Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I get it and obviously it goes without saying that's their prerogative. But it's a little but like not viewing Cosby any more or not listening to Wagner, or not reading Mein Kampf or Das Capital because of what they represent or forgoing drugs because they were developed by [think of something very reprehensible]. Or someone not being friends with me because I don't believe in religion (and therefore deny their belief system).

As far as I know, while mr Trump has vilified illegal immigrants, and I may be mistaken, I don't think he wants to curtail legal immigration (with exception of immigrants from volatile places) but I constantly hear that he's against (all) immigration --I believe he's against a _kind_ of immigration, but not all. It's not like Germany or Sweden or Russia or South Africa just let everyone in. They also have policies, except they exclude people in nicer language.

To add: I didn't think it would even be necessary for Sam to have to say that Peter would stay with YC. I thought it was overly cautious to do so. But this business is ridiculous. I mean people are seriously wanting to hunt people down over political views...

Look, if Trump were to win (or Hillary) it means that more people than not voted them into office and therefore they have the backing of a large constituency. So, we're not just saying the candidate is objectionable but the people (and there are lots on both sides) who are wholly objectionable and irredeemable. Which means our country has gone to the can.

The Wagner analogy is not very good. This is a shunning, or a boycott, that is designed to affect behavior in this lifetime. It is not a post facto judgement about the artistic merit of a dead person's work.

Likewise, the Mein Kampf and Capital analogies are inapt. It's not about refusing to read books.

Mr. Trump has decided to take many polarizing actions. We should not be surprised that they have caused polarization. It's a way to gauge how seriously one takes the issue.

Another analogy is boycotts and shunning during the South African apartheid era. Apparently uninvolved entities, like musicians and writers, were forced to either take a position against the apartheid state, or to tacitly admit the issue was not important to them. Eventually it became all but untenable to support the South African government policy.

"This is a shunning, or a boycott" ... "It's a way to gauge how seriously one takes the issue"

shunning: persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution [1].

Not inclusive. Hypocrisy is a way to gauge how seriously we take an issue as well. I think we all need some practice empathizing with other viewpoints. They exist, regardless of whether we can understand/agree with them. Finding out what we have in common with one another is an important skill.

[1] as a side note, google shows usage over time for the word. interesting to see that shunning is having a comeback, though we are still a ways away from early 1800's levels of usage :)

But Mr Thiel is not mr Trump.

Obviously Mr Thiel on balance, agrees with mr Trump or at least one of his platform policies is meaningful enough to override other concerns he may have. Most voters have this same type dilemma.

I'm really concerned that today someone can't openly advocate for their formal candidate from a major party.

It's not all that different from people blackballing bona fide Communists --yes, they were a threat to _our_ society back then, but, it was still wrong to persecute people for their beliefs as repugnant as it may be to us [and communism was repugnant to the majority of contemporary Americans at the time]

There's more to it than that. Thiel gave Trump over a million dollars. That's not just agreeing, it's enabling. It's facilitating. Thiel is actively helping Trump push his neofascism.

Mr. Trump is not just any candidate ("formal candidate from a major party"), as he has been at pains to demonstrate. So, applying these simple norms is not really persuasive.

> Another analogy is boycotts and shunning during the South African apartheid era. Apparently uninvolved entities, like musicians and writers, were forced to either take a position against the apartheid state, or to tacitly admit the issue was not important to them. Eventually it became all but untenable to support the South African government policy.

Only a ignorant person can think SA is a success story. It is a horror show from beginning to ending. What a colossal fuck up.

You'll never admit you failed will you? That this 'Rainbow Nation didn't work.

You failed and you failed real hard, I am so sick of the lies the media have told about SA. This was the mother of all failures and it is dressed as some success story. I feel sick in my stomach.

Well it depends on what version you believe. I think that first he wanted to ban Muslims, then Muslims from certain places, and then just people from certain places.

I really think he actually wants to ban Muslims but he had to walk back a bit from that stance to appease people.

If you were to ask me to divine what he thinks, I think he's areligious and could not care less --but he believes people will kneejerk against a stereotype. I think it's a calculated risk on his part, an unfortunate one. Still, I think he knows enough of them to know many he deals with have more in common with him than he does with Joe the Plummer but Joe and Jill the Plummers are his voters.

So you think we should all go by your interpretation of what he really means, instead of taking him at his word?

No, you may interpret him to mean what you want. You don't have to like him, I don't have to like him. I'm not going to part ways with someone because of who they vote.

My partner and I seldom vote for the same candidate. They are free to vote their conscience. We don't have meet minds over this. Same here. Mr Thiel or Mr. Sanders can vote however they wish. Or you or me. What if I were a capitalist and a friend of mine were a communist and wanted to take everything I own away if her party took power, should I part ways over this? Should I shame her? Make sure no capitalist would hire her?

Not doing business with a billionaire is not remotely comparable with actively preventing your (presumably non-billionaire) friend from getting a job. If you want to engage with people about this in a reasonable way, you need to understand this.

To me it's fundamentally about political freedom and freedom of expression.

I would state, that if I ran a company, ideally, I would run it so that so long as people didn't violate any applicable laws while "on duty" and didn't work to actively affect the company negatively (violate company policies), whatever they did outside the company was their business (be it robbing liquor stores, beating old ladies with batons, etc.) it's up to society, the police, etc., to deal with extra-work activities of such person not me.

I am simply renting their time to do a job --I'm not hiring them to impart my morality on them. I don't "own" them. They don't have to fit in "culturally".

Here's the thing. People are all for these freedoms up until they think it's going to affect them in a way they don't want.

Lots of people supported WikiLeaks ....till it looked like WikiLeaks would do things counter to their cause...

So, people believe in their beliefs and support things based on their belief systems rather than the concepts of freedom of expression and political freedom, unfortunately.

Here you go again. Thiel didn't get fired. Do you not get that power dynamics matter? Firing someone for their politics is different from not doing business with them.

Regardless, your "anyone who disagrees with me must be a hypocrite" approach to things is pretty shitty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com