4 ms·

Silicon Valley's Shameful Purging of Peter Thiel

42 points by altstar 10y ago

arkitaip 10y ago
I guess it needs to be said a billion times more: Thiel isn't just any Trump supporter, he's a powerful billionaire who has donated millions as a Trump surrogate. Thiel deserves all the criticism he is getting precisely because there a huge asymmetry at play here, one that he is taking advantage of to campaign for a con man, racist, chauvinistic sexual predator. I fear this is just the beginning of Thiel's radicalization, that we can expect several decades of his alt/far right advocacy and I find the harm he can cause to be very troubling and disheartening.
- Hondor 10y ago
  It's wrong to support a popular political party that you don't like? At the end of the day, campaign funding only works because non-thinking American voters just vote for whoever appears on their TV the most often. Thiel isn't buying votes. Voters are just too lazy to make their own decisions.
- grosbisou 10y ago
  Since when people cannot chose their favorite candidate without being ostracised?
  - dlss 10y ago
    Since demonizing Trump tested as the best way to distract people from Hillary's record?
  - manish_gill 10y ago
    They're free to choose whoever they like. Others are free to criticize that choice. Especially when that choice is The Donald.
    - ebalit 10y ago
      Criticize != Ostracize It's possible to criticize someone without wanting him to be bared from participating in society.
  - jinushaun 10y ago
    I think the issue that people have with Thiel supporting Trump is that if America needs an anti-establishment president to "shake up the system" that is not Clinton/Romney/Ryan/etc, then it's hard to believe that Trump--with all his flaws--is the best choice. You're telling me there is no one better that Thiel can throw his support and money towards? I find that hard to believe. I guess some people just like to watch the world burn.
rtpg 10y ago
This article is fun >Great innovators, great thinkers, great inventors — they are almost always weirdos Yeah, oh boy, racism! Those crazy thinkers, up to their own sillyness! Now onto a real point the article tries to make: > And the thing that is unmistakable about the rise of the National Front — now the most popular party in France — is that what is now referred to in the press as "the demonization strategy" has not only failed but contributed to the National Front's rise. This is categorically and provably false. When the National Front actually made it to the second round of elections, their score went from 17% of votes to.. 18% of votes. of the 60-odd percent of people who had to change their vote between two rounds, only 1% decided to go full-fascist. This was entirely due to a massive media campaign pointing this out. The demonization campaign was a massive success! The only reason the National Front is ahead today is because of a massive, 10 year "de-demonization" process, that went up to full exclusion of the former parter leader. You see the same trope with Trump. "Oh, pointing out he's awful does nothing!". But polls show that going over Trump's scandals over and over actually cause his numbers to fall! Demonization campaigns have worked for a long time, and won't stop working for a while.
- Hondor 10y ago
  How can anyone possibly show causality between demonization and votes? Where's the control group? Have you got any scientific evidence for your claims or are they really just rationalization? Increasing from 17% to 18% sounds like an increase to me, not a decrease. Or am I misunderstanding how the French election works? Some people _have_ to change their vote?
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system Basically... 17% of people voted for the National Front as their first vote, and when the first vote failed due to no party having a majority, and all parties but those two with the highest number of votes were excluded, there was a second vote. In the second vote between two parties, 18% of people voted for the National Front - only a 1% increase - despite 60% of people having voted for minority parties in the first round and thus having to switch their vote (or abstain). That is, the vast majority of people who had voted for minority parties decided to vote against the National Front in the second vote. (For exact numbers - the National Front got 4,804,713 votes in the first round, and 5,525,032 in the second - a jump of 720,319 votes - and Rally for the Republic got 5,665,855 votes in the first round, and 25,537,956 in the second - a jump of 19,872,101 votes.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nikhiljoisr 10y ago
I wrote in defence on Sam Altman and YC regarding this topic. https://medium.com/@suar4sure/please-let-ycombinator-sam-altman-and-paul-graham-be-b1b78c5c12c0#.lz9vsqmac https://medium.com/@suar4sure/please-let-ycombinator-sam-alt...

