6 ms·

‘We Care Deeply About Diversity’: Zuckerberg Defends Thiel’s Ties to Trump

16 points by jdp23 10y ago

programminggeek 10y ago
It'd remarkable to me how many people who support 'diversity' and 'inclusion' will shun those who have ideas/beliefs they disagree with. Good job to Mark for not being one of those people.
- swang 10y ago
  it's remarkable to me how this "point" is brought up every time someone mentions diversity. diversity is not about equality. diversity is about balancing the current inequalities that people who are not rich, not the right gender, not the right race, or not the right sexual orientation are forced to deal with every single day. it is not about giving every side an equal viewpoint because one side has had an unfair advantage for as far back as anyone can remember. and it's pretty hypocritical of thiel to be mad at gawker for outing him as gay due to his fear of repercussions since he now supports a candidate who would gladly keep the status quo in making homosexuality something you have to worry about being "leaked" to the public. this is why there is outrage over thiel giving/supporting a candidate like trump. and further outrage against zuck and sam altman for advocating "diversity" while allowing thiel to support someone who is completely against that idea. so no, it really shouldn't be that remarkable that people who support "diversity" would not support people who are against those ideals.
  - javalava 10y ago
    What has Trump done to make you think he hates diversity? I get that Trump comes off egotistical, but even if he only cares about his own image, I think it's unfair to say that Trump is "completely against the idea of diversity". Just because he's a big bad white man and wants to put America first that means he hates all diversity? I cant see any reason for Trump to be against gay people either, or any other group for that matter, but liberals have no problem saying that he's anti-everything. This is the same kind of overly PC whining that is fueling the Trump fire.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      What has Trump done to make you think he hates diversity? Have you heard the man speak, or heard him quoted? You don't denigrate Mexicans, federal judges whose parents are Mexican, and blacks because you're a fanboy of diversity. You don't judge women solely on their appearance and yet still get to be the poster boy of diversity. Making fun of the disabled is not only a cheap shot beneath even most 13 year old boys, it also doesn't get you the "Diversity Champion 2016" award. Why would Trump have anything against gay people? Because he hasn't shown any respect for anyone else that isn't white, straight, male, and American-born. Why would homosexuals get a pass?
      - javalava 10y ago
        I've never heard Trump denigrate Mexicans or Blacks. He made that one poorly phrased comment about illegal immigrants being drug dealers and rapists, but in context, it's clear he wasn't implying anything negative about Mexican people as a whole, but just those that illegally cross the border. All of the instances you mentioned were taken out of context. "Because he hasn't shown any respect for anyone else that isn't white, straight, male, and American-born. Why would homosexuals get a pass?" This exemplifies exactly what I was trying to say. Do you really believe that Trump has never shown respect for anyone except for white men? I feel like there's nothing Trump could do to avoid this stigma, because our PC culture attaches it to anyone who speaks out against them. I think this is exactly why Peter Thiel is pro-Trump.
        drewrv 10y ago
        > I've never heard Trump denigrate Mexicans or Blacks. Then you haven't been paying attention. He said a judge couldn't do his job because his parents were Mexican. The highest ranking elected official from his own party, Paul Ryan, called it the "textbook definition of a racist comment".
        ThomPete 10y ago
        Thats not a lot to go by though and hardly enough to brand him a racist. He has hired more or less any race, have several women on his boards and trust his daughter with big parts of the business. His actions are very different than the claims of him. I would agree that he comes of rather ego-driven but there is a world of difference between that and the way he is portraid as the anti-christ.
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    So when Hillary wants to help women, who already get vastly lower prison sentences than men, get even lower prison sentences... what do we call that? The people who support diversity and yet support Hillary seems to disagree with your last line.
    - swang 10y ago
      Clinton has advocated for helping women who are in prison because 1. US Women are 5% of the world's population of women. Yet US Women are 30% of the world's prison population. 2. Women going to prison are 5x as likely to have to put a child into foster care than men. 3. Women are not given respect when going through pregnancy or menstrual cycles. She has not said she was only helping women but that women need more attention in this process. [0]: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/opinions/hillary-clinton-women-and-mass-incarceration-crisis/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/opinions/hillary-clinton-women...
      - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
