15 ms·
How Silicon Valley Treats a Trump Backer: Peter Thiel
- anondon 10y agoNytimes asks me to login to read the article. Edit: Opening the web link in a private window allowed me to read the article. Thanks.
- DelaneyM 10y agoI'm a gay female entrepreneur. I would be happy to work with, or take investment from, Peter Thiel. I believe Peter Thiel is acting in what he believes to be the country's, or possibly the world's, best interests. I also believe that he's totally wrong. Lots of investors I've enjoyed working with before have been completely off-base about (and made much bigger investments in) major trends I've thought to be implausible, but I've been very happy with their guidance and support nonetheless. My opinion might be different if he explicitly supported some of the specific insane ramblings the Trump ticket has dished out recently. I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or who doesn't think I deserve equal pay for equal work. But he's not saying those things; he's suggesting that, on balance, the world would be better off with Trump and a Republican presidency than Hillary and a Democratic white house. Heck, he might even be right, time will tell. Frankly, this whole thing has left me respecting Peter Thiel even more. He knew that the full weight of his peer group would fall on him when he spoke at the RNC and made this very public donation, but he did it anyways. Avoiding the typical VC herd mentality is child's play in comparison.
- anindha 10y agoVilifying someone for political beliefs damages open debate and erodes from democracy.
- thesimpsons1022 10y agoi'm not saying he is one but just to run with your argument, what if that person is a nazi?
- jacquesm 10y agoThen it is still up to those people to make their decisions. This is probably hard to get for many people but the best way to address a problem is not by polarization and fomenting an 'us versus them' mentality but by engaging and dialog. If you want Thiel to chance his stance write to Thiel, don't try to cause others to severe their connections with Thiel in order to isolate him. The best way to get someone that according to you is doing something wrong to change their way is by talking to them and arguing with them. The worst way is to isolate them, it will only cement their relationship with the party that you object to stronger because that will be all that remains.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- thesimpsons1022 10y agoand if i don't care about Thiel changing his position? i honestly dont care if it cements his positions. i'd rather stand up to bullies and racists than make them feel good and tacitly support them in order to potentially convince them one day. this is just another billionaire wanting his buddy to win so his racist policy against hiring Asians isn't prosecuted.
- stickfigure 10y agoAlmost exactly to this point, my wife sent me this story this morning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-... It's about the intellectual evolution of Derek Black, the son of the creator of the infamous white-power website Stormfront. He grew up believing in and advocating for a lot of very foul ideas. As the article describes it, the key turning point was when someone in his college - even knowing Derek's politics and history - invited him to a weekly Shabbat dinner: Matthew decided his best chance to affect Derek’s thinking was not to ignore him or confront him, but simply to include him. “Maybe he’d never spent time with a Jewish person before,” Matthew remembered thinking. The story seems to have a happy ending, with Derek's political about-face. The lesson in here seems incredibly apropos - rather than push out people who have wrongheaded views, pull them in closer and challenge their ideas. Use love instead of hatred.
- notliketherest 10y ago“We care deeply about diversity,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in an internal Facebook post to employees. “That’s easy to say when it means standing up for ideas you agree with. It’s a lot harder when it means standing up for the rights of people with different viewpoints to say what they care about. That’s even more important.” This could not be more on point. I respect Mark Zuckerberg more for saying this. We may not agree with what people say, but we should fight for their right to say it.
- quasse 10y agoA lot of people conflate the right to free speech with the right to have no repercussions for your speech. If people choose not to do business with Peter Thiel because of his political views they aren't infringing on his right to free speech. It doesn't really make sense for them to do, especially if they are making that decision on behalf of a publicly traded company, but no one is infringing his first amendment rights.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- flukus 10y agoThe logical conclusion of that is two parallel economies, one for conservatives and one for progressives/liberals.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- beefield 10y agoI agree - up to a certain point. I think Popper has formulated this well[1]: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." And even below that limit, even if I stand by the right of people to say stupid and irrespectable things, I stand also by _my_ right to argue them that those things are stupid and irrespectable. (This also means that I am quite open to discuss why this view is wrong. One a bit uncomfortable idea is that this way of thinking may increase polarization of the discussion/society, which is about the last thing we need.) [1] https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
- lovelearning 10y agoGoogling this article title shows the article excerpt. But opening the search result shows a login dialog. Isn't this against Google's SEO rules?
- Gammarays 10y agoHave you ever heard of Quora?
- lovelearning 10y agoThis is worse than Quora. I'm able to open a googled Quora link just fine and read the whole thing. It asks for login only on clicking other links on that page.
- spuiszis 10y agoI didn't have the same experience, although I am using a couple AdBlockers. You might have a cookie already on your browser to trigger that login modal. There's also a possibility a major publisher like the NYT is trying to close that Google loophole.
- lovelearning 10y agoThanks for the tip! You were right about the cookie. Clearing browser history got me 10 free articles, additional googled links showed the dialog again.
