Hacker News Reader

Comment by wanderingjew | Hacker News Reader

Disregarding any issues surrounding the author of this piece, Theil himself, and a cornucopia of issues surrounding the RNC keynote, I must ask one question: Why is political speech only an issue when that speech comes from the political right?

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

View on HN

I don't want you to think you're alone in recognizing the injustice of Brendan Eich being forced to leave Mozilla. This is an excellent example of mob action and brigading.

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.

Wow, I really couldn't disagree with you more.

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.

No one is trashing rights. No one is denying LGBT people, their humanity. Thiel is literally a homosexual, why do you choose to ignore that. I don't think it is in his self interest to dehumanize himself.

It's quite well known that rich people are the least affected by policies like anti-LGBT. Thiel may not personally have much to lose if gay marriage was banned, but for many people it makes a huge difference. For example child rights, tax advantages, end of life decisions.

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.

Where was the M for Muslim in LGBT?

You'll need to quote where you found "kick out every Muslim" because that's the first I've heard that.

Oh yeah, explain this https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/lgbtq-for-trump-mens-...

So...what do you think about the women who are still voting for Trump(who number in the millions), even though they've probably seen the same video you have(and come to different conclusions about it being sexual assault).

Are they too stupid to know what's good for them? Trapped in some kind of Trump stockholm syndrome? They enjoy being dehumanized?

I guess all I can say is that the truth isn't subject to voters approval.

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.

Sure. And just because you think something is true doesn't make it true.

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.

43% of voting age women aren't supporting Trump, as you imply. His support is around 43% overall, but it's much lower with women, and higher with men.

I'm referring to here[1], which states that Clinton is +15 on average compared to Trump with women. Yes, I did assume that it is only a 2-person playing field because I don't know how those polls were conducted(was it "who are you voting for?", or "would you choose Trump or Clinton?")

[1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-ar...

So, you conflated share of the voting age population with share of those planning to vote for one of the two major candidates, tried to get a number for that from percentage spread between the two major candidates among those planning on voting for any candidate, and then rounded favorably to your candidate. Resulting in an implausibly high number matching Trump's support in the general electorate even though the same source says that his support among women is substantially lower.

Okay. So what is the correct number? Do you disagree with the core of my argument, or are you just interested in quibbling?

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.

One-time only service: for-all humans h, i: h can-marry i; has never been true. Marriage is not an individual human right, it never was. It's a dyadic operation, conjugal. The issue was (pre-Obergefell) US State (as in US Federal System) rule of law.

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.

> 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.

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"?

1. Discrimination in the workplace is more pernicious than people reacting to public speech.

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.

We are witnessing the emergence of a new degree dysfunction on the left. If it continues to gain traction, it may eclipse the dysfunction that we witnessed on the right in previous decades.

I think that accusing the left as being monolithic and acting unanimously adds to this divide.

Can you describe this trend so we can further the conversation?

> I think that accusing the left as being monolithic and acting unanimously adds to this divide.

Yes. Can you explain how this seemingly apropos of nothing observation contributes to discussion?

Typically when asking someone to substantiate a not-widely-accepted statement, "I asked first" is a valid response.

I asked first.

As I expected.

I agree with you in principle, but not with some of the specifics. Of course Brendan Eich has the right to donate to whichever poitical party he wants. But I found his actions distasteful because, in effect, Eich played a role in trying to limit the liberty of a group of people. I also think that the reaction to that was rather overblown, but it's water under the bridge now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com