Comment by tyre | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyre | Hacker News Reader

It's a slippery slope to not associate with people based on politics. It is also a slippery slope to continue to associate with people because the views they support are those of a politician.

David Duke is running for senate. Does that make Holocaust-denial a political issue?

There was a time when women having the right to vote was a political issue. Today it is not (though Thiel has raised concerns about what women's suffrage did for capitalist democracy[0].)

There was a time when slavery was considered a political issue. Today it is not.

I don't think sexual assault is in the realm of "personal politics". I don't think racism is either. Can I take the time to understand people who might advocate for these? Sure, but that doesn't mean I want them as leaders.

Having Thiel as a partner in YC, when Silicon Valley has tremendous issues with diversity already, sends a strong message. It's not about supporting a political party. I'm sure the YC partners have a wide spectrum of political views. This isn't about politics.

[0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

If I believed that Clinton was going to start World War III, and that Trump would stop it, then I would vote for Trump despite all of his nastiness.

In reality, I believe Trump is much more likely to start WWIII, which is yet another reason to be opposed to him, but it is extremely uncharitable to assume that all of his supporters support everything that he does. I think most Republican voters simply believe he's the lessor of two evils. I strongly disagree with them, but respect the democratic process.

I think Clinton and Trump would each start WW3 in different ways, which makes it harder to directly compare. He would do something stupid/impulsive which couldn't be walked back (most things can, thankfully), or would cripple long-term alliances making war more likely later. She would get involved in some situation (no one thinks Trump is competent enough to let him actually engage in an intentional expansion of a conflict), which then escalates out of control.

I completely agree that being a single-issue voter on "preventing WW3" is the most moral thing possible. It's just really hard to tell which is less likely. And maybe if it is 0.00000001% vs. 0.000000011%, some other issue should have priority.

> This isn't about politics.

Of course not - it's about religion, and burning the heretics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com