[rhapsodic]

All of the virtue signaling and moral feather preening surrounding this issue is something to behold.

It seems we're entering a new era where businesses engage in political activism as well as simple commerce.

If that's the case, it's only fair that other groups, whose politics may differ from the activist-businesses', start using politics to weaken those businesses and counter their influence.

For example, it's well known that Airbnb operates under the radar of housing regulations in many localities.

Perhaps people who disagree with Airbnb's politics should organize and bring about legislation that will eliminate or severely curtail Airbnb's ability to do business in their town, county or state.

Or perhaps the Republicans, though new federal liability laws, should render Airbnb's business model non-viable at the national level.

The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade. They seek to impose social and economic penalties on those who hold political views different than their own. And they've done this, fairly secure in the knowledge that there would be few or no repercussions against them.

But I have a feeling that's starting to change.

[acjohnson55]

> The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade.

Funny, I see it as almost the exact opposite. The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. I'd characterize the corporate response as businesses trying to operate in a cosmopolitan market, in a climate of nativist politics.

And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out. It seems we see how serious folks actually are about that idea, in these rare instances when it plays itself out in reality. Because let's also not pretend that this represents some type of long-term investment in social justice.

And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights.

[rhapsodic]

> And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights.

It is ironic, I'll admit.

But in total war, there are no rules. You inflict suffering on your enemy by whatever means are available.

The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint because of the answer one of the family members gave to a reporter. They made an example of this family for the rest of the country to learn from: "Publicly express a political opinion we disagree with, and run the risk of being destroyed."

It's only fair that Ben Chesky and Airbnb incur a similar risk for their forays into the political arena. And they're very rich, powerful and well-connected people, who are backed by other rich, powerful and well-connected people. It would take something as powerful as a Republican-controlled federal government to do them some serious damage.

And if that happens, I'm certainly not to rush to their defense.

[grzm]

The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint

Would you elaborate on this? What are you referring to?

[rhapsodic]

Memories Pizza. Google it.

[grzm]

Thanks! If you're going to bring up Memories Pizza, I think it's fair to compare this to Pizzagate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

The idea that we have no further recourse other than total war is very troubling. I don't think a lot of people are willing to give up trying to work together quite yet.

[caminante]

The only common denominator appears to be pizza.

Memories Pizza's owners were interviewed about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act [0] and answered a hypothetical question by saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding, but they'd serve anyone. The reporter ran a headline, "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service." This was false on numerous levels, but went viral, triggering a backlash.

Pizzagate is a human trafficking conspiracy with different mechanics. I guess Comet Ping Pong employees got backlash for allegations, but the similarities end there.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...

[euyyn]

Thanks for the info. I fall on the left in the American spectrum, and I would never support anybody making death threats to another person. So please update your generalization that "the left did that;" it's wrong and blinding.

[tinalumfoil]

I don't know if we just interpreted the parent differently, but I don't follow your reasoning.

> The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements.

Obama's a well-known politician. It would be pretty crazy to say we can't attack or protest our own government. I'd be interested in how you extracted this point from OP, because I completely missed it.

> And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out.

I also don't see the connection to government intervention. Businesses have the same rights as people to express their opinions, investors/owners willing. Obviously there's consequences to those actions, and certain SV startups are already on thin ice as far as their legal ability to operate is concerned. But it's up to the American constituency if they want to bring these issues to their representatives attention.

> And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights.

If a constituency doesn't like what a business is doing it is fully within the rights of the constituency to change to change the law. Despite the law, people tend to be really unsympathetic to wealthy businesses, and political lobbying law has been ripe to change for years.

[woodruffw]

> All of the virtue signaling and moral feather preening surrounding this issue is something to behold.

Spare us the rhetoric, please. The only purpose it serves is to confirm your alienation.

Business mixing with activism is nothing new, although progressive businesses engaging in activism is. You'd do well to remember the recent fracas over churches and resorts choosing not to host gay weddings. That's conservative activism.

> Or perhaps the Republicans, though new federal liability laws, should render Airbnb's business model non-viable at the national level.

Such laws would be a stunning display of hypocrisy from a party that claims to be against federal interference in markets. It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down.

> The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade.

I hear this sentiment often. While liberals (such as myself) have benefited in terms of visibility from the last 8 years, I see no signs of "total war" on my college campus or in my neighborhood back home. There is general agreement that conservative (and Trumpian) policies are categorically bad for all Americans, but this doesn't reflect a contempt for conservatives or Trump voters as people. More than anything, there's a feeling of bewilderment stemming from the conservative party's unconservative choice of candidate.

