> Does it only make a person worse if/when it conflicts with your values?
If I'm to understand that Trump doesn't conflict with my values than you have really not understood my position.
If I'm to understand that Trump doesn't conflict with my values than you have really not understood my position.
I suppose that would be one interpretation, and I apologize for phrasing my query so poorly as to encourage such a perception, but the question could be generalized to any number of situations, agents, and agencies, no? In my defense, I did pose a question about Ayers and Wright illustrating how it might apply in another case where actors and agencies were different.
I was actually interested in whether or not the position you've taken on this matter is influenced by your own political values. It seems that would create a bit of a paradox. Those people taking issue with Thiel for political reasons and voicing an opinion on the matter thus pushing, shaming, and even blackmailing YC are "worse" presumably for acting on their political values. Yet you seem to see no issue with engaging in similar behavior against those people for doing so, which seems rooted in your own political values, if I understood your argument correctly. That is a lot of assumption and presumption, though.
I suppose I should just come out and ask. Why are people voicing their opinions, or "trying to push/shame/blackmail YC" worse, here? What exactly makes them worse? Worse how, exactly? Is this a categorical estimation of people's overall value as human beings? As tools of the economy? As social actors?
I've never ever been able to get someone to see things my way by forcing them to break their connection with a person or they'd lose me.
But I have been able to convince people to switch to another political candidate by systematic analysis of what made them choose their favorite over someone more moderate (here in NL we have a bit of a problem, politically speaking).
If instead I would have told them if they voted 'x' they'd have to stop seeing me I wouldn't have achieved anything.
Polarization and isolation are the tools of the demagogue, and the wannabe dictator. They have no place in a functioning democracy, and as of now the US still seems to be one of those. All bets are off if trump clearly loses the election and refuses to concede, an option he apparently explicitly keeps open. That's flirting with civil war and quite amazing given that there is zero precedent for any of the other candidates in the history of the states doing anything like that and as far as I'm concerned for that reason alone Trump should lose by a very large margin.
Anyway, as for Thiel, which is how this whole discussion started, he's the person to pressure, if you feel that he mis-applied his funds. Nothing a counter-donation to the other camp couldn't fix to achieve parity, and a way for Thiel to escape all this without too much egg on his face.
Intriguing. So an application of "if you have to argue, you've already lost"?
While I can respect that as generally true, I must respectfully disagree if speaking in absolutes. I realize the plural of data isn't anecdote, I've some personal experiences that would lead me to believe otherwise. Given enough time and discussion, I've pulled a few extreme sorts toward more moderate perspectives.
> I've never ever been able to get someone to see things my way by forcing them to break their connection with a person or they'd lose me.
This is a pretty key point here. Forcing people to do things doesn't work terribly well. I must ask if such a strategy has really been pursued? I've seen people criticize the connection between YC and Thiel, or Facebook and Thiel, given his politics, but I don't think I've seen many people actually issue an ultimatum.
> But I have been able to convince people to switch to another political candidate by systematic analysis of what made them choose their favorite over someone more moderate (here in NL we have a bit of a problem, politically speaking).
I can appreciate this point. =]
> If instead I would have told them if they voted 'x' they'd have to stop seeing me I wouldn't have achieved anything.
I'm guessing I must have missed something along the way. I'm sure some people have issued some such demands, there is always that one guy. Still I would honestly be surprised if more people were trying to force the issue than not. Does this run counter to your own experience?
> Polarization and isolation are the tools of the demagogue, and the wannabe dictator.
I couldn't agree more.
> They have no place in a functioning democracy, and as of now the US still seems to be one of those.
This point might be debatable, but why quibble unnecessarily?
> All bets are off if trump clearly loses the election and refuses to concede, an option he apparently explicitly keeps open.
I just can't even begin to clearly elucidate my feelings on this matter, so I will just note my agreement.
> That's flirting with civil war and quite amazing given that there is zero precedent for any of the other candidates in the history of the states doing anything like that and as far as I'm concerned for that reason alone Trump should lose by a very large margin.
This is a tough issue. Gore didn't immediately concede in the 2000 election and many were early that he threw in the towel so early given all of the documented irregularities of that election. As well armed as Trump's followers may be, I don't think they want to come to blows with the U.S. military.
> Anyway, as for Thiel, which is how this whole discussion started, he's the person to pressure, if you feel that he mis-applied his funds.
In the U.S. exerting pressure on associated businesses and organizations isn't uncommon. See Chick-fil-A and its war against LGBTs for example. Many boycotted, while many others people went out of their way to frequent the chain. Ugghhh. What's more is these tendencies seem to be accelerating. It's actually a fairly frightening byproduct of the aforementioned polarization.
I don't expect ties need be severed over the matter, though I don't think it unreasonable to expect organizations in which he participates, especially those of differing values, to make their own values known.
In any case, thanks for elaborating on your perspective.
Regards!
No, arguing is fine. But strong-arm tactics are not, that just leads to people digging in (and in a way rightly so, their reaction will have to do more with the tactics than with the subject at hand and that's why I feel this is totally unproductive and even if it was productive I'd still disagree with it, think of blackmail: extremely effective but morally wrong.)
> Gore didn't immediately concede in the 2000 election and many were early that he threw in the towel so early given all of the documented irregularities of that election.
Yes, I still wonder what wisdom would have been there. But history seems to show that particular hump was taken without too much trouble.
> As well armed as Trump's followers may be, I don't think they want to come to blows with the U.S. military.
There are a lot of idiots out there, and just like they would not want to come to blows with the US military I'd hope that the US military would not want to have a direct confrontation with the citizen either. To make things a little bit worse, you can probably expect a roughly proportional number of those military people to be Trump supporters...
> I don't expect ties need be severed over the matter, though I don't think it unreasonable to expect organizations in which he participates, especially those of differing values, to make their own values known.
I don't expect that either, but I do think Thiel is going to be open to reasonable debate, he's anything but stupid.
> In any case, thanks for elaborating on your perspective.
> Regards!
Thank you as well!
Hmm, really? My fellow liberals would do well to recall that the U.S. military is, by and large, composed of people who have a conservative viewpoint. All that demonization of the military and police that the left has unwisely been doing these past years might just come home to roost in a most unpleasant way.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/05...
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-mi...
I would trust five military men over five civilians when it came to protecting my rights.
I don't think anti-war qualifies as anti-military. In fact, anti-war is a pro-military position. As the old saying goes: "The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
Re: "I don't think anti-war qualifies as anti-military.", I rather doubt the actual service members themselves see liberals that way. Being anti-war, of necessity, comes with views that prevent the military from doing its job, whether it be budget cuts or political restraints that risk lives or interfere with legitimate military goals during ongoing operations.