        1. Men are more likely to end up in prison in the US. By a really large amount. That seems to be a very misleading way of reporting statistics that is sexist. 2. One sexist system being used to justify another. 3. Prisoners aren't given respect. Nothing special about either of those conditions that make it stand out any more than all the recent cases of prisoners with medical needs dying because of disrespect. Saying women need more help is not just sexist, it is so incredibly and blatantly sexist that any educated person that agrees can have significant judgments made about their views in regards to sexism. Here, let me give an example. 1. Whites in the US are X percent of the total white population but white US prisoners are >X percent of the total white prisoners. 2. Whites going to prison are more likely to be an active patent to a child, meaning the child will be instead raised in a single parent family or go to foster care. 3. Whites in prison aren't respected. Thus, whites in prison need more special treatment to help them more than minorities. Anyone seriously giving the above argument, who was also educated in the racial disparity in prison, would clearly be acting racist.
- freshhawk 10y ago
  You can hide a lot behind the (perfectly valid) "tolerance does not include tolerance of intolerance" idea.
tenpies 10y ago
I wonder if this marks the point where diversity (of thought) is officially a luxury afforded only to the wealthy. After all, this is the same Zuckerberg that warned employees that replacing "black" with "all" in "black lives matter" was racist and grounds for termination. This is the same Facebook that is deeply preoccupied with hiring non-white/Asian males regardless of intellectual background. If a lowly employee had publicly made a donation to Trump's campaign would we see the same statement from Zuckerberg, or would that employee's time at Facebook come to an end at the next HR-approved opportunity?
- poshli 10y ago
  Replacing "black" with "all" in the statement "black lives matter" reveals an astounding lack of knowledge of history. I'm not sure if it's racist. Maybe 'totally ignorant'? I hope the totally ignorant are on a different team.
  - dudul 10y ago
    Assuming that you are right, is ignoring history valid ground for termination?
    - tveita 10y ago
      Irrelevant to the discussed case. When you start vandalizing posters at work it is no longer a case of just "ignoring history".
      - dudul 10y ago
        I think for this specific case it wasn't a vandalized poster, but some writing on a blackboard that was simply replaced. I've seen that at a few startups, the black/white board where everybody should feel free to write whatever, or draw a doodle. Would you care to answer assuming that it wasn't a case of vandalism?
        tveita 10y ago
snowwrestler 10y ago
Diversity of thought is not itself a good thing. That is, a group with more opinions among its members is not necessarily any better / more moral / more effective than a group with fewer opinions. Facebook is not "stronger" than the Democratic National Committee or the ACLU or Heritage Foundation because it has a broader array of political opinions among its staff and leadership than those groups do. The organizations simply have different reasons for existing. What we should concern ourselves with as a society is freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of association. This is different from diversity. In fact these freedoms eventually reduce diversity of thought, as we influence each other. For example, the belief that slavery should be legal is no longer widely held in the U.S. That is a reduction in "thought diversity" from 160 years ago. And I highly doubt that Mark Zuckerberg would keep a board member who advocated for the return of slavery, in the name of "diversity of thought." The freedoms listed above include the freedoms to disagree, to dissociate. It would not be unpatriotic or somehow wrong for Facebook to break ties with Thiel based on political disagreement. After all Zuckerberg has already done the opposite: he has sunk millions into efforts to convince the country to pass immigration reform. This despite knowing that a huge number of Facebook customers (and perhaps staff) don't want immigration reform. If it's ok to create organizational relationships based on shared political beliefs, I don't see how it's wrong to break relationships based on political beliefs. So: I find the appeal to "diversity of thought" to be not very compelling. The reality is that Zuckerberg probably thinks that cutting off Thiel would cause himself and his company more harm than good.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Diversity is the very reason you and I even exist. So whether you like it or not it's one of the best things if you care about progress of any sorts.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Let's say Facebook added David Duke to their board. That would significantly increase the diversity of thought: Duke would bring many ideas and beliefs to the board that the current board members don't hold. Would that be better or worse for social progress? See, social progress is not just a spreading-out of more and more and more social ideas. It is a definite direction. Less slavery, not more. More tolerance, not less. Less sexual assault, not more. Social progress requires decisions and commitments. It requires people to change their minds, which means discarding one idea for another. Not trying to hold more and more contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time. Zuckerberg has every right to decide to keep Thiel on the FB board. But he also has the right to ask Thiel to leave, and doing so would not be any less principled than keeping him. Both decisions rest on the same principle, which is that Zuckerberg is free to make his own decisions about who he associates with.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
SmokyBorbon 10y ago
When will people learn that trivializing others' political views damages the side you support? It might make you feel good to mock people you disagree with buy others will conclude you're ignorant or dishonest.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

