5 ms·

I'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

I'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 ago
Vilifying someone for political beliefs damages open debate and erodes from democracy.
- thesimpsons1022 10y ago
  i'm not saying he is one but just to run with your argument, what if that person is a nazi?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Then 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 ago
      and 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 ago
        Almost 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.
      - Agustus 10y ago
        Did you vote for President Obama when he was against gay marriage in 2008? According to your argument, you should say no, but here begins the failings of your moral signaling. Did you stand up to him or justify your vote with: He does not mean it or he was not a Republican? Are you going to vote for Hillary, who has said she was against gay marriage as recent as 2012. According to your hero plan, you should not have anything to do with her, ever.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - erichocean 10y ago
    > what if that person is a nazi? There are no unpersons who still participate peacefully in the political process, and it's best to keep it that way—Nazis included, as hard as that is to stomach. No-platforming isn't just morally wrong, it's tactically wrong too: it only "works" when your group is in power. The moment you lose power, you'll be wishing you hadn't pushed so hard to shut up dissenters. The more odious someone's political beliefs are, the more important it is they remain in the company of the sober and reasonable: it's the only chance society has to bring them back into the fold without bloodshed.
  - vnchr 10y ago
    Then it is our privilege and responsibility as free-thinking individuals to make that judgment. It's possible to respectfully and courteously disagree with even the most heinous beliefs. Characterization that prevents discourse is a danger to both the sides.
    - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
      isn't vilifying and characterization just as much of free speech as the original idea? if you vilify an ethnic group and I vilify you, why is your speech supposed to be protected while mine isn't. respect isn't a given.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I don't know why people are downvoting you, but that's a perfectly reasonable question. In fact, I'd argue that it's the most logical and important question to ask in response to the parent comments. It makes a lot of sense to look at the extremes and make sure that our reasoning holds up in those situations, too. (That's a technique that you would think most engineers would understand intuitively, but alas.)
    - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
      i also find it silly to downvote me for a question. I didn't even take a side or necessarily disagree. also, whenever you ask a question like that people misinterpret as calling that person a nazi or hitler when you are simply bringing up a thought experiment.
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    With the resource depleteion going the way it is and the planet severly overpopulated - I have been convined for some time that we will see in our lifetimes genocides on a scale that would make Eichmann say - "dude you are overdoing it". So I have no problem with nazis or other military ideologies - they just arrived at the future first. At the end it will be us vs them by whatever criteria - it may be trekkies putting whovians in the gas chambers for all we know. I just hope that when the dust settles I will be among the right "us". So these of my believes make me not care about other peoples ideologies - we are all doomed.
- pka 10y ago
  And what if those beliefs are "fuck democracy"?
  - rxbudian 10y ago
    unfortunately you have to let them.... Same thing with Free Speech, you have to allow others to talk and campaign for abolishing free speech.
tensor 10y ago
As a counter point, I'm not gay nor female, but an entrepreneur. Hopefully that doesn't lessen my voice. I lost nearly all respect for Thiel based on his opinions about science vs industry. For reference, his thinking that startups are in any way similar to academia in regards to scientific discovery is completely out there and ignores the obvious reality that startups don't produce scientific knowledge. His backing of Trump simply reinforces my already poor opinion of him. He's never bothered thinking things through and has always had an arrogant streak where he thinks business beats everything. If you believe he's totally wrong you'd be a fool to work with him.
- darawk 10y ago
  There are plenty of people who foolishly became very wealthy, then.
  - tensor 10y ago
    http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36024081 http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36024081 Being rich does not imply merit in science and knowledge, and certainly not in ethics.
    - darawk 10y ago
      But if you set out to become rich and then do so, it seems a bit inaccurate to label that 'foolish'. The comment I was responding to was casting aspersions on Thiel's judgment in all categories on the basis of his judgment in politics. But that is, of course, nonsensical given his success and the success of those who've thrown in their lots with him.
      - cmurf 10y ago
        No, he just does stuff. And he does stuff that just so happens to have made him money. Calling that success, defining success only in terms of building things or making money, is an opinion. How does Thiel feel about his choice, who has questioned the legitimacy of the American electoral process and outcome, in advance of the election - ipso facto if Trump does not win, the election must be illegitimate and a Clinton presidency also illegitimate? Perhaps Thiel feels OK with his choice. Perhaps he can dismiss that every paper of record on the planet has just gone ape shit over this issue in the last couple of hours. Maybe the tax cut Thiel thinks he's going to get from Trump is still worth it - that sort of selfishness would at least be rational. But rational alone does not inoculate someone from having their judgment of character questioned. And in fact a questioning of their political ideology - in light of what Trump has said, it's an open question if Thiel prefers autocracy over having a Republic. It's not crazy to have this question for any of Trump's supporters in light of what Trump has said. Tonight's and tomorrow's headlines are historic, shocking, alarming, but they're not really surprising because this sort of delegitimizing is a hallmark of Trump's modus operandi, having spent 7.5 years trying to delegitimize the current president with the blatant lie he was not a natural born citizen; now turning it into a pre-delegitimization of a would-be Clinton presidency by impugning the electoral process itself. This is a person who lays waste to everything he touches, and Peter Thiel is yet another person to get sucked into the Trump con vortex. So at the very least, he's a sucker. It's just as likely that what you call success, was dumb blind luck by another name. He got lucky, despite being wholly deficient in evaluating Trump's character. And I do not agree with the idea that it is antithetical to "diversity" to ask such questions, or challenge people who have more resources, and in effect more speech, on these issues.
bsder 10y ago
> I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or think I deserved equal pay. And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line? Does that give either of us the right to shame someone publicly for that? I think it does sometimes, but I don't have a strictly categorical answer. At what point do you consider the various beliefs indivisible? Maybe you believe in Trump's economic plan, but should you be held responsible if Trump also shoves his social agenda through and hurts millions of people? The worst part in all this is that Trump has made a bunch of Democrats into litmus-test voters like the Republicans. I hope that the Democrats go back to their diverse cacophony afterward.
- DelaneyM 10y ago
  > > I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or think I deserved equal pay. > And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line? The thirteenth amendment gives me that right (to choose who I work with.)
  - bsder 10y ago
    My point was that you have a line that would cause you to join the choir calling for his head. I probably have a differently line. Is that right? At what point does that turn into bullying? I don't have a good answer.
    - whybroke 10y ago
      The line being the answer to the questions: to what degree should you tolerate intolerance, to vote for voter intimidation, to call incitement to violence a mere difference of opinion and to be inclusive of exclusivity. And do be aware that a person who would jail his opponent is never going to be so tolerant of you as you might be of him. It is the position that calls for tolerance only so long as it is weak. I might suggest that an industry with a very small number of the exact population being targeted should do some serious soul searching about exactly what free speech (if campaign contributions are speech) they are standing by.
NicoJuicy 10y ago
Not many entrepeneurs believe in Trump anymore. If Peter Thiel backs him, Trump should supposed to be gratefull and Peter Thiel would strengthen his position. I don't believe he backs Trump as a sane entrepeneur, but as a investor. If Trump wins ( 1 debate could be enough), this is a good investment.
hclivess 10y ago
youve been always right, they always wrong haha., sure

