> How can you say "can we save ourselves a really long, pointless political argument" and end your post with a divisive political opinion
Probably because the “divisive” opinion is on a different question than the on tptacek sees as pointless, which he was pretty express about: the pointless argument is about the political meaning of Thiel not being a partner. And he's right, that's not going to get an answer and any argument about it is pointless.
The “divisive” opinion about whether or not it's a good thing that that relationship ended is, at a minimum, not pointless in the same way (it's likely to be fruitless in the way that arguments that rest in clashes of fundamental values are, but that's a different concern.)
> It's really not our place as the internet lynch-mob to interfere with Peter's role in the startup community because of his political views.
You are free to choose to restrain the means in which you apply your free speech and association rights based on this narrow, misguided, elitist view of the role of the hoi polloi, of course.
> Note, @sama said as much when the whole thing went down.
I'm entirely unsurprised that Altman would say no external party of should question YC decisions on political (or, heck, any other) grounds, but I'm not sure why you think noting that he did so adds any weight to your argument.