
Include cuts off Y Combinator because Peter Thiel is a part-time investor there - satai
http://boingboing.net/2016/10/17/project-include-cuts-off-y-com.html
======
BinaryIdiot
I don't understand this culture. So people hate Trump, that's not a shocker.
But many would have taken Thiel's advice without a problem a few weeks /
months ago. Now, because he wants to donate to a candidate many find
reprehensible, it's time to throw away the person Peter Thiel? Can he no
longer give good startup advice because he supports Trump today? Is he no
longer "redeem-able" to the point where we need to ruin him and whatever he's
a part of?

Hate Trump all you want. But if you're going to pretend you're inclusive don't
go around throwing people away because you don't like their views. That makes
you an exclusive organization. Learn from those who do not share the same
opinions.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive
out hate; only love can do that" \- Martin Luther King Jr

~~~
fullofit
It's not about differences in political views. I'm not going to respect you if
you support racists and misogynists.

~~~
AvenueIngres
Did you hear that Sam's grandma is a Trump supporter? What are you waiting
for? Cut ties with HN, YC etc. Quick!

------
koolba
I have no clue what "Project Include" is or does, but things like make me want
to know even less. It seems like the only hate being advocated is toward
people with differing political views.

Heck it's getting to the point that an institution that doesn't go out of its
way to join the public shame game will probably themselves get shamed!

~~~
internaut
> Heck it's getting to the point that an institution that doesn't go out of
> its way to join the public shame game will probably themselves get shamed!

That is how most totalitarian societies punish their dissenters.

Scott Alexander explains it well:

"No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition, Especially Not In 21st Century
America

People in ancient societies thought their societies were obviously great. The
imperial Chinese thought nothing could beat imperial China, the medieval
Spaniards thought medieval Spain was a singularly impressive example of
perfection, and Communist Soviets were pretty big on Soviet Communism.
Meanwhile, we think 21st-century Western civilization, with its democracy,
secularism, and ethnic tolerance is pretty neat. Since the first three
examples now seem laughably wrong, we should be suspicious of the hypothesis
that we finally live in the one era whose claim to have gotten political
philosophy right is totally justified.

But it seems like we have an advantage they don’t. Speak out against the
Chinese Empire and you lose your head. Speak out against the King of Spain and
you face the Inquisition. Speak out against Comrade Stalin and you get sent to
Siberia. The great thing about western liberal democracy is that it has a free
marketplace of ideas. Everybody criticizes some aspect of our society. Noam
Chomsky made a career of criticizing our society and became rich and famous
and got a cushy professorship. So our advantage is that we admit our society’s
imperfections, reward those who point them out, and so keep inching closer and
closer to this ideal of perfect government.

Okay, back up. Suppose you went back to Stalinist Russia and you said “You
know, people just don’t respect Comrade Stalin enough. There isn’t enough
Stalinism in this country! I say we need two Stalins! No, fifty Stalins!”

Congratulations. You have found a way to criticize the government in Stalinist
Russia and totally get away with it. Who knows, you might even get that cushy
professorship.

If you “criticize” society by telling it to keep doing exactly what it’s doing
only much much more so, society recognizes you as an ally and rewards you for
being a “bold iconoclast” or “having brave and revolutionary new ideas” or
whatever. It’s only when you tell them something they actually don’t want to
hear that you get in trouble.

Western society has been moving gradually further to the left for the past
several hundred years at least. It went from divine right of kings to
constutitional monarchy to libertarian democracy to federal democracy to New
Deal democracy through the civil rights movement to social democracy to ???.
If you catch up to society as it’s pushing leftward and say “Hey guys, I think
we should go leftward even faster! Two times faster! No, fifty times faster!”,
society will call you a bold revolutionary iconoclast and give you a
professorship.

If you start suggesting maybe it should switch directions and move the
direction opposite the one the engine is pointed, then you might have a bad
time.

Try it. Mention that you think we should undo something that’s been done over
the past century or two. Maybe reverse women’s right to vote. Go back to
sterilizing the disabled and feeble-minded. If you really need convincing,
suggest re-implementing segregation, or how about slavery? See how far freedom
of speech gets you.

In America, it will get you fired from your job and ostracized by nearly
everyone. Depending on how loudly you do it, people may picket your house, or
throw things at you, or commit violence against you which is then excused by
the judiciary because obviously they were provoked. Despite the iconic image
of the dissident sent to Siberia, this is how the Soviets dealt with most of
their iconoclasts too."