anindha 10y ago

Vilifying someone for political beliefs damages open debate and erodes from democracy.

thesimpsons1022 10y ago
i'm not saying he is one but just to run with your argument, what if that person is a nazi?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Then 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 ago
    and 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 ago
      Almost 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.
    - Agustus 10y ago
      Did you vote for President Obama when he was against gay marriage in 2008? According to your argument, you should say no, but here begins the failings of your moral signaling. Did you stand up to him or justify your vote with: He does not mean it or he was not a Republican? Are you going to vote for Hillary, who has said she was against gay marriage as recent as 2012. According to your hero plan, you should not have anything to do with her, ever.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- erichocean 10y ago
  > what if that person is a nazi? There are no unpersons who still participate peacefully in the political process, and it's best to keep it that way—Nazis included, as hard as that is to stomach. No-platforming isn't just morally wrong, it's tactically wrong too: it only "works" when your group is in power. The moment you lose power, you'll be wishing you hadn't pushed so hard to shut up dissenters. The more odious someone's political beliefs are, the more important it is they remain in the company of the sober and reasonable: it's the only chance society has to bring them back into the fold without bloodshed.
- vnchr 10y ago
  Then it is our privilege and responsibility as free-thinking individuals to make that judgment. It's possible to respectfully and courteously disagree with even the most heinous beliefs. Characterization that prevents discourse is a danger to both the sides.
  - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
    isn't vilifying and characterization just as much of free speech as the original idea? if you vilify an ethnic group and I vilify you, why is your speech supposed to be protected while mine isn't. respect isn't a given.
- csallen 10y ago
  I don't know why people are downvoting you, but that's a perfectly reasonable question. In fact, I'd argue that it's the most logical and important question to ask in response to the parent comments. It makes a lot of sense to look at the extremes and make sure that our reasoning holds up in those situations, too. (That's a technique that you would think most engineers would understand intuitively, but alas.)
  - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
    i also find it silly to downvote me for a question. I didn't even take a side or necessarily disagree. also, whenever you ask a question like that people misinterpret as calling that person a nazi or hitler when you are simply bringing up a thought experiment.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  With the resource depleteion going the way it is and the planet severly overpopulated - I have been convined for some time that we will see in our lifetimes genocides on a scale that would make Eichmann say - "dude you are overdoing it". So I have no problem with nazis or other military ideologies - they just arrived at the future first. At the end it will be us vs them by whatever criteria - it may be trekkies putting whovians in the gas chambers for all we know. I just hope that when the dust settles I will be among the right "us". So these of my believes make me not care about other peoples ideologies - we are all doomed.
pka 10y ago
And what if those beliefs are "fuck democracy"?
- rxbudian 10y ago
  unfortunately you have to let them.... Same thing with Free Speech, you have to allow others to talk and campaign for abolishing free speech.

