Actually, it's about ethics in wielding minorities as a club to smite
heretics.

~~~
thescribe
Diversity is the new Deus Vault.

------
doe88
I understand Marco's point and I agree with him but I must say for once I find
his post not very well written.

------
pk22
People here defending the donation need to remember that Brandon Eich was let
go for much less.

~~~
inimino
Which was also regrettable.

------
fredgrott
I would just state that while we have political freedom and free speech in the
USA..YC should not be ENDORSING those political forces who in their direct
actions with a consistent basis regale in Sexism, Predatory Sexual behavior,
Racism, Hate of Gays,etc.

Its time for YC take a stand..no try to sit on a fence

------
elias12
Just one quick comment, because these discussions always go there: This is not
about Hillary. Whatever the family Clinton did or not did, it doesn't matter.
This is about someone who supports Donald Trump in a significant way, and the
person Donald Trump and his potential negative impact on our society.

~~~
ww520
Lots of people think Trump is a positive impact on our society. Why not let
the people decide in vote.

------
transfire
When you have a "hot-head numb-nut" and a "truly nasty shyster" running for
President, who do you vote for?

I'll tell you. You say, "To hell with all that!", and vote for the
[goofball]([https://www.johnsonweld.com/](https://www.johnsonweld.com/)).

------
altern8tif
Thought experiment: Would it be any different if we replaced Donald Trump with
Hitler?

Should a company dissociate with a business partner/board member/investor
because he supported an extremist's political campaign?

~~~
dkopi
Comparing political candidates to Hitler is a rather lazy thought experiment.

~~~
smt88
It's not lazy. It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the
spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line. What would
Trump have to do before supporting him is unacceptable to YC?

But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio
Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.

~~~
dkopi
"It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask
someone how they decide where to draw the line."

That's actually very lazy. It's shifting the burden of "drawing the line" on
the other side.

It's the "well, why don't we just kill toddlers as well? Where do you draw the
line?" in an abortion argument. It's the "why don't we just give 12 year old's
automatic assault weapons" or "why don't we disarm the police and military as
well" in a gun control debate. It's the "So why don't we just tax corporations
100% of their income" in a corporate tax debate.

~~~
rtpg
Very true. The line is important.

Trump has started heavily implying that the election will be rigged, Russia-
style. He repeats Info Wars propaganda sillyness. He's come out to say that
the elections will be _stolen_ from true Americans by illegal immigrants. He's
called for beating protestors.

Some of his positions are more a question of form rather than function
compared to the political mainstream. His comments on muslims immigrating into
the country are not far from the Republican Party mainstream, unfortunately.

But beyond his policies, he has been openly hostile to the concept of
functioning democracy. There's a lazy comparison to be made to Hitler, but
that's because Hitler also subverted the system through a cult of personality.

I know some people oppose him for his policies, but it feels internally
inconsistent (you'd have to boycott most Republican supporters). But surely
using strategies to undermine the legitimacy of the election results (that in
a different country would be an obvious lead-up to a coup d'etat) is something
we can all get behind as a bad thing.

------
epaga
HN admins - if you're going to shut this one down as well, could I appeal to
you to at least give a reasoning why? Killing posts like these without for
example dang providing at least a quick reasoning why leaves a bad taste in my
mouth...

~~~
ptaipale
Not an admin, just a user, but read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

 _Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they 're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon._

There's nothing very interesting in vilifying Thiel.

~~~
4ad
On the contrary, the fact that we had, and continue to have numerous threads,
and _thousands_ of comments means it is _very_ interesting to the community.

~~~
jrs235
The fact that it keeps getting flagged to death shows something too.

~~~
ythl
Politics creep into every news aggregate out there. I kind of like the idea of
Hacker News not being one of them.

------
pimterry
I think a lot of people are missing a key point here. This isn't about
stopping a candidate you disagree with, or even about stopping a candidate
that you think would be bad for the US. It's about making Y Combinator and the
software industry as effective and good-for-the-world as possible.

Even if throwing Thiel out would actually help Trump's candidacy, they should
do it.

There's an interesting debate about whether you think Trump's policies are a
good idea, and how much you care about him being elected, but that's a
sideshow. Thiel represents Y Combinator, like it or not. How he's perceived
affects how Y Combinator is perceived, and how the industry (SV especially)
are perceived by the rest of the world. Currently, he's actively and very
publicly giving millions of dollars to a candidate espousing violence, sexism,
racism and sexual assault.

By supporting Thiel, Y Combinator is supporting somebody espousing violence,
sexism, racism and sexual assault. It doesn't matter if they're a presidential
candidate or not, or what it does to the election results. Encouraging and
supporting these _moral_ positions is horrific, bad for everybody, and just
practically bad for business. When your public face becomes the face of hate
speech, you have a practical business problem, and you need to solve it.

You would fire a public face of your company if they publicly wrote a post
about how they liked to sexually assault people. You would fire a public face
of your company if they publicly donated millions of dollars to an
organisation encouraging sexual assault. Why is it different if the
organisation they're supporting is running for president?

It's not about Trump's policies, and it's not about whether or not it plays
into Trump's hands: if a major face of your business is actively visibly
supporting abuse, discrimination and violence and you do nothing, then your
business is supporting abuse, discrimination and violence. You're going to
give you and your industry a bad name and discourage minorities of all kinds
from ever working with you, along with anybody else who finds your morals
repugnant.

Supporting Thiel while he actively defend and encourages racism, sexism and
violence in the name of "free speech" doesn't make the world better; it makes
it far far worse.