~~~
majewsky
Yes, that's how it is, and I find it completely reasonable that people will
hate you for wanting to reimplement segregation or slavery.

I don't know about US law, but the German constitution defines a clear
hierarchy of basic rights, starting with:

1\. dignity of mankind

2\. right to live and and freedom from physical harm

3\. equality of every person before the law

4\. freedom of religion

5\. free speech

So there are a lot of things that our law considers more important than free
speech. This setup is a result of the German experiences with a certain kind
of demagogues. I will not argue that this is the perfect law system, but I
stand by it nonetheless.

~~~
internaut
No disrespect but I don't think you understand what is being said. What you
said was orthogonal.

Read the essay, it is not mine, I was partially quoting it. Then if you want
to comment or have thoughts we can talk about it.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-
philosophy-...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-
in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/)

------
loso
I don't get why people are up in arms in here. It's YC prerogative to keep
working with Thiel, it's project Include prerogative to cut them off because
of it. I always believe in voting with your dollar. If something bothers you
bad enough, don't attend, purchase, or anything else that you feel will
support the company/person.

Trump is my personal line in the sand. Not the Republican party but Trump in
particular. But I will only pull back my dollars if a company is actively
publicly supporting him.

As long as you are voting with your dollar and not trying to get someone
banned by the government or put in jail then I say have it. Why be
uncomfortable in what your dollars are being used to support?

~~~
allendoerfer
They are not voting against Thiel but against YC, which itself is not voting
against Thiel. So in your analogy you would have to ban the whole Republican
party, because Trump is its candidate.

~~~
loso
It wouldn't be ban, its more I'm not giving money or working with the
Republican party because Trump is your candidate.

------
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.

~~~
matt4077
The right to free speech is a limitation of Government powers. A private
entity like Include can do whatever they want.

And considering Thiel's "speech" was mostly through money, and their "speech"
is mostly through "no longer working with them", it seems they're pretty much
doing the same thing.

Firing, in this case, would also be an embodiment of speech. (Although I'd
argue there should be more stringent anti-discrimination laws to stop people
from firing others for their political opinions (but I'd also argue that he's
no employee of YC)).

~~~
basch
there is a difference between the right to free speech and the philosophy of
free speech. free speech as an ideal existed long before the laws protecting
it.

~~~
ipatriot
What is the difference? Shouldn't we strive for the most free speech possible.
The first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America states
as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government protects free speech in all its forms, including the horrible
vile that comes out of Trump. Why can't us informed citizens respect other
people's point of view and defeat it with facts, reasoning and logic. When we
shut off members of a society because we disagree with them, we are pushing
them to the extreme, leaving them isolated and creating more horrible
monsters. A democratic and free society must tolerate all opinions to actually
be free and not be run by a certain group that prohibits certain types of
speech.

~~~
basch
youre asking me what the difference between a right and theory are? the right
is the philosophy put into practice, the philosophy is a more abstract thought
experiment and ideal.

in america, the right to free speech gives prevents the government from
suppressing your speech. it doesnt protect you from private companies refusing
to propagate your message or others talking louder than you, or people
refusing to do business with you because they dont like what you said. freedom
of speech isnt freedom from consequence. companies however can choose, by
their own accord, to value and prioritize the philosophy of free speech.

------
asgardiator
Pao can tolerate anyone... except people she deems intolerable.
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

"Project Include" is evocative of "Ministry of Truth": a name crafted to
narrate reality. I'm consistently amused by how little self-awareness identity
politicians exhibit.

~~~
mherdeg
Yeah, I found that blog post really thought provoking.

I think the core idea was that "it is a virtue to tolerate the outgroup" often
means, in American middle-class culture, "if you are on Team Republican, do
not stop associating with members of Team Democrat, no matter how much your
friends and media tell you all those people are evil idiots" and vice versa.

This is an interesting normative take on what you might call the "filter
bubble moral panic" of the 2000s, a growing fear that people who don't agree
with each other are experiencing totally separate and disconnected realities.

The thing everyone's afraid of seems to be that in this new world, democracy
will effectively become impossible because the ruling majority party will
always be ignorant of (or totally unsympathetic to) the interests of the
minority. Is the risk overblown? I dunno; how actually bad is a government
shutdown, a half-year delay in Zika containment funding, etc.? Hard to say if
these times are really worse and if "ignoring the other team" is really to
blame.

