This isn't a modern thing, either. I've never seen anyone claim Brendan Eich didn't have a right to donate to his cause, it's just that he donated to the wrong cause, at least in they eyes of the media and the Twitterverse, of all places. Here, we're seeing it again with Thiel: he has the right to donate to whatever cause he wants, but we criticize him for donating to the wrong causes.
For all the talk of cultural and gender diversity, political diversity is shunned. This is far more pernicious than criticizing a startup because they haven't hired enough women or PoC
On the other hand, I don't yet see a trend here. Though many founders and other influencers espouse views consistent with mainstream Democrats, I see other influencers/founders/execs in tech espousing Libertarian viewpoints.
I could be myopic about this and would love it if you could comment further. Thanks for posting this; I think it was well-articulated and thoughtful.
It's not left vs right, its humanity denying stances.
Denying LGBT are human (which is what the "8" people were about) is a critical issue. Eich tied himself to the wrong side of history, and epically fucked up his CEO response proving he was a bad candidate for that role. He made his own bed and now lies in it.
As for Trump... well, this is a presidential candidate describing HOW exactly he sexually assaults women. It wasn't a theoretical "what I could do" conversation, it was a "this is what I do" bragging talk. Again, dehumanizing 51% of the population.
Maybe basic human rights is just a "cause" for you, but for the 60-70% of humanity you're trashing, it's kind of their lives.
If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems. Or you are confused.
Are they too stupid to know what's good for them? Trapped in some kind of Trump stockholm syndrome? They enjoy being dehumanized?
2. Political contributions are public speech. That's why they are protected by the Constitution. People have a right to answer to public speech. If an executive goes to publicly declare horrible things, but legal under freedom of speech protection, their actions will have an effect on the economic prospect of the company.
It's not that Brendan Eich donated to the wrong cause, or that Peter Thiel supports the wrong candidate. It's that when you make a public statement, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of your public statement. If you are not, speak in private.
When Rosa Parks said no to the man who asked her to stand up to leave her seat to a white person, she did bear the consequences of her public actions. People who go and support right-wing causes should be held to the same standards. Bearing the consequences is the price of public speech.
Can you describe this trend so we can further the conversation?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970
There seems to be some censorship going on...
-- Some Nobel Prize Dude.
