14 ms·

Which is more brave? (a) for someone to say that they're proud to be gay at a republican convention (b) for someone in Silicon Valley to openly support Trump

Which is more brave? (a) for someone to say that they're proud to be gay at a republican convention (b) for someone in Silicon Valley to openly support Trump I'm actually not sure.

adrenalinelol 10y ago
I don't agree with all of Thiel's politics (I do identify as a libertarian thou), but I do respect the amount of courage it took to speak at this years RNC. The amount of disdain he'll receive from the Valley will be something else.
- thedevil 10y ago
  I disagree with Thiel a lot too, but I always recommend everyone to read his thoughts. He thinks independently and is smart. Thus, from him you can pick up interesting ideas that you won't get elsewhere.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 10y ago
I suspect B. I'm sure there are a lot of Trump supporters in SV, but they largely remain quiet because, I suspect, they don't want their careers/connections negatively harmed by people who think that a Trump presidency will be the end of civilization. He got a standing ovation at the RNC. No longer do the social conservatives/evangelicals own the Republican party. It's about time.
shrewduser 10y ago
he got an extremely positive reaction for being proud to be gay in the video. i think obviously it's b.
- thedevil 10y ago
  It's a little disappointing that it takes so much bravery to disagree in Silicon Valley. Supposed, it's a place of brave ideas and independent thinking. But in reality, there's a giant groupthink going on there. Disclaimer: I don't live in Silicon Valley but I mostly admire it. Also I disagree with Thiel myself though I don't hold it against him.
  - internaut 10y ago
    Agreed. The majority of interesting projects to me have been fairly radical with political, social or economic propositions behind them even if that wasn't how they were advertised. All the interesting things seem to happen on the peripheral. Whether the opinion is right or wrong for all time doesn't matter so much as it being divergent from regular thinking. It is not that conventional thinking is bad. It works 99% of the time or it wouldn't exist. The problem with it is the same as with any habit. The population gets into a rut and begins to think there exists One True Way. That's a big part of why I enjoy Less Wrong's Sequences and Slate Star Codex. It's so easy to fall into lazy thinking habits and sometimes the right turn of phrase or analogy can snap you out of it. Examples (perhaps poor, you be the judge): House prices go up. Why? Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before, has that really changed? This is not to say democracy shouldn't exist or house prices should rise, only that we ought to question our priors.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > House prices go up. Why? Supply and demand. > Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? If you had to cannibalize key elements of existing vehicles to make most new cars, cars might not depreciate either. Real property and tangible personal property are different. > What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Perhaps neither. I mean, 0.6% annual population growth vs. -0.2% annual population growth is going to produce a pretty big difference in the housing market, all other things being equal (other things between the UK and Japan obviously are not equal, of course, but that difference alone is going to have an effect on trajectories in the market.) > Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before Iceland (lonest span 930-1430), the Iroquois (since perhaps ~A.D. 1142), and Switzerland (since A.D. 1648) suggest that your "never lasted more than 2 centuries before" is mistaken. And, obviously, these previous long-running examples spent all or much of their existence in their adherence to democratic norms was a notable exception to the surrounding context, one would expect democracies to last longer when it was a more-universal norm.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Did he? I thought the crowd was heading towards boos before he followed up with "proud to be republican" and "proud to be american". Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201 https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201
dustinmoorenet 10y ago
Sorry, which group still hates gay people so much that they would kill them given the chance and supporting mob? The tech scene might have problems but those groups are not even close to each other.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  The Orlando killer was a democrat who liked hillary more than Bernie Sanders. Does that answer your question?
  - cholantesh 10y ago
    Seeing as it's an n=1 sample which ignores myriad other characteristics, obviously not.
    - elgabogringo 10y ago
      I would gather that your "myriad other characteristics" are really just policy disagreements, not "hate". I think you can disagree on policy with someone without hating them. Of course, that would require you to actually debate ideas, which I don't think you want to do - especially when it's so easy to throw a label around and end discussion.
elgabogringo 10y ago
B for sure. I still won't do it except when I've had a few beers around friends. The professional backlash has the potential to be pretty brutal. Not to mention how free people feel to call anyone supporting Trump a racist knuckledragger.
- drewrv 10y ago
  I'm not trying to be rude this is a sincere question: Why would you support a racist candidate if you weren't also racist? Imagine someone upset at being called a socialist, when all they did was vote for the socialist candidate.
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    You are a perfect example of the type of person we are talking about in the valley. Someone who wants to shut down debate by name calling. You don't actually want to have a debate, you just want to call me a name and hope that ends the discussion.
    - drewrv 10y ago
      It's a sincere question and I'd like an answer. I'm not trying to shut down debate I'm trying to hear your rationale.
      - thedevil 10y ago
        I'm not really on either side (I strongly dislike like Trump but also I don't identify with the left at the moment), but I'm curious about the argument here. Why do you call Trump racist? That's a very strong accusation and I'm wondering what drives your thinking on that.
        foldr 10y ago
        Are you seriously asking this? Is his long history of racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and (for want of a better term) religiously-bigoted comments not enough for you? Are you asking us to go to Google and turn up one of the hundreds of compilations of these comments that you could very easily find for yourself? Have you forgotten that he was a birther, and still is? Is there anything short of a video of Trump at a KKK rally that would persuade you? It seems you're determined to pretend that he's not a racist despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
Where do you draw the line between bravery and stupidity? Somehow I don't think a billionare has much to fear from either crowd. But it does take a special kind of person to be the ordinary guy at the Republican convention who thinks gay marriage is a-okay. Or to be the ordinary bro at the SV soylent hackathon who thinks that we should vote in the biggest anti-immigration candidate in 50 years or more.
cholantesh 10y ago
Scenario (a) is kind of dependent on who the someone is, isn't it? I think Thiel being an economically liberal, somewhat socially reactionary billionaire helps quite a bit, as does his being a white male (arguably).
emjoes1 10y ago
Actually I am surprised in todays climate we do not see more of this. Scott McNealy should have been there as well. I share his sentiment that the worst CEO will make a better president than the best politician. Wish I remember where he said that to source it - think it was an interview on Triangulation on the TWIT network.
tzs 10y ago
There have long been gays in the Republican Party and active at the conventions, and they generally agree with the mainstream party position on issues other than gay rights. So, if you got with (a) it is not actually all that brave. Trump, on the other hand, disagrees with most experts, both partisans and neutral, on climate, energy, foreign policy, environment, and military tactics and strategy (that was not an exhaustive list). Going with (b) is very brave, because it is a tacit admission that it doesn't matter to you that Trump is wrong in so many vital areas according to most experts. There aren't many ways to look at that that do not cast you in a bad light. Does it mean you don't think it is possible to actually be an expert in those fields, and so Trump's disagreement with "expert" do not matter? Or does it mean that you believe it is possible to really be an expert, but almost all of diverse set of current experts got it totally wrong despite decades in their fields, and Trump had figured it all out? Or does it mean you consider other issues, like whether we should increase torture of prisoners, or we should be targeting families of suspected terrorists, more important than climate, energy, etc., and you match Trump on those other issues? It's like P.J. O'Rourke said, "I am endorsing Hillary. The second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place, you know? She’s wrong about absolutely everything — but she’s wrong within normal parameters!".