Edit: I realized that I forgot to add this in the last paragraph:

The idea of the left engaging in "total war" is discomforting for another reason - it doesn't accurately reflect the facts of this past election. Over the last 12 months, only one party selected a candidate who hasn't made any attempts at bipartisanship. Whether or not you agreed with HRC's policies (I didn't, on many occasions), she made a conspicuous effort to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The more progressive contingent mocked her for this, but it's still a showing of good faith. No such good faith attempt was made by the Trump campaign.

It's worth noting, however, that Trump's campaign isn't really to blame for the aforementioned. He merely tapped into a talking point that the GOP has been brewing since the Watergate scandal - that the media can't be trusted, and that the party must be the source of facts. Combined with Gingrich's 1996 Contract With America and the reactionary appearance of the Tea Party in response to the Obama administration, the claim that it is the left that has waged war looks, at best, shaky.

[phil21]

Let's say I disagree with you vehemently on this. I actually don't have an opinion (for the purposes of this comment) but I think there is a point to be had here the OP is trying to get at that is very important.

You obviously were not in fear of career repercussions by posting your reply. I guarantee you that there are people reading your post now, who want to post a reasonable disagreement from the "conservative" viewpoint but will not because they are in (legitimate) fear of what negative affects it will have on their future employment.

That is what I read as the OPs comment. Decades of that adds up, and I certainly have noticed on HN and other industry meeting places you are allowed to express politics as long as it's that of the majority. You can explain this from the point of view of every actor in the process acting rationally in their own self interest - but it still creates a problem of defacto silencing political belief, and even more importantly only letting those radical (or rich) enough to not care about social acceptance join the conversations as a dissenting opinion.

That is troubling to me. When you only see one side feel free enough to take practical advantage of their right to free speech something is seriously wrong - and why I feel that the OP is far more correct in that this is more like war than political discourse at this point. I honestly don't know if you can walk it back, and the road that puts us on scares me.

As someone who is seen as "neutral" in the workplace, I have people from both sides dump on me in private. There is a lot more common ground than most think, but as long as people live in fear of having genuine honest political arguments I simply cannot see these trends turning around. My personal anecdote is that it's getting worse over time - not better.

Edit: spelling

[woodruffw]

> You obviously were not in fear of career repercussions by posting your reply. I guarantee you that there are people reading your post now, who want to post a reasonable disagreement from the "conservative" viewpoint but will not because they are in (legitimate) fear of what negative affects it will have on their future employment.

Actually, I am. I'm a college student, and this account is (provably!) linked to my real-life identity. Everything I say here will have consequences for me as I enter the job market. I may be a member of the political majority (or zeitgeist), but the vast majority of companies don't want to see any sort of political writing linked to their candidates. Hello, future talent scouts!

I regret that my potential responders feel as if they have been silenced. However, they are under no obligation to reveal their real-life identities on Hacker News. Moreover, I would not be justified in blaming them for choosing to remain anonymous regardless of their political views - it's even in my interest to be anonymous.

Apart from the above, there's nothing I can do to assuage an individual's discomfort in responding to me. I don't feel qualified to comment on workplace politics - I simply don't have experience in them.

Edit:

I guess I can respond to the idea of outside speech making its way into the workplace. As a general rule, I don't think that the things people say and believe in their free time should be used against them in hiring and workplace decisions.

That being said, I understand the practical need of companies to protect themselves from both liabilities (e.g., the PR disaster of hiring a neo-Nazi) and from workplace clashes (e.g., hiring someone who genuinely believes that the immigrants on their team shouldn't be there because of their race or religion). As a society, we need to figure out how to balance these concerns in a way that eliminates the discomfort on both sides of the isle.

[__derek__]

What in that post would be dangerous to disagree with?

[lsh]

Thankyou.

[rhapsodic]

> Such laws would be a stunning display of hypocrisy from a party that claims to be against federal interference in markets.

Yeah, what's your point? The Democratic party is not constrained by any of its purported principles when it's going after its political enemies. It's not about principles, it's about inflicting damage on your political enemies so they are afraid to do anything that might further upset you.

There might develop in this country a groundswell of people who have had a bellyful of being bullied and lectured, particularly by self-righteous billionaires. They might decide they want to see Brian Chevsky and Airbnb taken down a peg or two, and they might wake up from their stupor and realize that they have the power to do just that. I'm sure a skilled politician could convince the country of the urgent need for regulating the dangerous, shady, barely above-ground economic activities that Airbnb facilitates.

