[thr423]

As someone from post-communist country, I find tone of the article a bit creepy. He has to 'explain himself' to whom? And for what? We had single party system for 50 years, it did not worked out that well.

> suggest that Mr. Thiel was not even a gay man, because he did not “embrace the struggle.”

Political preference is more important than sexual orientation, when deciding if someone is gay???? wtf?

[ryandamm]

That sounds logical absent any context, but context matters. Thiel took a very public stance on a very controversial figure. A figure that's controversial for good reasons: things he's done, things he's said, and things he says he'll do.

And Thiel's in a public role. So his actions are advertising for his various ventures. To the extent I'm a 'customer' for his various products and services, I've taken note. This is a very democratic and capitalist response, I believe.

I'm also not sure why you mention a single party system. Asking a political donor and public speaker to explain his position is very democratic, and I'd expect it in a multiparty democracy, not just an explicitly two-party system like ours.

In fact, in a liberal democracy, we should be working to preserve our right to demand those kinds of answers. I'm old enough to remember a time before Citizens United and Super PACs; I believe politics should be conducted in public. Do you disagree?

[andrenth]

When was any public figure called to explain themselves for voting Obama?

[Aloha]

I don't like very much that some people in the gay community are trying to define us by our sexuality.

Thiel seems to believe (like I do) that sometimes you need to sacrifice some of your own progress in the short term, for a greater good in the long term. Not that I really like Trump very much, I get why people voted for him though.