Which is more brave? (a) for someone to say that they're proud to be gay at a republican convention (b) for someone in Silicon Valley to openly support Trump I'm actually not sure.

adrenalinelol 10y ago

I don't agree with all of Thiel's politics (I do identify as a libertarian thou), but I do respect the amount of courage it took to speak at this years RNC. The amount of disdain he'll receive from the Valley will be something else.

thedevil 10y ago
I disagree with Thiel a lot too, but I always recommend everyone to read his thoughts. He thinks independently and is smart. Thus, from him you can pick up interesting ideas that you won't get elsewhere.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

oh_sigh 10y ago

I suspect B. I'm sure there are a lot of Trump supporters in SV, but they largely remain quiet because, I suspect, they don't want their careers/connections negatively harmed by people who think that a Trump presidency will be the end of civilization. He got a standing ovation at the RNC. No longer do the social conservatives/evangelicals own the Republican party. It's about time.

shrewduser 10y ago

he got an extremely positive reaction for being proud to be gay in the video. i think obviously it's b.

thedevil 10y ago
It's a little disappointing that it takes so much bravery to disagree in Silicon Valley. Supposed, it's a place of brave ideas and independent thinking. But in reality, there's a giant groupthink going on there. Disclaimer: I don't live in Silicon Valley but I mostly admire it. Also I disagree with Thiel myself though I don't hold it against him.
- internaut 10y ago
  Agreed. The majority of interesting projects to me have been fairly radical with political, social or economic propositions behind them even if that wasn't how they were advertised. All the interesting things seem to happen on the peripheral. Whether the opinion is right or wrong for all time doesn't matter so much as it being divergent from regular thinking. It is not that conventional thinking is bad. It works 99% of the time or it wouldn't exist. The problem with it is the same as with any habit. The population gets into a rut and begins to think there exists One True Way. That's a big part of why I enjoy Less Wrong's Sequences and Slate Star Codex. It's so easy to fall into lazy thinking habits and sometimes the right turn of phrase or analogy can snap you out of it. Examples (perhaps poor, you be the judge): House prices go up. Why? Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before, has that really changed? This is not to say democracy shouldn't exist or house prices should rise, only that we ought to question our priors.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > House prices go up. Why? Supply and demand. > Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? If you had to cannibalize key elements of existing vehicles to make most new cars, cars might not depreciate either. Real property and tangible personal property are different. > What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Perhaps neither. I mean, 0.6% annual population growth vs. -0.2% annual population growth is going to produce a pretty big difference in the housing market, all other things being equal (other things between the UK and Japan obviously are not equal, of course, but that difference alone is going to have an effect on trajectories in the market.) > Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before Iceland (lonest span 930-1430), the Iroquois (since perhaps ~A.D. 1142), and Switzerland (since A.D. 1648) suggest that your "never lasted more than 2 centuries before" is mistaken. And, obviously, these previous long-running examples spent all or much of their existence in their adherence to democratic norms was a notable exception to the surrounding context, one would expect democracies to last longer when it was a more-universal norm.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Did he? I thought the crowd was heading towards boos before he followed up with "proud to be republican" and "proud to be american". Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201 https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201

