Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

> I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or think I deserved equal pay.

And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line?

Does that give either of us the right to shame someone publicly for that? I think it does sometimes, but I don't have a strictly categorical answer.

At what point do you consider the various beliefs indivisible? Maybe you believe in Trump's economic plan, but should you be held responsible if Trump also shoves his social agenda through and hurts millions of people?

The worst part in all this is that Trump has made a bunch of Democrats into litmus-test voters like the Republicans. I hope that the Democrats go back to their diverse cacophony afterward.

View on HN

> > I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or think I deserved equal pay.

> And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line?

The thirteenth amendment gives me that right (to choose who I work with.)

My point was that you have a line that would cause you to join the choir calling for his head. I probably have a differently line.

Is that right? At what point does that turn into bullying?

I don't have a good answer.

The line being the answer to the questions: to what degree should you tolerate intolerance, to vote for voter intimidation, to call incitement to violence a mere difference of opinion and to be inclusive of exclusivity.

And do be aware that a person who would jail his opponent is never going to be so tolerant of you as you might be of him. It is the position that calls for tolerance only so long as it is weak.

I might suggest that an industry with a very small number of the exact population being targeted should do some serious soul searching about exactly what free speech (if campaign contributions are speech) they are standing by.

One can certainly see how insincere the free speech claim really is from the light gray color of the preceding post.

But perhaps criticizing someone who hounded Gawker out of existence for its expression is just too oppressive.

> And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line?

I'm pretty sure that comes along with those standard 'human rights' things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com