I don't understand this culture. So people hate Trump, that's not a shocker. But many would have taken Thiel's advice without a problem a few weeks / months ago. Now, because he wants to donate to a candidate many find reprehensible, it's time to throw away the person Peter Thiel? Can he no longer give good startup advice because he supports Trump today? Is he no longer "redeem-able" to the point where we need to ruin him and whatever he's a part of?<p>Hate Trump all you want. But if you're going to pretend you're inclusive don't go around throwing people away because you don't like their views. That makes you an exclusive organization. Learn from those who do not share the same opinions.<p>"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that" - Martin Luther King Jr
I have no clue what "Project Include" is or does, but things like make me want to know even less. It seems like the only hate being advocated is toward people with differing political views.<p>Heck it's getting to the point that an institution that doesn't go out of its way to join the public shame game will probably themselves get shamed!
I don't get why people are up in arms in here. It's YC prerogative to keep working with Thiel, it's project Include prerogative to cut them off because of it. I always believe in voting with your dollar. If something bothers you bad enough, don't attend, purchase, or anything else that you feel will support the company/person.<p>Trump is my personal line in the sand. Not the Republican party but Trump in particular. But I will only pull back my dollars if a company is actively publicly supporting him.<p>As long as you are voting with your dollar and not trying to get someone banned by the government or put in jail then I say have it. Why be uncomfortable in what your dollars are being used to support?
I am 100% in favor of Sam Altman's decision for the following reasons:
1. Trump is offensive, racist, sexist and a terrible human being all around. I am Mexican, and I hate his guts and everything about him. However, I believe in what Voltaire once smartly said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I do not agree at all with Peter Thiel's decision to support Trump in the RNC or with money, but I defend his right to express himself.
2. Sam Altman and Paul Graham have done a lot to defeat Trump and elect Hillary as president. One of their part time partners supports Trump, that is not indicative of YC's political view.
3. Peter Thiel is a business man, and investor therefore that is what I focus on, his book which is fantastic and his work on facebook, can't judge him unfairly on everything, just because he supports Trump. He has a brilliant business mind and that is why he is a part time partner at YC and that is in the arena he should be judged.<p>I am strongly in favor of free speech. Peter should be scrutinized and debated, not fired. Sam Altman does not deserve any nonsense because of this.
Pao can tolerate anyone... except people she deems intolerable. <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/" rel="nofollow">http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...</a><p>"Project Include" is evocative of "Ministry of Truth": a name crafted to narrate reality. I'm consistently amused by how little self-awareness identity politicians exhibit.
I get it and obviously it goes without saying that's their prerogative. But it's a little but like not viewing Cosby any more or not listening to Wagner, or not reading Mein Kampf or Das Capital because of what they represent or forgoing drugs because they were developed by [think of something very reprehensible]. Or someone not being friends with me because I don't believe in religion (and therefore deny their belief system).<p>As far as I know, while mr Trump has vilified illegal immigrants, and I may be mistaken, I don't think he wants to curtail legal immigration (with exception of immigrants from volatile places) but I constantly hear that he's against (all) immigration --I believe he's against a _kind_ of immigration, but not all. It's not like Germany or Sweden or Russia or South Africa just let everyone in. They also have policies, except they exclude people in nicer language.<p>To add: I didn't think it would even be necessary for Sam to have to say that Peter would stay with YC. I thought it was overly cautious to do so. But this business is ridiculous. I mean people are seriously wanting to hunt people down over political views...<p>Look, if Trump were to win (or Hillary) it means that more people than not voted them into office and therefore they have the backing of a large constituency. So, we're not just saying the candidate is objectionable but the people (and there are lots on both sides) who are wholly objectionable and irredeemable. Which means our country has gone to the can.
My mother always told me that if someone tries to tell you who you can have as friends, they're not really your friend either.<p>So, "Project Include": You're not my friend.
I don't understand Pao's thinking here; she trusted Thiel until he reached a different conclusion from her? If she pointed out a flaw in his methodology, or found a heretofore hidden inconsistency in his personal philosophy, I would understand, but she just doesn't like what he's doing.<p>If you believe in or rely on someone, it shouldn't only be when you happen to agree with them on the issues of the day; this is not how you behave if you trust someone.
I'd be happy to defend Theil's right to say what he likes. Happy just as long as I don't have to have anything whatever to do with him. Just sayin'
What's normal view of people about Brendan_Eich? Should he have been removed?
1. If you believe, he should have been. Then Peter Thiel should also be removed.
2. If you believe he shouldn't have been, then Peter Thiel can stay.<p>I have included this test to just weed out hypocritical thinking.
I did a quick search, turn out Include might not just be a fringe organization (ie. this isn't a lame attempt at PR).<p>> "Project Include is an open community working toward providing meaningful diversity and inclusion solutions for tech companies... focusing our efforts on CEOs and management of early to mid-stage tech startups"<p>Post by one of the founder Ellen Pao (of Reddit fame): <a href="https://medium.com/projectinclude/peter-thiel-yc-and-hard-decisions-2b91bab83764" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/projectinclude/peter-thiel-yc-and-hard-de...</a><p>As a side note: I chuckled when going through the team list here: <a href="http://projectinclude.org/team" rel="nofollow">http://projectinclude.org/team</a> .
Reading the article and the comments in this thread makes you realize that Trump is the logical conclusion for a society so divided that people refuse to work even with their theoretical team mates if they refuse to renounce themselves strongly enough from the other team.
While I undersatnd the obvious debate of "free speech" or "tolerance towards intolerance" and such things, why would do this, and why do this now?<p>I can see the appeal of a publicity stunt, but is this some sort of play we cannot see? Why would Include actually care about this at all. Why wouldnt investors in the INclude group be any happy with this decision.