Some other content in this vein that was interesting reading:

* The Shadow University -- a 1999 nonfiction book of essays about how, at American universities, concepts like "academic freedom" and "the marketplace of ideas" have entered a tension with other concepts ([https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060977728](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060977728))

* The Five Geek Social Fallacies -- a 2003 essay influential among some software-as-a-lifestyle people I know, which argues most memorably that is is a popular fallacy to believe "ostracizers are evil", [http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html](http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html)

------
mc32
I get it and obviously it goes without saying that's their prerogative. But
it's a little but like not viewing Cosby any more or not listening to Wagner,
or not reading Mein Kampf or Das Capital because of what they represent or
forgoing drugs because they were developed by [think of something very
reprehensible]. Or someone not being friends with me because I don't believe
in religion (and therefore deny their belief system).

As far as I know, while mr Trump has vilified illegal immigrants, and I may be
mistaken, I don't think he wants to curtail legal immigration (with exception
of immigrants from volatile places) but I constantly hear that he's against
(all) immigration --I believe he's against a _kind_ of immigration, but not
all. It's not like Germany or Sweden or Russia or South Africa just let
everyone in. They also have policies, except they exclude people in nicer
language.

To add: I didn't think it would even be necessary for Sam to have to say that
Peter would stay with YC. I thought it was overly cautious to do so. But this
business is ridiculous. I mean people are seriously wanting to hunt people
down over political views...

Look, if Trump were to win (or Hillary) it means that more people than not
voted them into office and therefore they have the backing of a large
constituency. So, we're not just saying the candidate is objectionable but the
people (and there are lots on both sides) who are wholly objectionable and
irredeemable. Which means our country has gone to the can.

~~~
mturmon
The Wagner analogy is not very good. This is a shunning, or a boycott, that is
designed to affect behavior in this lifetime. It is not a post facto judgement
about the artistic merit of a dead person's work.

Likewise, the _Mein Kampf_ and _Capital_ analogies are inapt. It's not about
refusing to read books.

Mr. Trump has decided to take many polarizing actions. We should not be
surprised that they have caused polarization. It's a way to gauge how
seriously one takes the issue.

Another analogy is boycotts and shunning during the South African apartheid
era. Apparently uninvolved entities, like musicians and writers, were forced
to either take a position against the apartheid state, or to tacitly admit the
issue was not important to them. Eventually it became all but untenable to
support the South African government policy.

~~~
mc32
But Mr Thiel is not mr Trump.

Obviously Mr Thiel on balance, agrees with mr Trump or at least one of his
platform policies is meaningful enough to override other concerns he may have.
Most voters have this same type dilemma.

I'm really concerned that today someone can't openly advocate for their formal
candidate from a major party.

It's not all that different from people blackballing bona fide Communists
--yes, they were a threat to _our_ society back then, but, it was still wrong
to persecute people for their beliefs as repugnant as it may be to us [and
communism was repugnant to the majority of contemporary Americans at the time]

~~~
fatbird
There's more to it than that. Thiel gave Trump over a million dollars. That's
not just agreeing, it's enabling. It's facilitating. Thiel is actively helping
Trump push his neofascism.

------
cperciva
My mother always told me that if someone tries to tell you who you can have as
friends, they're not really your friend either.

So, "Project Include": You're not my friend.

------
zitterbewegung
Is this a PR stunt by Include? I read ycombinator religiously and I have never
heard of this organization?

~~~
asgardiator
Transparently. Pao ruined Reddit, now she clings to identity politics as her
only way out of infamy. Little does she realize how deep she's digging.

~~~
bhc
>Pao ruined Reddit

How?

~~~
wang_li
By being bad at her job as CEO through having no idea what redditors wanted of
the site and by trying to force particular cultural norms.

Was reddit ruined? About as much as anything so abstract that it can reinvent
itself, back peddle, and change direction at a board meetings notice can be
ruined.

~~~
mwfunk
Again, how?

~~~
velodrome
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Pao#Exit_from_Reddit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Pao#Exit_from_Reddit)

------
nickff
I don't understand Pao's thinking here; she trusted Thiel until he reached a
different conclusion from her? If she pointed out a flaw in his methodology,
or found a heretofore hidden inconsistency in his personal philosophy, I would
understand, but she just doesn't like what he's doing.