- jacquesm 10y agoAll those people trying to push/shame/blackmail YC (and others) into severing ties with Thiel are in my opinion worse than Thiel.
- notliketherest 10y agoEllen Pão has a history of shutting down her opposition with force.
- kefka_p 10y agoFrom Ayers to Wright, the right played the guilt by association game over the course of the last two elections. Did you complain about "blackmail" then? Or do the dynamics change when it involves groups? In that case extend the above to include the Weathermen or Wright's Church both of which were raised by any number of people any number of times. Does it only make a person worse if/when it conflicts with your values? By extension of this logic, are people who boycott a company for whatever reason, guilty of theft?
- jacquesm 10y ago> Does it only make a person worse if/when it conflicts with your values? If I'm to understand that Trump doesn't conflict with my values than you have really not understood my position.
- kefka_p 10y ago> If I'm to understand that Trump doesn't conflict with my values than you have really not understood my position. I suppose that would be one interpretation, and I apologize for phrasing my query so poorly as to encourage such a perception, but the question could be generalized to any number of situations, agents, and agencies, no? In my defense, I did pose a question about Ayers and Wright illustrating how it might apply in another case where actors and agencies were different. I was actually interested in whether or not the position you've taken on this matter is influenced by your own political values. It seems that would create a bit of a paradox. Those people taking issue with Thiel for political reasons and voicing an opinion on the matter thus pushing, shaming, and even blackmailing YC are "worse" presumably for acting on their political values. Yet you seem to see no issue with engaging in similar behavior against those people for doing so, which seems rooted in your own political values, if I understood your argument correctly. That is a lot of assumption and presumption, though. I suppose I should just come out and ask. Why are people voicing their opinions, or "trying to push/shame/blackmail YC" worse, here? What exactly makes them worse? Worse how, exactly? Is this a categorical estimation of people's overall value as human beings? As tools of the economy? As social actors?
- meric 10y ago“We can’t create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate,” [Zuckerberg] wrote. I'm very relieved to hear this.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hueving 10y ago>Earlier this week, Ellen Pao, the head of Project Include, an organization that is trying to increase diversity in the tech industry’s work force, said her group was severing ties with Y Combinator because of Mr. Thiel’s involvement. Isn't this the same person that went on a fishing campaign for free money from her employer under the guise of sexism? IIRC it was shot down by the courts and Y Combinator should have severed ties with her then since false accusations do much worse damage to the fight for equality than doing nothing at all. Where is the outrage over YC associating with her?
- notliketherest 10y agoAbsolutely, Ellen Pão is a farce. She represents everything reprehensible about the faux social justice warriors in silicon valley. A hypocrite is what she is
- gotofritz 10y ago> free money from her employer under the guise of sexism That's a misrepresentation and a half...
- hueving 10y agoIt's what the court decided.
- dannylandau 10y agoWhile this subject matter has been covered to exhaustion in a previous post, I believe it is a very dangerous slippery slope to boycott Peter Thiel. If one ostracizes a person based on their political beliefs (and contributions), then we will need to review every election going back decades. Just a few examples off the top of my head: 1) Woodrow Wilson -- An avowed racist and segregationist 2) Teddy Roosevelt -- Warmonger (War with spain) 3) Franklin Roosevelt -- Fire bombing of Tokyo as retribution for Pearl Harbor, among other major civilian cities (and internment of Japanese Americans). 4) Harry Truman -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki 5) Dwight Eisenhower -- Korean War 6) John F Kennedy -- Getting involved in Vietnam War 7) Lyndon Johnson -- Continuing the War (Gulf of Tonkin) 8) Richard Nixon -- Expanding war to Cambodia 9) Ronald Regan -- Nicaragua, and other smaller wars, bombing of Qaddafi in Libya as well. 10) George H. Bush -- 1st Iraq war 11) Bill Clinton -- Bombing of Serbia, and launching missiles at Tunisia 12) George W Bush -- Afghanistan and Iraq 13) Obama -- Increasing Drone strikes 10x fold. Many progressives (Noam Chomsky et al) would consider the above actions corresponding to each president as rising to the level of war crimes. Hence, by this logic, anyone that voted for them is equally culpable. That's nonsense!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- gurkendoktor 10y agoThanks for bringing up foreign policy! My impression is that most vocal progressives (even here in Europe) have stopped caring about the big picture in favour of domestic social justice. Killing a million people abroad = normal establishment politics, saying misogynist crap = unique threat to democracy. It boggles the mind.
- tzs 10y agoNearly all of those are things that one could, at the time the decisions were made to do them and using only what was known at the time, argue either way reasonably. What I mean by "reasonably" is that neither side was objectively right or wrong. It came down to where one stood on various issues that are largely a matter of judgement or opinion. Furthermore, the opinions that led to most of those were backed by a significant fraction of the experts in the relevant areas. Trump, on the other hand, has some positions that are objectively wrong [1]. He has repeatedly claimed that global warming is a hoax and said that the planet is actually freezing. He said that doctors and vaccinations cause autism. I find that a lot more disturbing and disqualifying. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on-science-are-shockingly-ignorant/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on...