I'm sure that whoever uses Airbnb clicks through an agreement that absolves them of any liability should anyone get hurt. But perhaps a rich, heartless, greedy corporation should not be allowed to do that. A law could be passed, whereby, for example, if a woman was staying in Airbnb was raped because a former guest duplicated the key and used it to break in and rape her, she could sue Airbnb for negligence. And anyone who dared publicly oppose such a law could be smeared as anti-woman and pro-rape.

> It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down.

Dude, we're already down that road. Read up on what Democratic politicians did or tried to do to Chick-Fil-A, to cheers from the left, because its founder was deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes.

It will only end when the left decides they want a truce, and that will only happen when their own tactics are used against them in equal or greater amounts. There needs to be some high profile examples made.

[woodruffw]

> The Democratic party is not constrained by any of its purported principles when it's going after its political enemies.

Yes, it absolutely is. The reason the DNC is in shambles right now is because it tried to circumvent its principles and got burned in the process. For the next few years, the Democrats will be very mindful of their platform's legitimacy and reconstruction.

> It's not about principles, it's about inflicting damage on your political enemies so they are afraid to do anything that might further upset you.

This is extremely myopic. The goal of the DNC (or GOP, for that matter) is not to inflict damage as a deterrent. Arm-twisting is a part of politics, but actively sabotaging your own party platform for a brief gain is not a component of arm-twisting.

I'm not familiar with how Airbnb deals with liability (or even liability law in general), so I'll refrain from commenting on the majority of your thought experiment here. One thing that does stand out is a theme of "us versus them," where the "them" is "self-righteous billionaires." Neither end of the political spectrum has any want for billionaires, and they're all "self-righteous" in the sense that they put their money towards political action that you don't agree with. If you want to critique billionaires on the left like Chesky, be prepared to explain why he's any different from the Koch brothers (except perhaps in visibility).

> Read up on what Democratic politicians did or tried to do to Chick-Fil-A, to cheers from the left, because its founder was deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes.

I'm familiar with this[1] controversy, if that's what you mean. The closest analogue I can find in that circumstance was local politicians threatening to block construction of new Chick-Fil-As. I think that sort of response is reprehensible, but it's also a far cry from the federal government using its power to punish an individual business. In short: it's bad that they did that, but equivocating their (empty) threats with what you've suggested doesn't hold water.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...

[rhapsodic]

> If you want to critique billionaires on the left like Chesky, be prepared to explain why he's any different from the Koch brothers (except perhaps in visibility).

Do you still not get it? I don't have to explain anything. I don't have to provide any arguments at all. I don't have to do anything except protect myself and stay within the law. And I don't want to "critique" billionaires on the left who use their money and high profile to push political agendas that are opposed to mine. I want to see them suffer financial consequences so they'll STFU. And I don't feel compelled to observe any principles people like you remind me of, because my opponents are not bound by any principles.

This might just be a tipping point. If Brian Chevsky continues this, I might decide to contact my congressman and senator (both Republican) and express to them how concerned I am about this newfangled website called "Airbnb" that could be running underground, illegal hotels in my nice quiet residential neighborhood (where I'm sure operating a regular hotel would be prohibited by zoning laws), and now, OMG, he's there's a chance he might be putting ISIS fighters disguised as refugees in the house next door to mine!

Yep, I'm getting mighty tired of these self-righteous billionaires.

[woodruffw]

> I want to see them suffer financial consequences so they'll STFU. And I don't feel compelled to observe any principles people like you remind me of, because my opponents are not bound by any principles.

I'm sorry you feel that way, because that's not the way it is. Principles that you don't like still have principles, and the only person being self-righteous here is you.

Using your political power in bad faith does require explanation, especially when you go on the Internet and encourage others to do the same. If you're not willing to explain or argue for your actions, then you should consider whether you truly can explain them.

[rhapsodic]

> Using your political power in bad faith does require explanation, especially when you go on the Internet and encourage others to do the same. If you're not willing to explain or argue for your actions, then you should consider whether you truly can explain them.

OMG! You are hilarious! You still think that you can dictate rules that I'm "required" to follow! Keep it up! I love it!

[rhapsodic]

I was just thinking about this further, and it occurred to me, that if a few congressman were to simply start making noises about all the shady, gray-area aspects of Airbnb's business model, and how badly they need to be regulated to insure safety, peace and tranquility for all Americans and Especially For The Children, it could make multiple billions of dollars of their valuation evaporate in a puff of smoke.

The investors are probably mostly vehemently anti-Trump, like Brian Chevsky, so maybe they would take it in stride, and stand behind him, for the sake of their Sacred Principles.

Or maybe they wouldn't, it's hard to say.

It would be interesting to see how a scenario like that would play out.