16 points by jdp23 10y ago

It'd remarkable to me how many people who support 'diversity' and 'inclusion' will shun those who have ideas/beliefs they disagree with. Good job to Mark for not being one of those people.

swang 10y ago
it's remarkable to me how this "point" is brought up every time someone mentions diversity. diversity is not about equality. diversity is about balancing the current inequalities that people who are not rich, not the right gender, not the right race, or not the right sexual orientation are forced to deal with every single day. it is not about giving every side an equal viewpoint because one side has had an unfair advantage for as far back as anyone can remember. and it's pretty hypocritical of thiel to be mad at gawker for outing him as gay due to his fear of repercussions since he now supports a candidate who would gladly keep the status quo in making homosexuality something you have to worry about being "leaked" to the public. this is why there is outrage over thiel giving/supporting a candidate like trump. and further outrage against zuck and sam altman for advocating "diversity" while allowing thiel to support someone who is completely against that idea. so no, it really shouldn't be that remarkable that people who support "diversity" would not support people who are against those ideals.
- javalava 10y ago
  What has Trump done to make you think he hates diversity? I get that Trump comes off egotistical, but even if he only cares about his own image, I think it's unfair to say that Trump is "completely against the idea of diversity". Just because he's a big bad white man and wants to put America first that means he hates all diversity? I cant see any reason for Trump to be against gay people either, or any other group for that matter, but liberals have no problem saying that he's anti-everything. This is the same kind of overly PC whining that is fueling the Trump fire.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    What has Trump done to make you think he hates diversity? Have you heard the man speak, or heard him quoted? You don't denigrate Mexicans, federal judges whose parents are Mexican, and blacks because you're a fanboy of diversity. You don't judge women solely on their appearance and yet still get to be the poster boy of diversity. Making fun of the disabled is not only a cheap shot beneath even most 13 year old boys, it also doesn't get you the "Diversity Champion 2016" award. Why would Trump have anything against gay people? Because he hasn't shown any respect for anyone else that isn't white, straight, male, and American-born. Why would homosexuals get a pass?
    - javalava 10y ago
      I've never heard Trump denigrate Mexicans or Blacks. He made that one poorly phrased comment about illegal immigrants being drug dealers and rapists, but in context, it's clear he wasn't implying anything negative about Mexican people as a whole, but just those that illegally cross the border. All of the instances you mentioned were taken out of context. "Because he hasn't shown any respect for anyone else that isn't white, straight, male, and American-born. Why would homosexuals get a pass?" This exemplifies exactly what I was trying to say. Do you really believe that Trump has never shown respect for anyone except for white men? I feel like there's nothing Trump could do to avoid this stigma, because our PC culture attaches it to anyone who speaks out against them. I think this is exactly why Peter Thiel is pro-Trump.
      - drewrv 10y ago
        > I've never heard Trump denigrate Mexicans or Blacks. Then you haven't been paying attention. He said a judge couldn't do his job because his parents were Mexican. The highest ranking elected official from his own party, Paul Ryan, called it the "textbook definition of a racist comment".
        ThomPete 10y ago
        Thats not a lot to go by though and hardly enough to brand him a racist. He has hired more or less any race, have several women on his boards and trust his daughter with big parts of the business. His actions are very different than the claims of him. I would agree that he comes of rather ego-driven but there is a world of difference between that and the way he is portraid as the anti-christ.
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  So when Hillary wants to help women, who already get vastly lower prison sentences than men, get even lower prison sentences... what do we call that? The people who support diversity and yet support Hillary seems to disagree with your last line.
  - swang 10y ago
    Clinton has advocated for helping women who are in prison because 1. US Women are 5% of the world's population of women. Yet US Women are 30% of the world's prison population. 2. Women going to prison are 5x as likely to have to put a child into foster care than men. 3. Women are not given respect when going through pregnancy or menstrual cycles. She has not said she was only helping women but that women need more attention in this process. [0]: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/opinions/hillary-clinton-women-and-mass-incarceration-crisis/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/opinions/hillary-clinton-women...
    - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
      1. Men are more likely to end up in prison in the US. By a really large amount. That seems to be a very misleading way of reporting statistics that is sexist. 2. One sexist system being used to justify another. 3. Prisoners aren't given respect. Nothing special about either of those conditions that make it stand out any more than all the recent cases of prisoners with medical needs dying because of disrespect. Saying women need more help is not just sexist, it is so incredibly and blatantly sexist that any educated person that agrees can have significant judgments made about their views in regards to sexism. Here, let me give an example. 1. Whites in the US are X percent of the total white population but white US prisoners are >X percent of the total white prisoners. 2. Whites going to prison are more likely to be an active patent to a child, meaning the child will be instead raised in a single parent family or go to foster care. 3. Whites in prison aren't respected. Thus, whites in prison need more special treatment to help them more than minorities. Anyone seriously giving the above argument, who was also educated in the racial disparity in prison, would clearly be acting racist.
freshhawk 10y ago
You can hide a lot behind the (perfectly valid) "tolerance does not include tolerance of intolerance" idea.

