> It's worse because it makes matters worse. To put pressure on people in order to get them to do as you want in politics is going to have the opposite effect of what you intend to achieve if the result is to isolate those that you wish to influence.

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!