Hacker News Reader

Comment by emagdnim2100 | Hacker News Reader

There's a ton of irony in this coming from a group that "works to improve diversity at tech companies." I am no Trump fan, but (at least) 40% of American voters seem to like the guy better than the alternative. Does Ellen Pao want to improve superficial diversity and ideological homogeneity at the same time?

View on HN

> Pao rejected the idea that Thiel’s donation could be dismissed as political speech. We agree that people shouldn’t be fired for their political views, but this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence

'We agree, except for this case.'

'Freespeech: unless it isn't.'

Well, yes, duh. Either it is a political view that shouldn't be a fireable offense, or it's not. Pao says this crosses the line. If you're the CEO of a company that works to prevent rape and empower victims, and one of your employees is bankrolling Brock Turner's defense case in court, don't you think that's a pretty severe conflict of interest?

It's with the same incredulity that Josh Lyman asked a gay congressman on The West Wing how he could caucus with a Republican party that viewed him as a second-class citizen; less than human.

There is a common misunderstanding about free speech. Free speech means that your are not prosecuted for what you say (or - in this case - what you support). However, free speech does not mean "free from any consequences at all". Other people are still entitled to react on your expression of opinion. So Pao's reaction is not at all in conflict with the right of free speech.

40% of people are picking Trump as their candidate, but that doesn't mean 40% of people actually like him or agree with him on much, particularly when the alternative is another unpopular individual. Not to mention the two or three Supreme Court seats and other factors riding on this election.

Improving inclusivity and diversity necessitates excluding racists, sexists, bigots.

You're correct, not all Trump supporters are racist, sexist, or bigoted. This means that Thiel, as a Trump supporter, is not necessarily racist, sexist, or bigoted; so there is no need to remove him to promote inclusivity.

This kind of black and white vitriol is what has lead to this election being as awful as it is.

It doesn't matter if Thiel is any of those -ists. And frankly, to me, it doesn't even matter if Trump himself is any of those -ists.

The real issue is that Trump and his campaign have actively tried to appeal to the -ist nature of people for political gain. And Thiel's donation is a tacit approval of either the tactics or the philosophy itself.

>The real issue is that Trump and his campaign have actively tried to appeal to the -ist nature of people for political gain.

Trump is certainly not alone there; appealing to the "-ists" is the foundation of every campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com