If you believe in or rely on someone, it shouldn't only be when you happen to
agree with them on the issues of the day; this is not how you behave if you
trust someone.

~~~
matt4077
That argument seems to prove too much, namely that you could never stop
listening to an advisor after having listened to them once.

I've also found a "hidden" inconsistency in his "philosophy": he claims to be
a moral actor, and yet he founded Paypal. And – you know – gives millions to
Trump.

~~~
nickff
Your philosophy does not consist of a few case-specific conclusions; for
example, deciding that you want to spend your evening watching a movie alone
tells me very little about how much you value interpersonal relationships.

I did not say that examining patterns of behavior was useless, but that you
shouldn't dismiss people just because you disagree with them. For example, you
shouldn't get a divorce just because your significant other gave you a piece
of unwanted advice or criticism.

------
harry8
I'd be happy to defend Theil's right to say what he likes. Happy just as long
as I don't have to have anything whatever to do with him. Just sayin'

------
khrm
What's normal view of people about Brendan_Eich? Should he have been removed?
1\. If you believe, he should have been. Then Peter Thiel should also be
removed. 2\. If you believe he shouldn't have been, then Peter Thiel can stay.

I have included this test to just weed out hypocritical thinking.

~~~
matt4077
I'd say yes and yes. But it's less obvious with Eich. You need to balance two
ideas: everyone's (legal) speech should not just be protected from government
intrusion but also from certain threads by private institutions/people.

The "certain" above is the problem, because it's hard to define: you cannot
and must not isolate people from all consequences of their speech. Sometimes
those consequences even come in the form of speech themselves (or something
the Supremes would consider "speech"). I must have the right not to invite my
mother-in-law to christmas when I just don't want to listen to her racist
rants again all night.

On the other hand, there are some disproportional reaction that could create a
problem for democracy. Lets say the top three mobile provides colluded to deny
doing business with anyone donating to the green party. That's dangerous
because those donations are probably not important enough for the individuals
to stop using a phone, yet collectively they're enormously important for that
democracy-thing we have going.

Similarly with employment: it cannot be right to fire a regular employee for
their private opinions, as long as the employee does everything reasonable to
keep them from interfering with life at the office.

Eich and Thiel are different in that their employment isn't quite as
"regular". Firstly, "firing" is a lesser threat to them, because they have
above-average chances of getting a different job (Eich), or the financial
impact would be insignificant (Thiel). Secondly, their position in leadership
makes their private actions more relevant to their businesses.

------
NhanH
I did a quick search, turn out Include might not just be a fringe organization
(ie. this isn't a lame attempt at PR).

> "Project Include is an open community working toward providing meaningful
> diversity and inclusion solutions for tech companies... focusing our efforts
> on CEOs and management of early to mid-stage tech startups"

Post by one of the founder Ellen Pao (of Reddit fame):
[https://medium.com/projectinclude/peter-thiel-yc-and-hard-
de...](https://medium.com/projectinclude/peter-thiel-yc-and-hard-
decisions-2b91bab83764)

As a side note: I chuckled when going through the team list here:
[http://projectinclude.org/team](http://projectinclude.org/team) .

~~~
hendzen
Why did you chuckle?

~~~
barnassey
Due to the fact that most of the team of project include is white. Same as any
org that describes itself as inclusive.

~~~
lifeformed
I only count 2 white people?

~~~
quirkafleeg
You had the advantage of actually bothering to look at the team before passing
comment on it though.

------
allendoerfer
Reading the article and the comments in this thread makes you realize that
Trump is the logical conclusion for a society so divided that people refuse to
work even with their theoretical team mates if they refuse to renounce
themselves strongly enough from the other team.

------
conanbatt
While I undersatnd the obvious debate of "free speech" or "tolerance towards
intolerance" and such things, why would do this, and why do this now?

I can see the appeal of a publicity stunt, but is this some sort of play we
cannot see? Why would Include actually care about this at all. Why wouldnt
investors in the INclude group be any happy with this decision.

------
Canada
s/Include/Exclude/g

------
gozur88
Is Project Include a business or political organization? It's hard to tell
from their web site.

------
AvenueIngres
Wow. This is the end of YC as we know it. They can't possibly recover from
this. RIP YC.

