It's notable that Thiel had right-leaning views for a long time, and it wasn't until he acted on them and helped elect Trump into office that anyone pushed back.
Please don't take HN threads on generic political tangents. They're certain to be repetitive and they lead to flamewars—the two things we most don't want here.
The same things that are "wrong" with donating money to the "wrong" PAC. Nothing. People should be praised for peacefully taking part in one of the longest standing and most successful democratic republics in history.
It's people who try to gain acceptance of violence in US politics who should be condemned. It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.
It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.
Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players or his near constant denigration of the free press?
What about the people that helped elect this obviously unfit leader? There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."
Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players
The whole point of free speech is to be able to express. The current president has always erred on the side of expressing too much, and I'd say that we'd be better off without most of his tweets, or him in office. However, none of that is opposing free speech.
or his near constant denigration of the free press?
The mainstream news media in its death throes is objectively bad.
There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."
That sounds pretty authoritarian. The whole point of freedom is that we are able to be right or wrong. It's our choice. That's "the consent of the governed." Do I wish the election had gone differently? Yes. But simpleminded vilifying of almost 1/2 of the country isn't a constructive approach.
Using your platform as POTUS to criticize people for exercising their free speech is quite a bit different from simply expressing your own contrary opinion.
Helping elect someone is where “political beliefs” start to cross over into “political action.” People should respect each other’s political beliefs; but they’re also entitled to oppose people who take political action that conflicts with their own interests.
The problem with this is that the justification goes both ways and this logic can also be used to disenfranchise people. Voting is a political action, after all. Why is it special? It's a right? Who gets to decide what is and isn't a right?
So I wouldn't want to promote that thinking lest I end up on the wrong end of it due to not being stronger than the other party. That's basically the political law of the jungle. That's not exactly what civilization should strive for, is it?
Of course voting is a right nd helping to get political candidates is a right. But when you exercise your rights in a way that implicates other peoples’ self interest, it is proper for them to push back in a way that would not be appropriate if someone simply expresses a viewpoint.
If I own an apartment building, I have every right to kick out all the tentants and sell the building. The law shouldn’t stop me from doing that. But I can’t complain if people try to stop me, bring bad publicity against me, etc. They’re entitled to do that in a way they wouldn’t be if I simply expressed pro-landlord views.
Of course I agree that both sides have free speech rights to advocate for what they believe in. It's the precise contents of that "etc." that worry me.