Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions
medium.com
medium.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970
There seems to be some censorship going on...
Especially those of a foreign country, in which they don't have right to vote or even visit (because of visas).
If I can't here the other sides arguments here, where will I hear them?
But do I really have to? And do I really have to see this completely irrelevant to me topic?
This isn't a modern thing, either. I've never seen anyone claim Brendan Eich didn't have a right to donate to his cause, it's just that he donated to the wrong cause, at least in they eyes of the media and the Twitterverse, of all places. Here, we're seeing it again with Thiel: he has the right to donate to whatever cause he wants, but we criticize him for donating to the wrong causes.
For all the talk of cultural and gender diversity, political diversity is shunned. This is far more pernicious than criticizing a startup because they haven't hired enough women or PoC
It's not left vs right, its humanity denying stances.
Denying LGBT are human (which is what the "8" people were about) is a critical issue. Eich tied himself to the wrong side of history, and epically fucked up his CEO response proving he was a bad candidate for that role. He made his own bed and now lies in it.
As for Trump... well, this is a presidential candidate describing HOW exactly he sexually assaults women. It wasn't a theoretical "what I could do" conversation, it was a "this is what I do" bragging talk. Again, dehumanizing 51% of the population.
Maybe basic human rights is just a "cause" for you, but for the 60-70% of humanity you're trashing, it's kind of their lives.
Anyways, you're actually very wrong - people ARE trashing rights. People in Trump's camp ARE denying LGBT their humanity. Evangelicals for example. How about "kick out every muslim"? The constitution explicitly doesn't call for a religious test to apply.
You'll need to quote where you found "kick out every Muslim" because that's the first I've heard that.
Are they too stupid to know what's good for them? Trapped in some kind of Trump stockholm syndrome? They enjoy being dehumanized?
Human rights and LGBT rights, and women's rights are part of a natural truth. Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect.
What percentage of black people were voting for KKK-associated politicians? Was it 43%? Why do 43% of voting age women disagree with your take on the matter? Are they all delusional?
> Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect.
'I am perfectly logical, and anyone who disagrees with me is illogical'
> everyone deserves equality and respect.
I absolutely agree.
[1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-ar...
If Trumps support was something extremely small like 1-9% for any group, then I would say there is a pretty good possibility that that group sees something very wrong with the candidate. If it is something more, like say in the twenties or higher, then there is hardly a consensus.
If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems. Or you are confused.
What is a "real philosophical system", and what distinguishes it from an unreal or fake philosophical system?
In particular, if a person who is not a professional philosopher has a set of beliefs about what is knowable or what is moral or what the nature of consciousness is, and if that set of beliefs is unusual, is their set of beliefs a "real philosophical system"? Conversely, if that person is a professional, full-time, employed philosopher and their set of beliefs is very popular and influential, is that set a "real philosophical system"?
On the other hand, I don't yet see a trend here. Though many founders and other influencers espouse views consistent with mainstream Democrats, I see other influencers/founders/execs in tech espousing Libertarian viewpoints.
I could be myopic about this and would love it if you could comment further. Thanks for posting this; I think it was well-articulated and thoughtful.
Can you describe this trend so we can further the conversation?
Yes. Can you explain how this seemingly apropos of nothing observation contributes to discussion?
I asked first.
2. Political contributions are public speech. That's why they are protected by the Constitution. People have a right to answer to public speech. If an executive goes to publicly declare horrible things, but legal under freedom of speech protection, their actions will have an effect on the economic prospect of the company.
It's not that Brendan Eich donated to the wrong cause, or that Peter Thiel supports the wrong candidate. It's that when you make a public statement, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of your public statement. If you are not, speak in private.
When Rosa Parks said no to the man who asked her to stand up to leave her seat to a white person, she did bear the consequences of her public actions. People who go and support right-wing causes should be held to the same standards. Bearing the consequences is the price of public speech.
-- Some Nobel Prize Dude.