2 ms·

I appreciate the charitable reading and will try to do likewise. I see a significant difference between private political opinions (including their expression

I appreciate the charitable reading and will try to do likewise. I see a significant difference between private political opinions (including their expression by voting), and a public political act like a convention keynote speech. It's important in a pluralistic society that we live and work with people with very different political views. But Thiel doesn't just have his contrarian opinions, he is actively working to promote the candidacy of someone who is a threat to our basic democratic institutions. To me that's a significant difference, and the reason it calls for a public and forceful response.

nostrademons 10y ago
Hmm, interesting. So would it be acceptable if Graham & Altman were more vocal about their support for Clinton? To my mind, they've been pretty vocal already, between their Twitter feeds and published articles about how they sit around Sam Altman's dinner table and discuss ways to defeat Trump. I suspect that Paul Graham may also have donated > $1.25M to Clinton's campaign, based on his recent Tweet about the number of non-profits that could've been funded with the money he's spent defeating Trump. But you're right that this is not covered on the national stage the way Thiel's RNC convention speech or $1.25M donation have. (Much of this may also be because everything that Thiel does that could remotely be spun into the "power-broker behind the scenes, doing evil things" narrative tends to make the press, post-Gawker, which to be fair had much of the same ick-factor as this debate.) To me, the right answer to bad speech is better speech. It's fine to disassociate from people if you dislike them - but there's a big difference between disliking them and disliking one position they hold, or even more tenuously, disliking the people they associate with. Most people associate with a lot of other people, and these networks grow ever bigger as you get older and more powerful. If you start disqualifying people based on the company they keep, the set of people that you actually like will get both ever-smaller and more monocultural. Some people like that - I suspect many Trump supporters wish the world could be divided into black & white-Christians-who-act-like-us - but I think you'd lose a lot in this.
- idlewords 10y ago
  I wonder if the difference between us is that you view what Thiel did as speech, where I see it as a major political act, that demands some kind of response. I don't want Graham and Altman to be more vocal about Clinton, I want them to say something substantive about Thiel, and why (or whether) they are comfortable continuing to do business with him.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    It's quite possible. I do view what Thiel did as speech. For that matter, I view much of what Trump says as speech - I don't believe he will follow through on any of it, if he is elected, and suspect that his first priority in office will be rewriting the tax laws to favor real estate developers and soak financiers. My biggest fear actually isn't what Trump will do as president, it's what his supporters will do once they realize they've been had.

nostrademons 10y ago

Hmm, interesting. So would it be acceptable if Graham & Altman were more vocal about their support for Clinton? To my mind, they've been pretty vocal already, between their Twitter feeds and published articles about how they sit around Sam Altman's dinner table and discuss ways to defeat Trump. I suspect that Paul Graham may also have donated > $1.25M to Clinton's campaign, based on his recent Tweet about the number of non-profits that could've been funded with the money he's spent defeating Trump. But you're right that this is not covered on the national stage the way Thiel's RNC convention speech or $1.25M donation have. (Much of this may also be because everything that Thiel does that could remotely be spun into the "power-broker behind the scenes, doing evil things" narrative tends to make the press, post-Gawker, which to be fair had much of the same ick-factor as this debate.) To me, the right answer to bad speech is better speech. It's fine to disassociate from people if you dislike them - but there's a big difference between disliking them and disliking one position they hold, or even more tenuously, disliking the people they associate with. Most people associate with a lot of other people, and these networks grow ever bigger as you get older and more powerful. If you start disqualifying people based on the company they keep, the set of people that you actually like will get both ever-smaller and more monocultural. Some people like that - I suspect many Trump supporters wish the world could be divided into black & white-Christians-who-act-like-us - but I think you'd lose a lot in this.

idlewords 10y ago
I wonder if the difference between us is that you view what Thiel did as speech, where I see it as a major political act, that demands some kind of response. I don't want Graham and Altman to be more vocal about Clinton, I want them to say something substantive about Thiel, and why (or whether) they are comfortable continuing to do business with him.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  It's quite possible. I do view what Thiel did as speech. For that matter, I view much of what Trump says as speech - I don't believe he will follow through on any of it, if he is elected, and suspect that his first priority in office will be rewriting the tax laws to favor real estate developers and soak financiers. My biggest fear actually isn't what Trump will do as president, it's what his supporters will do once they realize they've been had.