tensor 10y ago

As a counter point, I'm not gay nor female, but an entrepreneur. Hopefully that doesn't lessen my voice. I lost nearly all respect for Thiel based on his opinions about science vs industry. For reference, his thinking that startups are in any way similar to academia in regards to scientific discovery is completely out there and ignores the obvious reality that startups don't produce scientific knowledge. His backing of Trump simply reinforces my already poor opinion of him. He's never bothered thinking things through and has always had an arrogant streak where he thinks business beats everything. If you believe he's totally wrong you'd be a fool to work with him.

darawk 10y ago
There are plenty of people who foolishly became very wealthy, then.
- tensor 10y ago
  http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36024081 http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36024081 Being rich does not imply merit in science and knowledge, and certainly not in ethics.
  - darawk 10y ago
    But if you set out to become rich and then do so, it seems a bit inaccurate to label that 'foolish'. The comment I was responding to was casting aspersions on Thiel's judgment in all categories on the basis of his judgment in politics. But that is, of course, nonsensical given his success and the success of those who've thrown in their lots with him.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      No, he just does stuff. And he does stuff that just so happens to have made him money. Calling that success, defining success only in terms of building things or making money, is an opinion. How does Thiel feel about his choice, who has questioned the legitimacy of the American electoral process and outcome, in advance of the election - ipso facto if Trump does not win, the election must be illegitimate and a Clinton presidency also illegitimate? Perhaps Thiel feels OK with his choice. Perhaps he can dismiss that every paper of record on the planet has just gone ape shit over this issue in the last couple of hours. Maybe the tax cut Thiel thinks he's going to get from Trump is still worth it - that sort of selfishness would at least be rational. But rational alone does not inoculate someone from having their judgment of character questioned. And in fact a questioning of their political ideology - in light of what Trump has said, it's an open question if Thiel prefers autocracy over having a Republic. It's not crazy to have this question for any of Trump's supporters in light of what Trump has said. Tonight's and tomorrow's headlines are historic, shocking, alarming, but they're not really surprising because this sort of delegitimizing is a hallmark of Trump's modus operandi, having spent 7.5 years trying to delegitimize the current president with the blatant lie he was not a natural born citizen; now turning it into a pre-delegitimization of a would-be Clinton presidency by impugning the electoral process itself. This is a person who lays waste to everything he touches, and Peter Thiel is yet another person to get sucked into the Trump con vortex. So at the very least, he's a sucker. It's just as likely that what you call success, was dumb blind luck by another name. He got lucky, despite being wholly deficient in evaluating Trump's character. And I do not agree with the idea that it is antithetical to "diversity" to ask such questions, or challenge people who have more resources, and in effect more speech, on these issues.

bsder 10y ago

> I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or think I deserved equal pay. And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line? Does that give either of us the right to shame someone publicly for that? I think it does sometimes, but I don't have a strictly categorical answer. At what point do you consider the various beliefs indivisible? Maybe you believe in Trump's economic plan, but should you be held responsible if Trump also shoves his social agenda through and hurts millions of people? The worst part in all this is that Trump has made a bunch of Democrats into litmus-test voters like the Republicans. I hope that the Democrats go back to their diverse cacophony afterward.

DelaneyM 10y ago
> > I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or think I deserved equal pay. > And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line? The thirteenth amendment gives me that right (to choose who I work with.)
- bsder 10y ago
  My point was that you have a line that would cause you to join the choir calling for his head. I probably have a differently line. Is that right? At what point does that turn into bullying? I don't have a good answer.
  - whybroke 10y ago
    The line being the answer to the questions: to what degree should you tolerate intolerance, to vote for voter intimidation, to call incitement to violence a mere difference of opinion and to be inclusive of exclusivity. And do be aware that a person who would jail his opponent is never going to be so tolerant of you as you might be of him. It is the position that calls for tolerance only so long as it is weak. I might suggest that an industry with a very small number of the exact population being targeted should do some serious soul searching about exactly what free speech (if campaign contributions are speech) they are standing by.

NicoJuicy 10y ago

Not many entrepeneurs believe in Trump anymore. If Peter Thiel backs him, Trump should supposed to be gratefull and Peter Thiel would strengthen his position. I don't believe he backs Trump as a sane entrepeneur, but as a investor. If Trump wins ( 1 debate could be enough), this is a good investment.

hclivess 10y ago

youve been always right, they always wrong haha., sure