4 ms·

They can agree with that and still continue working with Thiel. You can be against fascism and but still be against creating a society where everyone must get i

They can agree with that and still continue working with Thiel. You can be against fascism and but still be against creating a society where everyone must get in line politically or else be shunned.

tptacek 10y ago
I don't need people to get in line politically. I would be content with them not bundling millions of dollars for Donald Trump before getting up on stage at the RNC and claiming, as Thiel did, to speak for Silicon Valley in claiming that Trump is the only honest candidate in the race. I'm a simple sort of guy. My needs are not complicated.
- surfmike 10y ago
  I have never heard him claim to speak for Silicon Valley. The question becomes then, what do you consider your line. Is this about his outsized financial support? What if he gave his RNC speech and only donated $10,000?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Then --- respectfully --- you have never heard him speak in favor of Donald Trump, and you should go watch his speech before arguing about it. It's pretty scary. Maybe after seeing it, you'll understand the vehemence of the anti-Thiel sentiment.
    - surfmike 10y ago
      I re-read his transcript before I published my comment. He says he's from Silicon Valley (which is true) but not that he speaks for Silicon Valley.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        No, that is not all he says about Silicon Valley. Read the whole thing.
        surfmike 10y ago
        Re-read. "We don’t accept such incompetence in Silicon Valley, and we must not accept it from our government." I think using the word "we" is the closest he gets to your interpretation, but even here it's clear to me that his views are his own.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nbschulze 10y ago
  I think you're making the right argument, I just don't think you're making it super clear. (I think) what you're saying, is 'There is nothing wrong with supporting an opposing viewpoint. There is a huge problem with supporting Benito Mussolini. Sam Altman has compared Donald Trump to Benito Mussolini. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with supporting Donald Trump. Peter Thiel supports Donald Trump. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with his association with Peter Thiel.' Keeping my political views out of the equation, I agree with that line of logic. The problem I think Sam is facing and why I think it's such a difficult issue is this. Donald Trump is not Benito Mussolini. Unless he wins the presidency, he won't even have a remote opportunity at becoming him. So I think Sam is in sort of a lose-lose situation. On one hand, Sam remains steadfast in his decision, Donald Trump wins the election, Donald Trump enacts changes that make him on par with Benito Mussolini and Sam has now been complicit in the support of someone on par with Benito Mussolini. On the other hand, if Donald Trump loses or even if he wins and is anything less than a Benito Mussolini look-alike, he has effectively suppressed the support of an opposing political viewpoint. I'm not pretending to know the solution, not even a little bit. I do think it's important to recognize how difficult of situation Sam is in.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That's not in fact the argument I am making. I do not support ostracizing or blacklisting all Trump supporters, just as I wouldn't have supporting ostracizing all Republicans in the wake of our catastrophic war on Iraq. However: I am comfortable with calling on people to divest from investments in the architects of the war on Iraq, like Doug Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, and I am comfortable with calling on Altman to divest from Peter Thiel, a key figure in the Trump campaign.
    - nbschulze 10y ago
      I didn't mean specifically in the comment above, I meant earlier. 'If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree. But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel. I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.' It seemed like you were getting attacked from all angles, so I chose a comment that didn't have much on it. I wasn't trying to attack your argument (from above). I was attempting to put it into a more objective light.

They can agree with that and still continue working with Thiel. You can be against fascism and but still be against creating a society where everyone must get in line politically or else be shunned.

tptacek 10y ago

I don't need people to get in line politically. I would be content with them not bundling millions of dollars for Donald Trump before getting up on stage at the RNC and claiming, as Thiel did, to speak for Silicon Valley in claiming that Trump is the only honest candidate in the race. I'm a simple sort of guy. My needs are not complicated.

surfmike 10y ago
I have never heard him claim to speak for Silicon Valley. The question becomes then, what do you consider your line. Is this about his outsized financial support? What if he gave his RNC speech and only donated $10,000?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Then --- respectfully --- you have never heard him speak in favor of Donald Trump, and you should go watch his speech before arguing about it. It's pretty scary. Maybe after seeing it, you'll understand the vehemence of the anti-Thiel sentiment.
  - surfmike 10y ago
    I re-read his transcript before I published my comment. He says he's from Silicon Valley (which is true) but not that he speaks for Silicon Valley.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, that is not all he says about Silicon Valley. Read the whole thing.
      - surfmike 10y ago
        Re-read. "We don’t accept such incompetence in Silicon Valley, and we must not accept it from our government." I think using the word "we" is the closest he gets to your interpretation, but even here it's clear to me that his views are his own.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nbschulze 10y ago
I think you're making the right argument, I just don't think you're making it super clear. (I think) what you're saying, is 'There is nothing wrong with supporting an opposing viewpoint. There is a huge problem with supporting Benito Mussolini. Sam Altman has compared Donald Trump to Benito Mussolini. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with supporting Donald Trump. Peter Thiel supports Donald Trump. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with his association with Peter Thiel.' Keeping my political views out of the equation, I agree with that line of logic. The problem I think Sam is facing and why I think it's such a difficult issue is this. Donald Trump is not Benito Mussolini. Unless he wins the presidency, he won't even have a remote opportunity at becoming him. So I think Sam is in sort of a lose-lose situation. On one hand, Sam remains steadfast in his decision, Donald Trump wins the election, Donald Trump enacts changes that make him on par with Benito Mussolini and Sam has now been complicit in the support of someone on par with Benito Mussolini. On the other hand, if Donald Trump loses or even if he wins and is anything less than a Benito Mussolini look-alike, he has effectively suppressed the support of an opposing political viewpoint. I'm not pretending to know the solution, not even a little bit. I do think it's important to recognize how difficult of situation Sam is in.
- tptacek 10y ago
  That's not in fact the argument I am making. I do not support ostracizing or blacklisting all Trump supporters, just as I wouldn't have supporting ostracizing all Republicans in the wake of our catastrophic war on Iraq. However: I am comfortable with calling on people to divest from investments in the architects of the war on Iraq, like Doug Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, and I am comfortable with calling on Altman to divest from Peter Thiel, a key figure in the Trump campaign.
  - nbschulze 10y ago
    I didn't mean specifically in the comment above, I meant earlier. 'If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree. But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel. I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.' It seemed like you were getting attacked from all angles, so I chose a comment that didn't have much on it. I wasn't trying to attack your argument (from above). I was attempting to put it into a more objective light.