tenpies 10y ago

I wonder if this marks the point where diversity (of thought) is officially a luxury afforded only to the wealthy. After all, this is the same Zuckerberg that warned employees that replacing "black" with "all" in "black lives matter" was racist and grounds for termination. This is the same Facebook that is deeply preoccupied with hiring non-white/Asian males regardless of intellectual background. If a lowly employee had publicly made a donation to Trump's campaign would we see the same statement from Zuckerberg, or would that employee's time at Facebook come to an end at the next HR-approved opportunity?

poshli 10y ago
Replacing "black" with "all" in the statement "black lives matter" reveals an astounding lack of knowledge of history. I'm not sure if it's racist. Maybe 'totally ignorant'? I hope the totally ignorant are on a different team.
- dudul 10y ago
  Assuming that you are right, is ignoring history valid ground for termination?
  - tveita 10y ago
    Irrelevant to the discussed case. When you start vandalizing posters at work it is no longer a case of just "ignoring history".
    - dudul 10y ago
      I think for this specific case it wasn't a vandalized poster, but some writing on a blackboard that was simply replaced. I've seen that at a few startups, the black/white board where everybody should feel free to write whatever, or draw a doodle. Would you care to answer assuming that it wasn't a case of vandalism?
      - tveita 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

Diversity of thought is not itself a good thing. That is, a group with more opinions among its members is not necessarily any better / more moral / more effective than a group with fewer opinions. Facebook is not "stronger" than the Democratic National Committee or the ACLU or Heritage Foundation because it has a broader array of political opinions among its staff and leadership than those groups do. The organizations simply have different reasons for existing. What we should concern ourselves with as a society is freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of association. This is different from diversity. In fact these freedoms eventually reduce diversity of thought, as we influence each other. For example, the belief that slavery should be legal is no longer widely held in the U.S. That is a reduction in "thought diversity" from 160 years ago. And I highly doubt that Mark Zuckerberg would keep a board member who advocated for the return of slavery, in the name of "diversity of thought." The freedoms listed above include the freedoms to disagree, to dissociate. It would not be unpatriotic or somehow wrong for Facebook to break ties with Thiel based on political disagreement. After all Zuckerberg has already done the opposite: he has sunk millions into efforts to convince the country to pass immigration reform. This despite knowing that a huge number of Facebook customers (and perhaps staff) don't want immigration reform. If it's ok to create organizational relationships based on shared political beliefs, I don't see how it's wrong to break relationships based on political beliefs. So: I find the appeal to "diversity of thought" to be not very compelling. The reality is that Zuckerberg probably thinks that cutting off Thiel would cause himself and his company more harm than good.

ThomPete 10y ago
Diversity is the very reason you and I even exist. So whether you like it or not it's one of the best things if you care about progress of any sorts.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Let's say Facebook added David Duke to their board. That would significantly increase the diversity of thought: Duke would bring many ideas and beliefs to the board that the current board members don't hold. Would that be better or worse for social progress? See, social progress is not just a spreading-out of more and more and more social ideas. It is a definite direction. Less slavery, not more. More tolerance, not less. Less sexual assault, not more. Social progress requires decisions and commitments. It requires people to change their minds, which means discarding one idea for another. Not trying to hold more and more contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time. Zuckerberg has every right to decide to keep Thiel on the FB board. But he also has the right to ask Thiel to leave, and doing so would not be any less principled than keeping him. Both decisions rest on the same principle, which is that Zuckerberg is free to make his own decisions about who he associates with.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

SmokyBorbon 10y ago

When will people learn that trivializing others' political views damages the side you support? It might make you feel good to mock people you disagree with buy others will conclude you're ignorant or dishonest.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]