~~~
j15t
The thing is, "good for the world" is a subjective notion.

In my studies of philosophy I am yet to find any system of ethics that
provides an objective and universal definition of right and wrong - if you
find one, please let me know.

Until then, we are all dealing with subjective opinions - it's just that some
opinions are more popular than others. In democracy the most popular opinion
wins, but this does not imply that an opinion is objectively "right" (as we
know from history).

Hence, I find this recent trend where people classify other people's beliefs
as "objectively wrong" \- with no consideration for the subjectivity of their
own beliefs - to be deeply troubling. Such behaviour is a departure from
reason; only dogma remains.

------
sgdesign
It would definitely be wrong to fire or sever all ties with someone for
supporting, say, George W. Bush. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to
do so if said person supported Hitler.

So the question is where you put Donald Trump on that spectrum. Personally, I
think he's much closer to an authoritarian populist than to a regular
politician.

You may disagree with Trump's placement on that axis, but I find it very
strange to see so many people in this thread arguing that punishing someone
for their political position is always wrong, no matter how vile or dangerous
said political position is.

------
Kazamai
Really naive to think that supporting a political party and supporting Trump
are the same. Of course, Peter Thiel does not support the BS that Trump says.
It would be a huge contradiction coming from the same man that took down
Gawker. If there was no single reason why people are supporting Trump, it is
American's version of Brexit, by voting Trump people are protesting the
massive economic chaos in the USA. They aren't hoping Trump will fix it. The
opposite, they are hoping Trump will fail miserably, which will effectively
hit the reset button on the American economy.

------
_pius
Another way to look at this is to apply a version of Jeff Bezos's Regret
Minimization Framework: project yourself decades into the future and read
about yourself in a history book.

If you truly believe Trump is an unprecedented threat to democracy in the
league of Stalin, how would you feel telling your children that "it was just
business" when you kept on a partner who was part of his campaign apparatus?

I don't think IBM is particularly proud of their management during the 1930's.
No one knows or _cares_ about the personal views of the people behind those
decisions, just what they led IBM to do.

~~~
zeveb
Would one feel particularly good telling one's children that one joined in a
rabid witch hunt driving people from their employment (Eich) and business
associations (Thiel)?

~~~
_pius
I'll feel great telling my kids I encouraged people in my industry to stand up
to a billionaire mouthpiece and financier of a prominent white nationalist
trying to bring fascism to the United States.

In fact, I'd be ashamed to say I didn't.

------
rbanffy
Peter Thiel's financial support for Trump's campaign, as well as Trump's
campaign of hatred, racism, xenophobia and misogyny, are perfect examples of
the Overton window sliding into insanity.

The next Trump may be slightly more moderate. He may accept that women may
have some of the same rights as men. He may accept the fact some foreigners
should be afforded some civil liberties. He may even accept access to
healthcare is a good thing and that Islam is not inherently evil.

And, next to Trump, he'll be pictured as a moderate.

I am sorry if I look intolerant of diversity, but this cannot be tolerated. We
cannot allow the subversion of democracies.

------
whybroke
>If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be
part of Y Combinator.

If it is only reasonable to spouse Thiel's supports Trump is in every
particular. Not just the least damaging but also the most. So this not only
includes the more palatable anti globalization stance but also race baiting
and, hostility towards women as well as a fiercely anti democracy, anti free
press platform.

I assume much of that is exactly opposed to ycombinator's higher mission.

Thiel's association with ycombinator is not one of employee to employer, it is
voluntary association of colleagues for a common goal, presumably with goals
higher than just monetary. Going forward, continuing with Thiel will not only
make any claim to those nobler goals _look_ disingenuous they likely will in
fact _be_ undermined.