42 points by altstar 10y ago

I guess it needs to be said a billion times more: Thiel isn't just any Trump supporter, he's a powerful billionaire who has donated millions as a Trump surrogate. Thiel deserves all the criticism he is getting precisely because there a huge asymmetry at play here, one that he is taking advantage of to campaign for a con man, racist, chauvinistic sexual predator. I fear this is just the beginning of Thiel's radicalization, that we can expect several decades of his alt/far right advocacy and I find the harm he can cause to be very troubling and disheartening.

Hondor 10y ago
It's wrong to support a popular political party that you don't like? At the end of the day, campaign funding only works because non-thinking American voters just vote for whoever appears on their TV the most often. Thiel isn't buying votes. Voters are just too lazy to make their own decisions.
grosbisou 10y ago
Since when people cannot chose their favorite candidate without being ostracised?
- dlss 10y ago
  Since demonizing Trump tested as the best way to distract people from Hillary's record?
- manish_gill 10y ago
  They're free to choose whoever they like. Others are free to criticize that choice. Especially when that choice is The Donald.
  - ebalit 10y ago
    Criticize != Ostracize It's possible to criticize someone without wanting him to be bared from participating in society.
- jinushaun 10y ago
  I think the issue that people have with Thiel supporting Trump is that if America needs an anti-establishment president to "shake up the system" that is not Clinton/Romney/Ryan/etc, then it's hard to believe that Trump--with all his flaws--is the best choice. You're telling me there is no one better that Thiel can throw his support and money towards? I find that hard to believe. I guess some people just like to watch the world burn.

rtpg 10y ago

This article is fun >Great innovators, great thinkers, great inventors — they are almost always weirdos Yeah, oh boy, racism! Those crazy thinkers, up to their own sillyness! Now onto a real point the article tries to make: > And the thing that is unmistakable about the rise of the National Front — now the most popular party in France — is that what is now referred to in the press as "the demonization strategy" has not only failed but contributed to the National Front's rise. This is categorically and provably false. When the National Front actually made it to the second round of elections, their score went from 17% of votes to.. 18% of votes. of the 60-odd percent of people who had to change their vote between two rounds, only 1% decided to go full-fascist. This was entirely due to a massive media campaign pointing this out. The demonization campaign was a massive success! The only reason the National Front is ahead today is because of a massive, 10 year "de-demonization" process, that went up to full exclusion of the former parter leader. You see the same trope with Trump. "Oh, pointing out he's awful does nothing!". But polls show that going over Trump's scandals over and over actually cause his numbers to fall! Demonization campaigns have worked for a long time, and won't stop working for a while.

Hondor 10y ago
How can anyone possibly show causality between demonization and votes? Where's the control group? Have you got any scientific evidence for your claims or are they really just rationalization? Increasing from 17% to 18% sounds like an increase to me, not a decrease. Or am I misunderstanding how the French election works? Some people _have_ to change their vote?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system Basically... 17% of people voted for the National Front as their first vote, and when the first vote failed due to no party having a majority, and all parties but those two with the highest number of votes were excluded, there was a second vote. In the second vote between two parties, 18% of people voted for the National Front - only a 1% increase - despite 60% of people having voted for minority parties in the first round and thus having to switch their vote (or abstain). That is, the vast majority of people who had voted for minority parties decided to vote against the National Front in the second vote. (For exact numbers - the National Front got 4,804,713 votes in the first round, and 5,525,032 in the second - a jump of 720,319 votes - and Rally for the Republic got 5,665,855 votes in the first round, and 25,537,956 in the second - a jump of 19,872,101 votes.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nikhiljoisr 10y ago

I wrote in defence on Sam Altman and YC regarding this topic. https://medium.com/@suar4sure/please-let-ycombinator-sam-altman-and-paul-graham-be-b1b78c5c12c0#.lz9vsqmac https://medium.com/@suar4sure/please-let-ycombinator-sam-alt...