- CN7R 10y agoLet's separate Peter Thiel the businessman and Peter Thiel the political donor. Whatever negative things he does in politics does not detract the achievements he accomplished in business. Following this belief—which is merely my opinion—people should not be asking his business contacts to explain his political actions. That belongs to the Republican voter base, and how they allowed a candidate such as Donald Trump to be the their presidential candidate in the first place. All of this publicity seems to be generated for opportunistic causes, where some business people (e.g. Ellen Pao) can feel morally correct even if they're not associated with Thiel. Edit: Also I find it ironic how people are trying to exclude, if I may use that term, a person criticized for supporting a candidate who is exclusive, under the justification of diversity.
- bsder 10y ago> Let's separate Peter Thiel the businessman and Peter Thiel the political donor. Whatever negative things he does in politics does not detract the achievements he accomplished in business. Let's NOT separate them. Thiel is CEO of Palantir and heavily involved in Bilderberg--two institutions which are anathema to what the openness and democratic institutions a lot of us on the Internet stand for. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Thiel even without the Trump donation.
- biztos 10y agoHere's the part I don't understand: Peter Thiel has been a high-profile supporter of Trump for a long time, long after Trump publicly said and did the things that make many people see his candidacy as an existential threat to American democracy. I don't recall any Silicon Valley lynch mobs forming in all that time. Nor was there much noise about Thiel's support after the sexual-assualt-brag tape was released. It's only when he gives money that people are up in (very virtual) arms. Either Thiel's support for Trump makes him a toxic partner, or it doesn't. If it does, and you just started acting on that recently, then please forgive me for suspecting you may be an opportunist. [edit: speling]
- cmurf 10y agoQuite right. $1.25 million may very well be a drop in the bucket in comparison to appearing on stage at the Republican National Convention. That in-person appeal to Trump, I think, is much more problematic. Yet it has not generated a fraction of the outrage a campaign contribution has. So I'll charge Silicon Valley is obsessed with money. Big news there. Anyone who hasn't bothered to read Thiel's speech at the RNC, should do so because it's the singularly most coherent thing that happened there. The complaints are mostly all valid. The problem is the concomitant judgement that Trump is the solution to the problems, and I think Thiel is utterly tone deaf when he calls the culture wars fake, or that Trump is trying to end them, rather than take advantage of them with ever better dog whistles. To say Clinton is incompetent and that it's in plain sight, is ridiculous in comparison to 7.5 years of the unaccountable racist lie that the president is not a natural born citizen, and thus illegitimate, even questioned for 5 years after the birth certificate was produced; culminating in tonight's global fiasco of Trump questioning the trustworthiness and legitimacy of the American electoral system, in advance of the election. That this personality would eventually go there, is what has been in plain sight. The problem Republicans have, this is not limited to Peter Thiel by far, is how to extract themselves from this mess. It is really a triage moment, they have all been damaged by this, it's just a question of how much they try to paper over what has happened, or get dragged down in an irreparable way, i.e. Mike Pence is now irreparably damaged goods, unless of course we are in fact talking about an autocracy, in which case he's in a very good position. Maybe. Don't like Clinton? Fine. Vote for Eric McMullan, looks like he may very well take Utah. Write in your own name. It is not credible to support a candidate who considers elections a fraud just because he doesn't win.
- DVassallo 10y ago> "We can't create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate." In March 1933 half of Germany voted for Hitler's party[1]. Would Zuckerberg's statement stand in that scenario as well? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March...
- flukus 10y agoDo you think firing nazis from their jobs would have worked? That would have been a bloodbath (more so). Even if it wasn't it would have played to the persecution complex.
- stickfigure 10y agoNot quite half - 43.9% in 1933, and that election is not considered by historians to have been anything like free and fair. In the prior two elections, the Nazi share of the vote had decreased from 37.3% to 33.1%, indicating that Nazi popularity was on the decline. If it weren't for undemocratic backroom scheming that handed the chancellorship to Hitler, there might never have been a Third Reich. So yeah, I think Zuckerberg's statement stands up well even in the face of 20th century history.
- dingaling 10y agoIn 2003, 15000 Baath Party members were dismissed from their posts in Iraqi government ministries because of their 'evil' political affiliation. Within two years 9000 of them had been rehired to try to repair the damage that their dismissal had caused. Sometimes one just has to be pragmatic and put subjective opinion aside. Such tolerance doesn't equate to approval.
- DVassallo 10y agoI don't think there's any ambiguity that Peter Thiel, the subject of this article, is approving Trump, and not just tolerating him.
- gotofritz 10y agoFreedom works both ways. He's free to voice his opinions and back it with money. We are free to ostracise him if we find those opinions horrifying.
- MK999 10y agoMaybe it just illustrates that tolerance is a sham and one ideology will conquer the others.