[nbschulze]

I think you're making the right argument, I just don't think you're making it super clear.

(I think) what you're saying, is 'There is nothing wrong with supporting an opposing viewpoint. There is a huge problem with supporting Benito Mussolini. Sam Altman has compared Donald Trump to Benito Mussolini. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with supporting Donald Trump. Peter Thiel supports Donald Trump. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with his association with Peter Thiel.'

Keeping my political views out of the equation, I agree with that line of logic. The problem I think Sam is facing and why I think it's such a difficult issue is this.

Donald Trump is not Benito Mussolini. Unless he wins the presidency, he won't even have a remote opportunity at becoming him. So I think Sam is in sort of a lose-lose situation. On one hand, Sam remains steadfast in his decision, Donald Trump wins the election, Donald Trump enacts changes that make him on par with Benito Mussolini and Sam has now been complicit in the support of someone on par with Benito Mussolini. On the other hand, if Donald Trump loses or even if he wins and is anything less than a Benito Mussolini look-alike, he has effectively suppressed the support of an opposing political viewpoint.

I'm not pretending to know the solution, not even a little bit. I do think it's important to recognize how difficult of situation Sam is in.

[tptacek]

That's not in fact the argument I am making. I do not support ostracizing or blacklisting all Trump supporters, just as I wouldn't have supporting ostracizing all Republicans in the wake of our catastrophic war on Iraq. However: I am comfortable with calling on people to divest from investments in the architects of the war on Iraq, like Doug Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, and I am comfortable with calling on Altman to divest from Peter Thiel, a key figure in the Trump campaign.

[ProAm]

Altman's ulterior motive here is that it's bad for business if yComb departs from Thiel. And at the end of the day it comes down to money, so regardless of what Altman says, they will never part ways and ultimately become directly competitive with one of SV largest venture investors.

[nbschulze]

I didn't mean specifically in the comment above, I meant earlier.

'If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree. But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel. I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.'

It seemed like you were getting attacked from all angles, so I chose a comment that didn't have much on it. I wasn't trying to attack your argument (from above). I was attempting to put it into a more objective light.

[surfmike]

False equivalence to Rumsfeld and Feith (and interesting you leave out Rice and Powell). What about somebody who contributed money to the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004?

[tptacek]

I'm glad you brought Rice up, because this site had absolutely no problem calling for a boycott of Dropbox over their inclusion of Rice as a director.

(I don't support that boycott, because I think Rice's role in the Iraq war is far more complicated than that of Rumsfeld or Feith, who are the literal architects of the war plan she consistently criticized. Rice isn't blameless, but she's no Doug Feith.)

[surfmike]

@tptacek Drew Houston defended her and she is still on the board. And people haven't mass defected from Dropbox.

And still a false equivalence between someone who supports Trump because of economic policy to architects of the war in Iraq.