[shklnrj]

Well there were widespread calls by people to push even Peter Thiel out of silicon valley positions which he holds just because he supported a candidate. His fault - He supported a guy publicly! Even he was seen as criminal. Forget about the average Joe. That's why people wanted confidentiality agreements!

[pg314]

There were calls, yes. But he is still a part-time YC partner and on Facebook's board.

[rpearl]

> He supported a guy publicly!

...You can't just talk about the abstract notion of "supporting" "a guy". A specific thing happened, not the generalized notion of "publicly supporting a candidate".

Is he not subject to criticism for his political positions? Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions?

[DashRattlesnake]

> Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions?

The line is the one that divides their politics from the rest of their life. You challenge their ideas, you don't harass them or try to get them fired.

[rpearl]

All actions are political, to at least some extent. So that's not a very clear line to draw. Furthermore, you talk about "challenging someone's ideas" without apparently any reference to the the rest of their life, which is... a rather nonsensical. You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma.

Certainly in this case we're talking about a financial company (YC)'s input and direction. Does someone who supports policies like the current occupant of the white house belong in a position of influence there? They are being paid in this capacity for their ideas, and therefore challenging their ideas means challenging that relationship.

[DashRattlesnake]

> You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma.

Come on, dude. I only ruled out harassment and attempts to get people fired. If you can't think of any other ways to "challenge someone's ideas" on your own, you're beyond help from me.

[rpearl]

I'd love for you to address the other points in my response:

Thiel is hired for his ideas. You say that he can not be fired for his ideas. This is a problem.

[DashRattlesnake]

> Thiel is hired for his ideas. You say that he can not be fired for his ideas. This is a problem.

Here, I'll try to address it, using simple words:

There are different kinds of ideas. He was hired for his business ideas. It is not a problem that he shouldn't be fired because he has other kinds of ideas, too. People should be allowed to have different ideas. It wrong and immature to want to hurt them because they disagree with you. You are not doing good by trying to hurt them. Trying to hurt people is bad.

If you disagree, instead of hurting them, you can try to express your ideas without trying to hurt them. You could express yourself by writing a blog, by writing obtuse internet comments, by peacefully holding a sign somewhere, or by doing something creative! Just don't try to creatively hurt people, because hurting people is bad.

[Frondo]

Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech?

Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster?

Why shouldn't I be able to call for shklnrj to be fired, so long as I do it through the usual public channels (e.g. are not harassing you or your workplace, etc)?

Hopefully, your boss would dismiss me as a nutter. But hey, that's free speech in action.

[shklnrj]

Very clever. Yes calls for my firing would be under freedom of speech. Agree totally. But a culture in which only one side is able to call for firing because that side's opinion is WRONG leads to a divided society. Imagine people asking for firing of someone because that person supported Hillary Clinton for some reason? In such a society, the side whose voice is silenced by the popular culture would come out to vote strongly for the other side.

[phkahler]

>> Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech? Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster?

For one because he's got his own free speech rights. But more importantly the parent poster was holding him up as an example of why people tend not to stand up for their opinion when it is not popular. Even a popular silicon valley figure was ostracized for supporting the "wrong" candidate among his peer group. That backlash is exactly what people are afraid of.

[Frondo]

You know what? Backlash is one of the inevitable consequences of having any opinion in a free society. Especially if you're a wealthy, powerful individual with a big platform for pushing your ideas. Especially if they're unpopular ideas among your peer group.

Thiel is also a powerful, wealthy individual, with a much bigger platform than most of us will ever have. He's also obviously weathered the storm of being calling for his ouster just fine.

I just don't see this as a sign that society needs new rules on protecting people's opinions from criticism. Thiel isn't some delicate snowflake who needs a safe space. He's a grown man who speaks publicly about political things, and will be able to do so for the rest of his life, due to his wealth and power.

[dreaminvm]

I think the OP's point was that even someone who is as powerful and wealthy as Thiel could get ostracized in a community of his peers by taking an unpopular position on a political issue, hence the average Joe could do much worse.

[praneshp]

> "He's also obviously weathered the storm of being calling for his ouster just fine."

Will you (or I) be able to weather a similar storm?

[wildmusings]

I think you're confusing what should be legally allowed with what is moral.

[Frondo]

I'm not saying calling for Thiel's ouster is right.

But saying it shouldn't be allowed? Screw that, I like my first amendment.

[edanm]

And I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be allowed, legally. We're saying, it's bad for society that this has become normal.

E.g. If you lived in a society that found adultery almost totally acceptible, You could think adultery is wrong, you could not like that society considers it acceptible, but you could still be against making it illegal.

[smallgovt]

Of course they do. Nobody is saying you don't have a RIGHT to condemn and criticize.

The discussion is around whether you SHOULD be criticizing a person.

[eric-hu]

I read root parent comment as being about the break down of thoughtful exchange of ideas and acceptance of views in a democracy. First amendment rights didn't seem to be on the table.