[killedbydeath]

Left-wing mccarthyism is as bad as right-wing mccarthyism. People should be able to support one of the two candidates without having to stand up to so much shaming in SV circles. Given the binary choice there may be multiple reasons to pick Trump over Clinton even if you disagree with him on a lot of issues.

[tptacek]

Words mean things. McCarthyism was a movement that questioned the citizenship of people who supported socialism, and which demanded of the citizenry that they root out, report, and maintain blacklists of people who weren't stalwart supporters of that effort. McCarthyism had the force of a government behind it.

What you're seeing here isn't an organized movement to find and punish Thiel-supporters. It's people lamenting that other people continue to do business with one specific person, who is being singled out for his own speech and actions. It's an embryonic boycott movement. Boycotts --- something far more specific, pointed, and impactful than what we're seeing in threads like this --- are not "McCarthyism".

[killedbydeath]

We should value tolerance towards minority (in our circles) opinions. Unless you believe half of the country are bigots, you would conclude many people who voted for Trump did so reluctantly and despite all the stupid things he said, and not thanks to them. They prioritized his economic policies or felt Clinton is too indebted to the current establishment to be able to change anything. I know some people who did that and I respect their opinion. Regarding difference between McCarthyism having government support behind and our media/social media rage not, I am worried that popular opinions become policies in a democracy. If on both ends of the political spectrum people stop respecting each other completely, it won't end well.

[tptacek]

This comment isn't responsive to mine. The comment I replied to actually used the word "McCarthyism", inappropriately.

[killedbydeath]

I don't think the definition of "McCarthyism" is as narrow as you define it. I used that word because I though the analogy was appropriate and illustrated well what I was trying to express. Accepted definitions do not tie it to the use of government force, see e.g. "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mccarthyism?s=t

[tptacek]

Words mean things. In the same way that people aren't being "lynched" when dozens of other people berate them online, calls to divest from bigots and their enablers don't constitute "McCarthyism".

[killedbydeath]

Words mean different things depending on the context. And analogy and hyperbole are valid tools for expressing ideas. Now "lynching" would definitely be a bad analogy and way too much hyperbole, but "mccarthyism" was appropriate to illustrate what I was trying to say. At the time people lost ability to be employed because of their political views. You seem to be calling for boycotting anyone who voted or supported Trump in this election because they are bigots. And that is a logical jump I cannot agree with as I tried to explain above. Clearly some people voted for him because maintaining status quo was less acceptable than getting over the things he said. I do think that we would have to get off the high horse of moral superiority and try to understand what happened if we want to avoid surprises like this in the future.

[couchand]

"Given the binary choice there may be multiple reasons to pick Trump over Clinton even if you disagree with him on a lot of issues."

If you're willing to see past the proud racism and misogyny, then sure. If you're willing to see past the blatant disregard for objective facts, then sure. I, for one, would vote for pretty much anyone else before supporting that.