dustinmoorenet 10y ago

Sorry, which group still hates gay people so much that they would kill them given the chance and supporting mob? The tech scene might have problems but those groups are not even close to each other.

elgabogringo 10y ago
The Orlando killer was a democrat who liked hillary more than Bernie Sanders. Does that answer your question?
- cholantesh 10y ago
  Seeing as it's an n=1 sample which ignores myriad other characteristics, obviously not.
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    I would gather that your "myriad other characteristics" are really just policy disagreements, not "hate". I think you can disagree on policy with someone without hating them. Of course, that would require you to actually debate ideas, which I don't think you want to do - especially when it's so easy to throw a label around and end discussion.

elgabogringo 10y ago

B for sure. I still won't do it except when I've had a few beers around friends. The professional backlash has the potential to be pretty brutal. Not to mention how free people feel to call anyone supporting Trump a racist knuckledragger.

drewrv 10y ago
I'm not trying to be rude this is a sincere question: Why would you support a racist candidate if you weren't also racist? Imagine someone upset at being called a socialist, when all they did was vote for the socialist candidate.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  You are a perfect example of the type of person we are talking about in the valley. Someone who wants to shut down debate by name calling. You don't actually want to have a debate, you just want to call me a name and hope that ends the discussion.
  - drewrv 10y ago
    It's a sincere question and I'd like an answer. I'm not trying to shut down debate I'm trying to hear your rationale.
    - thedevil 10y ago
      I'm not really on either side (I strongly dislike like Trump but also I don't identify with the left at the moment), but I'm curious about the argument here. Why do you call Trump racist? That's a very strong accusation and I'm wondering what drives your thinking on that.
      - foldr 10y ago
        Are you seriously asking this? Is his long history of racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and (for want of a better term) religiously-bigoted comments not enough for you? Are you asking us to go to Google and turn up one of the hundreds of compilations of these comments that you could very easily find for yourself? Have you forgotten that he was a birther, and still is? Is there anything short of a video of Trump at a KKK rally that would persuade you? It seems you're determined to pretend that he's not a racist despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

nikdaheratik 10y ago

Where do you draw the line between bravery and stupidity? Somehow I don't think a billionare has much to fear from either crowd. But it does take a special kind of person to be the ordinary guy at the Republican convention who thinks gay marriage is a-okay. Or to be the ordinary bro at the SV soylent hackathon who thinks that we should vote in the biggest anti-immigration candidate in 50 years or more.

cholantesh 10y ago

Scenario (a) is kind of dependent on who the someone is, isn't it? I think Thiel being an economically liberal, somewhat socially reactionary billionaire helps quite a bit, as does his being a white male (arguably).

emjoes1 10y ago

Actually I am surprised in todays climate we do not see more of this. Scott McNealy should have been there as well. I share his sentiment that the worst CEO will make a better president than the best politician. Wish I remember where he said that to source it - think it was an interview on Triangulation on the TWIT network.

tzs 10y ago

There have long been gays in the Republican Party and active at the conventions, and they generally agree with the mainstream party position on issues other than gay rights. So, if you got with (a) it is not actually all that brave. Trump, on the other hand, disagrees with most experts, both partisans and neutral, on climate, energy, foreign policy, environment, and military tactics and strategy (that was not an exhaustive list). Going with (b) is very brave, because it is a tacit admission that it doesn't matter to you that Trump is wrong in so many vital areas according to most experts. There aren't many ways to look at that that do not cast you in a bad light. Does it mean you don't think it is possible to actually be an expert in those fields, and so Trump's disagreement with "expert" do not matter? Or does it mean that you believe it is possible to really be an expert, but almost all of diverse set of current experts got it totally wrong despite decades in their fields, and Trump had figured it all out? Or does it mean you consider other issues, like whether we should increase torture of prisoners, or we should be targeting families of suspected terrorists, more important than climate, energy, etc., and you match Trump on those other issues? It's like P.J. O'Rourke said, "I am endorsing Hillary. The second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place, you know? She’s wrong about absolutely everything — but she’s wrong within normal parameters!".