------
samlevine
It's worth sharing this again:

[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

For what it's worth, Thiel seems to have the view that Trump isn't actually
going to do horrible things, and will invest in infrastructure and American
businesses.

This seems deluded for the same reasons that some American liberals were about
Stalin, and purging him for his authentic and not apparently horrible beliefs
would be the same mistakes that we did during the McCarthy era.

------
no_scope_me_fgt
There's also the entire argument that Thiel doesn't really support Donald
Trump, and that this donation is more of a strategic move that is coherent
with increasing Ted Cruz's chances of election in 2020. Cruz got as close to a
public denouncement of Trump as possible, and he will probably need the
support of many of his voters (who knows if they'll even remember, doubt it)
to be able to secure a victory. Thiel could perhaps be the trump card
necessary as support, as he double counts as both a gay man and someone who
remained "loyal" to Trump. I think that Thiel's opinions on how the world
should look are more in line with Cruz's, and he himself has called Cruz "very
smart". I don't know a lot about politics or Peter Thiel, but to think that a
former chess champion and fairly renowned silicon Valley figurehead
legitimately supports Trump is a little outlandish. The odds of there being an
ulterior motive are far greater than the opposite. Not to mention that he
probably saw all the negative PR coming, as well as the resulting
dissociations. He probably believes it was all worth it.

~~~
pauljonas
He appeared on stage, and gave a speech in support of Trump at the GOP
National Convention in Cleveland, back in July.

------
drawkbox
Nearly all of our bosses, owners, authorities vote and support in various
ways, most you probably don't like. Thiel is a funder, how often have you
worked for people/financing that had differing opinions? All the time...

The real problem is that the 2 party system has successfully divided us and
put us on teams warring one another over silly things like politicians (and
non issues like sex lives over real issues like healthcare, education,
prosperity, opportunity, security -- not the war on terror kind, more like the
bridges aren't going to fall kind).

Most of what we want are the same things, but we'll never get anywhere hating
on each other based on our political team that is essentially the same party
once in action. I wish we would go back to the old way of keeping your vote
and opinion closer to your chest and surprising the two political parties so
they actually need to court the vote again.

I can't wait til the election season is over, it is always a very harsh/rigid
time in the US when they are on, people seeing others as lower who aren't in
their own party. Disconnect from it and everyone be independent. Don't do work
for politicians and blindly support anyone or any party, make them do work for
us.

------
joshberkus
Given Thiel's long history of crazy an immoral utterances and behavior, why
pick out his support of Trump as the "line in the sand"? It's practically
_normal_ compared to his other activities, and protected by law to boot.
Compared to:

* Suing a news publication (Gawker) out of business for criticizing him * Funding research into vampirism (stealing young people's blood so he can live longer) * Paying to design an actual John Gault Island * Funding an initiative to split California into 6 states * Saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote

There are _tons_ of reasons why YC should disassociate form Thiel, but his
donation to the Trump campaign has got to be the least of them.

------
bonaldi
Man alive this thread. When SV wonders why it has a diversity problem, just
point 'em here.

Where were all you Free Speech zealots when Thiel destroyed Gawker?

Where were all you Political Choices Are Sacred crew when SOPA was being
proposed?

Where were all you "protect rich bigots" stans when it was Brendan Eich? Oh
wait, that's right, you were on the wrong side there too, my bad.

As for you "I guess there's a 'wrong side' these days of things you just can't
say" newcomers: surprise, there have _always_ been unacceptable opinions, such
as supporting fascism. It's just that a mainstream party accidentally chose as
its candidate someone who holds and expresses those opinions. That doesn't
give him, you, or Thiel, a pass.

~~~
thescribe
Ok how about this: Anyone who supports Hillary is on the wrong side of History
and holds views so vile no American should hold them. I can advocate for Pao
to be fired now right?

~~~
dragonwriter
Sure, you can advocate for it. Whether or not you believe that, in fact.
People may question both your preferred action and the basis on which you
advocate for it, however.

~~~
thescribe
Wouldn't it be easier just to agree to no witch hunts than to hope the winds
of public opinion never make us the witch?

~~~
bonaldi
But what about if you actually do have a "witch" on your hands? Like, say, an
actual fascist?

I think one of the conflicts here is arising because some people see Trump as
an actual fascist, and are advocating the kinds of actions that are required
to deal with that. Others see him as just another politician, no worse than
Clinton, and therefore see the actions of the other lot as excessive and
unwarranted.

Sama, however, is trying to have his cake and eat it. He says he believes
Trump is a threat to the republic but eh, if people want to support that it's
up to them.

Which is arguably open-minded tolerance of intolerance, but also the sort of
"so open your brain falls out" liberalism that (ironically) Trump fans hate so
much.

